Intel Chair Roberts: Dem Memo May Have Compromised Terror War

[stevedeshazer]

*disclaimer: this is from NewsMax, a right-wing site. It is sourced elsewhere as well. Don't shoot the messenger, but it's out there already, Hannity is blabbering about it and Zell Miller, Barbara Bush, and Newt Gingrich have already weighed in on his show today.

source: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/11/5/121627.shtml

<snip>

Calling plans by Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee to politicize Iraq war intelligence "personally insulting" and "a slap in the face," Committee Chairman Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said late Tuesday that Democrat (sic) members of his panel may have compromised the global war on terrorism.

Referring to a memo revealing the Democratic plot obtained Tuesday afternoon by radio host Sean Hannity, Roberts told the Fox News Channel that the document may have "all sorts of repercussions for intelligence agencies all throughout the world and certainly does a disservice in regards to the war against terrorism."

"We're the ones that have the oversight responsibility on the nation's intelligence and how it applies to our national security," the Republican chairman added, suggesting that his Democrat (sic) colleagues were playing with fire by taking advantage of their access to classified information for naked partisan political purposes.

The memo shows Democrats on the Intelligence Committee who have been entrusted with guarding some of the nation's most sensitive national security information planning instead to use materials in their possession to attack the Bush White House.

____________________________________________________________________

Folks, this is another volley in the war of disinformation. The radical right is accusing Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and/or his staff, of writing this memo. Hannity is quoting a "highly-placed source" who he says he will protect as the alleged leaker of this alleged memo.

The New Stonewall: May it go over as well as the New Coke.

[dave29]

1. umm

they are accusing US of politicizing the war on terror??


WHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?

[loudnclear]

86. This the neocon answer to the Wilson outing...

The fact that Hannity got it first tells me that the Dems are infiltrated and need clean house.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

2. Damn, if the war is compromised I guess we ought to pack it up

and go home.

Sorry, we'll try to do better next war.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Well monitoring the news media

and the story is not getting that much play,
but the readers of newsmax will believe it, fully

This is another attempt to stonewall any and all investigations by
ANY police state means

[Norbert]

50. Hannity is all but calling for a senator to resign

because of this.

First things first Sean. Who outed Valeria Plame.

[stevedeshazer]

4. Link to alleged memo

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/11/4/165925.shtml

[Caution]

9. They are using this to attack the democrats?

Please everyone, go and read this, it is comical, the memo is basically stating the ranking member of the intelligence committee should be aware of any acts of impropriety by the administration and where they are declassified they can be made public and that any other improper acts shoud lbe assiduously investigated. Ummm...how is this a bad thing?

[stevedeshazer]

10. Exactly

It is being portrayed as treasonous, and they are calling for the removal of Sen. Rockefeller from the select intelligence committee. There's no "there" there.

[RapidCreek]

45. Another case of Democratic cowardice

and the resultant shit storm. Why the fuck doesn't Rockefeller say...."I didn't write this memo, those who seek to quell any real investigation evidently find so threatening.....but I'm flattered I've it's been credited, to me. I agree with them on one count....we should investigate the memo...and publicly debate my alleged motivations for writing it. After all, we are politicians....and our job, by it's very nature is politics. So I guess we as a Nation need, once and for all, to address whether we are best served by politicians who seek to evade accountability via obfuscation and cover-up or politicians who seek to embrace accountability through genuine, complete, bipartisan consideration of the evidence at hand. It's my feeling most Americans would make the later choice. America has, historically been a nation which holds honesty in the highest regard. By their words and actions, those from across the isle, it would seem, disagree. I believe Americans can handle the truth and they pay me a salary to deliver it to them. I intend to live up to that responsibility, one way or another. That, in my opinion, is the American way."

I hope the Democrats for once exhibit a set of nuts and some brains and take this golden opportunity to jam Rovain politics right back up the neocon ass, from which it crawled.

RC

[TacticalPeek]

48. "jam"

A pretty thought.

:evilgrin:

[thinkahead]

60. They are getting really good at this

trying to remove elected officials without fair elections.

Redistricting
Recall
But absolutely NO RECOUNT
What Ever it Takes
That's Todays GOP

Wake up folks

[MadMan]

36. Agreed. This is what Sean Insanity said somebody would resign over?

This is much ado about nothing. If the dems had any spine they would frame it in such a way to indicate that they know full well the "bipartisan" report will be white-washed with "nothing to see here, move on now" and they were preparing for that because the gravity of this is too enormous to be swept under the rug.

[TankLV]

71. This couldn't be JUST COINCIDENTAL because of the documents

leaking the fact that prooves that Iraq had tried to negotiate a peace before the "war" started, but bushco put a quash to it, hmmmmmmm? It's been the top headline at a few news outlets this evening on my way home.

The repukes would NEVER stoop that low, now, would they?!

[Cronus Protagonist]

68. The wording is very fishy. Looks like clumsy psy-ops stuff.

eom

Click Here To See Fair & Balanced Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[kentuck]

77. delete -

moved message

[lovedems]

5. Roberts could use the same argument for outing Plame

and the damage that was done to the CIA and their agents. And isn't Hannity being so Novakian in his "source protection". What a bunch of BS. I have a strong feeling this spin will backfire on all these bozo's. Come on, how can this memo have affected the war on terror? It is insulting that he even attempts to blame the dems for the OBVIOUS failures of bushco.

[LittleApple81]

49. Roberts is not very smart. Very conservative but not very smart.

If the tutu democrats use their brains, this might work in their favor.

[TacticalPeek]

55. My perception as well. Poor Pat.

He must be from the clogging wing of the tap-dancing brigade.

I doubt if he can play the smoke and mirrors game at the level aWol's situation requires. At least not for very long.

I sense a dam about to burst.

[DulceDecorum]

6. Newsmax didn't once mention Clinton?!!

The times they are a-changing.
Now they will be stuck smearing deomcrats like Zell Miller.

[fizzana]

7. Invading Iraq has compromised the war on terror.

Everything the Bush administration does compromises the war on terror.

[leesa]

72. The war on terrorism compromises the war on terrorism

Taking military action against alleged terrorists by bombing their country, friends and families is about the most bone-headed approach to fighting terrorism one could ever have!!

[robbob]

8. Oh my God

...and Sean Hannity is SUCH a credible source, right? This makes TWO leaked memo's from "highly placed sources" channeled to the American public through RW waterboys in a month? Two leaks we'll likely never know the authors of?

Also, let me get see if I've got this. If the Intelligence Committee Dem's have seen evidence which shows GW and crew we're forwarned of the 9-11 attack and did little or nothing to prevent it (for example), and feel that this is something the people have a right to know about then we now define this as "compromising the war on terror"?

Man, you gotta give these spin-meisters credit.

[stevedeshazer]

13. It is clearly pre-emptive

There is more to follow, for sure. This is a big attempt at reverse spin. The heavy-hitters were out on Hannity's despicable radio show today, and the bigger the guests are, the bigger the lies.

[GR]

11. This Is Rule Number One Of Big Lie Propaganda Tactics..

Whatever awful thing you're doing; ACCUSE YOUR OPPONENT OF DOING...

[LittleApple81]

12. Couldn't the Democrats use this, since the Republicans leaked it

to discuss things in the open?

[janx]

17. They tried that today during morning business on the Senate

floor. It didn't go over very well--but then again, it never does.

[stevedeshazer]

15. *ding*

That's the short version.

[Cocoa]

14. this is about as valid a criticism

as their saying the dems are anti-Catholic for opposing Estrada.

If they try to justify their covering up for Bush this way, the Dems will make people understand this.

[RapidCreek]

54. this is about as valid a criticism

as saying those who seek a complete, honest, bipartison investigation of the intellegence available prior to a terrorist attack are comprimising the war on terror. Hey wait, that is what they are saying!

RC

[janx]

16. ONE QUESTION:

Where did Hannity get this memo, or draft of a memo, or whatever the heck it is?

[stevedeshazer]

23. He won't say

All we have to go on is his repetition of it having come from a "highly-placed source". He said he will go to jail to protect it.

Now, to be fair, I think journalists should be able to protect their sources, it is absolutely essential to a free press (see Susan McDougal or Vanessa Leggett).

But, Hannity should also provide some cross-reference or other evidence, because without it, his charge is totally baseless. It's a big diversion unless he can prove otherwise.

[janx]

24. OK, so now both he and Novak are covering up crimes?

I agree with the journalist angle to a point, but I'm getting a little tired of this when and where federal crimes might be concerned. He's doing a Novak!

[suegeo]

82. But, Hannity isn't a journalist

Sean Hannity is a journalist? Really? I'm pretty sure he is a paid sock puppet, who lies for the junta.

There is no free press in Amerika anymore, and journalism in this country is dead.

[Gem]

65. Where did he get the memo?

I read earlier today that it was taken from Rockefeller's trash can. In other words, the repubs were looking for something to use to manufacture a new lie.

[Wickerman]

18. Incredible Pre-emptive Spin

The Dems are planning (according to the memo) a coordinated assualt on the errors and factual misinformation spewed by BushC0*. So, to counter any coming damage, say that the Dems have compromised the terra war by releasing classified info. However, read the memo - that is not the intent at all.

snip
"SUMMARY: Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war.

"The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives."

[KansDem]

19. Looks like a damn good plan!

"SUMMARY: Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war.

"The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives."

This only strengthens my resolve. I hope EVERYONE sees this!

DO IT!!! :D

[stevedeshazer]

26. I hope like hell it's true

Nothing hurts like the truth.

[kayell]

20. House Un-American Activities Committee Hearings 2005

The Chairman. Let's get this straight. I know it is unusual to appear before a committee. So many witnesses get nervous. You just got through telling us you did not know she was a Democrat; now you tell us she resigned from the Democratic party? As of when?

Kayell’s Daughter. I didn't know this until the security suspension came up at the university.

The Chairman. When was that?

Kayell’s Daughter. That was in 2004.

The Chairman. Then did your mother come over and tell you she had resigned?

Kayell’s Daughter. I told her what happened. At that time she told me she had been out for several years.

The Chairman. . . . Well, did you ever ask her if she was a Democrat?

Kayell’s Daughter. No, sir. . . .

The Chairman. When you went to see her, weren't you curious? If somebody told me my mother was a Democrat, I'd get on the phone and say, ``Mother is this true''? . . . Did she tell you why she resigned?

Kayell’s Daughter. If seems to me she probably did it because I held a government job and she didn't want to jeopardize my position.

The Chairman. In other words, it wasn't because she felt differently about the Democratic party, but because she didn't want to jeopardize your position?

Kayell’s Daughter. Probably.

The Chairman. Was she still a Democrat at heart in 2004?

Kayell’s Daughter. Well, I don't know how you define that.

The Chairman. Do you think she was a Democrat, using your own definition of democracy?

Kayell’s Daughter. I guess my own definition is one who is a member of the party. No.

The Chairman. Let's say one who was a member and dropped out and is still loyal to the party. Taking that as a definition, would you say she is still a Democrat?

Kayell’s Daughter. Do you mean in an active sense?

The Chairman. Loyal in her mind.

Kayell’s Daughter. That is hard to say.

[Gin]

22. Maybe the FBI bugged the Dem meeting room....anything is possible with

these fools. It was done in Philadelphia.

They are getting desperate...we have them on the run.

[stevedeshazer]

25. A virtual public lynching

of Sen. Rockefeller.

[DoYouEverWonder]

21. So it's okay to out a CIA agent

and then cover it up but it's not okay to leak another memo?

[RuB]

27. IF you buy into the Bushie script that the Iraqi war is a war on terror

But I don't. The Afganistan war is a war on terror. The Iraqi war is a war of choice that the Republicans are calling a war on terror. Would a Democratic leadership spokesman please stand up and tell the Republicans to get their facts straight?!

[kentuck]

28. This is friggin' hilarious!

Since they've tapdanced on CBS, they feel invincible! :)

[maxrandb]

29. And it took Zell Miller about 2 seconds

To accuse the party of treason and call for heads to roll. WTFO! This makes no sense. Could someone please remove their brain so they can think like a freeper, or InSanity and tell me, what is even remotely WRONG with this memo?

I've read this over and over again, and I see no nefarious plan to release "classified" information. I also read this as the Dems being tired of being stonewalled and they are saying, look, give us the information that we as the OVERSIGHT committee are entitled too, if not we are going to call for an independent investigation to see if you misled the American people.

Isn't this like cross-examining a witness and being accused of trying to get facts? You can't ask that question, that might lead you to find out the truth, and we can't have that.

I made the mistake of visiting the Freek sight and they are calling for ropes and resignations from the Senate.

Again, someone help me understand why their panties are in such a bunch?

[trapper914]

30. A Couple of Thoughts Here

First, if Democratic members of the committee were strategizing about how to use what they were learning politically, I think you run into an ethics violation. This is a tough call, because as politicians, it's hard not to look at this stuff and not think how good it could be for Dems. In their capacity, however, they need to do the work and stifle the urge to politicize. Eventually, their findings will become public, and political hay will be made...it just shouldn't be coming from members of the committee.

Secondly, is there anything to this? Jay Rockefeller speculated this "memo" could've been pulled from a trash can or out of a locked computer. He says this memo was never distributed to members of the committee. The word "staffer" was also used. Who could that be? A brown nosing assistant who thought he/she could earn some points by writing a mission statement? At any rate, just because someone had these thoughts, and may have even committed them to paper, doesn't mean the Dems on the committee were doing anything wrong.

Seems to me, we need to find out more about this alleged memo. Sorry, Hannity, I've heard too many lies and too much outrageous spin on your show to believe you without something more concrete.

[TacticalPeek]

38. "you run into an ethics violation" - ?

I do not understand what ethic would be violated. For example, there is no a priori ethic requiring one to fight 'fair' (even if that were the issue). I would see a violation more as breaking a freely made agreement, etc. So long as no specific classified material was breached, and no Senator's motives impugned, etc., I don't see the prob. And, actually, it is Roberts who apparently comes mighty close to impugning another Senator's motives. Prior to Robert's quoted remarks above, I imagine no dem Senator said word one about the memo, plan or any of it.

Hammity and the R media steering committee birthed this baby. I think the more they trot it out, the more 'politicized' Roberts et al. look. After all, any steam behind this comes from the blindingly clear implication and innuendo from Chairman Roberts that there is Presidential-level damaging, scandalous intel possessed in trust by his committee. It is perhaps understandable that he would panic at the thought that dem members of the committee also know these horrible secrets, and he is dependent on the kindness of strange dems and complicity by them in keeping everything quiet.

Are you sure you want to bring that up over and over, Senator? And I recommend you take greater care in styling your attacks on fellow club members. After all, you have a recent reminder of the undesireability of 'hasty' words marching off like boots. You may find yourself down one of those roads where the only thing you can do is turn around and backtrack.

[stevedeshazer]

43. That's a reasonable scenario

I'm not sure I buy the ethics violation argument solely on politics. Truth is truth...at some point, there is a line that has to be crossed by even the most opportunistic politician into the realm of make-believe.

This whole affair sounds to me like a way to conveniently shift the blame from Bushco to Jay Rockefeller.

What are they hiding?

[RapidCreek]

62. How is lobbying for the truth an ethical violation?

Seeking the truth transcends political boundaries. The actions necessary in the mission of seeking the truth should be actively supported and pursued by both parties, should they not? If one party intentionally and collectively seeks to obfuscate the truth in an effort to shield its respective members from the law...is it not that party who has committed an ethical violation? Is this complicity not, by it's very nature, politicizing?

Why do we need to find out more about the memo? It is what it is....an outline describing a fair method by which the complete truth can, most dependably, be arrived at. If it is discovered that Republicans have, as a group, conspired to hide the truth, it is bad for the Republicans. Such a discovery boding well for the Democrats is consequential, nothing more.

RC

[trapper914]

79. Why unethical?

As you said: "The actions necessary in the mission of seeking the truth should be actively supported and pursued by both parties."

I completely agree. That's the job of the Senators on the Committee. No more. No less. Their jobs, at this point, are to be impartial in their investigation.

Whatever they learn will eventually be leaked, and it will be politicized. Doesn't seem real ethical for me IF they are actively making plans inside the Committee on using the findings politically.

[RapidCreek]

87. Did you read the memo?

What in it indicates Democrats seek to use information gleaned from the investigation politically?

RC

[Snellius]

31. This is the real story:

This is a concerted Republican diversionary tactic, orchestrated by Karl Rove, to draw attention away from the real scandal: Bush has backed out on his promise to fully cooperate with the Senate Intelligence Committee investigating the origins of the war in Iraq.

This Sunday, Pat Roberts, the Republican chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and Jay Rockefeller, the ranking minority vice chairman, were on Blitzer's Sunday talk show. Rockefeller complained that the White House had not been forthcoming in released its classified intelligence briefings. Both had insisted last week the committee could not proceed without them. Sandbagging him completely, Roberts announced, live on air with Rockefeller split screen, that he had come to an agreement with the WH to release the documents the previous Friday but that he neglected to inform him or any of the Democrats on the committee. Wow. Big story. Bush coming clean. Of course, day before yesterday, Monday, Roberts was already backtracking, releasing a statement that the WH agreed to give up only some of the documents. That afternoon this "leak" mysteriously appeared. Big fuss over nothing. Except now no one seems to be mentioning why Roberts had to backtrack or whether the WH suddenly decided to change its mind.

[trapper914]

33. or why

Roberts kept this information to himself instead of informing the committee.

[DoYouEverWonder]

34. Seems Roberts has shifted gears

all of a sudden. The WH must of given him his marching orders.

[Snellius]

37. Here's the Roberts/Rockefeller transcript:

BLITZER: Senator Rockefeller, you and your chairman, Senator Roberts, wanted the Bush administration to hand over, by noon on Friday, all sorts of documents related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the actual war. Where does that stand, that deadline? Have you gotten the documents you want from the administration?

ROCKEFELLER: Wolf, we've gotten most of the documents from the Central Intelligence Agency, and we've gotten about two-thirds of the documents from the State Department. But the National Security Council is being very resistant, as is the Department of Defense.

Senator Roberts and I both disagree with that. We've both indicated to each other that we're going to make personal phone calls to the principals, probably by mid or end of this week, if they're not forthcoming.

We have to have those documents. We're going to get those documents, one way or another.

BLITZER: When you say one way or another, Senator Roberts, let me let you pick it up, if they continue to refuse, what can you do about it?

ROBERTS: Well, that's yesterday's story. Jay, I haven't had a chance to call you over the weekend. I was here in Kansas over the Saturday and Sunday. I've been informed by our staff that late Friday, in a spirit of cooperation, that the White House has agreed to supply us with the documents and the interviews that we want. And so that's good news.

And the same is true of the Defense Department, at least in terms of their message to our staff. And I apologize. It is certainly good news that there is a spirit of cooperation with the White House.

The challenging news is, however, that we have to fold this new information into all of the work that we have done. I have told the staff, as has Jay, we want to complete an accurate picture. We'd like to expedite it, of course.

I am not too sure, with the amount of information that's now going to come in and that will be forthcoming, that we can have a draft document or, say, an interim report prior to Congress leaving. But the most important thing to do is to get an accurate and complete picture.

But, again, the good news is, late on Friday, the White House did inform our staff they will go through a spirit of cooperation. I have talked with very top White -- or almost the top, you know, White House official, and he has promised that.

BLITZER: So let me just press you on that point, Senator Roberts. Are you telling us, and Senator Rockefeller in the process, that everything your committee wants from the White House, the National Security Council, from the Pentagon, the CIA, the State Department, every piece of document that -- every document you want will be made available?

ROBERTS: Well, every document we want will be made available. Whether or not it is available as of, you know, Monday or Tuesday, is another thing.

The thing that I am very pleased about is the spirit of cooperation after an initial questioning period of executive privilege and what could be (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and what was classified, what wasn't at certain levels.

But, you know, Jay is right. We will get this information, and it will be a very complete inquiry.

BLITZER: What does that sound like to you, Senator Rockefeller?

ROCKEFELLER: Well, I want to see the documentation before I'm, you know, before I'm satisfied. I want to know that we really have it in hand.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0311/02/le.00.html

[Stephanie]

73. CHENEY CHENEY CHENEY

It always comes down to Cheney.

I have talked with very top White -- or almost the top, you know, White House official, and he has promised that.

[Snellius]

40. Here's the WH contradicting Roberts

CRAWFORD, Tex., Nov. 2 -- Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said Sunday that President Bush's aides had pledged to provide "every document" they have been denying the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, but the White House replied with a noncommittal statement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54883-2003Nov2.html

On Edit:

The White House will agree to share with the Senate intelligence committee CIA memos from October 2002 that warned the White House against saying that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium in Africa, a White House official said yesterday.

Though White House lawyers must work out an arrangement with the committee staff for the documents to be made available, reaching agreement on the CIA memos leaves the committee with only one outstanding White House request -- permission to interview "individuals involved in briefing senior administration officials." The individuals remain unidentified and the request is under study, the White House official said.

"When you are dealing with the White House, they want to make sure they are not getting into a precedent in regard to various documents used by the executive," Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the committee, told reporters yesterday.

The Senate committee is also awaiting answers to questions recently posed to the Pentagon and CIA, as well as delivery of two major intelligence analyses from the State Department, sources said. In addition, no agreement has been reached on a request for testimony from CIA Director George J. Tenet.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A512-2003Nov4.html

[stevedeshazer]

46. SOP

Standard Operating Procedure. Good point.

Can they stonewall long enough?

[kainah]

61. Absolutely, snellius

You have, yet again, nailed the issue. The fact that it was "leaked" to Sean Hannity, such a high profile RW zealot, tells you it comes from the highest levels. The beauty of this kind of leak is that the origins and the author will never be known. From what's been said about the memo, any of us here at DU could have written it. It states no more than what everyone understands to be shrewd political strategy. But it's supposed origin is intended to change the story.

The Roberts' sandbagging of Rockefeller on Blitzer was shameful and their "agreement to try to get along" didn't turn the story so this is attempt #2. Read the hyperblown indignation in these quotes and you can smell the desperation:

"I never saw the kind of blatant partisan politics emerge that has apparently emerged as revealed in this memorandum," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.

The committee chairman, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., called it "an effort to discredit the committee's work, undermine its conclusions, no matter what those conclusions may be."

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said "it seems that Democratic leaders now want to play politics with our intelligence agencies, as those agencies help fight the war on terror."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said he had heard about but not seen the memo. "I certainly hope that people are not trying to use this issue, this important issue, for political gain," he said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&ncid=703&e=4&u=/ap/20031105/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq_inquiry

[Snellius]

63. I'm glad you got these quotes. The similarities give it away.

The phrasing is almost verbatim. I couldn't track them all down but everytime I heard Hannity or Kyle or Roberts or Hastert it was so obvious they were reading from the same script and there's only one master playwright in the Bush administration.

[RainDog]

66. Snellius! you and Kainah are so gooooood!

please cut and paste these posts and send them to Wolf Blitzer and to CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS.

Ask them if they will let this White House trick stand on such an important issue. This is not politics as usual.

This is about whether or not Bush and his administration were, again, incompetent, as they have been in this invasion of Iraq.

America cannot afford to have these people in power, and Americans need to be informed about the real actions of Bush, etc. instead of the spin.

I am honestly terrified of the thought of Bush and his crew having one more year to further screw things up.

[Snellius]

69. Unfortunately, it IS politics as usual.

Anyone who bothers to take any time to track down almost any story that involves Bush and the Republican Party will invariably come back to the same conclusion: the same cynicism, the same deception, the same ruthless need to win. Most of the press and almost all of the public just doesn't care. They're outraged out. Scandaled to death. But it's completely business as usual. There's so many hundreds of similar charades. It's a huge inside joke. All the players know what's going on but because they can't prove it or don't have the time, everyone just moves on. Knowledge is a dangerous and seductive thing.

[Unknown Known]

32. This is a totally pre-emptive strike by the RW

Something tells me that all hell's about to break loose and this is a pre-emptive smear against the whistle-blowers.

If Rockefellar doesn't now truly understand what these people will do to protect their treasonous asses, I don't know what could wake him up.

[maryallen]

58. Give Rockefeller credit --

He's been out there stumping for these documents and has been a forceful advocate for our side.

Personally, I've noticed a subtle deference from the likes of Tim Russert and Chris Matthews when interviewing Senator Rockefeller. He's (Rockefeller) a pretty big boy and I think he's perfectly capable of dealing with this cabal ... if he chooses.

[neuvocat]

35. This is what happens when you're losing the war.

Blame someone else for your failures.

[peterh]

39. There’s not a damn thing that comes out of DC that isn’t politicized

to some extent. Hey, that’s why it’s called Politics.

It strikes me as all to convenient that this memo shows up after Roberts got bitchslapped by the WH Sunday after saying they were they were ready to cooperate….just way too convenient. In any probe, there’s going to be some political gain and damage….everyone knows that going in.

What’s not included in the NewsMax article is a quote from Sen. Jon Corzine, D-N.J.:
Saying…the memo is not the real issue. "The real issue is what led to decisions that don't match with what the reality is that we've come to find on the ground in Iraq,"


Thus the Dems should throw the ball back in Robert’s court and ask…is the WH going to continue to obstruct because we can get very political on that issue…

[Judi Lynn]

41. Pat's trying to distract people from his smooth move blowing up

when he told us last Friday that the _pResident will be handing over ALL of the requested 9/11 materials, and was forced to recant only yesterday, and timidly admit that they would possibly be coughing up a few items, maybe, sometime................

Pat is a lying liar, and a big embarrassment, among many,to the large rectangular state of Kansas.

[54anickel]

42. CNN poll on this right now

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/

What is your reaction to the Democratic memo seeking to politicize the pre-war intelligence issue?

Outrage = 88 votes 5%
Politics as usual = 1526 votes 95%

[jayfish]

64. What A Crock Of Shit. Thats The "Librul" Media For You.

"Politics as usual" implies that the criticism is avalid, Democrats do this all of the time and it's to be expected. Should have read.

Outrage
Republican Politics as usual
Politics As Usual From The Democrats

Jay

[lumpy]

44. If this memo is valid or not.

Sounds like a darned good idea to investigate intelligence info. Sounds like a tempest in a piss-pot.

[trapper914]

80. Irony

Since much of the committee's work revolves around the Niger claim, it wouldn't surprise me if, yet again, the Republicans are being strung along by a forged document.

[TacticalPeek]

47. "Yesterday's news"

The drift of this was on the table two weeks ago, when Senator Rockefeller brought our attention to the committee's 'Rule Six', which allows the intel committee dems to mount their own independent investigation.


The Hill

Dems weighing Iraq probe
Minority on Senate Intelligence panel discuss acting alone
By Alexander Bolton

snip

But the Democrats insist that the committee’s 1976 organizing resolution grants it jurisdiction over all “the intelligence activities and programs of the U.S. government.”

Roberts said a separate investigation by Democrats would “set a unique and unfortunate precedent for the committee.” But he acknowledged that “our committee rules are such that the vice chairman has unique jurisdiction and authority.”

In addition to launching investigations and issuing subpoenas, the Democratic vice chairman can preside over the committee, hold meetings without the presence of a majority member of the committee and authorize witness interrogation by committee staff.

But even with his unique power as the top Democrat on the committee, Rockefeller has been hesitant to defy Roberts, whom he regards as a friend.

snip

http://www.thehill.com/news/102903/probe.aspx


I'd say that if Roberts wants to have any chance to continue his foot-dragging coverup of aWol, he'd better make nice-nice with Rockefeller damn fast.

Guess Hammity missed this expose of the 'treasonous' dems, who refuse to deny that they oppose the president's reelection.

Or maybe two weeks ago it was too risky for the R's to jump in the mud pit, but now they need some fodder for subject-changing and must take their chances.

Blows up in their face?

[Justice]

52. Came Out With It Today to Blunt News That Failed To Avert War

Republicans had to come out with something to blunt the stories they had the chance to avert war in Iraq but failed to do so.

[snippy]

51. Someday, someone in the democratic party will have to stand up

to the republican accusations of supporting terrorism and compromising the war in Iraq. This has been the republican political tactic since 2002 and it has been effective.

[metisnation]

53. Sean Insantiy

has as much credibility as the Enquirer, in fact probably less. What next Sean?? Bigfoot is a democrat?

:kick:

[Snellius]

57. They have.

.

[snippy]

81. When and where did that occur?

It needs to be done at a time and place and in a manner that it creates news. And it needs to be memorable. Doing it in the privacy of a democratic party debate is useless.

[1songbird]

85. "What I don't understand is why are they so afraid of standing up."

If a democratic senator takes a stand against Bush and his wacked out policies do they actually believe that their constituents will vote them out? We as DUers should start an email writing campaign to Rockefeller and others that take stands and show them that they have democratic support.

[Gman]

56. This story is 24 hours old and still has no legs

I doubt it will... The "horror" is that politics is being played in D.C.

[0rganism]

59. Don't misunderestimate their ability to make a nothing story linger on

A brief retrospective of the Clinton years (pick a no-legs scandal, any no-legs scandal) should remind you of the persistence, audacity, and utter scumminess with which the right-wing media whores operate when they're out to score a smear.

[54anickel]

67. Transcript of Rockefeller on CNN Lou Dobbs

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0311/05/ldt.00.html

(Have to sift thru the transcript to near the end of the show.)

DOBBS: It was -- we have said the press here as well a leak. We should give credit to Sean Hannity at Fox, to whom it was leaked.
Do you disavow the thrust of this memo? Do you disavow...

ROCKEFELLER: I disavow nothing. I mean, you know, the thrust of the option informal draft memo, which went to nobody, the three people who wrote it and myself for whom they work, reflects frustration that I have and that other members on my side of the committee and maybe on the other side of the committee that we're not doing a full investigation. And that is that we have to not only look at intelligence itself, was it adequate, did it lead us to where we wanted to go, why was it that all of a sudden atomic activity, nuclear activity went from sort of dormant to reconstituted? How did that happen? We have to look at that.

But then we also have to look at, how is that intelligence taken by the executive branch of government? How is it used? Was it manipulated? Was it shaped? And we need to know those things. I don't start out with any preconceptions that it was shaped, but we need to know that.

[iam]

70. Pretext

This is pretext for denying Democrats access to information regarding bush's* lies and massive politicization of pre-war intel by the bush* admin. The conservatives know the plame subversion is grounds for impeachment, removal from office and jail for bush and many in his admin. This is could be armageddon for conservatives and they will not allow it without burning down Congress first.

[Stephanie]

74. What about charges against republicans for robbing Rockefeller's garbage

Doesn't this fall in the category of dirty tricks? And is it legal to pick documents out of a Senator's garbage can? Let's add this charge to the Plame-outting charge. Rove, Bush & Cheney have a lot of 'splaining to do.

[KoKo]

75. They really are getting uppity messing with a Rockefeller, don't these

boys realize who they're challenging? Unbelievable.

[shance]

76. Hannity is accusing someone of exposing secrets?

Are they true?

Maybe I need to go back and read again. This sounds too nutty for words.....

Knock yourself out there Sean***

:)

[kentuck]

78. This about summarizes it...

<snip>
"SUMMARY: Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war.

"The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives."

===================================================================

If they want to stonewall and protect this WH, then we will investigate on our own. If they want to portray that as somehow assisting the enemy, then let them. We will not sit idly by as the American people are lied to and watch this majority and this White House cover up for this ill-conceived adventure that kills more and more of our troops each and every day. They are put on notice. Help us get to the truth or we will do it ourselves. And Sean Hannity can continue to spread as much smut and lies as he wishes. We will not be deterred.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

83. This is HUGE

I missed this item yesterday but it definitely has the makings of a HUGE smear againstthe Dems as the scumlicans try to 'out-patriot' us.

Here's some items from the RW on how they are trying to spin this:

TREASON'S FIRST COUSIN - NY POST Ed.

Democrats Caught in Apparent Hypocrisy on Intelligence Politics- Crosswalk

The fuckers are trying to fuck us again.

[wabeewoman]

84. Yes, I saw the democrats hypocracy on google

news this am. How do you fight this type of stuff?? They muddy the waters so by accusing the dems of the stuff they are doing. I CAN'T believe the hypocracy word is used on the democrats when bush is at the expert level of hypocracy.

[BuckeFushe]

88. Saxby Chambliss said all the right things, what the others haven't

"If a staffer brought the memo to me unsolicited, he would be fired. Chairman Roberts is committed to following the evidence wherever it leads, even to the White House."

Saxby Chambliss

[banana republican]

89. gee whiz

and all they have to do to solve the problem is to release the documents....