WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 (UPI) -- With the new U.S. Congress now in full swing, intelligence oversight has one of the top billings, and newly empowered Democrats are asking probing questions about the lead-up to the Iraq war, even if they are four years late.
The intelligence community has taken a tidal wave of criticism since the U.S. military invaded Iraq, tasked with uncovering long-time dictator Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and reported back empty handed.
A classified report from the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Defense, recently released along with a declassified executive summary during a hearing of the Armed Services Committee of the U.S. Senate, finds evidence of what many people long thought was true: that some Bush administration officials also embellished intelligence to suggest a link between al-Qaida and Saddam's Iraq.
According to testimony given by acting inspector general Tom Gimble, the DOD review found that "the Office for the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy developed, produced, and disseminated alternative intelligence assessments of Iraq and al-Qaida relations, which included conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the intelligence community, and these were presented to senior decision makers ... all the products did not clearly show the variance with the consensus of the intel community, and in some cases were shown as intel products."
But the legislative branch has also taken its share of criticism for not asking enough questions and for buying into the claims used by President George W. Bush and his advisors to justify going to war. Government officials, particularly those with top level security clearances, are responsible for staying abreast of intelligence analysis and keeping tabs on the secret world of intelligence gatherers. Now, reviewing the committee agendas of the 110th Congress so far, some chairmen seem to be trying to make up for lost time.
In the one-month period since the 110th Congress was sworn in, there has been a noticeable increase in discussion on oversight of intelligence and secrecy matters. While it is too early to predict how the hearings and investigations will translate to actual reform, there is clearly a newfound emphasis on examining how intelligence errors were made and how to avoid repeating them.
"The very important function being performed by the intelligence committees on the Hill is to serve as a kind of surrogate for the American people and make a judgment," said Paul Pillar, a former CIA analyst and the national intelligence officer for Near East and South Asia from 2000-2005.
It is the job of senators and representatives to examine classified and sensitive information and ask, "'if we were to make (this knowledge) public, would it be consistent with the values and the intentions of the American people?'" Pillar said.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the new Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, emphasized the importance of intelligence reform by calling for the adoption of the "9/11" Commission's recommendations as the first piece of legislation considered by the 110th Congress. A number of committee chairs have subsequently provided the details of those reforms through a torrent of hearings and legislation.
On Feb. 7, the House Permanent Sub-Committee on Intelligence led by its chairman, Rep. Sylvester Reyes, D-Tex., announced its oversight plan for the 110th Congress. The committee will provide "oversight of all aspects of the 'intelligence cycle' -- including requirements, collection, analysis, dissemination, and use of intelligence by policymakers." While the information will often be sensitive or classified, the committee pledged to "seek opportunities to hold hearings in open session and conduct our work in a transparent and accountable manner."
On the same day that the Senate Armed Services Committee heard testimony from the DOD inspector general, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Mo., introduced the Intelligence Community Audit Act of 2007. The bill reaffirmed the role of the Comptroller General to track and evaluate the intelligence community's activities, programs, and financial transactions, including its use of covert methods and intelligence sources if asked by the House or Senate intelligence committees.
On Feb. 13, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, held a hearing on the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, which would, for the first time, extend whistleblower protections to national security and intelligence officials.
"Our own government has concluded that they can be trusted to work on the most sensitive law enforcement and intelligence projects. Yet these officials receive no protection when coming forward to identify abuses that are undermining our national security," Waxman said in his opening statement.
Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., Tuesday introduced the Restoring the Constitution Act, which can be viewed as a direct response to various intelligence gathering tactics endorsed by the Bush administration, such as that alleged terrorists can be held indefinitely and without charge or that government agencies can carry out domestic surveillance without first obtaining a search warrant. Among its numerous provisions, the legislation calls for due process for terror suspects and prevents the use in court of evidence obtained through torture or collected within the United States without a search warrant.
The discussions have, not surprisingly, been peppered with some of the usual partisan rhetoric. Those in the majority of course, drive the legislative agenda, and the Democrats have been waiting for the chance to "undo the harm," as Rep. Dodd said of President Bush's treatment of suspected terrorists.
"In this case, it's proper to investigate these things because they're important parts of the story of how we got into the mess we're in. You can never separate the politics from it, but in this instance, I think the Democrats are on pretty strong ground. We can't sweep (these issues) under the rug," Pillar said. If the investigation had to wait until the Democrats were in the majority, then that is just the way the politics work out, he added.
Regardless of how different things look after the Democrats and their Republican partners revamp intelligence oversight, these discussions are unprecedented in the four years since Congress authorized military action against Iraq.
"These errors, this inappropriate behavior is so fresh in all of our minds, in the minds of Members of Congress, in the press ... there's going to be a lot more scrutiny and a lot more questions asked," Pillar said.
Indeed, the egregious intelligence missteps in the lead-up to the Iraq war make the public and government officials skeptical of claims now made by the Bush administration that escalating violence in Iraq is linked to the Iranian regime.
