I had planned to have this done yesterday, but unforeseen issues in the real world prevented me from writing up anything substantive on the topic. From what I gather from the various versions of events, the Senate Democrats invoked a closed-session in the Senate to accuse their GOP counterparts of suppressing the second half of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee (SSIC) report on pre-war Iraq intelligence at the behest of the White House (perhaps with a printed copy of this American Prospect article in hand?). As a result, I understand that we are going to get the final report out sometime next week and I will be more than happy to go through it the same way I did the first half.
Here's the thing though: if the final report doesn't say what they want it to say, it won't make a bit of difference as far as public perceptions on the war are concerned.
Since the failure to find WMDs in Iraq, we have had no less than 3 separate inquiries here and in the UK on the topic. They are the the first half of the SSIC report, the WMD committee, and the UK's own Butler report. I believe there have also been lower-level reports on the subject that I have not read, but these are the three biggies. If you're really interested in what the US's pre-war intelligence on Iraq was and how it got to be this way, you need to read these three reports and I don't just mean the list of conclusions at the end of every section.
Once you're done with that, the basic impression that you're left with is that this issue is one of those "everything you think you know is wrong" areas as far as how the issue is framed in the United States, particularly if you compare the findings made in the reports to a lot of the press leaks that surfaced with regard to the influence of the Iraqi National Congress (INC) on pre-war intelligence or whether or not the CIA was pressured into politicizing intelligence. These reports do not paint the administration, the INC, or much anybody else for that matter in the best possible light, nor do they address the issue of whether or not the decision of taking the US to war to begin with was a good idea, but they do serve to debunk many of the more outrageous claims that showed up in the press prior to that point as far as intelligence manipulation and distortion were concerned. If you slog your way through the SSIC and WMD commissions, you will almost certainly find the kernel form of just about every significant public claim made by either the Bush or the Clinton administration.
At the time I went through the first half of the SSIC report, I sarcastically that no doubt some apologies would be forthcoming for all those who have been so vilely slandered over the last several years and even been accused in increasingly respectable anti-war (not the same thing as left-wing or liberal, as a casual reading of the American Conservative will tell you) of manipulating US intelligence at the behest of a foreign government or political party. Of course, no apologies have been issued by anyone and I guarantee that none will be in the event that this second half of the report doesn't say what they want it to. You see, in their fanatical certainty of their own analysis and conclusions (which is rather ironic given how many of them regard individuals such as myself as belonging to the "faith-based" community), the same people who frequently castigate the neocons for what they see as their reliance on groupthink and disregard for facts that go against their conclusions have no problem postulating any number of elaborate conspiracy theories on their own, to the point where most of them still accuse the administration of pressuring the CIA on pre-war intelligence even after over 400 CIA analysts testified before the SSIC that no such pressure had occurred. Now either pressure occurred and over 400 analysts lied to a Congressional committee, in which case we need to fire up the perjury indictments against far more people than just Scooter Libby, or the pressure didn't occur and the claim needs to stop being made. Indeed, it would be interesting to see just how long the crude alliance between the anti-war movement and disaffected elements of the current and former US intelligence officials would hold up if the former took their conspiracies to their logical conclusions and actively went after the latter ...*
In an effort to more or less have their cake and eat it to, the standard retort to pointing out that the SSIC report and the WMD commission sort of demolish a majority of the anti-war talking points (and, whatever one feels about what has happened to Joe Wilson, it isn't any stretch to say that his credibility doesn't look so good after reading the relevant portions on him in the SSIC report), the standard retort, which I first encountered from I believe Josh Marshall, is that all of these reports are "political documents" rather than any kind of relevant investigation because they failed to uncover any active malevolence on the part of the administration towards pre-war intelligence claims. Bringing back wonderful memories of the people who assured me that Ken Starr was some kind of spineless wimp or dupe because he refused to charge Clinton with involvement in the Vince Foster suicide, this again is a case where these people do not want an investigation. They already have the conclusions and simply want the investigation to verify them, to the extent that they will not accept the findings contained in the raw text (as opposed to the appendices, which is another matter entirely) of a report that was, among other things, put together in part by John Edwards, a man who had everything to gain and nothing to lose by exposing the worst acts of duplicity on the part of the administration. Yet he signed off on the raw text of the report, as did Rockefeller, Levin, Durbin, etc. If they thought that there was a conspiracy afoot to suppress the true scope of the administration's deceit or that the text of the report failed to cover it in an adequate manner, they never should have signed off on it to begin with. Note that despite all the current charges of intelligence suppression, none of them have ever rescinded their support of the first half of the report, which is one of the reasons why this strikes me as a situation in which they want to have their cake and eat it too.
Now as for what far too many people hoping to come out of the second half of the report, if you want the clearest expression you need look no further than this line of analysis from the President of the Middle East Studies Association:
A proper Senate investigation offers the tantalizing possibility of a Unified Field Theory of the Iraq War fraud. That is, Feith's Office of Special Plans, Franklin's Pentagon espionage cell on behalf of the Likud Party in Israel, and Libby's campaign against Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame Wilson could all be shown to be inter-related. At the center of the conspiracy were a group of hawks determined to set the United States in motion to fight wars against Iraq, Syria and Iran; for the Neoconservatives among them, these wars would leave the Likud Party free to pursue its expansionist ambitions.
Just wanted to throw that out there. In all seriousness, my guess would be that the Senate Democrats rather desperately want to demonstrate that there was some kind of impropriety as far as how intelligence was handled with regard to Feith's office in the hopes that they can use it as ammunition against Rumsfeld and/or Cheney as far as the general idea that the administration misled or lied to the American people during the run-up to war or adopt the demonstrably fallacious line of argument that Feith's office was responsible for all of the intel that led to the war. A competent administration wouldn't have much in the way of refuting this (as mentioned before, a lot of the research and conclusions that Feith's people did was never advanced by US officials as part of the rationale for war - all of the information for the various public statements can be found in the first half of the SSIC report), but this administration's public relations approach has been nothing short of appauling to the point where even when it wins it loses, as happened in the case of the publication of all of the prior investigations into this issue.
Now I look forward to the publication of the second phase of the investigation, if for no other reason than that I think it'll work to even further demolish a lot of the mythology that has cropped up around Feith's office and serve to formally clear the names of any number of people who have been so easily slandered and villified over the last several years for activities I do not believe they committed. As noted above, I fully look forward to going through it as soon as it becomes available. But I don't expect for a moment that it'll prompt any of those who have made all manner of accusations and charges over the years to apologize - for them, the absence of evidence in any government investigation to confirm their views is in and of itself proof of the conspiracy.
And that, gentlemen, is the difference between a conspiracy and a well-planned conspiracy ...
- Lest anyone presume I myself am postulating a conspiracy, I do not believe that there is any kind of deep alliance or collusion between the anti-war left and disaffected elements within the US intelligence community, in particular the CIA "old guard" that appears to have meddled in domestic politics to a degree that I suspect many people would be seriously worried about were it not that the meddling served their short-term political interests. Nor is this an allegation that the CIA is a nest of liberals or anti-war activists. However, current and former US intelligence officials like Paul Pillar, Pat Lang, Larry Johnson, Ray McGovern, and their fellow travelers did not favor the invasion of Iraq and do not like or trust the current neocons in government, so there is a kind of wierd de facto alliance of convenience that exists between them and some elements of the current anti-war movement, just as there seems to be this wierd convergence between the views of (just to use those on public record) Scheuer, McGovern, and Lang and some of the nuttier aspects of the anti-war movement when it comes to Israel.
"of a report that was, among other things, put together in part by John Edwards, a man who had everything to gain and nothing to lose by exposing the worst acts of duplicity on the part of the administration. Yet he signed off on the raw text of the report, as did Rockefeller, Levin, Durbin, etc. If they thought that there was a conspiracy afoot to suppress the true scope of the administration's deceit or that the text of the report failed to cover it in an adequate manner, they never should have signed off on it to begin with."
NO SHIT.
You got that last part right.
What did Edwards have to gain by proving he was stupid when he believed all that crap about WMDs in Iraq? I guess I still like to think there was some conspiracy because it is hard to believe they are all that stupid. But, Edwards was my senator back then, and I wrote to him and told him that Iraq did not have nukes (per IAEA) and that even if they did have chem or bio WMDs they no way of hurting the USA with them. So, he had at least me telling him. And then there was the majority of the rest of the world (outside the USA) that didn't believe it.... not to mention the remarks by Rice and Powell in early 2001. Amazing how much they changed their positions in 2002, and changed them to being totally wrong.
What a bunch of dupes we have if they really believed all that WMDs crap.
here's what we got:
failure to detect 9/11 plot ahead of time - nobody gets fired (someone gets a medal!)
failure for the most expensive air force in the world to protect us on 9/11 - nobody gets fired
war started on false WMDs claims and false claims to 9/11 - nobody gets fired
"post" war situation is Cheneyed up beyond all recognition - nobody gets fired (someone gets a medal!)
american babies die of dehydration at a major US landmark in a major US city under clear blue skies - nobody gets fired, but someone does resign
major White House staff lies under oath - nobody gets fired, but someone does resign
I guess we are making some progress here, but there really is no accountablity.
So, they were all really dumb, way dumber than me and most of the rest of the world, .... or else they knew there was no WMDs in Iraq and they were using it to start up their optional war for bogus reasons. Which, by God, is worse?
All wars start with lies, and the ones who start them are the ones who are lying.
I do not believe they really are that stupid.
Wow. Susan, what was it like to be at Jonestown? I hear Guyanna is nice this time of year, maybe you could move back, visit the old place, have another glass. At least that way you wouldn't have the burden of guilt you carry now being a citizen of a superpower. People working their will in the world! What kind of foreign policy is that? Way too demanding, that's what! It's like old Jim said "Lie down, go to sleep, and let the world flow around you."
P.S. Always wondered, what flavor was the Kool-Aid? And was it different this time around?
Susan, what do you think is the relationship between the war in Iraq and 9/11?
As far as I can see, the conventional understanding among anti-war people is: Bush came to office already planning to overthrow Saddam; then 9/11 coincidentally just happened; and then it was used (along with WMD hysteria) to facilitate the preexisting agenda of regime change in Iraq.
Meanwhile, the conventional understanding among pro-war people would be something like: the USA already happened to be in a long-standing confrontation with Iraq; then, after 9/11, the risk from Saddam could no longer be tolerated; and so, it was the right thing to remove him, even if the specific belief that he had not completely suspended his WMD programs proved to be wrong. Once again, 9/11 functions as a bolt from the blue.
If people wish to elevate the level of public discourse about the war, I think they would do well to focus on the fact that 9/11 happened at a time when the US was still in a state of war with Iraq. Perhaps the US public had mostly forgotten this, but the Muslim world had not, and the US government had not. That state of affairs was part of the causal context which produced 9/11 and everything that followed, and it would be much healthier if the discussion focused at least in part on different accounts of that causal context, rather than proceeding as if history simply began in 2001.
Susan
You've been drinking the Kool-Aid, haven't you!
1) Various intel groups did uncover components of the 9/11 plot, but no one could put all the pieces together. This is (only) partly because of legal walls erected to prevent FBI & CIA from talking.
2) You seem so cavalier about the idea of shooting down a commercial jet liner. Are you ready to kill civilians so quickly?
3) There is plenty of evidence that Saddam had WMDs (as stated by the UN inspectors and foreign intel services) that have never been accounted for, as well as components of WMD programs. Why do you ignore uranium centrifuges buried in the yard of a scientist who admits they were told to hide the equipment until the Americans left? Or how about the botulism culture found in another scientists refrigerator? Or the ricin lab in Kirma run by Ansar al-Islam?
Bush never said Saddam was tied to 9/11, only that he harbored and cooperated with terrorists (which he did). In fact, the Czechs still stand by their story that Al Qaeda reps met with Saddam's agents in Prague prior to 9/11 and there is other intel on Saddam-A Qaeda links before 9/11.
4) Since when has a war gone according to a script? This is real life, not Hollywood. You would have fired FDR in the early days of WW2 or even Harry Truman in the middle of it! By your standards, D-Day was a disaster and Ike should have been fired.
Why do you ignore the positives: deposing of the Taliban and Saddam, free elections (including women voting)in both Afghanistan and Iraq, new constitutions in both countries, the rebuilding of infrastructure, such as schools, hospitals and civil works, and all the other good things being done?
5) Trying to blame the deaths in New Orleans on the federal government would be laughable, if it were not so tragic. The mayor and governor messed up big time, didn't follow their own emergency plans, froze when decisions had to be made, and then cried for help when it was already too late. Go read New Orleans’s own emergency plan on their website, look at the picture of the immersed buses, then tell me who messed up.
6) Libby has been charged, but not convicted. Don't you believe in innocent until proven guilty or is that only for child molesters and murderers? At a Grand Jury hearing, only the prosecutor presents evidence and the accused has no opportunity to rebut.
No one has been charged with the serious crime of purposely exposing a covert CIA agent because it did not occur (in fact, Plame was no longer overseas nor had she been covert for at least 5 years, both requirements under the law for there to be a crime).
7) Where is the accountability for Clinton and his administration (particularly then UN ambassador Richardson) that made claims of Saddam's WMDs based on much of the same intel Bush had? How about Ted Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards and others who also made similar statements and voted for the war?
And where is Clinton's accountability for refusing to take bin Laden into custody when Sudan offered him up, at least twice? Al Qaeda attacked the US four times under Clinton: '93 WTC bombing, '96 bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi, '98 embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, and '00 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. Clinton lobbed in a few tomahawks, blew up a camel, and called it a day.
How about accountability for Joe Wilson, who lied about: (a) who sent him to Niger (a CIA manager based on the recommendation of his wife, not Cheney); (b) Iraq trying to buy yellowcake uranium in Niger (his own report, as cited by the Senate Intel Committee, stated the former Niger Minister of Mines was approached by Iraqis). His wife was exposed in a Vanity Fair article and his lie about who sent him to Niger created the situation in the first place.
If you can prove, irrefutably, that Saddam destroyed the WMDs that UN inspectors documented and never determined the disposition of (thousands of liters of sarin and VX gases, among other things), as well as why evidence of WND programs (uranium centrifuges, botulism cultures and ricin) are not evidence of WMD programs, then prove the administration knew al this before invading, I will believe there was a conspiracy to go to war on false pretenses.
Oh, and then explain why, if all the U.S. intel was false, why the Brits, French, Germans, Russians, Italians and others also stated that Iraq had WMDs.
If Bush "lied," then everyone, including Clinton and countries who didn't go to war, lied. And with the "oil-for-food" scandal, we know their reasons for not going ot war (had nothing to do with a moral stand).
More Kool-Aid?
Susan -- google is your friend. Elements of the 9/11 Plot, including Mohammed Atta, WERE detected. Google Able Danger and LTC Shaffer, Captain Philpott, others. AJ Strata at http://www.strata-sphere.com/blog/ has as good a roundup as any.
Able Danger was run out of the Army Land Information Warfare Activity in Fort McDill FLA; (LIWA); and Congressman Curt Weldon has documented REAL whistleblower abuse of Shaffer (his security clearance lifted over disputed $69 in cell phone charges, theft of government pens at age 15, and a credit card balance from his time in active service in Afghanistan over $2000). THAT not outing of Plame is REAL harassment of whistleblowers (to prevent him from spilling the beans on Able Danger). The Senate hearing into it was stymied when the Pentagon refused to allow Shaffer to testify.
Using the same technique Amazon.com used to find recommendations for your DVD purchases, LIWA and Able Danger used terabytes of data (a whole lot) of both public and classified nature to draw relationships between known terror cells and mosques and prospective terror cells including Atta (operating out of the well-known Hamburg Mosque) and predicted and warned of the Cole bombing. For it's trouble Able Danger was shut down in the late Summer of 2000; Bush also turned away it's information. Hence the Bush-Clinton joint shutdown of the Able Danger findings (at the time concerns over "spying" shut down Able Danger).
Since the 1970's the Air Force has not patrolled the domestic US skies; the idea that a President would order the shoot-down of an airliner was simply unthinkable, despite both pulp writers (Comic book author Frank Miller of Sin City; and Tom Clancy), Pentagon analysts in 1989, and the failed Bojinka plot of 1996 (9/11 fore-runner, 9/11 architect KSM planned to drop 12 airliners out of the sky with bombs and crash one into Langley, foiled when Philippines police found his laptop with the plans). Did you know that KSM was the uncle of Ramzi Yusef, 1993 WTC bombing organizer, and that Saddam sheltered Abdul Rahman Yassin to the point of a salary, car, and villa? Yassin remains the only 1993 WTC conspirator at large. Or that Saddam's IIS in Kuala Lumpur facilitated and attended a 9/11 meeting (matter of record in the 9/11 Commission Report). Quite simply no one took the threat seriously; Clinton or Bush would have been impeached pre-9/11 for suggesting combat air patrols (hint: time and space apply even to US Airforce) in the US after 1991 and the Soviet's dissolution.
Larry Wilkerson ("secretive cabal of Cheney and Rumsfeld make decisions") said that the idea that State's INR (he ought to know, he was Powell's COS) dissented on WMDs was bull. He states he and everyone else got the same satellite photos where Saddam's men carried away in truck EVERYTHING including the DIRT at inspections sites. And when the UN inspectors were in briefly lo and behold the found forbidden missiles. Likely Saddam's nuke program which we know stretched out from 1975-1991 and encompassed the Osirak reactor and secretive calutrons (obsolete in Oppenheimer's day but they DO work) was outsourced to Libya. If Dell can outsource to India for tech support, so could Saddam to avoid inspections for shared nukes. Unless you think his sustained and costly attempt over 26 years to get nukes (1975-1991) was suddenly shelved because Saddam's a nice guy.
Iraq is a mess. It was a mess under Saddam and worse (ruled by a thin minority over the majority who hated them with blood reasons); it is now better with less killing (you just see the killing on TV unlike Saddam's mass graves) and there are no mass refugess, environmental destruction, mass killing on the millions, and a regional war with Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Saudi all in active combat in Iraq. Predictions made btw by the anti-War crowd. Under US leadership Iraq has a chance to be more stable and better than under Saddam (I realize most lefties love their "trains run on time" people).
As a former New Orleans resident I can say that the ENTIRE blame for Katrina rests with Blanco and Nagin; Blanco getting the blame for keeping the Red Cross and Salvation Army out for a week out of PC fears of the thug element in New Orleans. Nagin failed to get the poor out for the same fears (bus drivers flatly refused to go there; and these are the working class black folks of Lower 9th Ward who know sadly the nasty parts of Mid-City and Upper Ninth all too well). Believe me I've driven past a boy of 14 stripped of his shoes on Magazine in UPTOWN after he was shot and killed for his bike. You have no idea what you're talking about. Unless you want Bush running every city by decree ala Saddam and Baghdad. [OT: WHY does the left love their tyrants so?]
Did Libby lie under oath? Maybe. So did Martha, but I wouldn't bank on Fitzmas just yet. Libby vs. Russert? Yeah right.
Post 9/11 you have a choice: appease ala the French, or the Danes, or the Netherlands ... and get riots in Denmark, Netherlands, and France with Muslims proclaiming that the land belongs to them and is ruled by Sharia (France has had 7 consecutive days of riotiing; Denmark now 6). Plus attack after attack, as Spain doing what bin Laden demanded found out. Or you can fight. Once Saddam picked a fight with the US over WMDs and tried to make Bush back down as he did with Clinton through the usual bribes (half of the French cabinet and business community, the Russians, the anti-War movement in the UK including Galloway, probably most of the Anti-War movement in the US) the result was going to be clear. The US would be shown once again a paper tiger that could be attacked with impunity (bin Laden's argument) or people in regimes would fear us, and our actions, if they moved too far with bin Laden.
Iraq and Saddam's fate is probably the ONLY reason the Iranians have not nuked us already. Very likely they already have some (hence A's threats to nuke Israel off the map) plus of course the missiles to get them there (and Italy, Greece, Turkey, the Balkans, and many other places, Shahab 2 has an 1800 mile range). Saddam pulled from his spider hole and his fate has likely given the Iranians a temporary pause and is most likely the ONLY reason LA is not already a smoking hole in the ground (it's the largest center for Iranian exiles opposed to the regime in the US).
All of this is for the best in the long run.
The anti-war side has said all that they have to say (every bad thing they can think of, which is a lot) and they have nowhere to go from here. The rhetoric and the incessant one-note WMD drumbeat has gotten so out of hand that they can no longer be proven "right" about anything, since nothing can turn out to be as bad as they claim.
Here's what they have gotten for their anti-war efforts, thus far:
- No end to the war, of course. That would almost ruin everything for them.
- The elevation of the most self-destructive people imaginable, from Howard Dean to Cindy Sheehan. Can't live with them, can't live without them.
- A severe case of cooties from being in bed with all the worst right-wing elements in the country, who are increasingly indistinguishable from the worst left-wing elements. (What the f--k are Gore Vidal and Norman Mailer supposed to be, anyway?)
- And a serious dose of the anti-Semitic clap, too.
- Lots of money. The bad news is that all of it belongs to one guy, and therefore everybody pretty much belongs to him.
- Duncan Black.
- A foreign policy worldview that stops just short of the Symbionese Liberation Army, and which will provide endless hours of fun and entertainment for everybody except for the Democrats running for office with these people on their backs.
May I respectfully advise that feeding the trolls just keeps them coming back?
Anyway, this crystallized something that I've been pondering on for a while: given that disaffected CIA and former CIA officers, and disaffected State Department and former State Department officers, appear to be waging a near-public war on the administration, in an attempt to bring down the administration through selective leaking, poor performance, whisper campaigns and outright propaganda; and given how ineffective this campaign has been; can we trust the CIA and State Department to do their jobs overseas? If they are incapable of influencing our own government, that they know best, how can we rely on them to influence foreign governments in our favor?
And if we cannot rely on them, how can we reform them so that we will be able to rely on them? Is it a matter of eliminating civil service rules, purging existing bad employees, or something more deeply structural?
I sense real jeapordy for the Democrats here. A number of key Democrats with national recognition and potential Presidential ambitions (Clinton, Biden, Kerry . . .), supported the war and have refused to renounce it. I think they believe (rightly) that while the MSM likes to play up the war versus anti-war issue, the tables can easily turn as the MSM chaces another set of intrigues.
There is a reason the Senate GOP has been stalling about delivering the 2nd half of the SSIC. Most likely it pertains to Feith's office and/or Cheney and Scooter's shenanigans
Regarding the 1st half of the SSIC and the CIA in particular, I don't see any conspiracy there, just a clear pattern of lies and deceptions served up to the public by top members of the Administration. As Yglesias said, "Nothing about the job genuinely requires subpoenas or the use of the Intelligence Committee's TEMPEST Shield. You need some hard-working interns, Nexis, and Google."
Hey Susan how short your memory is:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
I guess all of those “LIARS” were just dupes who bought into the conventional wisdom that Iraq was indeed working on and pursuing WMD’s. Lets continue to ignore that it was the general consensus of the French, British, German, and many other national intelligence agencies that Saddam had failed to properly prove that he had destroyed his unaccounted for WMD stockpiles, and that he was still working on WMD programs under the noses of UNSCOM investigators. But of course the conventional wisdom of the worlds security agencies are not to be trusted because the all powerful George Bush has a mind control ray that makes them say what he wants/
It's amazingly convent that so many people ignore that regime change in Iraq was official US policy started back in 1998 by Boy Clinton, who by chance just happened to launch numerous attacks on Iraq (albeit impotent ones) over its WMD programs and its failure to account for the destruction of known WMD stockpiles.
Of course the anti-war left seems to think that the only reason we invaded Iraq was because of WMD's, anyone with a basic level of reading comprehension knows this to be false. Now it is partly true that the Administration (to their detriment) made WMD's one of the primary reasons for the invasion, but it wasn't the only one as the leftists would have us believe.
But never mind, people like you will always have the ability to “speak truth to power” and thrust your fist in the air with righteous indignation at knowing that you of course know better than everyone else and that only if that warmonger Bush-Hitler had been tried and executed for war-crimes that the world would just be a happy place. All the while ignoring the multiple positive events that have occurred as a result of removing a terrorist supporting dictator from power.
A couple of things:
Everyone stop using the Republican party talking points(drinking Kool-aid) about the investigation about leaking CIA agents. One, the CIA could not go to the Justice Department(JD) and AG and ask for a investigation about the release of an agents name unless they PROVED to the AG and JD the agent was what they claimed. If the CIA could not prove it, even if the CIA did it for nefarious reasons, why would the AG and JD authorize an investigation?
Two, the case has only come as far as it has because to use the baseball analogy "sand was thrown into the umpires(Fitzgerald)eyes". Rove is still under investigation according to his own lawyer. The prosecutor can go to any federal grand jury and bring charges(his own words). He has not concluded his investigation.
Three, here is Buckley from the NRO telling you how serious it is to out an Agent. Remember when reading this we are at WAR:
http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200511011324.asp
This was rat bastard activity and worked against the effort in Iraq.
As to everyone wringing their hands over WMD's. The issue is hanging on the info regarding nuclear weapons. Steven Hadley took responsiblity for disputed information reaching the President and the State of the Union Speech. No one disputes that Saddam would reconstitute his arms programs whether or not there were sanctions.(Sanction arguments hang on how successful they are).
For everyone whom now feels duped into the war because the nukes weren't there are having buyers remorse. Tough S@#$. We are there now and have to do better than we have.
If you want to have a real debate about Iraq it has to be about going forward. I think everyone here has seen good ideas turn into dross because we shot ourselves in the foot. The dismissal of Shinsehski(Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) warning about the number of troops necessary to hold and secure ground versus taking it comes immediately to mind. So let's go forward.
SAO:
The National Journal article is attributed to anonymous sources, we'll see what the second phase of the report actually says.
As far as the first half of the SSIC report goes, have you read it? It addresses the basis for most of the statements on the Waxman website you linked. Being wrong is not the same thing as being deceptive.
Robert M:
I only barely mentioned Joe Wilson, a brief remark with respect to the fact that he doesn't come off terribly well in the SSIC report.
Being wrong is not the same thing as being deceptive.
Certainly, but being wrong on purpose is lying. Plain and simple.
And before you get too secure in your conclusions about SSIC 1, you might want to read this tapped article
SAO:
Here again, more than 400 analysts were questioned by an SSIC that included such Republican heavy weights as Rockefeller, Durbin, and Edwards, the latter being a man who was actively running as the Democratic nominee for president. If you don't think that they wouldn't have raised hell had any of those analysts testified "yes" to the issue of political pressure in an election year in which one of their key themes was the idea that the administration actively misled the American public, you're dreaming.
The Prospect article you cited more or less confirms my earlier assertion that the CIA ("it is ironic that since 9-11, the CIA has emerged as a bastion of opposition to George W. Bush’s imperial foreign policy") is now stepping well outside the bounds of its mandate and engaging in policy issues. If you want to argue that this is a good thing because this administration is so abysmally bad, you may want to step back and think long and hard about whether you would want the military engaging in much the same activities with regard to a president whose policies the army brass and the officer corps decided they didn't like.
So within the context of this admission that the CIA now views it as appropriate to engage in domestic politics, we get quotes from Pat Lang and Richard Kerr that pressure was used against analysts with the implication being that they declined to admit that fact before the relevant oversight channels (SSIC and WMD commissions) and instead decided to take matters into their own hands to settle accounts with the administration. The term "rogue agency" here again comes to mind and here again my analogy as far as the potential consequences of what would happen if the military acted the same way would seem to be relevant. Under those circumstances, I think that sending in Goss to make it damned clear to the CIA that they serve at the pleasure of executive branch and do not have the right to get involved in domestic politics whenever it catches their fancy regardless of the expertise involved is entirely appropriate. The alternative is to have an institution of government that believes that they are exempt from control of the executive or legislative branches of government with the right to exercise a de facto veto on matters of foreign policy whenever they disagree with a set course of action.
Anybody want to start calling for that one? If so, anybody want to do the same with the army?
Stating that the CIA exhibited some sort of "de facto veto" over policy is a bit of an overstatement. We're talking about early retirements, unwillingness, and leaks to the press. Unless of course you believe that leaking the truth would lead to a de facto (public) veto of Bush policy-- in which case I wholeheartedly agree.
You also exagerated the number of analysts who were questioned about poltical pressure (not all 400+ of the Iraq task force) and falsely implied they were unanimous-- they weren't.
Presonally I'm inclined to believe Kerr's internal report (claiming there was pressure) before SSIC 1 (suprise!), for the most part because Cheney et al were so obviously motivated to exagerate and lie about the existing intel (whether it was cooked, pressured, or raw). I have a hard time believing Cheney-- who went to great length in setting up Feith's special stovepipe-- would not put pressure on the CIA. From his standpoint, it makes no sense. It's all also keenly reminiscient of the 1980's neo-con intel manipulations.
That said, I don't think all of this cooking, pressure, and lies was really needed. I think a majority of the American public, post 9.11, would have favored removing Saddam. Not because of some phony imminent threat, but because he was a bad guy. Before 9.11 Clinton came close to a full-scale invasion and might have if he hadn't been so embroiled in shite and otherwise poll-driven. I would have supported the war if the policy had been closer to that argued in The Threatening Storm.
Here's the author of "The Threatening Storm" in last year's Atlantic Monthly:
Except Susan, that is.
I would have supported the war if the policy had been closer to that argued in The Threatening Storm.
I'm curious what this means. My recollection is that Pollack would have probably used more troops and ignored the UN. its been awhile though.
But what I find really interesting, SAO, is that you are willing to spend a lot of time debating whether or not someone lied or pressured someone on matters that appear irrelevant to your own decision on the war and which you believe would be largely irrelevant to the public at large. Isn't this a form of trap where you are spending a lot of time and energy on the gotcha-game instead of the policies that would win the war. More importantly, isn't this the trap the Democrats are in?
SAO:
Disaffected elements of the CIA (I don't view the entire Agency as some kind of monolithic bloc and think that it's foolish to do so) making concerted effort to influence domestic policy by leaking dissenting opinions and/or putting forth their own view of how foreign policy should be conducted in direct opposition to that of the executive branch is a very nasty business, especially since even if everything they said were 100% gospel they choose to do that rather than going through official channels like the SSIC. If a group of military officers did that, they'd be summarily cashiered on the basis of civilian control of the military regardless of the veracity of their claims and the same applies here.
I'm not saying that the CIA is exercising a de facto veto on foreign policy but rather that this is what you end up with if you institutionalize this practice as a valid one. It gets even nastier when you start applying that principle outwards towards dealing with similar institutions like the military.
As far as the SSIC report goes, if you need p. 273 you'll see that not one analyst answered yes when questioned as to whether or not they were pressured to alter their assessments or that they altered them with response to pressure. They also discuss the activities of Kerr's team at some length on p. 275. The INR analyst discussed on p. 277-279 felt pressured on issues relating to Cuba, not Iraq, while the former INR Office Director discussed on p. 279-280 had no direct knowledge of the 2002 NIE on Iraq and seems to have more or less accused the administration of living in a bubble on intelligence (again, citing the issue of Cuba), the DIA senior analyst said there was no pressure but had personal conflicts with the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the DIA senior officer mentioned on p. 282 stated there was no pressure or alteration to intel assessments, and Karen Kwiatkowski is addressed at some length on p. 282-283, but here again she had no direct knowledge of what went on with respect to Iraq. Pressure relating to the issue of Iraq/al-Qaeda is discussed on p. 359.
The issue of politicization of intelligence on Iraq/al-Qaeda came up as an internal CIA dispute after Murky was published because Pillar's people NESA said it didn't reflect their views, as recounted on p. 359-361. The role of Feith's people and their interaction with the CIA is recounted on p. 361-363 and make it clear that they weren't doing anything that was either wrong or unreasonable.
As I said before, all of the Democrats on the SSIC signed off on this report. If there was any evidence that there had been pressure or distortion, wouldn't they have seized upon it, especially in an election year? You make the remark that it makes no sense for Cheney not to have lied or distorted intelligence, to which I'll raise you that if the evidence was as clear as you believe it is then it makes no sense for a man who actively sought to remove the Bush administration from office by any means necessary not to have stressed that as much as possible. None of the Democrats who signed off on the SSIC have recanted their support of the document, which is one of the reasons why it seems to me that they want to have their cake and eat it too on this one.
but but sy hersh said they were "stovepiping" didn't you get the memo? /rolleyes
You have to remember that pretty large segment of the populace palces far more weight to what comes across the nigthly news, than what policy wonks, think tanks, and recognized experts have to say. If only those in the know had their own teleprompters.
Robert M: I've heard and seen this line on the CIA requirement to prove Plame's covert status in order to get Justice to begin an investigation, but I've never seen it proven. Could you provide the statute or specific procedure which Justice would consult to learn this "obvious" fact?
If it seems implausible to accept that her status doesn't have to be proved at the moment of referral consider that when you begin a criminal investigation you are beginning the process of establishing the facts. If in the course of that process you find someone has lied or obstructed the investigation, you charge them for that, whether the investigation produces evidence of other criminal behaviour or not. Even if in the course of the investigation you discover facts that reveal there is no statute which has been violated and the original charge was bogus.
As to Fitzgerald's analogy to baseball, I think it can be read as supporting my scenario just as easily as yours. His priority is his case (the indictment handed down) and he wouldn't say anything that would help the defense to minimize the charges against Libby. Fitz can feel Libby deliberatly lied and obstructed and that that deserves prosecution without thinking any other crime has been commited. But he certainly isn't going to help the defense by saying on national television that the underlying charge couldn't be proved. Or even that it never should have been made in the first place.
There is but one thing left to account for and that is why CIA would make the referral without Plame being covert. I'll admit it seems strange. But consider that the CIA knew that Plame had been in the US for five years and couldn't be considered eligible for the protection of that statute. More than this the CIA knew that she drove to CIA headquarters in Langley everyday for work. How is that person considered covert? Even more damning is the fact that the CIA itself leaked the news of the investigation to the media as a PR hit on the White House. If the suggestion of wrong doing were sincere why would the CIA further jepordize it's staff and assets and create the possibility of more damage to Plame's "network of operatives around the world" by dumping this news on to the world stage?
So the idea that the whole thing is a PR hit job is more plausible than it would first seem. They've leaked classified info on secret prisons, secret planes, secret investigations of abuse, they've run a broad and deep disinformation campaign as regards Iraq policy. Why wouldn't they make a baseless accusation against the White House and then leak it to further damage America's ability to pursue it's current foriegn policy by underming the Executive Office.
They certainly fooled you, and you seem a reasonably smart guy. How much easier has it been to fool a willing Press and a disinterested nation?
This was the position taken in the book, but as war loomed, Pollack adopted as stance supporting immediate invasion, or closer to that of the administration and other liberal-hawks.
If public opinion had been with him, I believe Bill Clinton would have invaded in 1998. I also believe he would have been able to take NATO with him in force, and the UN shortly afterwards. The same could have been an option if Bush and Cheney had bothered to attempt it
Dan,
Read the Democrat addendums, yet?
SAO:
Read the Republican ones?
In all seriousness, there's a lot of material thrown back and forth in both appendices. Since those conclusions aren't going to be accepted by 20-50% of the population for reasons of ideological tribalism, I focus on what everybody agreed on contained in the plain text of the report.
To Robert M,
The "Kool-Aid" references are from Bill O'Reilly, not Republican talking points.
As soon as the investigation was underway, every newscaster and pundit I saw discussed the issue of Plame's status (i.e. whether she still counted as a covert agent because she had not been covert or overseas for over 5 years).
Therefore it does not seem that the CIA had to "prove" anything to Justice for them to investigate, merely to make the allegation. Remember too, that Wilson and the Dems were making a big stink publicly, almost forcing Justice to investigate with or without a referral from the CIA.
In fact, Fitzgerald should have ended the investigation as soon as it was determined Plame was not covered by the law under which the investigation was initiated. In criminal proceedings, police and prosecutors have very limited powers to indict for other crimes discovered while pursuing a case on a specific charge (the way the liberals want it).
In this case, the entire investigation should be thrown out because there was no crime to investigate. Plame was not a covert agent overseas and therefore naming her could not possibly violate the law (which was promulgated in relation to a specific case of an ex-CIA agent or informant naming covert CIA agents and blowing their covers in the 60s or 70s).
Pollack's proposal in Threatening Storm:
Work out a valid peace proposal in the Middle East (i.e. make another generous offer to the Pallies, like Barak did, but this time make the terms open)
I think this is a bit overstated. Pollack had minimalist expectations for the peace process (pp. 354-55); he simply believed the Gulf States would be reluctant to allow us to invade from their territory if weekly Israeli/Palestinian violence agitated the Arab Street. I don't see how Bush's Roadmap to Peace would not have met Pollack's minimal requirements and in any event, access was given.
Move more troops into and stabalize Afghanistan
I don't recall this, but I readily concede that he would not have been "cheap" on force deployment.
Concentrate on putting pressure on "neutral" states like Pakistan to crack down on their militants and extremists
Don't recall this either and don't know that we weren't doing this.
Wait a couple of years Then, build a coalition similiar to Desert Storm and invade Iraq
First, Pollack repeatedly said "sooner rather than later" throughout the book. See title of the book. See 1938 Europe analogy. If he said a couple of years, I bet it was preceded by "up to."
Second, Pollack believed going to the UN to form a Desert Storm coalition would backfire because the main culprits (Russia, France and China) would see such a move as a sign of weakness, encouraging them to oppose the invasion. Instead, he would have focussed on Gulf and Turkish (oops!) support, building support from there. While building a broader coalition was a goal, he clearly was willing to rely on the support of Turkey and the Gulf States.
I count three significant differences: (1) not enough troops in the Middle East (Pollack meet Kristol), (2) failure to obtain support of Turkey (thanks Powell), and (3) Bush should never have gone to the UN (and Pollack was going to be in the Kerry administration?).
Mike
Stop w/ the Clintonian parsing. You, pundits and whomever can speculate on the law till hell freezes over but none are aware of what the CIA says. It is logical to assume in order for the AG and the JD to empanel a Grand Jury over a violation of the law they have to have a basis , i.e. someone is an agent under the law. In a political environment like this do you really believe the JD and AG would approve an investigation without an underlying legal basis for it?
Worse, you are ignoring Fitzgerald's press briefing where he state the investigation is still on going. Stop already with the KOOL-AID and get the sand out of your eyes.
Better speculation would be did the CIA lied about her status?
Read William Buckley's piece, then you will understand what is at stake. Libby and others in the White House outed a CIA agent during a time of WAR. That is rat bastard behavior.
Amother view of what it means to rat out a CIA officer:http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005_10_09_firedoglake_archive.html#112908992734723006