SSCI Phase II News Some of the best news I've heard for a while - Senator Frist's comments after coming out of closed session hearings 2005-11-01:
The one thing that is important for us to mention, for the benefit of our colleagues, is an agreement between the leader and myself to the following three points: that the majority leader and the Democratic leader will appoint three members from their respective parties. This task force of six Senators will meet and report back to leadership no later than the close of business on November 14 the following: The Intelligence Committee's progress on the phase II review of the prewar intelligence and its schedule for completion.
I know it's not much, but at least it's something. It may trickle down from "leadership" and give us poor plebes who're charged with oversight of govt an idea of how whatever's going on is going on.
Senator Robert's comments:
There was some talk on the floor that got a little personal, and I regret that. It seems to me it was rather convenient because it was only yesterday our staff was working with the staff of the minority indicating that not this week but next week we would spend as much time as possible, 5 or 6 days, to complete our work in regard to phase II. It isn't as though it has been delayed. As a matter of fact, it has been ongoing. As a matter of fact, we have been doing our work on phase II. It is difficult, as I will indicate in a minute, while I go through these provisions on what we agreed to do.
I wonder if 5 or 6 days is really enough. The Senate decided it needed a six senator committee to figure out what progress'd been made on Phase II and what its schedule for completion was.
Also, IIRC, Phase II's ETA has already come and gone at least once.
Senator Roberts again:
This is what phase II is all about. That is what we will begin as we have planned to do and what our staff has indicated to the other side's staff in regard to what we were going to do as of next week--that we will start next week, and we will hope to continue that effort. We will cancel all other hearings until we can reach some sort of an accommodation. Now, if we can do this on the WMD report, certainly we can do it in regard to phase II.
I find the word choice, 'accommodation', to be troublesome. I don't know if it's
possible to be paranoid about such things.
Senator Roberts:
The biggest issue is as follows. There are five things in phase II: Whether public statements and reports and testimony regarding Iraq by U.S. Government officials made between the gulf war period and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom were substantiated by intelligence information. In other words, the public statements made in the administration and the public statements made by public officials, whether they be in Congress, whether they be in the administration, or whatever, Congress, because we voted for regime change and we voted to go to war. Obviously, the administration, because they looked at the intelligence and thought our national security was in danger, we went to war.
I think that he has a case to make that when they voted, they '
knew' they were voting for regime change; however...
From the
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
Since 'regime change' is not mentioned as an item that the PotUSA was specifically authorized to use the Armed Forces for, Senator Robert's statement that Congress "voted for regime change" requires that one makes the case that regime change was necessary either to "defend the national security of the United States" or to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions." Otherwise, it's not correct to say that the Congress voted for 'regime change.'
Further, what has happened is more profound of a change than merely changing a regime. Accordingly, the Admin bears the onus of showing that a total restructuring of Iraqi governmental and military structures was necessary either to "defend the national security of the United States" or to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions."
Senator Roberts did not assert that Congress voted for a restructuring of Iraq's entire governmental and military structure as well as various elements of Iraqi civil society in general.
{ Seems like a good time to note my curiosity about a document that's mandated by the War Powers Resolution. The PotUSA was authorized to use force in Iraq under the
War Powers Resolution.
From the
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq:
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
From the
War Powers ResolutionREPORTING
SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
... the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
I'd like to see what the Admin's "estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement" was back in March 2003.
Anyway, back to just after the Senate's closed hearing...}
Some more of Robert's comments:
On May 17, in the spring, we started down the list of statements.
We didn't get very far.
We didn't get very far.
Since May the SSCI hasn't gotten very far, yet 5 or 6 days will be enough to wrap things up satisfactorily?
Senator Roberts:
The postwar findings about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and their weapons programs and the links to terrorism and how they compare with prewar assessments. That was done by Charles Duelfer and David Kay. Those two paragraphs are already written. You can simply say that Charles Duelfer and David Kay did not find WMD. That was their conclusion. They made some statements about it.
Only noteworthy for who is saying what he's saying. Many folks still like to hedge on this one.
Senator Roberts:
There are five issues to phase II.
It is required that I note at this point in the narrative that
there are actually six or seven issues (depending on how one counts) to Phase II. It's also required that I note Senator Roberts proceeds to list four issues, not five.
Senator Roberts:
Any intelligence activities relating to Iraq conducted by the policy counterterrorism evaluation group and the Office of Special Plans within the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense. This involved a question as to whether Under Secretary Douglas Feith had a special intelligence group that had undue influence in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and whether or not that group and that intelligence had an undue influence on the administration's decision to go to war.
This term of reference that the Senator is referencing, is, of course, broader than the above mentioned question, "whether ... Feith had a ... group [w/] undue influence [on the NIE] and whether or not that group and that intelligence had an undue influence on the administration's decision to go to war."
{"
F.
any intelligence activities relating to Iraq conducted by the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group (PCTEG) and the Office of Special Plans within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy"
}
The NIE was assembled by members of the US Intel Community. Neither the DoD ODP's OSP nor the PCTEG are members of the US Intel Community. Neither group had a thing to do w/ the NIE. So, I suspect that this is a distractive ploy. Perhaps I'm wrong though.
When the Senator refers to "that intelligence" (as in "whether or not that group and that intelligence") it's not clear which intelligence he's speaking of. Was it the aforementioned NIE, or is it the intel that the OSP cherry-picked showing an operational/collaborative relationship between Hussein and al-Qa'ida.
As to whether "that group and that intelligence had an undue influence on the administration's decision to go to war," well, that seems to be missing the point as well. Since the Admin set up the offices to "supplement" what they were getting from the US Intel Community, the more relevant question is whether "the administration's decision to go to war" had "undue influence" on "that group and [its] intelligence." So, I perhaps this is a distractive ploy as well.
