International Herald Tribune Editorial - Still waiting for answers
International Herald Tribune Editorial - Still waiting for answers
Copyright by The International Herald Tribune
Published: April 29, 2007
Surely no one beyond a handful of the most self-deluded Republicans in Congress was surprised at the disclosure by George Tenet, the former intelligence director, that there was never a serious debate in the Bush administration about whether Iraq actually posed a threat to the United States.
It has long been evident that President George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq first, and constructed his ramshackle case for the war after the fact. So why, after all this time, are people still in the dark about the details of that campaign?
For that matter, why doesn't the public know the full truth about Bush's illegal domestic spying program or his decisions on how to handle prisoners of the war on terror? And now there are new questions begging for answers - about the purge of U.S. attorneys and about campaign pep rallies in executive branch agencies that might well have violated federal law.
For six years, the Republican majority in Congress ignored the administration's misdeeds and pushed through laws that gave cover to some of Bush's most outrageous abuses of power. Now that the Democrats control Congress, they have opened the doors of government in welcome ways. But the list of questions just seems to grow.
We hope Representative Henry Waxman, chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, enforces the subpoena of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to discuss prewar claims about Saddam Hussein's long-gone weapons programs. Rice, who was national security adviser before the war, says she has answered every possible question.
Actually, we don't have room for all our questions. Just a few: Did she vet the briefing Bush got from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's rogue intelligence shop on Iraq's alleged efforts to acquire uranium? The CIA and the State Department thought, correctly, that the report was false. So why did Rice permit the president to repeat it to the world? Or did Bush also know what he was claiming was wrong?
The same applies to other claims about Iraq, including a false report about the purchase of aluminum tubes for bomb building, talk of mushroom clouds and fairy tales about links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. When it became clear the intelligence was false, why didn't Rice make sure the public found out? Before the war, Rice was not in a post requiring Senate confirmation, but she is now. If she refuses to testify, the House should hold her in contempt.
It is imperative for Senator Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, to finish two remaining studies on prewar intelligence that his Republican predecessor, Senator Pat Roberts, had no intention of completing. The first, on the errors made by the intelligence agencies in predicting what would happen after the invasion of Iraq, is expected to be finished next month. The final piece of the report will compare what administration officials said about Iraq with the actual information they had. Both reports are essential for understanding how America got into this mess.
And then there are the questions about the purge of federal prosecutors. There is mounting evidence that many of the eight fired U.S. attorneys were punished for refusing to prosecute Democrats on phony election-fraud charges. Who ran this purge? And is it true, as it now seems, that others were rewarded for bringing weak corruption cases timed to close races?
Bush's supporters are already arguing that Congress' much-needed investigations are politically motivated and backward looking.
Actually, the baldly political act was the Republicans' refusing to do their constitutional duty of oversight for the last six years. Waxman said his panel issued four subpoenas to the Bush administration under Republican leadership. The same leadership issued more than 1,000 subpoenas to the Clinton administration.
As for looking back, Bush has hardly given up the habit of stonewalling Congress, or shown that he has learned the limits of his power. The war in Iraq not only continues, but Bush is escalating it and repeating many of the same myths about Saddam. America does not need any more myths. It needs answers.
Copyright by The International Herald Tribune
Published: April 29, 2007
Surely no one beyond a handful of the most self-deluded Republicans in Congress was surprised at the disclosure by George Tenet, the former intelligence director, that there was never a serious debate in the Bush administration about whether Iraq actually posed a threat to the United States.
It has long been evident that President George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq first, and constructed his ramshackle case for the war after the fact. So why, after all this time, are people still in the dark about the details of that campaign?
For that matter, why doesn't the public know the full truth about Bush's illegal domestic spying program or his decisions on how to handle prisoners of the war on terror? And now there are new questions begging for answers - about the purge of U.S. attorneys and about campaign pep rallies in executive branch agencies that might well have violated federal law.
For six years, the Republican majority in Congress ignored the administration's misdeeds and pushed through laws that gave cover to some of Bush's most outrageous abuses of power. Now that the Democrats control Congress, they have opened the doors of government in welcome ways. But the list of questions just seems to grow.
We hope Representative Henry Waxman, chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, enforces the subpoena of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to discuss prewar claims about Saddam Hussein's long-gone weapons programs. Rice, who was national security adviser before the war, says she has answered every possible question.
Actually, we don't have room for all our questions. Just a few: Did she vet the briefing Bush got from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's rogue intelligence shop on Iraq's alleged efforts to acquire uranium? The CIA and the State Department thought, correctly, that the report was false. So why did Rice permit the president to repeat it to the world? Or did Bush also know what he was claiming was wrong?
The same applies to other claims about Iraq, including a false report about the purchase of aluminum tubes for bomb building, talk of mushroom clouds and fairy tales about links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. When it became clear the intelligence was false, why didn't Rice make sure the public found out? Before the war, Rice was not in a post requiring Senate confirmation, but she is now. If she refuses to testify, the House should hold her in contempt.
It is imperative for Senator Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, to finish two remaining studies on prewar intelligence that his Republican predecessor, Senator Pat Roberts, had no intention of completing. The first, on the errors made by the intelligence agencies in predicting what would happen after the invasion of Iraq, is expected to be finished next month. The final piece of the report will compare what administration officials said about Iraq with the actual information they had. Both reports are essential for understanding how America got into this mess.
And then there are the questions about the purge of federal prosecutors. There is mounting evidence that many of the eight fired U.S. attorneys were punished for refusing to prosecute Democrats on phony election-fraud charges. Who ran this purge? And is it true, as it now seems, that others were rewarded for bringing weak corruption cases timed to close races?
Bush's supporters are already arguing that Congress' much-needed investigations are politically motivated and backward looking.
Actually, the baldly political act was the Republicans' refusing to do their constitutional duty of oversight for the last six years. Waxman said his panel issued four subpoenas to the Bush administration under Republican leadership. The same leadership issued more than 1,000 subpoenas to the Clinton administration.
As for looking back, Bush has hardly given up the habit of stonewalling Congress, or shown that he has learned the limits of his power. The war in Iraq not only continues, but Bush is escalating it and repeating many of the same myths about Saddam. America does not need any more myths. It needs answers.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 2:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home