113th in continuing blog series on the
administration push to war. As 2003 closes, there is no end in sight for
violence in
“The President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board has
concluded that the White House made a questionable claim in January's State of
the Union address about Saddam Hussein's efforts to obtain nuclear materials
because of its desperation to show that Hussein had an active program to
develop nuclear weapons, according to a well-placed source familiar with the
board's findings . . .The source said that at the time of the State of the
Union speech, there was no organized system at the White House to vet
intelligence, and the informal system that was followed did not work in the
case of that speech. The White House has since established procedures for
handling intelligence in presidential speeches by including a CIA officer in
the speechwriting process.
The
board shared its findings with Bush earlier this month. It is the first
government body to complete its inquiry into an episode that buttressed
criticism by lawmakers and others that the administration exaggerated
intelligence to make the case for war. Word of its findings has also circulated
within the White House and on Capitol Hill. The White House declined to comment
on the board's findings.
The findings of the advisory board do not appear to add
many new details about the uranium episode, but they make it clear that the
White House should share blame with the CIA for allowing the questionable
material into the speech. CIA Director George J. Tenet and deputy national
security adviser Stephen J. Hadley have accepted responsibility for allowing
the assertion into the address.”
From
the department of now-they-tell-us. This article condenses in a nutshell
several consistent problems in journalism, in an era of media consolidation—the
reliance on unnamed sources even in matters of great moment; the belatedness of
information necessary for the public good; the game of catch-up ball in
divulging information and conclusions, apparently in an effort to retrieve some
journalistic credibility, that many people in the general public already have;
the reluctance to connect dots in placing responsibility for life-and-death
errors and wrongdoing.
The
article also suggests ongoing problems higher up. Once again, we have someone
in a position of responsibility, endowed with information that the public needs
to know—but rather than behaving as did Daniel Ellsberg, he/shares the
information only belatedly, confidentially, and with selected privileged
reporters.
Still
the corporate news outlets will take months fully to catch up on rampant
profiteering in connection with the ‘war on terror.’
As is
typical for the administration, this news is released on a date, New Year’s
Eve, when it is least likely to receive wide public attention.
Stumble It!