"There is simply no question that mistakes leading up to the war in Iraq rank among the most devastating losses and intelligence failures in the history of the nation," Mr. Rockefeller said. "The fact is that the administration at all levels, and to some extent us, used bad information to bolster its case for war. And we in Congress would not have authorized that war - we would NOT have authorized that war - with 75 votes if we knew what we know now."
The West Virginian went so far as to assert that in some ways the intelligence failures leading up to the war in Iraq were worse than those that preceded the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "Leading up to Sept. 11, our government didn't connect the dots," he said. "In Iraq, we are even more culpable because the dots themselves never existed."
-- Sen. Rockefeller [in general, see also]
Back in the day, the king could do no wrong, so they blamed his advisors. This allowed one to suggest something was wrong in the state of Denmark without being liable to being charged with treason in the process. These days they blame the CIA. It is amusing to read, akin to an anarchic being told she is too fat, that the CIA "misled" the President about the presence of WMDs in Iraq. Who exactly are they trying to kid?
I can be outraged about the spin that suggests that the administration wasn't the guilty party, the one who spun conflicted evidence for their own purposes. [The congressional report on that issue will wait to after the election -- unlike 2002, when the war resolution occurred in October. The report released though does appear to some to bend over backwards to blame the CIA, and let the administration off the hook.*] Who pressured the CIA and others to support what they believed to be true, so that they can justify their fucking war.
I am ... it is just that this is too amusing. Hey, it's all Tenet's fault ... you know the guy who just resigned to be with his family. Ha ha ha!!!! Oh, and as his replacement noted, no need to clean house. Live and learn, and all that. As the President noted: "We thought there was going to be stockpiles of weapons," he said. "I thought so; the Congress thought so; the U.N. thought so. I'll tell you what we do know. Saddam Hussein had the capacity to make weapons." No wrongdoing here ... just trying our best to spin the country into war.
We now have a slew of doubting hawks, who darn it, might just have voted the other way if they weren't fooled! These include various conservatives such as William Buckley and Tucker Carlson. And, many in Congress, who now can go in front of the voting public and say "hey, we were fooled!" It is useful, since it provides ammo for the Kerry Campaign and helps Kerry and Edwards to explain why they gave the President his blank check.
Still, don't buy the hype. The presence of misleading or just plain wrong intel didn't hurt, but the fact is that there was a good amount of doubt at the time. This includes doubt from many experts, which was why many of them opposed the war. Or didn't rely on fear of WMDs or Al Qaeda links to support it. So, no, that dog won't hunt.
The Kerry campaign issued a statement proclaiming: "Nothing in this report absolves the White House of its responsibility for mishandling of the country's intelligence. The fact is that when it comes to national security, the buck stops at the White House, not anywhere else." Not so quick, John. Congress voted too ... the buck for congressional action stops at the Capitol.
Still, surely, the report is dynamite. The predictable partisan ass covering spin aside, it is remarkable that a Republican controlled committee would be so critical. The Washington Post wonders whether voters will hold Bush responsible for misstating the rationale for war. If the answer is "no," well, let's just say the hell with it -- if the errors and malfeasance of the executive department isn't going to ultimately be placed in the hands of its head, why have an election at all? After all, as Amy Sullivan notes:
No matter how much time W. spends clearing brush in West Texas, there's no escaping the fact that he is President of the United States, which puts him smack-dab in the middle of power in Washington. He may insist that his home is in Crawford, but even school children know his current address: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And while Reagan was able to pull off the running-against-Washington gambit for his re-election, he had the benefit of a Democratic-controlled House to fill the role of bogeyman. So while Bush and Cheney will still pull out the "Washington=bad" card, this time there's a good chance it will backfire on them.
Meanwhile, the Kerry is being blamed for some off color remarks by Hollywood types at a fundraising gala. It's good to know our priorities are right.
---
* Joshua Michall Marshall notes that in fact it is curious why the Democrats on the committee unanimously voted to support the thing. After all, Sen. Rockefeller made it clear that he felt that the President was partly to blame, and any suggestion that the report lets him off the hook should not be accepted. This is the sort of spin that drove people crazy in the past, when a blank check was said not really to be one. Marshall has done a yeoman job over the last few months in showing how the "CIA is guilty: of aiding and abetting."