Text of the Democrat Memo

Fox News ^ | 11-05-03 | Some Dem!

[staytrue]

The memo is disgusting because the democrats have a three step plan to to the following:

1)Pull the majority along as far as we can

Cynically use "bipartisianship" and the honesty and good will of the senate republicans to senselessly investigate a lot of nothing.

2)Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry

The democrats have already decided, that regardless of the facts, they will castigate the republicans for something.

3)We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time-- but we can only do so once.

The democrats are going to continue to investigate even if there is nothing to investigate. Plus, they feel the proper timing for an "independent" investigation is a few months before the 2004 election.

Yes, politics is a dirty business. But in the past, politics was supposed to stop on national security issues and the Senate intellegence committee in particular was supposed to be relatively non partisan.

[mo]

They aree doing a pretty good job of hanging themselves...in fact they're almost there. We just need be sure we help them get their message out...when your opponent is shooting himslf in the foot there's no need to criticize his aim...

[DJ88]

"You are easy to fool if you think Valerie Plame was put in danger...now about that bridge I have to sell."

My comment about the CIA employee being "put in danger" was meant to be sarcastic. I apologize if it was read any other way. I was comparing these two stories: the Democrats were screaming at the top of their lungs about how this was retribution for her husband's comments. My point was that the only person responsible for naming the woman was Robert Novak because he was the one who printed her name. The liberal media and the RATS were the ones screaming about how her life was put in danger, not me. Then, we have this memo that was written by a Democrat who's only objective was not finding out the truth, but finding out when and how the information they they don't even have yet should be used against our President in order for them to undermine him and win an election. It had nothing to do with the actual investigation.

If this memo had been written in 1998 by a Republican Senator and leaked to the press, the RATS would have been screaming non-stop about how it was just a way to undercut their beloved Bill Clinton. Instead, since it's a Democrat that wrote the memo and we have a Republican president, the RATS are brushing it off as if it has no meaning whatsoever and so is the media. Except for FNC, of course.

Lower the pitch of your attacks, will ya?

[Steel Wolf]

Why does Hannity think that congressional oversight motivated by partisanship is treason?

I don't know that it is treason per se. I'm not a lawyer.

I do know that if they have legitimate and urgent concerns with our intellegence collection that would require an independent investigation, and they're deliberately delaying this probe so they can use it as a tool to win an election, they're engaged in far more than simple partisanship.

I'd be 100% for their activities if they planned to launch the investigation immediately. What turns this whole thing sour is that they couldn't give a damn about the issues in and of themselves, they only care about the potential club they can wield against Bush.

I don't know what your background is. I've worked in the intel field for my entire adult life, and I closely associate the words 'intelligence failures' with the words 'dead bodies'. We're not talking about a sex scandal that the opposition party is going to uncover to smear an opponent. We're talking about people's lives, people who have died and people who can still be saved.

If that's the going definition of partisanship these days, we're heading down a very dangerous path.

[GoGophers]

There was no mistake. That bomb went where it was supposed to go.

Bennett is undoubtedly referring to the bombing campaign.

[staytrue]

"Why does Hannity think that congressional oversight motivated by partisanship is treason?"

"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."

Partisan oversight is a good thing. Here, the democrats are not conducting oversight. The democrats have already reached a conclusion that the bush adminstration is dishonest, misleading, and with dubious motives and methods.

If the dems have the evidence for this, then let's hear it. The fact is they do not have the evidence and are using the senate intelligence commitee for a dirt digging expedition. The dems have decided to put winning political points ahead of the good of the country.

[GoGophers]

I do know that if they have legitimate and urgent concerns with our intellegence collection that would require an independent investigation, and they're deliberately delaying this probe so they can use it as a tool to win an election, they're engaged in far more than simple partisanship.

They are planning for the probe to start early next year, which is probably the earliest possible start date. If they wanted to influence the election, then they would have the probe next fall.

[GoGophers]

My mistake -- the memo does not specify a possible start date.

[DJ88]

My "response" is only that I respectfully disagree with his/her view, and the following snippet is why:

"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:"....

This tells me that the only reason they want to wait until next year is because it is an election year, and that's when they think the best time would be to "pull the trigger" on an independent investigation. That smacks of nothing more than dirty politics, and given the fact that this committee is supposed to be a non-partisan group, and they are (IMHO) abusing their power at the very least.

I don't think I have to tell you what would happen had this been written by a Republican Senator about a Democratic President, do I?

One more thing: whoever gave this memo to Sean Hannity obviously understood the gravity of this memo. It wasn't some staffer, either. That should tell us all something.

[staytrue]

Liberals AND conservatives engage in these types of verbal attacks

In post 56, you want to compare kosovo to iraq and how liberal rhetoric is comparable to conservative rhetoric.

So why did we go to kosovo ? Why did we go to iraq ?

In kosovo, we were told that there was mass graves and ethnic cleansing and this war could spread to Europe like WWI did. The reality is there was no mass graves, war was not going to spread to Europe and yes albanians were being put on trains and shipped out of the country.

In Iraq, Hussein possessed WMD at one time and used them against his own people and was working on a nuclear program at one time. The UN inspectors destroyed most of this stuff. Then in 1998, Hussein kicked the inspectors out and could have restarted his WMD program at anytime. Further, he also had enough oil money to keep him or his sons in power and WMD programs going. Hussein was bankrolling the suicide bombers in Israel. Hussein tried to kill a US president. Further, there are mass graves in Iraq. Most importantly, Iraq is post 9-11 while kosovo is pre 9-11. Preemption was not an acceptable policy in 1998 while it is acceptable post 9-11. Exactly what we were trying to preempt in kosovo still escapes me anyway.

[Steel Wolf]

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: i

This is an admission that they are sitting on information. They are not constrained with waiting until next year, they are choosing to.

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

This is, in so many words, an admission that the report and subsequent investigation are a mere political tools. A three pronged attack designed to sway public opinion.

B) 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.

This one doesn't even require any analysis. It is blantant and reprehensible.

[Yardstick]

Good points -- and I too am disgusted by the level of cynicism and general weaseliness displayed by the Democrats in the memo. But cynicism and weaseliness, as disgusting as they are, are in a lesser category than treason or near-treason. IIRC, guys like Sean Hannity and NewsMax were alleging that the memo recommended the use of classified information to embarrass the administration, and that it stated that intelligence concerns were secondary to the goal of souring the public's perception of the administration's credibility on Iraq. These allegations were bouncing around the talk radio shows on Tuesday and yesterday, but neither is actually to be found in the text of the memo. That's what inspired my post. Certainly there's "something there" in the memo -- we see the cynical strategy of the Democrats -- but it's not the explosive "something there" that one might have expected given all the hype. The Dems are pushing the outer limits of hard ball, but they're not crossing the line into the real dirt. It's exasperating to see, for sure, but the solution, ultimately, is for our guys to sharpen their elbows, put on their thinking caps, and develop some strategies to counter the RATs.

[GoGophers]

So we can criticize the president if we don't agree with the war and our criticisms would not be considered treason.

[staytrue]

I think honest criticism of the war is not treason and is fine. Making up your mind to criticize the war regardless of the facts and before you have heard the facts in order to score political points is disgusting. Probably not treason but close.

[staytrue]

And the memo indicates that the senate democrats plan to criticize the war before they have learned the facts and regardless of what the facts might say and plan to investigate, not as an honest criticism, but soley to win the 2004 election.

[Graymatter]

This would be a great time for Rush Limbaugh to return to his post. The media couldn't bury Memogate if Rush didn't want it buried.

[CyberAnt]

This is a HILLARY project!!

[Sacajaweau]

You're right. It does sound like a Hillary "confused thought process" memo. It must have been dictated though and the secretary left out the "You knows" but they're there!!!!

[justshutupandtakeit]

Because the RATmedia does not care about the answers only about publicizing the "tough" questions. If the questioners showed good faith and a concern about national security that would be one thing but they do not their ONLY concern is weakening the President and undermining his effort to destroy our enemies.

Questions from such scum are of the "When did you stop beating your wife" variety hence should never be addressed.

After watching this lyin' pack of pissants in operation wrt to the Niger investigation and the "exposure" of the bureaucrat you actually had to ask such a question?