I HATE to rely on another cliché Jefferson quote, but this one is quite fitting to describe the conflicted state of America's security intelligence -- "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." As an American, I begin to question whether we can really evaluate truth in the Bush administration. The Sept. 11 Commission continues to reveal surprising evidence that President Bush was aware of a terrorist threat. And as American soldiers keep on risking their lives in a muddied Iraq situation, politicians discover that much of Bush's intelligence was indeed false. Considering the Bush administration acted on false information in Iraq and refrained from guarding us against correct projections of a terrorist attack, how can we know when to support this administration in its war efforts? Despite the setbacks from publicizing the intelligence, Americans need more transparency in the security sector, so that we the people can be a part of this democracy and protect our country.
Public support of war efforts no longer has any bearing on government actions. The polls revealed overwhelming support for the Iraq invasion directly after Bush's powerful speech on Saddam Hussein's threat. This administration has since received intense criticism of this speech and accusations of relaying false information to the populace. The American people supported a war because our president told us there was a serious security threat. Now that we captured Hussein and occupied a country with no policy plan in mind, the Bush administration has yet to find any weapons of mass destruction. They can keep searching, but the trust has already been broken.
The Bush administration is not giving us the means to acquire information and therefore, we cannot act as democratic citizens and informatively express opinions about this nation's involvement in international conflicts.
When the Sept. 11 Commission finally questioned National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, she discussed an intelligence memo that explicitly outlined a threat from the terrorist organization al Qaeda. Rice stated that this intelligence was not a "silver bullet" to result in a terrorist attack. Yet, this same administration took false information from intelligence sources and imperialistically conquered a nation further provoking violence in the Middle East. We have no insight to evaluate Bush administration's claims of threats -- this leaves citizens guessing as to whether Bush attacked Iraq for economic and special interest concerns or merely wanted to finish his father's business.
Granted, the CIA, the State Department and many Americans believe this cloak of secrecy is beneficial to our own security. They point to threats from terrorist organizations and enemy countries that might gain security advantages from knowledge of our intelligence. Intelligence sources are also put at risk. I am not suggesting full disclosure of the CIA's intelligence in Iraq -- just enough so that the people can judge the truth. The government is talented enough to edit presidential briefings, so as to inform the American people, but also maintain the anonymity of intelligence sources. And once information becomes definitive, the government should disclose verified facts to the people -- for example, the absence of weapons in Iraq. I have more faith in the ability of the American people to decide whether a threat is a serious enough reason to go to war.
Republicans enjoy the "big on security" Bush administration. Yet, they have deceived us and made two horrifically poor decisions. Our heavy-handed president decided not to act on terrorist intelligence which threatened our actual country, but went ahead and invaded a country that ended up posing a negligible security threat to our people. In fact, we created our own security threat by sending troops into a volatile country. Now we are left with two situations where thousands of innocent Americans have lost their lives. Should we still allow this administration to continue to pick and choose our battles?
The only alternative is transparency. Bush should let us know that his intelligence information in Iraq was not verified. Bush should let us know when he receives a memo detailing a terrorist attack on America. The administration is moving in the right direction with announcing security levels at home and abroad and creating the Department of Homeland Security. Yet, there still exists an incredible amount of secrets on whether the Iraq invasion was one of the largest security blunders in world history. I no longer trust this administration to enter our soldiers in to a war without transparent, verified and assured security intelligence. Jefferson tells us to let the truth stand alone -- it is sad when we Americans cannot even discern whether it's truth we are being fed.
Michael Behr's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at mbehr@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 4 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
