Rereviewing your post, Manhattan I guess I can see your point. If the Iraqis replaced their government with one of our liking (heck, with one of our choosing) then we would not have invaded.
Given that one of our goals in the Iraq affair seems to have been to find a new middle eastern base for our troops in stead of Saudi Arabia*, I don’t know that a palatable domestically developed Iraqi government could have been found. YMMV.
*I am accepting as common knowledge that Saudi Arabia’s suitability as a long term base for American troops was questioned well before 9/11 and that the US and Saudi governments had already both an expressed a desire to move the US troops out, a desire delayed by the need to avoid the appearance of capitulation to Al Qaeda. Oh, and the ongoing gathering massive threat from Iraq, I guess.
The German top military commanders told the Kaiser it was too late to avoid invading Belgium in 1914 after the initial orders had been sent, too. Add me to the “Manny, we call shenanigans” list.
That statement sounds a whole lot like the once-common one that the war had to be started because the troops couldn’t be left in place and ready to go indefinitely - as if it’s better to start a war than to let your guys get bored.
Before the hijack gets too far gone, let me re-reiterate my question:
Why wouldn’t every member of the GOP, executive branch and legislative branch want to put an end to the well-founded rumors surrounding GWB Admin’s use of intel re Iraq?
As rank and file member, I know I’d like to see these nasty rumors finally laid to rest.
I’m not at all clear what you want then, Simon. If they’re “well-founded”, they’re not just rumors. If all that “nasty” stuff is actually true, then it’s true, and trying to hide it or deny it or stop it being discussed is not something you’d want to do other than for pure partisanship.
So do you want us to discuss how more deft their ability to spin these “well-founded” facts in the media could be? I don’t see anything more there - any info that gets out, any, can only hurt them in any or all of the ways you listed. So what the hell else can you expect them to do other than reply “Why you keep bringin’ up all dat *old * stuff? Stay the course!” ?
The gist of it 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.
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.”
Particularly in light of groups like the Office of Special Plans, PCTEG, and the White House Iraq Group.
Actually, here’s a quick breakdown from the SSCI’s Iraq intel investigation mission statement of some of the issues that certain members of the GOP have been reluctant to have looked at in broad daylight:
C. whether public statements and reports and testimony regarding Iraq by U.S. Government officials made between the Gulf War period and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom were substantiated by intelligence information;
E. prewar intelligence assessments about postwar Iraq;
F. any intelligence activities relating to Iraq conducted by the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group (PCTEG) and the Office of Special Plans within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; and
G. the use by the Intelligence Community of information provided by the Iraqi National Congress (INC).
“F. any intelligence activities relating to Iraq conducted by the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group (PCTEG)”
**2-man committee put Iraq in spotlight
Senate panel probes whether they exaggerated threat**Wednesday, April 28, 2004
…two-man intelligence team…at the Pentagon, searching for…links between terrorist groups and host countries.
…Michael Maloof and David Wurmser, culled classified material, much of it uncorroborated data from the CIA.
…they…constructed a…new picture of global terrorism.
…ethnic, religious and political divides between terrorist groups were breaking down… …alliances among a wide range of Islamic terrorists, …a convergence of Sunni and Shiite extremist groups and secular Arab governments. Their conclusions, delivered to senior Bush administration officials, ***connected Iraq and al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein and the hijackers of Sept. 11. ** *
Unable to reach a consensus on Iraq’s terrorist ties because of the skepticism of the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)…
Al Qaeda seen as not driven by ideology June 05, 2003
A two-person Pentagon intelligence team…found al Qaeda terrorists are not bound by ideology and will cooperate with state sponsors of terrorism.
The finding was disclosed at a briefing by Douglas J. Feith…to dispel what he said were erroneous news reports that the Pentagon sought to skew intelligence to fit policy.
The group also found links between…Hussein and the al Qaeda network, and provided the information to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and CIA Director George J. Tenet.
The Iraq-al Qaeda connection was an “incidental” finding of the group.
Mr. Feith denied a report by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh that the special unit became a “conduit” to the intelligence community for defector reports from the Iraqi National Congress, an anti-Saddam opposition group.
Despite having been presented with the PCTEG’s info, Tenet remains skeptical of a signifigant relationship bewteen aQ and Hussein.
Pease note there was no need for the PCTEG to act as a “conduit” to the “intelligence community” for the INC’s ICP.
Also note that the ICP had direct access to the ears of certain administration officials. Officials: U.S. still paying millions to group that provided false Iraqi intelligence Feb. 21, 2004
…Pentagon…$3 million [to] $4 million this year for the Information Collection Program of the Iraqi National Congress, or INC, led by Ahmed Chalabi…
INC’s Information Collection Program…“designed to collect, analyze and disseminate information” from inside Iraq, according to a letter the group sent… the Senate Appropriations Committee.
The letter…said the information went directly to “U.S. government recipients” who included William Luti, a senior official in Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld’s office, and John Hannah, a top national security aide to Cheney.
…[DIA] has concluded…that defectors turned over by the INC provided little worthwhile information, and that at least one of them…was a fabricator.
…INC-supplied information…[in]…Bush administration’s arguments for war… charges… Saddam was concealing illicit arms stockpiles and was supporting al-Qaida.
“To call all of it (INC intelligence) useless is too negative,” said the defense official…
“We are heroes in error,” [said] Chalabi…“As far as we’re concerned we’ve been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important. The Bush administration is looking for a scapegoat. We’re ready to fall on our swords if he wants.”
I still don’t see what you’re looking for from us, Simon. If all this stuff is true, or at least “well-founded”, why would any honest person not want to know about it?
Are you asking a political question instead - what it would take for all of these unpleasant facts to simply disappear from public sight? I don’t see how that can happen, not in the current environment and not in an election year either.
ElvisL1ves I think **SimonX[/] is looking for some explanation/any explanation for why 9/11 commission is explicitly forbidden from examining this area.
Well, there already is a committee in the works to investigate why our “intelligence failures”. They are moving at the same deliberate pace set by the DoJ’s investigation of the Valerie Plame affair. Word has it that they have already agreed on the number of chairs and a tentative agreement on the shape of the table.
And when will they report? Mustn’t be too hasty, rush into anything. Very comlex issue, must be thoroughly investigated. Maybe in time for Jenna Bush’s Inaugaration.
Then I guess he had better look to the people who are doing the forbidding. I don’t think any of them post to the SDMB.
One of the cites in *Simonx’s last posts refer to 1) a journalist who once was an investigator for Richard Perle in DOD. 2) A guy from the American Enterprise Institute.
Hardly dispassionate and uninterested sources for information as to Al Qaeda-Saddam links.
that’s pretty much my position.
For what good resaons would members of the GOP be opposed to these investigations? From my pov, it looks bad. I’m asking, “What’s the positive way of seeing this?”
I’ve been able to come up with three unpleasant scenarios to explain the hesitancy:
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.
But none of them are particularly flattering.
Apparently, there is a positive way of seeing this delay, reluctance and obfuscation. Attack-Iraq-Bush-Backers surely are aware of these allegations and have a positive way of seeing these things, right?
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)? 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.
No, not at all, actually. This is not the 9-11 commission. Thess are seperate investigation into the Iraq Intel.
From what I’ve seen, the SSCI is the only commmision looking into the use of the Iraq intel. There’re some reports about the SSCI not having subpoena power etc. Yet from what Ive read of the SSCI’s rules of procedure, these powers are available to the SSCI should they decide that they want them. They’ve already, (unanimously), voted to increase the scope of their investigation at least once. I expect that as the second part of their investigation proceeds, they will award themselve fuller powers.
The importance of this committee’s work is that it’s the only official investigation into the use of the Iraq intel.
As I’ve noted elsewhere, the allegations that the Admin thwarted the ability of the governed to give consent to the government by misrepresenting to Congress and the American electorate are very grave. They strike at the heart of American freedom and democracy.
As Senator Kyl of Ariona said: "That charge, if more than just over-the-top bluster, would be close to an allegation of treason – suggesting that the president deliberately put our young men and women in harm’s way for no purpose other than politics."
I’m just looking for someone with the pov where this sort of thing on behalf of the USG is acceptable. Surely someone has a defense for these sorts of things. I mean why else wouldn’t they be concerned about the attempts at hampering this very serious investigation into high crimes against the the American people?
Powell: I’m very concerned. When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully; we looked at the sourcing in the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate. And so I’m deeply disappointed. But I’m also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation, it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community. But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it.
Then
An administration official said the media and the intelligence committee’s emphasis on the information provided by the Chalabi-led INC distorts the scope of what went wrong with U.S. intelligence leading up to the war. The intelligence agencies have combined annual budgets of nearly $40 billion, compared with the $4 million annual budget of the ICP. The ICP used that money only to produce potential intelligence sources, not to guarantee their accuracy and reliability. That was up to their DIA handlers.
VS
Now
INC spokesman Entifadh Qanbar and other INC officials denied that the group knowingly provided defectors of dubious credibility. They insisted that the INC did its utmost to check their identities and reliability before turning them over to U.S. officials.