Posted on 07/06/2004 4:03:50 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
Leahy up ............... Needs a good swift boot to the head!!
NTS
KIT BOND, after Leahy
THE LOUT is up talking about Bush's new add..............................."BUSH WAS AWOL IN VIETNAM"
I guess the Drudge headline is getting to them. ;-)
I got him on.
Did you catch any of Loutenberg???
oh, never mind.
I bit, but it was more enjoyable to go round up and take out the garbage, so not too much. ;-)
Neverminding. ;-)
It's was the same talking points the dems have used for months............I'll post it mon. It was funny in a sad sort of way.
Hope and pray...
I agree. They have no interest in America remaining America. It's most about power and money and all about control.
REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE -- (Senate - July 09, 2004)
[Page: S7882] GPO's PDF
---
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I am very pleased to announce that today, about 90 minutes ago, the report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the pre-Iraq war has finally been released. We were bound not to talk about it until it was released at 10:30 today. Our staff has done an excellent job reviewing 15,000 documents and 200 witnesses, going back time and again to get the facts straight.
We came up with the unanimous conclusions that I think this body and our friends around the country, including the media, ought to pay attention to what is actually in that report. Some of my colleagues spent yesterday talking about the report and putting their spin on it.
I have been very distressed that the spin had nothing to do with the facts that are actually in the report. It is a lengthy report. For the benefit of my colleagues who have not been on the Intelligence Committee, let me tell you a couple of things that were in the report.
First, the intelligence used by the President, the Vice President, the chairman, and ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, along with the rest of us, was the intelligence given to them by the CIA. This was intelligence given to them through three administrations. On the basis of that, on the floor the statement was made on September 19, 2002:
We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.
Senator Levin stated that.
On October 10, 2002:
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next 5 years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in the development of weapons of mass destruction.
Senator JAY ROCKEFELLER stated that.
These were conclusions that came from the best intelligence we had available, that other intelligence agencies had available. Actually, if you look at it, Iraqi Survey Group leader David Kay, when he came back to the United States, said we know that Iraq was a far more dangerous place, even than we had learned from our intelligence because of other things that were going on that were not fully reported.
We identified problems in this report. There was no human intelligence, which you absolutely need. There was faulty analysis in sharing of information among the various agencies. Some analysts did not fully qualify the information that was not confirmed.
But despite the breathless headlines, despite the political charges that are being made on the other side of the aisle, no one was pressured to change judgments or reach specific judgments. In fact, the committee interviewed over 200 people, searching, searching, and searching for those who might be pressured.
Chairman Roberts asked repeatedly, publicly and in hearings, that anybody who had information on pressure to change conclusions, come forward. Nobody did. They chased rabbits all through every brush pile that could be imagined. Anybody who had an idea of pressure was challenged. Do you know what they found? There was tremendous pressure on the analysts because they had not put together the right information prior to 9/11. They felt pressure, but they all said it was pressure to get it right. They said it is the job of the intelligence community to respond to the most searching questions of the people, the policymakers who use it.
Let me cite three conclusions from the report, which I think are very important on intelligence. From page 284: conclusion 83:
The committee did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.
Page 285, conclusion 84:
The committee found no evidence that the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.
On page 359, conclusion 102:
The committee found that none of the analysts or other people interviewed by the committee said they were pressured to change their conclusions related to Iraq's links to terrorism. After 9/11, analysts were under tremendous pressure to make correct assessments to avoid missing a credible threat and to avoid an intelligence failure.
These are the findings upon which we unanimously agreed. I think the Vice President and others who have been politically maligned are entitled to an apology.
Do you know what this all comes back to? This comes back to a plan that we learned about on November 6, 2003. I have in my mind a FOX News report on this memo from a Democratic staffer. Nobody has denied it. In fact, they are playing their plays out of that game book now.
It talks about:
No. 1: Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures. .....
No. 2: Assiduously prepare Democratic ``additional views'' to attach to any interim or final reports. .....
No. 3: We will identify the most exaggerated claims and contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry.
That is exactly what the game plan is that they are following. When you look at the conclusion, the summary of that memo, it says:
Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet, we have an important
[Page: S7883] GPO's PDF
role to play in revealing the misleading--if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives--of senior administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, preemptive war. The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospects for exposing the administration's dubious motives and methods.
I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the RECORD following my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HATCH). Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. BOND. To sum it up, we are at war with terrorists. The terrorists were in Iraq. They had access to the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein had produced in the past and were willing to produce in the future. We have received increased briefings on recent threats in the United States. The greatest danger we fear is that Saddam Hussein, had we not taken him out, would be supplying those terrorists with chemical and biological weapons.
Our troops remain under fire, but some on this floor and some commentators I have heard seem to be more interested in politicizing the problems in the Intelligence Committee rather than getting at the root of the problem. I hope we can put these partisan charges aside because there is much work to do to improve the gathering, the analysis, and the dissemination of intelligence. For the good of this country, we need to put behind us this partisan effort to fingerpoint and make accusations that have been explicitly disabused and disavowed by this intelligence report.
I commend the staff of the Intelligence Committee. I thank the many thousands of dedicated people in the intelligence community who are doing their best, under difficult circumstances, to get information under systems that were not adequate for the needs at the time. We need to build a system where we get human intelligence, where we analyze it better, and where we share it among agencies that we have not done adequately in the past.
I thank my colleagues from Texas and Alabama for their courtesy.
Exhibit 1
Raw Data: Dem Memo on Iraq Intel
[From FOX News, Nov. 6, 2003]
We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:
(1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard. For example, in addition to the president's State of the Union speech, the chairman has agreed to look at the activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department. The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and co-signs our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. (Note: we can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.)
(2) Assiduously prepare Democratic ``additional views'' to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it. In that regard, we have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims and contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry. The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an independent commission (i.e. the Corzine amendment).
(3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time--but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year either:
(A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report--thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public: (1) additional views on the interim report; (2) announcement of our independent investigation; and (3) additional views on the final investigation; or
(B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue. We could attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the ``use'' of intelligence.
In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter foot-dragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman; we have independently submitted written questions to DoD; and we are preparing further independent requests for information.
SUMMARY
Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet, we have an important role to play in the revealing the misleading--if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives--of the senior administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, preemptive war. The approach outline above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives and methods.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 30 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
PRIORITIES AND ABSENCES -- (Senate - July 09, 2004)
[Page: S7887] GPO's PDF
---
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I wish to talk for a few minutes about a subject different than the one we have been hearing about most of this morning.
I rise as a proud member of the Senate. I treasure every moment that I serve here. I look at my voting record of over 20 years and I am proud of that record. It is important; whatever we do here is important. So I rise today to raise a question about a disturbing television ad that President Bush is running against our colleague, Senator Kerry. The ad opens up with the President saying, ``I approve of this message.''
The President's commercial is called ``priorities.'' It criticizes Senator Kerry for missing votes here. The President's advertisement says that ``leadership means choosing priorities.'' I could not agree more because Senator Kerry has chosen the correct priorities, while President Bush has been absent from leadership--sometimes referred to as AWOL.
If you look at the priorities of these two men throughout their lives, you learn a lot about who was absent and who was a leader. Senator Kerry has never been absent, AWOL, from his responsibilities. The President, on the other hand, has been absent at times when it required leadership. During the Vietnam war, an era in which 58,000 American soldiers lost their lives, and many more than that were wounded, President Bush was AWOL from leadership, AWOL from serving our country. He was assigned to the Texas Air National Guard, but he was absent from mandatory physicals,
so he was grounded from flying. He was absent from his duties. We will never know all of the facts about the President's National Guard service because, today, the New York Times revealed that his records have been destroyed ``by mistake.''
If you look at Senator Kerry's history, you see a totally different picture. You see a man who signed up not just to join the Navy, but to go to Vietnam to serve his country. Even though he disagreed with that policy, he served bravely and courageously in a leadership role. He commanded a swift boat and he led it bravely.
Last week, I had the opportunity to visit with Del Sandusky, one of Senator Kerry's crewmen in the Navy. He tells many moving stories about the bravery and leadership of Senator Kerry in Vietnam.
By the time he returned from Vietnam, Senator Kerry earned a Silver Star and a Bronze Star, which are high-standing awards for bravery and courage in serving his country; and three awards of the Purple Heart for his service in combat. In fact, a question has been raised about whether he deserved the third Purple Heart. I don't know what that means. Does it mean we want to measure the depth of the wound to see whether you pass a certain line, and the Purple Heart is one color or another? The military has a process, and they said he is entitled to three Purple Hearts. In my view, he is also entitled to the gratitude of this country for speaking up after he finished his service to talk about what might have gone wrong with the decisions in Vietnam. But he didn't ever relinquish or shirk his duties.
What about the President's service at this time? They won't reveal the specifics. The records were destroyed, as we now know, and we will never find out. In this current war, as our brave soldiers are battling insurgents in Iraq, the President has not been honest about the true cost of this war. I am talking about the human cost as well as in monetary terms.
The President has ordered that no cameras be allowed to film the flag-draped coffins of heroes returning from battle. In my view, that is disrespectful to these men and women who gave their lives for this country.
I went to a funeral at Arlington Cemetery, and I also went to the funeral service of President Reagan. Each funeral had a similarity. They had an honor guard of proud service people escorting the coffin, doing their duty to say this Nation is grateful to these people they considered heroes. One act that the honor guard is required to perform is the folding of the flag and to finally put it into a triangle that can be handed over to the family. I watched at Arlington Cemetery when, crease by crease, each pair of service people--soldiers, marines, sailors--turned their part of the flag over. Finally, they folded it into a triangle, and the head of the honor guard walked over to the mother of this man who died and handed it to her. You could see the pride and the tears in her eyes with her family as she received this tribute from her country for her son's life.
The President has ordered that no cameras be allowed to film the flag-draped coffins of heroes returning from battle. In my view, it is disrespectful. Other Presidents weren't afraid to show the American people images of the honor guard receiving their coffins. In fact, President Reagan stood on the tarmac and publicly and openly received the coffins of 241 marines killed by Iranian-backed
terrorists in Beirut in 1983. President Clinton did the same for flag-draped coffins returning from Kosovo. But President Bush hasn't been there. He is AWOL from this solemn duty.
When it comes to domestic issues, the President is AWOL from leadership. He was absent from funding the No Child Left Behind program. He signed it into law with great fanfare. But when the cameras were shut off, his leadership stopped. The latest budget underfunds No Child Left Behind by $9.4 billion. The budget also proposes the elimination of 38 educational programs. That is absence from leadership.
When it comes to protecting the environment, the President is absent. He refuses to make polluters pay for Superfund cleanups. He has proposed an outrageous rule to allow powerplants to spew mercury into the air and water, which brings potential harm to our children and those who are on the way to being born.
In the fight to cure disease, the President is absent. We have great tools to cure diseases such as Alzheimer's and juvenile diabetes at our disposal, and that tool is the use of embryonic stem cells, but the President is refusing to allow such research to proceed for political reasons. That is an absence of leadership.
When it comes to our Nation's transportation needs, the President has been AWOL. He has threatened to veto the highway bill even though it enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support. That puts 1.7 million jobs at risk at a time when we need to create jobs.
Thirty-eight percent of our roads are in fair or poor condition and 28 percent of our bridges are structurally deficient. Traffic congestion costs Americans more than $69 billion annually in lost time and productivity and 5.7 billion gallons of fuel annually is wasted while motorists sit in traffic. This absence of leadership on transportation is harming American families across the country.
The President signed a Medicare drug bill into law and the law has turned into a confusing nightmare for our Nation's senior citizens, who are barely
[Page: S7888] GPO's PDF
going to see little, if any, monetary benefit. That is an absence of leadership. Of course, the main benefit does not kick in until 2006, conveniently past the next election. He does not want the American public to really see what is in that Medicare bill.
On homeland security, the President talks tough, but is he really there? The President's budget would reduce funding for grants to local police, fire, and emergency medical personnel from $4.2 billion in 2004 to $3.5 billion
in 2005, more than a 15-percent decrease. Would anyone suggest we have less to worry about from terrorists when we just heard the dismal review by the Secretary of Homeland Security? The President's proposal will also cut first responder training by 43 percent.
The lack of leadership is not just at the White House. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues in the Congress almost always march in lockstep with the White House, even at the peril of their constituents. This blind allegiance to the White House is having devastating effects. We have seen our budget surplus turn into deficits as far as the eye can see.
In Iraq, we bought the White House line and ignored military leaders. Look at the case of GEN Eric Shinseki, who said we need 300,000 troops in Iraq to do the job. He was right, but he was fired for telling the truth. We have recently heard from one of the leading Army generals who said our forces are too thin, and as a result of that, it is fair to say we have seen terrible casualties--879 Americans killed in Iraq, over 5,000 injured. If we had listened to General Shinseki and other military experts rather than the White House, perhaps those numbers would be less.
When the President said to the Congress, do not let Medicare negotiate for drug prices, we should have said: Too bad. Prices are out of control. We see that in the newspapers regularly now. We need to do this. Instead, the Republican majority said, ``yes, sir,'' and followed the White House's orders, and drug prices keep soaring.
I say enough is enough. We are a coequal branch of the Government. Let us act like it. My Republican colleagues should stand up to the President when they think he is wrong.
Senator Kerry is on a noble mission to change the direction of this country for the better. In doing so, he is leading us down a path toward a stronger America, and I can think of no better reason to pursue that goal with every minute of time, with every ounce of effort, with every bit of intellect he can muster. We wish him good health and success, to lift our country out of the misery of worry about their children, their jobs, their parents, and their Nation. We wish Senator Kerry Godspeed and hardly think of him as being AWOL. His record disproves any notion of that.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. COCHRAN). Without objection, it is so ordered.
I just posted Bond and "the Lout's" comments from Fri...
Oh goody LOOK WHAT I FOUND!!!
http://www.panettainstitute.org/lib/04/hillary_clinton.htm
Oh goody LOOK WHAT I FOUND!!!
http://www.panettainstitute.org/lib/04/hillary_clinton.htm
Senator Clinton: I don't regret voting to give the President authority. I regret the way he used the authority.
If you go back and look at what he said he would do, he said he would go to the Security Council and get a resolution for a new inspection regime. He did that.
I was in favor of that happening.
Unfortunately, from that point on, I disagree with many of the assumptions and the actions that the administration then took, including the interruption of the inspection regime, including the poor planning for the post-military phase of the invasion and so much else.
I think that one can debate whether or not the authority should have been given to the President, but, you know, based on my reading of what was then available and my experience during the Clinton administration, when, as you remember, the actions in Bosnia and Kosovo did not have U.N. Authority, did not have even congressional authority, but I thought were necessary. So so much of it depends upon the discretion and judgment of the President and I think President bush made a series of misjudgments following the granting of the authority.
I think that one can debate whether or not the authority should have been given to the President, but, you know, based on my reading of what was then available and my experience during the Clinton administration, when, as you remember, the actions in Bosnia and Kosovo did not have U.N. Authority, did not have even congressional authority, but I thought were necessary.
Was she cleared to read top secret information in the Clinton administration?
FWIW, when I read that statement, it sounds to ME like she's backing up Bush. Am I wrong?
Maybe, If you don't take into account her preface.
Unfortunately, from that point on, I disagree with many of the assumptions and the actions that the administration then took, including the interruption of the inspection regime, including the poor planning for the post-military phase of the invasion and so much else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.