More On That Intelligence Committee Report -- Supports Bush Administration

THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE has once again released a report claiming that the Bush administration hyped prewar intelligence. The so-called Phase Two report is supposed to investigate the Bush administration's handling of prewar intelligence. In reality, the report is little more than yet another attempt by partisan Democrats to make political hay out of flawed prewar intelligence. (The only Republicans to endorse the report were two of the Senate's most liberal GOP members.) The committee focused exclusively on prewar statements by Bush administration officials, ignoring similar statements by leading Democrats. Therefore, the report is intended to portray the Bush administration in the worst possible light. But even with this bias, the committee came to a noteworthy conclusion: The Bush administration was right to claim that Saddam's regime was harboring al Qaeda members.

The Senate Intelligence Committee's report includes this conclusion at the end of a terse section on the Bush administration's claims about Saddam's prewar terror ties:

Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al Qaeda-related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments.

Intelligence assessments noted Zarqawi's presence in Iraq and his ability to travel and operate within the country. The intelligence community generally believed that Iraqi intelligence must have known about, and therefore at least tolerated, Zarqawi's presence in the country.

Regarding postwar information collected by the U.S. intelligence community, the report reads:

Postwar information supports prewar assessments and statements that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad and that al Qaeda was present in northern Iraq.

DKK
Weekly Standard -- Harboring al Qaeda

So What Did That Senate Intelligence Report Actually Say?

First, let’s summarize the six conclusions that are unfavorable to the administration:
- Two are complaints about the scarcity of footnotes and caveats,
- Two are objections to single statements (both with substantial extenuating circumstances),
- One largely deals with subjective “implications” and things not actually said,
- And one is problematic.

Be sure to remember that, for the first time since it was established the Democrats stated in a memo that they intended to use the Intelligence Committee as a political tool, possibly in violation of Senate ethics. In the past this was considered dangerous to the nation as the committee was far to important to national security. But that doesn't really seem to matter to Democrats anymore.

Check out the story, the Democrats seem to have followed through with their plan!
DKK
Mick Wright