Full Version: Politicizing Iraq War
QUOTE(Ted @ Dec 3 2003, 10:00 PM)
If the person who’s job it is the “ranking member on the Senate Intelligence Committee, a committee tasked to investigate intelligence used in the lead-up to the war” is going to slant his investigation for political purposes then we have a real problem. If either side makes a practice of this then there would be no reason to ever accept the conclusions of such an investigation by the opposite party. It is totally unacceptable partisan politics.
True Ted. The point is this--if the democrats investigate because they think the president played too fast and loose with the facts(being "partisan" in other words) then the investigation should go forward and the great jury, the American people will decide if the actions is worth it or not. If the Americans think that Rockefeller and the other democrats are chasing windmills, then they will let them know and the hearings will be short-circuited faster than the whole Clinton impeachment drama. If on the otherhand, the people think they were cheated, then we will konw whether or not this war was truly valid. The truth is nothing to fear. I'm not so certain why the Republicans are so fearful of such an investigation.
Right here, Bela:
If he forget politics, he wouldn't have been able to investigate the issue. At that time, almost everyone believed the info the White House was putting out, and it was politically impossible to challenge it. Jay simply couldn't do anything. Knowing this, he decided to put off the investigation until a time when the political climate allowed for it to be done without restriction from the White House and Congress. Suggesting that he shouldn't have done this is tantamount to saying he should have just martyred the issue of WMD, and wouldn't have been in the interests of the American people nor the truth.
Look, politics is a reality. You can't be Mr. Smith and go to Washington and hope to get anything done. Jay's decision had nothing to do with "personal political gain" and everything to do with actually getting the issue addressed in the face of a hostile White House and Congress. It's spelled out quite clearly in the memo:
Is this politics? Yes. That's why they're called politicians.
QUOTE
I DO expect politicians to forget politics when investigating issues that could be a matter of national security NOT with political gain in mind.
If he forget politics, he wouldn't have been able to investigate the issue. At that time, almost everyone believed the info the White House was putting out, and it was politically impossible to challenge it. Jay simply couldn't do anything. Knowing this, he decided to put off the investigation until a time when the political climate allowed for it to be done without restriction from the White House and Congress. Suggesting that he shouldn't have done this is tantamount to saying he should have just martyred the issue of WMD, and wouldn't have been in the interests of the American people nor the truth.
Look, politics is a reality. You can't be Mr. Smith and go to Washington and hope to get anything done. Jay's decision had nothing to do with "personal political gain" and everything to do with actually getting the issue addressed in the face of a hostile White House and Congress. It's spelled out quite clearly in the memo:
QUOTE
Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet, we have an important role to play in the revealing the misleading -- if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives -- of the senior administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, preemptive war. The approach outline above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives and methods.
Is this politics? Yes. That's why they're called politicians.
QUOTE(Rattlesnake @ Dec 3 2003, 08:05 PM)
Look, politics is a reality. You can't be Mr. Smith and go to Washington and hope to get anything done. Jay's decision had nothing to do with "personal political gain" and everything to do with actually getting the issue addressed in the face of a hostile White House and Congress. It's spelled out quite clearly in the memo:
[
Rattlesnake is right on this one. I would just reiterate that there is never a time when questions should not be asked. If your dealing with secret information, then that is what closed door sessions are for. Harry Truman went after companies for making faulty equipment during WWII that cost people their lives. Perhaps that was playing "politics" but that is what the system is about. Once again, what are the Republicans afraid of? Are they afraid that the American people will not support them if there is a shred of doubt that the GOP stretched the case for war? If the democrats are playing "politics" then they had better be sure their evidence is good. I doubt they would press their luck and risk alienating the American public in a time of war unless they felt they had a full deck to play on this issue. The Republicans are acting like they know it, and want to fold(close hearings) before the final decision(cards) are dealt to the public.
QUOTE(Trouble @ Dec 3 2003, 09:48 AM)
The Rockefeller memo was to my knowledge a push into investigating the claims about the war (from weapons collaboration, wmd, and immediate threat.) One side of the office was questioning the other because of suspicion of misdirection and lies. Rockefeller's team was to find evidence backing these claims and was stopped. The reason given it would tear apart the senate. I think any reasonable person would see a cover up. It is that cut and dry.
I'll ask again, what does any of this have to do with anti-Semitism?
The most disturbing thing to me here is that Rockefeller seems to think the timing is more important than the truth getting out.
When he says:
that makes me go
.
Why next year? If it is so important, why not go ahead and do it?
The timing issue is ONLY aimed at hurting Bush politically, not about getting the truth out in the quickest manner possible. That, to me, is disingenuous.
When he says:
QUOTE
We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time-- but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year...
that makes me go
.Why next year? If it is so important, why not go ahead and do it?
The timing issue is ONLY aimed at hurting Bush politically, not about getting the truth out in the quickest manner possible. That, to me, is disingenuous.
QUOTE(Rattlesnake @ Dec 3 2003, 09:05 PM)
Right here, Bela:
If he forget politics, he wouldn't have been able to investigate the issue.
QUOTE
I DO expect politicians to forget politics when investigating issues that could be a matter of national security NOT with political gain in mind.
If he forget politics, he wouldn't have been able to investigate the issue.
You’ve misunderstood that sentence and perhaps my stance. Mr. Rockefeller should not stop the investigation. He should investigate to the fullest of his abilities. But, he should put his desire to push a Democratic Party agenda aside to investigate this issue. So should Republicans and the President.
As to the rest of your post, are you suggesting that Jay Rockefeller is so weak politically or intellectually that he didn’t have an option when he made his statements about Iraqi WMD? He couldn’t stand up against the intelligence being provided to him prior to the war because what – people in his home state would vote against him in the next election? So instead of standing up for his convictions - challenging the information being provided to the public he chooses to make this statement:
QUOTE
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Other members of the Senate and House had no problems voicing their opinions. If Rockefeller truly had convictions about Iraq, he would have made a statement. Oops, he did.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Amlord, the point you made in your post is exactly what I have been trying to make. Thank you for doing a much better job than I of conveying that message.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Dec 4 2003, 09:09 AM)
Why next year? If it is so important, why not go ahead and do it?
The timing issue is ONLY aimed at hurting Bush politically, not about getting the truth out in the quickest manner possible. That, to me, is disingenuous.
Well, I would surmise that next year would be the soonest that they could get to it. I'm no expert on senate legalise, I'm sure they have a full plate. Is it done intentionally to hurt the president around election time? Once again, the investigation could go either way, they will be playing with fire on this one. The timing of wars and investigations(as well as when they are wrapped up) has always been political. who pays for it is another story though.
QUOTE
You’ve misunderstood that sentence and perhaps my stance. Mr. Rockefeller should not stop the investigation. He should investigate to the fullest of his abilities. But, he should put his desire to push a Democratic Party agenda aside to investigate this issue.
You see, you have no evidence of this claim; it's completely baseless. I resent this foul slander against my Senator.
QUOTE
As to the rest of your post, are you suggesting that Jay Rockefeller is so weak politically or intellectually that he didn’t have an option when he made his statements about Iraqi WMD?
Actually, I said the exact opposite, and you'd see so if you were to read the first sentance of my second-to-last post. However, that's not worth making a thread about. Politicians do that all the time. If we were to post a thread every time a politician flipped on an issue, then that's all we'd have time to post (or even do.)
QUOTE
QUOTE
We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time-- but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year...
that makes me go . That makes me go
too. However, that's because you're only taking one quote out of context. I could sit here and take all sorts of quotes out of context, from both posters and politicians, but it wouldn't prove a thing unless it comes with context. Since a few people seem to ignore that (even though the link has been posted several times,) I guess I'll have to post it myself:QUOTE
Transcript of a memo written by a Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee staff suggesting how to make the greatest gain off of intelligence data leading to the war against Iraq.
We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:
1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard. For example, in addition to the president's State of the Union speech, the chairman has agreed to look at the activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department. The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and co-signs our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. (Note: we can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.)
2) Assiduously prepare Democratic "additional views" to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it. In that regard, we have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims and contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry. The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an independent commission (i.e. the Corzine amendment).
3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time-- but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year either:
A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report -- thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public: 1) additional views on the interim report; 2) announcement of our independent investigation; and 3) additional views on the final investigation; or
Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue. We could attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the "use" of intelligence.
In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter foot-dragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman; we have independently submitted written questions to DoD; and we are preparing further independent requests for information.
Summary
Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet, we have an important role to play in the revealing the misleading -- if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives -- of the senior administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, preemptive war. The approach outline above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives and methods.
We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:
1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard. For example, in addition to the president's State of the Union speech, the chairman has agreed to look at the activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department. The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and co-signs our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. (Note: we can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.)
2) Assiduously prepare Democratic "additional views" to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it. In that regard, we have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims and contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry. The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an independent commission (i.e. the Corzine amendment).
3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time-- but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year either:
A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report -- thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public: 1) additional views on the interim report; 2) announcement of our independent investigation; and 3) additional views on the final investigation; or
Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue. We could attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the "use" of intelligence.In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter foot-dragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman; we have independently submitted written questions to DoD; and we are preparing further independent requests for information.
Summary
Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet, we have an important role to play in the revealing the misleading -- if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives -- of the senior administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, preemptive war. The approach outline above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives and methods.
Jay's motives are spelled out very clearly here. Unless there's more evidence than this, we might as well stop debating here, because there's no proof of your assertions that this was a decision based on political gain. Maybe I'm just reading it wrong, but I simply do not see where it says "This is what we need to to get ourselves/Democrats elected."
I have no problem agreeing to disagree RS. We are both set in our stance on this issue. Neither of our views will be changed. Don't you think it's amazing that we read the same memo and get two totally different interpretations?
It's been a good debate, for the most part.
It's been a good debate, for the most part.
All right, that seems the only place to go from here.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Dec 4 2003, 07:09 AM)
The most disturbing thing to me here is that Rockefeller seems to think the timing is more important than the truth getting out.
When he says:
that makes me go .
Why next year? If it is so important, why not go ahead and do it?
The timing issue is ONLY aimed at hurting Bush politically, not about getting the truth out in the quickest manner possible. That, to me, is disingenuous.
When he says:
QUOTE
We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time-- but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year...
that makes me go
.Why next year? If it is so important, why not go ahead and do it?
The timing issue is ONLY aimed at hurting Bush politically, not about getting the truth out in the quickest manner possible. That, to me, is disingenuous.
I was looking back through this thread, and this post caught my eye. There's a couple of things interesting about it.
1. Even though no news source said that Rockefeller wrote this memo himself, in the course of three pages, it has here become "his" words.
2. Is anyone innocent enough to believe that memos and discussions like this do not take place behind the closed doors of almost every politician? In a way, it makes sense. You will likely be a more successful politician if you have people on your staff who are pushing the envelope in different ways. You want that one guy who will say, "people will really like it if you do this," or "this will help you in your next campaign." But you also want the other guy, whose memos read like this: "We need to do this because it is right. It might hurt us in the polls, but it's the right thing to do."
The only real meat of the story surrounding this memo was that it was one, written by his staff, and two, that it may have been pulled out of a wastebasket - in which case, why doesn't anyone recognize that there may have been a good reason it was in the trash? The way some people are treating this, it's as if it was found in Rockefeller's briefcase, signed by him, with little side notes saying "yes, yes, we must destroy the antichrist Bush!!"
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.