The CICUSRWMD group that the Pres put together isn’t going to investigate what Dr. David Kay called “such a serious charge that it deserves investigation.”
Additionally, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s review will not adequately cover this crucial area, (particularly the influence of such bodies as the Office of Special Plans)
Simply stated, this very serious charge is that the Bush Admin et al fabricated, exaggerated or otherwise unduly manipulated the various intelligences regarding Iraq when they presented it to Congress and the American people.
As a member of the American electorate, it is self-evident that we deserve to know the nature of the judgements that lead us to divert energies and manpower away from a dire, current and imminent threat still exists to invade a country that wasn’t that much of a threat to us, imminent or otherwise.
…the greater the risk and the danger, the lower the threshold for action…[sup]*[/sup]
The threat that we’re discussing in this thread is the risk that a group of politicians misused their positions of power to entangle this nation in an unecessary foreign war. A risk that there’s been an abuse of public trust that has usurped the rights of the American electorate to withold their consent, potentially “lies of policy deception.”
All Americans are rightfully proud that, in America, the just powers of the government are derived from the consent of the governed. Without this consent, the government has no just powers. An American government undertaking such grave enterprises as foreign wars unjustly is so great a risk, that one has trouble calling to mind risks greater, graver or more gathering.
On the advice of our SecDef…
Because the risk and danger are very great, the threshold for action is very low.
All that’s asked of the Bush Admin et al in this instance to deal with this grave and gathering danger is that they should cooperate fully with those who have been charged with the solemn responsibilities “to oversee and make continuing studies of the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government,” and “to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States,” by truthfully and honestly, (no more “not-lies”) answering some particular questions and releasing some particular documents.
Not really that much to ask of them, especially given the dire nature of the risks we are facing.
So why not just go ahead and make a clean sweep of it, open the areas of investigation and remove the shadows of mistrust, doubt, secrecy and worse that cover the Bush Admin et al?
What’s to be gained by the Bush Admin et al from critically limiting inquiry into the use of intelligence by the Bush Admin re Iraq?
More importantly, what’s to be gained by the American people from critically limiting inquiry into the use of intelligence by the Bush Admin re Iraq?
Why wouldn’t these people want to do what would defend their good names fully, repudiate their critics, restore their good reputations, and vindicate themselves, (and go a long way toward making them uniters, not dividers of the country)?
There’re a finite number of probabilities. For example:
The Bush Admin et al think that the specific inquiries are of insufficient value.
The Bush Admin et al think that the American people have neither right nor need to know.
The Bush Admin et al think that cooperating with the inquiries will embarass and/or incriminate them.
I’ve come here hoping that some attack-Iraq Bush-Backers could help me see our public servants’ seemingly irresponsible truncation of crucial public knowledge regarding life and death matters in a positive light.
I hope I’m not to be dissapointed.
What’s the scoop? What’s the positive way of seeing this? My prediction is that the positive ways presented will almost all be variations on #1, “the specific inquiries are of insufficient value.”
“An Iraqi leader accused of feeding faulty pre-war intelligence to Washington said yesterday his information about Saddam Hussein’s weapons, even if discredited, had achieved the aim of persuading America to topple the dictator…“We are heroes in error,” he told the Telegraph in Baghdad.”
Simply put, we have the conjecture that the results are so splendid we may fairly regard the means as not only justified, but sanctified. And it makes a better story, America as hero, coonskin cap and cruise missiles.
So there’s one. A steaming load, in my estimation, but there’s one, count 'em, one.
This is a very interesting topic and one that warrants a thoughtful and considered rep—Hey! Isn’t that Janet Jackson’s boob?—ly. There is no guarantee that the intel—I can hear Howard Stern asking her to show the other one!—ligence you receive is accurate and any admin—Now two queers want to get married during next year’s Super Bowl halftime show!—istration must use its judge—Clinton lied about a blow job!—ment before acting on it.
I hope that answered—Then he used George W. Bush’s honorable discharge to clean the semen from Monica’s blue dress!—your question.
I want to open by thanking you for your rebuke of elucidator’s post. It’s precisely stuff like that and dropzone’s equally unhelpful post that make this forum such a cesspool that sensible people are increasingly avoiding. It is only because of your rebuke that I’m responding.
I’d say a couple of things. First, I don’t think you have a basis on which to assume that the presidential commission is not going to investigate this avenue. Contrary to the predictions in this forum (and OK, my fears), President Bush has put together a pretty good commission. There are a few members who, in isolation, might reasonably be accused of being ready to hush up whatever is found for the sake of government continuity. But mostly not.
You know John McCain, of course, and he ain’t going to give the President any slack – particularly since the report will come after the election. You may not know Bill Studeman. When he was director at NSA when it started to open it’s doors (a little!) and talk (a little!) about their mission. This is a guy who believes that intelligence should be as transparent as possible without sacrificing the mission and another one who isn’t going to hesitate to say so if the answer to the question “why did we get it wrong” is “because some White House lackey was looking over our shoulder all day and night.” Judges Wald and Silberman also have reputations for speaking truth to power, even if they sometimes whisper it.
So that’s first – I believe that the rumor, concern, accusation, whatever you call it will be investigated.
Second, why not have a special “did Bush lie” committee? Well, because everyone had more or less the same intelligence. And based on it, pretty much everyone who mattered came to the same conclusion Bush did regarding Iraq’s weapons programs under Hussein. Bush’s predecessor, the UN, France, Russia, Congressional Democrats, Congressional Republicans, the military, the intelligence agencies themselves, &ct. So there’s no one of importance in a position to accuse him of lying – they all believed the same things Bush did before he ever said them. If Bush played the hand too strong (he did - see below), that’s a political problem for him properly resolved by the electorate.
Third, it’s important to keep in mind that the WMD wasn’t the only reason we invaded Iraq. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a proven regional threat, a supporter of terrorism and a mass murderer of its own citizens. Any of those things justified overthrowing the regime and handing power to the citizenry – the combination, along with the belief about WMD, made it immoral not to invade. Now Bush got buffaloed into leading with the WMD charge, and he’ll (properly) pay a political price for that. Why did he do it? Personally, I think he and his believed that that was the piece of the puzzle that would have convinced nations like France and Russia to join the coalition. That was dumb – hindsight makes it evident that there was nothing that would have brought them along, nor was there anything that would have made the UN interested in enforcing its own resolutions.
But the why is neither here nor there. If he got outmanuvered politically by France and the UN, so be it – he’ll pay or not pay the price at the polls when people tally up whether they like this President enough to replace him come November.
The CICUSRWMD isn’t charged with addresing the main concerns involving the Bush Admin’s use of the intel that was available. It’s only charged with investigating the intel material itself.
While this very important and crucial, it’s also very important and crucial that what use was made of it be critically examined as well, especially considering the gravity of the charges, the volume of circumstantial corroborating evidence and, importantly, the American public’s perception of how it was used, (see here .pdf)
The CICUSRWMD doesn’t even have the loophole language that the SSCI review initially gave itself: “other issues we mutually identify in the course of the Committee’s review.”
How will the CICUSRWMD be able to conduct a study of things outside its jurisdiction?
There’s nothing to lead me to think that it has the authority to widen its jurisdiction. It’s specifically truncated from the gitgo regardless of the personal integrity of those who serve.
Secondly,
Even though the SSCI’s review has decided to address some of the more controversial issues related to the Bush Admin’s use of the intel, it is still not authorized investigate whether the OSP et al influenced top policymakers’ judgments on Iraq nor does it have the subpoena power and other tools necessary to procure vital testimony from career politicians and political appointees.
So, as glad as I am that there are good people on the CICUSRWMD, (thank you for pointing some out to me), and the SSCI, there’re some important technical details that prevent them from doing the thorough job the situation requires.
There’re incredibly important questions that they cannot even ask.
Actually, it’s not true that “pretty much everyone who mattered came to the same conclusion Bush did.” The Bush Admin reached several critical conlusions that others who mattered did not.
The status of Iraq’s nuclear weapons program comes immediately to mind. Several times the BA used phrases like “without a doubt” when there was a dearth of evidence and a plethora of doubt.
The probability that Hussein would transfer his WMDs to aQ is another area where the Bush team was in direct opposition to judgements of the intel community.
There were a number signifigant differences in the assessments from the WH et al and the members of the professional intel community; however, I don’t think that they warrant a review here&now as these two are sufficient to make the point.
While there definitely were “other reasons” for invading Iraq, the reason that the US public backed the invasion was the threat to the US from Iraq. W/o that threat, most of the American public would’ve looked just looked at Bush cross-eyed. The threat to the US, the idea that we were acting in self-defense was quintessential to selling the war to the American people. We were told we were going to wage a necessary, pre-emptive war, not an elective, preventative one.
The idea that the war could be justified as pre-emptive self defense is another variance from what the intel community was saying. The assessment by the intel community was that it was unlikely in the foreseeable future that Hussein would attack the US by conventional or non-conventional means either directly or by proxy. This was specifically adressed in George Tent’s letter to Senator Graham in October 2002.
This fear of destruction staid Hussein’s hand from the WMDs in Gulf War I.
As difficult to predict as Hussein seems to have been, there was noone betting he would seek “national obliteration.”
I’d also like to close by thanking you for taking the time to thoughtfully respond. I think that the importance of dialogue among the American electorate on these issues is dificult to overstate.
It’s also important to have this sort of dialogue with our international brethren as well.
That part is properly a political decision made by the electorate. Having a commission or whatever to decide whether a politician used uncertain estimates from intelligence agencies to guide policy toward something he favored would be like a similar commission to investigate whether economic projections are sometimes used for partisan purposes – you’d spend a bunch of money, the commission members would have a chance to fulminate and the conclusion would be yes. Then what?
Eh. If I’m reading it right, according to that poll only 21% believe the President lied. More than that are probably convinced he is a space alien. But as we’ve seen, Howard Dean supporters are irrelevant.
**Again, IMO that’s a political decision to be made by the electorate.
** Phrasing differed, but everyone believed that Iraq had a viable WMD program and that he probably had a viable nuclear program at some phase of development. Whether it was “without a doubt” or ready tomorrow or not is a teensy, tiny nit – Bush also made a point of saying that we were going in to remove Hussein before any threats became imminent.
**Perhaps, perhaps not. I think it was a political mistake in part because he has made the U.S. public and the international community now expect that there be some imminent threat before we take action. IOW, he’s made it harder to justify invading Syria, even though it richly needs invading. Same with Saudi Arabia.
**No it’s not. The UN has permanently proved its complete irrelevance by failing to back the war and then failing to oppose it. As regards them, all we should do is smile and nod and pay our dues and pretend that smallpox couldn’t have been solved by an ad-hoc committee if the UN didn’t exist. And occasionally speak up when they turn their faces away from genocide. Other than that, screw em. As regards individual countries, they’ll come along in their own time. All we can hope is it won’t take a 9-11 in any other countries for them to realize that whether it’s al Qaeda, Iraq/Syria/Libya, Algerians, etc. it’s all different heads of the same hydra. And we should be nice about it when the come around – no gloating allowed.
Gosh, what splendid news! A mere 21% believe that GeeDubya lied. You know, for a while there, it looked like he might be in trouble. Of course, this poll that brings you such comfort is dated November of last year. Before the Kay report and assorted other unpleasant facts emerged.
And invade Saudi Arabia? With all due respect, Manny are you out of your cotton-pickin’ mind? Why not just arrange a photo op with GeeDubya taking a leak on the Dome of the Rock?
In case its escaped your notice, Saudi Arabia is holy ground to Muslims. Point of fact, American troops stationed in Saudi was ObL’s major beef, if we actually have troops invading Saudi Arabia…God help us! Al Queda will have to open additional recruiting offices to handle the rush!
Again, with all due respect, Manny, this is quite possibly the worst idea I’ve seen here.
And in case it escaped your notice, we got out of the business of basing our foreign policy on what Osama bin Laden and any current or potential fellow-travelers think we ought to do a couple years ago. Or at least we should have.
I’m not at all surprised to learn that you think so.
Before this thread goes completely ape noodle over whether or not to invade Saudi Arabia, SimonX, can I ask you a quesion?
What about this point do you find incompatible with investigating whether of not the Bush administration interfered with intelligence gathering?
"*Examine the capabilities and challenges of the intelligence community to collect, process, analyze, produce, and disseminate information concerning the capabilities, intentions, and activities of foreign powers (including terrorists, terrorist organizations, and private networks, or other entities or individuals) relating to the design, development, manufacture, acquisition, possession, proliferation, transfer, testing, potential or threatened use, or use of weapons of mass destruction, related means of delivery, and other related threats of the 21st Century.
Examine the intelligence prior to the initiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom and compare it with the findings of the Iraq Survey Group and other relevant agencies or organizations concerning the capabilities, intentions, and activities of Iraq relating to the design, development, manufacture, acquisition, possession, proliferation, transfer, testing, potential or threatened use, or use of weapons of mass destruction and related means of delivery.
*"
It seems to me that a very relevant question to ask concerning the “challenges” facing the intelligence community is whether or not they were pressured into changing thier opinion? It seems that examining the difference between the pre Iraqi Freedom and post Iraqi Freedom intelligence should include an investigation into why the intelligence was so far off. If one of those reasons was that the administration interfered with intelligence gathering, then that should be stated.
Well, there I agree with you. Which is why I’m pleased we were able to get such a comprehensive reconstruction plan for Iraq, and why I’m pissed that we’re not doing more in Afghanistan (in fairness, I’m willing to be convinced that more money wouldn’t have more effect in Afghanistan given the size of the economy – I just haven’t been so convinced yet). Each and every country whose government we remove should get its own little customized Marshall plan.
But first the bad guys have to die. That’s how it works. At least according to history.
Heart be still, after only 6800 posts Manny has actually acknowledged my existence! And he compared me favorably with the famed elucidator, an honor even an egotist such as myself could never hope for! Truth be told I’m not nearly as funny or smart but I’m honored none the less. :rolleyes:
Okay, that’s out of my system. But I am disappointed, my friend, that you didn’t show up in my thread from a week ago when I asked “What were the Bush admninistrations plans for a post-war Iraq?” with an open heart and as open a mind as I can manage. While I often disagree with you I tried to get SOMEBODY from your side of the aisle to answer and you are usually one of the best spokesmen for the Bush administration on this board.
Uh, no, they didn’t. While there was some sharing, the US specifically withheld “sensitive” intelligence, that they said, without a doubt, proved the existence of Iraq’s “tons and tons” of WoMD. I, for one, was at least skeptical, but became convinced based on the administration’s adamant statements.
Simply not true. While all of them may have suspected all of the same things, it is clear that for most, the burden of proof had not been sufficiently met. If Bush is going to be judge, jury, and executioner, it would be nice if he got his facts straight.
Proven regional threat - note that only one country bordering Iraq supported the US invasion. The only notable support in the region came from Israel.
Supporter of terrorism - a dubious justification, as the only proven connections had no impact whatsoever on the United States’ national security interests. With support of the UN, I would find this reason sufficient justification. Without, it rings hollow.
Mass murderer of its own citizens - In what timeframe are you talking? Since 1991? Seems to me Saddam was our friend during his most egregious periods of murdering mayhem. And again, with international support, perhaps this would be a reasonable justification, without, hardly.
Funny, I remember the UNSC being unanimous with UNSC 1441. Couldn’t the failure of the UNSC to support the war be related to the failure of the UN weapons inspectors to produce a shred of evidence in support for Dubya’s contentions?
Didn’t Dubya bet the farm on the WoMD issue with UNSC 1441, and then, after losing the bet, fail to acknowledge that the bet even existed?
I really don’t see the administration looking past Election Day on this. If the stalling game they’ve been practicing for over two years now (note that this commission is just now getting started, for pity’s sake) can succeed in keeping anything seriously embarrassing from getting out before then, and Bush wins, then he can claim a mandate for another terms trumps any inconvenient facts. If he loses, it won’t matter anyway. It isn’t a win/lose proposition, it’s a no-effect/lose proposition, and you don’t have to look any deeper than Rove picking the no-effect option in a simple electoral-politics game to understand the thinking behind this.
manhattan, who claims above to be a sensible person, offers this for us:
“Everyone” is an overused word there. It does not include those closest to the problem, those who’d actually been there and done that, those like Ritter and Blix. You must know better than that, and if you don’t, you should spend more time in this “cesspool”. “A teensy, tiny nit”, you say? What? The reality of a threat is the basis for whether or not you go to war. The same logic you support in Bush justifies Pearl Harbor. We executed people for that at Nuremberg and Tokyo. But to you it’s a “nit”?
All other things you’ve proposed to us have already been answered by others. Now, you’d help your case for your claim of “sensibility” quite a bit by actually responding to **elucidator ** and dropzone, instead of dismissing things that are difficult to face.
But I’ll give you this one:
Before that, you have to identify them. The baddest guy on anyone’s ranking has to be the one that actually attacked you, not the one that didn’t. No doubt bin Laden will show up any time now, thanks to Bush’s diligence in pursuing him. It doesn’t take a war to do that, either - that’s more middle-excluding. It just takes a real effort, including primarily diplomacy. Perhaps the next administration will try it.
These are two different but interrelated things- judgement and investigation.
Even if you think that the judgement is properly the realm of the electorate, there’s still the need for an informed judgement by the electorate.
I apologize for the delays.
I’ll get to the rest of your post, (and others’ posts), later tonight when my beautiful wife is absent and I’m less distracted than I’ve been the past few nights.
previously posted by SimonX:
The CICUSRWMD isn’t charged with addresing the main concerns involving the Bush Admin’s use of the intel that was available. It’s only charged with investigating the intel material itself. *
**Adequate information about the Admin’s use of intel is a pre-condition of an informed “political decision made by the electorate.” **
** Though what is alleged to have transpired bears certain similarities to sometimes using economic projections for partisan purposes, they are not sufficiently similar to equate the two.
The allegations are more serious than the spinning of percentages selecitvely in an election campaign.**
*previously posted by SimonX:
While this very important and crucial, it’s also very important and crucial that what use was made of it be critically examined as well, especially considering the gravity of the charges, the volume of circumstantial corroborating evidence and, importantly, the American public’s perception of how it was used, (see here http://pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Nov_13_03_iraq_press.pdf )
*
I’ve presented here some more of the specific stats I was referring to when I used the phrase "the American public’s perception of how it was used."
The immense gravity of war gives these sorts of allegations a unique weight and urgency.
That 58-63 million Americans who believe the USG presented evidence it knew was false regarding “Iraq having weapons of mass destruction to justify going to war with Iraq” and 49-52 million Americans who believe believe the USG presented evidence it knew was false regarding “links between Saddam Hussein’s government and al Qaeda to justify going to war with Iraq,” justifies investigation, if only to lay the rumors to rest.
*
previously posted by SimonX:
Even though the SSCI’s review has decided to address some of the more controversial issues related to the Bush Admin’s use of the intel, it is still not authorized investigate whether the OSP et al influenced top policymakers’ judgments on Iraq nor does it have the subpoena power and other tools necessary to procure vital testimony from career politicians and political appointees.
*
The electorate has representatives who assist in obtaining information relevant to some of their political decisions.
The SSCI is specifically charged “to oversee and make continuing studies of the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government,” and “to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
Investigation is inherent in "vigilant oversight."
previously posted by SimonX:
Actually, it’s not true that “pretty much everyone who mattered came to the same conclusion Bush did.” The Bush Admin reached several critical conlusions that others who mattered did not. The status of Iraq’s nuclear weapons program comes immediately to mind. Several times the BA used phrases like “without a doubt” when there was a dearth of evidence and a plethora of doubt. The probability that Hussein would transfer his WMDs to aQ is another area where the Bush team was in direct opposition to judgements of the intel community. There were a number signifigant differences in the assessments from the WH et al and the members of the professional intel community; however, I don’t think that they warrant a review here&now as these two are sufficient to make the point.
*
**Much pf this ^ depends on which definitions are assigned to the words “viable” and “program.”
Staying with previously provided examples…
From declassified excerpts of the National Intelligence Estimate
There difference between “without a doubt” and “or not” is not a nit. **
*
previously posted by SimonX:
While there definitely were “other reasons” for invading Iraq, the reason that the US public backed the invasion was the threat to the US from Iraq. W/o that threat, most of the American public would’ve looked just looked at Bush cross-eyed. The threat to the US, the idea that we were acting in self-defense was quintessential to selling the war to the American people. We were told we were going to wage a necessary, pre-emptive war, not an elective, preventative one.
*
**The expectation that there should be an imminent threat before we take action did not arise because of the Bush Admin’s Iraq policy.
Another, similar, potential downside is that it could make it harder to rally the US public to war even when it is genuinely and imminently threatened. **
*
previously posted by SimonX:
It is also important to have this sort of dialogue with our international brethren as well.
*
** I was not referring to the UN at all when I wrote that sentence. I intended to encourage intl Dopers to participate in the thread.
However, I would like to note what Kaplan and Kristol noted in their book The War Over Iraq, uni-polarity will demand greater contact with members of the international community than before.
On both of these levels it is important to have this sort of dialogue with our international brethren, (who need not be seen as synonymous with the UN).**
