Apparently, these latest “terms of reference” fell under the category of “other issues we mutually identify.”
I contend the unanimous agreement achieved by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that these new terms of reference deserved to be specifically considered in the report is easy to understand given the many rumors floating around regarding items C, E, F and G.
It’s a worthwhile benefit if the ill-formed and unfounded among these rumors were laid to rest.
This committee will examine the controversial areas (intentionally?) not covered by the PotUS’s commission, (namely items C, E, F and G).
Given these two current threads [1], [2], the incredible number of dead and semi-conscious threads and the teeming thousands of SDMBGD posts re the recent United States foreign military venture in Iraq, this upcoming report deserves the robust attention of GD Dopers, (and the American electorate). How much weight should this committee’s report be given?
ps
If anyone knows that the PotUS’s commission actually is going to look into any of these items please post here.
With regard to what? Deciding if the President knew what he was talking about? There’s been plenty of publicly revealed information on that. The answer to your question depends on many factors.
Who is on the committee? Who is doing the actual information gathering?
What are their records on conducting this type of assessment, and how reliable have their results beenin the past?
Are influential people on the committee beholden to one or another particular conclusion, regardless of the information collected?
One would liek to think that given the weight of the issues and responsibility of the Senate to get it done right, doesn’t mean that it will be.
As a part of the United States Government, a presidential admin’s gathering, use and dissemination of intelligence falls under the jurisdiction of this committee which is specifically charged to “oversee and make continuing studies of the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government.”
The most serious and important obligation and duty of the SSIC is to “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.”
Clearly, the Bush Admin’s gathering, use and dissemination of the various intelligences it acquired re the “Iraq situation”, (WMD; al Qaeda; Hussein’s undeterrability; poison-spraying, flying, Iraqi robots attacking the US; etc), is subject, at the least, to the oversight and continuing study of the SSIC.
Given the quality, quantity(.pdf)** and variety of legitimate concerns of the American electorate re the gathering, use and dissemination of these intelligences by the Bush Admin, the SSIC is bound “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.”
The American electorate is rightfully due such assurances.**
Can the SSIC deliver meaningful assurances?
Will it?
Republicans in the senate are definitely circling the wagons in an effort to protect the president: GOP’s Iraq ambush
With this sort of atmosphere, there’s virtually no chance that the public will get any explanation of the chain of screwups and deceptions that got us into this damn fool war.
I wish that the various GOP Senators had the guts to settle these things out in the open.
Rush Limbaugh has a saying about things that run from the light of day, things that people want hidden fromthe light of day.
I love the whole gig that’s been going on lately with the “not-lying.” Both “Pentagon officials” and the anonymous “defence official,” (presumably Britspeak for a defense dept official), deny charges that haven’t been made and they both affirm, in part, the charges that have been made. Then there’s Feith’s admission that the “discovery” of the “linkages between Iraq and al Qaeda” came out of these efforts. Is the use of the word Iraq opposed to Hussein or Baathi intentional? If so then maybe Feith’s discussing Asnar al-Islam. In any case, this discovery is part of the problem. Feith’s just placing the blame.
The charge is that they “cherry picked” the intel from raw reports sometimes w/o regard to the outcomes of the vetting processes. And used these selectively excerpted bits to craft and exaggerated vision to motivate the nation toward war. While it may not have been what I would call “prudent,” it certainly was both “policy planning based on intelligence that’s produced and shared throughout the federal government,”(with a few exceptions for mystic revelations of utmost certitude received by various Bush Admin members), and a “fresh perspective to data gathered by the intelligence community.”
Even the sources provided by the Iraqi National Congress, ( and other non-impartial international groups ), by way of the OSP were relatively known commodities to the intelligence community. Some were already known as liars and thieves.
And these two sisters have a maiden aunt called the White House Iraq Group.
Just shows how little accountability politicians have for the decisions they make. How often do govenrment enquiries place any significant blame at the door of politicians? I’m certainly struggling to think of any.
Your age, or perhaps rather your lack thereof could be showing here.
Blame is often laid. Usually frivolously, but sometimes very seriously. What seems to be lacking in the US is the consequences of the blame being laid. Try Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger for instance. Bush I pardoned Weinberger before anything nasty could be done to him over the Iran-Contra stuff.
Expect to see Bush II pardon Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle very soon. Also expect the term “plausible deniability” to be bandied about.
Ta for that. More to do with the fact I’m from the UK than my age.
I think the problem is very few politicians are going to vote in measures that increase their accountability. And I don’t see a mainstream party being brave enough to try to push this as an election issue. Wonder what would happen if the press were to kick up a fuss about this?
Does anyone else find the notion of a Presidential pardon somewhat outdated?
He wouldn’t dare. Besides, everything was done right out in the open, they didn’t think they were lying, they convinced themselves and each other that they were acting in the best interests of thier nation. I’m not pissed at them for being villainous scoundrels, I’m pissed at them for being stupid and arrogant!
Let the whole crew follow Mr. Perle out the door so they can write crisp and vociferous policy statements for rightard think tanks. Just get their hands off the levers of power, so that thier cupidity and self-righteous bluster won’t cost any more lives.
These men crave, more than anything else, to be taken seriously. Remove that, and they shrivel like a worm on a griddle. Good.
Didn’t Clinton dish out a load of presidential pardons just before he left the White House? Is there anything to stop Bush doing the same if he loses the election?
I don’t know much about the presidential pardon, what controls are there on it and is it subject to review? Other than, say, the political fallout of pardoning an obvious crook.
Oh, heck, the criminal statutes aren’t the worry, that’s not what clenches thier sphincters. If the Dems, if God shall cease to avert His eyes, sweep into control of the Congress and the Executive, that means that all those investigatory committees will be under New Management. That could mean things like testifying under oath without the benefit of a discreet and circumspect Committee Chairman who can be relied upon to keep the questions within polite boundaries.
Pry the lid of those various and sundry cans o’ worms and the neo-con Rightards will be run out of town on a rail. Needless to say, to my immeasurable glee.
I hold Bush in extremely low regard, and I think the Iraq war was a tremendous mistake, but that film is about as objective and insightful as a Michael Moore film or a Rush Limbaugh rant.
What do you suppose it would take to puncture the veneer of plausible deniability?
I maen how many times re one set of issues can someone rely on plausible deniability?
Doesn’t it wear out at some point? luci,
You really think that they “meant well”?
quix,
Thank you. You are too kind. I’ll try provide content worthy of review.
I expect that this one will be another only a few attack-Iraq Bush-backers participate much. Neither Rush nor the my GOP have provided many talking points re these issues for the consumption and use of the general public.
There’re some independent minded ones who may be willing to brave the waters on their own. I look forward to whatever they may have to contribute.
Nothing’d please me more than to be horribly and egregiously wrong about the Bush Admin, (at least very few things would please me more). I keep hoping that I’m woefully misled in my assessments.
Someone will correct me if I’m wrong but I think outgoing presidents always issue a load of pardons before they leave. It’s a tradition or an old charter or something.
Clinton’s pardons did, I recall, raise some controversy because he pardoned some buddy of Hilary’s but the actual act of issuing pardons isn’t out of the ordinary.
Ah, I only heard about the controversy, I didn’t realise it was mainly a tradition. Seems a strange one to me, if you are given a pardon I’d have thought the implication was that you’d done something wrong in the first place. Does a presidential pardon not normally have any stigma attached to it then?