The So Called "Intelligence" Committee

The United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. They even have a website. The list of members is here if you have a need to see it. They have a "Jurisdiction" which is kind of like a corporate mission statement, or a paragraph of words to live (or die) by:

JURISDICTION

Created pursuant to S.Res. 400, 94th Congress: to oversee and make continuing studies of the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government, and to submit to the Senate appropriate proposals for legislation and report to the Senate concerning such intelligence activities and programs. In carrying out this purpose, the Select Committee on Intelligence shall make every effort to assure that the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States provide informed and timely intelligence necessary for the executive and legislative branches to make sound decisions affecting the security and vital interests of the Nation. It is further the purpose of this resolution to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States.

(Emphasis added.) Just reread the part in italics. (sigh) This is actually almost too easy.

If you're a Senator on this committee, you apparently have no doubt as to what your job description would be.
1.) Sit on your ass and do nothing.
2.) React indignantly after it's apparent that there's been an obvious intelligence failure.
3.) Take credit for being on top of things.

End of job description. That's even better than being a weatherman (wrong half the time and still have a job)!

The Committee released a report (official summary here in PDF format) on Friday 09-Jul-2004 that CNN covered here and a transcript that FOX provides here (I'm fair and balanced). It was concerning the apparent lack of good intelligence during the period that eventually led us into the current war with Iraq.

I especially liked this from Rockefeller (this from the CNN link):

Rockefeller said that the "intelligence failures" will haunt America's national security "for generations to come." "Our credibility is diminished. Our standing in the world has never been lower," he said. "We have fostered a deep hatred of Americans in the Muslim world, and that will grow. As a direct consequence, our nation is more vulnerable today than ever before."

He apparently hadn't noticed any of the Muslim hatred before the Iraq thing. Short list: 1993 Trade Center bombing, African Embassies bombings, the Cole, & the Sep 11, 2001 attack. Can he possibly be such an idiot? Yes, he obviously can be. I seem to remember maybe about eight or ten things that could have come from the "hatred of Americans in the Muslim world". Isn't it wonderful that we have such an insightful Senator on this Committee? With this idiot in mind, do you feel more or less vulnerable today than ever before? I'm saying more vulnerable because of idiots like Rockefeller.

And from the Chairman, Pat Roberts (also from the CNN link):

"The committee found no evidence that the intelligence community's mischaracterization or exaggeration of intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities was the result of politics or pressure," Roberts said.

I'm predicting that this particular quote won't be seen very often in the major media in the future. It wouldn't be good for us lowly peons to think that Bush hadn't arranged all these things to happen way in advance just the way they happened. Lets blame the CIA and Bush for everything. But, just for the fun of it, while we're at it, lets get just a few of our facts straight.

WMD. Did Iraq have them? Yes. Ask any intelligence group anywhere throughout the world. This would include the Israelis, even the Russians, Germans, and French, and even the UN. It's one of the few times that the UN has agreed with Israel. So where did these WMD go? That is clearly what the question should be, but the question rarely gets asked. Is our crack "select" security committee asking this question? No. Alas, no. Every now and then you hear about Iraqi weapons being stashed in Syria, but so far, nothing has come of it. The fact is, they clearly existed and now they are somewhere. But where? Should the Senate "Select" Committee be pushing for an answer to that? Absolutely not! Look at 1.) and 2.) in the job description. After is the key word there. The key for this band of incompetents is to wait for a failure and then explain the obvious consequences to us mere stupid voters. Another real question should be, Are there really WMD existing now in Iraq? There were a bunch of MiG fighter aircraft found buried in the desert. Remember that? How about a couple hundred drums of chemical weaponry? If you can bury a bunch of MiG-25's, what would it take to bury 50 drums of anthrax? I'm saying the jury is still out on WMD's in Iraq. Just because they haven't been discovered as of just now, doesn't mean they aren't there at all. Let's be pretty sure about that before we completely give up.

Yellow Cake. I assumed this was a dead issue, buy maybe not. Was Iraq really trying to get "Yellow Cake" (a form of processed uranium making it more concentrated) from Niger? Yes, in fact it was. Even if this was an issue where one had to say, "Well, maybe", who would then want to sit back and say "Let's just see what happens with this." Let's just hope it's not the morons on the so called "Intelligence" committee. It probably is though. In any event, I found some discussion of this incident in the Report on page 17. And just to be able to kill any arguments that the yellow cake was going to be for nuclear power generation, lets please try to remember that Iraq is sitting on an honest to God black gold mine of oil.

Links to alQaida. I see some fudging here. On page 27 & 28 there are conclusions (what was Conclusion 101?) that show there was a connection to alQaida (by the way, is there an official way to spell the name of this bunch of jerks?), but not the nasty smoking gun connections that some were assuming. There definitely was a link though. Remember that when you hear on the news that there was no link.

Lack of HUMINT. HUMINT (Human Intellegence) is spook speak for an agent on the ground. Page 10 third paragraph is really pretty telling. "...it's very hard to sustain..." an agent in pre-war Iraq. For a pretty good reason. The CIA has been gutted repeatedly over the last thirty years. The committee seems to think that the "corporate culture" of the CIA is "risk averse". Hmmm, I can't imagine why.

The Reasons We Went to War in Iraq. When Bush declared war on Iraq on March 19, 2003, he mentioned, speaking of the military, among other things,

"The enemies you confront will come to know your skill and bravery. The people you liberate will witness the honorable and decent spirit of the American military."

Liberation of the Iraqi people was part of the agenda from day one. It was not an afterthought somebody thought up after finding so few WMD's.

"Regime change". You've heard about it before. Regime change in Iraq has been the official stance of the U.S. since Clinton declared it on Feb. 17, 1998.

...Saddam Hussein could end this crisis tomorrow simply by letting the weapons inspectors complete their mission. He made a solemn commitment to the international community to do that and to give up his weapons of mass destruction a long time ago now. One way or the other, we are determined to see that he makes good on his own promise.

The "one way or the other" reference is to diplomatic vs. military actions. Here's an editorial from the "Washington Post" (of all places) that expands on this idea. Here's a release from the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad detailing the chronology.

Here's a beauty:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."
-- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

Human Rights Violations. Obviously.

So where was the "Select Commitee" on all of this before the war? They had access to the exact same information as the administration. They're seeing intellegence information on a regular basis, so doesn't seem that they should be awed by it. So how did they vote on giving President Bush authorization to use military force in Iraq (H.J. Res. 114, 11-Oct-2003)?

Those voting in favor:
(Republicans) Roberts, Hatch, DeWine, Bond, Lott, Snowe, Hagel, Chambliss, and Warner.
(Democrats) Rockefeller, Feinstein, Bayh, and Edwards.

Those voting against:
(Republicans) None.
(Democrats) Levin, Wyden, Durbin, and Mikulski.

That's 13-4 in favor. So how clever are these people? It's clear to me they've got just enough cleverness to Monday morning quarterback the administration, but not enough to have an original thought of their own. The agencies these clowns are supposed to be overseeing are the very ones that are being accused of giving bad intelligence. It doesn't seem very neccessary to have an investigation and a report to know that stockpiles of WMD haven't been found. The investigation that is needed is "Why did this 'watchdog' group fall asleep at the wheel?". Of course, that won't happen.