Use of Intelligence
In case you're looking for examples of the sort of manipulation of intelligence Harry Reid is talking about, a few are remarkably easy to find and clear-cut. This is a report entitled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs" released before the war as an unclassified document. It was based, we were told, on a classified National Intelligence Estimate. Over here, you can read some portions of the original NIE that have since been declassified. Mostly, the declassified bits of the document and the unclassified document are the same. But here are a few salient points that were left out of the unclassified release
State/INR Alternative View of Iraq's Nuclear ProgramHmm. And:
The Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR) believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapon-related capabilities. The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment. Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program, INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result, INR is unable to predict when Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.
In INR's view Iraq's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes is central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors. INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose. INR considers it far more likely that the tubes are intended for another purpose, most likely the production of artillery rockets. The very large quantities being sought, the way the tubes were tested by the Iraqis, and the atypical lack of attention to operational security in the procurement efforts are among the factors, in addition to the DOE assessment, that lead INR to concluded that the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq's nuclear weapon program.
INR's Alternative View: Iraq's Attempts to Acquire Aluminum Tubes
Some of the specialized but dual-use items being sought are, by all indications, bound for Iraq's missile program. Other cases are ambiguous, such as that of a planned magnet-production line whose suitability for centrifuge operations remains unknown. Some efforts involve non-controlled industrial material and equipment - including a variety of machine tools - and are troubling because they would help establish the infrastructure for a renewed nuclear program. But such efforts (which began well before the inspectors departed) are not clearly linked to a nuclear end-use. Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious.
Now a couple of points. First, the White House obviously has perfectly good reasons for keeping some of the intelligence it sees classified. Nevertheless, it's hard to see what about these INR dissents had to be kept secret. Second, when intelligence agencies disagree (as they do now and again) the White House is perfectly within its rights to choose to believe what one agency says and disagree with the INR's take. Nevertheless, people outside the White House would seem to have a right to know that controversy exists. What the White House did here was manipulate the classification process to cover-up the existence of disagreement, and deny people opposed to its policy potentially valuable arguments.
Another point. The classified NIE said this:
Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war.In other words, Saddam was unlikely to use whatever WMD he had or might in the future acquire unless the United States attacked him first. Meanwhile, during his infamous speech, "President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat", the threat was described thusly:
Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the US Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks - more likely with biological than chemical agents - probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa'ida - with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States - would perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.
- The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The IIS probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against US territory.
- In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.This is plainly at odds with the consensus view of the Intelligence Community, as expressed in the classified NIE. Again, the White House is entitled to ignore the Intelligence Community and put forward some other beliefs. But the unclassified version of the NIE simply omits the stuff about how Iraq wouldn't launch an unprovoked terrorist attack on the United States. There was no legitimate national security rationale for denying the public access to this information. Rather, there was a clear-cut political rationale -- the White House wanted to obscure the extent to which their argument for war was based on claims that were unsupported by professional analysis.
Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.
Those are only two examples, but there are many more. An investigation into the matter is long overdue.
Advertisement
The republican counterpart to James Carville just said on CNN that the American public wasn't interested in this. That was her only rebuff, other than the notion that Harry Reid had taken a radical stance. That's it. That's all they've got. And they are wrong. And, as Matt shows, the evidence is against them.
November 1, 2005 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is plainly at odds with the consensus view of the Intelligence Community, as expressed in the classified NIE.
Actually, no, it isn't at odds at all. And Matthew doesn't even provide any evidence that it is! Matthew doesn't even provide a single sentence in the Bush speech that is contradicted by the NIE.
When the intelligence says that Iraq is for now unlikely to use WMD, and Bush says that Iraq just might use WMD and the risk is just too great, that's not contradictory at all.
November 1, 2005 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
helpme -
What a weird sense of what is 'threatening' you must have. My infant nephew could conceivably kill you at some undetermined point in the future. Should I throw him in jail now to neutralize him so he can't get to you when you decide to launch a preemptive assault on him?
November 1, 2005 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno, djLicious. That sounds like it might be the story of Inigo Montoya, no? If it were me, I'd just kill the kid.
In reality, what you're talking about is just coming to a different assessment as to the level of the threat. That's not the same thing as a contradiction, though.
November 1, 2005 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
for goodness sakes: saddam "may" also have decided to give up power and have a sex-change operation. After all, there was no absolute intel that he had categorically decided never to give up power and have a sex-change operation.
November 1, 2005 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you really fail to see that both assesments are "at odds" (contradiction, a word you introduced, is something like
a = non-a, but you will never get that in politics) with each other. And are you really happy about the fact that the administration omitted the other side of the story, told by people who know what they're talking about, in favor of their version, which seemed to be based on a mere hunch at best?
November 1, 2005 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
This article in the American Conservative, written by a former CIA officer tells of possible US involvement in the Niger document forgeries and the bypassing of vetting proceedures by <span class="body">Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans (OSP) to stovepipe faulty intel to policymakers.</span>
November 1, 2005 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
...you might be a Republican if you want to throw dj's infant nephew in jail (and of course shock & awe all his playmates) because he "might" grow up and want, and develop, and get his army to use...WMD's
That actually was Ken Mehlman's point on Hardball tonight: "OK there were no WMD's, but isn't it better that we preemptively attacked Iraq so that he couldn't GET any?" Whew! I guess we can all sleep better now that they are only blowing up about 100 people a week in Iraq rather than coping with Condi and Dubya's famous mushroom clouds. So their point is that Saddam was the only despot who had WMD fantaxies? Seems to me that could apply to just about anyone, including your little nephew!
November 1, 2005 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure why your comment garnered a two. If I thought it was unproductive I would at least comment with a why.
It is interesting that for some the search for the truth is only worth a yawn. I still think we haven't found any of the "reasons" we went to war.
Just as a matter of history you would think that there would be interest. I am still fascinated by the sinking of the Maine and the "reasons" for the Spanish American War.
November 1, 2005 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point! Frankly, maybe he could go to the same person Anne Coulter went to, but he should definitely insist on his Adam's apple being removed. With Annie it is such a giveaway!
Next question: Since we are providing universal health care to Iraqi's, would Saddam's sex-change be paid for that way? Or would he come under the US system and be among the 50,000,000 uninsured and just have to wait, or do without?
November 1, 2005 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
A very interesting read. I had read some exerpts before. Fortunately there are still some conservatives for whom the truth exists. I am a liberal but I don't think that is why I find the current administrations approach to the war and the ridiculous obfuscation by Bush supporters to be so completely flawed.
There are still many who theoretically beleived that Viet Nam was a place where America needed to make a stand and, at the least, in many ways our involvement and its worth could be debated and discussed--but I don't hear many folks trying to hang on to the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and the resolution which followed it.
There are some who think to admit even one mistake, one flaw, will be the beginning of the end. Accept the leader is in error once and then the whole apparatus of state will fall.
November 1, 2005 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure why your comment garnered a two. Bill Section 147
That was a rating by Peatey. No one takes Peatey seriously.
November 1, 2005 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Back on October 10, 2002, the CIA released a report making precisely the same point that is made in the declassified Summer, 2003 document to which Matt refers. Saddam was judged at that time to be unlikely to use weapons of mass destruction, if he indeed had them, against the United States - unless attacked.
This CIA judgment was reported in the New York Times and other media that very day. We didn't have to wait until after the start of the war to get this information. Obviously the Bush administration chose to ignore these stories completely, and that contributed to them falling down the memory whole. But if the public was more interested in hearing these reports, they would have received more exposure. They weren't - most Americans were caught up in a fever of fear, hatred, patriotic zeal and vincictiveness and just didn't want to know. Iraq isn't just Bush's fault - it's our fault.
November 1, 2005 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, here. I'm an American -- a pragmatic, soulless know-nothing. What do I care why we went to war.
I was promised a walkover -- flowers in Baghdad and ticker tape in New York.
Where are my goddamn flowers and ticker tape? That's all I want to know!
November 1, 2005 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just as a matter of history you would think that there would be interest.
Unless, of course you did not want to commit to the history books that you were duped by a draft dodging wanna-be with the intelectual prowess of a 6 year old and that your neighbor's children are dead as a result.
Just a thought.
November 1, 2005 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, what he said was they wern't interested in Harry Reid and his antics today.
November 2, 2005 3:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just a thought.
And he still whooped the best your party had to offer.... twice...
Just another thought ; )
November 2, 2005 3:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, I'm trying to understand you guys. Did Pres. Bush lie about pre-war intellegance thereby making the invasion illegal, or was it illegal (or immoral) because it was preemptive reguardless of any pre-war intellegence? Finally would it ever be ok in your book to condut a preemptive strike? (from your last set of comments it doesn't appear to be, I'm just checking).
November 2, 2005 4:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
If your child tells you he needs money for lunch today, but fails to mention that he already got money from dad, he just lied to you although, in the narrowest sense, his statement that "I need money for lunch today" is entirely true.
Just so, when Bush says that "Saddam could align with terrorists to attack the United States" but fails to add that his own intelligence sources have concluded that this is unlikely, he is intentionally misleading, and doing so regarding what he himself regards as his most sacred duty.
Finally, the lies re: Saddam and Al-Quaeda are even less straightforward than Bush's lies re: WMD's. His and his admin.'s repeated statements that "We know he has them", "We are certain", "There is no doubt" are all clear lies. Because the WMD's didn't exist, Bush could not have known what they unconditionally and without reservations claimed to know.
These lies also involve the National Intelligence Estimate. The form of the report made public lacked a number of qualifiers in which the CIA established its uncertainty as to its judgement regarding WMD's. To emphasize, the Bush admin. repeatedly, in the most public of venues, stressed that there was no uncertainty regarding Saddam's creating and stockpiling of these weapons. The Bush admin. lied. Repeatedly. Across the board regarding WMD's, nuclear weapons specifically, and links to Al-Quaeda.
November 2, 2005 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because, to hell with truth and America, MY TEAM WON!!!! YEE-HAW!!!
Is that really what matters. Bush won the election so its all good.
If I supported Bush I would want the truth. Even if it made my guy look bad. Clinton whooped that sorry-ass Republican Party--TWICE. I guess that makes everthing he did groovy.
I really miss the days when the debate was about how to keep America number one and not how cleverly we could cover up torture and corruption.
November 2, 2005 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really miss the days when the debate was about how to keep America number one and not how cleverly we could cover up torture and corruption.
FYI, you instantly lose all credability when you baselessly accuse soldiers of torture. Are there some who abuse prisoners? Yes, and we prosecute them. Is there a "culture of torture" that is pushed from the White House down through the ranks of the military, so that the "half wit" "robot soldiers" just carry out the orders from above. Uh... no, if you or any of your anti-military "but we support the troops" gang had spent a day talking to a soldier (one who didn't go AWOL after he got his college money and then was asked to earn it), you'd realize that. It's not "My guy won so it's all good" ...it's you guys continue to claim my guy is a half wit draft dodgeing alchoholic, I just point out the fact that a half wit draft dodging alchoholic whooped the best you had to offer. Don't ge angry with me, for exposing the sad truth.
November 3, 2005 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well. I guess you haven't talked to the soldiers that I have talked to.
First. I did not accuse baselessly or otherwise, soldiers of torture. According to the Government of the United States, which last time I checked is headed by a Republican who likes this war, the information about torture is not fabricated by some leftwing cabal.
In his report to the Pentagon, General Taguba outlined the torture. Taguba's 53-page report, classified "Secret" and dated April 4, 2004, concluded that U.S. soldiers had committed "egregious acts and grave breaches of international law" at Abu Ghraib.[5] Taguba found that between October and December 2003 there were numerous instances of "sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses" of prisoners. In violation of Army regulations, intelligence officers asked military police to "loosen up" inmates before questioning. The report estimates that 60% of the prisoners at the site were "not a threat to society" and that the screening process was so inadequate that innocent civilians were often detained indefinitely. Guards invented their own rules and supervisors approved of their actions. Personnel lost track of prisoners, did not count their prisoners, and kept no records regarding dozens of escapes. The facility held too many inmates and supplied too few guards. Training of those on guard was insufficient, and superiors neglected to visit the facilities in person. Top military personnel disagreed on whether military police or military intelligence should be in charge. Prisoner treatment varied between shifts and between compounds.
Taguba cited numerous organizational and leadership failures at Abu Ghraib. Reservists tasked with guarding the prison population were inadequately trained, and Taguba faulted senior commanders for failing to address these deficiencies. Specifically, intelligence officers and members of one company, the 372nd Military Police Company, based in Cresaptown, Maryland, in charge of security, took part in the documented abuses.
Taguba's report cited numerous examples of inmate abuse, including:
* Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet.
* Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees.
* Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing.
* Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time.
* Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear.
* Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate while being photographed and videotaped.
* Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them.
* Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture.
A detainee forced to stand on boxes
* Writing "I am a Rapeist" [sic] on the leg of a detainee alleged to have raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked.
* Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female soldier pose for a picture.
* A male MP guard raping a female detainee.
* Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees and MPs posing with cheerful looks.
* Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees.
* Threatening detainees with a loaded 9mm pistol.
* Pouring cold water on naked detainees.
* Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair.
* Threatening male detainees with rape.
* Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell.
* Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.
* Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting and severely injuring a detainee.
According to Donald Rumsfeld, many more pictures and videotapes of the abuse at Abu Ghraib exist. Photos and videos revealed by the Pentagon to lawmakers in a private viewing on the 12th of May, 2004, showed attack dogs snarling at cowing prisoners, Iraqi women forced to expose their breasts, and naked prisoners forced to have sex with each other, the lawmakers revealed. Members of the Senate reviewed photographs supplied by the Defense Department which have not been released to the public.
Recently 90 Senators felt it was necessary to require the Army to follow its own regulations in regards to treatment of prisoners. VP Cheney is lobbying hard to stop this effort.
So, regardless of what you wish the torture did happen and it happened under this Commander in Cheif.
Unfortunately I feel this administration has let our service men and women down and I work very hard to support Veterans and our troops. You don't know me or anything about me. You don't know how many of my family have served for this country or continue to serve. You don't know if I am a Republican or a Democrat or if I ever belonged to either party. You have no ideas other than you can't handle the truth. Conservatives used to think that supporting America and being a patriot meant caring about the truth...not supporting the President. When the President does something wrong he should be called on it. When the Speaker of the House is corrupt he should be called on it. It isn't a goddamn football game with your team against my team.
Also. I never said Clinton was my guy so your rant is stupid. You claimed YOUR GUY WON and I was using the example of Clinton as a counter-point to show how asinine that comment is.
November 3, 2005 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I supported Bush I would want the truth. Even if it made my guy look bad. Clinton whooped that sorry-ass Republican Party--TWICE. I guess that makes everthing he did groovy.
I really miss the days when the debate was about how to keep America number one and not how cleverly we could cover up torture and corruption.
Well you are entitled to your opinion of whether my post was a rant and if it was stupid or not. However, you said "if I supported Bush" which implies you don't. "Clinton whooped that sorry-ass Republican party" which implies you're not, and that he was (your guy). Also, of all the abuses, you listed only 2 could even, if true, be considered torture:
* Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet.
* Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.
and all of those who committed those acts, or were responsible for preventing them are being investigated and prosecuted. As for the Senate vote against torture, that's stupid. It's already against the law. Why do Liberals get such a kick out of "Saying" they're against something that should be obvious. My main point is that there is no "culture" of torture in the military, there is no torture training in Basic Training, as a matter of fact there is the exact opposite. We get training on the Code of Conduct, the Geneuva Convention, the Law of War all the time. We all know that amyone who violates them get prosecuted (just like is happening now) we don't need the Senate to vote for a resolution saying so. What do you think, the day after the vote someone said "dude, I guess we can't do that anymore"? For some reason you guys don't realize that when you accuse the Army of "routinely" torturing prisoners, you are talking about hundreds of thousands of soldiers, not even you could believe that.
November 3, 2005 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
My example of, "if I supported Bush" was just that. Like I could say if I supported "WG Harding" I would still want to get to the bottom of the Tea Pot Dome Scandal. And my use of Clinton was to just point out that winning the election is not the arbtor of truth or justice. Rutherford B. Hayes got into office too but it wasn't without some shennanigans.
The list of abuse and torture is only the part that was declassified so I would only be guessing as to what else was on it. I never said their was a culture of torture and certainly, even though the bottom of the rung Reserve soldiers were involved it is not unreasonable to asssume that all of the things which are public knowledge happened in a vaccuum. Sadly, I think people who have not been charged or tried, let alone found guilty, do not deserve even abuse.
Some of the detainees have been relesed with no charges brought. Again, this is according to our government.
I come from a military family and if crap is happening the officers are to blame and as yet the cases against the officers have not been made or made public.
There are also "contractors" involved and at what level and to what degree will only come out when the records are made available. Personally I find it appalling that contractors are operating within a military prison.
As to the Senate resolution, Alberto Gonzales seems to think that the President does have the right to have people tortured and considers the enemy non-combatants as beyond the Geneva accords. I am not a lawyer but if the Administration believes it has the right to torture and there is an actual record of torture, and there are actual U.S. Military personal who have been convicted of torture I do not think it is something that should be swept under the rug. Our standing in the world, how the world perceives our committment to justice, is one of our greatest weapons against terrorists. I don't think it is smart to engage in torture and I don't think it is prudent to disregard our own laws. I find it telling that Cheney is threatening Republican Senators to try and get them to drop this and the President has threatened to veto it. If they already accept that it is against the law why do they fight it so. Obviously all but 10 Senators thought it worthwhile.
Finally. It is sad that any torture can be so minimized as to be characterized as a little or some how that if the instances are few thaat it is acceptable. If only one person was injured on 9/11 would that mean it waas all ok? Sure that is hyperbola but I don't like it when my country does something wrong and I will always speak out against it whether I like the President or not.
November 3, 2005 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
My main point is that there is no "culture" of torture in the military, there is no torture training in Basic Training, as a matter of fact there is the exact opposite.
Which is why it's stunning to see the President won't even ask that it stop, the Vice President says that we need to change laws to make it explicitly legal, and the defense Secretary gets all giddy when he brags about what we can get away with.
You are absolutely correct that most American Soldiers have too much training and honor to commit these acts. That is exactly why Don Rumsfeld needed to bring in contractors to initiate the worst of the abuses, and exactly why "liberals" and all good Americans alike feel that those at the top who continue to condone and explicitly fight for the right to torture should be held to account.
November 3, 2005 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Finally. It is sad that any torture can be so minimized as to be characterized as a little or some how that if the instances are few thaat it is acceptable.
Nobody is trying to minimize it, no one said it is acceptable. I am only trying to point out the equally outrageous pratice of casting mass blame on innocent soldiers which is done evryday by the left.
November 3, 2005 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why doesn't the President ask soldiers to stop writing bad checks, or abusing thier spouses, or drinking and driving? After all some do it. They're all illegal. No one should do them. Everyone knows it. Why did the Senators think it was important to vote for,cuz y'all would come out with a commercial in 06 and say they voted for torture (if you think I'm crazy watch the opponents of the 10 who thought it was a rediculous act). A vote against torture is meaningless, cuz no one's for it. You saying anybody is "fighting for the right to torture" shows how far out of touch you are.
November 3, 2005 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
A vote against torture is meaningless, cuz no one's for it.
Clearly SFCWallace has not been reading the speeches of VP Dick Cheney, recently. Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld have both explicitly defended the need for torture. With respect to the new CIA detention centers (utilizing the former Soviet gulags) - are they imaginary? Does the President and the VP not know about them? Can they be that naive?
Why doesn't the President ask soldiers to stop writing bad checks, or abusing thier spouses, or drinking and driving?
Maybe because it would be hypocritical of him to ask soldiers to not drive drunk, when he guilty of that himself. Nah, no politician (left or right) is afraid of being a hypocrite. It's more likely that spousal abuse and drunk driving are part of the duties of our armed forces. While I'm happy the SFCWallace has not been directed to engage in torture by his commanders, it is clear that many other were, and it is clear that the CINC either had knowledge of this. President Bush either signed off on it, or his has implicitly signed off on it by not disciplining any of the officers involved.
November 4, 2005 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink