| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Democrats seek wider probe of pre-war Iraq intel |
| 2005-11-08 |
| Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee want the right to interview top policymakers or speechwriters as part of the inquiry into whether the Bush administration exaggerated or misused intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), the panel's vice chairman, said yesterday. Rockefeller raised the possibility of issuing subpoenas, and outlined a more wide-ranging approach than the one described by Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), who said the work would center on comparing public statements by administration officials to intelligence reports circulating at the time. Rockefeller, Roberts and four other senators are to meet today to work out a schedule and process for the committee's review. "Comparing public statements with what the intelligence community published does not alone tell the story," Rockefeller said in a statement yesterday. "If necessary, we may need to conduct interviews and request supporting documents." Rockefeller warned that "if the committee is denied testimony or documentation, we must be prepared to issue subpoenas." Rockefeller's recommended approach also appears tougher than the one reflected in an agreement he and Roberts reached last year. At that time, they agreed to schedule the "Phase Two" of their inquiry into prewar intelligence, which would include some of the most sensitive issues, including whether the administration mischaracterized intelligence in public. That inquiry would review public statements, reports and testimony by U.S. government officials and determine whether they "were substantiated by intelligence information," according to a committee statement in February 2004. It was to be a relatively simple process, as Roberts described it Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation." "You have the statements over here," he said. "Then you have the intelligence over here. And I want members to roll up their sleeves . . . and say, 'Okay, here's the statement, here's the intelligence. Is it credible?' " Under last year's agreement, it was unclear whether the committee would consider whether there were contradictory or competing intelligence reports circulating at the time public statements were made that could call them into question, or whether the panel would simply check to see whether each statement could be backed up by at least one piece of intelligence. For example, in a Sept. 8, 2002, appearance on CNN, Condoleezza Rice said Iraq was receiving "high-quality aluminum tubes that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs." At the time, there were serious disagreements within the intelligence community over whether those tubes were meant for centrifuges -- which can be used to extract weapons-grade uranium -- or whether they were meant for anti-aircraft rockets, which proved to be the case. If it could be shown that there was at least one intelligence report that substantiated Rice's statement, that might be enough to justify her statement under terms of the panel's earlier agreement. As one senior committee staff member put it, "This study will not punish 'cherry-picking' intelligence, whether by the administration or by Democrats." Under Rockefeller's desired approach, Rice could be interviewed to ask her what intelligence she based her statements on, and whether she was aware of the contrary views. Yesterday, a Senate staff member familiar with Roberts's views said he thinks it may not be necessary to interview anyone. "But if the committee members decide they need to speak to those involved, they can agree to do that," he added. Rockefeller said that several new intelligence items need to be included in the Phase Two review that were not known when the committee released the first phase of its review more than a year ago. That phase centered on the quality of prewar intelligence, not on how the administration presented it publicly. Rockefeller cited the Defense Intelligence Agency's report in 2002 that questioned the reliability of an al Qaeda captive whose information later became the foundation for allegations that Iraq was training Osama bin Laden operatives. Although the analysis of how the administration used intelligence has gotten the most publicity, it is only part of the committee's Phase Two study. Among other things, the panel also will compare prewar assessments on what would happen in postwar Iraq with what has occurred there, and it will examine how information provided by Iraqi defectors and exiles, including Ahmed Chalabi, were incorporated into intelligence analyses. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #10 Phase Two study. Among other things, the panel also will compare prewar assessments on what would happen in postwar Iraq with what has occurred there, and it will examine how information provided by Iraqi defectors and exiles, including Ahmed Chalabi, were incorporated into intelligence analyses. Oh thats rich, the Dems are going to conduct a post-event intelligence fusion analysis. That should keep them occupied for at least 2-3 years. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2005-11-08 16:32 |
| #9 What's weird, I think, was that Schumer had a chance to tow that Bush Lied line, yet he went the other way, stating that Bush believed the intel. I'm sure he did. But "Bush acted in good faith on the best information available [especially in an atmosphere where the NYPost had printed a headline stating Bush Knew]" isn't nearly as pithy as "Bush Lied". Hard to fit on a bumper sticker, too, let alone rhyme. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2005-11-08 16:23 |
| #8 Yo...I gotch yer wider probe right cheer. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2005-11-08 15:10 |
| #7 Democrats seek wider probe of pre-war Iraq intel They've gotta do something; the Plame affair and everything with it seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle for now. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-11-08 14:00 |
| #6 The Dhimis are counting on the âHe Liedâ campaign to somehow propel one of them into the White House and maybe grab a few congressional seats. If Bush gets out in front of this and connects the dots (Democrats and Republican) then their argument will fall apart. He needs to be on offense and not defense. Defense makes you look guilty and I know that isnât the case. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-11-08 12:34 |
| #5 Yeah, I'm guessing that whole "workers of the world unite" message ain't working. Add to that the collectivism BS they're pushing ain't so successful, I guess this is all they've got. |
| Posted by: macofromoc 2005-11-08 11:35 |
| #4 CS They also need to put teeth into purjury under oath as well, pour encourager les autres. |
| Posted by: Elmeremp Flating4974 2005-11-08 11:19 |
| #3 I actually think this is the right method to flesh things out. If Bush or his cabinet misrepresented let it be known. If their claims were supported by intelligence reports (which I strongly suspect) it should put this BS to bed for once and for all. But the Republicans have to be on top of and in front of the story. They need to be seen more and be heard more because Reid and Co. are sucking up a lot of publicity by attacking the administration. They should call him out on it and make him provide proof, when he canât then maybe he will shut up. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-11-08 11:02 |
| #2 This bullshit game needs to end. Almost every last one of these bastards was behind this going in, they knew the facts, now they seem to have unlearned them. Their smelly fat bastard faces need to be rubbing in the facts they were spouting going in with no let up. The Dhimmicraps are so eaten up with BDS that are heading off a cliff. We need to get behind them and push. They are on their last legs as a nationl party. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom 2005-11-08 04:32 |
| #1 There is nothing constructive or positive in the Dhimmidonk agenda - the so-called "phase two". It's merely game-time, again. The gutless turds want to disavow everything they said and did and cover their asses from the shitstorm they're trying to invent creating this witch hunt. The irony is that they were absolutely right to support Afghanistan and Iraq - and dead wrong now. Political advantage is their goal and the bodies of dead Americans who've sacrificed for honorable reasons are dishonored by these cowards using them for a platform for their partisan demagoguery. These cretins are lower than snakes. And they come out after every war. They deserve no quarter. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-11-08 02:21 |