Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Panel Above Politics (Pat Roberts on MemoGate!!!)
The Washington Post Company ^ | Thursday, November 13 | Pat Roberts

Posted on 11/15/2003 8:35:30 AM PST by jmstein7

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is conducting a comprehensive review of prewar intelligence on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs and his ties to terrorist groups. We are evaluating the quantity and quality of intelligence as well as the reasonableness of the judgments reached by the intelligence community.

MORE IN FULL ARTICLE. . .

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2004memo; crime; dems; editorial; elections; homelandinsecurity; intelcommittee; jayrockefeller; memogate; news; partisanship; patroberts

1 posted on 11/15/2003 8:35:34 AM PST by jmstein7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jmstein7
For those of us who won't jump through Wash Pist hoops on principle, can you please hightlight what Roberts is saying? Or is he busy building bridges?

Prairie
2 posted on 11/15/2003 8:39:48 AM PST by prairiebreeze (Brought to you by The American Democratic Party, also known as Al Qaeda, Western Division.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze
"Democrats have been calling for an expansion of the committee's review to include the "use" of intelligence by Bush administration policymakers.

While this sounds reasonable on the surface, it conceals a more nefarious intent. A memo written by the committee's Democratic staff, revealed in the press last week, makes clear that the minority's goal is to prejudge and use the committee's review and what the memo describes as "vague notions regarding the use of intelligence" to "castigate" the Republican members of the committee and conduct a partisan attack on the president. I will not allow this to happen. "

Here's a little snippet that gets to the point.
3 posted on 11/15/2003 8:53:15 AM PST by jmstein7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7
"Despite the strong request of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), to date not one Democrat, save Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia, has publicly repudiated the attack plan laid out in the memorandum. I can reach only one conclusion from this silence: that they have decided to put partisanship ahead of our nation's security in this matter." - Sen. Roberts
4 posted on 11/15/2003 8:54:55 AM PST by jmstein7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times
PING!
5 posted on 11/15/2003 8:55:43 AM PST by jmstein7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7
"The threshold question for the committee should be whether our intelligence agencies produced reasonable and accurate analysis, not how that intelligence was used by policymakers."
6 posted on 11/15/2003 8:56:41 AM PST by jmstein7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze
Building Bridges...?? This appears a very explicit and scathing statement.

Roberts is finally establishing his position as committee chairman and laying the foundation for the future.

I expect a full investigation into "Memogate"... and I think we can be assured this treasonous act by the "RAT" party will have play in the upcoming 2004 election.

The RATS are in deep trouble with those that count... the electorate.

THIS IS NOT GOING AWAY!

7 posted on 11/15/2003 8:57:55 AM PST by Bob Eimiller (Kennedy..Kerry..Leahy...Pelosi..Kucinich.."Catholics" who Promote Partial Birth Abortion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All
MemoGate- sedition, slander-- or something worse?

8 posted on 11/15/2003 8:59:00 AM PST by backhoe (Sedition, Slander, Spin, and Slurs... and so much more... MemoGate 1 & 2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze
What principle keeps you from reading unpleasant, partisan, opposing, disturbing points of view? Do you want to remain ignorant?

The stated purposes of the committee are

We are evaluating the quantity and quality of intelligence as well as the reasonableness of the judgments reached by the intelligence community...We are also focusing on whether anyone was pressured to tailor or change his or her analysis to conform to a specific policy goal...Finally, we intend to conclude whether the intelligence community's judgments were correct, after David Kay completes his search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Roberts feels the Democrats want to extend the investigation to question how the Administration used the intelligence it got...which he feels is improper and partisan.

9 posted on 11/15/2003 9:00:08 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: jmstein7
The committee is asking legitimate questions which should be answered.

The Democrats are also asking legitimate questions which also should be answered...but they pose a serious security risk. If the Administration misused intelligence in order to sell a war - and I believe they did - then exposing the misuse will compromise the war effort. If you believe the war is justified - and I do - then you do not want this to happen.

Which takes us ever deeper into Machiavellian territory.

11 posted on 11/15/2003 9:08:45 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: liberallarry
I would suggest strongly, given recent revelations of the ties between Osama and Saddam, that indeed it was the previous administration that mis-used intelligence information -- solely in the fact that they DID NOT act appropriately on it. The democrats have been trying to hide this fact with their lies and the calls for independent counsels. Truth always wins in the end, and we will find that, as far as intellience judgements go, a more truthful use of intelligence was undertaken by President Bush than the previous occupant of the White House. The dems only want one thing -- to undermine this President, and the war on terror. Their antics are put forth in black and white in the Rocky memo.
13 posted on 11/15/2003 9:18:25 AM PST by Laverne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
"Which I believe they did" PROVE IT AND ALSO SHOW WHAT LEADS YOU TO BELIEVE THIS.Your name says it all to me.
14 posted on 11/15/2003 9:27:13 AM PST by cksharks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Laverne
If the revelations are recent how could the Democrats have known?
No president could have done what this administration has done prior to 911. Public support simply wasn't there.

That said, I tend to agree with you - absent the partisanship. I believe we're in a decades or centuries long stuggle with the Muslim world (or perhaps a continuation of the medievil struggle?)...and what we're seeing are tactical and strategic moves.

Don't lose sight of that in partisan accusations.

15 posted on 11/15/2003 9:33:44 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cksharks
It can't be proved...nor can the contrary. That's why there's all this dispute and investigation. I should think even the dullest would realize that.

We knew Iraq was dangerous. That's why we invaded in '92 and instituted sanctions and inspections subsequently. We thought Saddam would fall after the Gulf war. That he didn't was a testimony to his power, determination, cunning, and ruthlessness. Clinton singled him out in '98 as the single most dangerous enemy then facing the U.S.

But the evidence that he possessed WMD, or was trying to obtain them, or had strong connections with Al Queda just prior to our recent attack on him was nil - and that has been borne out subsequently. Which means to me that the Administration deliberately exagerated the immediacy of the dangers emanating from him.

You can play word games about "immediacy" and cite Bush's speeches to the contrary all you want. I don't buy it.

16 posted on 11/15/2003 9:42:42 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: jmstein7
While the committee was set up to be as immune from political pressures as possible, it requires member discipline to preserve that heritage...[Senate Democrats] have decided to put partisanship ahead of our nation's security in this matter.

You're right, Senator Roberts. Now, what will be done about such behaviour?

18 posted on 11/15/2003 10:32:49 AM PST by Recovering_Democrat (I'm so glad to no longer be associated with the Party of Dependence on Government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Uh, excuse me...?! I won't click on Wash Post excerpts because I decline to answer their screening questions about my age, gender, ZIP Code and country of residence just to gain access to their website. I don't do it for LA Times or others either. That's why I asked if anybody would care to recap. Call it a quirk of mine, but it's my choice and has nothing to do with avoidance of reading opposing points of view which I do every day here on FR. But not at the expense of jumping through the hoops of media outlets so they can target my email or gain stats on their readership.

As far as ignorant...gee, you're cranky today, huh?

sheesh

Prairie
19 posted on 11/15/2003 10:57:57 AM PST by prairiebreeze (Brought to you by The American Democratic Party, also known as Al Qaeda, Western Division.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Bob Eimiller
As replied a minute ago to somebody else, I just refuse to sign-in at media websites.

I can't determine whether you are saying my statement or Roberts was scathing. If you were referring to me, ...nah, I didn't mean to sound scathing exactly. Probably just some lingering frustration at the Republicans and Roberts in particular because "building bridges" with the Dims was the very FIRST response he made publically to memogate. I hope you are right about memogate not going away.

Prairie
20 posted on 11/15/2003 11:02:20 AM PST by prairiebreeze (Brought to you by The American Democratic Party, also known as Al Qaeda, Western Division.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Big Midget; jmstein7
Thanks for the recaps folks.

Prairie
21 posted on 11/15/2003 11:06:07 AM PST by prairiebreeze (Brought to you by The American Democratic Party, also known as Al Qaeda, Western Division.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze
My apologies. Those questions are intrusive and your reasons are good ones.
22 posted on 11/15/2003 11:11:56 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
No worries.

Prairie
23 posted on 11/15/2003 11:26:52 AM PST by prairiebreeze (Brought to you by The American Democratic Party, also known as Al Qaeda, Western Division.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze
I thought Roberts comments were "scathing" for a Republican U.S.Senator.

I understand your not trusting the major media, especially the Washington Post, but the words were Roberts' actual quotes and spin can only go so far in slanting news when a quote is so explicit.

I wasn't flaming you at all.

24 posted on 11/15/2003 5:49:20 PM PST by Bob Eimiller (Kennedy..Kerry..Leahy...Pelosi..Kucinich.."Catholics" who Promote Partial Birth Abortion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Bob Eimiller
Thanks for the clarification.

Regards, Prairie
25 posted on 11/15/2003 6:46:01 PM PST by prairiebreeze (Make it Happen, Louisiana! Elect Jindal as Governor!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson