The memo suggests that Democrats should "prepare to launch an 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 of the administration's use of intelligence at any time -- but we can only do so once ... the best time would probably be next year."
Mens News Daily/Talon News: Democrat Intel Memo Scandal Rocks Senate - November 6, 2003
Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA) said Wednesday that "heads should roll" over the memo written by the Democrat staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that outlines a strategy to politicize intelligence data.Miller lamented that the process in Washington is "so politicized and polarized that it can't even be put aside when we're at war." Miller believes this memo to be a clear indication of how partisanship is affecting a committee that has always been considered to be above politics.
Sen. Miller blasted those responsible for the memo, saying, "If what has happened here is not treason, it is its first cousin. The ones responsible - be they staff or elected or both should be dealt with quickly and severely sending a lesson to all that this kind of action will not be tolerated, ignored or excused."
Criticism grew throughout the day Wednesday, as Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) took to the Senate floor to say, "It is a disgusting possibility that members of the Senate would try to politicize intelligence, especially at a time of war... It is reprehensible."
Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) added his comments, saying, "It's clear from this memo that it suggests, at least at the staff level, a Democratic game plan to make the intelligence committee a focal point for the 2004 presidential debate."
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) said in a press release, "It used to be that when our nation was engaged in a war, politics stopped at the water's edge. But it seems that Democratic leaders now want to play politics with our intelligence agencies, as those agencies help fight the war on terror."
Hastert called on Democrats to disavow the memo, saying, "I would hope that Democrats would condemn this strategy memo. They should resist the urge to play politics with our nation's intelligence agencies. We are in a war against terrorism and terrorists, and our nation must be united as we fight to protect our freedoms."
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich called for Rockefeller to resign from the committee and maybe the Senate altogether once the matter is fully investigated. The Republican National Committee has yet to comment on the developing scandal.
Ranking committee member Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) owned-up to having the memo prepared by staff and said he was troubled by how it was obtained by the press. He repeated the frustration he says the memo was intended to express. But he chose not to defend a part of the memo that reads, "We have an important role to play in 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."
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan told Talon News that he hadn't seen the Rockefeller memo and declined to say if the administration would halt the transfer of documents to the Senate Intelligence committee now that the Democrats' political motives have been revealed.
"We have been, and will continue to work cooperatively with the Senate Intelligence Committee. That is our position. We want to assist them and we want them to -- we want to be helpful in their efforts to review the intelligence relating to Iraq. That's exactly what we plan to continue doing," McClellan said.
"Again, I just have not seen that specific memo. I've seen the news reports, but we would hope that people are not trying to politicize an issue of such importance," McClellan added.
Democrats lined up behind Rockefeller to seek an answer as to how the memo became public, while Republicans alluded to an ethics investigation into the content of the memo.
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 [Sen. Pat Roberts] has agreed to look at the activities of the office of the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department.
The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and cosigns 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. [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 may have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims. We will 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 of the administration's use of intelligence 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. Additional views on the interim report (1). The announcement of our independent investigation (2). And (3) additional views on the final investigation. Or:
B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue, we would 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 footdragging 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 requests to the 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 revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war.
The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives.
Source: The Hill - November 6, 2003