DOD IG says there is no merit to Rockeffer charge

Rowan Scarborough:

A report to be released today clears the Pentagon's former policy chief of Democrats' charges he acted illegally and without authorization when he set up a small team to compile intelligence reports.
The report from the Defense Department inspector general focuses on a two-man team that after the September 11, 2001, attacks was assigned the task of studying intelligence reports on terrorist networks. It especially looked at reports of contacts between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.
Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia Democrat, in 2004 accused then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, who created the unit, of "running a private intelligence failure, which is not lawful."
But the IG report specifically rejects that charge, the sources said, adding there was nothing illegal or unauthorized about Pentagon policy-makers looking at intelligence and writing a report. Democrats contend that such work, by law, is done only by intelligence analysts.
Mr. Feith said yesterday he feels vindicated after hearing repeated charges from Mr. Rockefeller and Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat. Both serve on the Senate intelligence committee, which failed to find any illegality when it reviewed the Feith unit in 2003-2004.
...
The IG found one problem in Mr. Feith's shop, questioning the criticism some policy people leveled at CIA analysts. The Defense Department rejected that part of the IG report, saying it was healthy for policy-makers and intelligence analysts to debate findings.
...

Early indications are that Rockefeller and Levin will continue to beat on this dead horse. The fact is they did not like the conclusions of this group and that is the reason they continue their attacks. If Feith had come to a conclusion supporting their view of the war they would embrace the process. There was plenty of intelligence outside Feith's shop to support the decision to liberate Iraq.

Update: I wondered why the Washington Post's story on this report was so different from Scarborough's Washington Times report. This correction to the WaPo story explains the differences.

A Feb. 9 front-page article about the Pentagon inspector general's report regarding the office of former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith incorrectly attributed quotations to that report. References to Feith's office producing "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" and that the office "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda" were from a report issued by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) in Oct. 2004. Similarly, the quotes stating that Feith's office drew on "both reliable and unreliable reporting" to produce a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq "that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC [Intelligence Community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration" were also from Levin's report. The article also stated that the intelligence provided by Feith's office supported the political views of senior administration officials, a conclusion that the inspector general's report did not draw.The two reports employ similar language to characterize the activities of Feith's office: Levin's report refers to an "alternative intelligence assessment process" developed in that office, while the inspector general's report states that the office "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers." The inspector general's report further states that Feith's briefing to the White House in 2002 "undercuts the Intelligence Community" and "did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence."

According to the Media Blog at NRO Chris Mathews was still working off the erroneous story on his show. Levin really burned the Post on this story. It will be interesting how it effects his credibility, particularly when you consider his motives.