The Proof We Waited For.
The Record Has "Been Gathered." We were told that to hold a criminal administration responsible it was first necessary to "build the record," establish certain facts. That has been done: Senate Intelligence Committee Report, Phase II, June 2008. [warning PDF]
"Rebuked." "Hold them accountable." Lame chastisements. Words hurt? I can hear them laughing: "Sticks and stones..."
Senator Whitehouse ::
It rots the very fiber of democracy when our government is put to these uses.
What about A.C.C.O.U.N.T.A.B.I.L.I.T.Y.? It's in such short supply that I believe we have lost track of what it means. Eerily, one might ask, what would Gates do? He seems the only one around capable of firing anyone.
In what universe would this not be punishable by some means?
Senate INTELL Committee statement
Senator Jay Rockefeller:
"In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed."
"It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa’ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11.
Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses.
Senator Whitehouse ::
All too often in these seven long years, we have seen this administration cast aside facts and principles that did not conform with its political aims. We have seen it attempt to take the great institutions of this country, our intelligence community our Environmental Protection Agency, our Department of Justice, and twist them - twist them - to its own ends, without due regard to the welfare of the American people.
....I believe the irresponsibility and mismanagement of this Administration will go down in our history as among the darkest moments our government has witnessed. It rots the very fiber of democracy when our government is put to these uses. We do not yet know all the damage that has been done. Yet we hope, through the efforts of this Committee and this body, to continue the long and difficult repair work we have begun.
Who would not agree that it "rots" our democracy to have our leaders commit these crimes, for how can this be less than criminal? Leaders who swear an oath to protect the Constitution and uphold the responsibilities of their office lie to the people and that is not a crime?
This is not, NOT, a victimless crime. This crime has millions of victims.
Why would our Congress, the Democrats at least, be propelled on the basis of this report's evidence to institute Impeachment Hearings forthwith?
Is the reluctance based on pure politics, political capital, how it would look? Is it an imagined loss of face among the nations? If so, other nations no doubt would be relieved to see our Democracy at work, and would applaud the action.
I want to know why these guys are not being crucified?
Rockefeller answered a question from a reporter this week by saying that such hearings would render the Congress impotent, unable to accomplish any other business. But with the Committee's work in this report, much of the work has already been done so that argument is hard to swallow.
Criminal charges? Is that accountability enough? Not to me, because it is the Democracy that is at risk from such behavior.
LA Times
-- In a long-delayed report, the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday rebuked President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for making prewar claims -- particularly that Iraq had close ties to Al Qaeda -- that were not supported by available intelligence.
....many of the quotes cited by the report were striking in retrospect for their seeming certainty and specificity.
Senate INTELL Committee statement
Some conclusions:
Ø 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.
Ø 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.
Ø 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.
Ø 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.
Ø 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.
Ø The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.
Senator Weyden:
"Look at what the secretary said. It is a very troubling, significant, stunning example of misleading the Congress. You need to hold public officials accountable..."
.... the Pentagon concealed information from other intelligence agencies and that Rumsfeld and other public officials made statements that were not supported by information known at the time. ...snip
"Are people going to be prosecuted? Are there going to be criminal proceedings? I want to be very specific: I think this is a stunning example of Congress being misled. I think it warrants further review and in that review you let the facts take you where you need to go," Wyden said.
Walter Strobel of Knight-Ridder McClatchy reported early on, 2002, getting it exactly right:
They charge that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary.
"Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books," said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
A dozen other officials echoed his views in interviews with Knight Ridder. No one who was interviewed disagreed.
I sent Strobel an email today to thank him for his great and courageous reporting. Where's his Pulitzer? If you go and read one of these early stories-- Data did not back Bush/Cheney or another great one, Doubts, dissent stripped from public version of Iraq assessment --you'll find a treasure, an easy-access ARCHIVE exposing lies from 2002 through the present that help indict this administration, all of them.
Just as Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy and many others perceived the truth at the time, it was there, it was discoverable and discovered. It was just not reported in the MSM. People were afraid to be called terrorist-lovers, to have their patriotism questioned.
I know it's all been said before, but now that it's documented does it hurt to say it again?
Dan Froomkin's roundup of the report's reporting is well worth reading.
Others:
Glenn Greenwald's ripping the media, especially Broder on their mostly-lack-of coverage.
WaPo calls it mere "inflation."
AP's report: Report accuses Bush of misrepresenting Iraq intel.
The Truth About the Iraq War, NYT- Editorial.