The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
>U.S. Insiders Say Iraq Intel Deliberately Skewed Updated >7:15 PM ET May 30, 2003 By Jim Wolf >WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A growing number of U.S. national >security professionals are accusing the Bush >administration of slanting the facts and [...] >Richard Perle, a Chalabi backer and member of the Defense >Policy Board that advises Defense Secretary Donald >Rumsfeld, defended the four-person unit in >a television interview. [...] >http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&ncid=>584&e=7&u=/nm/20030530/pl_nm/iraq_intelligence_dc I saw part of the News Hour with Perle on. (He did not look happy.) It think it was him who said that the adminstration *should* interpret intelligence given to them to make their policy decisions. (The transcript should be on the WEB -- pbs.org). I don't think Bush in that vulnerable yet, but I would like to see the whole fiasco pinned on Rumsfeld and his asssitants, the Pentagon Defense Policy Board, and the American Enterprise Institute members who were involved. Assuming this will hit the fan Bush will be wanting some goats, and Rumsfeld and friends fit the bill perfectly, as well as having a lot of real responsibility. Rumsfeld is also vunerable for his diplomatic misstatements such as "old Europe" and his remarks dismissing concern about the looting. It was Rumsfeld who insisted on a minimal troop deployment, and that leads directly to not having enough troops to handle the continuing crisis in Iraq now. There has already been a "regime change" in the Pentagon appointed administrators in Iraq, and the weapons experts who found nothing despite all the false alarms, failed to protect the existing nuclear waste -- and indeed disturbed stuff at the old Tuwaitha reactor which should have been kept under seal. Blair and the Brits might well be looking for a goat now too. We can assume that they relied at least in part on what they were told by the Americans, and if Blair can point to being deceived he can get some relief from the heat being generated across the pond. Once Runsfeld and the hawkish Pentagon boys are hung out to dry Bush may be able to escape direct blame, but he will still be left with the overall responsibility and his credibility will suffer. In my estimation, Bush never had the smarts to pull this off this operation in the first place, but played the boy king, manipulated by the others. With them gone he will be open to more influence by State (Powell), as well as some of the old-time Capitol members, and be somewhat moderated. Bush's next big challenge will be the Israel-Palestine conflict. If he (and everyone) has good luck peace will break out, but this very unlikely, especially considering his bungling about so far and the bad feelings of the Arabs. In this case, since he is staking so much of his credibility on the "roadmap" he become more vulnerable yet. And then there's the economy... Finally, if the Whitehouse crew is split up it will be weakened and need to regroup, and this will break the momentum, leaving Bush somewhat adrift for a while. The "war plan" of the neo-cons will be disrupted, and leaves an opening for the opposition. Rumsfeld should be the focus of the pending scandals, not Bush. ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk