| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| Bush Names Panelists in Iraq Intel Probe |
| 2004-02-06 |
| EFL: President Bush named seven people Friday to sit on an independent study commission to look into intelligence failures on Iraqi weapons, choosing former Democratic Sen. Charles S. Robb and retired judge Laurence Silberman, a Republican, to head the panel. "We must stay ahead of constantly changing intelligence challenges," Bush said. "The stakes for our country cannot be higher." Amen. Robb, a moderate Democrat, was a former U.S. senator and governor of Virginia and son-in-law of the late President Johnson. He is married to Lynda Bird Johnson and has been practicing law since leaving the Senate. Silberman is a conservative who served as deputy attorney general in the Nixon and Ford administrations. He was named to the appeals court by President Reagan in 1985. Bush directed federal agencies to cooperate with the commission, which will report to the nation by March 2005. Bush said he has yet to select the remaining two members of the nine-member panel. Waiting to see complaints about first seven. Bush also picked Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to be a member of the commission. "In our war against terrorism, it is imperative that we guarantee the credibility and effectiveness of our intelligence capabilities," McCain said in a statement. "I will do my very best to help find the answers that the American people have a right to know." McCain won’t be bullied by anyone, plus the press loves him. Or at least they did. Bush also named Lloyd Cutler, former White House counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton; former federal judge Patricia M. Wald; Yale University president Richard C. Levin, and Adm. William O. Studeman, former deputy director of the CIA. Wald, a respected former chief judge for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, served as a judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Don’t know anything about her Bush had initially opposed a commission, but agreed to do so as calls grew from Republican lawmakers as well as Democrats. But the White House said the commission would look beyond problems in Iraq and examine the handling of intelligence on terrorists and U.S. adversaries. Democrats said any commission appointed solely by Bush could not be considered independent and objective. They have called for an examination not only of the work of intelligence agencies, but whether the White House pressured analysts and manipulated data to boost the case for war. That’s the only thing they want. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #6 I'm still thinking we have/will find some of these for the same reasons noted by CS. W is going on Meet the Press Sunday so this diffuses that line of questioning to a large extent. McCain is a loose cannon and faux republican on many isssues, but national security isn't one of them. He has the gravitas (to use a newsy term) to make this a productive effort at reforming the intel biz for the better. Even Kerry and McAuliffe don't have the stones to question McCain's ethics, honesty, or patriotism - I'd like to see Michael Moore accuse him of something heh heh |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-2-6 6:44:58 PM |
| #5 Cyber Sarge is on the money. We should not be appointing commissions while the work is still underway. This will not be received well in the field, and sends the wrong message to the Dhimmicrats - they will only be emboldened by this. Also, too many Carter personnel on the panel. 0 is the appropriate number. Hell, now we're hearing that even if we find buried stores of chemicals that isn't enough - that the only thing that will exonerate Bush is loaded chemical weaponry. The Dhimmicrats have redefined this to absurd levels, including counting themselves as belonging to the enemy camp. The theatre of operations is now the politcal arena, and all efforts should be put forward to defeating the Dhimmis. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2004-2-6 6:19:14 PM |
| #4 program, instead we depended on reports from third party sources (French , U.N., etc.) and dissidents. I didn’t work the Iraqi target, but I HIGHLY suspect that the game is not yet over. I find it hard to believe that Saddam spent large amounts of money to acquire base chemicals and then not produce weapons. Also NOBODY can tell us when and where the KNOWN quantities ended up. Even if they dissipated there should be some residual to confirm or at least tell us where the storage/research was taking place. Don’t believe or discount the stories about the WMD going to Syria. If I were a betting man I would pick Iran. Saddam know that they would give us the MOST trouble and would be far more likely to use them. Syria (Bashir) is a nutless version of his Dad and will be deposed before too long by some hard liner. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-2-6 5:48:32 PM |
| #3 A close objective look might lead to some solid recommendations to reverse some of the damage that has been done to our intelligence capability in the last 30 years. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-2-6 5:27:20 PM |
| #2 McCain is a brilliant pick: he's every Democrat's favorite Republican, but whatever his flaws (if you're a member of the VRWC, he's not your favorite Republican) he's also too much of a patriot (and too stubborn) to become a shill for the Angry Left. |
| Posted by: Mike 2004-2-6 5:14:05 PM |
| #1 I am betting that Sean Penn gets one of the final spots. I bet I can get odds that would mean that an unlikely win would pay off like a Powerball hit for me. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-2-6 4:52:25 PM |