Cooking Intelligence to Justify War

Essentially echoing what the LA Times reported back in October, an article in today's NY Times suggests that the attempt by the Bush administration to squeeze an Iraq-Al Qaeda link out of their intelligence is creating "friction" within the intelligence community. At the CIA, some analysts "have complained that senior administration officials have exaggerated the significance of some intelligence reports about Iraq, particularly about its possible links to terrorism, in order to strengthen their political argument for war." At the FBI, analysts are "baffled by the Bush administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's network."

"Intelligence is obviously being politicized," says one official.

When the LA Times first made this allegation that the intelligence was being cooked, David Corn wrote that this "ought to trigger an outcry and a scandal." He elaborated:

Imagine rigging intelligence to shape the outcome of a debate that determines whether American lives are lost (and Iraqi lives are taken) overseas. How foul and sinister can a bureaucrat get? An article of this sort should cause members of the House and Senate to rush before microphones and declare they will not rest until they determine if the allegations hold up. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz should be fired if they are unduly leaning on nothing-but-the-facts analysts.

Also in the news today, Paul Lashmar and Raymond Whitaker of the Independent contend that the administration's reckless pursuit of the Iraq agenda has distorted the average American's understanding of the terrorism threat, and has also skewed the administration's approach to combating it effectively.

So, with all of this in mind, shall we start the impeachment process?