[Mb-civic] Fact of the Matter Is That Facts Didn't Matter LATimes

[Michael Butler]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-scheer13jul13,1,5517776.column?col
l=la-util-op-ed 

ROBERT SCHEER

Fact of the Matter Is That Facts Didn't Matter

Senate panel's report is a damning indictment of the Bush Doctrine.
 Robert Scheer

 July 13, 2004

 Well, the CIA managed, barely, to get one thing right on Iraq: There never
was a case for linking Saddam Hussein with Osama bin Laden or the Sept. 11
terrorist attacks, a key rationale for President Bush's invasion of Iraq.

 In an otherwise scathing report on how American intelligence agencies fell
for misinformation that touted Iraq as an imminent threat to the United
States, the Senate Intelligence Committee went out of its way to endorse the
CIA finding that "the intelligence community has no credible information
that Baghdad had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other Al
Qaeda strike." This was also the preliminary conclusion of the bipartisan
9/11 commission appointed by the president.

 Yet Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney still insist that the war against
Bin Laden somehow naturally extended to Iraq. As recently as a June 17
interview with CNBC, Cheney asserted, without providing evidence, that
"there clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is
overwhelming." Nor would he rule out that Iraq was involved in the 9/11
plot. He even suggested that he had access to information that the 9/11
commission had not seen, an assertion that was later refuted by the
commission's Republican chairman. Apparently, Cheney can now add the CIA and
the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee to the list of those to be
condemned for not embracing his lies.

 Of course, this outrageous stubbornness in the face of overwhelming
evidence shouldn't be surprising. With no weapons of mass destruction found
in occupied Iraq, almost 900 American soldiers dead and U.S. taxpayers
having already coughed up more than $100 billion, the quagmire must be
justified as being "the central front in the war on terror" if Bush is to
win reelection in November.

 That Bin Laden and Hussein were the unlikeliest of allies was long known by
the CIA, as noted in the Senate report, and no facts unearthed have
effectively challenged that. CIA analysts concluded, according to the Senate
committee report, that Hussein "generally viewed Islamic extremism,
including the [Saudi-based] school of Islam known as Wahhabism, as a threat
to his regime, noting that he had executed extremists from both the Sunni
and Shiite sects to disrupt their organizations" and "sought to prevent
Iraqi youth from joining Al Qaeda."

 Meanwhile, Bush has consistently ignored the fact that Al Qaeda had been
largely funded and supported by powerful extremists in Saudi Arabia and
Pakistan, two "allies" his administration coddled both before and after
9/11. Pakistan was even exporting nuclear weapons technology to "axis of
evil" countries Iran and North Korea, as well as Libya ‹ but not to Iraq.

 Does any of this make sense? Where is the common-sense consistency, the
respect for truth and the logical hierarchy of priorities in our foreign
policy? Why can't the president explain ‹ without lying ‹ why we are in
Iraq? Why are Americans dying in a country that had no weapons of mass
destruction, had no role in 9/11 and posed no immediate threat to the U.S.?

 The 511-page Senate Intelligence Committee report makes it clear that
despite the haughty posturing of national security heavyweights, we do not
have adults watching the store. The report's epic series of embarrassing
conclusions about how the intelligence on Iraq became distorted is a
testament to how political ideology and ambitions consistently trumped logic
and integrity. The Senate report is a thoroughly damning indictment of the
Bush administration's doctrine of "preemptive" war based on intelligence. In
the case of Iraq, the intelligence that was false was adopted by the
administration, while the intelligence that was true was ignored as
inconvenient. And it is telling that the CIA, try as it did to accommodate
the White House, couldn't find any evidence that Al Qaeda and Iraq were
collaborators. 

 Not that the CIA didn't try, though. "This intelligence assessment responds
to senior policymaker interest in a comprehensive assessment of Iraqi regime
links to Al Qaeda. Our approach is purposefully aggressive in seeking to
draw connections," said one report. "I was asking the people who were
writing [the report on Iraq-Al Qaeda links] to lean far forward and do a
speculative piece. If you were going to stretch to the maximum the evidence
you had, what could you come up with?" the deputy director for intelligence
at the CIA told the Senate committee.

 With this approach, we might as well base our foreign policy on reruns of
"The X-Files." Maybe this is why the president wants us to go to Mars: It's
a preemptive strike.


If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at
latimes.com/archives.

Article licensing and reprint options




 Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times