No, it says it “remains unclear” if it was available to the Senate.
Which is all very interesting, but it’s just not going to let Dems explain their votes on the Iraq resolution. Go back and read the statements that Senators like HR made on the Senate floor when they voted. You can’t just explain that away with an “Oh gee, if only I had known that this one guy, al-Libi was unreliable, I would have voted differently”.
Besides, the war is widely unpopular already. The best way the Dems could make hay oout of that is to start proposing immediate troop draw-downs. Not cut and run, but a planned exit over time that let’s the American public see light at the end of the tunnel. I think Kerry proposed this exact thing recently.
Going back and revisting the votes from 2002 is largely a waste of time, politically. The Dems need to focus on the future, not the past. But for some reason they just can’t seem to get that thru their collective heads…
I think the Democrats’ strategy is pretty clear. The Republicans have adopted the attitude that “We’re in the majority. We control the government. So we can do whatever we want and ignore you completely.” So the Democrats are effectively shut out of governing the country. But what they can do is repeatedly demonstrate that the Republicans are running the country and highlight the consequences of some poor decisions that are being made. Then next year, at election time, the Democrats will ask, “This is what happens when the Republicans are in charge. Is it time for a change?”
In my experience, if the Pubbies had clear and conclusive evidence that such was available, they would have trumpeted it to the skies. Haven’t so far. Still, just as you say, it “remains unclear”.
They already have explained the vote. The vote was to authorize the Pres to use force, if necessary, to resolve the issue of WMD. Its not “We’re convinced, let’s go!” It’s “We have to be sure, do what needs be done.”
“This one guy”? Well, now you’re drilling down to bedrock. Seems from here, the entire WMD/AlQ connection premise was based on two sources, both unreliable: the legendary “Curveball”, and Al-Libi. And yet they continued to present their case as solid. When they knew better, or damn well should have known.
Richard “Big Dick” Cheney, CNBC’s Kudlow & Kramer, 6/4/04
Clearly established, mind you. Not “maybe”, not “could be, who knows?” But “clearly established.”
Please note:
Washington Post
What, he didn’t get the memo? In what way, do you think, it was “clearly established”?
From The Management Secrets of George Armstrong Custer?
“Look, guys, we’re in this now, so we should just set aside the recriminations and (ssssssss-TUMP!…damn, that smarts!)…backbiting and deal with the issues at hand in a way (ssssssss-TUMP!)…ouch! damn!..”
Bunch of dummies! Only vision for the future is not to leave the future in the hands of a crew of lying fucktards! And no inspiring candidates, like The Leader! Boy, woe is them, huh? Huh?
Well, sure, John, I guess. If you say so. I mean, after all, when have I ever been right. about anything?
Well, I guess we’ll just have to wait until something comes from the committee that is investingating the committee that is investigating… yeah, right.
As for your prediction-- what is it exactly? That the shit will hit the fan? How many years have you been predicting that for?
No necessarily. The shit hitting the fan, for the Republicans, would be the Democrats taking over one of the Houses of Congress. I don’t see that happening in '06.
The next presidential election is 3 years away. I don’t think we even know what that election is going to hinge on at this point.
But which indictments (plural) are you talking about? I’m aware of Libby being indicted, but no one else. He’s also got to be found guilty. Remember, a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. An indictment alone doesn’t mean much.
Although I share the OP’s views in regards to the current Iraqi fiasco and am amazed at how abhorrent the administration has shown themselves to be over the previous years, I think you are naive if you think anything is going to come of this in regards to public opinion. The same people in this thread championing this news as the Republican’s grasp on their well oiled political machine loosening were the same glowing over how John Kerry was going to beat Bush – I mean, how could he lose? Look at Bush! Right? How many times has this scenario played out in other “the Emperor has no clothes” news stories? Seems like a normal occurrence, maybe 2-3 times a month since Bush was sworn in 2000.
Face it, if this current political climate continues the Republicans are most likely going to win '08. I haven’t looked at the polls recently but what was it – 60% or so American people still think 9/11 and Saddam are linked? An embarrassing number also hold other interesting opinions about evolution, science, and them durn lib’rals in general. We are a red country. It’s going to take something huge to change that and any news about Iraq isn’t going to do it. At this point almost any complaints about that can be easily dismissed as liberal whining and complaining.
That certainly explains why Bush’s approval ratings are in the 30s and half the country thinks the Iraq war was a mistake - it’s because all the questions have been dismissed as liberals whining!
Bush is nearly ready to surrender! I predict (based solely on this board) that Bush will be tried in the World Court and shot sometime next year, that the Republican party will cease to exist leaving the playing field solely in the hands of the Democrats and that the US is poised for a major shift left so that from now on we can call our Euro buddies rightists. Its going to happen…its only a matter of time.
Oh…sorry. About the OP. I won’t hold my breath but I suppose it COULD be…
For the sake of clarity, there is no doubt that the Senate committee will exonerate the administration of any mishandling of intelligence information.
Similarly it is certain there will be a minority of dissent which refers to evasive language in the committee’s report. This division will of course occur R/D.
Both parties know this. Elucidator’s point is not that this dynamic will be overturned, which it won’t, but that it was a timely way of bringing other credibility issues into the news cycle.
If the Ds can turn the number of credibility issues around into a 24 hour feed into the news cycle, then they’ve found gold. With Libby, DeLay, Rove, the Senate, the Iraq war stalling etc, there might just be enough news around to manage that.
That’s good, XT. You manage to evade the point as artfully as a bullfighter evades the horns. If we were truly as stupid as you claim, you would probably win as many arguments as you think you already do. And umbrella company stock would go through the roof, as flying pigs give a whole new meaning to the terms “fallout” and “air pollution”.
Two years ago, this couldn’t have happened, the Pubbies would have bitch-slapped the Democrats out the door and then kicked them to the curb. Two years ago, the Pubbies ruled! Investigation? Certainly, the evidence warrants an investigation, no doubt about it. OK, the first part of the investigation is proving that it was all the CIAs fault, and the second part we’ll get around to. In a while. Maybe. We’ll see, lot of stuff on the agenda, gotta investigate steroids in baseball and liberals on PBS. IIRC, the exact words were “the back burner”.
It was an invitation to play Republican poker: they get 7 cards, you get five, all yours are dealt face up and deuces are wild for them. And the Dems had to go with it 'cause: *it was the only game in town! *
How many R congresscritters you think are planning to run next year as “Bush’s Very Bestest Buddy!”? And if Senators are nervous, with thier seemingly infinite tenures, their baby brothers in the House are in red-eyed lemming panic mode. They’ve spent years trying to sidle into photo ops with The Leader, competing in the Ringing Praises for Himself Contest.
[John Cleese] Albatross! Albatross! [/JC]
What, you think those approval ratings are some sort of liberal fantasy projected by the media? Well, they don’t, in the halls of Power.
Why did the Dems do it? Same reason a dog lays by the fireplace and lick his balls, he does it because he can. Why didn’t the Pubbies stop them?
Because…they…didn’t…dare. For it is written, verily, that whatsover goes around, therefore shall it come around, and when the worm turns, the worm bites!
What rough beast
Slouches in Birkenstocks
To be born…
The Pubbies would rather nail their pecker to a tree and set the tree on fire than have a real, honest-to-Goodness Senate investigation into the issues at hand. They would have to call Colin Powell, and ask him about that rather alarming stuff his pal Wilkinson has been saying! Under oath. They would have to ask those uncomfortable questions about “Curveball”, Al-Libi, and that guy we almost made King of Iraq.
(You rememer him, don’t you, sat in the honored seat at the State of the Union, next to Laura? That guy, Chalabi, you remember? About whom there are so many interesting questions.)
That will take up the better part of a month, right there. And then of course, theres the whole Niger yellowcake forgeries, and the aluminum tubes, and on and on in a giddy whirl of exposed lies.
Haven’t laughed so hard since they shot Ol’ Yeller.
Someone call me when TPTB are going to admit that they knew all along that the intelligence was shit all along. If they’d have thought that they had good intelligence, then when the war started, the first thing they would have done is dropped crack commando squads into the areas where they suspected the WMDs were stored. Instead, we marched in from the south of Iraq, “hoping” that we’d find them once we took over the country.
Remember, the Administration was claiming that we had all kinds of intel we couldn’t release, and that we were having secret communications with Iraqi generals before the war. If that were true, then we’d have known for certain where the WMDs were, and would have gone after them toot sweet so that we could show the world we weren’t as crazy as they thought.
The simple fact is that they knew there was nothing there, and didn’t give a shit about it.
No, I think it’s simpler. The ruling regime has learned that there are limits to how far you can drift away from reality before the consequences get too big to deny. So finally, years after the mistakes were actually made, the Bush administration is tentatively stepping towards an acknowlegment that mistakes were made. Tiny little errors, but still there. And this means somebody is going to have to take the blame.
And this is where the fun begins - because a lot of people are worried they might be the one asked to take the fall. So it’s everyone’s interest to point out how culpable the other guy was. The curtain of blind loyalty has been breached and self-interest is rearing its ugly head. People are undoubtedly already talking “off the record” to reporters to get their version of events out there.
Thanks to computer-assisted gerrymandering, there will be precious few competitive house seats. Republican (and Democratic) House members generally face a greater threat in the primaries than in the main event. So the Senate is more likely to change hands than the House (though I wouldn’t bet even money on either).
Texas is an ironic exception. DeLay gerrymandered the Lone Star state with an eye to maximizing Republican market share, rather than following the usual objective of protecting your pals and smacking your political enemies. As a result, his seat is less safe than it was in 2000. Throw in his legal difficulties and awkward links to Abramoff and friends, and 2006 might prove to be an interesting year in a handful of districts.
----- I’ve seen pictures of your family, you don’t really want to spend more time with them. The chickens are coming home to roost, do you really want to sit underneath them?
My recollection is that the “same people in this thread” may have done a lot of hoping that Kerry would win, but I don’t recall too many saying that he would. The polls were against him all the way and there weren’t too many who couldn’t see the writing on the wall.
