Way To Go Dems!
Yesterday, outnumbered Democrats used a rarely invoked Senate rule to force a closed-door session as a way to capture the attention of the Republican majority and the American people to the assertions that the Bush administration misused intelligence in the run-up to war in Iraq.
“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,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said.
It was the first time in more than two decades that the Senate chambers were emptied and sealed in the implementation of the obscure Rule 21, which dates back to 1795. Though Republicans cried foul, they had no choice but to comply.
The Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Iraq was two-fold: was the rationale that weapons of mass destruction were threatening American interests the reason for going to war, and, did the Bush administration twist the evidence in order to make a convincing, if deceptive, argument? Pertaining to the first question, the committee concluded last year that there were no weapons of mass destruction and therefore the war-drums were beaten erroneously. The second phase’s investigation was more tricky, and Republican lawmakers began to stall.
“They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why,” Reid said Tuesday.
Democrats forced the closed door session in order to get assurance that the Intelligence Committee would complete the second phase of its investigation. A six-member task force — three members from each party — was appointed to review the Intelligence Committee's work and report to their respective leaders by November 14th.
Way to go, Dems!
posted by Brandon at 11:02 AM
7 Comments:
And your point is?!?!
Are you really arguing from the perspective of: "Yeah, but all these guys were wrong too!"
Please! That's the dumbest validation I've ever heard. If you want to discuss the fact that other people, besides the President, were wrong as well, fine. But don't parade it as a serious, legitimate rebutal!
Besides, your argument fits into Phase One of this investigation. It's Phase Two that is the focus now, and that one fall squarly on the sholders of the administration.
You are too quick to trivialize Eric's post Brandon. His quotes include dates before Bush was even running for president. His quotes include members of the previous administration. I think what Eric is trying to say (and correct me if I'm wrong here Eric) is that the Democracts aren't really interested in a search for the truth regarding pre-war intelligence, rather they are on a Republican witch hunt.
My personal view is there is little real difference between the parties, and if Gore had won in 2000 then we still would have gone into Iraq (assumeing the same series of events had transpired) and it would be the Republicans crying bloody murder at the Democrats.
Maybe I'm just to jaded, but I don't think for a second that the Dems are fighting against corruption in the Republican party, they're simply trying to ensure their brand of corruption is sitting in the hot seat next exlection.
Nothing is going to come of this-NOTHING! Just like nothing came of the 9-11 omission report (siq). And to be frank, it pisses me off when the people who pay their salaries get kicked out so that we can't see or hear whats going on. If the Dems have something to say, let them criticise the Reprobates, I mean Republicans in the full view of all americans (or at least those who watch C-SPAN).
For what it's worth. Take it or leave it.
Jon
I'm kind of with Jon on this one. At least the part about Democrats being less concerned with nobility than about a witch hunt.
I think calling for the closed session CAN be a dramatic media attention grabber to shift the focus back toward the investigation, which team Bush had successfully diverted us from for at least two days with the Alito nom and avian flu program (granted, both things that had to happen at some point; they just really benefited the administration just now).
A stunt, yes, but maybe a necessary one?
As far as e.j.'s quotes, that would be pretty damning evidence about the rudderlessness (I think of politicians in general) if there were more information included with the quotes. Where did these people say these things? What speech? What venue? What interview? To whom? It's not that I don't trust the post...well, no actually, I don't trust the post.
I'm sure some if not all the quotes are legitimate, but we have no way of knowing. We just have to take you at your word! And that is what irritates me about so much of the dialogue these days. It's just a bunch of no-he-didn't, yes-he-did, shouting. We are in the middle of a full blown information war, people. The real new frontier. And this isn't a conspiracy theory, Fibbers. There is no top-down entity controlling it. It's every individual with an agenda and a keyboard. We are just beginning to see its effects this decade.
So, e.j., while these all read as very plausible quotes, (particularly since a couple of them come from known "wafflers"), until I find time out of my workday to Google this stuff I have no way of knowing whether they are legitimate or you just cut and pasted it from an email you received once and saved. Who knows who wrote the original. And who has the time to be a full time investigative reporter? It's kinda scary when you think about it.
Because I see this stuff every day and often, after a quick check, it is demonstrably false. (And how do I know that? Well...I don't)
So, please, besides dates, could you quote some publications or provide some links? I'm willing to swallow it if you do it.
This is not an argument, merely a plea for accountability for information, which is more important now than ever.
Yeah, Jonathan is making very valid points, as he often does. I'm sure they are less concerned with nobility than with a witch hunt. However, like Nate, I feel it is a necessary one. I'll use thier self-serving machinations all day if it gets us closer to the truth.
Personally Eric, I have no problem thinking that both parties are liars and willing to say and do whatever solidfies their power. If that means falsifying intelligence, so be it. If that means going along with what you know to be falsified intelligence and then crying treason later, they'll do that to.
When, oh when will we get a Libertarian President. Hold on a second, the pigs are trying to fly away again. DOWN PIGS! DOWN! STAY! Stupid pigs. I wish I never cloned them with wings now.
LIBERTARIANS RULE...modestly over their own lives only.
I found a pretty cool flash on Libertarianism the other day. You can check it out here:
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
I think it was made for kids, but I think it holds just as much power for adults.
The difference, to me seems obvious, but allow me to extrapolate.
Every single one of those quotes are from before the war. If you want to accuse those Democrats of being ignorant, do it, it’ll stick. If you want to charge those Democrats with being stupid, do it, it’ll stick. If you want to accuse those Democrats of being misleading, don’t do it, you’ll fail.
Like it or not, those Democrats weren’t in office and didn’t initiate the war. The Bush Administration did. Like the old military rule, the captain is wholly and personally responsible for everything that goes on during his watch. Right, wrong, ignorant, misinformed, whatever—he is responsible and he is held accountable. Those other voices, mistaken and misguided as they may have been, didn’t ultimately give the go order.
And perhaps what is most damning of all is that, when the evidence just wasn’t there to support any of their misconceptions, they didn’t manipulate the evidence, they didn’t rely on half-baked and irresponsible evidence, they didn’t spin small rumors into large lies, they didn’t try to cover up their deceptions when they were caught, they didn’t try to silence dissenters and endanger their lives in the process. Bush did.
That’s the point.
Monday news:
US military intelligence warned the Bush administration as early as February 2002 that its key source on Al-Qaeda's relationship with Iraq had provided
"intentionally misleading" data, according to a declassified report.
Nevertheless, eight months later, President George W. Bush went public with charges that the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein had trained members of Osama bin Laden's terror network in manufacturing deadly poisons and gases.
These same accusations had found their way into then-secretary of state Colin Powell's February 2003 speech before the UN Security Council, in which he outlined the US rationale for military action against Iraq.
Post a Comment
<< Home