LA Times: Classified WMD reports altered -- why were Dems silent?

[hansolsen]

Fellow bloggers: Today's LA Times looks deeper into the Senate Report on the pre war intelligence and shows us that the caveats, qualifications, and contradictions contained in the original classified CIA reports on WMD in Iraq, were deleted, toned down, scrubbed out, and sanitized for the unclassified version released to the American people. This was done widely and on the most important issues related to these supposed weapons. See article below.

Here is my question: Why didn't the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate, particularly those sitting on the Intelligence committees, inform the public that the caveats were missing. Why didn't they tell us the reports contained contradictions and conflicting intelligence, and weak support??

In particular why didn't John Kerry tell us? Didn't he read the classified reports?? Did his staff read the classified reports, and fail to inform our ace Senator on the Intelligence Committtee?? Why was Kerry willing to act on the unclassified, public version of the CIA analysis, when he knew or should have known the underlying reports told a different story?

I want to know.

************************

Here is the link, and a few grafs from today's story:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=3&u=/latimests/20040710/ts_latimes/keyrevisionsweremadetociadocument

Key Revisions Were Made to CIA Document
By Mark Mazzetti Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — In a classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared before the Iraq ( - ) war, the CIA ( - ) hedged its judgments about Saddam Hussein ( - ) and weapons of mass destruction, pointing up the limits of its knowledge.

But in the unclassified version of the NIE — the so-called white paper cited by the Bush administration in making its case for war — those carefully qualified conclusions were turned into blunt assertions of fact, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on prewar intelligence.

The repeated elimination of qualifying language and dissenting assessments of some of the government's most knowledgeable experts gave the public an inaccurate impression of what the U.S. intelligence community believed about the threat Hussein posed to the United States, the committee said.

Dedicating a section of its 511-page report to discrepancies between the two versions of the crucial October 2002 NIE, the panel laid out numerous instances in which the unclassified version omitted key dissenting opinions about Iraqi weapons capabilities, overstated U.S. knowledge about Iraq's alleged stockpiles of weapons and, in one case, inserted threatening language into the public document that was not contained in the classified version.

"The intelligence community's elimination of the caveats from the unclassified white paper misrepresented their judgments to the public, which did not have access to the classified National Intelligence Estimate containing the more carefully worded assessments," the Senate panel's report concluded.

"The fact that the NIE changed so dramatically from its classified to its unclassified form and broke all in one direction, toward a more dangerous scenario … I think was highly significant," the committee's vice chairman, Sen. John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), said Friday.
***************snip

But the Senate committee's sharpest criticism of the unclassified document focused not on changes made in haste but on the systematic alteration of the classified version.
For example, the panel cited changes made in the section of the NIE dealing with chemical weapons:
"*******************snip

The Senate report also noted one instance in which a dissenting view was left out of the unclassified version.
***********snip

The committee's report describes not just sins of omission, but of addition.
*********snip

During a briefing before the report was released, one committee aide said the Senate panel had asked Tenet and Stu Cohen — who, as acting chairman of the National Intelligence Council, oversaw production of the NIE — who was responsible for inserting those words into the unclassified document.

"They did not know and could not explain," said the aide, speaking on condition of anonymity.
A similar degree of mystery surrounds the larger question of exactly how the classified NIE morphed into its unclassified version.
************snip

One such difference, the committee reported, is that the classified version presented intelligence findings as assessments — usually beginning with the words "we assess that" — whereas the white paper omitted those words and stated the assessments as facts.
"We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, GF and VX," the classified NIE read, according to the Senate report.

The unclassified white paper read, "Baghdad has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, cyclosarin and VX."

According to the intelligence committee report, staffers asked intelligence officials why words like "we judge" and "we assess" were removed during the declassification process.
They were told that, because officials believed the white paper would be made public as representing the view of the entire U.S. government, not simply an intelligence community product, it was more appropriate to take references to "we" out of the document. This was done, committee staffers were told, "purely for stylistic reasons."

So I ask again -- why were the Dems leaders in the Congress silent about this at the time. Surely they knew.

[still_one]

1. You are correct

I will still vote for Kerry, but will then change my party from Democratic to non-partisian.

After the Democrats in Congress gave the Nazi Neo-cons a free pass to almost everything, i.e., medicare, patriot act extension, appointment of racist judges, and even permission to the administration to declare war against Iraq without Congressional approval shows what incompentence they are. There are very few "Profiles in Courage" in this group of clowns...

Because of this crap, Afganistan is screwed, osama bin laden, mulluough omar, and al queada are a bigger threat then ever...

[hansolsen]

2. Yes, it is so clear, and the only question I have left is why?

What are they so afraid of? What price would they have paid for calling Bush on his lies? Who on the Democratic side wanted those lies to stand? Who on the Democratic side wanted this war in Iraq? Why is it exactly, who really wants those permanent bases in Iraq??

Hmmmm? Gee, who could it be???

[PassingFair]

12. Do the words

World Com, Enron and Raptors ring any bells? The dems are compromised.

[still_one]

16. What is funny is they think it will help them retain power

when in fact it only makes their position weaker...

[Zorra]

65. Dennis Kucinich said in 2002: No Credible Evidence

Bu$h and the rest of the fucking neocons were not listening to, and the media was not printing or broadcasting what Democrats and others were saying.

Here is an example of what DEMOCRATS were saying:

November 2002
The Bloodstained Path
by Dennis Kucinich

Unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted, and illegal. The Administration has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda. Nor is there any credible evidence that Iraq possesses deliverable weapons of mass destruction, or that it intends to deliver them against the United States.

We know that each day the Administration receives a daily threat assessment. But Iraq is not an imminent threat to this nation. Forty million Americans suffering from inadequate health care is an imminent threat. The high cost of prescription drugs is an imminent threat. The ravages of unemployment is an imminent threat. The slowdown of the economy is an imminent threat, and so, too, the devastating effects of corporate fraud.

America cannot and should not be the world's policeman. America cannot and should not try to pick the leaders of other nations. Nor should America and the American people be pressed into the service of international oil interests and arms dealers.

If the United States proceeds with a first strike policy, then we will have taken upon our nation a historic burden of committing a violation of international law, and we would then forfeit any moral high ground we could hope to hold.

http://www.progressive.org/nov02/kuc1102.html

A chronology of how the Bush Administration repeatedly and deliberately refused to listen to intelligence agencies that said its case for war was weak

SEPTEMBER 20, 2002 – DEPT. OF ENERGY TELLS WHITE HOUSE OF NUKE DOUBTS: "Doubts about the quality of some of the evidence that the United States is using to make its case that Iraq is trying to build a nuclear bomb emerged Thursday. While National Security Adviser Condi Rice stated on 9/8 that imported aluminum tubes ‘are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs’ a growing number of experts say that the administration has not presented convincing evidence that the tubes were intended for use in uranium enrichment rather than for artillery rocket tubes or other uses. Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright said he found significant disagreement among scientists within the Department of Energy and other agencies about the certainty of the evidence."

OCTOBER 2002 – CIA DIRECTLY WARNS WHITE HOUSE: "The CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa."

OCTOBER 2002 — STATE DEPT. WARNS WHITE HOUSE ON NUKE CHARGES: The State Department’s Intelligence and Research Department dissented from the conclusion in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD capabilities that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. "The activities we have detected do not ... add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons." INR accepted the judgment by Energy Department technical experts that aluminum tubes Iraq was seeking to acquire, which was the central basis for the conclusion that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, were ill-suited to build centrifuges for enriching uranium.

OCTOBER 2002 – AIR FORCE WARNS WHITE HOUSE: "The government organization most knowledgeable about the United States' UAV program -- the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center -- had sharply disputed the notion that Iraq's UAVs were being designed as attack weapons" – a WMD claim President Bush used in his October 7 speech on Iraqi WMD, just three days before the congressional vote authorizing the president to use force.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24889

[hansolsen]

31. Why did Washington Post and NYTimes support the war?

My view is that a deep swath of Democratic and liberal deep thinkers began to see Shrub's war plans as a way to liberate Israel. Once that bridge was crossed and great liberal institutions like the WP and NYT started to get behind the WMD lies, it was near impossible for any serious presidential candidate to buck the Israeli lobby in their own party.

It turned out this war will make things much worse for Israel, but that is another matter.

[hang a left]

41. How so?

'It turned out this war will make things much worse for Israel, but that is another matter.'


Israel has always done exactly what it has wanted to do.

[Pathwalker]

32. Yeah, it's not like they got anthrax laced mail, or

anything like that, huh? Let me guess - you're not afraid of anthrax. I also read that the freeptards regularly threaten Daschle's family, Leahy gets those threats too. I mean who is really scared of something like that - certainly no HUMAN...



:eyes:

[hansolsen]

35. Not sure I follow you?

What does anthrax threat have to do with Saddam Hussein? Only evidence of biological weapons in Iraq came from a guy nick named "Curveball", who the CIA knew was a nut case and relative of Amad Chalabi.

Any Dem leader in Congress surely knew Iraq biological weapon threat was nothing to worry about.

[Pathwalker]

36. You asked WHY were they afraid. I think all those things

played into their fear. News reports over the last four years show that this badministration has threatened MANY people; even Dan Rather said that anyone speaking out ran the risk of being "necklaced" by the Bushits. That's where they stick a tire on your neck, fill it with gasoline and light it. Look what they did to Max Cleland - accused him of being Saddam's SUPPORTER. Just look what they've done to ANYONE who's publicly criticised them - and look what people have said goes on BEHIND the scenes. They're even nastier when they think no one will speak out. Then, there's the fact(?) that many of them actually believed the bad intelligence - why I don't know - but they did.

[hang a left]

42. Lots of questionable behavior in Congress for almost 4 years.

Why wouldn't one single senator sign on with the Black Caucus regarding the disenchanfrisment (sp?) of voters in Florida?

[bemildred]

46. The classic example.

If that was not the time for a "Constitutional Crisis" then
when will it be time?

[Pathwalker]

50. AFAIAC, that WAS the Constitutional crisis.

Since then, the Constitution has been shredded by the UnPatriot Act. We're already into the POST-Constitutional era. I don't think we get it back without a civil war. Besides, how many congress critters are aware of the so-called civil war going on between the Bushits and the CIA?Military, and if they are, wouldn't it just be prudent of them to stay back, out of the line of fire?

[bemildred]

52. Not wanting to pick a fight, but

I prefer to say there was no crisis, the dog that didn't bark sort
of thing. The Constitution has often been defied, it is easy to
point to current and past "law" that violates the plain English
meaning of the founding documents, the "Patriot Act" is merely a
recent example. Wilson and the prick AG he had (Palmer?) did things
every bit as bad and worse than Shrub and Asscrack during WWI.

My point is that there was a mass failure to perform the Congress'
sworn Constitutional duty in the selection. Whether or not we need
another Civil War remains to be seen. It is not a far-fetched idea,
but similar crises have been resolved without such measures too.

[Pathwalker]

56. No fighting here, Bemildred, but do you have any ideas

how we might resolve this without it coming to civil war? And I just want to add that I am total agreement with your views on the selection - it was hard to watch that day through all the tears. Plus I had a hard time hearing because some crazy woman kept shouting for SOME Senator to grow a spine. Oh wait - that was me...never mind. ;-)

[bemildred]

63. Congress is the key. Congress has the power.

Making it one-party helps, it removes the Congress' excuses.
A mass house-cleaning is even better. President's have a lot of
power, but it is all discretionary, delegated, witness what they
did to Clinton. Congress has the power to impeach and/or remove
anybody.

Grass-roots activity weakens national party power and moves
it down, that's why they hate real unions for example, it's
not the money. It's why they hate small farms and small businesses,
they are independent and self-sufficient. Employees can be
bullied.

I like Dean's "Democracy For America" because it focusses on
grass-roots organizing.

If the American people don't want to be ruled by the oligarchy
they will have to take up the job themselves. That's how a
democratic republic is supposed to work.

We forced a lot of change in the sixties and seventies with street
level activity and outsider and third party political runs, and
we can do it again.

[hang a left]

67. The people need to know that we are being ruled by the oligarchy.

And sadly, they dont. Witness it right here.


What if you had a civil war and nobody came?

[bemildred]

70. It's a problem.

Fear and hunger will wake them up though, just watch.
There is no animal more dangerous than a socker-mom who
can't find enough gas for her Excursion(tm). I remember
people getting shot in gas lines for trying to cut in 35
years ago. Those days are coming again, stagflation and
the oil shock and all that.

[Pathwalker]

73. I don't think most people even know the word oligarchy,

much less what it means. And I'm more afraid of the husbands of those soccor moms - they're more heavily armed. Ah yes, the return to the '70's - I remember it well. Glad I have my little van, instead of those SUVs. Having a husband who knows how to 'tweak' a carb. to get better mileage doesn't hurt either. Also, growing open-pollinated foods, keeping the bikes in working order, ordering solar cells and such. Some of us WILL be prepared. Still, we can never underestimate the damage 150 million below average people can do...

[bemildred]

83. So, Ummm, what did you think of Janet Jackson's tit, anyway?

I have this vision of hunter-gatherer tribes all over the world,
the few that are left, being hunted down and forced to try to
teach all the rich, incompetent first world types how to feed
themselves. Should we pay them exorbitant consulting fees to get
them hooked on money, or just enslave them right off?

[Pathwalker]

85. I thought it was a big yawn. So she showed a baby milk factory -

should we bomb it? Besides, I have two of my own, and they're much more impressive - and they work! But, I just don't understand the facination with what are essentially udders.
As for your question; I believe the term in America for the hunter-gatherers are FARMERS. Those who have waited until now to learn how to grow food are in trouble. For those who can read, an illustrated Herbalist Bible, plus a weed identification book would be the first thing a city dweller might look to for help. I have this vision of city children coming to farms and asking where they grow the milk. For now, there are plenty of places that sell open-pollinated seeds - sorry, you can't grow meat from seed. Any rich, incompetent first world types are on their own.

I love the thought of taking back Congress, but how do we achieve that if there are no elections?

[bemildred]

86. Yawn is right.

Although they do have a certain utility as you point out.
Cheaper and better than the crap they sell in the stores.

I've been learning to garden these last two years. I've been
growing a lot of volunteers from the seeds or vegetables we bought,
potato peelings, and so on. A long way from feeding ourselves,
but maybe it will take longer to starve. You are right that
knowing what you can eat goes a long way too, depending on where
you live.

Zoning does not permit chickens and goats, but maybe
in a year of two. I think cows are too much trouble. I've read
rabbits are good if you can get over their being cute. With
chickens and goats you get multi-purpose functionality and
relatively low maintenance.

Edit: if they cancel elections all the peaceful options are off
the table. It is interesting that they are even trying to float
the idea now, it indicates a level of desperation about the
expected outcome of the elections. It is, of course, a ridiculous
idea. Cancelling the elections because of an attack would "let the
terrorists win".

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pathwalker]

62. Sterling, that is a CHENYING INSULT!!!!!

Yeah, since I come from a family with THREE GENERATIONS of MILITARY WAR SERVICE to this nation - I have no Chenying idea what DUTY to my country represents!!!! How you can turn around my simply trying to explain why SOME Senators might be afraid into calling ME a coward is DISGUSTING!!!
My family has shed blood for this nation on THREE continents, and my eldest son has the Army begging him to return to service - even though his bones are MELTING thanks to DEPLETED URANIUM -and I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT DUTY TO MY COUNTRY REPRESENTS???????? BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Warpy]

4. I'm voting against all incumbents

period. I don't think too many of those old ladies in pants on the Democratic side of the aisle deserve to be returned to office, the glaring exceptions being Pelosi, Kennedy, and Byrd. Certainly the lockstep goose-stepping Repuglicans deserve to go, and probably half of them deserve to be thrown into prison.

Oh, I'll vote for Kerry. I think the whole lot of them were bulldozed over the Iraq WMD thing to the tune of "Who are you going to believe, hundreds of CIA agents or two weapons inspectors?" Those old boys are only as good as the information they're getting. You and I listened to the two guys who were on the ground; they listened to a barrage of disinformation from the Pentagon's intelligence offices funneled through both Clinton and Bush. I sincerely doubt many of the CIA's caveats got through, and I know the OSP had no reservations about lying us into Iraq.

What he does in office will determine whether or not Kerry is another incumbent I'll vote out of office, though.

[hang a left]

6. That is just too hard to swallow.

'You and I listened to the two guys who were on the ground; they listened to a barrage of disinformation from the Pentagon's intelligence offices funneled through both Clinton and Bush.'

Don't tell me they were snowballed, that dog don't hunt.

[Sterling]

55. Yes this is the last free ride the DNC gets from me as well.

After 2004 it's put up or shut up.

[HFishbine]

74. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice

and 2004 is your very last chance. I mean it this time. No, really. Your absolute last chance. Really.

[hang a left]

3. The questions you pose have always bothered me as well.

Certainly the entire Senate knew. Not just about the NIE, but the inconsistencies in the official 9-11 story. I have spent hours thinking about this collusion. Why? Indeed. The conclusions I have reached is one, they are in on it. And something else has been haunting me for several weeks; it is a quote I read a while back, I believe it was a from a Senator back in the 1950's (?) I am paraphrazing here, but it goes something like " there are men so powerful, none dare even speak their names." Maybe someone can help me out here. Anyway....I think I have arrived at the estimation that Congress is told what to do, by whomever these men are, and they do it.

edited for clarity.

[bemildred]

5. "why were Dems silent?"

Because they are all in cahoots, their "opposition" to Shrub
is fake. If it walks like a duck and quacks, it's a duck.

I'm with the guy who is voting against incumbents. The more of
these fuckers we replace, the better the message will be heard.

[Karenina]

34. I'm certain Sibel Edmonds

could shed some light on this burning question. ;-)

[bemildred]

40. One of many, she is.

We don't pay these bozos to engage in far-fetched political
maneuvers, we pay them to REPRESENT US and to GOVERN WELL and
to SPEAK UP for the truth. If they don't want the job it's time
to replace them. "No more political bullshit". There is a
bumper sticker for you.

[hang a left]

43. Here, here. n/t

[shanti]

66. i agree

the only incumbent that i will vote for is barbara boxer. but you'd best believe that i'm watching her like a hawk too!

[bemildred]

68. I second that amigo.

Barbara still gets my vote. She's the only one.

[Cocoa]

7. why do you say "surely they knew?"

presumably they did NOT know, thus the need for the investigation, of which this revelation is a result.

[hang a left]

10. No disrespect intended, just disagreement. That is naive thinking, IMHO.

Don't tell me the Senator's on the Intelligence Committee didn't have the inside track with their advisors, snoops, and spys.

[Cocoa]

14. well then that disagrees with the cited article

you can believe that, but the article which is quoted extensively does not support that contention, in fact it contradicts it.

Which confused me.

:shrug:

[hang a left]

45. I don't believe a word they say.

They basically have condemned the CIA as the major culprit. Now they are on to phase 2 of the invesigation. Yeah right. :eyes:

[madfloridian]

28. Bob Graham knew, why didn't the GOP chair of intelligence.

He was the Democratic chair of intelligence. He knew before the war, he voted against it, he said it was wrong. They knew.

[hang a left]

47. They ALL knew.

Why is that so hard for us to come to grips with. You have to WANT to believe that they did not know, for whatever your reasons are. Perhaps to not have to give up hope.

[CANDO]

8. There are far too many Democrats who are on record.....

as believing that Iraq had WMD's including most if not all important persons from the Clinton Administration including Bill himself. They know they will be blown out of the water as hypocrites if they speak up now. They remain silent just hoping it all gets heaped on * and Republicans.

[niceypoo]

26. Bill Clintons belief wasnt based on Bushes cooked intel

it was based on 1998 intel.....5 year old information.

[Cerridwen]

9. To give them enough rope?

"why were the Dems leaders in the Congress silent about this at the time. Surely they knew."

Perhaps the Democrats knew they had no power to halt the machinery of the neocon march to war? And so they stood back and let the machinery roll along taking many neocon careers with it. Maybe, just maybe, there will eventually be enough outrage at what happened that the general U.S. public will begin to see the "vast right wing conspiracy" they once believed so laughable.

Or perhaps they too, were duped into believing what we were all told; though I doubt that, since I didn't believe it I'm sure more seasoned politicians knew it was a crock of excrement, as well.

[hang a left]

17. I have also thought this as well.

I remember in the build up to the war thinking; "they are gonna let them self-destruct." But these thoughts have been tossed for my current ones.


Does anyone else but me think that all this clarity that Congress and the mainstream press are having is strange? Something doesn't sit well with me, but, nothing makes sense to me anymore.

[Athame]

24. It's the oil

Congress and business all know that the world is in a Peak Oil situation. They knew about the pipeline deals in Afghanistan, but said nothing about that in the lead-up to the first "war" and let it be understood that it was an invasion to catch Osama. They also knew that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD, or they would not have allowed the US to invade Iraq. What they are not saying is that they understand we need the positioning in Iraq in order to maintain our "national security interests" in the coming oil wars. This is just the beginning, folks.

I also believe that is why Kerry joined the admin against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. We are simply laying the foundation for the (near) future, when diplomacy will be entirely dead and might is all that matters.

[Geo55]

82. Agreed......

We all can debate and play politics , but the folks in power (not just US ,(think globally)...ALL have their eye nervously focused on the life blood of EVERY industrial nation.
None of them would dare lay the truth on the table.
None of them have a alternative answer.

I believe the coming dislocations will be dealt with by force over intelligence.
The national morality that our allies displayed in refusing to join in on our controlling strike will disappear....ours largely has.

The true motivations of industrial nations will not be amendable to political window dressing in the near future.

Survival is instinct #1 , and the thin veneer of civil morality is the 1st casualty.

[demodewd]

87. yup

yup

[tlcandie]

72. Maybe it's what they are all NOT saying that is the problem...

Example: Cynthia McKinney did not shut up and got shot down.

Example: Florida and recount denied...USSC

There is something floating underneath all this chaotic chatter between the two parties regarding all this mess that is never mentioned, but felt and sensed which filters/alters their actions in lieu of what their conscious would tell them it appears to me.

There could be multiple reasons for people not voting their conscious or standing up against tyranny and treason. IMO, labeling them cowards is the easy way out and doesn't actually accomplish anything. (Not saying you called them this.) I don't know that we will ever know the full extent of all that happens in our country that would affect men/women so that their hearts would be hardened against what seems right in the eyes of its people.

Example:
Some people have mentioned that Colin Powell has a conscious and has been the voice of reason in this administration and didn't leave because there would be no voice of reason if he left. Some say this is the harder choice...a gray choice rather than a black and white choice.

Personally, I believe this country has been walking towards this end for a long time now. For many years the US has operated at/around the line of integrity (some up/down-back/forth in and around that line), but essentially it was seen as more good than bad so it was accepted, overall, both nationally and foreign.

Further, it is my belief that this Badmimistration took what had been tossed around and/or allowed to become operational over the years, to the extreme and showed/mirrored back to us exactly what an ugly beast had been created in lieu of the democracy we had thought we were living under when the writers of the constitution founded this country.

At this moment in time, I think many people are having a hard time reckoning their hearts with their minds about ALL that has been unveiled and the extent to which it has tainted/tarnished the US, its government and its people, as well as affecting the world.

It's easy to point the finger at just one person or one administration, especially if that is this Badministration because they are so rotten to the core. Again, IMO, we didn't get here over night. It has been an evolving courtship that happened little by little under our noses. The stink was uncomfortable, but never horrible or foul enough for the people to rebel against the beast that was being coddled by ill-intentioned people.

So, what does the future hold for the US? Will this ugly beast be given a proper death or will it go into hiding and go underground, again, awaiting another proper time to rear its foul, ugly head? Will the people call for a cleasning of its government or will they be happy with just another president?

IMO, electing another president is like putting lipstick on a pig. (I'm all for Kerry/Edwards here and not knocking them, k?) Exactly how much can one man/one administration do to change/repair the horrible atrocities that have occured both nationally and foreign in our names? What all this mess has shown us is that there is a LOT in this country that needs to be changed/revamped/reworked. I'm not sure that even two terms would allow it to be thoroughly revamped.

It seems to me the US has to address the beast...the underlying issues that are allowed to sit just under the surface. Exactly what THAT is isn't very clear. I can think of a few things that I'm not happy with which I would like to see changed. For me it all boils down to one thing...

Treat ALL living beings...humans, animals, flora/fauna, the earth and her resources with respect, honor, and dignity. Remember that each living being is connected to the other and that without each other we would cease to exist.

We must stop operating out of fear and do away with the veil of secrecy that allows ill-intentioned people to covertly undermine the people of the US and the world. I do believe it is a grassroots effort and only that which will bring about this change. What is the common denominator that could bind all people together to bring about this monumental change? If that answer could be found the question that remains is: Are the people up to it?

Just my 2 cents! Sorry for the long ramble.

EDITED: typos/grammar

[hang a left]

84. Excellent ramble.

I was getting ready to comment on your post when we went down. I am just getting back to it now.

"So, what does the future hold for the US? Will this ugly beast be given a proper death or will it go into hiding and go underground, again, awaiting another proper time to rear its foul, ugly head? Will the people call for a cleasning of its government or will they be happy with just another president?"


From your lips to the People's ears.

[leesa]

27. But they are still not stopping it, and they are still saying it was right

[mike_c]

33. that logic is seriously flawed....

Imagine the following scenario: ten of your neighbors plot to kill someone on your street, say because of the victim's race or sexual orientation. It all happens quickly-- you're in the car and enroute to the murder before you can call the cops, they're not letting you out for obvious reasons, and most importantly, there's nothing you can do to stop the crime. What do you do?

a) Shout "hell yes, let's kill the bastard" and "I'll hold him down" because otherwise you'll be perceived as ideologically weak?

b) Offer qualified support-- but support nonetheless-- in hopes that your neighbors' misdeeds will ultimately catch up with them and you won't be too badly painted by the same brush? This is the logic you've proposed.

c) Do the right thing and refuse to cooperate, even though it means you'll no longer be popular?

The point I'm trying to make is that while moral values are frequently bent in the name of political expediency, there is a limit. Politicians who cross that threshold become perpetrators of the wrong themselves, even if they had no realistic expectation of being able to stop it. In the present case, I believe that EVERYONE who voted "yes" on the IWR is culpable for the disaster in Iraq and its consequences in the ME.

The original post asks a question that all democrats should be asking-- where were our leaders when they had their single opportunity to define their positions in history with regard to the invasion of Iraq? Were they playing to the historical record, or to that night's Faux News reports? Why did they ignore information that we now know they had access to, which qualified even the house of cards built by the Pentagon and the CIA?

on edit: I've said this many times and I'll say it again-- they were not conned-- at least not all of them-- unless they were willingly deceived. The congressional democratic performance during the Bush administration has revealed much about the men and women we've sent to Washington to represent our names in government. They're a venal lot for the most part who'd sell their grandchildren to a lynch mob for political expediency.

[Cerridwen]

39. It wasn't meant to be about logic . . .

It was meant to be about politics and what politicians will do to maintain/reclaim power.

I agree completely with your "on edit" comments. Our political system is not now, nor ever as far as I've been able to tell, about the best interests of "the people." This is just another example of the struggle for power and the horrendous impact it has on the populace.

What would be nice would be the "sudden" realization by the U.S. public at large that our duly elected (yeah, right) officials don't give two figs for what is best for this country and her people if it in any way compromises their careers, money interests, power, etc.

[hang a left]

49. You can say that again.

'The congressional democratic performance during the Bush administration has revealed much about the men and women we've sent to Washington to represent our names in government.'

[AlGore-08.com]

57. Exactly - - excellent post

We voted for these guys to be the leaders of our nation.

To say that they got caught up in the fear of sniper and the anthrax mailings etc. etc. means that they failed their duty. Part of being a public servant is that your life gets threatened, sometimes seriously. Just ask anybody in Oklahoma City about that.

When there was the anthrax scare in the Houses of Congress, Dick Gephardt told the Congressional Dems to leave, but Tom Daschle told the Senate to stay in session, regardless of the personal danger. During 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, Iowa Congressman Leonard Boswell sent his staff home, but he stayed behind in the House building to do his job. If Daschle and Boswell could overcome the fear of imminent death to do their jobs, the rest of them should be able to do so as well. If not, they are not the right people to lead the nation.

[HFishbine]

75. The problem with that theory

is that if they knew the administration was going to get their war anyway, they could have taken a moral stand and still seen the neocons exposed.

[LizW]

11. Sounds like the identity of the people who made the changes

was intentionally hidden from the Congress.

"During a briefing before the report was released, one committee aide said the Senate panel had asked Tenet and Stu Cohen — who, as acting chairman of the National Intelligence Council, oversaw production of the NIE — who was responsible for inserting those words into the unclassified document.

'They did not know and could not explain,' said the aide, speaking on condition of anonymity.

A similar degree of mystery surrounds the larger question of exactly how the classified NIE morphed into its unclassified version."

My money's on the White House Iraq Group, created in August 2002 to sell the American people and the Congress on the Iraq war. The group consists entirely of political operatives and the administration's legislative strong-men. Their mission was to produce white papers that would advance public and Congressional acceptance of the war.

Removing the words "we assess" and "we judge" sounds like something that would be done by a group hell-bent on selling the war, none of whom were in the intelligence community and who didn't understand or didn't care about the significance of those qualifiers.

[creeksneakers2]

13. If anyone had spoken up at the time

The media would have echoed a "he is on Saddam's side and not America's side" attack by the GOP. On top of that, if there did turn out to be WMD, and lots of American boys were killed, whoever said there wasn't WMD wouldn't have a career anymore.

[ClassWarrior]

19. Exactly.

The Dems were steamrolled. After all, the RepubliCONs had - and still have - control of all three branches of government, not to mention the fourth estate. That's no excuse for not standing up to it, but it's at least a reasonable working explanation.

[watrwefitinfor]

30. Steamrollered, yes. But more to it...

Remember back when that vote on giving war powers to pres was taken? It was just before the '02 elections. Remember how Repubs pushed to have it then? Oh, the pressure. Just have to hand the powers to Georgie boy and trust him to do the right thing. And STILL lost election Big Time (where's the justice)?

The other thing that was going on around that time that I never see mentioned was the mania in DC (and on the news shows) over the sniping. There was madness in the air, and no one had time to look closely at Bush or Congress or War. People were getting shot down in the streets. Now that was news.

Wat

[hang a left]

20. You mean.....

if they successfully planted WMD's that they knew weren't there and got away with it? Don't you?

[Redleg]

25. You hit that right on the head.

Anyone who would have said "whoa" to Bush would have been humiliated by the Rethugs and their media shills.

[HFishbine]

77. And God forbid

a politician should put truth before possible humiliation.

[HFishbine]

76. Really?

So it was fear of a GOP attack that dictated their actions? Very brave.

Of course, now that it has turned out that there were no WMD, and lots of American boys and girls were killed, whoever said there were WMDs gets selected as VP nominee. Sickening.

[Mechatanketra]

78. God I hate this kind of straw man.

"The Dems can't talk about a Republican lie because if it turns out the Republicans aren't lying they'll look bad."

Some people seem to think that the Bush administration has magical powers, and if the Democrats bank on the sun rising tomorrow they could be screwed when it doesn't.

[bahrbearian]

15. Pink Tutu's

[Cocoa]

18. think for a minute

forget the "funny" pictures, and ask yourself, is the claim true? Is there any evidence?

Unless those questions are unimportant to you.

:shrug:

[bahrbearian]

23. The Meaning behind Pink Tutu Democrat's is

These Guys Voted IWR ,in fact they voted for most all of Chimpy's Bills and Resolutions. Why would you be surprised by what happened Friday ? Yes I do care whats is being asked. I was looking or someone that knows what Pink Tutu Democrat's are.

[Cocoa]

29. what about the claim that the dems knew before now?

are you going to think critically about that claim, or accept it without evidence, because of your disappointment with their past performance?

Then think back about how that prejudice was formed, was it formed in a similarly unthinking way?

[hang a left]

53. Cocoa, there are people that have thought critically about that claim.

Post 28

Bob Graham knew, why didn't the GOP chair of intelligence.


He was the Democratic chair of intelligence. He knew before the war, he voted against it, he said it was wrong. They knew.



What is your opinion of BBV and it's related conspiracies?

[ewagner]

21. Actually, it's pretty simple

The Repubs hold the majorities in the House and the Senate. Any vote for war was going to be decided in favor of the Administration, and Bush was determined to go to war no matter what. The Democrats, even if they knew the truth, couldn't vote against it (some did, I know) because the patriotic fervor of "Support the Troops" would be overwhelming. They knew it and knew that there was a mid-term election coming up.

Remember why Donahue was taken off of MSNBC before the war?

A very simple business calculation was made by MSNBC execs: Patriotic Fever was about to take over the country and they couldn't have an anti-war program on the air because they would lose market share. (not that they actually have any).

[mike_c]

38. I can't accept any excuse for the dems...

...rolled over and spread their legs for the neo-con IWR vote. At that point they had nothing left to lose but the last shreds of their collective self-respect, which many of them happily sacrificed to avoid being perceived as insufficiently gung-ho for invading a small, weak country with lots of oil.

on edit-- oops, mixed up the timeline. Changed my subject line to reflect that.

[wurzel]

22. WHO WROTE THE NIE?????

THAT IS WHAT MATTERS!!!!! Why is this simple question never asked?

[hang a left]

54. That is besides the point.

That question is being posed now (to the public anyway). What would you have done had you been a Senator. We certainly were discussing the prewar intelligence here before any bombs were dropped.

[wurzel]

79. Senators say did what they did because of the NIE report.

As I understand it. There were CIA analyst reports which expressed doubts and warnings about the WMDs information contained in these reports. These doubts disappeared when the NIE report was made from the analyst reports. Senators did not read the analyst reports. They read the NIE report. It was on this they based their vote to support Bush. Someone must have removed the doubts expressed in the analyst reports. WHO DID THAT??? If I am right, far from being "besides the point", it is precisely the point.

[hang a left]

80. Wrong again, wurzel.

SEE POST 61 and then get back to me.


61. There was an article in the WashPost about that - - disgusting


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=artic...

Congressional Oversight of Intelligence Criticized
Committee Members, Others Cite Lack of Attention to Reports on Iraqi Arms, Al Qaeda Threat
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 27, 2004; Page A01

In the fall of 2002, as Congress debated waging war in Iraq, copies of a 92-page assessment of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction sat in two vaults on Capitol Hill, each protected by armed security guards and available to any member who showed up in person, without staff.

But only a few ever did. No more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page National Intelligence Estimate executive summary, according to several congressional aides responsible for safeguarding the classified material.

The lack of congressional attention to the nitty-gritty details of Iraq's weapons programs is symptomatic of Congress's approach to a range of intelligence matters, according to current and former intelligence committee members and a broad swath of intelligence experts.

(snip)

There are other examples of Congress's lack of interest in the details of intelligence:

[wurzel]

88. So they voted for war the same way as the voted for the "Patriot Act"

Without bothering to find out what they were voting about. Nader does have a point, doesn't he!

[AlGore-08.com]

37. So it's okay that political convenience cost thousands of lives?

It really comes down to this: the argument for going to war was that Saddam was an immediate threat to the US, and he was deeply involved in 9/11.

Both arguments were beyond bogus, and there were Dems both in and out of Government who said prior to the vote that Saddam was not an immediate threat, that Saddam had no role in 9/11 and that invading Iraq would be a catestrophic disaster that would haunt us for at least a generation. There are Dems who voted against going to war with Iraq. Voting for the war did not save a number of Dems who were painted as "traitors" in the 2002 election cycle.

So we are left with two possible explanations for why the other Dems voted for the war: either they were too incompetent to figure out what others did (that the war was not justified and a huge mistake) or they were too cynical to care that they were voting for a bogus war. So which is it that has cost so many lives: incompetence or cynicism?

Voting for the war has not stopped Team Smirk from trying to paint Kerry and Edwards as soft on defense. And it's left Kerry and Edwards in the weaker position of having to justify their votes and water down their criticism of Smirk's Iraq policy.

For them to say now "Gosh, we were fooled into voting for the war!" does not resolve the issue - - it only makes the questions more urgent. If they really are so incompetent that they couldn't figure out the Smirk admin's intel was bogus, that the war in Iraq was the worst possible foreign policy, how can they be trusted to figure out whether future threats are legitimate? Or if they really are so cynical as to vote for a war to win an election, how can they be trusted not to vote for other wars to win other elections - - how can they be trusted to work for the public benefit at all?

They just cut a deal so that the Democratic platform will not say that the Iraq war was a mistake from the beginning. Again, why? Because Kerry is still so incompetent that even now, he doesn't get that it was a mistake from the beginning? Or because he's so cynical that he cares more about covering his own @ss than he cares about the truth?

Take your pick.

[hang a left]

59. Or.....they were voting on behalf of their own constituents.....

and, not for a minute do I believe it is "We the people."

[mike_c]

44. let's step back from the political calculus for a moment...

...and reflect on the truth that thousands of innocent people-- likely tens of thousands-- died brutally as a consequence of the IWR vote. The IWR was a license to kill. It's consequences went far beyond the political fallout on the cable news networks for anyone with the courage to say "no."

Let's have a reminder of the real consequences of that vote:

[0007]

48. Hmmmm not sure I can buy into this 100%!

[marlakay]

51. They didn't show it all to them either

That's what I heard was the dems in house and senate and congress didn't get the full pic either and were told to TRUST the pres and his people and they did and I don't think their to happy about it now. I heard them talking about it on NPR on friday about that and how the dems are trying to make the second part come out now not that it is just the CIA's fault but that the pres pushed the CIA to make these conclusions. Repub's say it can't come out until AFTER election and dems say it can!

what gets me is that both parties don't pay someone to read the things they sign since they are so many hundreds of pages and usually have some small print in them that is wrong. Remember in 9-11 movie where mike reads the patriot act to them because the congressman said they don't have time to read the bills they sign???

[hang a left]

60. No way!

'That's what I heard was the dems in house and senate and congress didn't get the full pic either and were told to TRUST the pres and his people and they did and I don't think their to happy about it now. '


You have got to be kidding. People with decades in Congress know what the ef is going on.

[AlGore-08.com]

61. There was an article in the WashPost about that - - disgusting

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A44837-2004Apr26¬Found=true

Congressional Oversight of Intelligence Criticized
Committee Members, Others Cite Lack of Attention to Reports on Iraqi Arms, Al Qaeda Threat
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 27, 2004; Page A01

In the fall of 2002, as Congress debated waging war in Iraq, copies of a 92-page assessment of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction sat in two vaults on Capitol Hill, each protected by armed security guards and available to any member who showed up in person, without staff.

But only a few ever did. No more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page National Intelligence Estimate executive summary, according to several congressional aides responsible for safeguarding the classified material.

The lack of congressional attention to the nitty-gritty details of Iraq's weapons programs is symptomatic of Congress's approach to a range of intelligence matters, according to current and former intelligence committee members and a broad swath of intelligence experts.

(snip)

There are other examples of Congress's lack of interest in the details of intelligence:

• Although many have criticized the president for appearing inattentive to reports on al Qaeda before Sept. 11, the Senate intelligence committee, which is given classified daily reports on terrorism and other intelligence, held only one closed-door hearing devoted to al Qaeda and bin Laden in the months before the attacks, according to congressional and administration officials. Some staff members recalled holding a second meeting; others did not.

• Forty-six senators -- none of them members of the intelligence committee -- demanded that the CIA declassify a section of the House-Senate Sept. 11 report that dealt with Saudi Arabia, saying it was crucial to the public's understanding of the terror plot. But most of the 46 senators, including the campaign's leader, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), never read the 28 pages they insisted be released. "I intentionally didn't read it because this administration plays hardball on things like this," said Schumer, who said he talked to senators who had read the 28 pages and told him it contained no real secrets. "Had I read the report and been critical, they would have accused me of leaking it the way they've done with other senators."

• The House intelligence committee believed the voluminous House-Senate report was so important that it temporarily changed its rules to allow all members of the House to read the classified report. "There weren't a lot of takers on the 9/11 report," said Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), the committee's vice chairman. Partly, she said, this was because members' personal staffs were not given access, leaving the hard work to members themselves. "Some didn't want to do the homework," she said.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) said some members with packed daily schedules are deterred simply by the prospect of trekking across Capitol grounds to the secure Hart Senate Office Building room where the Senate's classified material is kept.

"Everyone in the world wants to come to see you" in your office, he said, and having to go to the secure room is "not easy to do." Members can't take notes, there is no staff to synthesize the material, and "it's extremely dense reading," he said. "It's the Brahms of music."

(More, equally disgusting... )

[hang a left]

64. OMG.

This article is very damning.

Click on it and read it. I would like to see another story on this. I have never seen this or read this before. The whole report was available to anyone who wanted to look. Do you think that the congress people that ACTUALLY did read it never mentioned a word of it to their colleagues? The place had to be swarming with data. Not one person here ought to make an argument for anyone who voted for IWR and now wants to claim innocence.

snip>
Responsibility for congressional oversight is vested in the House and Senate select committees on intelligence, which get daily classified reports from the intelligence agencies and annually review and approve the intelligence budget. But as described by former members and outside experts, the committees' performance in oversight and investigations has deteriorated.

snip>



And this is just lame, you have got to be kidding me.

snip>
The committees' role in oversight and investigations "has almost gone away," said former representative Timothy J. Roemer (D-Ind.), a committee member for three years and now a member of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "You're so busy with the budget and keeping up with daily events."
snip>

[shanti]

69. on a side note

they admit to not reading the patriot act before signing off on it too! they gave chimpy a free fucking pass and it pisses me off! :grr:

[calimary]

71. Ladies and Gentlemen, START YOUR ENGINES - MONDAY MORNING

Now's the time to Storm the Bastille (appropriate - this is Bastille Day week) with phone calls, faxes, emails, and letters. Paper letters. So there's a paper trail.

Here's the updated contact info. And don't forget the TOLL FREE NUMBER to the CAPITOL HILL SWITCHBOARD...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1956556#1956858

This is also available in the Activism/Events forum:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=106x8816

[Malva Zebrina]

81. and they could have passed on that information to those voting to give

Bush the blank check. Kennedy could have alerted Kerry easily. and so on.

I am so saddened over the way this has played out. In our world today, that we, a country that prides itself on being a democracy and the frontrunner, turns out to be as corrupt as any Hitler or Stalin regime. It is as corrupt in it's insatiable quest to kill to gain what someone else has as Israel. I will not be alive to see it change , but it is inevitable that it will sooner or later if it continues on this maniacal stint to woo corporations, take their bribes and their money to get elected, and once elected becasue you were the guy with the most money, pay them back.

and we suffer for lack of health care that, irony of all irony,all Cubans enjoy.

My country is broken. I suppose I should be grateful that I was born here and not in AFganistan or some other poor waste of a country.
that point is that no one chooses where they will be born.

But I have seen the pictures of the beautiful Iraqi people before the invasion. Moore had some pictures in his documentary, but there were many more pasted on the web. They looked like you and me--they looked happy-they did the same things we did--the women were lovely in a dark and mysterious way, they danced and laughed-the children looked like any child--even like Jack Edwards with dark hair.

I am having such a hard time letting go of this slaughter that was done in my name, and was sanctioned by my congress.

[Redleg]

89. Yawn- more Dem bashing here. I think I'll skip it.

Jeebus folks, seeing more Dem bashing than Bush bashing here makes me sick. How many fucking times do we have to relive this bullshit? If you don't like the Dems then vote for your own third-party candidate who has no chance of winning. That will send the Dems a message. Yeah- fuck you- 4 more years of Bush.