Senate panel expands Iraq WMD probe

Democrats had been pushing for a broader scope to the inquiry to determine whether the Bush administration exaggerated the intelligence to make its case for war, but Republicans had resisted the demand.

After much debate, the committee behind closed doors adopted a resolution that said the investigation would go beyond looking at the accuracy of the intelligence on Iraq to also review public statements by US officials between the 1991 Gulf War and the start of last year's US-led invasion to check if they were substantiated by intelligence.

Tap Here to Add The Daily Star As A Trusted Source

That period would cover the Democratic administration of former President Bill Clinton as well as the current Republican administration of President Bush.

The Iraq war has become a key issue in a presidential election year, with Democrats seeking to paint the Bush White House as having misled the public about the threat posed by Baghdad before the war because no weapons of mass destruction have been found.

Republicans have urged not jumping to conclusions, saying the hunt for biological and chemical weapons and an active nuclear weapons programme has not ended.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican, called the agreement a "refinement" of the panel's review.

"The resolution adopted unanimously today illustrates the commitment of all members to a thorough review, to learning the necessary lessons from our experience with Iraq, and to ensuring that our armed forces and policymakers benefit from the best and most reliable intelligence that can be collected," he said in a statement.

Roberts said he hoped an initial report would be released soon after which the committee would continue to work on recommendations.

Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia, the committee's senior Democrat, said the agreement reflected "a difficult and lengthy process" that ended in consensus being reached.

"We will address the question of whether intelligence was exaggerated or misused by reviewing statements by senior policymakers to determine if those statements were substantiated by the intelligence," he said in a statement.