According to the New York Times’ James Risen, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has determined that the CIA is primarily at fault for not pressing its case for Iraq’s dismantling of its WMD program. The problem, in Risen’s words, was “the existence of a secret prewar CIA operation to debrief relatives of Iraqi scientists – and the agency’s failure to give their statements to the president and other policymakers.”
Risen goes on to acknowledge that Bob Woodward, in his recent book Plan of Attack, indicated that the CIA was pressured politically by President Bush and his cabinet to produce evidence of Iraqi weapons, and that the Senate Intelligence Committee’s findings disagree with Woodward.
So who is correct? Which version of reality do we give more credit?
Having had a little personal experience with the chairman of the Senate committee in question, the estimable Pat Roberts of Purewater University’s own home state of Kansas, I can attest to the fact that his reputation for honesty and fair dealing and a genuine concern for the truth is wildly over-rated. I can also contest to the fact that he owes much of his power to being a loyal party member, and has a vested interest in his party, which happens to be that of the president, retaining power.
So judge for yourself: on the one hand we have Bob Woodward who, while he does have an interest in selling books, loses no power as an investigative journalist whether or not Bush wins the election; and on the other we have Pat Roberts, who retains his considerable power in the Senate if he blames the CIA and gives the president a pass.
Who would you believe?
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.