Document leak embarrassment in US intelligence inquiry on Iraq

Agence France-Presse | 11/06/03

[kattracks]

The leak of a Democratic document describing a strategy to highlight contradictions in CIA reports and statements by the US administration about Iraq intensified animosity at a Senate committee.

Several Republican Senators accused Democrats of seeking to make political mileage out of a bipartisan inquiry relating to the quality of intelligence used to justify the US-led war on Iraq.

Tension has heightened between members of the Senate Intelligence Committee with the approach of next year's election season.

"Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq," the memo said. "Yet, we have an important role to play in the revealing the misleading -- if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives -- of the senior administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, preemptive war."

"The approach outline above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives and methods," the document continued.

Republicans pounced on the memo, portraying it as a Democratic attempt to politicize the probe into prewar intelligence gathering.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts said the paper was "an effort to discredit the committee's work, undermine its conclusions, no matter what those conclusions may be."

"I've never seen the kind of blatant partisan politics that has apparently emerged as revealed in this memorandum," said Republican Senator Jon Kyl.

But Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller tried to downplay the importance of the leak.

"It is disturbing that individuals are seeking to score political points and that a draft paper describing the rights of the minority to push for a full and fair review of these issues is being so grossly mischaracterized to try to deflect attention from the real issue," Rockefeller said.

[kattracks]

It's gone international.

[weegee]

Al Jazeera even convered it. We're still waiting for CNN to take note of this story.

[Mo1]

It's gone international

Sure looks that way .. I guess this isn't going away any time soon

[kcvl]

"draft paper"

It is NOT a "draft paper", Senator Rockefeller and you know it.

[Just mythoughts]

I am sure those in France would like to know what "INTEL" has been uncovered in Iraq.

Their best moles have probably been some of our very own dims.

Biggest problem is that they don't know what has been found and getting an "INDEPENDENT" investigation will remove from public view the "INTEL" exposing those helpers of Saddam.

[patj]

What's interesting here is what is left out of this story?

[HangThemHigh]

Jay Rockefeller was on CNN with Lou Dobbs (the only CNN talking head I can stomach) last night answering questions about this. He claimed that a staffer wrote it and no one except he and his staff had seen it before the press got it. He would not disavow the contents or say he was sorry in any way shape or form. Nor woould Rockefeller mention Sean Hannity's name, even after Lou gave Sean the credit he deserves.

[mewzilla]

Rockefeller was completely unrepentant.

[kevkrom]

What's interesting here is what is left out of this story

Yeah, plus the wonderful slant that makes it look like the eeeeevil Republicans are upset at some form of noble crusade by Democrats to expose the "truth"...

[capt. norm]

This demonstrates the fact that the liberal media, especially the alphabet networks, the NYT, Washington Post, et al can no longer control the flow of news.

They can either stand in the side-lines and let Fox News cover it or join in.

Best they can do is come up with their laundered version of the story, being very careful not to include the text of the entire memo.

[prairiebreeze]

Thanks for the ping. Not one word on the front page of either Chicago major newspaper this AM. grrr

Prairie

[Quilla]

And that laundered version will cover Rockefeller's "how did they get their hands on it" stance. A dem strategist on Fox and Friends this morning implied that Republicans typically dig through the trash and hack computers. Yet during the few minutes of Sean's radio show I caught yesterday afternoon, he stated it was not obtained from a garbage recepticle or by illegal means.

One caller to the morning show made an incredible point. Doesn't this point to a potential vunerablity with respect to sensitive material in the office of a Senator who sits on the Intelligence Committee?

[weegee]

The Rats have tipped thier hand in the past by sending out such a memo as an email to too wide a list (I think it was a memo where the writer wanted to stall the economic recovery to hurt Bush/Republicans in the 2002 election).

[weegee]

Here's the full text of the memo:

Transcript of a memo written by a Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee staff suggesting how to make the greatest gain off of intelligence data leading to the war against Iraq.

We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:

1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard. For example, in addition to the president's State of the Union speech, the chairman has agreed to look at the activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department. The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and co-signs our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. (Note: we can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.)

2) Assiduously prepare Democratic "additional views" to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it. In that regard, we have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims and contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry. The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an independent commission (i.e. the Corzine amendment).

3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time-- but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year either:

A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report -- thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public: 1) additional views on the interim report; 2) announcement of our independent investigation; and 3) additional views on the final investigation; or



B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue. We could attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the "use" of intelligence.

In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter foot-dragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman; we have independently submitted written questions to DoD; and we are preparing further independent requests for information.

Summary

Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet, we have an important role to play in the revealing the misleading -- if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives -- of the senior administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, preemptive war. The approach outline above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives and methods.

[samanella]

Nothing that I can find on my two daily hometown newspapers, either....those being the Charleston (WV) Gazette and Daily Mail! And my father who still lives in WV hadn't heard anything about it either. Poor WV, first they have Senator Dementia as an acute embarrassment, now Jay Baby lets them down. Time for the WV Freepers to mount a serious campaign to oust these two losers.

[prognostigaator]

ADD:“It is clear that the current approval ratings of the administration are tied directly to strong American feelings toward traditional values,” the talking points say.

“To counter this, doubt must be raised as to America’s true position within the world community and the true intent of the Bush administration in waging war.”