intelligence committee

TBogg makes a very interesting and accurate point that Nancy Pelosi has become the next Lynndie England:

Due to "process" reporting we have learned that the Torture Years were not the responsibility of the Administration who demanded them, the legal counsel who found legal justification for them, the medical personnel who stood by and watched, the media talking heads who justified torture based upon a TV show, or the actual torturers who unquestioningly did the dirty work.

Now the Village elders have decided that Nancy Pelosi is a witch who turned us into awful people and by burning her we will be made whole again.

I have had this same feeling the entire past week as I hear the media follow the Republican lead of the witch hunt against Pelosi. Perhaps this could sum up a typical media discussion on torture.

“Yes the United States was involved in what could be called torture. Oh no.”

“OMG! Nancy Pelosi knew we were involved in torture. How could she let this go one?”

Perhaps the most telling of this narrative comes from Newt Gingrich. Here’s what Gingrich told Hannity this week:

"Nancy Pelosi was the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee. She had an absolute obligation to know what was going on. She had an absolute obligation to speak up."

So back in 2002, which was at the height of terrorism paranoia, the Republicans are now saying that Pelosi should have said “we are torturing!”. And how would the Republicans, the ranking party in the House, have responded? Pelosi would have ended up being tortured herself, by both the media and the Republicans.

Whenever someone brings up the intelligence failures that lead to 9/11, they always point the finger at "intelligence sharing". The administration has done the exact same thing. Now Bush has had the tools to correct those problems, yet he has failed to implement them:

A House subcommittee has concluded that the Bush administration has been slow to implement major changes in information sharing and other key provisions of the 2004 law that overhauled the U.S. intelligence community.

The Intelligence panel’s report, which is scheduled to be officially released Thursday, found that the administration has failed to revamp its approach to information analysis, neglecting large swaths of potentially useful data. The report also found that the new Office of the Director of National Intelligence has done a poor job of prioritizing key tasks.

Sources familiar with the contents of the report provided details of its findings late Wednesday, but requested anonymity because it had not yet been publicly released.

The report was produced by the House Intelligence Oversight Subcommittee, a panel that Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., formed after he became chairman of the overall Intelligence Committee in 2004. As its first job, the subcommittee reviewed how the 2004 intelligence overhaul (PL 108-458) was being implemented.

So when will Pat Roberts get around to releasing that report on the intelligence failures on the lead up to Iraq? It is only two years past due.

Here is a real sign of the pending doom for the Republicans this mid-term election:

The chairman of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee accused U.S. intelligence chief John Negroponte's office on Thursday of downplaying the significance of chemical weapons finds in Iraq.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican, said in a letter to Negroponte that intelligence officials at a June 21 press briefing organized by his office misled journalists about the significance of 500 munitions containing mustard and sarin nerve agents discovered since May 2004.

Intelligence officials at the briefing told journalists the weapons predated the 1991 Gulf War, were too degraded to be used as originally intended and posed no threat to U.S. forces deployed in the region during the run-up to the 2003 invasion.

"I am very disappointed by the inaccurate, incomplete, and occasionally misleading comments made by the briefers," Hoekstra said in the letter, a copy of which was released by his office.

So let me get this straight (wow this hurts). The administration does fine with intelligence leading up to the war and the Republicans in Congress have never really questioned it. Now they are saying there is intelligence that helps validate the war and bitching that the White House isn't using it. What is it? Does the administration report on all intelligence properly or are they knit-picking? Shouldn't the chairman of the Intelligence Committee really wonder about that instead of playing some bullshit election-year game?

The Porter Goss resignation has taken off like wildfire. First up we have this great little piece from Think Progress:

Minutes ago on Fox News, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said he doesn’t believe the White House spin that Porter Goss’ resignation had been planned for at least a few weeks.

I think there were either serious disputes or some internal problem at the agency or some scandal conceivably involving an associate of Goss’. Who knows? Something that popped this week and that caused this sudden event this Friday.

I can't believe that Gross would just "up and decide to resign" without something major happening. I have to agree with the buzz on the blogosphere that this is possibly tied to the hookers, bribery and other investigations stemming from Gross' time in Congress.

Next up we have the buzz about his possible replacement, courtesy of Raw Story:

Rumors in the intelligence committee, as reported by MSNBC and confirmed by sources to RAW STORY, indicate that Frances Townsend, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism is seen as a likely replacement. RAW STORY stresses that so far, this is only a rumor within the intelligence committee, and no announcement is seen to be coming today.

This is really scary to think off. I don't know anyone outside of the Bush-apologist, PNAC crowd that would feel Townsend would be a good choice to head the CIA. What's next - an appointment of Barbara Bush to head DHS?

Finally, Crooks and Liars has an interesting video up of MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell explaining how the resignation of Gross could very well be tied to hooker-gate.

So what say you Mr. Gonzales

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Sunday he has asked
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to testify during open hearings on the
legality of the Bush administration's domestic spying program.

Hearings are planned for early February into the National Security Agency
program that President Bush approved in 2002, said Sen. Arlen Specter (news,
bio, voting record), R-Pa. They will examine whether the congressional
resolution authorizing the president to use force against Iraq allowed
eavesdropping without a court order, as the administration contends, he
said.

Gonzales' testimony is being sought because he is the principle spokesman
for the administration's position, Specter said.

The attorney general was White House counsel when Bush initiated the
program, a role that could raise issues of attorney-client privilege in
seeking his testimony. A message left with the Justice Department on Sunday
was not immediately returned.

Asked on CBS's "Face the Nation" if Gonzales had agreed to appear,
Specter said, "Well, I didn't ask him if he had agreed. I told him we were
holding the hearings and he didn't object. I don't think he has a whole lot
of choice on testifying."

Academics and others will be asked to appear, part of a list of witnesses
"who think the president was right and people who think the president was
wrong," Specter said.

Article continues

here.