Join 3,555 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Senate Intelligence Committee Phase II Reports
June 5, 2008 12:15 PM   Subscribe

Senate Intelligence Committee Unveils Final Phase II Reports on Prewar Iraq Intelligence. Phase II Report on Public Statements [PDF] and Phase II Report on DoD Policy Office [PDF]. This may come as a shock, but most of what the Bush Administration said about Iraq wasn't true. Republican co-chair Bond, Kit Bond, says the reports are "political theatre."

  • 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.
posted by kirkaracha (70 comments total) 6 users marked this as a favorite

 
Surely this?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:19 PM on June 5, 2008


My worldview is crumbling. No wait, not crumbling. What's the opposite of that?
posted by DU at 12:20 PM on June 5, 2008


"In a statement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said that the Senate Intel report confirms that 'the Bush Administration engaged in a misleading marketing campaign to rush the country to war.'"

"Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a member of the Intelligence Committee, said in a speech today that it 'rots the very fiber of democracy when our government is put to these uses.'"

"Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) is also calling for a full review of congressional testimony by former Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld."*
posted by ericb at 12:22 PM on June 5, 2008


"Republican Senators fought very hard to prevent the release of this intel report back in 2004 to insure Bush's re-election. And, they wouldn't release this report back in 2006 to protect their own re-elections. All that delay has resulted in the release of this report in 2008 -- leaving John McCain to defend the Bush Iraq war agenda."*

Senate Intelligence Report Undermines McCain’s Claims That ‘Every Assessment’ Justified War In Iraq.
posted by ericb at 12:25 PM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


“It is ironic that the Democrats would knowingly distort and misrepresent the Committee’s findings and the intelligence in an effort to prove that the Administration distorted and mischaracterized the intelligence,” said Bond.

And the irony lies where?
posted by jsavimbi at 12:27 PM on June 5, 2008


Does anyone know if Executive power has been twisted to the point where if Bush/Cheney decided to invade Iran they could just do it without congress's approval?

You have to assume that in light of all this stuff maybe the folks in Congress would nip that in the bud. Wouldn't they?

Reassure me. I beg of you.
posted by wabbittwax at 12:27 PM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


Heads will roll remain completely intact!
posted by Artw at 12:30 PM on June 5, 2008 [5 favorites]


Speaking of "political theater", this would make a great musical. Heavy on the song and dance.
posted by well_balanced at 12:31 PM on June 5, 2008


Does anyone know if Executive power has been twisted to the point where if Bush/Cheney decided to invade Iran they could just do it without congress's approval?

Do you mean legally or practically? Because I don't think anything has changed much in the legal sense. In the practical sense, they've gotten away with plenty. What's a little more war?
posted by DU at 12:31 PM on June 5, 2008


That is not reassuring.
posted by wabbittwax at 12:32 PM on June 5, 2008


On a related note, yesterday two Iraqi Parlimentarians testified at Chaimran Rep. Bill Delahunt's (D-MA) Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight at a hearing on “The Future of U.S.-Iraqi Relations: The Perspective of the Iraqi Parliament.”

I watched almost all two hours of the testimony on CSPAN (it's at their website if you're interested). Why did I do this? Because as far as I know, this was the first time any members of the post-invasion Iraqi government have ever met with members of congress.

Sheikh Khalaf al-Ulayyan of the Sunni Accordance Front and Nadim al-Jaberi of the Shiite (and anti-Moqtada, anti-Maliki) Fadhila Party, each confirmed their deep reservations about the impending Bush/Maliki Long-Term Occupation Plan.

As noted here, A majority of the Iraqi parliament has written to Congress rejecting a long-term security deal with Washington if it is not linked to a requirement that U.S. forces leave.

They also confirmed their opinion that our military operations in Iraq led to the destruction of their country.
posted by ornate insect at 12:33 PM on June 5, 2008


... as a side note, I'd like to say that while it may be all well and good for a person to believe that Armageddon is coming, it seems awfully gauche to try and speed up the process.
posted by wabbittwax at 12:33 PM on June 5, 2008 [4 favorites]


I thought that the whole key was the White House has the Authorization of Use of Military Force in the 'war on terror' and then they get to decide what is encompassed in that war which could be anything/anyone/anywhere.
posted by ao4047 at 12:34 PM on June 5, 2008


We'll put a boot in yer ass
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 12:35 PM on June 5, 2008


...if Bush/Cheney decided to invade Iran...

Only 7 percent support taking military action against Iran.
posted by ericb at 12:37 PM on June 5, 2008


led to the destruction of their country.

We had to destroy the country to save it.
posted by tachikaze at 12:37 PM on June 5, 2008


This may come as a shock, but most of what the Bush Administration said about Iraq wasn't true.

Fah this is obviously another liberal conspiracy, I don't care what the CIA, FBI, DoD, Army, Navy, overseas spies, senators, or foreign heads of state, or members of the Iraqi government say, they must all be on it.
posted by poppo at 12:40 PM on June 5, 2008


They Repubs are blaming bad intelligence. They acted in good faith, weighing in balance the information they had at the time, it was a judgement call and they eared on the side of caution, given the seriousness of possible consequences (nuclear terrorism). Dems are saying it was a conspiracy. Whose position sounds more reasonable?
posted by stbalbach at 12:40 PM on June 5, 2008


Nadim al-Jaberi of the Shiite...

Iraqi Parliamentarian: 70 Percent Of Iraqis Want Withdrawal, Huge U.S. Embassy Not A ‘Positive Signal’.
posted by ericb at 12:41 PM on June 5, 2008


...if Bush/Cheney decided to invade Iran...

Only 7 percent support taking military action against Iran.


Hell, that's a mandate by Bush standards!
posted by Pollomacho at 12:43 PM on June 5, 2008 [3 favorites]


Huge U.S. Embassy Not A ‘Positive Signal’

It's a po$itive $ignal to whomever got the contract (presumably Hallburton/KBR).
posted by ornate insect at 12:43 PM on June 5, 2008


...and where are the Democrats we sent to D.C. to end this occupation of the White House by a lying war-monger???
posted by Hugh2d2 at 12:44 PM on June 5, 2008


They Repubs are blaming bad intelligence. They acted in good faith, weighing in balance the information they had at the time...

Chairman 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. … Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."

"...the Senate Intelligence report on pre-war statements specifically notes a pre-war intelligence report that directly refuted [the claim that Iraqis would welcome U.S. forces as liberators]. A January 2003 Intelligence Community Assessment acknowledged that 'Iraq was a deeply divided society that likely would engage in violent conflict unless an occupying power prevented it.'"*
posted by ericb at 12:46 PM on June 5, 2008


Does anyone know if Executive power has been twisted to the point where if Bush/Cheney decided to invade Iran they could just do it without congress's approval?

My (non-scholarly) reading of the War-Powers Act leads me to believe that they could order an attack on Iran and not need to involve Congress unless the conflict extends past 60 days. So, if Bush got the idea that a quick air-war would destroy Iran's nuclear capability, there's very little doubt in my mind that he would push for that.

It's a fool's game, of course. Any open military conflict with Iran would be a very long one, and would last long after the "Mission Accomplished" banners are unfurled and the carriers come home.

Only 7 percent support taking military action against Iran.


Both Bush and Cheney have repeatedly said that poll numbers are irrelevant to them, and, indeed, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that they privately take pride in their ability to "do what's right" even when the entire world (and most of the US) strongly disagree.
posted by Avenger at 12:51 PM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]



We'll put a boot in yer ass
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 12:35 PM on June 5 [+] [!]

You are not a Jedi, yet. [mp3]
posted by snuffleupagus at 12:52 PM on June 5, 2008


"Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence,” Rockefeller said.

Too bad they don't have the stones to say, "They lied."

They have to couch it, manage it, massage it, so it sounds like it all could've just been a simple mistake that's nobody's fault.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 12:59 PM on June 5, 2008 [2 favorites]


It's a po$itive $ignal to whomever got the contract (presumably Hallburton/KBR).

The $592 Million U.S. Embassy In Iraq.

Allegations of Waste, Fraud, and Abuse at the New U.S. Embassy in Iraq. Video from the hearing.
"Most [of the building contract] has gone to a Kuwait builder, First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting, with the rest awarded to six contractors working on the project’s 'classified' portion — the actual embassy offices.

Higgins declined to identify those builders, citing security reasons, but said five were American companies."*
More on First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting:
"The four-dozen Nepalese workers were waiting for jobs on American military bases in Iraq, but then a horrifying video on TV changed everything.

Footage of 12 of their countrymen executed at the hands of insurgents in Iraq last year set off a panic in the Kuwaiti compound where the workers waited. The Nepalis didn't want to risk the same fate.

But a manager for First Kuwaiti General Trading and Contracting Co., the contractor sending them to Iraq, gathered them together and issued an ultimatum: Agree to travel to Iraq and they would get more food and water. Refuse, and they would get nothing and be put out on the streets of Kuwait City to find their way home.

'The company was forcing them to go to Iraq,' said Lok Bahadur Thapa, the former acting Nepalese ambassador to Saudi Arabia."
posted by ericb at 1:00 PM on June 5, 2008


They Repubs are blaming bad intelligence.

Some are; some are just saying "Well, it happened, let's move on and forget about it."
posted by inigo2 at 1:01 PM on June 5, 2008


Keep preachin to the choir. The Republican answer to this is 'it's a dem majority senate and they can say anything they want to tarnish McCain, it's all lies'. Half of America will buy that, the other half will buy the Senate report.
posted by spicynuts at 1:01 PM on June 5, 2008


Today Bush is meeting with our (Dutch) Prime Minister, Jan-Peter Balkenende. Perhaps he can escort Bush back to the Hague and drop him off at the international court...
posted by DreamerFi at 1:02 PM on June 5, 2008 [2 favorites]


These things take time, Cool Papa.

Get ready for the Summer of Finger Pointing followed by the Autumn of Hearings and then the Winter of Pardons.
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:03 PM on June 5, 2008 [3 favorites]


jsavimbi: "“It is ironic that the Democrats would knowingly distort and misrepresent the Committee’s findings and the intelligence in an effort to prove that the Administration distorted and mischaracterized the intelligence,” said Bond.

And the irony lies where?
"

Yeah, I read that quote and thought "Fuck Chris Bond in the neck, hard." All the partisan "he said/she said" shit is so fucking old except to this douchebag.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 1:07 PM on June 5, 2008


The whole key, ao4047, is that every Executive since the War Powers Act became law has claimed the War Powers Act is an unconstitutional infringement on the President's power as Commander in Chief. They've all skirted it, too, in letter and spirit.

Carter didn't get Congressional approval before the ill-fated Iranian Hostage Rescue attempt.

Reagan didn't get Congressional approval before he sent Marines to Lebanon and he didn't inform them that he had done so afterward, one of the Act's requirements. Same with the invasion of Grenada.

Bush Pere invaded Panama without getting Congressional approval first (but he did comply with the part of the Act that requires prompt notification that action has been taken); later he sent US forces into Somalia without Congressional approval.

Clinton sent US forces into Bosnia without Congressional approval and so began a running battle with Congress over what the President could and couldn't do there with the President continuing to do what he wanted to do. Clinton did it again when he sent the Navy to enforce a UN embargo of Haiti.

So far, no Congress has has not been to defend its prerogatives with respect to War Powers, which suggests it's not in many Congressperson's interests to do so.
posted by notyou at 1:14 PM on June 5, 2008


Only 7 percent support taking military action against Iran.

So?
posted by octothorpe at 1:18 PM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


Crikey.

Here's what I should have typed a the end of my 1:14: "So far, Congress has not been able to defend its prerogatives with respect to War Powers, which suggests it's not in many Congressperson's interests to do so."
posted by notyou at 1:19 PM on June 5, 2008


If the report's no big deal, why did the Republicans fight so hard to prevent its release?

And claiming the intelligence was flawed is a lie. The claim that Iraq was seeking yellowcake uranium from Niger was debunked by Joseph Wilson in 2002, but Bush repeated the claim in his 2003 State of the Union Address. Condoleezza Rice said that the aluminum tubes Iraq imported "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," which was a lie and was disputed before the invasion. The administration cited defector Hussein Kamel's former position as head of WMD development as proof they still had WMD without mentioning that he said in 1995 that "Iraq does not possess any weapons of mass destruction." That was also known before the invasion. "Curveball" was cited as evidence of mobile biological weapon labs even though German Intelligence said he was a crazy, lying drunk and his claims had been debunked before the invasion. Caveats and dissents in the classified version of the October 2002 NIE on Iraq were edited out of the declassified version.

In each and every case the Bush Administration picked the extreme interpretation of the available intelligence and presented it as absolute, undisputed fact. Cheney said, "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." Rumsfeld said, "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." They lied, they lied, they lied.

And the irony lies where?

Here it is!
The Democratic staff who authored the report twisted policy makers’ statements and cherry picked intelligence in order to reach their misleading conclusions, often leaving out pertinent intelligence;
A majority of the Iraqi parliament has written to Congress rejecting a long-term security deal with Washington if it is not linked to a requirement that U.S. forces leave.

Bush: If Iraq Says Leave, "We Would Leave."
posted by kirkaracha at 1:20 PM on June 5, 2008 [5 favorites]


I should think that this is good ammo for Obama's anti-war stance.
posted by Vindaloo at 1:21 PM on June 5, 2008


What we need is a War Profiteering Tribunal (self-link)
posted by ornate insect at 1:22 PM on June 5, 2008


Related(?) story: "Air Force leadership leaving in historic shake-up".

I have a feeling this is about more than "oopsy we shipped detonators to Taiwan. tee hee."
posted by Avenger at 1:27 PM on June 5, 2008


What we need is a War Profiteering Tribunal

We've got the laws for one.

"Specifically, the bill makes war profiteering – overcharging in order to defraud or profit excessively from war, military action, or reconstruction efforts – a felony, subject to up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million or twice the illegal profits of the crime. The bill also confers jurisdiction to U.S. federal courts to hear such cases."
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:32 PM on June 5, 2008


And the irony lies where?

Here it is!

The Democratic staff who authored the report twisted policy makers’ statements and cherry picked intelligence in order to reach their misleading conclusions, often leaving out pertinent intelligence;

Kit Bond keeps using that word. I do not think it means what he thinks it means. In other words, it would've been ironic had the Democratic staffers cherry-picked the information, which they surely did, and proven that in fact the Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Powell claims were true. But since said factual cherry-picking has indeed proven what the Democrats intended to prove, that the lying sonsabitches took us to war, there is no irony.

I beseech you to contact your elected representatives and demand that they stop using words to which they ignore the meaning. after all, if you can't have the English language, what can you have?
posted by jsavimbi at 1:36 PM on June 5, 2008


I think the only answer to this kind of behavior lies in ideas like Change Congress, Open Congress, and Public Markup.

If you let people make decisions for you, they'll make them in their own interests or the interests of those that are more involved in the process, like lobbyists. Unfortunately, it'll take time to figure out exactly how involved we can/need to be while being able to live our own lives.
posted by Grimp0teuthis at 1:41 PM on June 5, 2008


Chris Hedges: What It Really Means When America Goes to War
posted by homunculus at 1:41 PM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


Rumors of War: Is Bush Gearing Up to Attack Iran?
posted by homunculus at 1:46 PM on June 5, 2008


They Repubs are blaming bad intelligence.

Then I say we lock them up in a deep, dark hole in the hardest federal prision we can find and claim the same thing.

Seems fair to me.
posted by quin at 2:10 PM on June 5, 2008


In fairness Notyou to Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, and Clinton so did Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, and Dwight Eisenhower commit American troops without Congressional approval. The Constitutionality of the War Powers Act is meaningless in so far that in practice Congress gave itself an authority it chooses not to exercise.

And there's way lots more bad intelligence out there to rely on. Way lots more.

So nothing has changed and the Iranians - unless they are completely and utterly mad - should be thinking about chilling out, dispersing their assets in as many different places as they can find, wait for Jaw-Jaw Obama to move into 1600 Pennsylvania, and then get back to business.
posted by three blind mice at 2:55 PM on June 5, 2008


It sure does not seem to be getting much play in major media outlets.
posted by caddis at 3:21 PM on June 5, 2008


Protests like this have a way of making change happen.
posted by anthill at 3:21 PM on June 5, 2008


Iraq Report Undermines Bush’s Claim That He Is A ‘Credible’ Leader Because He ‘Reads The Intelligence’.
posted by ericb at 5:13 PM on June 5, 2008


And there's way lots more bad intelligence out there to rely on.

Is that the meme? That's the best they got? You don't even have to read those long, boring reports. Just focus on the bullet points above, especially these key words:

were not substantiated by the intelligence

were contradicted by available intelligence

did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence

was not substantiated by available intelligence

It was not "bad intelligence." It was ignoring the intelligence and making shit up.
posted by Shepherd at 5:22 PM on June 5, 2008


Did Iranian agents dupe Pentagon officials into attacking their old enemy Iraq? First we supply Iran with arms as they are our friend. Then they aren't and they use those arms against Iraq. So, we support Iraq in its war against Iran. The enemy of our enemy is our friend. Now has Iran duped us into attacking Iraq? Spy vs. Spy.

(even if true it is probably more like GW couldn't wait to attack Saddam and he got just as much advantage from any such deception as Iran did. It all went to the same end, getting at Saddam.)
posted by caddis at 6:08 PM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


Arrestig and jailing the Bush administration would help heal the nation.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:52 PM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


They Repubs are blaming bad intelligence. They acted in good faith, weighing in balance the information they had at the time, it was a judgement call and they eared on the side of caution, given the seriousness of possible consequences (nuclear terrorism). Dems are saying it was a conspiracy. Whose position sounds more reasonable?

If the Repubs claim they believed all the reasons that their "intelligence" agencies where giving them to start a war, then that makes them pretty fucking stupid since most Americans with a brain could tell it was bullshit in 2002.
So ....Republicans, you're either really dim or really corrupt.
posted by Liquidwolf at 8:06 PM on June 5, 2008


Interesting to compare the coverage.

NY Times: Senate Panel Accuses Bush of Iraq Exaggerations: Bush built the case for war "by exaggerating available intelligence and by ignoring disagreements among spy agencies".

CNN: Senate report slams Bush over prewar intelligence: the White House "exploited its ability to declassify intelligence selectively" and "misled the American people about contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda".

Washington Post: Bush Inflated Threat From Iraq's Banned Weapons, Report Says: Bush administration "repeatedly exaggerated what they knew about Iraq's weapons and its ties to terrorist groups".

Fox: Senate Report Sheds New Light on Pre-War Intel, Does Not Close Partisan Divide: Senate report "appears to shed more light on the level of distrust between the CIA and [Rumsfeld and Cheney]".

One of these stories is not like the others; one of these stories does not belong...
posted by ook at 8:57 PM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


Impeach.
posted by AsYouKnow Bob at 9:18 PM on June 5, 2008


I seem to remember a majority of MeFi being very much about the "he's pushing bullshit on us" during the run-up to the war.

Which makes me think we should elect MeFi for President.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:16 PM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


US issues threat to Iraq's $50bn foreign reserves in military deal:

By Patrick Cockburn
www.independent.co.uk
Friday, 6 June 2008

The US is holding hostage some $50billion (£25bn) of Iraq's money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely, according to information leaked to The Independent.

US negotiators are using the existence of $20billion in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal...


(snip)

The threat by the American side underlines the personal commitment of President George Bush to pushing the new pact through by 31 July. Although it is in reality a treaty between Iraq and the US, Mr Bush is describing it as an alliance so he does not have to submit it for approval to the US Senate.
posted by ornate insect at 10:36 PM on June 5, 2008


US issues threat to Iraq's $50bn foreign reserves in military deal
By Patrick Cockburn


Cockburn's recent articles on this deal probably deserve their own post.
posted by homunculus at 12:07 AM on June 6, 2008


Ali Allawi response: This raises huge questions over our independence
posted by homunculus at 12:08 AM on June 6, 2008


The US is holding hostage some $50billion (£25bn) of Iraq's money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely, according to information leaked to The Independent.

I blame The Rest of the World for all of this. I mean, where are they when they should be protecting us from ourselves and everyone else on the planet from us. Obviously our government has no morals, but can't everyone else see how wrong this is and stop us?
posted by leftcoastbob at 12:56 AM on June 6, 2008


So ....Republicans, you're either really dim or really corrupt.

Why is this an "either" - "or" question? They can easily be both.
posted by DreamerFi at 1:10 AM on June 6, 2008


Cheney's One Percent Doctrine:
[Ron] Suskind describes the Cheney doctrine as follows: "Even if there's just a 1 percent chance of the unimaginable coming due, act as if it is a certainty. It's not about 'our analysis,' as Cheney said. It's about 'our response.' … Justified or not, fact-based or not, 'our response' is what matters. As to 'evidence,' the bar was set so low that the word itself almost didn't apply."
The problem is the Bush Administration didn't say they thought Iraq might have WMD and we couldn't afford to take a chance, they said they absolutely knew they did.

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason." It was also about appeasing terrorists:
There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.
Data didn't back Bush claims on Iraqi weapons, officials say

Neglecting Intelligence, Ignoring Warnings
posted by kirkaracha at 6:22 AM on June 6, 2008


Liquidwolf: "So ....Republicans, you're either really dim or really corrupt."

I don't think that we need to choose between those two options, I'm perfectly comfortable calling them both dim and corrupt.
posted by octothorpe at 8:44 AM on June 6, 2008


Clarke On Iraq War Architects: ‘We Shouldn’t Let These People Back Into Polite Society’
posted by homunculus at 2:57 PM on June 6, 2008


Did Iranian agents dupe Pentagon officials?
"Defense Department counterintelligence investigators suspected that Iranian exiles who provided dubious intelligence on Iraq and Iran to a small group of Pentagon officials might have 'been used as agents of a foreign intelligence service ... to reach into and influence the highest levels of the U.S. government,' a Senate Intelligence Committee report said Thursday.

A top aide to then-secretary of defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, however, shut down the 2003 investigation into the Pentagon officials' activities after only a month, and the Defense Department's top brass never followed up on the investigators' recommendation for a more thorough investigation, the Senate report said.

The revelation raises questions about whether Iran may have used a small cabal of officials in the Pentagon and in Vice President Dick Cheney's office to feed bogus intelligence on Iraq and Iran to senior policymakers in the Bush administration who were eager to oust the Iraqi dictator."
posted by ericb at 12:59 PM on June 7, 2008


Kucinich presents Bush impeachment articles
posted by homunculus at 5:59 PM on June 9, 2008



Kucinich presents Bush impeachment articles

It'd be great if anything resulted from this.
posted by wabbittwax at 6:17 PM on June 9, 2008


Jon Stewart Slams Media for Blacking Out Iraq War Lies Report
posted by homunculus at 11:12 AM on June 10, 2008


'Curveball' speaks, and a reputation as a disinformation agent remains intact
posted by homunculus at 5:57 PM on June 22, 2008


GAO Report Faults Post-'Surge' Planning
posted by homunculus at 11:27 AM on June 24, 2008


« Older The Meaning of Box 722. Letters to Senator Paul Do...  |  123 mm = 12 stacked CD cases. ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments