Not Substantiated by Available Intelligence
Jeff Alworth
The previous post alludes to a pair of new reports released today by a Senate panel headed by Jay Rockerfeller. I actually started blogging back in early 2003 as a result of the White House's mendacity, and spent years charting what was pretty clearly abuse of power and criminal action. 
I assembled dossiers on the various players to document the available evidence of their crimes (here's Cheney's). As we now know, it abounded, for those willing to look. Mounds of evidence exists in the public domain, and has been catalogued in books, movies, and countless websites across the intertubes. So it's going to barely register as a blip to hear that a Senate committee has now crossed the tees and dotted the ayes (crossed the eyes?) on these various, now well-known misdeeds.
Still, it is with a kind of grim satisfaction that I read the gentle bureaucratese Rockerfeller uses in a summary memo to indict members of the administration. The locution "not substantiated by available intelligence" couldn't be clearer--it means plain old lies and propaganda. So will be one of the central legacies of this corrupt administration. Crooks and liars indeed. Rockerfeller:
- Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
- Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
- Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
- Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
- The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
- The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.
Let history be the judge.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jun 5, '08
"I assembled dossiers on the various players to document the available evidence of their crimes (here's Cheney's)."
===
Great work, Watson! Be sure and forward your dossiers to the Hague for prosecution.
Jun 5, '08
Jeff, why do you think Rockefellar waited so long to release the report? Why didn't it get released during the primary season?
6:42 p.m.
Jun 5, '08
It would have gotten lost (or more accurately ignored) in the primary media coverage.
Jun 5, '08
These guys should have had the nerve to probe and ask the necessary questions six years ago. Yes, Bush and his cabinet members should be investigated and punished for their lies. But we also need to ask: -What structural changes in Congress are needed to prevent Congress from evading its constitutional role in war making? -Is the national media hopeless in expecting it to perform any kind of watchdog role in looking at government actions?
Jun 5, '08
If Ken Lay and his cronies at Enron can be held accountable for their actions then the U.S. should be able to hold Bush and his cronies accountable for their actions.
Bush should be arrested and charged and when found guilty spend the rest of his life, twelve hours a day, seven days a week cleaning the soiled bed linens and laundry of those who have been injured as a result of his lies. Let him clean the halls of Walter Reed Army Hospital and any others.
TLG
Jun 5, '08
What structural changes in Congress are needed to prevent Congress from evading its constitutional role in war making?
The structural changes that are needed in Congress will require changes in the character of the American people who have been for years and continue to be a nation of sheep. Congress will come up with whatever crap suits them as long as the people let them get away with it.
Is the national media hopeless in expecting it to perform any kind of watchdog role in looking at government actions?
The national media has rarely been worth much, and it got worse when Bill Clinton appointed Colin Powell's ethically challenged son, Michael, to concentrate more media in fewer hands. That trend must be reversed, but the greater hope is in a free and unfettered Internet.
Jun 5, '08
While it's great to hear Rockefeller tell the truth on this, let's not forget he's the same traitor fighting to give the telecoms immunity for spying on Americans.
12:22 a.m.
Jun 6, '08
Jeff, I LOVE LOVE LOVE the illustration choices for this post. Well done! What a cast of evildoers...
Jun 6, '08
The national media has rarely been worth much, and it got worse when Bill Clinton appointed Colin Powell's ethically challenged son, Michael, to concentrate more media in fewer hands.
Ahem...Clinton didn't make him chairman. That would be George Bush. Clinton may have made a mistake putting him on the commission but he didn't appoint him the chairmanship. All of the policy on the FCC comes from the chairmanship. Bill made a mistake and George made a well calculated decision.
Also if you haven't heard the audio of Howard Stern calling out Michael Powell on air go find it. Hilarious
9:03 a.m.
Jun 6, '08
backbeat,
I don't know for sure, but I suspect that Rockefeller delayed for two reasons. First, staff were negotiating over the language of the report in an attempt to bring at least a few GOP on board. Because the report is released with no GOP support at all, it can be dismissed by some as no more than partisan wrangling.
The second, much more speculative, is that the report has been ready for a few weeks, perhaps longer, but Rockefeller wanted to wait until after the primaries.
My suspicion is probably the first.
<hr/>My main structural change would be to create a real intelligence counterweight to the executive branch, an agency that reports directly to the House and Senate intelligence committees. The cozy relationship that has developed (not just in this administration, but for decades) between the intelligence community and the key players in Congress has harmed Congress's oversight role.
Jun 6, '08
Thank you Jeff, good work. It’s always nice to be “substantiated,” although it’s a bit late for way too many… sigh.
Davidg asked the critical question, “What structural changes in Congress are needed to prevent Congress from evading its constitutional role in war making?”
I think the answer is two-fold:
1) A 100% prohibition on anyone making a profit related to any legislation allowing the use of force by our military. If tactical or supply resources are needed from the private sector they are nationalized or taken by eminent domain.
2) A 100% compulsory National Service for everyone between the ages of 18 and 30. This would include, but not be limited to, military service, teaching, environment and various other types of public works projects. Younger people could do the service prior to college and receive financial assistance in exchange. Older folks could get debt relief from student loans after they complete their studies and service.
Perhaps most important now, to have any chance of getting these suggestions put in place, Bush and all his fellow criminals must be held accountable for all these damn lies, and the war crimes they cover-up. DAMN LIES!
Please excuse my outburst… Floyd
Jun 6, '08
Here is a structural change that would give people in Congress and the administration cause to think before going to war. Any and every able-bodied member of their families - sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces - must serve in whatever combat zones are created if they vote for war.
10:40 a.m.
Jun 6, '08
A 100% compulsory National Service for everyone between the ages of 18 and 30. This would include, but not be limited to, military service, teaching, environment and various other types of public works projects.
Floyd, I agree with you that national service of all kinds is a good thing to be encouraged. But sending some kids to work at inner-city schools while others are shipped of to battle fields across the world are not equivalent. And compulsory service OUTSIDE of the military won't have any impact at all on bringing wars to an end. What it would do would create an incentive to corrupt domestic volunteer programs as parents desparately tried to place their own children in domestic programs to avoid sending them off to hell. Whose children do you suppose would get first preference in domestic service programs, the poor and politically unconnected?
If the problem with the war is that it isn't a reality in most people's lives, the solution is to make it the most central thing that everyone focusses on day in and day out. And the best way to do that is to put everyone's children under arms at the outbreak of any hostilities. I believe if we instituted a universal draft with no college deferments, this war would be over within the next year.
I might also add that having a larger military is exactly what was proposed from the beginning of the Iraq adventure by those who understand military planning. (Funny that W.'s team is now claiming such success for the "surge" that numerous generals and even presidential candidate John Kerry advocated for years ago!) Had we drafted sufficient troops to meet the needs of the war we chose to embark on, it is highly likely we would have met with rapid success and exacted a lower price per individual than we have by such disgraceful practices as "stop loss."
12:08 p.m.
Jun 6, '08
Not only that, but the "underground WMD facilities" didn't exist. No WMDs, no underground WMD facilities. There was never any evidence of WMDs. There was never any evidence of underground WMD facilities. You have to wonder why so many Democrats voted for the war when they never saw any conclusive evidence to back up the administration's claims.
There definitely were underground bunkers used for protecting troops and equipment against prolonged bombing campaigns. In 2005, the Marines found a large bunker near Karma. The same article also mentions other bunker systems:
12:16 p.m.
Jun 6, '08
Jamais Vu, compulsory military service didn't bring the Vietnam War to a quick end. The Germans were using kids and old men by the end of World War II. And there was no way that a war in Iraq was going to turn out well for the people of Iraq, no matter how many people the military sent in. Any campaign there was going to involve a lot of bombing and an occupation. And that was going to take place in a country that hadn't attacked the US. It might even have just killed more innocent Iraqis more efficiently. Then we could have gotten on to Iran earlier.
1:00 p.m.
Jun 6, '08
[C]ompulsory military service didn't bring the Vietnam War to a quick end...
You're right. There were too many exemptions for college, family, etc. But I think it's fairly clear that, even applied as unfairly as it was, the draft did have an effect on ending the Vietnam War eventually. Until we all bear the burdens of war equally, Iraq is mostly a background noise to most people, about as important as a lone mosquito in the room. But if everyone's families were being sent to the front, it would be a room full of mosquitoes.
As for killing innocents, I think you and I and most commentors on BlueOregon agree that every war rains down death and misery on the innocent, which is one of the primary reasons not to enter into wars of choice or convenience based on lies and selective manipulation of intelligence reports like those Jeff detailed above.
Jun 6, '08
Libertarian Guy - how about Clinton/Gore as well? They passed laws and bombed Iraq based on the same intelligence. Let's not think in a partisan one dimensional way.
In that same tune, perhaps we should hold others to the same account as Ken Lay, since you brought him up. Caroline's Veep search partner Jim Johnson oversaw Fannie Mae's $11B accounting restatement that made Enron's $600M look like petty cash.
http://www.ofheo.gov/media/pdf/FNMSPECIALEXAM.PDF
Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick all got to keep thier bonuses they recieved for a job well done. Ken Lay got his just rewards and was found guilty as history will note. However, it appears that Ken Lay's problem seems to be that he chose the wrong political party to be a part. Sad account of politics.
I am sure that Obama will clean up washington just like he did in Chicago (Rezko) and he'll "usher in a new way of being on the planet"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/06/06/notes060608.DTL&type=printable
Obama be praised!
Obama has to pick Hillary to keep my vote. Sorry guys. Otherwise, it's Nader for me again.
Jun 6, '08
"Obama be praised!"
Hey, LiberAsWell, isn't it:
"Obama, praise be his name!", yes?
Floyd writes: "If tactical or supply resources are needed from the private sector they are nationalized or taken by eminent domain."
Ah yes, lets nationalize other people's property, for the greater good. I wonder, would Vaclav Havel agree with you? For a good quick two pager on why we need more leaders like Vaclav, read this:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-we-need-more-leaders-like-vaclav-havel/
While I agree with your point about the benefits of compuslory military service, I disagree with you when you go all communistic on me. Been there, lived that. I would prefer not to again.
Jun 6, '08
darrelplant said: "You have to wonder why so many Democrats voted for the war when they never saw any conclusive evidence to back up the administration's claims [about WMDs]."
This is an old red herring. Every time the issue (WMDs) is brought up it bolsters the right-wing arguments, because it implies that if there had been "WMDs" then our invasion and occupation of Iraq would have been okay. By this logic, it would be okay for Russia to invade and occupy the U.S.
The only reason to agree to "pre-emptive" strikes is that a country poses an imminent threat to us. After the years of destruction wrought by the Clinton Administration, Iraq was not even able to get a single plane off the ground and was defenseless against us, which most of the world knew quite well.
Thus, "why so many Democrats voted for the 'war'" is a question that we need to ask regardless of the existence of WMDs. And "why so many DP non-representatives fail to call for impeachment" is a corollary question.
Jun 6, '08
Thus, "why so many Democrats voted for the 'war'" is a question that we need to ask regardless of the existence of WMDs. And "why so many DP non-representatives fail to call for impeachment" is a corollary question.
The answer as to why so many voted for the war? Politics. A sad commentary on Congress that so many would sacrifice so many lives on an altar built on lies for political advantage.
Why don't the Democrats call for impeachment? Because half of them share the guilt of the Bush administration if only to lesser degrees.
Jun 6, '08
Bush, Cheney and Rummy are ancient history, but Condoleezza Rice is most certainly planning to raise her head in GOP politics again, and I hope she gets as much bad press as possible....
Jun 6, '08
I really don't get why Dems yell about this. You really act like something is accomplished. What?
It's real simple. Corporate Amerika used entities like Fox, etc. to make sure they got a petroleum exec in office, no matter how it had to be done. They didn't have to worry about re-election because the plan was always to invade Iran and/or Iraq and Americans never replace a President in a war. They have done exactly what they please and will continue to do so, leaving a situation from which we will not be able to change course.
This raises important questions, but just which one is served by the Rockefeller report?
<h1>1. We all knew they were crooks and liars and that the invasion was under a pretense. Saying, "yes they did it" only makes sense if it is followed with, "and therefore, the consequences are...". There are none.</h1> <h1>2. You convinced enough people of this two years ago that they voted all the bums they could out of office. Nothing has changed. Can't even get a non-binding resolution on Tibet passed. When are you going to accept you make absolutely no difference anymore? Take a pledge, right now. If Obama is elected, and we are in exactly the same position in four years..." We WILL be and you will be out there enthusiastically campaigning for his re-election with something like "this term he can carry out HIS agenda without worrying about re-election". And when it's the same in 8 years you'll say he inherited a bad situation. Wake up. Real people are going to through BOTH your parties out in about 3 years!</h1> <h1>3. The UN has failed at every juncture. An organization like that is needed. What is going to replace it, when and how? If it works, why isn't the US mandate now revoked, given that our own Congress has determined that it was a conscious fraud.</h1> <h1>4. I cannot remember the last time I heard American military personnel- not on TV, "service men and women"- distinguish between anything they see as "arab" and Osama bin Lauden. Which is an understatement since Iranis aren't arabs. Anyway, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If every member of a country is guilty for the sins of its more prominent members, then you all all murders. Venal, hired for profit and paid murderers. All you "hate the war, support the troops" Dems can get a little of your own medicine if you think how it strikes you for a conservative to say, "Hate the petroleum execs, not the guy they pay to make the statements", i.e. Cheney. Do you really think he is any freer than a US soldier to act? They both have the responsibility to say "no" or be adjudicated guilty. Can any American pol make a consistent statement?</h1> <h1>5. They're still going to invade Iran. Do you really think that the world is going to repeat the process in Iraq?</h1>Now, I just do not see how the Rockefeller report changes any of this. Without change in any of this, just what are you all so animated about? When are you going to get to it?
10:55 a.m.
Jun 7, '08
You know, that cut-and-paste argument is just kind of ignoring the whole point of the discussion.
<h2>My point is, that even the claims that the administration was making weren't backed up by any conclusive evidence. Not that the claims justified a war.</h2>