By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — U.S. lawmakers critical of the Iraq war nearly caught a tiny break last week in their repeated, unsuccessful efforts to compel a government examination of how the Bush administration used intelligence to justify the 2003 invasion (see GSN, Dec. 9). The Republican-led House International Relations Committee last week failed to reject a proposed Democratic resolution requesting that President George W. Bush give the House all documents used in preparation for an October 2002 speech in Cincinnati and his January 2003 State of the Union address. In those speeches Bush respectively alleged that Iraq tried to buy high-strength aluminum tubes and sought uranium from Africa for producing nuclear weapons. Information revealed since has raised doubts about those contentions and the White House in 2003 said it was a mistake to include the uranium reference in the address. A Republican-proposed vote to report the resolution out of committee with a negative recommendation ended in a 24-24 tie, with Representative James Leach (R-Iowa) joining all committee Democrats to oppose the motion. All but two of the remaining committee Republicans were present and backed the motion. The tie meant insufficient support to send the resolution out of the committee with a negative recommendation, or to defeat it. Committee consideration of the resolution was then suspended until yesterday, when a new Republican motion to report the resolution out without a recommendation was approved by 24 Republicans, beating the 19 Democrats present. Leach was present but did not vote. Little Progress AnticipatedLeach told Global Security Newswire afterward he initially supported the resolution proposed by Representative Maurice D. Hinchey (D-N.Y.), “for a whole spectrum of reasons.” “Some relate to sheer transparency, some relate to lack of vigorous oversight that has been self-apparent, some relate to the depth of mistakes of judgment that have been made,” he said. Asked why he did not again vote with the Democrats in opposition yesterday, he said the vote “was a vote to go forward. So I can hardly object to a vote to go forward. The last one was a vote to disapprove. There’s a huge distinction.” It is not clear why five Democrats did not attend the meeting. Neither motion, however, was likely to bring the measure to the House floor for a vote, according Lynne Weil, spokeswoman for ranking committee Democrat Tom Lantos (Calif.), in an interview yesterday. Whatever the panel’s stance, she said, the Republican-controlled House Rules Committee was certain to block the resolution’s release to the floor. Even in the unlikely event that one passed Congress, the resolutions are nonbinding and could not compel any action by the administration. Despite such poor prospects, Democrats have forced House International Relations Committee votes on nine such resolutions of inquiry, urging release of information on the use of prewar intelligence and the case of former CIA operative Valerie Plame, whose cover was allegedly blown by one or more White House officials. The committee must continue to vote on such nonbinding resolutions when they are introduced; House rules otherwise enable the resolution’s sponsor to obtain a floor vote. Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) vowed Democrats would introduce many more. “Unless the committees begin to undertake that … responsibility, these resolutions … are going to go on and on. Because there simply is no alternative for the minority party to attempt to hold the executive accountable for its actions,” he told the committee before the vote. Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) said in a statement last week prior to the first vote that the resolution was “flawed politically and factually unnecessary.” He cited conclusions by committee investigations and the independent Silberman-Robb commission that the White House did not force intelligence analysts to draw particular conclusions. “This issue has been studied repeatedly with the same result — the intelligence was flawed but it was not manipulated,” he said. The Democrats say they are seeking to examine, however, not whether the intelligence was manipulated, but whether it was fully and accurately portrayed by the administration to the public and Congress. “When a decision is made on such a monumental issue as going to war, then we owe it to ourselves individually, to the institution of the Congress, and to our constituents to find out in the aftermath … what went into the information that was developed within the White House and what rhetoric was used and what facts were used for making that decision,” said Representative Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.). Slow Senate ActionSenate Democrats have made better headway in attempts to encourage an examination of the administration’s use of prewar intelligence. A bipartisan investigation by the Senate intelligence committee on the subject was initiated, though it appeared stalled until Democrats last month in a procedural move forced Republicans to agree to appoint representatives to assess and report on the progress of the inquiry. Also, according to a Washington Post story today, a new Congressional Research Service report requested by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) concluded Congress did not have access to the same prewar Iraq intelligence as the White House. Bush administration officials have said Congress had equal access in attempts to rebut criticisms that they misled the country about evidence of Iraqi WMD capabilities. Crowley in his speech said intelligence information from the White House “trickled down. We were not given everything. We were given what the White House wanted us to know.”
A NATO report issued today found that the international effort to secure Russia’s WMD arsenal has had significant successes, but that managing biological and tactical nuclear weapons needs greater attention (see GSN, Nov. 14). The report by Canadian Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, NATO general rapporteur, addresses security issues regarding Russia’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, along with export controls and redirection of scientists who conducted WMD work. While the G-8 Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction has given submarine dismantlement and chemical weapons destruction ample attention, tactical nuclear weapons destruction requires increased monitoring and Russia must provide adequate assurances that it has fulfilled its commitment to completely eliminate its biological weapons arsenal, the report states. The international community, and especially the United States, has responded responsibly to the challenge of securing Russia’s WMD stockpile — the largest in the world — after the collapse of the Soviet Union with billions of dollars in aid, equipment and expertise, the report says. However, Russia remains reluctant to allow adequate monitoring of several WMD-related installations, according to the report. Nolin recommends greater involvement in the project by Russian officials and experts in order to elicit renewed cooperation from Moscow. The report also urges Moscow to grant tax exemptions and liability protections for WMD threat reduction programs. Russia’s financial contribution to the programs should also increase to reflect its economic growth, it adds. The report also recommends strengthening the role of the Senior Nonproliferation Officials Group and increasing the partnership’s membership to include particularly EU countries; accelerating destruction of nuclear weapons and related equipment; accelerating the pace of blending down of highly enriched uranium; and redoubling efforts to track the activities of former WMD scientists. Nonproliferation efforts should be expanded to additional countries and regions, the report states. The threat-reduction work would be aided by strengthening international agreements such as the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention and the Proliferation Security Initiative, and by producing a fissile material cutoff treaty (NATO report, Dec. 16).
|