On June 29, 2005, the Bush Administration took action to implement the WMD Commission's recommendations. The WMD Commission was formed pursuant to Executive Order 13328 in order to address the myriad "intelligence failures" the Bush Administration claims resulted in the misdiagnosis of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, or better yet, its apparent lack of a WMD program.
The commission came back with 68 recommendations. Of those 68 recommendatons, the Bush Administration agreed to follow 65.
Funny thing, though, as it relates to the very last recommendation (see the bottom of this page), the Bush Administration held that "further study" was needed.
The final recommendation reads:
"The Director of National Intelligence should hold accountable the organizations that contributed to the flawed assessments of Iraq's WMD programs."
Why would the White House need "further study" in order to determine whether it is sound policy to "hold accountable those organizations that contributed to the flawed assessments of Iraq's WMD programs"?
And more importantly, where is the White House's "further study?" It's been nearly six months! Surely it should have concluded its own in-house investigation by now, n'est-ce pas?
Is it possible that the White House doesn't want to execute the last recommendation because it would mean that Bush Administration "friends and family" would be held accountable?
Is it possible that the White House doesn't want to execute the last recommendation because it would also mean holding itself accountable?
Ah hah! BINGO!
Something tells me that this administration will need a lot more time to "study" recommendation #13.17. Perhaps, three more years?
Obviously, the adminstration is stalling. We need to press Bush and his staff to conclude their "further study" on the final WMD commission recommendation.
Edited: nd
Article comments
1 - Jon Fowler
Nice post TBM. I had almost forgoten about that WMD commission, I'm glad you reminded me and everyone else. I agree the administration is just trying to stall. The commission was mostly for show in the first place so I never expected Mr. Bush to follow it too closely. I would like to know what "further study" they have been up to though.
2 - Voltairean
Well the NY Times answers your question today --
3 - Dave Nalle
Woah, there sure are some whoppers in that editorial from The Times. BTW, did they give you permission to reprint that article in its entirety?
Dave
4 - Eric Olsen
I chopped it down and made the link live, Dave.
It's totally legit to bring up the commission and the delay TBM, thanks, but I don't think anyone in the administration was providing an intelligence - weren't they just interpreting it? And that they were interpreting it in a manner most amenable to their goals is hardly news.
5 - Dave Nalle
I've said something very much like that a few times, Eric. There seems to be an inclination among some to assume that putting together a good looking package to market an idea is the same thing as lying. I wonder if that comes just from partisan hate or if it comes from some emerging distaste for our entire marketing culture.
Dave
6 - Natalie Davis
Emerging distaste? Mine is fully grown after decades of simmering.
7 - The Bulldog Manifesto
Dave,
The problem with you is, you talk too much. You don't read, or you just don't pay attention. If you would have read, you may would have noticed that my post is about the WMD Commission's Recommendation #13.17 (aka Recommendation #68). This recommendation states:
"The Director of National Intelligence should hold accountable the organizations that contributed to the flawed assessments of Iraq's WMD programs."
To which the White House stated it needed "Further Study" prior to following through on the recommendation. In other words, the White House needed to study whether they should hold organizations that contributed to the flawed assessments accountable.
This has nothing to do with your talking point response. Sorry, dude. Nice try. Try it on the next 10,000 WMD-related posts. Maybe it will fit there and you can pat yourself on the back for your Ken Mehlman-esque braindead response.
Perhaps it feels like we are all saying the same thing because you don't bother reading. I guess you are just too busy posting your 10,000 posts a day on BlogCritics to actually go ahead and read a post.
It is a miracle if you actually read this entire response.
8 - voltairean
dave and eric,
forget about the grotesque notion that a war should be marketed and yes, the administration outright lied on many occasions. here is just one video of dick cheney making a known fraudulent claim before the war which is then followed by his denial of making said claim before the war.
Also, its hardly interpreting when the administration intentionally leaves out qualify words when delivering evidence to congress.
But who am I kidding -- there is so much documented evidence of deceit that if you don't already think the administration misled you - you never will. I mean, we are talking like O.J. evidence.
Here is a question for you guys, do you think President Bush deliberately misled or lied when he stated we do not torture last week?
finally, eric, thanks for editing down the ny times editorial.
9 - Dave Nalle
Builldog, your problem is that you seem to think the world revolves around you. I didn't even respond to your post, just to a comment made to it by Voltairian, and the main point of my comment was that he shouldn't quote entire articles from The Times since it violates copyright. Then I had a little discussion with Eric about politics and marketing, again having little do with the content of your article. So what the hell are you talking about?
The problem with you is, you talk too much. You don't read, or you just don't pay attention. If you would have read, you may would have noticed that my post is about the WMD Commission's Recommendation #13.17 (aka Recommendation #68). This recommendation states:
"The Director of National Intelligence should hold accountable the organizations that contributed to the flawed assessments of Iraq's WMD programs."
To which the White House stated it needed "Further Study" prior to following through on the recommendation. In other words, the White House needed to study whether they should hold organizations that contributed to the flawed assessments accountable.
Sounds fine to me. Let's have further study.
This has nothing to do with your talking point response.
What talking point response? I never even responded to your article. I know you're desperate for someone to care, but I don't disagree with your basic point and have nothing much to say in response to the article. Eric's comment was more interesting.
Sorry, dude. Nice try. Try it on the next 10,000 WMD-related posts. Maybe it will fit there and you can pat yourself on the back for your Ken Mehlman-esque braindead response.
Perhaps it feels like we are all saying the same thing because you don't bother reading. I guess you are just too busy posting your 10,000 posts a day on BlogCritics to actually go ahead and read a post.
It is a miracle if you actually read this entire response.
That's all just gobledegook, but I read it. You seem to have some issues you need to work on. Maybe some remedial math too since 25 or so comments doesn't exactly add up to 10K posts. But keep the dream alive.
Dave
10 - Marcia L. Neil
It's the difference between "ask" and "ax" -- the correct scenario was supposed to involve the cooperation of SUNY.
11 - David
What The Bulldog Manifesto has suggested is more than just a possibility. After all, accountability is a basic requirement in any effective corporation -- responsible senior managers demand accountability from their staff. The WMD Commission recommendation doesn't require "further study." The Bush Administration simply has to agree to ensure that this recommendation is implemented by a specified date, and then ensure that the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) implements this recommendation.
However, the Bush 'administration's response' is to create fog in order to put off implementing the WMD Commission recommendation. Instead of "holding accountable the organizations that contributed to the flawed assessments of Iraq's WMD programs," the Administration is digressing into "reviewing the need for reforms to IC methodologies and practices...(and) address any identified deficiencies, including those that may have contributed to the assessment of Iraq's WMD capabilities. "
This is Bush Hogwash. It is people who are accountable for their actions and results or omissions. Methodologies, practices and systems, which people create and manage, have no accountability.
The Bush administration probably wants more time to allow DNI John Negroponte to silence or remove people who are critical of the administration or don't play ball in providing false intelligence to support further Bush misadventures. Negroponte will do this "through actions that may include greater DNI oversight and changes in organizational roles and responsibilities." DNI Negroponte was the Reagan administration's diplomatic point man in South America for questionable US military and political operations. Negroponte in the mid 1980s was the US ambassador to Honduras, which the Reagan admin, CIA, etc. used as their base for US terrorism operations against Nicaragua and the populations of certain South American countries.
Finally, the WMD Commission recommendation did not include the 'individuals' that contributed to the flawed assessments of Iraq's WMD programs. It's easier to hold accountable 'organizations' rather than the 20 to 30 individuals who created the mess in the first place. They are supporters of the Bush admin policy. Some of these individuals were booted out of the Reagan admin after the Iran Contra scandal.
Former CIA intelligence analyst and State Department counter-terrorism official: Cooking the Books and Politicizing Intelligence "...rather than restart or continue with inspections we now know were effective, President Bush opted for war. It was the policymakers, not the (intelligence) analysts, who made the decision to go to war and who oversold the October (2002 national intelligence) estimate to a gullible public...Going to war was and remains a political decision made by a President."
In 2001, Tenet Said Iraq Posed No Threat: Secret CIA Testimony Undermines Bush, Again
http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold11152005.html