Senators Never Write to the Post Standard
The following is an excerpt from a letter written to the New York Times by Senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee:
Okay, let's pretend for a moment that Senator Roberts is being honest here. He's not, but let's not jump ahead. Even if this portrayal is accurate, how does the responsibility for 'flawed tradecraft and sloppy analysis' not fall squarely on the shoulders of the administration? If the administration received faulty intelligence information from its agents, then the administration is responsible for the agents and, by extension, the faulty information. Remember the famous sign on the President's desk that said "The Buck Stops Here?" It seems it has been replaced with a sign that reads "The Buck Better Never Make It This Far." It is embarrassing that the administration refuses to take any responsibility for the events that led to the Iraq invasion, and that, evidently, Senators are willing to let them off the hook this easily.
That said, Senator Roberts isn't just shifting blame, but he himself is guilty of exactly what he's claiming the President didn't do: manipulating evidence. Yes, the N.I.E. contained some claims that Baghdad likely possessed chemical and biological weapons. It also, however, downplayed the danger of Iraq's nuclear program, in general and in regards to certain specific details. Confiscated tubes that were supposedly meant for uranium enrichment where proven to be useless for that procedure. A reported deal between Iraq and Nigeria for yellowcake uranium was debunked and the rumors called 'dubious.' While some contact between low-level officials in Iraq and al Quaida had been observed, the report made clear that there was no evidence to support organized, high-level cooperation between the Hussein regime and al Quaida. The N.I.E. also stated that inspections were successful in containing the threat of Iraq and would continue to be effective if allowed to go on. After the administration had this account, Americans were told that Saddam had implemented an effective nuclear program, that he had ties to al Quaida and would supply them with nuclear weapons, that inspections were ineffective, and that the smoking gun could be a 'mushroom cloud.' The portions of the report that didn't support these claims was kept quiet and left unmentioned, much as they were in Senator Robert's letter. One quote, taken out of context, is supposed to support the Senator's sweeping claims, much as carefully chosen pieces of intelligence were used to paint Iraq's nuclear capacity in broad, ultimately inaccurate strokes.
Even more troubling is the blanket claim that "There is no evidence that the White House manipulated intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime." This only a few days after documents were made public that showed Lewis Libby testified to the President himself authorizing the leak of sensitive, carefully selected N.I.E. information to counter the influence of Joe Wilson, who was (quite accurately, it turns out) publicly downplaying the danger of an Iraq nuclear threat. Did you catch that? There is court documentation ('evidence') that President George W. Bush ('the White House') ordered the surreptitious leaking of carefully selected excerpts from ('manipulated') the N.I.E. ('intelligence') to discredit with faulty logic Joe Wilson's reports, which claimed that the risk of an Iraqi nuclear program were little to none ('exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime'). This is on the court record. The only way evidence would need to get any stronger than this to warrant serious senate inquiry would be if the senate committees were run by weak-willed puppets of the administration...
Oh. Yeah.
There is no evidence that the White House manipulated intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime. The Senate Intelligence Committee pointed out in its 511-page report, which 17 Democrats and Republicans unanimously approved, that the intelligence assessments in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were very declarative.
For instance, the N.I.E. said, "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons." Such forward-leaning assessments were prevalent in the N.I.E. Only later, through the committee's review, did we learn that these assessments were not supported by the underlying intelligence and were the result of flawed tradecraft and sloppy analysis.
Okay, let's pretend for a moment that Senator Roberts is being honest here. He's not, but let's not jump ahead. Even if this portrayal is accurate, how does the responsibility for 'flawed tradecraft and sloppy analysis' not fall squarely on the shoulders of the administration? If the administration received faulty intelligence information from its agents, then the administration is responsible for the agents and, by extension, the faulty information. Remember the famous sign on the President's desk that said "The Buck Stops Here?" It seems it has been replaced with a sign that reads "The Buck Better Never Make It This Far." It is embarrassing that the administration refuses to take any responsibility for the events that led to the Iraq invasion, and that, evidently, Senators are willing to let them off the hook this easily.
That said, Senator Roberts isn't just shifting blame, but he himself is guilty of exactly what he's claiming the President didn't do: manipulating evidence. Yes, the N.I.E. contained some claims that Baghdad likely possessed chemical and biological weapons. It also, however, downplayed the danger of Iraq's nuclear program, in general and in regards to certain specific details. Confiscated tubes that were supposedly meant for uranium enrichment where proven to be useless for that procedure. A reported deal between Iraq and Nigeria for yellowcake uranium was debunked and the rumors called 'dubious.' While some contact between low-level officials in Iraq and al Quaida had been observed, the report made clear that there was no evidence to support organized, high-level cooperation between the Hussein regime and al Quaida. The N.I.E. also stated that inspections were successful in containing the threat of Iraq and would continue to be effective if allowed to go on. After the administration had this account, Americans were told that Saddam had implemented an effective nuclear program, that he had ties to al Quaida and would supply them with nuclear weapons, that inspections were ineffective, and that the smoking gun could be a 'mushroom cloud.' The portions of the report that didn't support these claims was kept quiet and left unmentioned, much as they were in Senator Robert's letter. One quote, taken out of context, is supposed to support the Senator's sweeping claims, much as carefully chosen pieces of intelligence were used to paint Iraq's nuclear capacity in broad, ultimately inaccurate strokes.
Even more troubling is the blanket claim that "There is no evidence that the White House manipulated intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime." This only a few days after documents were made public that showed Lewis Libby testified to the President himself authorizing the leak of sensitive, carefully selected N.I.E. information to counter the influence of Joe Wilson, who was (quite accurately, it turns out) publicly downplaying the danger of an Iraq nuclear threat. Did you catch that? There is court documentation ('evidence') that President George W. Bush ('the White House') ordered the surreptitious leaking of carefully selected excerpts from ('manipulated') the N.I.E. ('intelligence') to discredit with faulty logic Joe Wilson's reports, which claimed that the risk of an Iraqi nuclear program were little to none ('exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime'). This is on the court record. The only way evidence would need to get any stronger than this to warrant serious senate inquiry would be if the senate committees were run by weak-willed puppets of the administration...
Oh. Yeah.
posted by Zafrod at 12:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home