Posted on 11/01/2005 11:40:50 AM PST by LisaFab
"I don't have a lot of faith that either one of them would tell the truth, even under oath."
So be it. Perjury is now important to the left. Shoe on the other foot.
"This is a good thing. Alito is now filibuster proof."
I disagree. This is an attempt to start a food fight. If hostility increases, they can feel safer with a filibuster. I say, bring it on.
Turn the tables on these turkeys. Investigate the FALN pardons for votes. Investigate the Misty Three. Investigate all the leaks by the left. Make this a broad sweeping investigation. And appoint Alan Keyes, Judge Roy Moore, Ann Coulter, Bork, Weyrich, B1 Bob Dornan, and Jerry Falwell to head a blue ribbon panel. In your face. When they filibuster, recess appoint Archie Bunker to the Supreme Court. When they cause a government shutdown, be sure that all IRS agents and all those other beaurocratic bench warmers get their pay checks stopped, and work out ways to cut costs. Gloat about the money being saved. [But keep the S.S. checks and military funds flowing, though. Dare the rats to filibuster those two priorities.]
They want to Scooter Libby us? They want to Tom DeLay us? They want to Joe Wilson us? Let's get tough. Don't get mad. Get even.
We want Alito really bad. The senate rats are trying to exploit that. They think they have us on a leash right now. So long as Alito's confirmation is ahead of us, Reid wants to pick fights, push his agenda, and villify the right. If we punch back, he will get even more partizan. That's why I put in that tough talk rant up above.
We need not fear them. We can trump any move they make. They are the corrupt party. They are the racist party. They are the ones devoid of any new ideas. They don't have the House. They don't have the senate. They don't have the White House. They don't dominate the media. All they have is sheer audacity.
We know they wouldn't tell the truth but I think enough is known about their shenanigans that we could see they at least get what Scooter is about to get, at a minimum. And also why would Joe Wilson be going on a classified trip for an Agency he didn't even work for or have a secrecy agreement with or a classified contract with and its attendant DD254?
You wrote:
"I think he's got some kind of dirt on himslf and is using attacks to cover it."
Yep.. that 'dirt' can probably be found in the Oil For Food scandel somewhere or in Sandy Berger's pants...lol.
Flippant suggestion of the day: The Republicans should call the Dems' bluff and ask for an up-or-down vote on continuing funding for the war in Iraq. Put up or shut up: go on the record as to whether we should stay in or not.
I have no doubt that the funding would continue. But it might expose the Dems' grandstanding. They want to have it both ways: placate their far-left base (by emphasizing "lies about WMD," alleged abuse of detainees, etc.) and damage Bush by scandal-mongering, yet they want to also be seen as "supporting the troops" and are not calling themselves anti-war, lest they turn off even more of the mainstream than they have.
It's tiresome. Our country has enough on its hands without having to fight this kind of campaign to undermine at home.
"The Republicans should call the Dems' bluff and ask for an up-or-down vote on continuing funding for the war in Iraq. Put up or shut up: go on the record as to whether we should stay in or not."
Great Idea Bump!!
Thanks.
The Republicans are concerned witrh running the country, not publicity stunts.
But what's the point of what the Democrats are doing? Run down Bush, sour the public on the war, and not much else.
It makes our troops' job harder. It's beyond shameful . . .
Joe Wilson on Larry King last night,
"Now, I'm prepared to think the worst of Karl Rove ever since he told Chris Matthews that my wife was fair game. And that's tough for me because Karl and I go to the same church. We go to different services, we go to the same church. I know his wife's name because we get a church newsletter. So, why he wouldn't know my wife's name, perhaps he doesn't read the newsletter."
Once again, she was not Covert, Undercover, Secret, Leaked, etc...
I'd be ticked off too if I had to work alongside an arrogant a-hole like Reid.
Let 'em. They've got no agenda or ideas for the country.
I do recall when this memo circulated around, and I believe Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) was one of the authors of the memo.
NewsMax.com: Intel Chair Roberts: Dem Memo May Have Compromised Terror War - November 5, 2003
I saw him speak at the National Press Club on Monday, and he was piling more caca on top of that steaming pile.
The memo suggests that Democrats should "prepare to launch an 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 of the administration's use of intelligence at any time -- but we can only do so once ... the best time would probably be next year."
Mens News Daily/Talon News: Democrat Intel Memo Scandal Rocks Senate - November 6, 2003
Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA) said Wednesday that "heads should roll" over the memo written by the Democrat staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that outlines a strategy to politicize intelligence data.Miller lamented that the process in Washington is "so politicized and polarized that it can't even be put aside when we're at war." Miller believes this memo to be a clear indication of how partisanship is affecting a committee that has always been considered to be above politics.
Sen. Miller blasted those responsible for the memo, saying, "If what has happened here is not treason, it is its first cousin. The ones responsible - be they staff or elected or both should be dealt with quickly and severely sending a lesson to all that this kind of action will not be tolerated, ignored or excused."
Criticism grew throughout the day Wednesday, as Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) took to the Senate floor to say, "It is a disgusting possibility that members of the Senate would try to politicize intelligence, especially at a time of war... It is reprehensible."
Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) added his comments, saying, "It's clear from this memo that it suggests, at least at the staff level, a Democratic game plan to make the intelligence committee a focal point for the 2004 presidential debate."
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) said in a press release, "It used to be that when our nation was engaged in a war, politics stopped at the water's edge. But it seems that Democratic leaders now want to play politics with our intelligence agencies, as those agencies help fight the war on terror."
Hastert called on Democrats to disavow the memo, saying, "I would hope that Democrats would condemn this strategy memo. They should resist the urge to play politics with our nation's intelligence agencies. We are in a war against terrorism and terrorists, and our nation must be united as we fight to protect our freedoms."
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich called for Rockefeller to resign from the committee and maybe the Senate altogether once the matter is fully investigated. The Republican National Committee has yet to comment on the developing scandal.
Ranking committee member Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) owned-up to having the memo prepared by staff and said he was troubled by how it was obtained by the press. He repeated the frustration he says the memo was intended to express. But he chose not to defend a part of the memo that reads, "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 approach outline above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives."
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan told Talon News that he hadn't seen the Rockefeller memo and declined to say if the administration would halt the transfer of documents to the Senate Intelligence committee now that the Democrats' political motives have been revealed.
"We have been, and will continue to work cooperatively with the Senate Intelligence Committee. That is our position. We want to assist them and we want them to -- we want to be helpful in their efforts to review the intelligence relating to Iraq. That's exactly what we plan to continue doing," McClellan said.
"Again, I just have not seen that specific memo. I've seen the news reports, but we would hope that people are not trying to politicize an issue of such importance," McClellan added.
Democrats lined up behind Rockefeller to seek an answer as to how the memo became public, while Republicans alluded to an ethics investigation into the content of the memo.
Guess What Clinton's Assistant Secretary of State Had to Say about Saddam's Nuke Program in 2002?
Within four or five years, [Iraq] could have the capability to threaten most of the Middle East and parts of Europe with missiles armed with nuclear weapons containing high-enriched uranium produced indigenously. Within that same period, it could threaten U.S. territory with nuclear weapons delivered by non-conventional means. If Iraq managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities of already produced fissile material, these threats could arrive much earlier.
Robert Einhorn testimony before the Senate Gov't Affairs Committee, March 1, 2002
What did U.S. intelligence tell the Clinton administration on the nuclear reconstitution issue?
Well, Kenneth Pollack, former National Security Council official in the Clinton administration, commented in the January/February 2004 issue of The Atlantic Monthly on what U.S. intelligence believed regarding Iraq's nuclear program:
The U.S. Intelligence Community’s belief toward the end of the Clinton Administration [was] that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program and was close to acquiring nuclear weapons....
And, he also wrote:
In the late spring of 2002 I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: Did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes).
Today's Democratic 2006 Campaign "Stunt" in the Senate was Kicked-off by a Misleading National Journal Article
From the Worldwide Standard, October 28, 2005:
Does the National Journal's "Exclusive" Piece on Pre-War Intelligence Distort the Public Record ?
Yesterday, the National Journal publicized an "online exclusive" on the Bush administration's pre-war intelligence claims. Last night, Chris Matthews cited the Murray Waas piece and today its contents are pinging around the blogosphere. But the piece has one passage, in particular, that doesn't quite square with the public record.
For instance, Waas, a frequent contributor to the American Prospect, writes:
…whether dissenting views from the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research [INR], the Department of Energy, and other agencies that often disagreed with the CIA on the question of Iraq's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction…
His phrase "programs to develop weapons of mass destruction" leaves the clear impression that INR dissented not only on the nuclear issue but also on chemical and biological weapons. But here's what Secretary Powell's chief of staff said just the other day:
…I can’t tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the U.N. on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can’t. I’ve wrestled with it. I don’t know – and people say, well, INR dissented. That’s a bunch of bull. INR dissented that the nuclear program was up and running. That’s all INR dissented on. They were right there with the chems and the bios….
So, according to Lawrence Wilkerson, most, if not all, of the content in Secretary Powell's address -- a speech that deputy CIA director John McLaughlin told Congress was reviewed to take "out material…that we and the secretary's staff judged to have been unreliable" -- to the UN was believed to be "the truth" by British, German and French intelligence. And INR, Wilkerson states, was "right there with the chems and the bios."
Wilkerson's comment on INR reflect what was released publicly in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE).
In that document, for example, INR concluded that “Iraq's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes is central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors.” INR cited the Department of Energy's judgment that the tubes were “poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment” and other factors to conclude that “the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq's nuclear weapon program.”
But the Department of Energy, which presumably only had a role in the nuclear assessment, apparently did not dissent from the Estimate's broader judgment on Iraq’s nuclear program. The “Key Judgments” section of the NIE stated that
DOE agrees that reconstitution of the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes probably are not part of the program.
INR also stated in its “Alternative View” that “the activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons.” But INR still concluded “that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapons-related capabilities.”
But what did U.S. intelligence tell the Clinton administration on the reconstitution issue?
Well, Kenneth Pollack, former National Security Council official in the Clinton administration, commented in the January/February 2004 issue of The Atlantic Monthly on what U.S. intelligence believed regarding Iraq's nuclear program:
The U.S. Intelligence Community’s belief toward the end of the Clinton Administration [was] that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program and was close to acquiring nuclear weapons....
And, he also wrote:
In the late spring of 2002 I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: Did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes).
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.