From The Hill, Nov 6 2003: “Here is the full text of the memo from the office of Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa.) on setting a strategy for pursuing an independent investigation of pre-war White House intelligence dealings on Iraq”:
We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:
1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard.
For example, in addition to the President’s State of the Union speech, the chairman [Sen. Pat Roberts] has agreed to look at the activities of the office of the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, as well as Secretary Bolton’s office at the State Department.
The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and cosigns our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don’t know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. [We can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.]
2) Assiduously prepare Democratic ‘additional views’ to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it.
In that regard we may have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims. We will contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry.
The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an Independent Commission [i.e., the Corzine Amendment.]
3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration’s use of intelligence at any time. But we can only do so once.
The best time to do so will probably be next year, either:
A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report, thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public. Additional views on the interim report (1). The announcement of our independent investigation (2). And (3) additional views on the final investigation. Or:
B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue, we would attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the use of intelligence.
In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter footdragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman. We have independently submitted written requests to the DOD and we are preparing further independent requests for information.
SUMMARY: Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public’s concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war.
The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration’s dubious motives.
[Emphases mine]
Rockefeller and the Democrats are relying on the public’s misunderstanding on how intelligence works (on a consensus basis) and are clearly willing—in the most cynical way imaginable—to exploit any evidence that appears to dissent from what was the prevailing view of the intelligence community leading up to the war.
This is the real cherry-picking of intelligence — and it has been the plan of Democrats to use this ploy for several years. They began before the 2004 elections. And they have been recently stepping up the assault.
That the President responded is a good beginning, but if the WaPo and NYT reports on Bush’s speech tell us anything, it is that the administration has an uphill battle to fight, and that the press is completely in the corner of Senate Democrats (see Tom Maguire for a nice dissection of the Times‘ piece), framing Bush’s answer to the drumbeat of charges that he lied to mislead us into war as an “attack” on his “critics.” And it figures to get worse.
Pincus and Milbank and others, for instance, have even expanded the argument to suggest that Bush actually withheld evidence from the Senate Intelligence Committee—the information contained in his daily briefings, for instance—and that the President’s potential perfidy lies (as the New Republic’s Ryan Liza just alleged on FOXNews) in the “caveats” that Bush didn’t share with Senators. That is, the specific doubts that arose from within the intelligence community over individual pieces of evidence (the use of aluminum tubes, say) were not perhaps reported if the prevailing consensus was contrary.
Which is precisely how intelligence works—something the Democrats know but which they realize is not commonly understood, and so can be exploited. Essentially, the Democrats are making the argument that Bush didn’t argue the defense’s case—Saddam’s case—well enough to the Senate. And that is quite simply an absurd demand.
Here’s how the argument breaks down: Bush didn’t share all his daily briefs with the Senate Intelligence Committee. And, Because BUSH LIED, ipso facto, the stuff he withheld must therefore have been exculpatory.
Which means we can soon look forward to calls from Senate Democrats like Rockefeller that Bush be given a lie detector test to gauge whether or not his daily briefings convinced him Saddam wasn’t a threat, but that he decided to take us to war anyway because, well, either he wanted Halliburton to make money, or else he was playing out an elaborate revenge fantasy against the guy who tried to take out his daddy (depending on which cadre of raving Bush haters you choose to believe).
****
related historical links: From CNN, Feb 1999:
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.
Despite repeated demands from Washington, the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden after the August 7 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, demanding proof of his involvement in terrorist activities.
From The Guardian, Feb 6 1999:
Saddam Hussein’s regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials.
The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad’s ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam’s most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq.
I guess dubiousness over the connection between Saddam and Usama is only apposite during a Republican administration.
Boy… once again that dumb ass idiot fooled us. He’s just so EVIL…..
The democrats have always wanted both ways. And they can never decide which they like more. Just don’t even think to ask for a reach around.
Isn’t this pretty much a confession that these weasels don’t give a damn about anything but bringing down the President? Which I know isn’t news to most of us, but how much plainer does it have to be to the ‘tweeners and the media?
Now Rockefeller even has creds with the Arab street.
Then there’s the Statement of Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, on the Senate Floor, On the Iraq Resolution, October 10, 2002:
Whether or not Rockefeller will ever have to defend himself against the tacit conflict between his stance of today and that of late 2002 remains to be seen. But it’s clear that the Democrats will make much hay spinning themselves toward 2006 and 2008…
tw: Met. We have met the enemy and the enemy is us.
The democrats and the run-up to the Iraq War:
Best. Backpedal. Evah!
tw: school.
About the CNN and Guardian links:
What damn fools, thinking there could be any substance to those reports! Don’t they know fundamentalist terrorists could never collaborate with a secular, socialist regime? Chalabi must have made this up, and we swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
[I regret that it is necessary, in today’s discussions, to point out that I am being sarcastic.]
You know, the way Iraq is going, it would be far, far wiser for the Democrats to take the “I always had faith in the Iraqis!” position and start trying to take credit for it. There are a number of possible tactics available.
I suspect they perhaps believe what they glean from a cursory scan of the NYT and the WaPo just a wee bit too eagerly.
Don’t forget that Bush also manipulated inteligence agencies all over the world. Man, he’s crafty!
And, let’s not forget – while Saddam and Usama may have had mutual hatred for each other, it’s worth remembering that the enemy of their (respecive) enemy was their friend.
Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo —
anybody think that Saddam was worried that he couldn’t have Usama killed when it suited his (Saddam’s) purposes?
anybody think that Osama was worried that Saddam’s secular slightly-lesser abomination against Islam than the US wouldn’t fall under the weight of Jihad?
Think maybe both of them were wrong?
………………………………
The one meme that WILL go over-reported is the UNITED NATIONS Inspections Team … a doughty bunch that numbered fewer than 100 people at its peak.
So … anytime the phrase “United Nations Inspectors” gets bandied about, keep in mind that the entire United Nations Inspection team could show up at a McDonalds, order lunch, and the manager would barely notice the increase in business.
Which is to say – there was no effective United Nations inspections program.
At any point in time.
.
In other news, John Edwards shared his views on the Presidential Daily Briefs (PDBs) and the distinction between the detail of information needed by the Executive Branch and that required by the Senate in its role as an Oversight.
Per Edwards, the raw intel was the same, the differing reports were driven by the need of the end-user.
which is to say, the raw intel was the same for both Executive and Legislative branches.
and, for you reality-based out there – that’s the raw intel for the Senate Intelligence Committee, not that which went into the unclassified NIE report.
.
Via Melanie Phillips on documented links between Saddam and al Qaeda’s Zawahiri and Zarqawi in ‘99: “…In Allawi’s view, Saddam’s government ‘sponsored’ the birth of al-Qaeda in Iraq, coordinating with other terrorist groups, both Arab and Muslim….”
Too bad that in high-stakes politics docs are either real and disputed, faked for a feint or to throw a campaign, or accidently stuffed into Berger’s pants and then mistakenly shredded. IOW, we may never believe the evidence archived during Saddam’s regime, especially the Dems who are spitting upon the blood and treasury of America spent to oust the tyrant they now claim didn’t pose a serious enough security risk. Our Reactionary Party is effectively telling Iraqis and the world they are sorry for the good we’ve done in liberating and rebuilding their country, and they are telling Americans that exporting democracy is a fool’s errand and that we don’t need a forward military position in the im/exploding ME between Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
But the worst is the politically corrupt example they’re setting for the world, especially for the failed and radicalizing Muslim world, and the step-by-step lesson they’re giving our enemies on how to subvert this American presidency and policy and undermine our nation’s credibility and security. And it’s all because Dems want to star in the Oval Office, again, just like they do on TV these days. Or maybe they really do support our troops and respect America, and choose to show it in tortured, counter-intuitive, opposite world, and parallel universe kinds of ways because it’s ‘more patriotic to dissent’. How many of our service members who are being told by Dems that they’ve sacrificed for a lie and that their efforts in Iraq (and Afghanistan) are a failure will vote Donkey in ‘06 and ‘08? Either Dems think they can buy back their vote with promises of better veteran benefits or something, or will try to have their overseas ballots nullified, again. Either way, they have a funny way of showing their love of country and those who serve it.
Ah, the PDB raises its ugly head again. You know, I think Congress would really like to convince the American Public that Congress should have access to the PDBs. Why should so much information be trusted to just the executive branch? Especially an executive branch that lives in a bubble and is unwilling to listen to opposing views? Why, if you could just give the PDB to those with opposing views …the American People would be better served.
What is unfortunate is that this is an effort to criminalize politics. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was government policy. The military effort launched to effect regime change was a policy decision, by the Administration, and was supported by authorizing legislation from the Congress.
Someone needs to remind Rockefeller that those who win elections get to set policy.
The Democrats are going down the same road with these efforts as with the Independent Counsel statute–tactics they invent to use against a Republican administration that will in turn be used against a Democratic administration (for which the Democrats will screem bloody murder).
The dishonesty in Rockefeller’s statement is staggering. He concludes that the Administration’s motives were “dubious,” so now he wants to gin up some evidence that makes his case–announcing the verdict before holding a trial.
But then again, who should be surprised by such tactics.
Tom, tom, tom… an “invitation” is clearly not a “connection”… two completely different words in the dictionary, see? [/sarcasm]
Please, clearly Bush had an obligation to share with Congress and the public all the caveats and opposing views within the intelligence community.
Just like JFK did when he announced that the Soviets were placing nuclear missiles in Cuba. Surely he told us about the analysts who thought they were for conventional warheads and not atomic warheads.
No, he didn’t.
Okay, bad example.
How about when Clinton shared the doubts that his national security team had about the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plan in the Sudan?
Okay, another poor choice.
How about Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates?
Nah.
Er, McKinley following the destruction of the USS Maine?
Hmm, I can discern a pattern here.
This newly-found, never-used-before requirement is absurd. Simply absurd.
So when the head of the CIA, George Tenet (a Clinton appointee) said, “Slam dunk!”â€â€twice no lessâ€â€was that cherry-picking?
And oh, as to those PDBs…? Remember the one Bush got during the summer of 2001 that was compiled from stuff like Newsweek and the Financial Times that said bin Laden was intent on striking the U.S.? And the other one saying terrorists might want to blow up airplanes? Real shocking, deep information contained there.
The great joke in all this is that the president’s intel is NOT so all-knowing and all-seeing. Since our human assets are scared shitless to go into the belly of Islamofascism and would prefer to listen in on cell phone calls in Farsi, about all we know is what our satellites tell us…which in Islamobad, the Hindu Kush and Tehran is worth about the same amount as those Cuban missle silo photos from 45 years ago.
Let’s also not forget who was president when it was decreed that we couldn’t traffic with unsavory types in order to get intel.
See “Clinton, Bill” for more reasons why we’re behind the 8-ball today.
Pilfered this from the comments over at Tom Maguire’s site. Placing it here for future reference:
Intelligence
A. Allegations of Influence
(U) Committee staff did interview five individuals who had come to the Committee’s attention as possibly having information that intelligence analysts’ assessments had been influenced by policymakers. None of these individuals provided any information to the Committee which showed that policymakers had attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their analysis or that any intelligence analysts changed their intelligence judgments as a result of political pressure. There was also no information provided to the Committee which showed that analysts had conformed their assessments to known Administration policies because they believed those assessments would be more widely read or accepted. The following describes information garnered from those interviews.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter9-a.htm
U) Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities.
(U) Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President’s visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter9-g.htm
And this, too:
****
Each U.S. Senator has his or her own staff of experts on a whole host of issues, including WMD and military matters. These members are privy to the intelligence material, the raw stuff.
Senators Daschle, Clinton, Levin, Bayh (and I believe several more) all said that they themselves went to Langley to view the intelligence and to talk to the analysts and to have their experts review things. This wasn’t a question of accepting Bush’s word or judgements.
Seriously, you think the above folks aren’t going to check out the details themselves? And get their own experts to inform them on the matter?
This scenario of a wily Svengali manipulating the Democrats into war needs re-writing. I mean, being dazzled and seduced by the oratory skills of George Bush?
SMG
****
“We need an investigation into how we were so easily fooled by the stupid, smirky chimp” doesn’t exactly sound like the kind of platform I’d want to run on.
And again:
Clinton’s justice department’s 1998 indictment against bin Laden.
Here is a paragraph from Count 4 of the indictment:
Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.
The Dems are playing their old, tattered trump card: The uninformed vs the uniformed. The fact that it has any traction at all (with the help of the legacy media) is very disconcerting.
Sigh. What is it with you wingnuts and your obsession with our First Black President?
Hmmm.
Let’s all give a big round of applause to Orin Hatch. The idiot who caved almost immediately on the subject of these memos and thereby set all this stupid crap up.
Yeah, but did you get a cameo stint in Traffic?
Who’s the f***ing communications director for this White House?
Bill Moyers?
Why does Jeff freaking Goldstein have to cite these reports and stories? Why isn’t the White House or Republican muckety mucks out on the Senate floor and in every friggin news interview talking about all this information?
Or, for a shorter, more succint version of this argument, you can read my version.
Yeah, but did you get a cameo stint in Traffic?
tw: Knew. Wish’t I didn’t know now what I didn’t know then.
Ask one question and ask it all the time:
“Senator Kennedy (Rockefeller, Biden….), do you think you were lied to by the Clinton Administration?
tw: then Then try and get Tim Russert to ask that question. Offer it to Hillary first.
Never mind the Pincus/Milbank column: just get a load of the accompanying mortgage company advertisement. What the hell is it? A gingerbreadman humping a test tube?
Is this some sort of visual pun or a really obscure reference that I’m not getting?
Whoa whoa, what’s the story here? I think I missed something.
Where did that memo come from? What’s the story on how it got published in a newspaper?
In other words, the case for allowing Saddam to remain in power is supported by Stalin’s useful idiots lead buy uber-rich Socialists like Jay Rockefeller and reported by Big Brother journalism. How poetic.
The Democrats, the party United for Genocidal Peace and Justice for Dictators.
This is from Rockefeller, et al, addendum to the The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments on Iraq referenced in the post:
So apparently after all those years in the Senate, Rockefeller, Durbin and Levin were unaware that if you wanted an Intelligence Report you had to actually ask for it.
I would really like to hear them elaborate on this point:
I am soooo tired of the “after the fact” cherry picking of selected items of intelligence and reiterating the same old “gotcha”. Any one with an ounce of intelligence will tell you that analyzing information before the deed and after the deed is comparing apples to oranges. That is why in the military they have “after” action reports; so they can compare them to the “before” action intelligence and planning.
We don’t know what the “totality” of the intelligence and analyses was prior to the decision to invade. Hell, we’ll never know. We don’t know how this piece of intel dovetailed with that piece of intel to form an estimate. To pull a specific item out and declare it “unreliable”, therefore all others are “unreliable” is idiotic. Besides what does any of it have to do with the mission currently at hand: Iraq?
If you are concerned about the future and the security of this country, point your efforts to a successful conclusion to the Iraq situation. If all you want is to destroy this Administration, then by all definitions you are “unpatriotic”.
Ever notice that the phrase, Senate Intelligence Committee contains no fewer than two oxymorons…?
tw: world. The whole world is watching.
steveMG’s got it right.
Why is no one going on the news shows and shoving the Rockefeller memo down the Dem’s throats?
Why does Bush just sit there and let those liars pound his face into mush?
I just hope that Rove has one more sucker punch left, because without one, this administration is toast. What am I fighting for if the Repubs are going to act like a bunch of pansies? It’s past time to de-pants some of the meglomaniacs who put power above patriotism.
Nice! We rather appreciated the website