Full Version: Dems call for closed Senate session,
Yesterday Senate Democrats invoked Rule 21 and called for a secret session of the Senate.
GOP angered by closed Senate session
Questions:
Do you think that Senate Democrats had the best interests of the country in mind, or do you think this was a publicity stunt to further embarrass the President and Congressional Republicans?
Do you think the independence of "Congress as a separate and coequal branch of the government" is in question?
GOP angered by closed Senate session
QUOTE(The Washington Post)
Democrats forced the Senate into a rare closed-door session yesterday, infuriating Republicans but extracting from them a promise to speed up an inquiry into the Bush administration's handling of intelligence about Iraq's weapons in the run-up to the war.
<snip>
Republicans condemned the Democrats' maneuver, which marked the first time in more than 25 years that one party had insisted on a closed session without consulting the other party. But within two hours, Republicans appointed a bipartisan panel to report on the progress of a Senate intelligence committee report on prewar intelligence, which Democrats say has been delayed for nearly a year.
<snip>
Frist seemed much calmer when the closed session ended. He agreed to a six-senator bipartisan task force that will report by Nov. 14 on "the intelligence committee's progress of the phase two review of the prewar intelligence and its schedule for completion."
<snip>
Reid said he was forced to seek the closed session to spur action on the investigation. "The only way we've been able to get their attention is to spend 3 1/2 hours in a closed session," he said. "It's a slap in the face to the American people that this investigation has been stymied."
Rockefeller said Democratic requests for information related to the investigation are routinely denied or ignored, and he suggested that the Senate Republican leadership was under orders from the Bush administration not to cooperate.
"Any time the intelligence committee pursued a line of inquiry that brought us close to the role of the White House in all of this in the use of intelligence prior to the war, our efforts have been thwarted time and time again," Rockefeller said. "The very independence of the United States Congress as a separate and coequal branch of the government has been called into question." [emphasis mine]
<snip>
Republicans condemned the Democrats' maneuver, which marked the first time in more than 25 years that one party had insisted on a closed session without consulting the other party. But within two hours, Republicans appointed a bipartisan panel to report on the progress of a Senate intelligence committee report on prewar intelligence, which Democrats say has been delayed for nearly a year.
<snip>
Frist seemed much calmer when the closed session ended. He agreed to a six-senator bipartisan task force that will report by Nov. 14 on "the intelligence committee's progress of the phase two review of the prewar intelligence and its schedule for completion."
<snip>
Reid said he was forced to seek the closed session to spur action on the investigation. "The only way we've been able to get their attention is to spend 3 1/2 hours in a closed session," he said. "It's a slap in the face to the American people that this investigation has been stymied."
Rockefeller said Democratic requests for information related to the investigation are routinely denied or ignored, and he suggested that the Senate Republican leadership was under orders from the Bush administration not to cooperate.
"Any time the intelligence committee pursued a line of inquiry that brought us close to the role of the White House in all of this in the use of intelligence prior to the war, our efforts have been thwarted time and time again," Rockefeller said. "The very independence of the United States Congress as a separate and coequal branch of the government has been called into question." [emphasis mine]
Questions:
Do you think that Senate Democrats had the best interests of the country in mind, or do you think this was a publicity stunt to further embarrass the President and Congressional Republicans?
Do you think the independence of "Congress as a separate and coequal branch of the government" is in question?
For the first question, I think the answer might be "both." The mess about the pre-war intelligence about Iraq needs to be cleared up, and cleared up fast. It's also fairly obvious that the dramatic step of requesting a closed session was an attempt to draw the attention of the nation to this situation.
(It will be interesting to see if more people in Congress request closed sessions as publicity stunts. As far as I can tell, any member of Congress can request such a session, and no vote is required! Normally such sessions involve impeachment hearings or sensitive issues of national security. In this case, it seems to have been used to force full attention on this issue.)
Was such a move justified? It's hard to say, but it seems like overkill to me. I think Reid made the demand for a closed session out of frustration.
(Possibly this might strengthen the resolve of the GOP to retaliate with the so-called "nuclear option" during confirmation hearings. Maybe the next popular weapon in the Congressional wars will be the use of rarely-invoked rules. We live in interesting times, indeed.)
As far as the second question goes, well, it's pretty clear that the executive branch of the government -- under Presidents from both parties -- has just continued to get stronger and stronger. One small remedy is to try to keep the same political party from dominating all three branches of government -- easier said than done.
(It will be interesting to see if more people in Congress request closed sessions as publicity stunts. As far as I can tell, any member of Congress can request such a session, and no vote is required! Normally such sessions involve impeachment hearings or sensitive issues of national security. In this case, it seems to have been used to force full attention on this issue.)
Was such a move justified? It's hard to say, but it seems like overkill to me. I think Reid made the demand for a closed session out of frustration.
(Possibly this might strengthen the resolve of the GOP to retaliate with the so-called "nuclear option" during confirmation hearings. Maybe the next popular weapon in the Congressional wars will be the use of rarely-invoked rules. We live in interesting times, indeed.)
As far as the second question goes, well, it's pretty clear that the executive branch of the government -- under Presidents from both parties -- has just continued to get stronger and stronger. One small remedy is to try to keep the same political party from dominating all three branches of government -- easier said than done.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Nov 2 2005, 06:10 AM)
Yesterday Senate Democrats invoked Rule 21 and called for a secret session of the Senate.
Do you think that Senate Democrats had the best interests of the country in mind, or do you think this was a publicity stunt to further embarrass the President and Congressional Republicans?
Do you think that Senate Democrats had the best interests of the country in mind, or do you think this was a publicity stunt to further embarrass the President and Congressional Republicans?
It seems more like an act of desperation to me. Rove didn't get indicted, there is going to be a strict constructionist rammed down their throats in the Supreme Court, there's elections in Iraq, gas prices are coming back down, what else can they do? Liberals can not win elections, that just leaves them the courts and mainstream media. Right now it appears to them that their courts are in jeopardy, so a media circus is all they have left. It really was a sophmorish, no infantile, stunt, since there is already a committee hearing the matter, and one report has been issued already. Or perhaps Harry doesn't pay attention enough to know that...
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Nov 2 2005, 06:10 AM)
Do you think the independence of "Congress as a separate and coequal branch of the government" is in question
I do agree with Victoria in substance, in that a split of different parties in the branches helps. Most likely for a different reason though. When the congress and president of from different parties, it tends to to slow, if not paralyse at times, the government. Since I am of the opinion that very little good comes from Washington, the less that gets accomplished there, the better it is for the citizenry.
Do you think that Senate Democrats had the best interests of the country in mind, or do you think this was a publicity stunt to further embarrass the President and Congressional Republicans?
Reid was being childish. He might have had the best interests of the country in mind, but his tactics were just plain dumb. Short term, it is an effective attention-getter. Long term, he has simply angered the Republican leadership.
To understand my position, you need to understand how the Senate does business. The Senate leaders let each other know what is going on ahead of time so that the interested Senators are there. If they want to discuss the price of tea in China tomorrow, they let the other leader know so that any Senators who care can be there. Reid did this with few Senators in the chamber. Cheney (President of the Senate) had left for the day.
In the future, Reid is going to need some cooperation with Republicans in order to get anything done or to temper what the Republicans want done. The Alito fight is brewing and if Reid filibusters, the nuclear option is now a guarantee because of this slap in the face move by Reid. The seven Republicans from the Gang of 14 are unlikely to support a filibuster now.
Reid is having a knee jerk response to Fitzgerald's lack of emphasis on the motivations behind the Iraq war. Fitzgerald has eliminated almost any chance that his investigation will focus in any way on Iraqi intel. From Fitzgerald's press conference:
And yet Reid insists that the Libby indictment IS about the war. He can't let it go. He can't let the fact that his nominee (Harriet Miers) is out of the picture. He can't let go the fact that Bush suddenly has the momentum to get Alito through.
Do you think the independence of "Congress as a separate and coequal branch of the government" is in question?
I think Rockefeller is being overly dramatic. There is no evidence to support that Bush and Cheney manufactured intel on the Iraq War. They over-emphasized the wrong things, but they didn't make it up. We can certainly investigate with hindsight whether going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do (at this point, most Americans would agree that it was not), but the accusatorial tone that Reid and Rockefeller are using is not constructive. It isn't going to get anything done.
Reid was being childish. He might have had the best interests of the country in mind, but his tactics were just plain dumb. Short term, it is an effective attention-getter. Long term, he has simply angered the Republican leadership.
To understand my position, you need to understand how the Senate does business. The Senate leaders let each other know what is going on ahead of time so that the interested Senators are there. If they want to discuss the price of tea in China tomorrow, they let the other leader know so that any Senators who care can be there. Reid did this with few Senators in the chamber. Cheney (President of the Senate) had left for the day.
In the future, Reid is going to need some cooperation with Republicans in order to get anything done or to temper what the Republicans want done. The Alito fight is brewing and if Reid filibusters, the nuclear option is now a guarantee because of this slap in the face move by Reid. The seven Republicans from the Gang of 14 are unlikely to support a filibuster now.
Reid is having a knee jerk response to Fitzgerald's lack of emphasis on the motivations behind the Iraq war. Fitzgerald has eliminated almost any chance that his investigation will focus in any way on Iraqi intel. From Fitzgerald's press conference:
QUOTE
This indictment is not about the war. This indictment's not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel....The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction. And I think anyone who's concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn't look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that.
And yet Reid insists that the Libby indictment IS about the war. He can't let it go. He can't let the fact that his nominee (Harriet Miers) is out of the picture. He can't let go the fact that Bush suddenly has the momentum to get Alito through.
Do you think the independence of "Congress as a separate and coequal branch of the government" is in question?
I think Rockefeller is being overly dramatic. There is no evidence to support that Bush and Cheney manufactured intel on the Iraq War. They over-emphasized the wrong things, but they didn't make it up. We can certainly investigate with hindsight whether going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do (at this point, most Americans would agree that it was not), but the accusatorial tone that Reid and Rockefeller are using is not constructive. It isn't going to get anything done.
Do you think that Senate Democrats had the best interests of the country in mind, or do you think this was a publicity stunt to further embarrass the President and Congressional Republicans?
I hope it is the former. The rule hadn't been invoked in a long time. This is what sets the Senate apart from Congress, a maneuver more respectable and a chance of yielding results instead of calling Bush a liar. Not helpful, that, seeing as it’s almost a requisite for politicians.
It's past time Democrats stop heeding Republican threats of retribution. There's no point in doing so. In the 2004 race the GOP didn't hold back on Democratic Senate and Congress incumbents that went along with their legislative agendas as thanks. Republican comments on this “stunt” has also had me wondering when did a majority in both branches equal a right to an unabridged legislative agenda, and if/how many times the former Democratic majority extended 10 minute votes for hours to buy some crucial nay votes with favors.
Finally, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts changed his tune. If the investigation is tossed on the backburner again Democrats should respond by invoking Rule 21 again.
Do you think the independence of "Congress as a separate and coequal branch of the government" is in question?
Unfortunately when the Executive and the Congress are birds of a feather they don't peck each other in the eyes as much, or at all, as if they were not and quite frankly I yearn for the days of gridlock.
I hope it is the former. The rule hadn't been invoked in a long time. This is what sets the Senate apart from Congress, a maneuver more respectable and a chance of yielding results instead of calling Bush a liar. Not helpful, that, seeing as it’s almost a requisite for politicians.
It's past time Democrats stop heeding Republican threats of retribution. There's no point in doing so. In the 2004 race the GOP didn't hold back on Democratic Senate and Congress incumbents that went along with their legislative agendas as thanks. Republican comments on this “stunt” has also had me wondering when did a majority in both branches equal a right to an unabridged legislative agenda, and if/how many times the former Democratic majority extended 10 minute votes for hours to buy some crucial nay votes with favors.
Finally, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts changed his tune. If the investigation is tossed on the backburner again Democrats should respond by invoking Rule 21 again.
QUOTE
“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.”
- March 31st, 2005
- March 31st, 2005
QUOTE
“Well, there’s been a lot of talk about Phase 2. What is Phase 2? Why has it been delayed, if in fact it has been delayed? … It isn’t like it’s been delayed. As a matter of fact, it’s been ongoing.”
- November 1st, 2005
- November 1st, 2005
Do you think the independence of "Congress as a separate and coequal branch of the government" is in question?
Unfortunately when the Executive and the Congress are birds of a feather they don't peck each other in the eyes as much, or at all, as if they were not and quite frankly I yearn for the days of gridlock.
Do you think that Senate Democrats had the best interests of the country in mind, or do you think this was a publicity stunt to further embarrass the President and Congressional Republicans?
Yes, I believe the democrats are extremely frustrated with how things are going on the "cover-up" front, and they are hearing from their constituents the same thing. When the Fitzgerald report failed to force the issue of the administrations exaggerations of the WMD threat into the courts, Reid felt it was up to the Congress to do it themselves.
I can see their logic behind this action. I do not know if it's prudent however, because in my view it will serve to galvanize the Republican side and help them overcome an extremely difficult last week. And if the democrats hope to derail the Alito nomination, they will need some dissention in the Republican congress.
Also, I think the Republicans in Congress are re-acting like a bunch of spoiled children on this matter. It's embarrassing for me to see Fritz cry like someone stole his favorite toy from the playroom toybox when he claims it was an affront to his leadership. It's politics, and if he didn't expect the democrats to play hardball themselves, then he doesn't deserve to BE a leader.
Do you think the independence of "Congress as a separate and coequal branch of the government" is in question?
This is overblown political rhetoric and doesn't even deserve acknowledgement. If one party controls the White House, the opposition better expect their counterparts in Congress to be united with them if they expect to get anything accomplished.
Yes, I believe the democrats are extremely frustrated with how things are going on the "cover-up" front, and they are hearing from their constituents the same thing. When the Fitzgerald report failed to force the issue of the administrations exaggerations of the WMD threat into the courts, Reid felt it was up to the Congress to do it themselves.
I can see their logic behind this action. I do not know if it's prudent however, because in my view it will serve to galvanize the Republican side and help them overcome an extremely difficult last week. And if the democrats hope to derail the Alito nomination, they will need some dissention in the Republican congress.
Also, I think the Republicans in Congress are re-acting like a bunch of spoiled children on this matter. It's embarrassing for me to see Fritz cry like someone stole his favorite toy from the playroom toybox when he claims it was an affront to his leadership. It's politics, and if he didn't expect the democrats to play hardball themselves, then he doesn't deserve to BE a leader.
Do you think the independence of "Congress as a separate and coequal branch of the government" is in question?
This is overblown political rhetoric and doesn't even deserve acknowledgement. If one party controls the White House, the opposition better expect their counterparts in Congress to be united with them if they expect to get anything accomplished.
Do you think that Senate Democrats had the best interests of the country in mind, or do you think this was a publicity stunt to further embarrass the President and Congressional Republicans?
I understand the point here, Amlord, but I can't help but wonder if this was done to force a little sunlight on the matter when the leadership of the Senate seemed quite unwilling to do so when left to its own devices. Bottom line is that the Senate Intelligence Committee was charged with an inquiry at two levels. The first related to the factual failures of intel leading up to the war. That report was released over a year ago. The second inquiry, or Phase 2, was supposed to focus on some of the procedural failures in how intelligence was used to build the case for the war. Implicit in this inquiry was a question of how the Bush Adminstration, and more specifically, the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), (mis)used intelligence to build their case for war. There is actually some excellent analysis on the process that was used. The word "stovepiping" has been used frequently in this review by outside agents and it describes a less than honest process of cherry picking intelligence reports while ignoring evidence that might mitigate or outright contradict the claim they are seeking to confirm.
Nowhere is anyone claiming that Bush or his lieutenants made up intelligence to build their case for war. What is being asked, is whether proper intel procedures were followed to manage the intelligence that was coming in. My belief is that answer is an emphatic no.
Do you think the independence of "Congress as a separate and coequal branch of the government" is in question?
Somewhat, yes. This is always a concern when the same party governs both houses of Congress and the executive branch. Was there a dramatic flair to the comments from Rockefeller and Reid? Sure. But politics always has that flair to some degree. The bottom line is that Pat Roberts promised to finish Phase 2 of the inquiry and tabled it after Phase 1 because he didn't want it mucking up the election. Now the election is long passed and he's still dragging his heels on the inquiry. Put simply, if the GOP weren't concerned about the outcome of this review, why delay it? Why not get it over with and remove the questions altogether?
QUOTE(Amlord)
To understand my position, you need to understand how the Senate does business. The Senate leaders let each other know what is going on ahead of time so that the interested Senators are there. If they want to discuss the price of tea in China tomorrow, they let the other leader know so that any Senators who care can be there. Reid did this with few Senators in the chamber. Cheney (President of the Senate) had left for the day.
I understand the point here, Amlord, but I can't help but wonder if this was done to force a little sunlight on the matter when the leadership of the Senate seemed quite unwilling to do so when left to its own devices. Bottom line is that the Senate Intelligence Committee was charged with an inquiry at two levels. The first related to the factual failures of intel leading up to the war. That report was released over a year ago. The second inquiry, or Phase 2, was supposed to focus on some of the procedural failures in how intelligence was used to build the case for the war. Implicit in this inquiry was a question of how the Bush Adminstration, and more specifically, the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), (mis)used intelligence to build their case for war. There is actually some excellent analysis on the process that was used. The word "stovepiping" has been used frequently in this review by outside agents and it describes a less than honest process of cherry picking intelligence reports while ignoring evidence that might mitigate or outright contradict the claim they are seeking to confirm.
Nowhere is anyone claiming that Bush or his lieutenants made up intelligence to build their case for war. What is being asked, is whether proper intel procedures were followed to manage the intelligence that was coming in. My belief is that answer is an emphatic no.
Do you think the independence of "Congress as a separate and coequal branch of the government" is in question?
Somewhat, yes. This is always a concern when the same party governs both houses of Congress and the executive branch. Was there a dramatic flair to the comments from Rockefeller and Reid? Sure. But politics always has that flair to some degree. The bottom line is that Pat Roberts promised to finish Phase 2 of the inquiry and tabled it after Phase 1 because he didn't want it mucking up the election. Now the election is long passed and he's still dragging his heels on the inquiry. Put simply, if the GOP weren't concerned about the outcome of this review, why delay it? Why not get it over with and remove the questions altogether?
QUOTE(Doclotus @ Nov 2 2005, 10:32 AM)
Nowhere is anyone claiming that Bush or his lieutenants made up intelligence to build their case for war. What is being asked, is whether proper intel procedures were followed to manage the intelligence that was coming in. My belief is that answer is an emphatic no.
Really?
Senator Reid yesterday before calling for the closed session:
QUOTE
"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really about, how the administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions."
Senator Reid says it manufactured intelligence.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Nov 2 2005, 11:38 AM)
Really?
Senator Reid yesterday before calling for the closed session:
Senator Reid says it manufactured intelligence.
Senator Reid yesterday before calling for the closed session:
QUOTE
"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really about, how the administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions."
Senator Reid says it manufactured intelligence.
Fair enough, I sit corrected
Though admittedly this is the low hanging fruit of my argument.In the end I think its a fair question to challenge the near nonexistent ethos of accountability for this administration by the current Congress. While what Reid did was certainly dramatic, perhaps it was long overdue.
Do you think that Senate Democrats had the best interests of the country in mind, or do you think this was a publicity stunt to further embarrass the President and Congressional Republicans?
I question whether either party in Washington has the best interests of the country in mind ever. That said, this particular publicity stunt was fairly transparent. Harry Reid's head looks about to explode.
Speaking of "pre-war" intelligence, would you consider the following statements to be misleading the nation into war? I mean 1997 - 1999 is "pre-war" after all. Or did Karl Rove plan the war that far in advance?
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, November 10, 1999
"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
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, February 18, 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
I question whether either party in Washington has the best interests of the country in mind ever. That said, this particular publicity stunt was fairly transparent. Harry Reid's head looks about to explode.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Nov 2 2005, 04:54 AM)
For the first question, I think the answer might be "both." The mess about the pre-war intelligence about Iraq needs to be cleared up, and cleared up fast. It's also fairly obvious that the dramatic step of requesting a closed session was an attempt to draw the attention of the nation to this situation.
Speaking of "pre-war" intelligence, would you consider the following statements to be misleading the nation into war? I mean 1997 - 1999 is "pre-war" after all. Or did Karl Rove plan the war that far in advance?
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, November 10, 1999
"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
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, February 18, 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
QUOTE(carlitoswhey)
I question whether either party in Washington has the best interests of the country in mind ever.
On this you and I are in complete agreement.
As for the litany of quotes, there is a vast difference between strong rhetoric based on shaky intelligence and committing a nation to a war that is now into its 3rd year by using intel that the administration knew to be questionable by not following proper vetting procedures.
More importantly, representatives of this administration, believed prior to 9/11 that Saddam was not a threat:
He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq... Colin Powell, Feb 24 2001
And lest you accuse me of stovepiping Powell quotes, he gives a much clearer picture on May 15th, 2001:
The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago.
I'm not wishing to rehash the Iraq debate here, there is no doubt we can pummel each other with quotes from politicians left and right on the issue. That isn't the point. The fundamental question (and yes, its a question, I don't pretend to guarantee it as a fact) is whether intelligence was knowingly misused by the WHIG to build their case for war. If you read Clarke, Suskind (O'Neill), Woodward, Hersch, et al., there is at least a valid question to be asked in that regard. A question which, up until now, has not been officially addressed by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
QUOTE(Doclotus @ Nov 2 2005, 11:20 AM)
I'm not wishing to rehash the Iraq debate here, there is no doubt we can pummel each other with quotes from politicians left and right on the issue. That isn't the point. The fundamental question (and yes, its a question, I don't pretend to guarantee it as a fact) is whether intelligence was knowingly misused by the WHIG to build their case for war. If you read Clarke, Suskind (O'Neill), Woodward, Hersch, et al., there is at least a valid question to be asked in that regard. A question which, up until now, has not been officially addressed by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
What about the Robb Silverman commission?
"We conclude that the Intelligence Community was dead wrong in almost all of its pre-war judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction"
Problem is they took as fact the Iraq Survey Group's assertion of Iraq disarming, and didn't investigate weapons moving to Syria, effectively interrogate scientists, etc.
The Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously concluded that Joe Wilson did not tell the truth. He continues to this day to call Bush a "liar" for his State of the Union speech.
QUOTE(factcheck.org)
Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address.
<snip>
Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger .
<snip>
Committee Report: He (the intelligence officer) said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.
<snip>
Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger .
<snip>
Committee Report: He (the intelligence officer) said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.
Seriously, why should I believe that another investigation is going to do any good? If Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid are proven wrong by the Senate Intel report, they will just keep repeating the same thing anyway. I think these investigations are a waste of time.
Do you think that Senate Democrats had the best interests of the country in mind, or do you think this was a publicity stunt to further embarrass the President and Congressional Republicans?
Yes, I think the Democratic Senators had the best interests of the country in mind. It is far past time for them to stand up and consistently demand and end to the Republican stonewalling. This doesn't mean that there wasn't an element of grand-standing involved. Part of the purpose of the move was to interfere with the President's attempt to change the subject of public discussion from high level indictments to a supreme court nominee and bird flu. (Something he has been derelict on until now.) How can some ADers claim that it is alright for the President to repeatedly try to refocus the public's attention and improper for Democratic Senators to attempt a single instance of the same thing.
Do you think the independence of "Congress as a separate and coequal branch of the government" is in question?
Yes, I think the Republican majorities have been totally derelict in their oversight responsibilities with respect to the activities of this administration. This has ill served the country, the Congress, even the administration, and in the long run the Republican Party. It is not a standard practice for congressional majorities from the same party as a president to totally abandon oversight. Many of the egregious errors of this administration might have been avoided or corrected had the Congress carried out this responsibility diligently. Instead, it has acted as a rubber stamp and deflector of criticism for the executive.
The Senate investigation of the intelligence failures with respect to Iraq is a perfect example of this. I carried on a discussion with carlotoswhey, nemov, and others on this very subject back in July. (See Attack on Wilson Debate.) It is way passed time for the Senate Intelligence Committee to look into the uses of intelligence in the run up to war. The commission the President established to look at prewar intelligence was chartered to only look at intelligence gathering and product not the its uses and misuses. The pre-election Senate report controlled by the majority carefully avoided the subject. Senator Reid's maneuver seems to have make some headway in moving the second report forward. However, given the past behavior of the Republican Congress, can we trust the product of this investigation? In light of the public evidence of stove piping of intelligence (and possibly worse), pressure on agencies for particular product, use of intelligence agencies as scapegoats for policy failures, and the damage done to these agencies by the warfare between them and elements of the administration; what is really need is an independent commission along the lines of the 9/11 Commission to look at the whole pre-war intelligence situation and its use by policy makers.
Yes, I think the Democratic Senators had the best interests of the country in mind. It is far past time for them to stand up and consistently demand and end to the Republican stonewalling. This doesn't mean that there wasn't an element of grand-standing involved. Part of the purpose of the move was to interfere with the President's attempt to change the subject of public discussion from high level indictments to a supreme court nominee and bird flu. (Something he has been derelict on until now.) How can some ADers claim that it is alright for the President to repeatedly try to refocus the public's attention and improper for Democratic Senators to attempt a single instance of the same thing.
Do you think the independence of "Congress as a separate and coequal branch of the government" is in question?
Yes, I think the Republican majorities have been totally derelict in their oversight responsibilities with respect to the activities of this administration. This has ill served the country, the Congress, even the administration, and in the long run the Republican Party. It is not a standard practice for congressional majorities from the same party as a president to totally abandon oversight. Many of the egregious errors of this administration might have been avoided or corrected had the Congress carried out this responsibility diligently. Instead, it has acted as a rubber stamp and deflector of criticism for the executive.
The Senate investigation of the intelligence failures with respect to Iraq is a perfect example of this. I carried on a discussion with carlotoswhey, nemov, and others on this very subject back in July. (See Attack on Wilson Debate.) It is way passed time for the Senate Intelligence Committee to look into the uses of intelligence in the run up to war. The commission the President established to look at prewar intelligence was chartered to only look at intelligence gathering and product not the its uses and misuses. The pre-election Senate report controlled by the majority carefully avoided the subject. Senator Reid's maneuver seems to have make some headway in moving the second report forward. However, given the past behavior of the Republican Congress, can we trust the product of this investigation? In light of the public evidence of stove piping of intelligence (and possibly worse), pressure on agencies for particular product, use of intelligence agencies as scapegoats for policy failures, and the damage done to these agencies by the warfare between them and elements of the administration; what is really need is an independent commission along the lines of the 9/11 Commission to look at the whole pre-war intelligence situation and its use by policy makers.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Nov 2 2005, 05:10 AM)
Questions:
Do you think that Senate Democrats had the best interests of the country in mind, or do you think this was a publicity stunt to further embarrass the President and Congressional Republicans?
Do you think the independence of "Congress as a separate and coequal branch of the government" is in question?
Do you think that Senate Democrats had the best interests of the country in mind, or do you think this was a publicity stunt to further embarrass the President and Congressional Republicans?
Do you think the independence of "Congress as a separate and coequal branch of the government" is in question?
The answer to the first question is: Yes and so what? It was both a publicity stunt (and that part worked) and forced the Republicans to acknowledge they've been dragging their heels on whether the president took the country to war based on faulty intelligence.
The GOP doesn't like having these questions asked and they're going to take their good sweet time before they answer them. And even when they do they probably won't share whatever answers they get with the American people.
The Democrats are a minority party. That makes them "the loyal opposition." They can't set the agenda. They usually can't stop the agenda. But to the extent they can slow down the agenda, that may be as good as it gets. I'm glad to see Harry Reid and the gang grow a spine.
To the extent that it ticks off Bill Frist and offends conservatives, I'd suggest they just get over it. Reid knew the rules and played within them. Frist should suck it up and accept that this time he got gamed.
Do you think that Senate Democrats had the best interests of the country in mind, or do you think this was a publicity stunt to further embarrass the President and Congressional Republicans?
The answer is both. This is a vital question that needs to be answered and if the Republicans won't investigate the issue then Reid intends to press on for the good of the country.
However, this also served as a nice political ju-jitsu move as well for a few reasons. First, publicity and news cycles. The White House was getting beat up about Libby's indictment and there wasn't much that could be done to change that unless something more interesting came along. So Miers resigns and Bush nominates Alito knowing it is going to cause quite a stir. Reid allowed the Democrats to not only regain control of the news with this move but get the country talking about their issues again, specifically Iraq.
Secondly, it showed Frist that the minority has more parliamentary tricks up their sleeve than the filibuster. The last time Frist talked about the nuclear option he didn't have the support to pull it off. Reid has now shown him that it doesn't matter whether the filibuster is removed from the judicial process there are scores of ways to accomplish the same goal. Furthermore I'm sure that Frist's support will be even further eroded because now many of the people who supported this are facing uphill battles for re-election in 2006 and there very well could be a Democratic majority in 2007 if the cards fall right. Whether that happens or not, I think a lot of Republicans now realize they won't have a "permanent majority".
So the nuclear option is now a hollow threat in my opinion. If the democrats wanted to they could successfully filibuster Alito. From a political climate perspective they wouldn't be seen as "obstructionist" by the media either.
It wasn't childish Amlord, it is strategy. Reid doesn't care about the Republican leadershipo, they are all on their way out anyway. Every single one of them is involved in some sort of scandal or another right now and many of the people running in 2006 are in serious jeopardy.
What he has done, if it can be maintained, is he has taken control of the situation.
The answer is both. This is a vital question that needs to be answered and if the Republicans won't investigate the issue then Reid intends to press on for the good of the country.
However, this also served as a nice political ju-jitsu move as well for a few reasons. First, publicity and news cycles. The White House was getting beat up about Libby's indictment and there wasn't much that could be done to change that unless something more interesting came along. So Miers resigns and Bush nominates Alito knowing it is going to cause quite a stir. Reid allowed the Democrats to not only regain control of the news with this move but get the country talking about their issues again, specifically Iraq.
Secondly, it showed Frist that the minority has more parliamentary tricks up their sleeve than the filibuster. The last time Frist talked about the nuclear option he didn't have the support to pull it off. Reid has now shown him that it doesn't matter whether the filibuster is removed from the judicial process there are scores of ways to accomplish the same goal. Furthermore I'm sure that Frist's support will be even further eroded because now many of the people who supported this are facing uphill battles for re-election in 2006 and there very well could be a Democratic majority in 2007 if the cards fall right. Whether that happens or not, I think a lot of Republicans now realize they won't have a "permanent majority".
So the nuclear option is now a hollow threat in my opinion. If the democrats wanted to they could successfully filibuster Alito. From a political climate perspective they wouldn't be seen as "obstructionist" by the media either.
QUOTE(Amlord)
Reid was being childish. He might have had the best interests of the country in mind, but his tactics were just plain dumb. Short term, it is an effective attention-getter. Long term, he has simply angered the Republican leadership.
It wasn't childish Amlord, it is strategy. Reid doesn't care about the Republican leadershipo, they are all on their way out anyway. Every single one of them is involved in some sort of scandal or another right now and many of the people running in 2006 are in serious jeopardy.
What he has done, if it can be maintained, is he has taken control of the situation.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Nov 2 2005, 02:56 PM)
QUOTE(factcheck.org)
Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address.
Seriously, why should I believe that another investigation is going to do any good?
If nothing else to find out why, despite the CIA sending a memo to Bush's speech writer, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley (WHIG), and Rice, and a phone call from Tenet to Hadley, they all simply forgot the CIA's warnings on the accuracy of the British claim?
WhiteHouse.gov: 07/22/2003 Press Briefing
Isn't that worthwhile, or should we let it slide 'cause we're in the middle of a war? If there was any wrongdoing it can go unpunished and we can act on another Butler Report in the future and have this conversation again.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Nov 2 2005, 05:10 AM)
Yesterday Senate Democrats invoked Rule 21 and called for a secret session of the Senate.
GOP angered by closed Senate session
Questions:
Do you think that Senate Democrats had the best interests of the country in mind, or do you think this was a publicity stunt to further embarrass the President and Congressional Republicans?
Do you think the independence of "Congress as a separate and coequal branch of the government" is in question?
GOP angered by closed Senate session
QUOTE(The Washington Post)
Democrats forced the Senate into a rare closed-door session yesterday, infuriating Republicans but extracting from them a promise to speed up an inquiry into the Bush administration's handling of intelligence about Iraq's weapons in the run-up to the war.
<snip>
Republicans condemned the Democrats' maneuver, which marked the first time in more than 25 years that one party had insisted on a closed session without consulting the other party. But within two hours, Republicans appointed a bipartisan panel to report on the progress of a Senate intelligence committee report on prewar intelligence, which Democrats say has been delayed for nearly a year.
<snip>
Frist seemed much calmer when the closed session ended. He agreed to a six-senator bipartisan task force that will report by Nov. 14 on "the intelligence committee's progress of the phase two review of the prewar intelligence and its schedule for completion."
<snip>
Reid said he was forced to seek the closed session to spur action on the investigation. "The only way we've been able to get their attention is to spend 3 1/2 hours in a closed session," he said. "It's a slap in the face to the American people that this investigation has been stymied."
Rockefeller said Democratic requests for information related to the investigation are routinely denied or ignored, and he suggested that the Senate Republican leadership was under orders from the Bush administration not to cooperate.
"Any time the intelligence committee pursued a line of inquiry that brought us close to the role of the White House in all of this in the use of intelligence prior to the war, our efforts have been thwarted time and time again," Rockefeller said. "The very independence of the United States Congress as a separate and coequal branch of the government has been called into question." [emphasis mine]
<snip>
Republicans condemned the Democrats' maneuver, which marked the first time in more than 25 years that one party had insisted on a closed session without consulting the other party. But within two hours, Republicans appointed a bipartisan panel to report on the progress of a Senate intelligence committee report on prewar intelligence, which Democrats say has been delayed for nearly a year.
<snip>
Frist seemed much calmer when the closed session ended. He agreed to a six-senator bipartisan task force that will report by Nov. 14 on "the intelligence committee's progress of the phase two review of the prewar intelligence and its schedule for completion."
<snip>
Reid said he was forced to seek the closed session to spur action on the investigation. "The only way we've been able to get their attention is to spend 3 1/2 hours in a closed session," he said. "It's a slap in the face to the American people that this investigation has been stymied."
Rockefeller said Democratic requests for information related to the investigation are routinely denied or ignored, and he suggested that the Senate Republican leadership was under orders from the Bush administration not to cooperate.
"Any time the intelligence committee pursued a line of inquiry that brought us close to the role of the White House in all of this in the use of intelligence prior to the war, our efforts have been thwarted time and time again," Rockefeller said. "The very independence of the United States Congress as a separate and coequal branch of the government has been called into question." [emphasis mine]
Questions:
Do you think that Senate Democrats had the best interests of the country in mind, or do you think this was a publicity stunt to further embarrass the President and Congressional Republicans?
Do you think the independence of "Congress as a separate and coequal branch of the government" is in question?
I think it was in the best interest of the American people as well as to get the commitee moving? 1.what is taking so long? 2. I am glad to see that we do have a government of checks and balances so if one party is dragging their feet on an issue, the other party can take up the slack and demand answers.
Hopefully this will spur some action and on Nov 14th answers will be given .
Do you think that Senate Democrats had the best interests of the country in mind, or do you think this was a publicity stunt to further embarrass the President and Congressional Republicans?
Sure it was a publicity stunt. The country has been criticizing the democrats for not doing anything. They have been locked out of key congressional negotiations. They have had their use of the filibuster threatened by a nuclear option. They have been called obstructionist in judicial appointments although the numbers of blocked Bush judges versus blocked Clinton judges doesn't make the republican party seem obstructionist on the tally board.
Politics is a publicity stunt and I believe upon reviewing the stories that got us into war, that Bush badly misused the intelligence community to present a cherry-picked stack of evidence on which to base a predetermined decision to lead our nation into an unnecessary war.
Sure the Democrats are timid and they had to wait to show backbone until Bush seemed worn down by a string of bad news before they could muster the public indignation and courage, but I think we as a nation are better off in Congress takes a real and close look at this subject.
It was no more a publicity stunt than Frist's press conference where he lashed at out the Democratic leadership.
“The United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership,” said Majority Leader Bill Frist during the tense hours on Capitol Hill. “They have no convictions, they have no principles, they have no ideas.”
They had their day on the floor to debate? No principles? Is this conduct becoming the Senate? It sounds like name-calling?
Do you think the independence of "Congress as a separate and coequal branch of the government" is in question?
Ummm. No.
But on a tangential point, the White House response has been typical. Accuse the accuser. Instead of finding a way to have the buck stop at the oval office for the bad intelligence that was used as a basis for the Iraq War. The basis has been shifted to a global strategy to improve america's position in the world and planting the seeds of democracy in the Middle East. And the blame for the misleading intelligence has been fobbed of on others, largely the CIA and Democrats who previously had said that Hussein was a threat and was clearly trying to build up WMDs.
They did it too is not a great defense. And this misses a key point, there is a difference between listing all of the people who have criticized Bush's handling of Iraq and their previous comments about the threat posed by Hussein. nobody else chose to lead the nation to war. War should be a last resort, which Bush falsely claimed in the case of Iraq. And war is one of those things that the batting average should be 1.000. War is a bad thing, and to start one we should not have our best guess that we are right, we owe it to our people and world stability to be correct and certain when we go to war.
Sure it was a publicity stunt. The country has been criticizing the democrats for not doing anything. They have been locked out of key congressional negotiations. They have had their use of the filibuster threatened by a nuclear option. They have been called obstructionist in judicial appointments although the numbers of blocked Bush judges versus blocked Clinton judges doesn't make the republican party seem obstructionist on the tally board.
Politics is a publicity stunt and I believe upon reviewing the stories that got us into war, that Bush badly misused the intelligence community to present a cherry-picked stack of evidence on which to base a predetermined decision to lead our nation into an unnecessary war.
Sure the Democrats are timid and they had to wait to show backbone until Bush seemed worn down by a string of bad news before they could muster the public indignation and courage, but I think we as a nation are better off in Congress takes a real and close look at this subject.
It was no more a publicity stunt than Frist's press conference where he lashed at out the Democratic leadership.
QUOTE
“The United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership,” said Majority Leader Bill Frist during the tense hours on Capitol Hill. “They have no convictions, they have no principles, they have no ideas.”
They had their day on the floor to debate? No principles? Is this conduct becoming the Senate? It sounds like name-calling?
Do you think the independence of "Congress as a separate and coequal branch of the government" is in question?
Ummm. No.
But on a tangential point, the White House response has been typical. Accuse the accuser. Instead of finding a way to have the buck stop at the oval office for the bad intelligence that was used as a basis for the Iraq War. The basis has been shifted to a global strategy to improve america's position in the world and planting the seeds of democracy in the Middle East. And the blame for the misleading intelligence has been fobbed of on others, largely the CIA and Democrats who previously had said that Hussein was a threat and was clearly trying to build up WMDs.
QUOTE
The White House sought to deflect politically charged questions Wednesday about President Bush’s use of prewar intelligence in Iraq, saying Democrats, too, had concluded Saddam Hussein was a threat.
“If Democrats want to talk about the threat that Saddam Hussein posed and the intelligence, they might want to start with looking at the previous administration and their own statements that they’ve made,” White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
He said the Clinton administration and fellow Democrats “used the intelligence to come to the same conclusion that Saddam Hussein and his regime were a threat.”
“If Democrats want to talk about the threat that Saddam Hussein posed and the intelligence, they might want to start with looking at the previous administration and their own statements that they’ve made,” White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
He said the Clinton administration and fellow Democrats “used the intelligence to come to the same conclusion that Saddam Hussein and his regime were a threat.”
They did it too is not a great defense. And this misses a key point, there is a difference between listing all of the people who have criticized Bush's handling of Iraq and their previous comments about the threat posed by Hussein. nobody else chose to lead the nation to war. War should be a last resort, which Bush falsely claimed in the case of Iraq. And war is one of those things that the batting average should be 1.000. War is a bad thing, and to start one we should not have our best guess that we are right, we owe it to our people and world stability to be correct and certain when we go to war.
Do you think that Senate Democrats had the best interests of the country in mind, or do you think this was a publicity stunt to further embarrass the President and Congressional Republicans?
I think that Democrats do have the best interests of the country in mind in this case, and that it didn't hurt them a bit personally to invoke Rule 21 and get Senator Frist and his compatriots angry.
I think the administration and Congressional Republicans felt if they ignored Phase 2 of the investigation, it would go away. But Americans do have the right to know how faulty intelligence came to be on the President's desk and in his State of the Union address, the CIA caveat notwithstanding.
Further, I personally do not believe that Bush cared much about the authenticity of the forged document; he was in too much of a hurry to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein. Now his administration undoubtedly wishes that the veracity of the document had been checked more carefully. Oh well, Bush got what he wanted.
If it took invoking Rule 21 to get the Republicans to sit up, take notice, and establish a committee with a deadline, then so be it. It needed to be done.
Do you think the independence of "Congress as a separate and coequal branch of the government" is in question?
While the institution itself is probably not in jeopardy, there have been times when
the Republican majority have seemed a mite too cozy with the White House, at least to the point of not calling the administration on things when they needed to.
In addition, the White House does not seem concerned when Congressional Democrats send letters for the President to read. They have been ignored at times, Senator Reid citing one example recently where some secretary named "Candy," not even an administration official, answered a letter addressed to Mr. Bush.
I think that Democrats do have the best interests of the country in mind in this case, and that it didn't hurt them a bit personally to invoke Rule 21 and get Senator Frist and his compatriots angry.
I think the administration and Congressional Republicans felt if they ignored Phase 2 of the investigation, it would go away. But Americans do have the right to know how faulty intelligence came to be on the President's desk and in his State of the Union address, the CIA caveat notwithstanding.
Further, I personally do not believe that Bush cared much about the authenticity of the forged document; he was in too much of a hurry to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein. Now his administration undoubtedly wishes that the veracity of the document had been checked more carefully. Oh well, Bush got what he wanted.
If it took invoking Rule 21 to get the Republicans to sit up, take notice, and establish a committee with a deadline, then so be it. It needed to be done.
Do you think the independence of "Congress as a separate and coequal branch of the government" is in question?
While the institution itself is probably not in jeopardy, there have been times when
the Republican majority have seemed a mite too cozy with the White House, at least to the point of not calling the administration on things when they needed to.
In addition, the White House does not seem concerned when Congressional Democrats send letters for the President to read. They have been ignored at times, Senator Reid citing one example recently where some secretary named "Candy," not even an administration official, answered a letter addressed to Mr. Bush.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.