Bush May Name WMD Panel

President Bush's as early as Wednesday may formally announce an investigation into the intelligence used to justify the Iraq war.

The decision to appoint a commission on Iraq intelligence was intended to take pressure off a potentially explosive political issue. But setting up the commission offers its own dangers.

The White House already has begun defending it.

If the commission is truly independent, as the president has promised, it could examine not only the work of intelligence agencies, but how the administration handled intelligence. It could make demands for access to Mr. Bush's secret intelligence briefings, as has the congressionally created commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

But if the commission members are seen as too close to Mr. Bush, the panel's credibility could be questioned. Democratic leaders have already expressed doubts that a commission appointed entirely by the president can be impartial.

"This commission will be bipartisan and independent and they will have full access to the information they need to do their job," Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday.

Impetus for the independent investigation developed after the former CIA weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay, said last week he doubted that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in recent years. Those weapons were one of Mr. Bush's main arguments for war.

The White House originally had opposed an independent investigation, saying it wanted to give the search for weapons more time. But it reversed course as pressure grew from Republicans and Democrats.

The White House has stressed that the commission's mandate will be wide-ranging, examining not only Iraq but also flawed intelligence on Pakistan, Iran and other nations. But Mr. Bush could face criticism if the review is so broad that commissioners can't delve deeply into Iraq intelligence before its work ends early next year.

Finding the right balance on the commission will be difficult. McClellan said commissioners "will be people of experience in the public sector; they will be people with expertise in intelligence."

The White House has not disclosed any names, but among those that lawmakers and others have suggested as qualified candidates are former CIA directors Robert Gates, William Webster and James Woolsey; former Sens. Bob Kerrey, Warren Rudman, and Gary Hart; former CIA deputy director Richard Kerr and Kay.

But a panel that includes too many former intelligence officials may have difficulty examining work done under their watch. Former Sen. David Durenberger said the commission needs the perspective of policy-makers who depend on intelligence.

"I think the emphasis needs to be more on the foreign relations/national security side than on the intelligence side," he said.

Mr. Bush may also find that some of the most qualified people may not want a high-profile government position. The Sept. 11 commission's original chairman, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and vice chairman, former Sen. George Mitchell resigned shortly after their appointments, citing concerns about potential conflicts of interest with their professional work.

Members of the Sept. 11 commission were required to publicly disclose their business interests, but it is not clear whether Iraq commissioners would have to do the same. That would depend on the commission's structure and the commissioners' pay and work demands.

This offers another problem: Some potential commissioners may be reluctant to serve if they have to reveal financial details. But if public disclosures aren't required, questions could be raised about secret conflicts of interest.

Democrats continue to express skepticism about the president's plans. On Tuesday, presidential candidate Howard Dean called them "a totally inadequate response to a blunder of this magnitude." Sen. Jon Corzine said he would continue pushing for a congressionally created panel.

"The American people have a right to expect a complete, honest assessment of what went wrong, and the assignment of full accountability," Corzine said.

Republicans backed Mr. Bush. Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said a congressionally appointed commission would take too long to complete its work.

"We need to make sure our intelligence is good now, as soon as possible, not a year or 18 months or two years from now," he said.

Former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., said Mr. Bush will "be criticized regardless who's on the panel, but I think the panel will stand or fall on its own merits."

"If it's a good panel, it doesn't matter who chose it," he said.

Meanwhile, the controversy over the apparently flawed case for war forced Britain's House of Commons to briefly adjourn a debate Wednesday.

Shouts from anti-war demonstrators in the public gallery interrupted Prime Minister Tony Blair's statement on Lord Hutton's inquiry into the death of a government weapons scientist.

"Murderer!" shouted one protester. "Whitewash!" yelled another.

"I somehow feel we're not being entirely persuasive in certain quarters," Blair quipped after one of the interruptions, drawing a laugh from legislators.
Hutton found that the British Broadcasting Corp. had wrongly reported that Blair's office overrode objections from intelligence officials to claim that Iraq could deploy biological and chemical weapons within 45 minutes, and that the BBC reporter was also wrong in saying the government "probably knew" that claim was wrong.

But in a new revelation, former British Defense Intelligence chief Brian Jones said the government "overruled" intelligence experts over Iraq's weapons, a fact he made known to the Hutton inquiry, reports CBS News' Charles D'Agata.

Jones said not a single intelligence officer backed the Blair administration's claims on Iraq's weapons.