Bush Ok's Independent Review of Prewar Intelligence

[crawjo]

The Washington Post reports.

[crawjo]

From the report, it now seems that we have about seven different groups all investigating the intelligence.

Good, the pressure worked, but I bet they're worried. We shall see--here's an editorial from today's NY Times. Bush beat them to it, but it illustrates the kind of pressure he gave in to.


February 1, 2004

• Intelligence on the Eve of War
  
  David Kay, the former weapons inspector, gave the Bush administration some insulation last week against charges that it coerced or manipulated the intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to justify an invasion. In Senate testimony, Mr. Kay placed the blame for overestimating Iraq's weapons capabilities squarely on the intelligence community and said he had seen no evidence that administration officials put pressure on analysts to come up with preconceived results. Yet there are reasons to go slow in accepting Mr. Kay's version as the full story of what happened in this intelligence debacle. Only a broad and truly independent investigation can unravel the roots of this colossal failure.
  
  Mr. Kay based his exoneration of the administration on the fact that intelligence analysts who helped him in the search for illicit weapons in Iraq repeatedly apologized for being so far off base in their prewar estimates. Not a single analyst complained to him of any pressure being applied. That is an important insight from Mr. Kay but it is not dispositive. Kenneth Pollack, a Clinton administration national security official whose support for an invasion of Iraq was highly influential in the debate leading up to war, has done a lot of soul-searching over how he and others could have been so misled. In a recent magazine article, he, too, placed most of the blame on intelligence failures but, unlike Mr. Kay, he faulted the Bush administration as well.
  
  In the months leading up to the war, Mr. Pollack says, he received numerous complaints from friends in the intelligence community that administration officials showed aggressive, negative reactions when presented with information that contradicted what they believed about Iraq. They allegedly subjected the analysts to barrages of questions, requests for more information and fights over the credibility of sources that passed beyond responsible oversight to become a form of pressure.
  
  Analysts at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace have tracked what they consider a pronounced change in the tone of intelligence estimates, with those made before mid-2002 generally cautious and full of caveats and those thereafter much more alarmist. The shift suggests, they say, that pressure from policy makers led intelligence analysts to reach more threatening judgments about Iraq's weapons programs. David Kay told the Senate last week he is dubious that the break was really so sharp. This, too, is a dispute that requires impartial investigation.
  
  Without doubt the most important intelligence document leading up to the invasion was a National Intelligence Estimate hastily assembled and presented to Congress shortly before the vote on a resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. This document contended that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons in hand, as well as active programs to enhance its capabilities in all areas.
  
  This pivotal analysis is striking for the way it minimizes dissenting views on Iraq's capabilities. The estimate cites Iraq's aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes as compelling evidence that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. The declassified version issued at the time fails to mention that the Energy Department, the government's leading source of expertise, thought the tubes unfit for that purpose. The estimate warns ominously that Iraq was developing drone aircraft that were probably intended to deliver biological agents and could even threaten the American homeland. That view was disputed by Air Force intelligence, the chief source of expertise on drones, which thought the drones were primarily for reconnaissance. These were no minor dissents. These were the agencies most qualified to judge.
  
  Also left unexplained was how the estimate's authors could conclude that Iraq was continuing and expanding its chemical weapons programs when a Defense Intelligence Agency report had just acknowledged that "there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons." In these and other respects, the information on which Congress based its war vote seems out of kilter with the government's own most expert opinions. The great unanswered question is whether this was wholly the work of top intelligence officials or was the result of pressure from above.

[crawjo]

I'm sure they are worried, Chris. The words "independent investigation" are never words that any president likes to hear.

[Dr Dave]

This will not come out well for the President, unless he and his cohorts can intimidate congressmen as well as they intimidated Ron Suskind. Which is a possibility. Me, I finally, FINALLY, see the wheels coming off the Bush Administration. Whatever anyone thinks about the rightness of getting rid of Saddam Hussein, Bush's cuts in taxes paired with increases in spending are going to be Issue Number One. Are you better off than you were four years ago? And a new question: Do you expect to be better off four years from now? It's how Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter, and it's going to be the same movie this time.

Not to slight the Iraq Problem: Baghdad is ours, now, and every day Americans die because that is so. It doesn't even matter that much whether Bush lied us into war because he couldn't lead us into war. As Country Joe and The Fish sang in the way long ago: "Be the first one on your block to have your boy come home in a box."

[willy]

Bush ok's independent review? Since when does the President dictate if and when an independent review of his administration is allowed?

That aside, I personally welcome the investigation. I wonder how they will spin it when they come up empty on the Bush lying allegation. Will they be shamed into resignation like the BBC? Don't hold your breath.

The left has been looking for something like this since Bush took office. It's payback for what the right did to Clinton and for not letting Gore steal the election. Plus they really really hate him. It's as simple as that.

[Dr Dave]

Willy, you have about as much credibility on this topic as Goodspeak. Have a nice day.

[willy]

"And a new question: Do you expect to be better off four years from now? It's how Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter, and it's going to be the same movie this time. "

Jimmy Carter beat Jimmy Carter. He has been the most abject failure as President this country has ever known. Just to list some of the Carter Administration highlights: Double digit unemployment. Double digit inflation. Helping to turn Iran from a US friendly nation into a hostage taking nation. 444 days held hostage.

That's not too easy to pull off in only four years. Bush looks like a fucking genius next to this twit, and he probably can't even SPELL twit.

I think Willy needs help--he's obviously been spun once too often!

[clinthopson]

Harry Truman had a sign on his desk - "The Buck Stops Here."

The Appointee-in-chief and his cohorts would rather point fingers to cover their lies and fuck-ups.

[Ron Thorne]

Originally posted by willy
Bush ok's independent review? Since when does the President dictate if and when an independent review of his administration is allowed?

I can't believe that I've actually read something written my willy with which I agree ... the above statement. What's next, this administration telling the truth to the American people about a host of subjects?

[shrugs]

Originally posted by willy
444 days held hostage.

And how long were the 1,500 Marines held in Beirut? I am no fan of Carter but it's amazing how people forget the 230 Marines who lost their lives due to the poor foreign policies of Reagan and Haig.
And while we are at it, let's throw in Carter's fuck up of SALT II. Amazing how someone who wanted to tone down the arms race could turnover an even larger arsenal to his successor.

[BFrank]

The more I think about it, if Bush is appointing the commission, then all bets are off that they will come up with any reasonable findings.

[Ron Thorne]

Originally posted by BFrank
The more I think about it, if Bush is appointing the commission, then all bets are off that they will come up with any reasonable findings.

I would agree with your assessment, if it's true, BFrank. To be fair, however, I haven't seen anything in print or heard any news report that would lead me to that conclusion. It would be lunacy to characterize a commission as "independent" if it's members are potentially "foxes in the hen house". Having said that, anything's possible.

The most disturbing aspect of this "investigation" to me is the likelihood that the commission's findings won't be released until after this Fall's presidential election. That's a crock! If the Bush administration is found to be innocent of wrongdoing, lying and/or misinformation, they should be vindicated with the people's vote reflecting that in this year's presidential election. If, on the other hand, the Bush administration is found to be guilty of wrongdoing, lying and/or misinformation, that should also be reflected in the people's vote this November. It's a no-brainer, in my estimation, but I haven't heard a single Republican advocate that scenario. Hmmmm. Let's see, Dubya gets re-elected in November and the committee's report is released in the Spring of 2005, finding many areas in which the American people were duped, lied to, and generally sold a bill of goods with respect to our invasion of Iraq. Oh, well. Four more years, baby. Or, God forbid, an impeachment of Bush which would place Cheney in-charge.

[BFrank]

You're right, Ron. We don't know who's on this thing yet. I just have a bad feeling about it.
But I'm willing to keep an open mind - just not expecting anything, though.

[patricia]

Didn't I read, recently, that the investigations going on now, have a time limit, end of May I think, and that the proposed further investigations will be conducted AFTER the November elections??
If that is so, it won't really matter what the findings are, assuming that, without the results, assuming that they are unflattering, that you will have four more Bush years. As we saw with the Clinton impeachment farce, it takes months to institute and carry out impeachment proceedings.
I don't think that the American people have the will to go through that again, especially if that leaves Cheney and Co. holding the reins.
But, if the administration acted in good faith, on bogus intelligence, you would think that they would want to exonerate themselves, even if FBI and CIA heads are rolling all around them. Apparently not.

[Uli]

However they will try to spin it I think Bush is in deep doodoo.

[walto]

"...for not letting Gore steal the election."

Good one, Willy! Like the number of votes cast should matter...dumb lefty bastards.

[RBS]

Patricia,

The investigation you're talking about is separate. That commission is investigating intelligence failures that led up to 9/11.

What this new independent commission is investigating are intelligence failures re: the war in Iraq.

Can't wait to see if President Kerry will pardon ex-President Bush.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally posted by BFrank
The more I think about it, if Bush is appointing the commission, then all bets are off that they will come up with any reasonable findings.

The other more pressing issue is, according to ABC News last night, Bush does not intend to release the "findings" until after the November election...he doesn't want partisan politics to "get wrapped up" in the investigation.


SheeYEAHright.


You know, we found out about Watergate right after 1972 November election which put Nixon back in office, too.

But, hey...I'm sure it's all just a happy coincidence.

[GoodSpeak]

And pigs can fly.

[BFrank]

Originally posted by GoodSpeak
And pigs can fly.

WHAT???!!!

Pigs can fly?????

[patricia]

Originally posted by RBS
Patricia,

The investigation you're talking about is separate. That commission is investigating intelligence failures that led up to 9/11.

What this new independent commission is investigating are intelligence failures re: the war in Iraq.

Can't wait to see if President Kerry will pardon ex-President Bush.

Thanks for the clarification. Both could be damaging to the present administration, should they show that the first was caused by carelessness with intelligence and the second with misinterpreting intelligence. Either scenario wouldn't help the Bush Administration.

As for President Kerry pardoning ex-President Bush, well, it wouldn't be the first time an ex-President, not convicted of wrongdoing, though guilty of it, was pardoned by the incoming President.

[willy]

"...for not letting Gore steal the election."

"Good one, Willy! Like the number of votes cast should matter...dumb lefty bastards."



The major papers that were in Florida after all this happened, including the Democrat house-organs like the NYT, determined that Bush won the vote in Florida. Gore won the popular vote nation wide. Bush won the electoral vote. The Constitution is set up so that the electoral vote takes presedence.

Congress can always change this with a 2/3 vote, however,I don't see this happening in my lifetime. Just don't do it during the game. Don't do it in overtime so that your team will win. Don't appeal to the Florida Supreme Court so that they can change the rules for you. Follow the rules as they are until the end of the game then change them afterwards if appropriate.

[walto]

"The major papers that were in Florida after all this happened, including the Democrat house-organs like the NYT, determined that Bush won the vote in Florida."

Depends what you mean by "won": some of the dumb lefty bastards thought ALL the votes should be counted.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally posted by walto
[BDepends what you mean by "won": some of the dumb lefty bastards thought ALL the votes should be counted. [/B]

Right.

And George Bush was a Vietnam war hero.

Forget it, guys...we're screwed.

The righties hold all the cards, make all the rules, push all the buttons.

I think we just vote for the republican SOBs.


It won't matter anyway because they'll find a way to steal this election, too.



Screw Bush and Cheney he rode in on.

[RBS]

Diebold Voting Systems.

In W.'s back pocket.

• Restoring Trust in America
  By Zbigniew Brzezinski
  Monday, February 2, 2004; Page A17
  
  Whether or how our national leadership should be held accountable for having inaccurately asserted, at war's outset, that Iraq was armed with weapons of mass destruction is ultimately a matter for the politicians to debate and the electorate to resolve. But two consequences with ominous implications for our national security call for a more urgent response: U.S. credibility worldwide has been badly hurt by the WMD affair, and U.S. intelligence capabilities have been exposed as woefully inadequate.
  
  America is preponderant in the world today, but it is not omnipotent. Thus America must have the capacity, when needed, to mobilize the genuine and sincere support of other countries, particularly of its closest allies. It can do so only if it is trusted.
  
  That U.S. credibility has been hurt is indisputable. It is a serious matter when the world's No. 1 superpower undertakes a war claiming a casus belli that turns out to have been false. Numerous public opinion polls demonstrate there has been a worldwide drop in support for U.S. foreign policy. There is manifest resentment of recent American conduct and a pervasive distrust of America's leaders, even in countries that have participated in the coalition in Iraq. Trust is an essential ingredient of power, and its loss bears directly on our long-term national security. An America that is preponderant but distrusted is an America internationally weakened.
  
  The first line of homeland defense as well as the point of departure for an effective global security policy is reliable and internationally credible U.S. intelligence. The sad fact is that in the Iraq crisis U.S. intelligence was not up to par. There are many reasons for that failure, but the most obvious one is the absence of an effective human clandestine intelligence service, compounded by excessive reliance on foreign intelligence services (the Niger uranium fabrications being a case in point).
  
  Over the years the United States has been remarkably innovative in technological-scientific intelligence aimed at the Soviet Union, whose arsenal also depended heavily on science and technology. Consequently, the United States was well informed about the scale, deployments and even war plans of its most likely strategic opponent.
  
  Regarding Iraq, the opposite has been the case. The United States, we now know, was uninformed not only about the level of Iraqi military capabilities but also about Iraqi military and political planning. That indicates the means used to define with reasonable accuracy the nature and scale of the Soviet arsenal were not helpful in deciphering Saddam Hussein's relatively backward military capabilities or in penetrating his primitive regime, even though it was hated by significant portions of the Iraqi population.
  
  There is no excuse for the inadequacy of the intelligence that provided the background for the decision-making and the articulation of U.S. policy. Though an autocracy, Iraq was a much more porous state than the totalitarian Soviet Union had been. It was certainly much more porous than contemporary North Korea. The misjudgments made and the imprecision of the information provided, based (we now know) largely on extrapolations and hypothetical conclusions, are just not acceptable. The evident shortcomings of U.S. intelligence, if allowed to persist, pose too many risks for the future.
  
  Today, in the more diffused post-Cold War circumstances, access to reliable political intelligence derived from high-level human penetration of potential adversaries is the essential requirement of responsible and globally credible strategic policymaking. It is therefore a matter of high national urgency that several steps be promptly taken to give our national decision makers a more reliable basis for shaping policies that command international support:
  
• The administration should candidly acknowledge that the United States was misinformed about the state and level of Iraqi armaments, a fact already quite evident to much of the world. Continued evasion on this subject is a disservice to America.
  
• A shake-up of leadership in the intelligence community is needed and appropriate; measures to that end should be promptly taken. Accountability is needed to restore credibility.
  
• A small committee of experienced individuals trusted by the administration (hence not including its critics, such as the undersigned) should be tasked on a short deadline to present the president a plan for changing the priorities and the modus operandi of the intelligence community, with high emphasis on the development of an effective clandestine service.
  
  Our national security is too much at risk for the issue to be handled in a traditional fashion. The usual reliance on a comprehensive review by a high-level commission working at a leisurely pace would not be an adequate response. Sweeping the matter under a rug would be even worse. A globally preponderant power, if blind, can only lash out when it senses danger. America's leadership in the world calls for something better than that. For the world at large, America's word should again be America's bond.

The writer was national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter. His latest book, "The Choice: Domination or Leadership," is to be published this month.

[Ron Thorne]

It would appear that your fears were well-founded, BFrank. The president continues to act as if the entire nation is totally ignorant and oblivious to this transparent sham. It also appears as if Bush and Blair are not "in bed" together on this aspect of the war in Iraq.

Thankfully, some brave souls within the Republican party are now beginning to question this president's motives and actions.

FEBRUARY 04, 2004

Bush Sabotages WMD Commission Before It Starts

Over the last two days, President Bush and the White House have claimed that they are going to establish an "independent" commission to promptly investigate the over-hyping of intelligence before the Iraq war. But as details come out about the White House's proposal, it appears the commission will be neither independent nor prompt.

Specifically, the president will appoint the entire commission himself, breaking the previous tradition of allowing lawmakers from both parties to appoint commission members. Although lawmakers have raised objections to the commission’s lack of independence, the White House is moving forward with its plans.

Additionally, despite the fact that the commission's work will be critical to national security, the president will only authorize a commission that produces a report after the election -- so as to minimize any political fallout for himself. This contrasts sharply to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is putting national security ahead of politics. As the Los Angeles Times reports, "in contrast to a bipartisan investigating committee announced by Bush, the British panel is to announce its conclusions by July. That would put any damaging disclosures for Blair's government well in advance of parliamentary elections, expected in 2005." It also contrasts with similar investigations in the United States. In 1983, after the terrorist attacks on U.S. troops in Beirut, a commission was appointed and finished its work within 3 months.

As one major newspaper editorial board summed up, "The president's goal is to delay any objective findings about prewar intelligence until after the election, leaving him free to decide what the administration knew and didn't know and who is to blame." And the President's continued misleading on WMD could come at a price. As Republican Senator Chuck Hagel said, a failure to convince the public that Bush did not "exaggerate" the case for war "would put the president in a very bad position. He said people would start asking, "Do we trust his word? Do we trust him to lead this country?"


Visit Misleader.org for more about Bush Administration distortion. »

[walto]

Hey, how are the Homeland Security guys doing apprehending those anthrax distributers? Still need more time? Couldn't be the fault of law enforcement. Must be a failure of the relevant laws.

I'm thinking it's about time Ashcroft made some proposals prohibiting the mailing of all sealed envelopes.