"conciliatory" is not the word I would use to describe the posture used for pandering to Rockefeller and the other traitors
Posted on 12/23/2003 6:10:07 AM PST by JohnGalt
Monday December 22, 3:02 PM US Republicans signal readiness to resume Iraq weapons probe
US Senate Republicans have signaled their readiness to resume a probe into pre-war charges that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which was halted more than six weeks ago amid bitter partisan bickering.
"I think we will have, hopefully, some public hearings by February," announced Pat Roberts, chairman of the US Senate intelligence committee, appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation" program. "We will get those questions out."
US President George W. Bush and other top administration officials had accused Iraq of secretly producing chemical and biological weapons in violation of UN resolutions -- charges that were used to justify the March invasion of the country.
No banned weapons have been found in Iraq since then, despite an intense search by a team of experts from the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency.
The Senate committee had been revisiting the US intelligence dossier and looking into whether the Bush administration twisted data to suit its goal of regime change in Iraq.
But hearings into the matter were suspended in early November, after Senate Republicans, citing a leaked Democratic strategy paper, accused Democrats of trying to exploit the investigation for political gain.
Now, striking a conciliatory posture, Roberts said he had been working with the ranking committee Democrat, Senator John Rockefeller, and other members to defuse the standoff.
He did not repeat previous Republican demands that Democrats disavow their strategy paper, identify its author and present a formal apology for allegedly trying to manipulate the probe.
The apparent change of heart came after the CIA acknowledged late last month that it "lacked specific information" about alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction when it compiled a 2002 intelligence estimate that served to justify the invasion.
Congressional Republicans also found themselves under renewed pressure last week after Bush, when asked in a television interview to clarify whether he had hard facts about Iraqi weapons or just feared Baghdad may acquire them, replied: "So what's the difference?"
Senator Carl Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the remark was "a stunning revelation" of Bush's "thinking and of his decision to go to war."
"There is a huge difference between having something and seeking something," the lawmaker observed.
Democratic Senator Joseph Biden said it was important to complete the Iraqi weapons review to maintain US credibility in the world at large.
"The idea that we're going to go in next time and say, by the way, Kim Jong Il in North Korea's about to do the following, who the heck's going to believe us?" Biden asked in a CBS interview.
But General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed confidence the weapons of mass destruction will be eventually found the same way US troops caught up with deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein -- through cooperation of Iraqi individuals.
"The same thing's going to be true in WMD," Myers assured in an interview with "Fox News Sunday."
If the Republican Senators dig deep enough, they can aid Jim Baker and the Bush-Rove efforts to get the neocons out of this administration.
'Nuff said.
"conciliatory" is not the word I would use to describe the posture used for pandering to Rockefeller and the other traitors
WOLFOWITZ’S PREMEDITATED BLUNDER
The choice of Baker as envoy to Iraq’s creditors is huge
Realists v. Hawks: Baker Returns
Wait till the SOTU, JG. Patience is a virtue.
He says, maintaining a death grip on his straw.
Washington Post:
Kay Plans to Leave Search for Iraqi Arms
Is The Search For Weapons Over?
Annan To Meet Soon With Iraq Council; Kay May Step Down
Now there's a Christmas fantasy wish. Maybe you should check the news sometime: there was no nuclear weapons program in Iraq.
Unfortunately what he looks like is a partisan hack. It is his responsibility to ferret out the facts and decide amongst the following choices:
1. There were no WMDs for several years but the president was misled by his neo-con advisors.
2. There were no WMDs for several years and the president knew that and lied about it.
3. There were in fact WMDs that are still hidden.
I think that we can eliminate choice 3 right now. It is critically important to determine whether choice 1 or 2 is accurate, even if it hurts GWB. If the Republican party in the person of Pat Roberts keeps protecting him, the party will go down in ashes with Bush. It is much better to openly reveal the truth and save the party. The difference is a choice between a Democratic nincompoop president plus a Democratic congress or just a Democratic president gridlocked by a Republican congress.
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.