Mel Goodman: Good morning!! The question of the day appears to be whether the intelligence community cooked the books on intelligence or the Bush administration misused and exaggerated the intelligence it was given. I believe the question is not either/or, but both. CIA after 9/11 and particularly after October 2002 tried to give the Bush administration some of what it was looking for and key members of the Bush administration clearly exaggerated the intelligence and, in some cases, lied about specific factors. A key issue regarding both the intelligence community and the Bush administration is the use of a forged document to make the case regarding Iraq's nuclear program. The President used the forgery in his State of the Union address, and the CIA used the forged document in its publications and, more importantly, made no attempt to let anyone know that the document was a fabrication. So let us begin

________________________________________________

Denver, Colo.: Hi Mel from the Mile High City.

I have been reading with interest some talk about whether the President's prosecution of the case for war was so embellished as to be impeachable. Not sure I would agree with that only because impeachment almost has become a rite of each administration and their opponents in terms of the politics of personal destruction.

Nevertheless, up until recently, I actually saw the war as more or less justified if only to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein. But now (and this is really growing with each passing day) even this seems problematic because our presence is being continually challenged externally and internally...and where --are-- all these dangerous weapons and chemicals and nuke programs that we were all scared into believing? We were either told an outright lie, or our intelligence capabilities is really inept, or we have really botched the war and Saddam and his sons and a lot of these weapons have gotten away from us and into the hands of even scarier governments (Iran or Syria, etc.)?

What are the American people to make of all this? Is the outcome really as bad as it appears to be or are we now being conned by Democrats trying to make political gain?

thanks

Mel Goodman: I believe that the situation is as bad as it appears and probably worse. There was no clear and present danger and no sign of imminent Iraqi attack against US interests, yet we fabricated an argument at the highest level to go to war. I cannot think of any issue in the past twenty years, including Irancontra, as serious as this...in fact, we can go back thirty years to Watergate and say that this issue of Iraq and WMD is far more serious than anything in the past 30 years. Only Vietnam and the Gulf of Tonkin resolution are comparable.

________________________________________________

Boston, Mass.: Hello Mr. Goodman. What actions can the US intelligence community take to refute/correct what the President/Sec. Def. say regarding intelligence? Based on several stories in the Post recently, some have come forward from the intelligence community to say they were "flabbergasted" by what the administration was saying. Sources stated that some was aspects were inflated or in the case of uranium from Nigeria, flat out false. Contradicting the President is a tough spot to be in, but at the end of the day, isn't the job of the CIA to protect the US people, not to serve an administrations agenda?

Mel Goodman: I don't expect intelligence analysts to go public with their stories but they could go to the Senate and House intelligence committees and their own Inspector Generals with stories of misuse and abuse of intelligence material. NSA analysts leaked material when the KAL 007 documents were abused by the Reagan administration, and the Tower Commission on Irancontra documents misuse and abuse in the 1980s as well. This is serious business and the integrity of the intelligence community is the Holy Grail for intelligence analysts.

________________________________________________

Blacksburg, Va.: My great fear is that a US compound will soon (next few months) be hit by a rocket and a couple hundred body bags will arrive on the shores of America (minus the banner "Mission Accomplished"). Do you have any sense of the likelihood of this happening?

Mel Goodman: You are dealing with an unpredictable situation, but our forces are very vulnerable to the kind of scenario you create. The key event was before the invasion when Saddam Hussein distributed weapons to his enemies as well as his allies. This told us his plan was not to fight a war with the United States, but to resort to a guerrilla struggle in the wake of US occupation. The Army chief of staff was right about this but the Secretary of Defense and his deputy overruled him. We are vulnerable!!

________________________________________________

Alexandria, Va.: How is that the Iraq WMD white paper authored by the CIA (see Priest and Pincus, WP June 7) that served as a battering ram for the Pres and all his men on the invasion issue would contain unqualified assertions as a bulleted "Key Judgement" (which is all one should expect the current Pres. to read) but considerable qulalifications in the main body of the text? Who put together the "Key Judgements" section together? Is it routine to have such apparent discrepencies in CIA white papers?

Mel Goodman: You have identified one of the key methodologies of politicization of intelligence. Casey and Gates did this in the 1980s with the issue of international terrorism, and now Tenet and the CIA have done the same with Iraq and WMD. Analysts analyze, but managers, who are too close to policymakers tailor the message. This was done in the case of Iraq since 9/11 and particularly since October 2002 when Rumsfeld stepped up the pressure on Tenet.

________________________________________________

College Park, Md.: Hmm, unlike most in the United State of Amnesia, I actually remember a year or so ago that the intelligence agencies were publicly saying (on and off the record) that the WMD issue was essentially being overhyped. I really don't think that blame should be levelled at the intel community here.

On the other hand, the democrats and the media have a moral imperative to investigate the misbehavior of the Bush junta in detail. This secretive group has been personally enriched by all of the wars so far, and have funneled tax dollars to their campaign contributors through secret, no-bid contracts.

However, I do not have faith in the lapdog monopoly media to answer this moral call to duty anymore, nor in the democrats to do the right thing (given their role as active enablers in this whole mess). What can we as private citizens do to encourage and ensure that these investigations will actually take place? Is there any real avenue for the people to hold these criminals responsible now?

Mel Goodman: The intelligence community is not as innocent as you maintain, although it introduced elements of ambiguity in its analysis that the administration removed. But the CIA essentially drafted the Powell speech to the UN and that was a politicized series of intelligence snapshots that did not make the case it intended. What to do? At least, you can write letters to the editor, call congressman, and hector the congressional intelligence committees that would rather be advocates for the community and not oversight specialists.

________________________________________________

Athens, Ga.: Can you explain how/why US forces in Iraq failed to secure the Tuwaitha (sp?) Nuclear Plant when this war was allegedly about dessembling the nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs of the Hussein regime and preventing the proliferation of WMD materials?

I find the administration's recent equivocating on the WMD subject grotesquely cynical. The failure at Tuwaitha, while dedicating considerable resources to the immediate protection of the oil and interior depts, seems to me the most glaring indication of the real motives behind the invasion.

Mel Goodman: I believe that you have developed the key indicator. Our forces swept by Tuwaitha, but if there was a genuine nuclear program (THERE WASN'T), a force would have gone into Tuwaitha for evidence and to prevent looting. This was an incredible sign of the dog not barking providing the major clue to Administration misstating the reasons to go to war.

________________________________________________

Westlake Village, Calif.: Why is the Israeli government silent on this issue? Wouldn't it have been logical to assume it was THEIR intelligence passed on to US sources in many instances?

Debkafile still maintains WMDs are all buried in Syria for example. Is there and end game to this that I'm missing?

Mel Goodman: Israel is silent because it remains the only country outside the US and UK that really wanted this war. Much Israeli intelligence to the US is actually misinformation or disinformation to suit Israeli policy interests. The best example is the ridiculous canard that Iraq gave the WMD to Syria.

________________________________________________

Washington, D.C.: What kind of professional credibility do our intelligence agencies have with other intelligence agencies world-wide? Are we now considered 'tainted' or is the Iraq intelligence data recognized as merely something to be manipulated for a political agenda?

Mel Goodman: Our intelligence has been so wrong and so politicized over the past twenty years (since Bill Casey and Bob Gates) that the integrity of the CIA has been hurt badly. It started with the CIA paper on the so-called Soviet role in the Papal Plot (1981), which was a fabrication. CIA tergiversation on NMD contributed to the image of politicization and now this. Once credibility is challenged it is hard to regain it.

________________________________________________

Bel Air, Md.: You hear so much about Saddam gassing his own people. My understanding is that this refers to the Kurds and happened before the first Gulf War. Is this true?

When Colin Powell addressed the UN he held a vial over his head as he refered to "Dry Anthrax" that was unaccounted for. Did Iraq even achieve the ability to produce "Dry Anthrax, or have they only been able to produce "Wet Anthrax" which has a much shorted shelf life?

Thank you
Carl

washingtonpost.com: Officials Defend Iraq Intelligence (Post, June 9)

Mel Goodman: The example of Iraqi use of gas refer to the period of Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Iraq lacks the technical sophistication to manufacture dry anthrax, according to international specialists, and it is ironic that the US was a key supplier of anthrax components to Iraq in the 1980s when the enemy for the US and Iraq was, of course, Iran.

________________________________________________

Sparks, Md.: One of the most difficult topics for layperson parents to discuss with their young (under 18) children today is the controversy surrounding the issues of the war on Iraq, including how our government decides when war is justifiable and which criteria are used to make such an historic decision.

For now, we tell them that we believe our government had some compelling reasons and evidence that they just couldn't share with the public, so as not to compromise sensitive operations. We also follow the daily news of ongoing "inspections" and other findings, and investigations regarding the existence of WMD, as well as take in everyone’s' published opinions on the issue.

The major challenge is having to sort through the massive amount of information presented by the government, the media and academia in order to find the "truth", even if it is just for the day. It's looking less likely, we suppose, that WMD will be found in Iraq in sufficient quantities to solely justify the war. However, if they are found, what will the skeptics say? Moreover, what are we teaching our children as a result of this politicization and won’t it have a profound impact on the winner, the loser, our society and our future?

Mel Goodman: All of us, including our children, must understand the uses and abuses of power of any administration. This example of misuse of power is particularly egregious because it involves the exploitation of a genuine tragedy (9/11) for the policy purposes of the Bush administration. The congressional committees must look into this; an independent investigation must be held; the inspector generals of the Pentagon and CIA must be activated; and the rights of American citizens regarding "need to know" must be honored. Finally, the Democrats and the print media must do a more rigorous job.

________________________________________________

Oak Bluffs, Mass.: Today's Post says: That intelligence (that captured Al Qaeda members were denying any connection to Iraq) became a source of frustration for some lawmakers who knew the information cast doubt on the administration's case linking Iraq with terrorism. But because the information was classified, they were not permitted to share those doubts with the public.

What do you make of this? Surely a congressperson could say that they doubted an Iraq-al Qaeda connection without revealing all of their reasons for doing so?

washingtonpost.com: War in Iraq Was 'Right Decision,' Bush Says (Post, June 10)

Mel Goodman: I totally agree with you. If congressmen knew that the intelligence was being misused by the administration (again, read the Powell speech prepared by CIA) then they were obligated to force testimony, subpoena witnesses, and hold hearings on this important decision to go to war. But congressmen, particularly Pat Roberts' Senate intell committee, and Porter Goss' House intell committee, were derelict.

________________________________________________

New York, N.Y.: (Mr. goodman, this is a difficult question to pose so I'll just go ahead with it, and I do hope you will answer it)

Regarding the issue of intelligence, would it be uncommon for the top tiers of the cia to make use of political consultants or pollsters?

And would that be a breach of ethics?

Mel Goodman: I am not aware of CIA's use of pollsters, but it certainly uses political consultants to justify reorganizations or to get a line of analysis that its own analysts won't provide. See the TEAM A vs. TEAM B competition in 1976, when Prof. Richard Pipes (Harvard) misused intelligence to "toughen" CIA assessments. Unethical, by the way. And it was CIA Director George Bush who allowed this to happen after his predecessor, William Colby, prevented it.

________________________________________________

Cumberland, Md.: I am stunned by the idea that you consider this SERIOUS -- you must be a Democrat trying to make political capital for 2004.

I can think of lots of really plausible reasons why we can't find the weapons IMMEDIATELY which means we will eventually find them.

1. He could of disposed of them before the attack.

2. They could have been spirited out of the country by Baath loyalists.

3. They could be buried somewhere in Iraq and since many involved in these weapon production are subject to war crimes trials they are not anxious to tell us about them.

4. We did find Mobile weapons labs.

5. Saddam never accounted for tons of WMD such as Sarin, VX, Mustard gas and Anthrax.

6. He was obviously hiding something else why would he decide to fight the US rather than "bare all" to the UN Weapon's Inspectors.

7. WHy did he insist on "minders" or "tape recordings" for interviews of scientists with the UN?

8. What was he doing the 4 years when there were no inspections in the country?

9. Ties to Al-Quaeda have been proved -- Ansar-al-Islam in the North and harboring and treating of al-Zarqawi.

I could go on and on and on -- you seem to have a political agenda and are using this forum to advance it.

I am sure you want publish this as it would embarrass you too much!!

Mel Goodman: Of course, I'm going to respond to your question because this is the classic apologist list of items to defend the Bush administration. But the burden of proof is on you. Where is the WMD? Where are the agents? Where are the nukes? Taken to a third country? You must be kidding. You are all hat and no cattle, as they say in Texas.

________________________________________________

Silver Spring, Md.: I agree with everything you say. But I am in the bare minority of this country. I know what will happen. The President during the 2004 campaign will be challenged a little on this, and his response will be "We were attacked on 9/11 and I will never let that happen again to this great country!" The majority will cheer and we will be the victims of the greatest fraud on the American public in decades if not ever. Do you agree? Is there any way to prevent this?

Mel Goodman: There is great likelihood that 9/11 will be used to explain every domestic and foreign misstep that we engage in. The only way to prevent this is to get politically active and engaged. Demand answers from your congressman. You certainly have a good one in Rep. Chris Von Hollen so get in touch early and often. And try to reach MD. members of the intelligence committees that are simply not doing their jobs.

________________________________________________

Washington, D.C.: Do you think in the near future, an "unnamed" source will come out in the open and put his job/reputation on the line to combat this administration?

Also, do you think that solid evidence (such as memos or transcripts) will surface to give further proof that the administraiton lied to the American people?

Mel Goodman: I believe that there is sufficient evidence out there already, particularly the work of John Prados in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists who has developed a good chronology on what the CIA said before and after 9/11. It is clear that intelligence was politicized as the administration pressured the intelligence agencies...and that the administration then tailored the intelligence to mislead the American people. The fact that we withheld intelligence on the absence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda is genuine and devastating.

________________________________________________

Wilbraham, Mass.: In light of your conclusions today, how do you effective do you consider the Dept. of Homeland Security, now that President Bush was able to effectively misframe the issue before the last Congressionals, discredit genuine War heros, and gain the right to fire at will, anyone who produces intel he does not like? Won't we have a dept. filled with "yes" men? What will this mean for our security?

Mel Goodman: The Dept. of Homeland Security cannot be effective until it has an independent capability for making intelligence assessments. Thus far it has become a political instrument and its misuse in the case of the search for the Texas Democrats who "fled" to Oklahoma is an indicator of the politics behind the department.

________________________________________________

New York, N.Y.: Assuming the disgruntled intelligence analysts are telling the truth about the pressure they received to jack up the threat of WMDs in Iraq (and the lack of evidence of them thus far seems to corroborate them), has the Bush administration committed an impeachable--or outright criminal--offense, considering the danger they put to US service people's (not to mention Iraqi people's) lives?

Mel Goodman: We clearly need an independent investigation to study how we went to war...and we may be learn that impeachable crimes were committed. Certainly there is no more serious issue than how and why we go to war.

________________________________________________

Lake Balboa, Calif.: Much has been made of the fact that WMDs have not yet been found in Iraq. I am wondering if the issue regarding the "cherry-picking" and loose interpretation of intelligence data will go away if and when they are found, or should this remain a major issue deserving full investigation?

Mel Goodman: I believe that we need a full investigation regardless of what we find....and we need to get international inspectors into Iraq immediately so that findings will be credible to a US and international audience. The US should not be fighting an international role here, since international cooperation is key to dealing with WMD in nearly every instance and in trying to stop the proliferation of WMD. War is clearly not the answer, whether we are talking about Iraq, Syria, Iran, or North Korea. Forget the axis of evil; we need an axis of international cooperation.

________________________________________________

Maryland: When I was active-duty military I served in several intelligence assignments. What I remember about working in an intel. center where all-source intelligence was routinely received, processed and analyzed was first, the phenomena of circular-reporting, where info. made its way around the intelligence community by being repeated again and again in various products, until the information became reliable because it appeared to be coming from numerous sources, but really was not. Second, the rice-bowl fights between various intelligence agencies over who was supposed to have the lead in collecting, analyzing and reporting in a certain area of interest. In your opinion, how have these phenomena colored the current controversy about WMD reporting on Iraq?

Mel Goodman: You make some good points. There is a tendency to repeat dubious pieces of information until we reach a level of belief....but more importantly we use dubious sources of intelligence when we know that this is what policymakers are seeking. This happened in the 1980s and it led to the failure to understand the weakness of the Soviet Union and the operational failure of Iran contra. Analysts have to protect the ethics of their profession and not lose their moral compass. I would like to see less hand-wringing on their part and more willingness to go the intelligence committees or go to the inspector generals.

________________________________________________

Montclair, NJ: What I don't get is why apologists for the administration seem to think that the fact that Saddam didn't come clean means he was hiding something. He was a nasty dictator, and nasty dictators terrorize their populations by being the scary big man. If he had let UN inspectors into every crevice of the country, provided proof of disarmament, and otherwise publicized his probable destruction of weapons, he would have been the nasty dictator who did exactly what America said. He wouldn't have lasted three more days. No: Saddam built his power on force and intimidation. He was walking a fine line between outside invasion and inside coup (as in 1991, when his evident weakness sparked a major uprising). Why can't people understand that what Saddam wanted to hide was his lack of weapons, not his huge stockpile?

Mel Goodman: There is much to what you say. Iraq was pathetically weak and Saddam Hussein had no legitimacy as a leader. So his attempts at creating WMD in the 1990s were designed in part to cover this vast weakness. Ironically, we were quite successful with containment and deterrence and international inspection. Now we are asking for more time to find the WMD.....well, that is what Blix and Elbaradei were asking for several months ago.

________________________________________________

Toronto, Canada: Considering the weapons that UNSCOM discovered and/or knew about before being withdrawn in 1998, was not the burden of proof on Iraq to either produce the WMD or prove convincing evidence of their destruction? As no one has argued that Iraq met that burden, was it not prudent to assume that the Saddam regime did have control over these weapons and that its overthrow was justified? Even if the US turns out to have been wrong and/or the CIA gave bad information (and I still think it is too early to tell), it strikes me as a reasonable response to what was known at the time, i.e. Saddam had them once and couldn't show what had happened to them.

Mel Goodman: But what if Saddam Hussein saw his weapons as a deterrent against the greater military force of Israel (see 1981 and Osirak) and the US (see 1991 and Desert Storm), and couldn't allow a perception to be formed of his actual weakness. Of course, he should have revealed his hand and perhaps prevented war. But perhaps the Bush administration had decided on war in the wake of 9/11 (probably the case) and it didn't matter what Saddam Hussein said or did.

________________________________________________

Unsure, Iowa: Was Saddam's real mistake invading Kuwait? Some suggest that the US actually hood-winked Saddam into that invasion with some vague language about our attitude toward border disputes. What was the CIA's role, in particular, and the Bush I administration's role, in general, in downplaying the US potential response Saddam's fateful decision?

Mel Goodman: You are looking for a conspiracy where none exists. Saddam Hussein made too many strategic blunders to list. Kuwait was strategically stupid; he could have grabbed the dispute border terroritories, got his oil, and avoided a military response. But ten years earlier, he invaded Iran (strategically stupid) and created the weakness that led to Kuwait (strategically stupid). He is either the world's greatest optimist or the world's biggest ignoramus. Perhaps both!!

________________________________________________

Columbia, Md.: You talked about Israel role, can you tell us more what Israel had to do with the war? Do you think the administration believed the Israeli misinformation? Thanks

Mel Goodman: Israeli long-term strategy has been to polarize the Middle East with the United States on the side of Israel and a defender of Israeli interests, and the Arab world on the side of the Soviet Union (1970s and 1980s) or simply misaligned. Israel sees Iraq as a long-term threat and welcomed the US invasion.....in Iran contra, Israel planted the policy seeds for dealing with Iran. Yes, there is a tendency to accept Israeli geostrategic thinking, which does no service to either Israel or the US.

________________________________________________

Arlington, Va.: Mel,

Thanks for doing this chat today, it's great to see this information being discussed. How did the government think they could get away with this or do they think we won't care?

Mel Goodman: The administration is essentially hiding behind a wall of patriotism inspired by 9/11 and seem to believe that 9/11 justifies any step that it takes at home or abroad. And the Democrats have not found an effective counter, without looking somewhat pusilanimous on the national security front.

________________________________________________

Van Nuys, Calif.: Do you think we are more at risk of a terrorist attack within the US because of the Iraqi invasion? Is it possible that Iraq did in fact have WMDs (or materials to produce them) that are now in the hands of other nations or terrorist organizations? And why do you think these questions aren't even being asked in the mainstream media?

Mel Goodman: I believe that the war in Iraq creates the short and long term conditions for greater terrorism against US interests. And I believe that the media essentially rely on the stories that are brough to the press and are insufficiently rigorous in finding their own stories or seeking elements of unconventional wisdom to be explored. We have sadly neglected our foreign news coverage in this country (both press and TV) and are paying a price.

________________________________________________

New York, NY: Greetings,

Do you think that the Bush administration will be able to contain this one, or does it seem to you that this is now an issue that just won't go away? It seems to me that if it doesn't go away Mr. Bush may be in for a very difficult time indeed.

Mel Goodman: I believe that the British situation is the key. Britain has a parliamentary system, opposition parties, and an aggressive press. If the case against Blair gets stronger and the Blair government is threatened, then US journalists will have to follow the story here as well. But the 9/11 issue is something like a Maginot line that will protect the Bush administration.

________________________________________________

Gullsgate Minn: Mel Goodman: As the companion Post article states...officials are shifting from the use of "WMD" to the terms "weapons programs" and "capabilities". Is this intended to downsize the search or merely soften the public so they will be distracted by a new rhetoric? In other words did this war-challenged administration effect premptive war strikes to eliminate "weapons capabilities", "weapons programs"?-- So then all those soldiers, ours and theirs, died or were maimed for the sake of "weapon capabilities"? That is more acceptable; more media digestible? Does this administration believe the Lie about WMDS can be so easily downsized by a word change! No way!

Mel Goodman: This is what we calling "walking back the cat." The Bush administration is changing the terms of reference to make the case for war more acceptable and is hanging CIA Director Tenet out to dry for supplying the intelligence that justified the war. It's working so far in the short run but will probably create problems over the longer term.

________________________________________________

El Paso, TX: Why has there been almost no mention of the findings of the NIE, declassified back in October, that invading Iraq would increase the likelihood that Saddam would use or distribute his WMDs? Is it possible that Iraq's WMDs may now be used by a terrorist network such as Al Qaeda?

Mel Goodman: There is no evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda had the links that Tenet alleged in October to the congress or Powell charged in February to the UN. But there is always the possibility that the US failure to protect WMD sites during the invasion will lead to proliferation of WMD components that could get in the hands of forces linked to Al Qaeda. The fact is that the US national security situation is worse because of the war, and not better.

________________________________________________

Baltimore, Md.: As to whether Saddam hid WMD in another country, why, oh, why, would he give WMD to a neighboring country until this whole thing with the U.S. blew over? Does anyone actually believe that if he gave WMD to Syria that, after a war with the U.S., Syria would just say, "Thanks for letting us hold onto your anthrax for awhile. You can have it back now."

Give me a break.

Mel Goodman: That's precisely what Israel was selling to the US and it appears that certain actors in the US government were buying it.

________________________________________________

Starkville, MS: To what extent could a British investigation of pre-war intel access US personnel or other materials? How would an aggressive British investigation influence related events in the US?

Mel Goodman: I believe that there will be a spillover of British charges and investigations that will force greater scrutiny in the US. And I believe that the investigation in both London and Washington should examine the operational cooperation between MI6 and CIA to see if there was a disinformation campaign to justify the war to the British and US publics.

________________________________________________

Bedford, Indiana: Do you think the Bush/Cheney administration should let the American public view threr own Energy policy. This ties to the War for Oil questions, the government can put this all to rest by letting us see our own policy. If there is nothing to hide then why not just show the American citizens?

Mel Goodman: The oil factor needs to be considered. It is hard to see any of these military activities of the past three months without Iraq holding the second largest oil reserves in the world.

________________________________________________

New York: Why do you think that the administration wants to keep inspectors out and is attempting to keep the role of the UN at a basic minimum?

Mel Goodman: This strategy is part of the US policy of unilateralism, which is based on the fact that we "won" the Cold War and now have the "right" to enforce the "peace." It has led to noncooperation on Kyoto, chemical and biological compliance, ABM withdrawal, NMD deployment, etc. etc. Very dangerous conceptual framework for a country such as ours that is internationally overexposed and needs international cooperation.

________________________________________________

Washington, D.C.: In addition to the forged report, I remember there being a few photos which Bush said showed Iraq was building nuclear facilities. the UN nuclear inspection group issued a very strong press release saying that that absolutely wasn't the case, but administration officials continued to make that claim for several days.

Mel Goodman: The administration's weakest case regarding NMD is the nuclear allegations. As late as January 2003, Elbaradei stated that there was no evidence of a nuclear program, yet Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Powell continued to make a false case, and even the CIA began to shade the issue in its publications.

________________________________________________

Downtown, Washington, D.C.: You say that you would like an independent investigaiton about the practices of this Administration. However, look what happened with the September 11th investigations. It went nowhere.

What would have to happen to make an independent investigation for this matter be effective?

Mel Goodman: The independent investigation is underfunded and is operating against a false deadline and is allowing staff members to investigate their own organizations. For example, Douglas MacEachin, who was behind the politicization of intelligence at the CIA in the 1980s, is now the staff director for investigation of the CIA after 9/11. I'm talking about a tough-minded independent investigation that releases its findings to the American people. The role model is FDR after Pearl Harbor.

________________________________________________

Woodbridge, Va.: First, just wanted to say that this is a fascinating discussion.

My question is about George Tenet. There is a bit of speculation about him taking the fall in the event the WMD issue truly becomes threatening to the Bush White House. Do you think he would take the fall? And would he go out with a bang or a whimper?

Mel Goodman: Jim Woolsey was fired for cause but went out with a bang. Helms was given another job and went out with a whimper. Tenet has a portrait of Helms in his office. You decide.

________________________________________________

Midwest: I worked for DIA (J2 at the Pentagon) until mid-1996. I can say that without doubt there was no evidence that Iraq had reconstituted a viable WMD program and, more importantly, there was no effort by any within the intel community to promote that based on little facts.

I'm glad I left since it's quite clear to those I talk to still on the inside that facts and analysis count for little in this regime.

Mel Goodman: I can't thank you enough for stepping up to the plate. I wish more would follow.

________________________________________________

Washington, D.C.: Dear Mr. Goodman: Why would it be in the Bush administration's interest to fabricate evidence? What can they gain?

Thank you for this discussion.

Mel Goodman: The administration is desperate to cut its losses and find support for its case. Desperate times can lead to desperate people.

________________________________________________

Chicago, Ill.: You mentioned "And the Democrats have not found an effective counter, without looking somewhat pusilanimous on the national security front." Is there an effective counter in your opinion?

Mel Goodman: Yes, the case must be made for a foreign policy that is "beyond militarism." See my writings at www.ciponline.org.

________________________________________________

Toronto, Canada: You totally evaded my question. Considering what was known at the time, please state why you do not feel that Iraq had a legal burden to prove no WMDs and that the US was not making a reasonable judgment based on that failure to meet its burden. Furthermore, the fact that 2 prior attempts to develop WMD had to be ended by force (1981, 1991) as you point out would seem to bolster the US case that forcible disarmament was reasonable and necessary.

Mel Goodman: 1981 and 1991 had nothing to do with WMD. Weak actors (see North Korea and Iraq now; see the Soviet Union in the past) often misstate and exaggerate their capabilities as a line of defense against powerful actors that are willing to resort to force. Saddam Hussein lied about his holdings and withheld information in order to appear stronger than he actually was. And he probably believed that the US would not attack....certainly he had no plan to deal with US force in either 1991 and 2003, when he was far weaker.

________________________________________________

Mel Goodman: I'm afraid that we are out of time. This is an important issue and I thank you all for your excellent questions and observations. Perhaps we can do this again, as we learn more about all aspects of this key problem

________________________________________________

washingtonpost.com:

That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.

Stay Tuned to Live Online:
• 2 p.m. PBS 'Bloodlines': Filmmaker Noel Schwerin on biotechnology
• 6 p.m. The Starry Eye: Astrologer Charlene Lichtenstein

Full Week's Schedule

Keep up with the best Live Online has to offer and special breaking news discussions. Sign up for the Live Online e-mail newsletter.

________________________________________________

Automatically Update Page    |   Get New Responses   |   Submit Question