Justice Dept. Inspector General is investigating whether Gonzales gave "false or misleading testimony to Congress"
The Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Justice is still investigating outgoing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales -- and the charges are very serious:
The Justice Department is investigating whether departing Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales gave false or misleading testimony to Congress on a broad range of issues, including the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program and the removal of nine U.S. attorneys last year, the lead investigator said today.
The disclosure by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine shows that internal investigations that began with the prosecutor firings have widened substantially to include a focus on Gonzales's actions and statements.
Hard look at the brass
In the post-mortem investigation of the Iraq fiasco, the role of the military brass should be closely examined and determinations made as to the role of military commanders in fostering the corruption and the purposes of bushco. Reports make it clear that much arms and munitions fell into the hands of insurgents. From the very first the military command failed to secure captured arms depots and consequently untold amounts of arms and munitions disappeared. This helped to prolong the war, which now seems to have been the real objective of bushco, simply for the purpose of enriching itself and its friends. There have been reports over the years that suggest collusion of the high command for the aggrandizement of the Bush political apparatus.
There is the sense that certain Generals have been rewarded for this type of co-operation. A notable example is the present Director of the CIA Michael Hayden who ran the NSA spy program from the first, and who might have incurred criminal liabilities in so doing.
Bush removed Goss, his own appointee last year, and installed Hayden as director of the CIA. Hayden was the president's man, Goss was not. Hayden’s career had specialized in army intelligence, never before a fast track to general’s stars. But Hayden’s co-operation with Bush has garnered him an unprecedented 4 stars, an unheard of status for a man of Hayden’s meager accomplishments, and a rank seldom obtained in any army. If the truth comes out, Hayden will have to return those stars...if the truth comes out.
Petraeus appears to be
Petraeus appears to be nothing but a political appointee as well.
Syndicate this content
Karen DeYoung and Thomas E.
Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post
Thursday, August 30, 2007; A01
Iraq has failed to meet all but three of 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks for political and military progress, according to a draft of a Government Accountability Office report. The document questions whether some aspects of a more positive assessment by the White House last month adequately reflected the range of views the GAO found within the administration.
The strikingly negative GAO draft, which will be delivered to Congress in final form on Tuesday, comes as the White House prepares to deliver its own new benchmark report in the second week of September, along with congressional testimony from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker. They are expected to describe significant security improvements and offer at least some promise for political reconciliation in Iraq.
The draft provides a stark assessment of the tactical effects of the current U.S.-led counteroffensive to secure Baghdad. "While the Baghdad security plan was intended to reduce sectarian violence, U.S. agencies differ on whether such violence has been reduced," it states. While there have been fewer attacks against U.S. forces, it notes, the number of attacks against Iraqi civilians remains unchanged. It also finds that "the capabilities of Iraqi security forces have not improved."
"Overall," the report concludes, "key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high, and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds," as promised. While it makes no policy recommendations, the draft suggests that future administration assessments "would be more useful" if they backed up their judgments with more details and "provided data on broader measures of violence from all relevant U.S. agencies."
A GAO spokesman declined to comment on the report before it is released. The 69-page draft, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post, is still undergoing review at the Defense Department, which may ask that parts of it be classified or request changes in its conclusions. The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, normally submits its draft reports to relevant agencies for comment but makes its own final judgments. The office has published more than 100 assessments of various aspects of the U.S. effort in Iraq since May 2003.
The person who provided the draft report to The Post said it was being conveyed from a government official who feared that its pessimistic conclusions would be watered down in the final version -- as some officials have said happened with security judgments in this month's National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. Congress requested the GAO report, along with an assessment of the Iraqi security forces by an independent commission headed by retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones, to provide a basis for comparison with the administration's scorecard. The Jones report is also scheduled for delivery next week.