Should the Dems have sign on to the CIA report?

[wurzel]

The report blames the CIA almost exclusively for the "mis-information" that lead to the war. The report also claims the CIA analysts were not pressured into the findings they made. Both of the these are lies. What possible excuse is there for Rockefeller and the rest for giving the Republicans the gift of a "unanimously approved report"?

[David Dunham]

1. The Senate Dems are really politically inept.

[Frodo]

2. Sure. IF it's true.

That's what we hired them for. If they're convinced of the facts they should be willing to put their names on it. If they're signing on to lies they need to be told about it.

[tom_paine]

3. No excuse, if true

Unsurprising, if true.

[wurzel]

4. The Dem's themselves say it is true.

I hear the Democratic members of that committee now complaining. They were not allowed to investigate the use by the administration of the CIA intelligence. Thus leaving the CIA with the total blame at least till the election. I've heard Rockefeller complain that the term "pressure" was far too narrowly defined by Roberts. Which it indubitably was. Yet they all signed onto it any way, claiming there were so many "good things" in this report.

[tom_paine]

7. Got a link?

[wurzel]

8. No. They said this during network programs like Tim Russert's.

See Texassissy response to thread. I don't know if any of this is in print. And don't have the expertise to provide "a link" if it was. Have you never heard these complaints by Rockerfeller? I thought the Dems were very loud and clear about it. After they signed the reports anyway!

[TexasSissy]

5. Part 2 of the report is yet to be done-it will deal with how the W.H. used

or misused the incorrect information. So that issue is not even covered in Part 1.

Rockefeller has gone on record as saying that he disagrees with the conclusion of Part 1 that the CIA was not pressured by the W.H. He agrees with the conclusion based on the definition that the committee chose for "pressure." But he disagrees with that narrow definition. He also cited that CIA Director Tenet had referred to relieving the "pressure" of his agents in formulating statements about the WMD or something.

Rockefeller also stated publicly (I saw Roberts & Rockefeller on c-span at a press conference about the report, as well as on Meet the Press this past Sunday) that he thinks the WH misused the incorrect information, after pressuring the CIA to give that incorrect information. So I'm hoping that Rockefeller will stand firm in his resolve in Part 2 of the report, IF the facts they uncover support his position. He will, of course, not continue to back his feelings on this topic, if they uncover evidence to the contrary.

[wurzel]

6. Then why did he sign the report? Dems are plain spineless.

Which they call "being responsible". That is why even when they get power the only thing good about it is that things get worse more slowly.

[TexasSissy]

9. Good question. I haven't read the report. Does it indicate that some

committee members disagreed with the definition of "pressure"?

Under the narrowly defined "pressure," Rockefeller agreed that there was no evidence of it. But "pressure" was defined as an overt statement of something like, "We want you to say (such and such." Rockefeller says that political pressure doesn't happen that overtly. So......I don't know.

[HFishbine]

11. Ummm

Have you noticed who's running for president? It helps everyone concerned to place blame on the CIA.

[Demoiselle]

12. He signed on to get the first info out there...

He has made it clear with every appearance/interview that there's more to be told, and that they are indeed exploring the administration's misuse of the bad intel. But he's gotten a lot of stuff out there NOW that's turning people very skeptical about official "truths" NOW. Should he have let it all stay under wraps until after the election? Please try to remember that the Repukes control that committee and the Dems may not have had the option of letting only half the findings come out without signing on to it.

[wurzel]

13. But the result is that most people hold the CIA to blame!

How does that help the Dems when the CIA chief was a Dem? Bush and Cheney are now totally off the hook till after the election. Most of this so called report was in the public domain anyway if the Dems had cared to look.

[TexasSissy]

15. But the CIA DID screw up, as far as I can tell.

At the hearings it was brought out, for example, during questioning of Tenet, that the FBI agent who discovered Massoud (or whatever his name) taking flight lessons, paying in cash, etc., was so concerned about it that he didn't follow policy in reporting it....he reported it directly to Tenet himself. Tenet then failed to tell anyone in the administration, despite doing two reports on terrorism after that time, and even attending a meeting w/some administration staff on terrorism. Unlike the FBI agent, Tenet failed to see what mom and pop in Peoria would've seen....Massoud was a terrorist up to no good. A fatal error.

But the failure of the intelligence doesn't let *'s administration off the hook. They didn't press the CIA on the sources, and it seems they exaggerated the significance of the intelligence and the sources. All they cared about, it seems, is that they get some intelligence that fit their goal of bombing Iraq.

[mede8er]

10. As true statesmen.......

they deigned not to block this report...with the caveat that another would follow.....

[wurzel]

14. Yes these "statesmen" are responsible for the state we're in.