I really question whether saying that the committe was getting a different story than the other senators and the public is a breach of security in no specifics are given…
And if it is then that gets to my question. If the committee members can’t make use of the information they get why have a committee?
At the very least Durbin could have raised hell in the committee sessions with the head of intellignec, Tenet, for not objecting to the bunk that Congress and the public were being fed.
All in all, a shameful exhibition of cowardice and dishonesty all around.
IIRC the majority of democrats then used that information and voted “no” for the resolutions coming from the committee, but you are forgetting that the majority there was Republican, can you guess then why many controversial items were approved?
While I do agree there was more the democrats would have done, in the end it comes that the Republicans wanted so, they were the majority full of certainty and the democrats were full of doubt.
Oh, I’m vot forgetting that the Senate was majority Republican. If the majority of Congressional Democrats voted against the authorization fine. If Durbin and the other Democrats on the intelligence committee had publicly demanded that the administration explain to Congress, in secret session if need be, the discrepencies that Durbin now says existed maybe a few Republicans would have begun to have some doubts.
In any case it seems to me that if you have the strong doubts that Durbin now claims you do more than just vote against the authorization. The administration portrayed this as an imminent threat to national security and the authorization was to send people off to quite possibly be killed. To restrict your action to merely voting nay is a completerly inadequate response.
The problem is that all along the Bush Administration has been composed of two types of people: the liars and the yes-men. The inner policy-making circle tells the lies (including is some cases lying to themselves). Surrounding them is a group of men and women who were selected for having “loyalty” as their primary virtue - people who believe that blindly following their leader is the highest principle. There’s never been anyone in any influential position in the administration who would stand up for the truth - people who would have done that were not given influential positions.
You and I are in agreement. Committes are used by congress to do the detail work in various aspects of government. The committee holds meetings and gathers all the information it can relating to their specialty and then informs the whole of congress with a report about a proposed piece of legislation. If the committee members are forbidden to inform congress about their findings I don’t see any justification for the committee.
I understand that. What did he do recently to prompt this pitting? Why did the OP not provide a link? I don’t have TV or a newspaper. Why is he being pitted now?
He’s got a book out now. Among the startling revelations is that the administration didn’t consider or seriously debate whether Iraq was truly a threat to the United States. Also, he contends that his infamous “slam dunk” comment was mischaracterized.
Not exactly. He caved to the administration to provide coroberation for the WMD claims ,even though he had access to information to that contradicted it. He was told that the evidence was not true by many inside the agency. But he let his ambition win over facts . He could have stopped the war. Instead he sat in back of Powell at the UN giving a song and dance his tacit approval.
It may have been mental damage from the events of 9/11, rather than ambition that turned Tenet into a yes man. There was a lot of that going around at the time.