This op-ed written by Congressman Alan Grayson appeared in The New York Times
today. Read it, share it with your friends and family, and join more
than 75,000 others who oppose U.S. military intervention in Syria by
signing on at DontAttackSyria.com.
WASHINGTON - THE documentary record regarding an attack on Syria
consists of just two papers: a four-page unclassified summary and a
12-page classified summary. The first enumerates only the evidence in
favor of an attack. I'm not allowed to tell you what's in the classified
summary, but you can draw your own conclusion.
On Thursday I asked the House Intelligence Committee staff whether
there was any other documentation available, classified or unclassified.
Their answer was "no."
The Syria chemical weapons summaries are based on several hundred
underlying elements of intelligence information. The unclassified
summary cites intercepted telephone calls, "social media" postings and
the like, but not one of these is actually quoted or attached - not even
clips from YouTube. (As to whether the classified summary is the same, I
couldn't possibly comment, but again, draw your own conclusion.)
Over the last week the administration has run a full-court press on
Capitol Hill, lobbying members from both parties in both houses to vote
in support of its plan to attack Syria.
And
yet we members are supposed to accept, without question, that the
proponents of a strike on Syria have accurately depicted the underlying
evidence, even though the proponents refuse to show any of it to us or
to the American public.
In fact, even gaining access to just the classified summary involves a series of unreasonably high hurdles.
We have to descend into the bowels of the Capitol Visitors Center,
to a room four levels underground. Per the instructions of the chairman
of the House Intelligence Committee, note-taking is not allowed.
Once we leave, we are not permitted to discuss the classified
summary with the public, the media, our constituents or even other
members. Nor are we allowed to do anything to verify the validity of the
information that has been provided.
And this is just the classified summary. It is my understanding that
the House Intelligence Committee made a formal request for the
underlying intelligence reports several days ago.
I haven't heard an answer yet. And frankly, I don't expect one.
Compare this lack of transparency with the administration's
treatment of the Benghazi attack. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham
Clinton, to her credit, made every single relevant classified e-mail,
cable and intelligence report available to every member of Congress.
(I know this, because I read them all.) Secretary Clinton had nothing to hide.
Her successor, John Kerry, has said repeatedly that this
administration isn't trying to manipulate the intelligence reports the
way that the Bush administration did to rationalize its invasion of
Iraq.
But by refusing to disclose the underlying data even to members of Congress,
the administration is making it impossible for anyone to judge, independently, whether that statement is correct. Perhaps the edict of an earlier administration applies: "Trust, but verify."
The danger of the administration's approach was illustrated by a widely read report last week in
The Daily Caller,
which claimed that the Obama administration had selectively used
intelligence to justify military strikes in Syria, with one report
"doctored so that it leads a reader to just the opposite conclusion
reached by the original report."
The allegedly doctored report attributes the attack to the Syrian general staff. But according to
The Daily Caller,
"it was clear that 'the Syrian general staff were out of their minds
with panic that an unauthorized strike had been launched by the 155th
Brigade in express defiance of their instructions.'"
I don't know who is right, the administration or
The Daily Caller. But for me to make the correct decision on whether to allow an attack,
I need to know. And so does the American public.
We have reached the point where the classified information system
prevents even trusted members of Congress, who have security clearances,
from learning essential facts, and then inhibits them from discussing
and debating what they do know. And this extends to matters of war and
peace, money and blood.
The "security state" is drowning in its own phlegm.
My position is simple:
if the administration wants me to vote for war, on this occasion or on any other, then I need to know all the facts. And I'm not the only one who feels that way.
#1285258, posted on April 29, 2014 at 7:08 pm