Politics > Politics-USA > "We owe the American people a full and honest accountability of the intelligence"
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Black Elk" |
| Date: |
13 Nov 2005 02:39:26 PM |
| Object: |
"We owe the American people a full and honest accountability of the intelligence" |
Inquiry reopening debate about run-up to war
By Philip Dine
POST-DISPATCH WASHINGTON BUREAU
Saturday, Nov. 12 2005
WASHINGTON
Partisan wrangling over how the Senate should investigate the
administration's
use of prewar intelligence about Iraq is about far more than politics - it
reflects major differences over the evidence itself.
As a result, any effort to objectively examine whether the White House
misled
the country into war faces huge hurdles, even once the political maneuvering
is
completed.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., says investigators should compare all
statements
by intelligence agencies with what President George W. Bush said about
Iraq's
alleged weapons of mass destruction to determine "whether intelligence
analysis
was manipulated, shaped or exaggerated."
"We owe the American people a full and honest accountability of the
intelligence that was used to make the case," said Rockefeller, vice chair
of
the Senate Intelligence Committee. "This is about the gravest decision any
president can ever make - taking the country to war."
Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, sharply disagrees that there is any evidence
that the administration misused intelligence. He calls efforts to examine
the
matter a "political thing" - because, he says, any mistakes were honest ones
made by intelligence agencies, not dishonest ones by government officials.
"It's a waste of time," Voinovich said. "I was here, we were all here. There
wasn't one intelligence agency that wasn't taken in by this - Israeli,
British,
all the intelligence agencies. ... Going ahead with an investigation, it's
nonsense."
In making the case for war, the administration cited intelligence that Iraq
had
large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, was actively pursuing
nuclear weapons, and had significant links to al-Qaida - none of which have
proven true.
A report by the Senate Intelligence Committee last year acknowledged that
the
intelligence was wrong. A second phase of the committee's work - on how that
intelligence was used by the administration to make the case for war, has
been
dragged out amid partisan sniping. On Nov. 1, Democrats shut down the Senate
to
jump-start that investigation, leading to the appointment of a six-member
Senate task force to try to agree on the process for moving ahead.
That task force will report Monday on a proposed timetable and process for
the
Senate Intelligence Committee, Senate sources said Friday.
"Completely different views"
Most media attention on the issue over the past couple of weeks has been on
the
political charges and counter-charges. But at the heart of the dispute is a
basic question - whether senators believe the administration misled the
country
into war.
Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo., doesn't think so.
"No, I do not see any major problems," said Bond, a member of the
Intelligence
Committee and one of the six-member task force. If anything, he said,
Democrats
are to blame for the errors because intelligence-gathering capability was
reduced under the previous administration of President Bill Clinton.
Bond was asked whether statements by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
merited examination. As national security adviser before the war, Rice
helped
build the case that Iraq had an active nuclear program by stating that its
aluminum tubes could be used only for nuclear weapons - a statement at odds
with analysis within the government at the time that the tubes had several
potential uses.
"I'm not familiar with that one," said Bond.
Sen. ***** Durbin, D-Ill., served on the Senate Intelligence Committee before
assuming a party leadership post this year. He recalled committee meetings
at
which the CIA and Energy Department voiced "completely different views on
what
the aluminum tubes could be used for."
"And then I'd walk out and listen to (Rice) and Vice President ***** Cheney
say
that these tubes show the Iraqis are building nuclear weapons to threaten
the
Middle East and the United States. And because you're a member of the
Intelligence Committee you can't say what you've heard in closed sessions,"
Durbin said. "I was angry. The American people were being misled into
believing
that the evidence was clear, and it was not."
Asked about the views of Bond and Voinovich that there was no evidence of
misdeeds, Durbin said, "I couldn't disagree more. There are specific
circumstances where the intelligence agencies advised the White House that
certain information was wrong - and the president and vice president
continued
to repeat those statements to the American people."
Cherry-picked intelligence?
In a speech Friday, Bush said those who accuse him of misrepresenting prewar
intelligence are rewriting history. The president said his critics "are
fully
aware" that independent examinations of prewar intelligence have concluded
his
administration didn't pressure intelligence analysts into changing their
analysis.
But the current allegations being looked at are not about exerting pressure,
rather about exaggerating or cherry-picking the intelligence to suit the
policy.
While Democrats tend to agree that there is enough evidence of
misrepresentation to merit a close look, Republicans - who control the
Senate -
are divided into several groups.
Some say the evidence is unclear. Among those are Sens. John McCain of
Arizona
and Richard Lugar of Indiana, with Lugar saying that while the focus should
be
on gathering current intelligence on al-Qaida, a look back is reasonable if
it's done in a cooperative spirit. Sen. Jim Talent of Missouri says that
while
he's seen no evidence to support the criticism of Bush, the Senate should go
ahead as planned.
Others, like Voinovich, dismiss the effort as a waste of time.
A few, such as Sen. John Chafee of Rhode Island, strongly support a probe.
"It's worth some energy to assess what went wrong," he said. "Don't forget,
there were 23 of us in the Senate who weren't taken in by it, 23 who voted
against the war."
Experts differ on the value of an examination.
"Unfortunately, the topic is incredibly complex," said Greg Davis, who spent
25
years as an analyst and operations officer with the CIA and the Defense
Intelligence Agency. "The more they dig, the more they will find out there
was
very little substance to the intelligence analysis that was presented to the
White House. Bush inherited a mediocre intelligence organization."
Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., of the House Armed Services Committee, worries that
discussion of how the war began will distract from winning it. "Now we're
there, and we need to finish the job and come home," he said.
But Tony Cordesman, former director of intelligence assessment at the
Pentagon
who also served in senior positions in the Departments of State and Energy,
and
in diplomatic posts in Lebanon, Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia, said the probe
is
key to moving forward in Iraq and elsewhere.
"The reality here is we really need to know," Cordesman said. "We need to
have
more confidence here, and in the world generally, that if mistakes were
made,
they were made honestly."
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/emaf.nsf/Popup?ReadForm&db=stltoday%5Cnews%5Cstories.nsf&docid=5BBA51BD2483E5EF862570B7006C1B69
--
They Knew...
Despite the whitewash, we now know that the Bush administration was warned
before the war that its Iraq claims were weak
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/they_knew_0802/
--
A published report says a top al-Qaida operative in U.S. custody gave false
information later used by the Bush administration to support its contention
that Iraq trained al-Qaida militants to use illegal weapons.
The New York Times reports Sunday that newly declassified portions of a
February 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency document says Ibn al-Shaykh
al-Libi misled debriefers in his claims about Iraq's work with al-Qaida
members.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2005/intell-051106-voa01.htm
--
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the
country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag
the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a
parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have
to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for
lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm
--
The fair use of a copyrighted work:
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
.
|
|
| User: "golds" |
|
| Title: Re: "We owe the American people a full and honest accountability of the intelligence" |
13 Nov 2005 03:46:08 PM |
|
|
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c50d1$4377a484$4e3c969$25886@DIALUPUSA.NET...
Inquiry reopening debate about run-up to war
By Philip Dine
POST-DISPATCH WASHINGTON BUREAU
Saturday, Nov. 12 2005
WASHINGTON
Partisan wrangling over how the Senate should investigate the
administration's
use of prewar intelligence about Iraq is about far more than politics - it
reflects major differences over the evidence itself.
Total bull *****. When Clinton and the Demos were mouthing the same
intelligence, produced by the Clinton White House, demos did not have a
problem with it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Black Elk" |
|
| Title: Re: "We owe the American people a full and honest accountability of the intelligence" |
13 Nov 2005 03:55:11 PM |
|
|
<golds> wrote in message news:Y_CdnRpXDIrAKereRVn-pQ@adelphia.com...
"Black Elk" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c50d1$4377a484$4e3c969$25886@DIALUPUSA.NET...
Inquiry reopening debate about run-up to war
By Philip Dine
POST-DISPATCH WASHINGTON BUREAU
Saturday, Nov. 12 2005
WASHINGTON
Partisan wrangling over how the Senate should investigate the
administration's
use of prewar intelligence about Iraq is about far more than politics -
it
reflects major differences over the evidence itself.
Total bull *****. When Clinton and the Demos were mouthing the same
intelligence, produced by the Clinton White House, demos did not have a
problem with it.
Clinton and the Democrats didn't kill tens of thousands of people and
destroy a country, did they? When Bush was pushing the Iraq invasion he was
also covertly connecting Iraq with 9-11 and using Ahmad Chalabi as a source
who is a known con-man and lackey for Iran.
--
A published report says a top al-Qaida operative in U.S. custody gave false
information later used by the Bush administration to support its contention
that Iraq trained al-Qaida militants to use illegal weapons.
The New York Times reports Sunday that newly declassified portions of a
February 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency document says Ibn al-Shaykh
al-Libi misled debriefers in his claims about Iraq's work with al-Qaida
members.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2005/intell-051106-voa01.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Salad" |
|
| Title: Re: "We owe the American people a full and honest accountabilityof the intelligence" |
13 Nov 2005 02:43:32 PM |
|
|
Black Elk wrote:
Inquiry reopening debate about run-up to war
By Philip Dine
POST-DISPATCH WASHINGTON BUREAU
Saturday, Nov. 12 2005
WASHINGTON
Partisan wrangling over how the Senate should investigate the
administration's
use of prewar intelligence about Iraq is about far more than politics - it
reflects major differences over the evidence itself.
As a result, any effort to objectively examine whether the White House
misled
the country into war faces huge hurdles, even once the political maneuvering
is
completed.
I wonder if Saddam is going to use any of this info in his trial?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Black Elk" |
|
| Title: Re: "We owe the American people a full and honest accountability of the intelligence" |
13 Nov 2005 02:54:32 PM |
|
|
"Salad" <oil@vinegar.com> wrote in message
news:UzNdf.1124$s14.878@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Black Elk wrote:
Inquiry reopening debate about run-up to war
By Philip Dine
POST-DISPATCH WASHINGTON BUREAU
Saturday, Nov. 12 2005
WASHINGTON
Partisan wrangling over how the Senate should investigate the
administration's
use of prewar intelligence about Iraq is about far more than politics -
it
reflects major differences over the evidence itself.
As a result, any effort to objectively examine whether the White House
misled
the country into war faces huge hurdles, even once the political
maneuvering is
completed.
I wonder if Saddam is going to use any of this info in his trial?
It matters little if Saddam uses it or not, he's a goner anyway it plays
out. What is important is that the truth be made known about the Bush
administration's misuse of intelligence and also a close examination of the
propaganda used to destroy a country and kill tens of thousands of people
and maim almost 10 times that. The cost to the American public is well over
200 billion dollars that could have went into schools, hospitals,
environmental protection, infrastructure improvements, ad infinitum. Instead
a big chunk of it has landed in Halliburton and other war profiteers bank
accounts by route of no contract bids.
--
They Knew...
Despite the whitewash, we now know that the Bush administration was warned
before the war that its Iraq claims were weak
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/they_knew_0802/
--
A published report says a top al-Qaida operative in U.S. custody gave false
information later used by the Bush administration to support its contention
that Iraq trained al-Qaida militants to use illegal weapons.
The New York Times reports Sunday that newly declassified portions of a
February 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency document says Ibn al-Shaykh
al-Libi misled debriefers in his claims about Iraq's work with al-Qaida
members.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2005/intell-051106-voa01.htm
--
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1435181,00.html
www.iraqbodycount.net
www.costofwar.com
http://icasualties.org/oif/
--
"From the brief time that we did spend occupying Iraqi territory
after the war, I am certain that had we taken all of Iraq, we would
have been like the dinosaur in the tar pit - we would still be there,
and we, not the United Nations, would be bearing the costs of
the occupation. This is a burden I am sure the beleaguered
American taxpayer would not have been happy to take on."
- Norman Schwarzkopf, from his 1993 autobiography, "It Doesn't
Take a Hero."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Werner Hetzner" |
|
| Title: Re: "We owe the American people a full and honest accountabilityof the intelligence" |
14 Nov 2005 07:29:04 AM |
|
|
Black Elk wrote:
Inquiry reopening debate about run-up to war
By Philip Dine
POST-DISPATCH WASHINGTON BUREAU
Saturday, Nov. 12 2005
WASHINGTON
Partisan wrangling over how the Senate should investigate the
administration's
use of prewar intelligence about Iraq is about far more than politics - it
reflects major differences over the evidence itself.
...
Why not. Another investigation.
Add it to Katrina and don't forget the following:
if "we the people'' must pay for a "money pit'' we obviously don't want,
does that not make us accountable to government?
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Accountable.shtml
schools
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/PerformanceGap.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/ReportCard.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Schools.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Environment.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Social%20Security.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Health%20Care.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Drugs.shtm
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Education.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Poverty.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/ExampleTOC.shtml
and more
Dollars in the common treasury are like fish in the common sea - anyone
who can will harvest to extinction. That is why socialism is
fundamentally corrupting and can not work. ----
Wasn't America supposed to be about voluntary agreement instead of
forced obedience?
Isn't it high time to join The Resistance?
http://www.ny.lp.org/choice
----
"
In crafting the Bill of Rights, the framers were careful to acknowledge
implicitly and explicitly two key truths:
The first is that government does not grant rights it acknowledges them.
They exist independently of government. They're part of who and what we
are. And, as Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence, the
only legitimate function of government is to secure them.
The second is that government is a servant to whom we delegate powers,
not a master who dispenses privileges. The Constitution carefully
enumerates the powers we, the people, delegate to our government and it
specifically denies that government any powers not so delegated. Our
rights lie beyond the pale of that delegation. They are sacrosanct. Any
government which infringes upon them is engaged in an intolerable
usurpation.
"
www.badnarik.org
-----
A "right" as envisioned by the Founders meant that the government was
not permitted to interfere with your pursuit of them, i.e., your pursuit
of happiness was to be unhindered by government.
The "right" of free speech means that government cannot interfere with
your free speech. The "right" of gun ownership means that the government
cannot infringe your gun ownership. What does "right" to health care
mean? It means that the government cannot stand in the way of your
pursuit of health care, or impede your obtaining health care. The
"right" to an attorney means that the government cannot prevent you
obtaining an attorney to represent you.
Of course, "right" has incorrectly come to mean that someone must supply
you with something. If your "right" to housing means that some slave
must supply you with housing, and your "right" to health care means that
some slave must supply you with health care, and your "right" to an
attorney means that some slave must supply you with an attorney, does
your "right" to free speech mean that some slave must supply you with a
loudspeaker, or TV air time? Does your "right" to own guns mean that
some slave must supply you with guns?
Gary Popkin,
NYC
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Rights.shtml
---
It was another close election. We find ourselves warring against each
other - - red states and blue; 'them against us'; Left vs. Right;
Republicans vs. Democrats. These forces are just about equal. Each seeks
to take, keep and expand the power to impose values on the other.
Campaign finance laws not withstanding, this election cost much more
than the last. Both sides spent as if in combat and more than many
countries spend on a real war. All else -- other ideas for example -- is
a distraction we can no longer afford in this new war between Americans.
Win at all cost! Tons of money, advertising campaigns, phone banks,
promises, defections, Get out the vote battalions, voter registration
shenanigans, vote fraud, hoards of pollsters, and armies of lawyers have
become our new reality. Except for that other war, the media covered
little else and ignored other candidates.
Why is an election so important? Is it because so much power has never
been so concentrated in so few? If power corrupts, what has happened to
our perspective? Cant there be more colors than just red or blue? We
keep getting evidence that politics as usual is dysfunctional. So why do
we allow ourselves to see no other choices? Is choice even possible
without diversity? What do you have when you have no choice? Cars arent
either red or blue so why must we all be limited by Republican or
Democrat rules?
Prohibitions, limitations and mandates now rule us all. Red voters hope
to impose their values on the blue and visa versa. The red forces will
limit, mandate or prohibit some things while blue cohorts would do the
same to others. No matter the outcome, one half of the electorate will
have gained more power to impose its values at the expense of the other
half. Isnt that expense becoming unbearable and unsustainable for all?
Should we be ruled by anyone? Should values be forced on us and choices
restricted by any party? Cant we try to liberate instead of regulate
each other? Wasnt America supposed to be about voluntary agreement
instead of forced obedience?
http://www.NY.LP.org/choice
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Online Worship Service At Internet Church Of Christ For Week Of Sunday, March 5, 2006 Featuring The Topic, "What Do We Owe Other People?"
The Bush campaign to keep the truth about 9/11 from the American people.
Re: Liberals Are Nasty, Evil People
When Billy Graham Planned To Kill One Million People
This is What Anal Cyst Limbaugh Thinks About People Who use Drugs
Typical Republican anti-people legislation.
Kooks, Wackos, and Assorted Small Brain People
For those who don't mind people having their houses taken away from the Gov't (Re: Even if you own property, the gov't can take it away from you
| Re: message from evil people
Re: Kerry Shocked People Find Fault with Him, Continues to Claim He "is Patriotic"
I'm grateful for poor people who are willing to murder & die
Re: Most People Must Die
.The makers of programs that spy on what people do with their home PCs could face hefty fines in California.
Why People Won't See How Your Government Gets Away With Murder
Bushamerica - $223,000,000 bridge to island with 50 people
|
|
|
