Phase II — at least some parts of it — offer yet another embarrassment for Bush

September 8, 2006

Before we get into what’s missing from the Senate Intelligence Committee report, let’s first acknowledge the conclusions that were released this afternoon.

There’s no evidence [tag]Saddam Hussein[/tag] had ties with [tag]al-Qaida[/tag], according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence that Democrats say undercuts President [tag]Bush[/tag]’s justification for invading Iraq.

Bush administration officials have insisted on a link between the Iraqi regime and terror leader Abu Musab al-[tag]Zarqawi[/tag]. Intelligence agencies, however, concluded there was none.

As the AP explained, today’s report also notes that 2002 claims that postwar findings do not support a 2002 intelligence community report that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, possessed biological weapons or ever developed mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents.

But it’s the Zarqawi revelation that’s probably the most significant news of the day. Top White House officials, including the President and Vice President, have claimed that Zarqawi’s presence in Iraq bolstered the notion of a Saddam-[tag]al Qaeda[/tag] relationship. Today’s report highlighted the a previously-classified CIA assessment that concluded that prior to the war Saddam’s government “did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates.”

[tag]White House[/tag] Press Secretary Tony Snow responded to the report by saying that lawmakers “got a good look at the intelligence we had and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on.” Of course, as Snow must realize, he’s completely wrong — the president and Congress did not have access to the same intelligence, a point that’s been highlighted repeatedly for several years now.

Having said that, let’s also consider for a moment what isn’t in today’s report.

All of this is part of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s comprehensive investigation into pre-war intelligence. Initially, the committee was prepared to release one authoritative document on the intelligence, what it said, and how it was handled. Then Roberts split the report in two — one on how wrong the intelligence community and agencies were (released before the 2004 presidential election) and another on how the White House used/misused/abused the available information (released after the 2004 presidential election).

[tag]Senate Intelligence Committee[/tag] Chairman [tag]Pat Roberts[/tag] (R-Kan.) has been all over the map on this. First he said publicly that he’d “try” to have Phase Two available to the public before the 2004 election. He didn’t. Then Roberts then gave his word, in writing, that members of the Senate Intelligence Committee would have a draft report on controversial “public statements” from administration officials by April 5. He lied about that too. Then he indicated that he might just give up on the second part of the investigation altogether.

So, what’s today’s report? It’s two subparts of Phase Two — one that looks at what Ahmed Chalabi and other well-paid Iraqi exiles told the administration, the other that compares pre-war estimates of Iraq’s weapons capabilities with what U.S. forces actually found.

As it is, today’s conclusions are yet another embarrassment for an administration that can hardly afford to look more foolish on national security matters. I can only imagine what the other subparts — the ones Pat Roberts is resisting with all his might — have to say.

The sadest part about Roberts being evil here is that he is so clear-eyed about other problems with the Intelligence Community. Why then is he covering up for the Bushites?

I don’t really get it. Party loyalty must trump patriotism for that guy.

  • CB, I really disagree with the decision to make “read more” open into the next window, instead of just adding on to the piece, the way it used to be.

    Just an opinion. I love the site, but I used to like the way you could read it all without waiting to open a new window.

    Oh, and Bush sucks.

  • Roberts had better start moving assets to the “Pacific Paradise” that Herr Bush was all googlie-ooglie about earlier this summer. I’m thinking—based on his rabid refusal to “do his job”—that he’s up to his neck in cover-up. He’s openly lying to his felloe Senators, for crying out loud; that’s called “lying to Congress.”

    Let’s see how well he lies next spring, when the GOP is a minority, he loses his chairmanship, and finds himself called to testify under oath….

  • What a surprise! Another report documenting Bush Administration failures released on a Friday afternoon.

  • I don’t really get it. Party loyalty must trump patriotism for that guy.

    all due respect, but are you new in town? can you point to a single case of roberts behaving as anything other than a tool of the bush administration? really.

  • Regarding Zarqawi, Powell pushed his presence in Iraq (although not in a part of Iraq that Saddam controlled!) pretty hard in his speech to the UN Feb ’03, using Zarqawi’s name more than 20 times in his attempts to justify war on Iraq. But what’s even more interesting is that according to an article published in the WSJ (text available at the bottom of this page, the Pentagon requested permission to take out Zarqawi a number of times in 2002 and early 2003 (before the war), and every time, the Bush administration declined. Also see MSNBC.

    Think about that. BushCo passed on an opportunity to take out an al Qaeda terrorist, but then later used the same guy to help justify the war, even though he had no ties to the Hussein regime. Powell’s careful wording was, ” Iraq today harbours a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi”. Notice that he didn’t say that Saddam Hussein was harboring Zarqawi. And then, ironically, Zarqawi hung around Iraq, trained a generation of Iraqi insurgents, and contributed to the failure of the occupation of Iraq

  • Alright, this is not the place, but I’m with Dave G– it was great when you didn’t have to open a new window to continue with the whole post. (And Bush does suck. Actually, I truly believe that in time he will be judged the worst president in history. And I say that as a history major. Though, half those classes were on medieval Europe).

  • Can’t chase it back now — my memory, my wretched memory! — but either a snippet on one of the other blogs I read (Think Progress, TPM Cafe/Election Central, TPMMuckraker, Midterm Madness on American Progress) or — more likely — one of the articles referred to on one of those mentioned something about “the man behind 9/11 attacks” and it *was not* Osama, but another bearded Muslim… One of the 14 “unveiled” the other day, I think.

    Very convenient… Can’t catch Osama? Doesn’t matter; he wasn’t THE one anyway.

  • re: comment by libra

    Yeah, I remember that, too. Spelling would be ludicrous, but weren’t his initials KSM? He’s one of the ones, supposedly, one of the 14 that were returned Monday to Gitmo after too many hours drugged and behind black hoods on their flight from Europe.

    I fear I’ll never have the opportunity to ask anyone who would know: how many of those men/women kidnapped in foreign countries, transported to black sites for torture to elicit information – how many of them will be never be returned to any country? “Oh, we never had him!” “That group from the rim of the world? No one ever heard of them until just this second.” And so on. Hundreds?

    And then, almost worst of all, Ms. Rice sways her man by reminding him that history might not look kindly on him as President of the U.S. if he leaves the problem of these black sites to his successor. That does it! Bush stops allowing his advisors to fight and goes on TV!

    Not any prods of integrity, honesty, the way the world looks at the U.S., nothing honorable sways this man. A remark that his ego could suffer, and he’s rarin’ to go. How very sad for all of us.

  • #4 MW:
    What a surprise! Another report documenting Bush Administration failures released on a Friday afternoon.

    My thoughts exactly. Hey, CB, how about having a regular Sat morning feature with an updated list of these little weekly bombshells?

  • “I can only imagine what the other subparts — the ones Pat Roberts is resisting with all his might — have to say.” CB

    Don’t hold your breath. My guess is that if the Republicans hold the Senate, this subpart, by far the most potentially damaging to Bush and Cheney, will never be completed. We know most of what would be in it, but it would be nice to see Roberts have to substantiate it. And I would not expect ABC to be making the docudrama, “Prelude to the Iraq War”. Or maybe they will, 5 years from now, with Cheney and Bush as the chief consultants and Rush Limbaugh as producer. Limbaugh to Bush: “Is that right?” Bush, “yeah”.

  • I know a few people who are more loyal to the Republican’t Party than they are to America. I’ve told them so. One didn’t bother denying it.

  • I don’t get it. You people write like educated folks but you seem to ignore the facts. When Bush said reports indicated Al Queda and Sadam were in bed together the head of the CIA was a Clinton appointee and the Demoquitters in office at the time agreed with the report and said we must go to war.

  • Well, “We the People,”

    I’m sure if we look back far enough we can connect Saddam Hussein with Al-Qaeda through George Washington and Kevin Bacon. Bonus points if you get Abe Lincoln, Oppenheimer and Camus in there as well.

    The big difference between the Dems and Reps is that more Democrats are capable of looking back on what we knew then, through the lens of what we know now, and saying that the war in Iraq was an enormous mistake. I’ll never forget when John Edwards, in a primary debate, was asked the question: “Do you now regret voting for the war in Iraq.” He answered, “Knowing what we know now [in 2004, mind you], of course I do.”

    And you don’t write like an educated folk.

    • Comments are closed.