A: In These Times's live blogging from Denver.
Q: What is the antidote to corporate media coverage of the Democratic National Convention?

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?… return to article

  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Zoom OutZoom In Reader Comments (7)

    Page 1 of 1 pages

    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. 

    United States Posted by Blake Sutton on Feb 19, 2004 at 4:42 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?

    United States Posted by Dave Dewitt on Feb 20, 2004 at 10:36 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.

    United States Posted by Tom Mysiewicz on Feb 20, 2004 at 5:26 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    United States Posted by Dick Cheney on Feb 23, 2004 at 12:36 PM

    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

    United States Posted by Eowyn on Feb 23, 2004 at 10:09 PM

    So George Tenent screwed up. OK Bush fire him if your so concerned, I DARE YOU. Nothing is as scary to the Bush regime as a disgruntled former employee. They have a nasty tendency to spill the beans of truth.

    United States Posted by Joe Blow on Feb 25, 2004 at 4:08 PM

    A couple of weeks ago on Meet the Press, Bush said flat-out that Tenet’s job was not in jeopardy. Just wait until the heat is really turned up on Bush and watch him make Tenet the fallguy. The voters in this country cannot let this guy continue to do the irreponsible and sinister things he does.

    United States Posted by archibald on Feb 27, 2004 at 11:57 AM
    Page 1 of 1 pages

  • register a new account »Posting Security

    To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.
     

    Retreive lost password »

Article Appeared in this Issue

Full contents
Past issues

Also by Nat Parry
Popular Discussions