Faulty Intelligence

BY Nat Parry

The commission appointed by President George W. Bush to look into WMD-related “intelligence failures” can be considered “independent” only if the word now means “subordinated and allied.” The members lack the expertise required to uncover what really went wrong, and their limited mandate sidesteps the central question: Did the administration hype intelligence reports to march the United States into war?

Rather than allowing Congress to name the members and determine the scope of their investigation, the intelligence commission was established by executive fiat and is a mixture of centrists and right-wing ideologues—suggesting that Bush is less concerned with unraveling the Iraq fiasco than deflecting criticism until after the November elections.

Co-chairmen are Laurence Silberman, a retired appeals court judge appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan, and Charles Robb, the moderate former governor and senator from Virginia. Other members are: John McCain, who called for the commission’s formation but advocated that it report back after November; Lloyd Cutler, legal counsel for two Democratic administrations; Richard Levin, president of Yale University, alma mater of the Bush clan; Patricia Wald, former chief judge of the D.C. Court of Appeals; and Adm. William Studeman, former deputy director of Central Intelligence and the only appointee with a solid knowledge of intelligence matters.

The cosmetic appearance of bipartianship doesn’t mask the politicking at the commission’s root.

Silberman has proved himself a valued ideological right-wing operative. After serving as deputy attorney general in the Nixon and Ford administrations, he represented the Reagan-Bush presidential campaign team in 1980 as its unofficial ambassador to Iran, secretly meeting with representatives of Ayatollah Khomeini.

As a reward for his service, Reagan appointed him to the Court of Appeals for Washington D.C., the most powerful circuit court in the country. In this capacity, he is best known for voting in 1990 to overturn the convictions of Lt. Col. Oliver North and Adm. John Poindexter, convicted of felonies relating to the Iran-contra scandal.

Silberman’s intervention played a key role in sabotaging the investigation of special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, who later described the GOP majority on the U.S. Appeals Court as “a powerful band of Republican appointees [who] waited like the strategic reserves of an embattled army, … a force cloaked in the black robes of those dedicated to defining and preserving the rule of law.”

In addition to reversing the Iran-Contra convictions, Silberman tried overturning the independent counsel statute, a decision nullified by the Supreme Court on an 8-1 vote. A decade later, the judge helped right-wing activists pursuing allegations of sexual misconduct by President Bill Clinton and was a strong defender of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. When Clinton attempted to prevent Secret Service agents from being forced to testify before Starr’s grand jury in 1998, Silberman wrote in a legal opinion, “Can it be said that the president of the United States has declared war on the United States?”

Even the seating of McCain, widely regarded as an outspoken maverick Republican, does little to establish the credibility of the panel. Although McCain was an early advocate of a presidential commission “to prevent the United States from ever being misinformed again,” he declined to support Senate bill 1946, introduced last November to establish a congressionally mandated independent commission. He also allayed Bush administration concerns that the commission would influence the November elections by stating that it will take the panel more than a year to complete its work.

McCain is one of the most virulent hawks on Capitol Hill and has not deviated from the neo-conservative line regarding Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Leading up to the war, McCain parroted administration claims on WMDs. On the eve of the U.S. invasion in March 2003, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly asked McCain, “If you were president, what would you have done differently in the run-up to this war?” The senator answered, “Nothing.”

McCain also suggested that the commission’s findings already are written when he told reporters: “The president of the United States, I believe, did not manipulate any kind of information for political gain or otherwise.”

White House press secretary Scott McClellan emphasized that commission members’ “independence will be spelled out in the executive order that the president will sign.” But the executive order Bush signed on February 6 provided that the panel is “subject to the authority of the President.”

Nat Parry is a writer and activist based in Arlington, Virginia.

More information about Nat Parry

  • Reader Comments

    I am always suspicious of the Bushies, and have always been suspicious of this commission. This article, however, doesnt give me a lot of information. Okay, Silberman looks like a party-liner and McCain probably won’t be much use. But Cutler and Wald are both old-time liberals, are they not? They arent even mentioned. Who’s Studeman? No info on him. And saying that Levin is president of Yale, “alma mater of the Bush clan”, is ridiculous. Everybody and his uncle went to Yale. Bill Clinton went to Yale. That’s Oliver Stone-level comment. Maybe the author is right that this commission is a hoax, but the article doesnt provide the goods.

    Posted by Blake Sutton on Feb 19, 2004 at 3:42 PM

    Blake, I agree that the Yale-alma mater assertion is a bit irrelevant and superfluous, and that the article could have gone into more detail, but essentially I think this article makes a decent case that this commission is fundamentally flawed and biased.

    Basically, it comes down to this: How can a commission be independent when it is appointed by the president? How can it be free to seek the truth when its mandate is spelled out in the executive order that the president signed? How can we even think it will reach any conclusions damaging to Bush when it is headed by a long-time ideological party operative like Silberman?

    Posted by Dave Dewitt on Feb 20, 2004 at 9:36 AM

    Unfortunately, the article fails to address the Zionistic leanings of Robb, Silberman and McCain.  Zionism may be one of the roots of so-called “intelligence failure” leading up to Iraq as per my article on Media-Monitors.

    Posted by Tom Mysiewicz on Feb 20, 2004 at 4:26 PM

    THIS IS A LITTLE OFF THE SUBJECT BUT I THINK THIS ISSUE MUST BE ADDRESSED. RALPH NADER IS AN EGOTISTICAL PIECE OF SHIT. I CAN’T BELIEVE THE NERVE OF THIS ASSHOLE TO RUIN THE CHANCES OF GETTING BUSH OUT OF OFFICE. FURTHERMORE, THERE ARE ACTUALLY A LOT OF DUMB HIPPIES OUT THERE WHO WILL VOTE FOR NADER OUT OF PRINCIPLE, EVEN IT MEANS 4 MORE YEARS OF BUSH. THIS GUY IS A PIECE OF SHIT, SORRY EXCUSE FOR A CANIDATE. PLEASE, DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS LOSER, EVEN IF YOU ARE A SOCIALIST ANTI-CORPORATE HIPPY. PEOPLE NEED TO BE REALISTIC THIS ELECTION. BEATING BUSH SHOULD BE THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY. NADER IS UNELECTIBLE AND IF THE DEMOCRATS LOSE BECAUSE OF HIS SORRY ASS I AM GOING TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY BECAUSE I CAN’T STAND 4 MORE YEARS OF BUSH. NADER SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by Dick Cheney on Feb 23, 2004 at 11:36 AM

    Dear Dick,

    While I must concede that Nader’s participation in the election potentially means fewer votes for the Democratic nominee, which very well may result in another dismal 4 years under the Bush administration, the notion that he should be excluded fundamentally undermines the so called democratic process. One can make a good argument that this process has already been severely corrupted, but a significant corrosive force has been the belief that we should only choose a “winner”. This greatly reduces our available choices, and, in the end, we are not necessarily choosing the best candidate, we are choosing the lesser of two evils. Essentially, you are saying that we should have no freedom to choose. It is this mentality that resulted in Bush becoming the GOP nominee in 2000. How he actually won the election is quite another matter, but the point remains valid. It is “we the people” who limit our choices so severly by refusing to think outside of the established system. Nader may not be the answer, but that should be because we disagree with his principles and actions, not because he is getting in the way of the so called “winner”. Also, although I may strongly agree with some of your sentiments, your use of profanity does your argument no justice. It only serves to obscure it.

    Best regards

    Posted by Eowyn on Feb 23, 2004 at 9:09 PM
  • extended discussion >>>Continued...

    Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 7 posts.