speakingcorpse writes:

I wonder if our erstwhile investigators of pre-war WMD claims will investigate this noteworthy historical document? No, of course not.

I am officially against the "investigation" as it is currently proposed. Why? Because absolutely no investigation is necessary. Dozens and dozens of well-researched news articles (unfortunately usually buried on the back pages) made clear well BEFORE the war that the CIA was not certain about the presence of WMD's, and that many CIA analysts didn't believe there were any. As George Tenet said, the CIA never claimed there was an "imminent threat" from O'Saddama. (Even the notorious "National Intelligence Estimate" was qualified by important caveats.) No, the only "error" was made by the White House. And we all know what came out of its collective "mouth." Do we need to "investigate" whether Bush said we were in danger of being nuked? Do we need to hire the President of Yale University to determine whether or not Rumsfeld said "we know where they are"? Will Senator John McCain need to call upon his hard-boiled independent-mindedness to determine whether or not Bush said last fall that "we've found the weapons of mass destruction"?

If any of these commissioners were real "partisans for the truth," they would refuse to participate in this investigation. NO INVESTIGATION IS NECESSARY. The very existence of an investigative commission lends credence to the lie that something about the White House's conduct is unclear. This is the new phase of the big lie. Shit on the public, then assemble a blue-ribbon commission to "investigate" whether or not the public is covered in shit.

Blicero adds: Perhaps David Brooks can head a blue-ribbon commission to look into the sort of statements Bush might have made, had he had the faculties to do so?