|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
.....I say BULLSHIT the Congress didn't know what the score was in Iraq when they authorized Bush to go to war. I could list scores of quotes from Democrats - PRIOR to the 04 election! - saying how Hussein was a threat to National Security, a threat to the entire region, a (past/present/future) safe haven for muslim radicals, a terrorist black market, that he needed to be stopped before doing something drastic, blah blah blah. Now after losing the election, its all sour grapes and politicizing the Politicization of the war. If one thinks its entirely the Republicans' fault for the hardships of the country these days - without any Democratic complicity, duplicity and bald-faced pandering - they are misjudging the situation imho.
|
It is entirely the fault of republican elected representatives in the congress, and of the republican politicians in the executive branch, and of their appointees, that an investigation of the Bush administration's decision to go to war, has not been concluded and released (it has apparently....not even been started), more than fifteen months after this report:
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jul9.html
Transcript: Senate Intelligence Committee Report Released
FDCH E-Media
Friday, July 9, 2004; 12:07 PM
Sens. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) speak to the media on the release of a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on the pre-war intelligence efforts on Iraq. Here is a transcript of their news conference.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...004Jul9_4.html
ROBERTS: So from my standpoint, I do not believe think there was any political pressure.
Now, was the WMD section wrong? You bet. And I think that’s the bottom line.
Read the report, and I think we -- and then we have an honest difference of opinion.
But let me say again, there are those of us in the Congress who made very declarative and aggressive statements based on this same NIE report. Now, were we pressured? I don’t know.
You know, I believed it. You know, I believed it in regards to the mobile labs. I believed it in regards to UAVs. I believed it in regards to the aluminum tubes. All of that. It proved out wrong.
And so part of this effort is it took us a year to get beyond these facts to dig into the assessments, and you see the size of the report. So it took us a whole year of oversight to get to the bottom of this in regards to whether or not it was accurate.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) assessment there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an Al Qaida attack, no evidence since then, no information emerging that Saddam tried to employ Al Qaida in conducting terrorist attacks. And you said that this view was circulating among the highest levels of the administration.
In light of statements like the president saying that Al Qaida is an ally of Saddam, do you think that the administration misled, in both public or private statements to you, the association between Al Qaida...
ROBERTS: No, I think what they were trying to find out is three things. Number one, was Al Qaida -- or was Saddam Hussein providing safe haven for the Al Qaida? Secondly, were there efforts to train or to become involved or to have contact with Al Qaida? And then the last one, of course, was there any operational plans? And then one other that we were very interested in, and that is, if we went to war or if we conducted any military operation, would any message be sent to Al Qaida to start a war in other parts of the world?
The terrorism section I think is very reasonable. I think, obviously, you are reading Senator Levin’s press release there.
QUESTION: I’m reading (OFF-MIKE)
ROBERTS: OK. Fine. One of the ones that’s not redacted. That’s good. All right.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
ROBERTS: I don’t think they were misled, no. It’s very reasonable. It gives some caveats.
ROBERTS: And I think school is still out in regards to -- there’s no question that Mr. Zarqawi was in Baghdad. Now, was there any operational assistance, was there any training specifically? We don’t know.
So I’m not -- I don’t agree with that statement.
QUESTION: Given the 800 American G.I.s who have lost their lives so far, thousands have had serious injuries, lost limbs, all on the basis of false claims, as much as the American taxpayers have had to kick in almost $200 billion, doesn’t the American public and the relatives of people who lost their lives have a right to know before the next election whether this administration handled intelligence matters adequately and made statements that were justified -- before the election, not after the election?
ROBERTS: Well, as Senator Rockefeller has alluded to, this is in phase two of our efforts. We simply couldn’t get that done with the work product that we put out. And he has pointed out that that has a top priority. It is one of my top priorities. It’s his top priority, along with the reform effort.
Now, we have 20 legislative days. We want to have hearings from wise men and women in regards to the reform effort, and we will proceed with staff on phase two of the report. It involves probably three things -- or at least three.
One is the prewar intelligence on Iraq, which is what you’re talking about.
Secondly is the situation with the assistant secretary of defense, Douglas Feith, and his activity in regards to material that he provided with a so-called intelligence planning cell to the Department of Defense and to the CIA.
And then the left one -- what is the last one? What’s the third one? Help me with it.
(CROSSTALK)
ROBERTS: Well, that’s prewar intelligence on Iraq.
There is a third one, and I don’t know why I can’t come up with it right now. But, anyway, it is a priority.
And, hey, I have told Jay, I have told everybody on the other side of the aisle, everybody on our side of the aisle, "We’ll proceed with phase two. It is a priority."
<b>ROBERTS: I made my commitment, and it will be done.
ROCKEFELLER: I have one comment I need to make, and that is that if we’re serious about doing intelligence reforms, why do we have to be somehow limited by the fact that the leadership in the Senate and the House are saying that we’re out of here after 20 legislative days?
We could work through August. We can work through September. We can come back after the election. We routinely did that in previous years, often working up until December 22nd.
This is the most dangerous moment in American history, the most devastating event in American history was 9/11. And the thought that somehow we can’t get this done before the end of the year simply escapes me as an adequate rationale to honor the families of those who died and to protect the families and people who are still living, but may be in a lot more danger.
ROBERTS: I’d just say that the focus was on the NIE report of 2002. That’s what that report’s about.
We will continue with our work with phase two. I’ve made that commitment. I don’t know if we can get members back over the various breaks. When I mentioned the 20 legislative days, it was more to the approach that would we consider specific reforms, I think we have to have hearings first to educate the committee and really be careful with that, but we are committed to finishing phase two.........</b>
|
Okay, powerclown, you had your "say". The exchanges above say it all.....as a counter to your points.
It's been two years and three months since the Roberts Senate Select committee started it's investigation.
It's been one week short of 16 months since Roberts made his "commitment", quoted above, to finish "Phase II" of his investigation. This is the report on what the white house "knew", vs. what it said in the lead up to invading Iraq, and about how it "fixed the facts" to "match the policy.
You had your rant, the progress of the Roberts committee in regard to producing Phase II of it's investigation, speaks for itself. Reid was correct in what he did today to move the focus of the media away from Bush's "catapulting the propaganda" about "Bird Flue", and his distraction attempt yesterday with the smokescreen "Scalito" SCOTUS appointment.
The indignation that you diplayed here is misplaced. 1245 or more American families of our military will have an empty seat at their Thanksgiving dinner table than they would have on July 9, 2004, when Roberts and Rockefeller were quoted, above. For what????? |