The Republicans are reaping what they have sown, and given the quanitity of nasties that have been sown, they will continue reaping for quite some time now. I have no problem with the Democrats making a stink about the investigation in order to ensure that it is completed and the public is paying attention. Too much gets swept under the rug when we're not paying attention.
And I am also an independent. To each his own.
Quote:But according to Roberts, this work was nearly complete, would probably be finished next week, and Senate Democrats knew it.
Tico, sheesh! This is such bullsh*t and you know it.
Phase 2 wasn't getting done. The Republicans never intended to finish it. They have no reason to finish it, as it will be their own leadership that they are investigating; there is no political bonus for them to complete the job.
Remember that this has been in a 'working process' since Feburary; Feb. 2004, that is, and nothing of substance can be shown from this entire period.
Reid called the Republicans out, and they capitulated immediately, for they knew that they had no defense; Phase 2 hadn't been done at all. If the Republicans in Congress had any legs to stand on, they would have fought the creation of an oversight panel, for sure...
Robertson telling Blitzer that it was 'going to be done next week' is a flat-out lie. Not that this is surprising, is it?
Cycloptichorn
The committee worked on the second phase of the review, Roberts said, but it has not been finished. He blamed Democrats for the delays and said his staff had informed their Democratic counterparts on Monday that the committee hoped to work on and complete the second phase next week. "Now we have this ... stunt 24 hours after their staff was informed that we were moving to closure next week," a clearly angry Roberts told reporters. "If that's not politics, I'm not standing here."
WMDs make Harry Reid's head explode
November 1, 2005 | 10:51 PM ET
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid can't stand it. He was hoping that special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald would bring down the Bush Administration for him, but all he got was a lame indictment of Scooter Libby.
He showed his pique today by taking the Senate into closed session and demanding an investigation of prewar intelligence.
Well, okay -- but then the investigation needs to go way back before the war, to 1998, when a Democratic President, with the support of many Congressional Democrats, passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which provided that:
(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities. (2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds. (3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today. ... (9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs. (10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM. (11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.' ... It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq's foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime.
Then there are statements like these:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Bill Clinton, February 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton, February 17, 1998 "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, February 1, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, February 18, 1998 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, October 9, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), December 16, 1998 "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State, November 10, 1999
The anti-war fundraising base of the Democrats -- as exemplified by organizations like MoveOn.org -- is powerful enough to require Democratic politicians like Harry Reid to pretend that all the WMD stuff began with President Bush. That is, not to put too fine a point on it, a gross and partisan lie.
Reid owes the President an apology. He owes another to the Democratic Party, whose credibility he is destroying, day by day.
UPDATE: Perhaps Reid should look at this Senate Intelligence Committee report on Iraqi WMD, which found that errors in intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction didn't stem from White House pressure, but from groupthink and systematic failure within the Intelligence Community:The Committee found significant short-comings in almost every aspect of the Intelligence Community's human intelligence collection efforts against Iraq's weapons of mass destruction activities, in particular that the Community had no sources collecting against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after 1998. Most, if not all, of these problems, stem from a broken corporate culture and poor management, and will not be solved by additional funding and personnel.
1998. Was Bush President then?
Senate Dem are told the committee hoped to finish the second phase next week, so they throw a tantrum and demand assurances from Roberts this will get finished? What a bunch of losers. But I hope they pull more juvenile stunts. It's only going to hurt their party.
Quote:Senate Dem are told the committee hoped to finish the second phase next week, so they throw a tantrum and demand assurances from Roberts this will get finished? What a bunch of losers. But I hope they pull more juvenile stunts. It's only going to hurt their party.
The funny thing is, you believe Pat Roberts. There is no reason to believe that it would have been 'done next week.' In fact, in the same interview on CNN, when asked what time frame Americans could expect to see the finished report in, Roberts had no answer. Obviously 'next week' is a flat-out lie.
No Senate Dem was told that the report would be finished next week. I'd love to see a copy of that memo, but of course it doesn't exist. Senate Dems on the Intelligence committee say that Roberts told them it was a 'back burner' issue and that nothing was going to get done on it anytime soon, and they decided they' had enough of his bullsh*t.
But, take this opportunity to smear your opponents instead of actually focusing on the issue that nothing has been done on this issue for a year and a half; it's the Republican way, after all.
Cycloptichorn
Sure I believe Roberts ... he's a straight shooter. I can understand why you don't like him. Senate Dem staffers were told by Senate Republican staffers the work was hoped to conclude next week. What did Dems hope to gain by the stunt they pulled? Assurances they'd already received?
No, they wanted to shortcircuit the good things happening for the Republicans right now. They fully expected Rove's head, but all they got was Libby for pulling a Martha Stewert, then when Alito was nominated, thus unifying the GOP base, things were heading into the crapper PDQ for the Dems.
Quote:Sure I believe Roberts ... he's a straight shooter. I can understand why you don't like him. Senate Dem staffers were told by Senate Republican staffers the work was hoped to conclude next week. What did Dems hope to gain by the stunt they pulled? Assurances they'd already received?
No, they wanted to shortcircuit the good things happening for the Republicans right now. They fully expected Rove's head, but all they got was Libby for pulling a Martha Stewert, then when Alito was nominated, thus unifying the GOP base, things were heading into the crapper PDQ for the Dems.
Senate Dem staffers were told by Senate Republican staffers the work was hoped to conclude next week.
I don't believe this is true at all. Do you have any proof of this, other than what Roberts said in his interview? Dem Senators were told, not just their staff, but they themselves, by Roberts, that this issue was not going to be done any time soon.
You should look at the situation the other way; Bushco., being in the crapper with Iraq, Libby, DeLay, Frist, Katrina etc., wanted to get a huge push from Alito, and the Dems refocused the news on what the real problems are instead of having a 2-month fight over the guy. Good move on their part.
Cycloptichorn
Oh please. Politicians are above nothing and this isn't tit for tat. It's making things hard for one's opponent and it's perfectly legitimate in politics. The Democrats gain nothing by being above the games, they only ensure that they don't regain power. They still may not, and I'm not saying they would be any less corrupt than the Republicans, but you can't condemn them for playing the same games the Republicans do.
Missing WMD Report
David Corn
Last July the Senate Intelligence Committee released a much-anticipated report on the prewar intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The study concluded that the intelligence community--led by the CIA--had "overstated" and "mischaracterized" the intelligence on Iraq's (nonexistent) WMDs. The massive report repeatedly detailed instances when the intelligence services botched the job by ignoring contrary evidence, embracing questionable sources and rushing to judgments that just happened to fit the preconceived notions of the Bush Administration. "What the President and the Congress used to send the country to war was information that was...flawed," declared Pat Roberts, the Republican chairman of the committee. Jay Rockefeller, the committee's senior Democrat, noted that the report outlined "one of the most devastating...intelligence failures in the history of the nation."
But the committee's report did not cover a crucial area: how the Bush Administration used--or abused--the prewar intelligence to build support for the Iraq invasion. Roberts claimed his committee was hot on that trail: "It is one of my top priorities," he said. The problem, he explained, was that there was not enough time before the November election to complete the assignment. Rockefeller took issue with that and complained that the "central issue of how intelligence was...exaggerated by Bush Administration officials" was being relegated into a "Phase II" investigation that would not begin until after the election. A Democratic committee staffer said that such an inquiry could easily be completed within months.
CONTINUED BELOW
Still, Roberts succeeded in his transparent effort to kick that inconvenient can down the road. (Imagine the headache for the Bush campaign if news stories appeared before the election reporting that the committee had found Bush had stretched an already stretched truth.) Now--with Bush re-elected--Roberts no longer considers Phase II a priority. In mid-March, Roberts declared further investigation pointless. He noted that if his committee asked Bush officials whether they had overstated or mischaracterized prewar intelligence, they'd simply claim their statements had been based on "bum intelligence." Roberts remarked, "To go though that exercise, it seems to me, in a postelection environment--we didn't see how we could do that and achieve any possible progress. I think everybody pretty well gets it." Gets what, precisely? The evidence is strong that Bush and his aides overstated the overstated intelligence. One example: Bush claimed that Iraq possessed stockpiles of biological weapons, yet the CIA reported only that Saddam had an active biological weapons R&D program. (It turns out he had neither stockpiles nor an active program.) The question is, How and why did Bush and his lieutenants come to exaggerate exaggerations? And just because the answer is obvious doesn't mean an investigation is unwarranted.
While Roberts has dismissed the need for Phase II, Rockefeller has been trying to push the investigation forward. But the committee has not yet bothered to interview any Administration officials about the use of prewar intelligence. The committee also appears to be stymied by obstacles it encountered last year while pursuing a matter to be included in the Phase II inquiry: the actions of the Office of Special Plans. The OSP was a neocon-linked, maverick intelligence shop in the Pentagon set up to search for intelligence (good or bad) to support the case for war. Phase II was supposed to determine whether the OSP had operated appropriately. But when committee staff were probing the OSP last year, people connected to it began hiring lawyers and clamming up, and the committee had a hard time prying documents from the Pentagon. "We received documents up to a point," comments a Rockefeller aide. "Then it stopped. The issue for us became whether to wrap up the investigation on the basis of what we got, or to try to get more information." Roberts, however, has signaled he's no longer interested in the OSP inquiry. "We sort of came to a crossroads, and that is basically on the back burner," he said recently. So stonewalling works.
It would not tax the committee to compare the prewar assertions of Bush officials with the intelligence it had been provided. Apparently the commission Bush appointed last year (under pressure) to examine WMD intelligence has not been performing this task. The preliminary signs are that this commission, due to issue a report soon, will focus on inadequacies of intelligence related to present and potential WMD threats, such as Iran and North Korea.
When the intelligence committee released its report last summer, I asked Roberts if the public and relatives of US troops killed in Iraq deserved to know "whether this Administration handled intelligence matters adequately and made statements that were justified." He replied, "I have made my commitment, and it will be done." His promise was--oh-so shocking!--nothing but a maneuver to protect Bush's backside. Rockefeller and other Democrats are insisting Phase II be carried out. But Bush may benefit from the attempted cover-up. A President doesn't have to worry about troubling answers if no one asks the questions.
Robert's conflicting statements on "phase two"
* In a July 9, 2004, news conference, Roberts agreed with Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) that determining whether administration officials manipulated intelligence to promote the war, in part, constituted "phase two" of the investigation, and was a "top priority" of his:
ROCKEFELLER: The central issue of how intelligence on Iraq was -- in this senator's opinion, was exaggerated by the Bush administration officials, was relegated to that second phase, as yet unbegun, of the committee investigation.
ROBERTS: As Senator Rockefeller has alluded to, this is in phase two of our efforts. We simply couldn't get that done with the work product that we put out. And he has pointed out that has a top priority. It is one of my top priorities.
* In a July 13, 2004, press conference, Roberts elaborated that phase two would include three things: 1) "what the intelligence community said in regards to what would happen after the military mission was over"; 2) the role of the Defense Department's Office of Special Plans, led by undersecretary Douglas Feith; and 3) "the use question" in which the committee would "look at the public statements of any administration official and public official ... and compare it with the intelligence and what we have found out in regards to the inquiry."
* In March, Roberts appeared to redefine phase two, suggesting that the investigation would not examine how Bush administration officials allegedly manipulated the available intelligence, if the investigation was completed at all. In early March, Roberts said that the inquiry into the use of intelligence was "on the back burner." Then, in a March 31 press release in which he commented on the release of phase one of the report, Roberts stated: "I don't think there should be any doubt that we have now heard it all regarding prewar intelligence. I think that it would be a monumental waste of time to replow this ground any further." Phase one of the report determined that intelligence assessments were not impacted by pressure from policymakers, but it did not examine how those completed intelligence assessments were used by President Bush or policymakers in the administration and Congress.
* Roberts again contradicted himself on the April 10 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, when he reaffirmed his 2004 commitment to include an assessment of the use of intelligence by policymakers in phase two of the investigation. However, in that appearance, he also downplayed such an endeavor as something other than the "real issue" and baselessly concluded that it would only show "that the intelligence was wrong and that's exactly why they [policymakers] said what they said":
TIM RUSSERT (host): But as you well know, when your report came out there were many people who said that you were not going forward with phase two about exaggerations and shaping because you didn't want to involve yourself, influence the election. You made a firm commitment to do just that.
ROBERTS: Yeah, we're going to do that, Tim.
RUSSERT: The United States went to war --
ROBERTS: Tim, we're going to do that. I will bring it here. We'll have the 50 statements. We'll have the intelligence. We can match it up and you can do it with members of Congress, who are very, very critical, who made the same things, and you can say, "OK," and you'll say, "Well, Pat, it just looks to me that the intelligence was wrong and that's exactly why they said what they said." Now, I don't know what that accomplishes over the long term. I'm perfectly willing to do it, and that's what we agreed to do, and that door is still open. And I don't want to quarrel with Jay, because we both agreed that we would get it done. But we do have --we have [former U.S. representative to the United Nations and former Iraq] Ambassador [John D.] Negroponte next week, we have General Mike Hayden next week. We have other hot-spot hearings or other things going on that are very important. So we will get it done, but it seems to me that we ought to put it in some priority of order, and after we do get it done I think everybody's going to scratch their head and say, "OK, well, that's fine. You know, let's go to the real issue."
* In July, Roberts again reneged on his pledge to investigate the use of intelligence. After release of the Downing Street memo, a secret British intelligence document indicating that intelligence officials there believed that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" by the Bush administration to support its case for war, Senate Democrats -- led by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) -- wrote to Roberts and Rockefeller on June 22, urging them to "accelerate to completion the work of the so-called 'phase II' effort to assess how policymakers used the intelligence they received." In a July 20 response to Kerry, Roberts disputed that the Senate Intelligence Committee had "agree[d] to examine the vague notion" of how policymakers used intelligence, and argued -- irrelevantly -- that the point was moot because the committee unanimously found that the intelligence community's assessments were not "influenced by political pressure." Contrary to Roberts's argument, whether the intelligence was tainted by "pressure" is a wholly separate matter from how that intelligence was used once it was obtained by the administration.
* In that same response to Kerry, Roberts also appeared to contradict his promise to Russert that he would "bring it [phase two of the report]" onto Meet the Press by casting doubt over whether phase two would ever be made public. Roberts wrote: "When the Committee has completed its work on phase II, we will determine the form in which the Committee will express its findings and whether it will be possible or prudent to release them publicly."
* Roberts's misleading statements about phase two have continued in recent days. While he has continued to suggest that phase two will be released in the near future, Roberts has also continued to dismiss the need to examine the administration's use of intelligence in the buildup to the war. On the November 1 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, Roberts said:
ROBERTS: There's a part of me that says if you look in the rearview mirror, there's a little crack in regards to partisan lines, and figure out what somebody said two or three years ago, and was it justified by intelligence. I don't know the relevancy of that.
Roberts's past statements ignored by print, broadcast media
Roberts's history of conflicting statements about whether the Senate Intelligence Committee will, and should, examine the Bush administration's use of pre-war intelligence went unreported throughout the media. For example, November 2 articles by the Associated Press, The New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times did not report Roberts's contradictory statements about the investigation while reporting his claim that the move by Democrats to hold a closed session of the Senate to discuss pre-war intelligence was a "stunt," that he had not slowed the inquiry, and that the phase two report would be shortly forthcoming. Roberts's conflicting statements also went unmentioned in the broadcast media, including the November 2 broadcast of National Public Radio's (NPR) Morning Edition.
Democrats Force Senate into Closed Session over Iraq Data
The Associated Press
Tuesday 01 November 2005
Washington - Democrats forced the Republican-controlled Senate into an unusual closed session Tuesday, demanding answers about intelligence that led to the Iraq war. . . .
Senator Harry Reid's Statement
. . .
"The decision to place U.S. soldiers in harm's way is the most significant responsibility the Constitution invests in the Congress. . . .
"Let's take a look back at how we got here with respect to Iraq Mr. President. The record will show that within hours of the terrorist attacks on 9/11, senior officials in this Administration recognized these attacks could be used as a pretext to invade Iraq. . . .
"Given this Administration's pattern of squashing those who challenge its misstatements, what has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress? Again, absolutely nothing. And with 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.
"This behavior is unacceptable. The toll in Iraq is as staggering as it is solemn. More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives. Over 90 Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice this month alone - the fourth deadliest month since the war began. More than 15,000 have been wounded. More than 150,000 remain in harm's way. Enormous sacrifices have been and continue to be made.
"The troops and the American people have a right to expect answers and accountability worthy of that sacrifice. For example, 40 Senate Democrats wrote a substantive and detailed letter to the President asking four basic questions about the Administration's Iraq policy and received a four sentence answer in response. These Senators and the American people deserve better. . . .
"We demand that the Intelligence Committee and other committees in this body with jurisdiction over these matters carry out a full and complete investigation immediately as called for by Democrats in the committee's annual intelligence authorization report. Our troops and the American people have sacrificed too much. It is time this Republican-controlled Congress put the interests of the American people ahead of their own political interests."
2,000 dead – and for what?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
October 26, 2005
These are not the halcyon days of George W. Bush.
With his approval rating below 40 percent, his reputation as a decisive leader ravaged by Katrina, his conservative base shattered by Harriet and his closest aide facing indictment, the president is said to be shouting at and blaming subordinates for the lost opportunities of his second term.
None of the above problems is insoluble. For if or when the Miers nomination dies, and Bush sends up a Michael Luttig or Edith Jones, his base would rally and he could lead his coalition in a decisive battle over whose judicial philosophy should guide the Supreme Court.
The real crisis the president faces, and we all face, is Iraq. If the war ends in failure, no success will redeem the Bush presidency.
By the time this column appears, the remains of the 2,000th U.S. soldier to die in a war – that has lasted longer than World War I – for the United States will be on the way home. And it is difficult to visualize the end of this war or the victory so often predicted and promised.
Even critics now praise the successes of Bush's father: the liberation of Kuwait, unification of Germany, the deft handling of the collapse of the Soviet Empire and breakup of the Soviet Union. But the son's foreign policy is on the precipice of failure. Only a third of the nation still supports him as a war leader, while more than half believe Iraq was a mistake and we should begin to bring the troops home now.
A preliminary list of winners and losers from our invasion seems to show that it is our enemies who have prospered and our friends who have suffered. As of today, the principal winner of the Iraq war is Iran.
While our invasion of Afghanistan smashed a Taliban regime hostile to Iran, our invasion of Iraq was even more beneficial. It brought down a Baathist regime that had inflicted hundreds of thousands of casualties on Iran in their 8-year war in the 1980s. In power in Baghdad today, in place of Saddam, is a Shia regime that looks to Iran as patron and ally.
In 2001, Iranians had demonstrated in support of the United States after 9-11, and in successive elections, a moderate presidential candidate had carried 70 percent of the vote. The Tehran mullahs were on the ropes.
But with Bush declaring Iran an "axis-of-evil" nation, which was to be denied, even if it meant preventive war, any nuclear program or weapon of mass destruction, Iranians responded as nationalists. A hard-liner won the presidency, and Tehran's defiance is now a popular policy. Meanwhile, the U.S. threat of military strikes to effect the nuclear castration of Iran becomes less and less credible the longer the war next door goes on.
With Iraq smashed and perhaps splintering after we depart, Tehran is set to fill the power vacuum. History may yet record that the U.S. Army did all the heavy lifting in the Persian Gulf to make Iran its pre-eminent power.
A second winner of the Iraq war is al-Qaida. While the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan dethroned the Taliban enablers of bin Laden, killed countless followers and destroyed his base camp, our invasion of Iraq compensated him for his losses. The Iraq war radicalized the Islamic world, recruited thousands of jihadists and converted Saddam's country – inhospitable terrain for Islamists – into the world's training ground for Islamic terrorists.
Among the other beneficiaries of America's Iraq war are the Shia fundamentalists who stand to inherit their first Arab country. Among the losers are the Turks, who must contend with Kurdish nationalism inflamed by Kurdish successes next door, and Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait.
If the Iraqi insurgency evolves, as it appears to be doing, into a civil-religious war, the Sunni and Shia populations of those three autocracies cannot but be affected and those nations perhaps drawn in. And peoples' wars have almost always proven unfortunate for kings and emirs.
How does the balance sheet look for the United States?
Saddam and his neo-Stalinist regime are history, the Iraqi people, especially the Shia and Kurds, are free, a threat to U.S. interests and the region is removed forever.
On the liability side, there is the high cost in dead and wounded, in alienated allies, in a radicalized Middle East, and in the creation in the Sunni Triangle of a base camp and training ground for jihadists that did not exist before the U.S. Army crossed the Kuwait border, 30 months ago.
As George Bush's place in history is riding on the outcome of this war, he is right to be angry and alarmed. But this war is not the doing of any subordinate.
Buchanan said "If the war ends in failure"!
What is failure in Iraq? What is success? How is it measured?
Have we failed in Korea? We sent troops there in 1951 and 30,000 died there.
Did we fail in Korea? We still have over 30,000 American troops in Korea 55 years after the "police action" ended.
Did we fail in Korea? If so, why?
Did we suceed in Korea? If so, why?
Why do we still have troops in two countries we defeated in World War II, namely Germany and Japan?
Unless those questions are answered, any squabbles about Iraq mean "nothing"!!!
