Wanna see partisan politics at it's finest?

[Bergalad]

I got these stories off of a private network, so I can't link to them. I apologize, but will include portions of the text in the thread as a result. This is just too funny for me not to. The first selections (from the Detroit News) are from Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan:
While President Bush and other administration officials spoke with certainty about the imminent threat posed by Iraq's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction -- and thus the urgent need to take military action to disarm Iraq -- there is growing evidence that the intelligence on Iraq's prohibited weapons was more ambiguous.

Whether or not we eventually find chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, an inquiry into whether intelligence was shaded or exaggerated is extraordinarily important for the future. International support for taking future military action, particularly pre-emptive action, will depend on the extent to which the evidence the United States offers to back up its action is seen by the world as reliable and trustworthy.

It is important for Congress to examine the facts of this case objectively, thoroughly and in a bipartisan manner, so we understand if there was any shading or exaggeration of information in a matter as serious as sending our military to war.

This is why I believe we need a bipartisan inquiry now into whether the intelligence information about Iraq was shaded or exaggerated.

The stakes here are great. Life and death decisions and our national security often rest on the reliability and accuracy of our intelligence. Our leadership and credibility as a nation are too important to leave in doubt.
Now from a different paper (Wall Street Journal) today about Sen. Levin:
[quote]Carl Levin is the ranking member of a powerful Senate subcommittee which he has used in the past to launch politically partisan investigations. The Enron investigation comes to mind, in which Mr. Levin, then chairman, sought to tie the Bush administration to Enron's fraud.

But when it came to light that former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin had actually contacted the Bush Treasury Department in hopes of persuading a top official to help protect Enron's credit rating (to no avail, incidentally), Mr. Levin could think of no useful purpose to call Mr. Rubin as a witness before his committee.

Well, Mr. Levin's at it again. In Sunday's Detroit News, he wrote an opinion piece echoing what he said on "Meet the Press" a week earlier, and has been saying for two weeks now:

"While President Bush and other administration officials spoke with certainty about the imminent threat posed by Iraq's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction -- and thus the urgent need to take military action to disarm Iraq -- there is growing evidence that the intelligence on Iraq's prohibited weapons was more ambiguous.

"Was there a shading of intelligence information to fit a particular administration policy? Did administration officials exaggerate or overstate the intelligence information to make a stronger case to the American public and the world for the need to end United Nations inspections for weapons of mass destruction and go to war against Iraq?"

The problem with Mr. Levin pointing a finger of accusation at the Bush administration is that he's also pointing three fingers at himself. You see, Mr. Levin also serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and has for some time. Presumably, he knows something about Iraq's weapons programs. So, when he repeatedly insisted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, was he "shading intelligence information" or did he "exaggerate or overstate . . . intelligence information?"

As recorded in the Congressional Record, on March 4, 1998, Mr. Levin told his Senate colleagues:

"During the course of [a] meeting [with United Nations Special Commission Chairman Richard Butler], we covered a host of issues concerning Unscom inspections relating to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery . . .

"Chairman Butler confirmed that after Unscom became aware, despi

[furie]

they only agreed with Bish because it was popular at the time to do so, not out of genuine bipartisanship.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/bixby.jpg"width=300 height=100>

[HBox]

This not only reveals a campaign against the current administration of discreditation, but I also hope it shows to those who say "Bush lied" that the Democrats agreed with him at one time


They trusted intelligence information the White House had presented to them. Now they know not to believe them.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[furie]

They trusted intelligence information the White House had presented to them. Now they know not to believe them.

they didn't trust shit. they knew the white house was overinflatng the threat, and simply waited to make good use of it. the Democrats were never on Bush's side.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/bixby.jpg"width=300 height=100>

This message was edited by furie on 6-19-03 @ 5:56 PM

[HBox]

they didn't trust shit. they knew the white house was overinflatng the threat, and simply waited to make good use of it. the Democrats were never on Bush's side.


Would you say it's a vast left wing conspiracy, Hillary?

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[furie]

there's as much a left wing conspiracy as there is a right
one.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/bixby.jpg"width=300 height=100>

[Yerdaddy]

The difference between Levin's statements and the Bush administrations' is that, while Levin stated that Saddam's regime had WMD, the administration made specific claims that specific pieces of information represent proof that Iraq had an active nuclear program, among other claims made. For example, in the president's State of the Union Address he stated that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." This claim is acknowledged to have been based on documents that are known to be bad forgeries. In Bush's September 12, 2002, speech to the United Nations General Assembly, het stated "Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon." The IAEA and the CIA have both consulted experts on the use of these tubes, including the US Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, and all the experts say that the tubes were not for that purpose.

What Levin, and other's are talking about is the need for an independent, public investigation of whether the specific statements of fact made by the administration, and Bush himself, in the process of convincing the Congress and the public of the need to go to war, were deliberate distortions, exagerations or outrageous mistakes. Whether or not WMD are found in Iraq is irrelevant to the fact that that Bush's statements were false, and were known to be false by the intelligence community at the time he made them.

The reason for the need for public hearings is that if the administration does not answer these questions for the public and the international community, there is no reason for our allies in the war on terrorism, or in our international relations in general to believe us when we make claims based on our intelligence, or in fulfilling our requests for foreign intelligence. For example, a few months back Yemen cooperated with the CIA in tracking down a car full of al-Qaeda, which we hit with a cruise missile from an unmanned aerial vehicle. In the future, Yemen, and other Arab countries that are cooperating with us on the war on terror, will be less likely to share their intelligence or believe our intelligence if they think that we will use that intelligence to justify another war on an Arab country. (The fact that we haven't yet found WMD is already eroding confidence in the US by world populations, which weakens the authority of those governments that are cooperating with us.)

So, while there will be partisanship surrounding this issue, as with every issue, it is more importantly a critical national security issue, and a congressional oversight, (checks-and-ballances) issue. And Republicans, (or the WSJ Editorial Page columnists) who will be trying do deflect the argument away from the actual issue, making the claims that it requires compromising classified intelligence, or that Clinton made the same claims, blah blah blah will be engaging in the same partisan horseshit that they accuse the democrats of. In the end, it is still a national security and a credibility issue and the only real question is how it gets handled.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 6-19-03 @ 10:45 PM

[UnknownPD]

There is no such thing as bipartisanship. Neither the Democrats nor Republicans care about anything except winning elections. Backbone in Washington has been replaced by the polling. What a DC politician thinks and feels is dictated by the latest polling data.
You can have all the hearings in the world and investigate all you want, but the truth will never be told. No matter what the truth is because the truth only exists in the form of spin. No matter which side of the aisle these guys stand on they will make the truth what they want it to be.
If this thing had occured under a Democrat President we would be hearing the exact same things just from the opposite side. Bash Bush because he's a Republican. Bash Clinton because he is a Democrat. It just doesn't matter. It's all about playing to your base and getting the bucks to ge reelected. The truth be dammned!

[Bergalad]

If I may...
The difference between Levin's statements and the Bush administrations' is that, while Levin stated that Saddam's regime had WMD, the administration made specific claims that specific pieces of information represent proof that Iraq had an active nuclear program, among other claims made.
Levin wasn't living in a information hole here, he's the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He didn't have to rely on Bush's speeches to form his opinion; he had excellent access to specific intelligence. The intel he was privy to had him convinced, by his own admission at least up through Sept 2002 that Saddam "is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." This isn't from doctored intelligence as spouted by Bush, it's from multiple intel estimates his Committee had access to. This is quite clear. So why the big change from absolute certainty to "where's the beef" claims in under 6 months?
Whether or not WMD are found in Iraq is irrelevant to the fact that that Bush's statements were false, and were known to be false by the intelligence community at the time he made them.

This is unsubstantiated. Some members may have believed that it was false, while others certainly thought it was true. A blanket statement like yours is innaccurate.

I agree and support open (or as open as they can be) hearings into what we knew and didn't know. This is important after any action where doubt exists. I will say that if it turns into a feeding frenzy of accusations and attacks against the President (as of course it will, we all know this), then I would rather there not be any hearings at all. This needs to be a fact-finding activity, not an election year plan at derailment of Bush. Judging by the comments (and selective memory) of Levin, any hearings will degenerate into a circus of Left-wing attacks and character assasination, and in the end the only "truth" we will have will be that the process is fatally flawed.

[TheMojoPin]

I will say that if it turns into a feeding frenzy of accusations and attacks against the President (as of course it will, we all know this), then I would rather there not be any hearings at all. This needs to be a fact-finding activity, not an election year plan at derailment of Bush. Judging by the comments (and selective memory) of Levin, any hearings will degenerate into a circus of Left-wing attacks and character assasination, and in the end the only "truth" we will have will be that the process is fatally flawed.


Whoa.

Deja vu.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[TooCute]

Here I go again with my political retardedness.
Bear with me and correct me as I go because I'm sure I'm misinterpreting.

Levin(a democrat) stated a need for a bipartisan investigation into whether or not the current administration may have inflated the "immediate" threat that Saddam posed, using it as grounds for going to war.

The other paper states that any investigation will have to look at claims that Levin himself made in the past.

Yes?

So I'm gathering that the "partisan" part of this is coming from the sentiment that Levin is somehow hypocritical, in that he has demonstrated that in the past he agreed with the intelligence that was being presented on the state of WMD in Iraq, and now he is calling for an investigation to see whether claims were then later inflated, simply because he is a democrat and the current president is a republican?


I don't understand why that negates anything (about a bipartisan investigation) that he said in the first place. Does the fact that he is a democrat (and apparently a hypocrite, as the second article proposes) mean that he can not suggest an investigation at all?
Must the suggestion come from a republican?

My feeling is that it is politics. Of course it is partisan. But underlying that there is still the very real question: was the threat from Iraq inflated (for whatever reason)? Did the president lie to the country? I think that there is enough evidence to at least raise a doubt of the answers to those two questions to warrant someone - like a bipartisan committee, perhaps, to avoid any allegations of bias, right? - look into them - and I don't really see how that evidence can be construed as some sort of left-wing, anti-bush movement.

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!<font color=FBF2F7>

[A.J.]

You could have cited John Kerry's recent comments too which Drudge posted:

Kerry 2003: Bush Misled Americans On War; Kerry 1997: Warned Of Saddam Nuclear And Biological Capabilities (http://www.drudgereport.com/kerry6.htm)

I think Yerdaddy is right in this case:

So, while there will be partisanship surrounding this issue, as with every issue, it is more importantly a critical national security issue, and a congressional oversight, (checks-and-ballances) issue.

I think this less "Democrat vs. Republican" as it is a case of "Legislative vs. Executive Branch". Congress' job is oversight and, as they are the body capable of making war, they have justifiable interest. Even Porter Goss (R-FL), Chairman of The House Select Committee on Intelligence (and a former CIA agent) has suggested closer scrutiny. If nothing else, the Intel community needs to get its shit together.

Levin wasn't living in a information hole here, he's the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Actually, he's the Ranking Minority Member. John Warner (R-VA) is Chairman.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

[Bergalad]

Does the fact that he is a democrat (and apparently a hypocrite, as the second article proposes) mean that he can not suggest an investigation at all?
No, he can of course suggest it, as have many Republicans. There should be hearings. The issue is that he is calling into question the evidence of WMD when he himself admits they existed as little as 6 months ago. The issue is that he fully, and I mean more than fully, supported Clinton and attacking (at any means necessary) Iraq, yet when the same reasons existed for Bush to attack, he calls that into question. Politics, yes. Acceptable, no.

And I should have said "senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee", and stand corrected.

[TooCute]

The issue is that he is calling into question the evidence of WMD when he himself admits they existed as little as 6 months ago.

I'm trying to disagree with you that this is an example of "partisan politics" - because I don't think it's possible for politics to be anything BUT partisan - but from what I can gather, he's not trying to make it seem like he doesn't believe that there are any WMD at all, right? Just that the threat was exaggerated?

I guess I'm just confused as to what you want since you're saying different things in your posts- Investigation or no investigation? And if an investigation, proposed by who? Led by who?

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!<font color=FBF2F7>

[Bergalad]

Alright...I am saying, personally, investigation yes. As to Levin, he is saying he wants the investigation to see if there was really a threat to America or not from Iraq. That is presumably what he wants, but also to discredit the President if possible at the same time. Now, he thinks that Bush overstated the threat, and if that is the case, then in his mind there was no real threat (to justify war, the point of his inquiry) from Iraq, follow? So why did he say these things before:
"[W]e urge you . . . to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

"I support President Clinton's decision to undertake military operations against Iraq. President Clinton had no alternative because Saddam Hussein has left the world no alternative.

"Through U.N. resolution after U.N. resolution, the world community has repeatedly demanded that Saddam Hussein destroy his weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them . . .

"Since Saddam Hussein refuses to comply with the U.N. resolutions, I support the use of military force either to compel compliance or to destroy, to the best of our ability, Iraq's capability to build and deliver weapons of mass destruction and threaten its neighbors."
I cut out the extraneous stuff and just left his words in there for you to see. It is clear that prior to Bush entering the White House, the good Senator was prepared to approve any action, even the overthrowing of Saddam's regime, to stop the very threat Levin now questions existed. Read his statements again, and tell me he doesn't believe there is an immediate threat from Iraq. So why was he behind it in 1998 and not in 2002? Saddam hadn't stopped his programs after the removal of UN Inspectors in 1998, so certainly the threat didn't decrease, but instead most likely increased. Why then the change? In a sense, why is the guy who yelled so vociferously about the threat now questioning it?

[TheMojoPin]

Because he doesn't like Bush and he's in the "other" party and the "other" legislative body.

Where's the mystery here?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Yerdaddy]

As to Levin, he is saying he wants the investigation to see if there was really a threat to America or not from Iraq.
No, he's calling for a hearing on the specific statements that the president made that were based on specific evidence that has been descredited. I'm trying to work the word "specific" in as much as posible to make that distinction clear, specifically. What you're saying Levin is asking to have investigated is not what he is actually calling for.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

[BrianTheBailBondsman]

so I can't link to them
Can't or you won't? I mean what ever happened to Rage against the machne?

<img src="http://www.proworldinc.com/images/A1/20/A12020A.jpg">

[DarkHippie]

You know, I used to like chocolate ice cream better, now I like strawberry. I'm guess I'm just a dirty hypocrite for changing my tune.

Yes, I'm over simplifying it, but you have to remember, people are allowed to change their opinion, thoughts are not static.

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<marquee>"Just when every ray of hope was gone, I should've known that you would come along. How can I have ever doubted you, my old friend the blues." Steve Earle

[Bergalad]

Yes, I'm over simplifying it, but you have to remember, people are allowed to change their opinion, thoughts are not static.
Why would I bother explaining this to you if you don't even try to understand what you read? Changed his opinion??? Bah!