Brace yourselves for a shock- Gail Collin doesn’t like who the President has chosen to be membersof the Intelligence commission
Though dignified and bipartisan, the members lack the technical expertise to really unravel what was wrong with American intelligence and suggest how to fix it. And Mr. Bush withheld the mandate to get at the big political question they could answer: Did the administration hype intelligence to increase support for the war?
The co-chairmen are appropriately of opposite parties: Charles Robb, a Democrat who married Lyndon Johnson’s daughter and went on to be elected as governor and senator in Virginia, and Laurence Silberman, a Republican and retired appeals court judge who was a Reagan appointee. The other five members include Senator John McCain, a maverick Republican known to speak his mind; Lloyd Cutler, who was legal counsel for two Democratic presidents; Richard Levin, president of Yale University; and Patricia Wald, a liberal who was chief judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The only appointee with a deep knowledge of intelligence gathering is Adm. William Studeman, a former deputy director of central intelligence.
This group lacks the stature and name recognition that would give its findings commanding credibility. Worse yet, it looks as if Mr. Bush, who chose not to allow a truly independent panel, will limit its mandate to a review of intelligence gathering and analysis. He has given the panel the authority to examine why the prewar estimates of Iraq’s weapons stockpiles differ from what has been found and to evaluate intelligence on weapons programs in other countries. Mr. Bush did not ask the panel for an unfettered look at how his administration had presented the intelligence in making the case for war. By dodging that, the president leaves voters to find their own answers.
For the record, I recognized every name, which tells me something I already knew- I am smarter than Gail Collins. At any rate, I am not surprised the NY Times staff if unhappy with the mandate. The only mandate they would approve of is:
“Assume that I, President Bush, am completely guilty of lying about any and all aspects of the Intelligence, and assume that I did so to create a war for oil so I could enrich my friends in Halliburton. You now have an hour and access to nothing to prove I am innocent.”
That is about the only mandate that would please those partisan fools.
Jay
From my entry about this:
Jane
Isn’t Studeman the guy who said 200,000 troops would be needed to occupy Iraq? McCain not only has name recognition but respect, as a maverick.
BTowney
I just read on talkingpointsmemo.com that the commission has no subpoena power. That means they can’t compel any testimony or documents.
This commission is toothless.
M. Scott Eiland
“They wouldn’t be satisfied unless Bush appointed a commission made up of Ted Kennedy, Cynthia McKinney, Michael Moore, Sean Penn and Ted Rall, wrote them a budget of a $25 trillion”
In all fairness, the meal, bar tab, repair and anti-psychotic medication bills for that group alone would justify that budget.
platosearwax
This commission is ridiculous. Look at what McCain said the other day:
MUNICH, Germany (Reuters) – U.S. Senator John McCain, who will sit on a commission investigating failures in the intelligence used to justify the Iraq war, said on Friday he did not believe President Bush’s administration had manipulated information.
“The president of the United States, I believe, did not manipulate any kind of information for political gain or otherwise,” the Republican senator told reporters on the sidelines of a security conference in Munich, Germany.
Gee, glad he hasn’t made up his mind before the investigation starts or anything.
trump
The mandate of the commission isn’t to find Bush admin. manipulation of intel *GASP* because there WAS none. I guess that was one of the statements by Mr. Kay that the NYTimes and the media “accidentally” missed.
Fact is, the thing that needs investigating is the intelligence gathering and assessment abilities of the CIA.
If you want to politicize this by turning it into a witch-hunt against the presient, I have an idea. Lets EXPAND the commission’s mandate to include investigating lies about this intelligence by the following:
BILL CLINTON
HILLARY CLINTON
JOHN KERRY
SEN TED KENNEDY (MURDERER)
KOFI ANNON
TONY BLAIR
THE UNITED NATIONS
JOHN EDWARDS
HOWARD DEAN
AL GORE
………AND MANY MORE!
So, do you want to find out who lied now? Thought so.
Fucking leftist traitor partisian hacks. You see, people on the right back this investigation so we can fix our intel. system and protect this country better. Scum like you on the left want this investigation so you can try to destroy the President and regain power….the well being of this country is secondary to you. Which makes you traitors.
Charlie
Professor Bainbridge has a useful summary of their resumes.
Studeman was Director of Naval Intelligence, Director of the NSA and Deputy Director of CIA (Bainbridge doesn’t say which one, but with that resume I’d guess he was Deputy Director for Intelligence, the guy in charge of analysts.)
JayR
John,
I’ll call bullsh**t on this one. I’d be fine with the commission’s composition as it stands with two changes:
1. Subpoena power.
2. Authority to inquire about the Office for Special Projects and the influence that Feith’s merry band of tricksters had on the way intel was evaluated.
The second question is extremely relevant to the issue and any reasonable person would agree on this. The fact that the panel can’t look into this turns it into a sham and a fraud.
Slartibartfast
“I’ll call bullsh**t on this one. I’d be fine with the commission’s composition as it stands with two changes:”
How is that crying bullshit? Did you actually read what he wrote?
Andrew J. Lazarus
JayR, you are 6/7 correct. Silberman is a scary addition, though. His failre to recuse himself when Ollie North’s appeal was before him was scandalous, and he’s rumored to have ties to the intelligence community that don’t show up on a resume.
JayR
Slartibartifast: It’s calling bulls**t because he was saying there is no pleasing those on our side of the fence. Well, I’m saying there would have been an easy way to please me at least if those two minor changes had been made. And I don’t think I am that far off from others of my ilk.
Andrew: I don’t like Silberman either, but I’m prepared to concede that, given the venality of this administration, there would probably have been someone like him on the panel. I’m more p****d off that they can’t go after Feith like he deserves.
platosearwax
Trump, you can shove it where the sun don’t shine. You know fuck-all about what I believe, my political affiliation, what I think the mandate of this or any commission should be, or whether or not I want to get Bush no matter what. You could try responding in a civil manner rather than calling me scum based on your imagination of what my opinions are.
For the record, I know what the commission’s mandate is, and I hope they find out what went wrong with the intelligence. The joke is that it stops short of investigating what it ought to be investigating as well.
Geez, next time I am not even going to bother responding to that kind of crap response, but I was already having a bad day.
Greyhawk
When will this president stop letting voters find their own answers and make up their own minds? It is high time he joined the DNC in telling people what the answers are!
Gary Farber
“Drivel… fools….”
Does this make you feel better, John? It’s certainly persuasive language for those who might not wholly agree with you yet, but are open-minded.
“…partisan….” Isn’t this more useful as a condemnation when coming from someone not acting in a partisan fashion? If not, what meaning are you intending to impart by using it?
A commenter say: “Fucking leftist traitor partisian hacks… Scum… Which makes you traitors.”
Edifying and persuasive! If only President Bush had more supporters of like mind, his unrelenting efforts at being a uniter, not a divider, would meet with universal success.
“Scum like you on the left want this investigation so you can try to destroy the President and regain power….the well being of this country is secondary to you. Which makes you traitors.”
Being a traitor is, of course, punishable by death. Have you any suggestions where we should start? Should we bother with trials, or shall we proceed directly to namings and hangings, do you think?
I must admit that I’ve only occasionally voted for a Republican. If this is the new program, my eyes are opened to a whole new concept of American justice, rights, and freedom. If only we all appreciated our Constitutional values in such a clear and patriotic fashion! This is true love of our country, and the freedoms our soldiers give their lives for, indeed.
Gordon the Magnificent
I can hear circus music playing in the background.
Hipocrite
I don’t get it. Back when we were investigating the PMD (Penis of Mass Destruction), the only appropriate investigator was a partisan prosecutor who wanted nothing more than to hang his subject on the rafters. And he needed a pet grand jury, with the right to force people to testify about anything.
Apparently now, investigating the WMD, a bipartisan comission of rabid-right-wingers and centrists is necessary, and they don’t have the right to ask anyone questions they don’t want to answer.
TedL
JayR, right on.
Someone else write:
The mandate of the commission isn’t to find Bush admin. manipulation of intel *GASP* because there WAS none. I guess that was one of the statements by Mr. Kay that the NYTimes and the media “accidentally” missed.
Others, such as, oh I don’t know, George Tenet, have said that their reports contained carefully qualifiers that were studiously ignored in public comment by the Administration; at a minimum, there seems to be a disconnect between public statements that “we know” Iraq has WMD, and “we know” where the WMD are, and the reports being sent from CIA. Then there’s that whole Yellowcake issue.
Of course, if you’ve already concluded that Tenet and the CIA are traitorous buffoons, you can dismiss this out of hand. Those who haven’t would like to have more evidence.
Howard
I agree…
Myron Mordock
You sure are good at chewing the ass out of a strawman, John.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Dick Cheney made a half-dozen visits *to* CIA HQ (unprecedented) to tell them they were underestimating the Iraq threat. When that still didn’t suffice, they set up the Office of Special Plans to feed Cheney (and then Bush) bullshit straight from the mouths [mixed metaphor alert] of Ahmed Charlatan Chalabi’s rent-a-defectors, whose intel batting average is somewhere around .050.
cj
I agree that the commission should have subpoena power.
However, I think that Tony Blair had a relevant comment — you cannot ask for an investigation into the politics of it. That is a no-win, Pandora’s box, chaos scenario. As Tony said, you elect your leaders to make the political decisions — if you disagree with them, vote them out of office.
To wit, the commission should investigate the intelligence failure, and Bush should be judged on his culpability (or non-culpability) via the election process.