Put an End to the Well-Founded Rumors Surrounding GWB Admin's Use of Intel re Iraq?

Great Debates
21

While it is “a very relevant question to ask concerning the “challenges” facing the intelligence community is whether or not they were pressured into changing thier opinion;” however, what’s under discussion here are the use of ad hoc committees of political appointees, like the OSP and the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group and their effects on the Admin’s case for war.

Acording to Pentagon officials “the two offices never collected intelligence…”
So to ask, whether or not “the Bush administration interfered with intelligence gathering,” while a vitally important question, is not the point of investigating the OSP and the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group.

The questions that the CICUSRWMD is not asking and the what the SSCI isn’t procedurally equiped to adequately investigate are the issues surrounding the subsequent use and packaging of the intel gathered by the established professional intel agencies.

22

Ok, but which target of the “repackaging” are you concerned with? Are you talking about repackaging intelligence for political speeches? Or are you talking about repackaging intelligence before presentation to the president? It seems the the first is rightly a political issue, while the second would seem to fall under the mandate of the SSCI.

Another way to ask this is “Are you concerned that the President did not have good intelligence at his disposal?” or “Are you concerned that the American people did not have good intelligence presented to them?”

23

Pervo has grasped the right end of this stick. Clearly, any investigation of intelligence and its use must have a certain open-endedness. If the investigation is truncated and crippled by its essential definition - that it is intended to disclose why our poor unfortunate GeeDubya was so poorly served - it cannot possibly offer any useful insight. We already have plenty of evidence that alternative interpretations were available, they lie thick upon the ground.

And while we’re at it, certain denizens of this board owe a public apology for calling Scott Ritter a lying asshole. Asshole he may be, I myself find him something of a self-righteous prig. But he was not lying. Truth be known, he served his country and performed his assigned duties with a tenacity and honor that should bring a blush to the cheek of Colin Powell.

If a whore can blush, that is.

24

AFAICT, (if I understand his post correctly), he’s done nothing of the sort. Instead perv’s said that there’s little if any legal onus on the PotUS to be honest with the American electorate even in the gravest matters of vital importance to the country. He’s saying that as long as the Pres is in on the alleged scam, there’s no need for any investigation into the matter other than what a private citizen can muster independently.

perv,
Some of what was presented to the American electorate and their elected representatives was of more import than what the characterization “political speeches” allows.
W/o a thorough investigation there’s no way to determine exactly who knew what about which when.

It’s apparent that there’re grounds for opening the investigations into the use of the intel. It’s also apparent that the data were adjusted for presentation to the American people. The possibility that these data were unduly adjusted is also evident.
Did the PotUS realize that his data were carefully hand-crafted from select material?
It may or may not be a misunderestimation of GWB to allow for the possibility that he didn’t know what was going on.
As Reagan said, whether he knew or not, he’s responsible for knowing what was going on. It was his job to know.

25

I hope that those who use them remeber once the Bush Admin’s talking points are issued that here’s the thread about the Office of Special Plans, and this is the thread about the investigations into the White House’s use of intel about Iraq.

I eagerly await further discussion.

Thanks,

Simon X

26

I think maybe I have been unclear. I am only supporting the argument that there is a line beyond which it is inappropriate for the investigating group to go. The Congressional committee, however, it seems to me has authority to investigate, at least, some of the possible political implications.

I am not being very clear on where this line should be drawn because I am not entirely sure of it myself. I was trying to say that there is a distinction between intelligence and political rhetoric. Certainly the government has a duty to investigate the collection and use of intelligence. However, it seems inappropriate for them to investigate political rhetoric. The problem I have with discussions of this type is that most of what we are aware of is political speech, rather than intelligence. This is simply because intelligence is not regularly published in the paper.

However, there is a paper trail for the intelligence which was presented to the President and representitives of Congress. It is certainly within the commission’s mandate to investigate where this intelligence came from, how it was packaged, and what happened to it as it was presented to the President and Congress. My question, is how do you read the mandate to preclude the sort of answers you seem to think it precludes?

If President Bush pressured intelligence officials into modifying information before it was presented to himself or Congress, then something illegal occured (or at least it should be illegal). However, if he simply over played his case for the cameras, then I’m not sure what you want the commission to do about it.

27

Thanks for your response, SimonX. But I’m still not sure what you want “investigated.”

Here’s the (very) basics as I think we agree: US and International Intelligence organizations thought Iraq had a WMD program. There were shades of just how much they thought it, how advanced it was, &ct. Bush and co. (mostly co., actually, Bush himself seems to have been pretty careful with his public statements) extrapolated from that intelligence to make statements which, with the benefit of hindsight, were not supported by the facts and (without hindsight) were not stated as strenuously as the politicians said. So one of the administration’s three legs of the “invade Iraq” stool was missing. Is that pretty much it?

It seems to me that that’s already out there.

Thanks, also, for clarifying your remarks about the UN and the (separate) international community. Again, I’m not sure much more dialog is necessary or even fruitful at this point. On non-military matters, substantially all of the international community is working together – almost weekly you can read about international cooperation that results in arrests in Germany, avoided attacks in Saudi Arabia or Great Britain, etc. And international understanding of the nature of the many-headed hydra we’re fighting is developing and nations will come along as they come along. Again, all we can hope is that they do so without having their own 9-11s like Saudi Arabia did.

I’d elaborate more, but I also have some things to attend to (though, right now, nothing as fun as you did! – tomorrow.). Hope to add more thoughts this weekend.

28

These issues are, of course, all related, but to help sort my thoughts I’ve regrouped these items from your post along the lines of what I see as themes.

I agree with your points about the investigation of “political rhetoric.”

It’s also true that in our modern democracy, there’re important differences between what’s commonly characterized with the terms “political” and “rhetoric” and the dialogue between the electorate and our representatives regarding the “greatest affair of state”.

“The real charge that deserves careful scrutiny is not whether you picked the best argument out, but whether you actually manipulated and were dishonest about the data.”
What I’d want the commission, (assuming we’re talking exclusively of the PotUSA’s CICUSRWMD), to do about it is to have presidentially charged missions that are more similar to the SSCI’s “terms of reference.”
The fact that the commission’s curtailed from asking necessary questions regarding charges so serious that they deserve investigation is unbecoming and, in part, the thrust of this thread.
Why is the Prez’s independent and bipartisan CICUSRWMD having to fight for powers necessary to faithfully fulfill their notably limited mission, (manhattan was right about McCain it seems)?
And @ the SSCI, why the “closed-door struggle… to keep the focus of the panel’s inquiry on the CIA and other intelligence agencies?”
What I’d like at least one of the half dozen or so commissions, committees and reviews to do is to to have the power to subpoena people and documents, and the power to hear testimony under oath related to all eleven of the SSCI’s “terms of reference” and to do so as warranted with the aim of determining how much if any the White House intentionally extrapolated from intelligence to make statements which, without the benefit of hindsight,were not supported by the facts.
The committee must conduct a thorough review, to learn the necessary lessons from our experience with Iraq to ensure that our armed forces, policymakers and electorate benefit from the best and most reliable intelligence that can be collected. The committee’s thoroughness should be proportional to the seriousness of the subject and the charges of the investigation.

After having looked at the SSCI’s Rules of Procedure it seems as if the committee has the ability to do what “I’d like.” Unless, there’re changes that have been made more recently than the access.gpo’s version of the rules, it seems the committee has the flexibility to pursue an investigation wherever they’d need to, and is probably the best candidiate for adequately examining the issues I’ve seen so far.

But what I’m asking in the thread is why the reluctance to allow certain avenues of inquiry?
I’ll have to get to the other parts at a later date- someone keeps throwing sand in my eyes.

29

Ok. I guess I just misunderstand the CICUSRWMD mandate. I don’t see any reason why those points raised in the SSCI’s mandate can not be investigated. The commission’s purpose seems to be more general. But it does seem to cover as much as Congress’s investigation.

Clearly we need to know if any political operatives pressured any CIA or other intelligence operatives into putting a political argument under Agency letterhead. But such an investigation seems to fall well within the bounds of the new commision’s orders.

30

An investigation into the extent of the Bush Admin et al’s culpability re the intentional fabrication and misrepresentation of the basis for war with Iraq.

We know that some crucial statements from the Bush team didn’t jibe with what was coming out of the established, professional intelligence community.

We know that the basis for a number of these statements was provided by reports from the various units created by members of the Admin team.

We also know that some of what was used by these teams as a basis for the inconsistent statements from the Bush Admin were previously disecredited reports.

What we don’t have officially documented is the extent of the willful use of fraudulent materials to lead the country into war. The extent of the willful misrepresentation is a critical aspect that must be documented and recorded not only for our benefit, but for the benefit of future Americans.

While the Bush Admin may well be honorable people to the man, it is possible that in the future, a group of politicos who really were crooked could obtain public offices and engage in some really nasty manuevers similar to what has been alleged.
The republic must exercise the means to protect itself from the possibility of such anti-democratic machinations.
We have a solemn obligation to protect our protectors, the US military personel who bravely put their lives on the line require and deserve a detailed, accurate, public, and official accounting of how we came to be at war.

Dr. David Kay’s assessment that it’s “such a serious charge that it deserves investigation” seems obvious and irrefutable.

What is being alleged is that the ability of the electorate to deny the consent to be governed was bypassed through the use of intentional disnformation.
Doesn’t get much more serious than that in a republic.

Except for the things he said where he wasn’t careful, like the SotU speech, the claims about the non-existent IAEA report saying Iraq could have the Bomb in six months, the likelihood of flying, poison-spraying, Iraqi robots attacking the US, etc. I’d have to agree with that assessment.

31

This is true. This is important information to know.
However, it’s neither the most serious nor most disturbing allegation.

Since, according to Pentagon officials, “the two offices never collected intelligence…” to ask, whether or not “any political operatives pressured any CIA or other intelligence operatives into putting a political argument under Agency letterhead,” while a vitally important question, is not the point of investigating the OSP and the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group.

32

Why is our current presidential administration so demonstrably adverse to pursuing an investigation that’s essential to the long-term health of our republic?

33

Interesting choice of words from the pentagon there. Does that mean that they never organized their own Iraq spy network, or does it preclude the purchase of pre-digested intelligence from Chalabi et. al. too?

34

The choise of words is specific is it not?
Historical experience suggests that the proper inference from this sort of specificity in the mouths of govt officials is that what wasn’t said is of critical importance to understanding what was said.

Regarding your question
While the Pentagon funded and continues to fund the INC and the INC’s intelligence program, the Information Collection Program, (ICP), despite the INC’s inability and lack of desire to account for the millions of US taxpayers dollars it’s already received, (we even paid for accountants to help them out), I doubt if either the OSP or the PCTEG actually cut any checks to the ICP/INC.

35

Again, because as near as I can tell, you’re the only person on God’s green earth calling for it. You cite David Kay’s maybe in-context, maybe not statement at a Q&A session at a largely uncovered speech at a college; it’s at odds with his under-oath testimony to Congress that he believes that the administration was the victim, not the perpetrator, of bad intelligence. More importantly, both sides already believe that they have what they need to make their respective cases to the electorate from the investigations already done or being done.

P.S. Hamsters suck.

36

It sure is. Turns out it wasn’t just any pentagon spokesperson either, but the king of close parsing himself, Donald Rumsfeld:

Rumsfeld: Pentagon did not bypass intelligence community on Iraq

37

You may’ve missed this from the link re the SSCI:

Apparently, at least the entire SSCI and SimonX are together on God’s green earth calling for this investigation.
However, since an investigation, such as the CICUSRWMD, was initially opposed by the Bush Admin the question stands even without reference to the susequent refinements made to the SSCI’s “terms of reference.”

It’s not at all at odds, not even quite paradoxical.
He says that the issue is important enough to warrant investigation and he also says that he’s confident that the investigation will show that “the administration was the victim, not the perpetrator, of bad intelligence.”

As the SSCI’s decision to further “refine” their investigation to include the OSP and the PCTEG is only about a month old, I’m not sure what indicates that “both sides already believe that they have what they need.” Furthermore, this is bigger than “both sides.” This is fundamental to the entire nation.

38

In order for something to be “bypassed”, it has to be on the route to begin with.

Note that Tenet testified “that he had not learned until last week about the August 2002 briefing, which was given by Feith’s colleagues to senior aides of Cheney and President Bush,” and that Rumsfeld said, "“We do it all the time in this department. We brief the president. We brief the vice president.” and “Nobody was bypassed; there was no mystery.”

Compare this quote from the CIA’s intel factbook re the Intelligence Community, “…offices within the Department of Defense for collection of specialized national foreign intelligence through reconnaissance programs…” with the statements from Pentagon officials denying that either of the two groups gathered or collected intelligence.

The OSP and PCTEG are not members of the intelligence community, therefore not obligated to report to Tenet. The intelligence community was not on the route, and therefore could not possibly be “bypassed.”

As you previously noted:

“…the Office of Special Plans and the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group…did not need Tenet’s permission to conduct briefings.”

39

A perfectly stunning statement, but already answered.

Subtly done, sir! Without offering so much as a shred of evidence, you imply that perhaps Mr. Kay’s statement was taken out of context. Nothing like a wee drop of poison in the well, eh, lad? Have you evidence of such? Given your demonstrated sympathies, I would expect that if you had such you would have brought it forth crisply. Have you? Don’t public figures explosively quoted out of contest make public note of it?

They do? Really? And frankly, does it matter if they do? Is not an entirely informed electorate a good thing? Surely you share my desire to have the people clearly aware of just what sort of procedure went into making what appears to be an entirely chucklewitted decision?

Then again, perhaps you don’t.

Then why aren’t they more popular? In my experience, an oral compulsion is a very endearing characteristic.

40

Hey, if a hamster can get the job done for you, that’s great. Personally, I find them a tad on the small side…

Sorry, couldn’t resist. :slight_smile: