Posted on 11/05/2003 12:42:05 PM PST by jmstein7
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:37:42 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
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).
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I'm pretty sure the word insurgency is used incorrectly here. There is no uprising or revolt against the standing government. There has been a total annialiation of the previous, corrupt government and liberation of the oppressed people of Iraq. The author of the memo is talking out of his league and knowledge.
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.
I'm betting the National Media will use this closing statement to show that the Democrats are simply trying to bring Bush's bad decision to light. It will not be seen for what Sean Hannity feels is high treason.
Why does Hannity think that congressional oversight motivated by partisanship is treason?
It also looks like some of the allegations made during yesterday's hype regarding the content of the memo were off-target.
For instance, it has been alleged that the memo recommended the contrasting of administration claims with *classified* intelligence estimates, but the memo actually recommends that *declassified* intelligence be used for this purpose. That's a world of difference.
Also, this line,
Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq.
has been interpreted as showing Democrat willingness to subordinate "intelligence issues" to the possibility of scoring political points -- as though they were saying "screw the intelligence concerns, we have political hay to make!". But this interepretation doesn't make sense given the line that follows it,
Yet, we have an important role to play in 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 key is in how the term "intelligence issues" is interpreted. Hannity and others are interpreting this to mean the possible harm that will be done if certain intelligence is brought into the open and used against the administration. But if you read carefully, you'll see that that's not how it is used in the memo. Instead, whoever wrote the memo uses "intelligence issues" to mean the administration's overestimations of Iraqi WMD's and other flawed intelligence leading to a hasty move towards war etc, etc.
With this in mind, you can see that what the memo is actually saying is "Even though the intelligence issues (i.e. the overestimation of the WMD threat, etc) aren't weighing on the public's mind as heavily as the present situation on the ground in Iraq, still we have a role to play in revealing these issues..."
And this doesn't add up to the Dems playing dirty ball, IMO. I think this is much ado about not much.
Translation: We're on a fishing expedition.
Personally, I think Bob Graham saw this coming and headed for the hills.
I called his DC office and also Nelson's DC office. I told them point blank that if one single American is killed from here on out, it would be because they jeopardized US---the ones that PAY THEM--to play partisan politics. I had 100 copies of this memo printed out and I just got back walking from door to door until I ran out of them with a simple message:
"This "memo" isn't about being a Democrat or a Republican. This memo is all about being an American---whose security and safety we now know is secondary to the very people that are "supposed" to be looking out for our best interests but instead are planning what the best plan would be to undercut our President while we are at war. Read this memo, then call the 800 # for our two Senators, Bob Graham and Bill Nelson and tell them you want a stop put to this partisan politicking that might just cost us another 3,000 or more lives. After you've done that, than call everyone you know and show them this memo. "
Amazingly enough, when people actually read the memo, they were livid. I walked for 2 hours, but it was worth every second. 100 more people know about this memo than did at 2:15pm this afternoon.
If you wanna talk the talk, you gotta walk the walk.
I'm tired of this BS in Washington and I think that many people--a lot more many---are angrier than the Dems think they are. They are completely underestimating the power and patriotism of United States citizens. Sure, we may disagree on different issues, but when the lawmakers of our country start putting us in jeapordy, than it's time for "heads to roll".
As far as Bob Graham and Larry Klayman heading this up, I don't think that will ever happen because I think it would difficult for the two of them to take an Oreo Cookie apart and put it back together again. As far as the leak of the woman's name who works for the CIA is concerned, I think the media is overlooking who really put that woman in danger by naming her: ROBERT NOVAK.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.