Bush to pick panel for WMD inquiry

llad12

Diabloii.Net Member
Bush to pick panel for WMD inquiry

Responding to congressional pressure after David Kay's WMD report to Congress, President Bush has indicated that he will appoint an "independent bipartisan commission" to review US intelligence on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

According to CNN:

At a Cabinet meeting Monday, Bush told reporters he wanted to look at intelligence prior to the war in Iraq as well as what the U.S. team hunting for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction has found.

"We also want to look at our war against proliferation and and weapons of mass destruction in a broader context," Bush said. "So I'm putting together a independent bipartisan commission to analyze where we stand, what we can do better as we fight this war against terror."

Bush said he wanted to talk to David Kay, the former U.S. chief weapons inspector, before he moves forward with the commission.

Kay told a Senate panel last week that his group did not find weapons of mass destruction and that he didn't believe significant stockpiles of banned weapons would turn up either.

"It turns out we were all wrong, and that is most disturbing," Kay said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing during which he called for an independent probe of the apparent intelligence failure.

Initially, the White House rejected calls from Kay and lawmakers for an independent review of prewar intelligence on Iraq. But with political pressure mounting, Vice President Dick Cheney began making calls last week to key members of Congress to explore potential compromises.

The president is expected to sign an executive order creating the commission...

Bush will set a deadline for the investigation of sometime in early to mid-2005, the sources said. The panel is likely to have nine members, the sources said.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/02/sprj.nirq.iraq.wmd/index.html

Bush's proposed appointment of the members of the investigating committee, however, has not met with approval of all congressional members:

President Bush will name a nine-member bipartisan commission this week to investigate U.S. intelligence-gathering capabilities, a senior administration official said Sunday ...

By creating a panel whose inquiry, the official said, is expected to run past election day, Bush may be immunizing himself — politically speaking — against criticism over faulty intelligence and against allegations from some Democrats that the administration exaggerated Iraq's weapons capabilities to build public support for the war ...

On Saturday night, as speculation grew that Bush would appoint a commission, Sen. John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said he would not be surprised by such a move, which he characterized as a cynical attempt to remove the issue from the presidential campaign.

On Sunday, a Rockefeller spokeswoman said the senator would oppose Bush's intention of naming all the panel's members.

"It has to be a nonpartisan, nonpolitical commission," said Wendy Morigi. "The senator doesn't see how they could possibly meet that criteria if they want to appoint their own panel."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-na-bush2feb02,1,4810857.story?coll=la-home-headlines

At the very least, Bush's support of an "independent committee" investigation is a retreat as he is now acknowledging the faulty intelligence used to support the invasion of Iraq.

To me, this investigation seems to be as much a political ploy as a concerted effort to find out the truth of this matter. Why so? Because the results of any such investigation will not be known until well after the November elections. By supporting this matter, Bush can attempt to short-circuit any criticisms laid on him by his democratic rivals.

Most people (myself included) would support an true independent investigation into this faulty intelligence and/or "cherry picking" of information that was used to support the US invasion of Iraq.

My questions to you:

Do you support this investigation?

Do you think that the White House should be able to appoint their own hand-picked members of any such committee? Do you think that these appointments could potentially lead to mistrust?

What are your views on this committee in relationship to the timing of the upcoming election?
 

maccool

Diabloii.Net Member
Well, to be fair, a Democratic president in the same situation would pull an identical stunt. Oh, the spin we weave when we first practice to deceive!

I'll hold judgement until the panel is chosen. I'll lay odds right now that Zell Miller and other Dixiecrats are on this committee. It's not going to be as bipartisan as you might want, it's not going to be effective, and no one will be held accountable; at least no one who doesn't have a cushy consulting job waiting for them.

Often, when a special committee is chosen, the only purpose is to make it look like action is being taken, when in fact, nothing is being done.

I love big government, the two-party system, the c.y.a. attitude that pervades D.C., and most of all the ability of politicians to say absolutely nothing while talking for 30 minutes!
 

Damascus

Diabloii.Net Member
llad12 said:
Do you support this investigation?
Investigations are never bad really, so I see no downside.

Do you think that the White House should be able to appoint their own hand-picked members of any such committee? Do you think that these appointments could potentially lead to mistrust?
No, and yes.

What are your views on this committee in relationship to the timing of the upcoming election?
Depends how long it takes them to finish, what they say, and what else happens during that time. Not to mention what the Administration says in the meantime.
 

advil

Diabloii.Net Member
llad12 said:
Do you support this investigation?
yes. or rather i support "an investigation". whether this one'll be worth spit is another matter.

llad12 said:
Do you think that the White House should be able to appoint their own hand-picked members of any such committee? Do you think that these appointments could potentially lead to mistrust?
no, and of course.

llad12 said:
What are your views on this committee in relationship to the timing of the upcoming election?
gee, the timing's politically convenient. shocking.

he's punting, and he's taking credit for finally trying to "learn the truth". half the reports i've heard about this already make it sound like he's taking the initiative in finally getting his *** in gear. barf. frelling media...
 

Rocks_Off

Diabloii.Net Member
Personally, I think the only way to be really fair is to resurrect the Independent Counsel law. The last guy did such a bang-up job. :rolleyes:

As far as the timing goes...what would you guys have him do? Seriously.
 

maccool

Diabloii.Net Member
Rocks,

The timing is fine for me; I don't think Bush will be re-elected anyway, so the electioneering issue isn't a concern. It's the potential way in which this committee will be chosen that smacks of back door shenanigans. An independently chosen committee will have more public and political support; you know, that whole 'nothing to hide' thing.

I say bring back Ken Starr! That guy can find a nickel in a snowstorm. Well, a nickel that describes a President's infidelities, not the nickel he was originally looking for.
 

Rocks_Off

Diabloii.Net Member
maccool said:
I'll lay odds right now that Zell Miller and other Dixiecrats are on this committee.
That's hardly fair to paint Miller as a Dixiecrat...he was only 16 in 1948, ya know?

You'll have to play the race-baiting card on someone else, mac.
 

tarnok

Diabloii.Net Member
maccool said:
The timing is fine for me; I don't think Bush will be re-elected anyway, so the electioneering issue isn't a concern.
It may seem impossible but don't get complacent about it! Make sure you go out and vote Not Bush in 2004!
 

maccool

Diabloii.Net Member
Meh, I meant Dixiecrat as a Southern Democrat who is more in line with the Republican platform; fiscal responsibility, strong national defence, etc. Not a segregationist or 'states rights' advocate. Sorry for the confusion.

You're thinking along the lines of Strom Thurmond and George Wallace. I'm thinking of the modern Southern Democrats, Zell Miller and Fritz Hollings (both of whom are retiring in 2004).
 

Rocks_Off

Diabloii.Net Member
Aight, but I'd suggest not using that term except for specifically that group. Associating someone with the Dixiecrats (even unintentionally) generally associates them with being a racist, regardless of discussions of whether or not the Dixies were actually racist (yes, those discussions continue...sheesh). We all remember what happened to Mr. Lott, no?

On to other things...if we brought ole Kenny back, wouldn't that just be another facet of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy'? lol
 

maccool

Diabloii.Net Member
Hey, now that I'm out of the South, I can say Dixiecrat all I want :p

You're right, though. No matter who gets put on this commission, people are going to piss and moan. Maybe they could put Ted Kennedy and Rick Santorum on it? That would be hilarious!

Again, except in rare circumstances, commission reports are largely ignored after they first come out. I blame our short atte...hey, it's raining!
 

Rocks_Off

Diabloii.Net Member
Come on, Mac, I think you're being far too conservative (hehe) in you're nominations.

I think I'm going to pick Lyndon LaRouche and Pat Buchanan.

hmmm...

Those crazy SOBs might actually agree on something though...

Speaking of commission reports that get ignored...didn't Nixon's report concerning illegal drugs say something about...hey, it IS raining!
 

Smeg Head

Diabloii.Net Member
Yeah, go ahead. Have an investigation. The Democrat party is going to be embarassed in the process. Especially John Kerry, with his voting to cut the CIA and other intel sources. Which led to the partial screwup in the intel.
 

maccool

Diabloii.Net Member
Right, Smeg. Because everyone knows that legislation isn't voted on by the full House and Senate, nor signed by the President; it all goes through Kerry. Nice ad hom.. Nice to have the fall preview of the administration spin; it's all Kerry's fault.
 

Smeg Head

Diabloii.Net Member
Kerry is the one that'll take the brunt of it. Even though it was a Democrat run congress every time the intelligence budget/resources/etc. were cut. Add in the "peace dividend" that Pres. Clinton used to further gut our war fighting abilites.

One thing you all seem to forget. Saddam thought he had WMDs. Why shouldn't we? And we still haven't taken a look into Syria to see what was taken over there. So just go ahead and jump for joy over the investigation. It'll only point we did the right thing.
 

maccool

Diabloii.Net Member
Smeg Head said:
One thing you all seem to forget. Saddam thought he had WMDs. Why shouldn't we?
Ummm, tons of evidence to the contrary?

Smegster said:
And we still haven't taken a look into Syria to see what was taken over there. So just go ahead and jump for joy over the investigation. It'll only point we did the right thing.
Going into Syria is not part of this discussion. Make another thread if you want to talk about that. The questions asked were:

Llad said:
Do you support this investigation?

Do you think that the White House should be able to appoint their own hand-picked members of any such committee? Do you think that these appointments could potentially lead to mistrust?

What are your views on this committee in relationship to the timing of the upcoming election?
So, the rest of us have answered, Smeg. If you'd bother to answer, I bet you'd find that your answers and mine are just about them same.

That is to say (again): I think the investigation is a good idea, but the administration choosing members of the committee can only lead to more partisan bickering. Finally, the timing issue is a non-issue. It won't matter.

Would it kill you to actually reply to the original content instead of going off on a Hellfire-esque tangent? (At least you haven't called anyone here a liberal today or accused us of being terrorists :))
 

Smeg Head

Diabloii.Net Member
Do you support this investigation?
Yes

Do you think that the White House should be able to appoint their own hand-picked members of any such committee? Do you think that these appointments could potentially lead to mistrust?
Yes. No. Nobody will accept anything but a bi-partisan group.

What are your views on this committee in relationship to the timing of the upcoming election?
It'll have little effect.

To follow through on something Mac said, people will be found accountable for the mistakes. All will be in the intelligence agencies. No elected leader will be effected greatly. Kerry will be made to look like he led the assault on the intelligence gathering abilities. Nevermind it was Sen. Frank Church that devestated our intel abilities.
 

LunarSolaris

Diabloii.Net Member
I agree with Mac's assertion that a Democrat would be doing the exact same C.Y.A. in this situation... just to mention out of fairness. Politics in general is a Spin and C.Y.A. game... and both parties tend to reek of poopty-doo much of the time.

As to the specific questions... yes, I think that an investigation is warranted, though I highly doubt anything significant will come of it, nor will there be any meaningful reprocussions. If anything, the intelligence will be blamed, but the Bush administration will take a solid stance on their original position and claim that it was the intelligence offered at the time and that they were standing behind it.

And as to Bush losing the election.... of course he is.... because I'm going to replace him! In case many of you might have missed it... I put in my nomination last week. I already have one supporter even! Wooo!

LunarSolaris for president in 2004!!!!

And remember.... a vote for me is a vote for beer and cheetos!
 
Top