Reply With Quote
No, he hasn't. He is just a Dimm-o-Crap, who cant stand being proven wrong again.
Looks like Dingy Harry Ried has lost his mind by invoking rule 21.
Whhhhaaaaa what a bunch of babies.
No, he hasn't. He is just a Dimm-o-Crap, who cant stand being proven wrong again.
Maybe they can find out what papers Sandy Berger destroyed.
Unofficial transcript of Harry Reid statement...
For more than two years, Senate Democrats have pressed Republicans toTHE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATE WILL COME TO ORDER. UNDER THE
PREVIOUS ORDER, THE MINORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. REID: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. PRESIDENT. JUST A COUPLE OF
DAYS AGO, MY SON LIEF CALLED ME AND INDICATED THAT HIS LOVELY
WIFE AMBER WAS GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER BABY. THAT WILL BE MY --
OUR 16th GRANDCHILD. MR. PRESIDENT, I HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT,
AND I HAVE TO SAY THAT I'VE BEEN IN PUBLIC SERVICE A LONG TIME.
NEVER HAVE I BEEN SO CONCERNED ABOUT OUR COUNTRY. WE HAVE GAS
PRICES THAT ARE REALLY UNBELIEVABLE. THIS YEAR THEY'VE BEEN
OVER $3 IN THE STATE OF NEVADA. DIESEL FUEL IS STILL OVER $3 A
GALLON IN NEVADA. THE MAJORITY LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES IS UNDER INDICTMENT. THE MAN IN CHARGE OF
CONTRACTING FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UNDER INDICTMENT.
DEFICITS, MR. PRESIDENT, SO FAR YOU CAN'T SEE THEM. THE
DEFICITS HAVE BEEN BASICALLY RUN UP BY PRESIDENT BUSH'S
ADMINISTRATION THESE LAST FIVE YEARS. WE'RE THE WEALTHIEST
NATION IN THE WORLD BUT WE ARE VERY POOR AS IT RELATES TO
HEALTH CARE. WE HAVE AN INTRACTABLE WAR IN IRAQ. IS IT ANY
WONDER THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT MY FAMILY, MY GRANDCHILDREN?
THIS PAST WEEKEND, WE WITNESSED THE INDICTMENT OF L. LEWIS LI
LIBBY, THE VICE PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF, ALSO ON THE
PRESIDENT'S STAFF, A SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT. MR. LIBBY
IS THE FIRST SITTING WHITE HOUSE STAFFER TO BE INDICTED IN 135
YEARS. IS IT ANY WONDER, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT I'M CONCERNED
ABOUT MY GRANDCHILDREN?
THIS INDICTMENT RAISES VERY SERIOUS CHARGES. IT ASSERTS THIS
ADMINISTRATION ENGAGED IN ACTIONS THAT BOTH HARMED OUR NATIONAL
SECURITY AND WERE MORALLY REPUGNANT. THE DECISION MADE TO PLACE
UNITED STATES SOLDIERS, OUR MILITARY INTO HARM'S WAY I BELIEVE
IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT RESPONSIBILITY THE CONS UTION VESTS
IN THE CONGRESS AND IN THE PRESIDENT. THE LIBBY INDICTMENT
PROVIDES A WINDOW INTO WHAT THIS IS REALLY ALL ABOUT, HOW THIS
ADMINISTRATION MANUFACTURED AND MANIPULATED INTELLIGENCE IN
ORDER TO SELL THE WAR IN IRAQ AND ATTEMPTED TO DESTROY THOSE
WHO DARED TO CHALLENGE ITS ACTIONS. MR. PRESIDENT, THESE ARE
NOT JUST WORDS FROM HARRY REID. LARRY WILKERSON, COLONEL LARRY
WILKERSON, COLIN POWELL'S FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF -- COLIN
POWELL, OF COURSE, WAS SECRETARY OF STATE. THIS MAN WAS HIS
CHIEF OF STAFF FOR FOUR YEARS. HERE'S WHAT HE SAID ABOUT THE
WAR IN IRAQ. "IF -- IN PRESIDENT BUSH'S FIRST TERM, SOME OF THE
MOST IMPORTANT DECISIONS ABOUT U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY,
INCLUDING VITAL DECISIONS ABOUT POST-WAR IRAQ, WERE MADE BY A
SECRETIVE, LITTLE-KNOWN CABAL, WAS MADE UP OF A VERY SMALL
GROUP OF PEOPLE LED BY VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY AND DEFENSE
SECRETARY DONALD RUMSFELD. BUT THE SECRET PROCESS WAS
ULTIMATELY A FAILURE. IT PRODUCED A SERIES OF DISASTROUS
DECISIONS." THAT'S WHAT I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT TODAY, MR.
PRESIDENT. AS A RESULT OF ITS IMPROPER CONDUCT, A CLOUD NOW
HANGS OVER THIS ADMINISTRATION. THIS CLOUD IS FURTHER DARKENED
BY THE ADMINISTRATION'S MISTAKES IN PRISONER ABUSE, HURRICANE
KATRINA, AND THE CRONYISM AND CORRUPTION IN NUMEROUS AGENCIES
THROUGHOUT THIS ADMINISTRATION. AND UNFORTUNATELY, IT MUST BE
THAT SAID A CLOUD ALSO HANGS OVER THIS REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED
CONGRESS FOR ITS UNWILLINGNESS TO HOLD THIS REPUBLICAN
ADMINISTRATION ACCOUNTABLE FOR ITS MISDEEDS ON THESE ISSUES.
DURING THE TIME THAT WE HAD A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT, EIGHT
YEARS, AND WHEN THE DEMOCRATS WERE IN CHARGE OF THE CO
COMMITTEES, WE WERE IN THE MAJORITY, OVERSIGHT HEARINGS WERE
HELD COVERING THE GAMUT OF WHAT WENT ON IN THIS ADMINISTRATION
-- THAT ADMINISTRATION. TODAY THERE IS NOT AN OVERSIGHT HEARING
HELD ON ANYTHING. LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT BACK HOW WE GOT HERE
WITH RESPECT TO IRAQ. THE RECORD WILL SHOW THAT WITHIN HOURS OF
THE TERRORIST ACTS OF 9/11, SENIOR OFFICIALS IN THIS
ADMINISTRATION RECOGNIZED THOSE ATTACKS COULD BE USED AS A
PRETEXT TO INVADE IRAQ. THE RECORD WILL ALSO SHOW THAT IN THE
MONTHS AND YEARS AFTER 9/11, THE ADMINISTRATION ENGAGED IN A
PATTERN OF MANIPULATION OF THE FACTS AND RETRIBUTION AGAINST
ANYONE WHO GOT IN ITS WAY AS IT MADE ITS CASE FOR ATTACKING,
FOR INVADING IRAQ. THERE ARE NUMEROUS EXAMPLES OF HOW THE
ADMINISTRATION MISSTATED AND MANIPULATED THE FACTS AS IT MADE
THE CASE FOR WAR. THE ADMINISTRATION STATEMENTS ON SADDAM'S
ALLEGED NUCLEAR WEAPONS CAPABILITIES AND TIES WITH AL QAEDA
REPRESENT THE BEST EXAMPLES HOW IT CONSISTENTLY AND REPEATEDLY
MANIPULATED THE FACTS. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WERE WARNED TIME AND
TIME AGAIN BY THE PRESIDENT, THE VICE PRESIDENT, THE CURRENT
SECRETARY OF STATE AND THEIR OTHER CAPACITIES ABOUT SADDAM'S
NUCLEAR WEAPONS CAPABILITIES. THE VICE PRESIDENT SAID -- AND I
QUOTE -- "IRAQ HAS RECONS UTED ITS NUCLEAR PROGRAMS." PLAYING
UPON THE FEARS OF AMERICANS AFTER SEPTEMBER 11, THESE OFFICIALS
AND OTHERS RAISED THE SPECTER THAT LEFT UNCHECKED, SADDAM COULD
SOON ATTACK AMERICA WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS. OBVIOUSLY WE KNOW NOW
THAT THEIR NUCLEAR CLAIMS WERE WHOLLY INACCURATE. BUT MORE
TROUBLING IS THE FACT THAT A LOT OF INTELLIGENCE EXPERTS WERE
TELLING THE ADMINISTRATION THEN THAT ITS CLAIMS ABOUT SADDAM'S
NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES WERE FALSE. THE SITUATION VERY SIMILAR
WITH RESPECT TO SADDAM'S LINKS TO AL QAEDA. THE VICE PRESIDENT
TOLD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE -- I QUOTE AGAIN -- "WE KNOW HE'S OUT
TRYING ONCE AGAIN TO PRODUCE NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND WE KNOW HE HAS
A LONG-STANDING RELATIONSHIP WITH VARIOUS TERRORIST GROUPS,
INCLUDING THE AL QAEDA ORGANIZATION." THESE ASSERTIONS HAVE
BEEN TOTALLY DISCREDITED, NOT A LITTLE BIT, TOTALLY
DISCREDITED. BUT AGAIN, THE ADMINISTRATION WENT AHEAD WITH
THESE ASSERTIONS IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S TOP
EXPERTS DID NOT AGREE WITH THESE CLAIMS. AGAIN, WILKERSON IS A
PERSON IN POINT. WHAT HAS BEEN THE RESPONSE OF THIS
REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED CONGRESS TO THE ADMINISTRATION'S
MANIPULATION OF INTELLIGENCE THAT LED TO THIS PROTRACTED WAR IN IRAQ?
NOTHING. DID THE REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED CONGRESS CARRY OUT ITS
CONS UTIONAL OBLIGATIONS TO CONDUCT OVERSIGHT?
NO. DID IT SUPPORT OUR TROOPS AND THEIR FAMILIES BY PROVIDING
THEM THE ANSWERS TO MANY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS?
NO. DID IT EVEN ATTEMPT TO FORCE THIS ADMINISTRATION TO ANSWER
THE MOST BASIC QUESTIONS ABOUT ITS BEHAVIOR?
NO. UNFORTUNATELY, THE UNWILLINGNESS OF THE
REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED CONGRESS TO EXERCISE ITS OVERSIGHT
RESPONSIBILITIES IS NOT A LIMIT -- IS NOT LIMITED TO JUST IRAQ.
WE SEE IT WITH RESPECT TO THE PRISON ABUSE SCANDAL. WE SEE IT
WITH RESPECT TO KATRINA, AND WE SEE IT WITH RESPECT TO THE
CRONYISM AND CORRUPTION THAT PERMEATES THIS ADMINISTRATION.
TIME AND TIME AGAIN, THIS REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED CONGRESS HAS
CONSISTENTLY CHOSEN TO PUT ITS POLITICAL INTERESTS AHEAD OF OUR
NATIONAL SECURITY. THEY HAVE REPEATEDLY CHOSEN TO PROTECT THE
AMERICAN -- THE REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION RATHER THAN TO GET TO
THE BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED AND WHY IT HAPPENED. THERE'S ALSO
ANOTHER DISTURBING PATTERN, NAMELY, ABOUT HOW THIS
ADMINISTRATION RESPONDED TO THOSE WHO CHALLENGED ITS
ASSERTIONS. OFTEN THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS ACTIVELY SOUGHT TO
ATTACK AND UNDERCUT THOSE WHO DARED TO RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT
ITS PREFERRED COURSE. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN GENERAL SHINSEKI
INDICATED SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND TROOPS WOULD BE NEEDED IN
IRAQ, HIS MILITARY CAREER WAS ENDED -- FIRED, RELIEVED OF DUTY
WHEN HE
{END: 2005/11/01 TIME: 14-15 , Tue. 109th SENATE, FIRST SESSION}
{ NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE SENATE PROCEEDINGS.}
D IT WOULD TAKE 200,000 TROOPS. WELL, IT'S TAKEN A LOT MORE
THAN THAT. WHEN THE O.M.B. DIRECTOR, LARRY LINDSEY, SELECTED
THE COSTS FOR THIS WAR WOULD APPROACH $200 BILLION, HE WAS
DUMPED, FIRED.n WHEN THE U.N. CHIEF WEAPONS INSPECTOR HANS BLIX
CHALLENGED CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE SADDAM HUSSEIN'S WEAPONS OF
MASS DESTRUCTION CAPABILITIES, THE ADMINISTRATION SIMPLY PULLED
OUT ITS INSPECTORS. WHEN NOBEL PRIZE WINGER AND HEAD OF THE
IAEA RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATION'S CLAIMS OF
SADDAM'S NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES, THE ADMINISTRATION ATTEMPTED TO
REMOVE HIM FROM HIS POST. WHEN AMBASSADOR JOE WILSON STATED
THAT THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT BY SADDAM -- NO ATTEMPT BY SADDAM TO
ACQUIRE WEAPONS FROM NIGER, THE ADMINISTRATION NOT ONLY WENT
AFTER HIM TO DISCREDIT HIM, THEY LAUNCHED A VICIOUS AND
COORDINATED CAMPAIGN GOING SO FAR AS TO EXPOSE THE FACT THAT
HIS WIFE WORKED AS A C.I.A. SPY. THESE PEOPLE ARE NOW HAVING
24-HOUR PROTECTION FEARING FOR THEIR OWN SAFETY. GIVEN THIS
ADMINISTRATION'S PATTERN OF SQUASHING THOSE WHO CHALLENGE ITS
MISSTATEMENTS, AND I'VE ONLY MENTIONED A FEW, WHAT HAS BEEN THE
RESPONSE OF THE REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED CONGRESS?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. AND WHERE THEIR INACTIONS THEY PROVIDE
POLITICAL COVER FOR THIS ADMINISTRATION AT THE SAME TIME THEY
KEEP THE TRUTH FROM OUR TROOPS WHO CONTINUE TO MAKE LARGE
SACRIFICES IN IRAQ. NOW EVERYONE MAY THINK THAT THE TROOPS IN
IRAQ ARE 100% REPUBLICAN. I'VE MET A FRIEND -- I'VE MADE A
FRIEND. HE'S A MARINE. HE WAS OVER IN WHEN THE ELECTIONS WERE
HELD TEN MONTHS AGO. HE SAID WHERE HE WAS AND HE NEVER EVEN
WENT TO THE BATHROOM WITHOUT A RIFLE, WHEREVER HE WAS IN HIS
DUTY ALL OVER THIS AREA, HE SAID HE COULDN'T FIND ANYONE THAT
WAS HAPPY WITH THE WAY THE ELECTIONS TURNED OUT. THEY, THE
REPUBLICANS, DO ANYTHING THEY CAN TO KEEP THE TRUTH FROM PEOPLE
LIKE MY MARINE FRIEND. THIS BEHAVIOR -- I WOULD GIVE YOU HIS
NAME -- THIS BEHAVIOR IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE TOLL IN IRAQ IS AS
STAGGERING AS IT IS SOLEMN. MORE THAN 2,000S DID 2,025 NOW,
AMERICANS HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES. OVER 90 AMERICANS HAVE PAID
THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER ALONE, THE
FOURTH DEADLIEST MONTH IN THIS GO-ON THREE-YEAR WAR. MORE THAN
15,000 HAVE BEEN WOUNDED. MORE THAN 150,000 REMAIN OVER THERE
IN HARM'S WAY. ENORMOUS SACRIFICES HAVE BEEN MADE AND CONTINUE
TO BE MADE. MR. PRESIDENT, WE'VE HAD SOLDIERS AND MARINES FROM
NEVADA KILLED, FROM ELI, FROM LAS VEGAS, FROM HENDERSON, FROM
BOULDER CITY, FROM TONAPAW. EVERY TIME ONE OF THESE DEATHS
OCCUR, IT'S A DAGGER IN THE HEART OF THAT COMMUNITY. THIS
BEHAVIOR IS UNACCEPTABLE. I'M A PATIENT MAN, MR. PRESIDENT. I'M
A LEGISLATOR AND I KNOW THINGS DON'T HAPPEN OVER NIGHT. I'M A
PARENT MAN BUT THE CALL FOR MY SON HAS PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE.
I'M WORRIED ABOUT MY FAMILY. THE TOLL IN IRAQ IS AS STAGGERING
AS I REPEAT IT IS SOLEMN. THE TROOPS HAVE A RIGHT TO EXPECT
ANSWERS AND ACCOUNTABILITY WORTHY OF THAT SACRIFICE. FOR
EXAMPLE, MORE THAN 40 DEMOCRATS WROTE A SUBSTANTIVE AND
DETAILED LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT CANNING -- ASKING FOUR BASIC
QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ADMINISTRATION'S IRAQ POLICY, AND WE
RECEIVED, MR. PRESIDENT, -- WE RECEIVED A FOUR-SENTENCE FENCE
THAT IS RESPONSE. "THANK YOU FOR YOUR LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT
EXPRESSING YOUR CONCERNS WITH IRAQ. I'VE SHARED YOUR LETTER
WITH THE APPROPRIATE ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS." REMEMBER WE
WROTE IT TO THE PRESIDENT. "AND AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE IN THIS
AREA. PLEASE BE ASSURED YOUR LETTER IS RECEIVING THE ATTENTION
IT DESERVES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMPLIMENTS, CANDY WOLF."
THAT'S THE LETTER THE SENATORS OF THE UNITED STATES WROTE TO
THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITS AND WE GET A LETTER FROM CANDY WOLF
SAY, THANKS, WE'RE WORKING ON IT. AMERICA DESERVES BETTER THAN.
THIS THEY ALSO DESERVE A SEARCHING AND COMPREHENSIVE
INVESTIGATION ABOUT HOW THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION BROUGHT THIS
COUNTRY TO WAR, KEY QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED INCLUDE
HOW DID THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ASSEMBLE ITS CASE FOR WAR
AGAINST IRAQ?
WE HEARD WHAT COLONEL WILKERSON SAID. WHO DID THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS LISTEN TO AND IGNORE?
HOW DID THE SENIOR BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS MANIPULATE OR
MANUFACTURE INTELLIGENCE PRESENTED TO THE CONGRESS OR THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE?
WHAT WAS THE ROLE OF THE WHITE HOUSE IRAQ GROUP, A GROUP OF
SIGNOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS, TASKED WITH MARKETING THE WAR AND
TAKING DOWN ITS CRITICS. WE KNOW WHAT COLONEL WILKERSON SAYS.
HOW DID THE ADMINISTRATION COORDINATE ITS EFFORTS TO ATTACK
INDIVIDUALS WHO DARED TO CHALLENGE THE ADMINISTRATION'S
ASSERTIONS. WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM. I LISTED A FEW. WHY
HAS THIS ADMINISTRATION FAILED TO PROVIDE CONGRESS WITH THE
DO ENTS THAT WOULD SHED LIGHT ON THEIR MISCONDUCT AND THE
MISSTATEMENTS?
UNFORTUNATELY, THE SENATE COMMITTEE THAT SHOULD BE TAKING THE
LEAD IN PROVIDING THESE ANSWERS IS NOT. DESPITE THE FACT THAT
THE CHAIRMAN OF SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE PUBLICLY
COMMITTED TO EXAMINE THESE QUESTIONS MORE THAN A YEAR AND A
HALF AGO, HE HAS CHOSEN NOT TO KEEP THAT COMMITMENT. DESPITE
THE FACT THAT HE'S RESTATED THE COMMITMENT EARLIER THIS YEAR ON
NATIONAL TELEVISION, HE HAS STILL DONE NOTHING. EXCEPT ASSEMBLE
A FEW QUOTES FROM DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN SENATORS GOING BACK
TO THE FIRST IRAQ WAR. WE NEED A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION THAT
THAT COMMITTEE IS CAPABLE AND TASKED TO DO. AT THIS POINT, WE
CAN ONLY CONCLUDE HE WILL CONTINUE TO PUT POLITICS AHEAD OF OUR
NATIONAL SECURITY. IF HE DOES ANYTHING AT THIS POINT, I SUSPECT
IT WILL BE PLAYING POLITICAL GAMES BY PRODUCING AN ANALYSIS
THAT FILES ANY OF THESE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS. INSTEAD, IF
HISTORY IS ANY GUIDE, THIS ANALYSIS WILL ATTEMPT TO DISPERSE
AND DEFLECT BLAME AWAY FROM THIS ADMINISTRATION. KEY FACTS
ABOUT THE INTELLIGENCE --
A SENATOR: WOULD THE SENATOR YIELD FOR A QUESTION.
MR. REID: KEY FACTS JUNE 4, 2003, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
COMMITS TO BIPARTISAN REVIEW OF THE DEEPLY FLEWED INTELLIGENCE
IN IRAQ'S W.M.D. PHASE ONE. FEBRUARY 12, 2004, INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE COMMITS TO PHASE 2, AN INVESTIGATION LOOKING AT FIVE
AREAS INCLUDING WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATION EXAGGERATE AND
MANIPULATED MEL DENSE. JULY 9, 2004, COMMITTEE PUBLISHES PHASE
ONE REPORT ON THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES MISTAKES ON IRAQ.
SENATOR ROCKEFELLER SAYS PUBLICLY THAT PHASE TWO IS AS YET
UNBEGUN. REPUBLICAN CHAIRMAN ROBERTS SAYS IT IS ONE OF MY TOP
PRIORITIES. JULY 11 ON MEET THE PRESS, REPUBLICAN CHAIRMAN
ROBERTS SAYS, EVEN AS I'M SPEAKING OUR STAFF IS WORKING ON
PHASE TWO AND WE'LL GET IT DONE. FALL OF 2004, HOUSE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, AFTER NO FOLLOW THROUGH ON THE IRAQ
W.M.D. INVESTIGATION, THE HOUSE ANNOUNCED ON MAY 2003, NO FINAL
REPORT. REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN PETER GOSS IS SELECTED TO
C.I.A. DIRECTOR. REGARDING THE QUESTION OF VETTING THE VALERIE
PLAME LEAK GOSS SAID SHOW ME A BLUE DRESS AND SOME DNA AND I'LL
GIVE YOU AN INVESTIGATION. END OF QUOTE. NOVEMBER, 2004, WE HAD
THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. MARCH 2005, PRESIDENT'S HAND-PICKED
W.M.D. INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE SAYS THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES
GOT THE INTELLIGENCE DEAD WRONG BUT SAYS THAT UNDER THE
PRESIDENT'S TERMS OF REFERENCE WE ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO
INVESTIGATE HOW POLICY-MAKERS USED THE INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS
THEY RECEIVED FROM THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. MARCH 31, 2005,
SENATOR ROBERTS SAYS IT WOULD BE MONUMENTAL WASTE OF TIME TO
REPLOW THIS GROUND ANY FURTHER?
REPLOW?
APRIL 10, 2005, "MEET THE PRESS" SENATOR ROBERTS COMMITS TO TIM
RUSSERT THAT THE REVIEW WILL GET DONE. SEPTEMBER 2005,
COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS FILE ADDITIONAL VIEWS TO THEIR
AUTHORIZATION BILL BLASTING THE COMMITTEE FOR FAILING TO
CONDUCT PHASE TWO. THERE HAVE BEEN LETTERS WRITTEN TO THE
COMMITTEE, A PRESS RELEASE WAS ISSUED EVEN SAYING THAT THEY
WERE GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS. MR. PRESIDENT, ENOUGH TIME
HAS GONE BY. I DEMAND ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT WE
UNDERSTAND WHY THESE INVESTIGATIONS AREN'T BEING CONDUCTED, AND
IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 21, I NOW MOVE THAT SENATE GO INTO
CLOSED SESSION.
MR. DURBIN: MR. PRESIDENT, I MOTION THE -- SECOND THE MOTION.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE TO CLOSED
SESSION. THE. THE CHAIR PURSUANT TO RULE 21 DIRECTS THE
SERGEANT AT ARMS TO CLEAR ALL GALLERIES, CLEAR ALL DOORS OF THE
SENATE CHAMBER AND EXCLUDE FROM THE CHAMBER AND ITS IMMEDIATE
CORRIDORS ALL EMPLOYEES AND OFFICIALS OF THIS SENATE WHO UNDER
THE RULE ARE ARE -- ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO ATTEND THE CLOSED
SESSION AND ARE NOT SWORN TO SECRECY. THE QUESTION IS
NONDEBATABLE.
address the misuse of intelligence. At every turn, Republicans have blocked
efforts to investigate how intelligence was used in the run-up to the war in
Iraq. Below details the long record established by Democrats to investigate
this matter.
March 14, 2003 * Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Director Mueller
requesting an investigation into the origin of the Niger do ents.
May 23, 2003 * Senators Roberts and Rockefeller sent a letter to the CIA and
State Department Inspectors General to review issues related to the Niger
do ents.
June 2, 2003 * Senator Rockefeller issued a press release endorsing a
statement made of the previous weekend by Senator Warner calling for a joint
SSCI/SASC investigation.
June 4, 2003 * Senator Rockefeller issued a press release saying he would
push for an investigation. Senator Roberts issued a press release saying
calls for an investigation are premature.
June 10, 2003 * Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Senator Roberts asking
for an investigation.
June 11, 2003 * All Committee Democrats signed a letter to Senator Roberts
asking for a meeting of the Committee to discuss the question of authorizing
an inquiry into the intelligence that formed the basis for going to war.
June 11, 2003 * Senator Roberts issued a press release saying this is
routine committee oversight, and that criticism of the intelligence
community is unwarranted. Senator Rockefeller issued a press release
calling the ongoing review inadequate.
June 20, 2003 * Senators Roberts and Rockefeller issued a joint press
release laying out the scope of the inquiry.
August 13, 2003 * Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Senator Roberts
making 14 points about the investigation, asking to expand the inquiry to
address the ³use of intelligence by policy makers² and asking for several
other actions.
September 9, 2003 * After press reports quoting Senator Roberts as saying
the investigation was almost over, Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to
Senator Roberts urging him not to rush to complete the investigation
prematurely.
October 29, 2003 * Senators Roberts and Rockefeller sent a letter to
Director Tenet expressing in strong terms that he should provide do ents
that have been requested and make individuals available.
October 30, 2003 * Senators Roberts and Rockefeller sent letters to
Secretaries Rumsfeld and Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice
expressing in strong terms that they should provide do ents that have been
requested and make individuals available.
October 31, 2003 * Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Director Tenet
asking for do ents related to the interaction between intelligence and
policy makers, including the do ents from the Vice President¹s office
related to the Powell speech.
November 2, 2003 * Senator Roberts made statements during a joint television
appearance with Senator Rockefeller claiming that the White house would
provide all do ents they jointly requested.
December 5, 2003 * Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to National Security
Advisor Rice asking for her help getting do ents and access to
individuals.
January 22, 2004 * Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Director Tenet
asking for compliance with the Oct. 31 request for do ents.
February 12, 2004 * Senators Roberts and Rockefeller issued a joint press
release announcing the Committee¹s unanimous approval of the expansion of
the Iraq review, to include use of intelligence in the form of public
statements, and listing other aspects of what became Phase II.
March 23, 2004 * Senator Rockefeller sent yet another letter to Director
Tenet asking for compliance with the Oct. 31 request for do ents.
June 17, 2004 * Senators Roberts and Rockefeller joint press release
announcing the unanimous approval of the report.
July 16, 2004 * Committee Democrats sent a letter to Bush asking for the one
page summary of the NIE prepared for Bush. The Committee staff had been
allowed to review it but could not take notes and the Committee was never
given a copy.
February 3, 2005 * Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Senator Roberts
outlining Committee priorities for the coming year and encouraging
completion of Phase II.
August 5, 2005 * Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Senator Roberts
expressing concern over the lack of progress on Phase II and calling for a
draft to be presented to the Committee at a business meeting in September.
September 29, 2005 * All Committee Democrats joined in additional views to
the annual Intelligence Authorization Bill criticizing the lack of progress
on Phase II.
Or cover the Able Danger scandal.
Actually, I'm hoping the Republicans finally take these scrotes to school about the Iraq war.
One of the things I've noticed in this whole Valerie Plame/Judith Miller/Joseph Wilson/Scooter Libby saga is the development of a new history that's very convenient for a lot of the people peddling it. The new story is that:
- We only went to war because of WMDs and that is the only reason ever given.
- President Bush and his administration lied about Iraqi WMDs.
- President Bush had his lackies peddle his lies to Judith Miller who acted like a stenographer and reported them.
- Everyone else gullibly went along.
There are lots of problems with this, beginning with the fact that it's not true.
It gets tiresome having to repeat this stuff, but the new history, despite its falsity, is just too convenient for too many people to be stopped by anything as simple as the truth.
Democratic politicians who supported the war -- almost to a politician -- want an excuse to tack closer to their antiwar base. Shouting "It's not my fault -- I'm easily fooled!" would seem a substandard response, but it is a way of changing position while pretending it's not politically motivated.
Meanwhile, journalists, most of whom were reporting the same kind of WMD stories that Miller did (because that's what pretty much everyone thought -- including the antiwar folks who were arguing that an invasion was a bad idea precisely because it would provoke Saddam into using his weapons of mass destruction), now want to focus on her so that people won't pay much attention to what they were reporting themselves. This makes Judy Miller a handy scapegoat.
Finally, let me note that what people were saying in the 1990s seems to raise problems with the revisionist history. "The final authorization for use of force in 2002 cited the legislation from 1998. But what was conventional wisdom and uncontroversial in 1998, became hotly debated in 2002 and beyond." Especially "beyond."
But, as I say, the biggest problem with this revisionism is that it's not true. I guess we'll just have to keep pointing that out.
Meanwhile, I wonder if Scooter Libby will get a harsher sentence than Sandy Berger if convicted.
Call? Try FORCE, and there wasn't a damn thing the GOP could do about it. Nice. Shine the spotlight where the GOP don't want it: this ty bogus war.
How do you shine the light by closing the door? What exactly happened after the public was evicted, the lights dimmed (what the was that about anyway), and the doors closed? No vote can be taken under Rule 21.
Face it, it was a desperate stunt.
It called attention to the matter. Call it what you will..it was effective.
Attention that will fade as quickly as the stunt materialized. That's not very effective.
It got your attention and it is all over the news. I'd call that effective.
Will it come back to bite? Only time and that damn liberal media will tell.
Dimm-o-craps idea of effectiveness: BS, BS, BS, BS and more BS. Shut down anything that is going on while they rant and go on and on and brag about their idols.
You are a bunch of losers from the git go. Your so called leaders are losers. Their idea is to get back into power any which way they can. You know there is an old saying when you dig yourself into a hole, quit digging.
Libby was all over the news Friday...
Miers was all over the news Thursday...
Alito was all over the news Monday...
Yeah, great attention span.
And the flu is all that Bush's attention span can handle.
Brahahahahahahaha!!!Whooooooo!!
The Avian flu has been trying to get your attention for months now.And the flu is all that Bush's attention span can handle.
Brahahahahahahaha!!!
I've known about the Avian flu for months now.
So, your point?
Bogus war? Ya whipmz.
Just maybe we need to refresh your memory of what the Dimm-o-craps said back when:
Jay Rockefeller takes the president to task for using faulty intelligence in making the case for war. But what did Rockefeller say back in 2002?
by Stephen F. Hayes
07/12/2004 8:40:00 AM
DEVASTATING. CRITICAL. SCATHING. Those are just some of the adjectives used to describe the report on prewar Iraq intelligence by the Senate Intelligence Committee. I'd like to add another: Hilarious.
Okay, not the whole report. But the "additional views" section contributed by the committee's vice chair, Senator Jay Rockefeller (Rockefeller was joined in his view by Senators Carl Levin and Richard Durbin):
The Bush Administration's case against Iraq was largely based on the argument that we knew with certainty that Iraq possessed large quan ies of chemical and biological weapons, was aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons, and that an established relationship between Baghdad and al Qaeda would allow for the transfer of these weapons for use against the United States. This national security rationale being put forth publicly by senior administration officials in support of regime change in Iraq was simple, direct and often fundamentally misleading.
Perhaps Rockefeller, et. al. had in mind a categorical argument like this one.
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources--something that is not that difficult in the current world. We should also remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction . . . But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. . . . [emphasis added]
Thank you, Jay Rockefeller, who spoke those words on October 9, 2002, in explanation of his vote to "authorize the use of force if necessary."
In their recent report, Rockefeller and friends charge the Bush administration with language far too "hyperbolic and urgent." You see, "the qualifications the Intelligence Community placed on what it assessed about Iraq's links to terrorism and alleged weapons of mass destruction programs were spurned by top Bush Administration officials, early casualties in the war with Iraq."
The first example?
The danger to America for the Iraqi regime is grave and growing . . . Delay, indecision, and inaction are not options for America, because they could lead to massive and sudden horror.
(President Bush, radio address, October 5, 2002)
That criticism is awfully hard to square with this line from Rockefeller's floor speech, just four days later: "The president has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans."
Among the lines from President Bush singled out in Rockefeller's "additional view" was this one:
And as I have said repeatedly, Saddam Hussein would like nothing more than to use a terrorist network to attack and to kill and leave no fingerprints behind.
(President Bush, remarks with Prime Minister Blair, January 31, 2003)
That argument doesn't sound too different from this one, which Rockefeller included in his impassioned floor speech, delivered four months earlier.
And he could make those weapons available to many terrorist groups which have contact with his government, and those groups could bring those weapons into the U.S. and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. We cannot know for certain that Saddam will use the weapons of mass destruction he currently possesses, or that he will use them against us. But we do know Saddam has the capability.
Or, for that matter, this one from the same speech:
Some argue it would be totally irrational for Saddam Hussein to initiate an attack against the mainland United States, and they believe he would not do it. But if Saddam thought he could attack America through terrorist proxies and cover the trail back to Baghdad, he might not think it so irrational.
The "additional view" from Rockefeller and friends cites this line from President Bush as an example of Bush administration exaggeration:
Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof--the smoking gun--that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
(President Bush, Speech in Cincinnati, October 7, 2002)
And yet Rockefeller echoed those concerns in his floor speech two days later:
As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun.
SOME OF THE REPORT'S other "additional views" are not merely hypocritical--they're inaccurate:
Not until September 2003, a half-year after the start of the Iraq War, did the President state in clear, unequivocal terms the Intelligence Community position that [sic] was no evidence supporting such a link between Iraq and the murderous acts of al Qaeda on September 11th.
On January 31, 2003, some six weeks before the war, reporters from Newsweek asked President Bush if Iraq was involved in the September 11 attacks:
Bush, asked Friday about a 9-11 connection to Saddam, admitted, "I cannot make that claim."
In one very important respect, Rockefeller's language went well beyond that of the Bush administration:
There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that do ented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get.
And while Rockefeller now insists that he based his decision to vote for the war on inadequate intelligence--something no one disputes, given the intelligence failures outlined in the rest of the Intelligence Committee's report--there was a time when he demonstrated little patience for those wanting to know more:
To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!
Rockefeller has said in recent days that had he known then what he knows now, he would not have voted in favor of the Iraq War resolution. And he deserves credit for such candor. One hopes that the leaders of his party--John Kerry and John Edwards--will follow his example.
But his attempts to blame the Bush administration for making the same arguments he made--based on the same intelligence--is, well, hilarious.
Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard. Parts of this article are drawn from his new book, The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America (HarperCollins).
© Copyright 2005, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
So much for your wonderful Dimm-o-craps. Get the facts straight and quit posting BS.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
