Posted on 11/01/2005 2:46:38 PM PST by defconw
LISTEN TO MARK LEVIN ONLINE AND JOIN THE DISCUSSION
6-8PM Eastern
Will we hear
GET OFF THE PHONE YOU MORON, or
GET OFF THE PHONE YOU BIG JERK, or
GET OFF THE PHONE YOU DOPE
E-mail it to Pat Roberts. Good Plan!
TRANSLATION: Nothing is more important than bringing down this administration.
RATs make me sick.
Bless you BD! Thanks so much. I'd heard bits and pieces of it before- but not all of it.
Also worth noting it is dated November 6, 2003. That provides context for current events.
If I remember correctly, this memo was stumbled upon by some Republican staffers, and when it was leaked the Dems were "outraged" about how it was obtained. Never mind the devious contents of the memo itself.
Well last year it was all the stress and hard work for President Bush, oh and waking up screaming about John and Tereeeeeza in the White House.
Rockefeller memo
Here is the full text of the memo from the office of Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa.) on setting a strategy for pursuing an independent investigation of pre-war White House intelligence dealings on Iraq.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)
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.
I second that one!
This is that memo that SeanVanity broke several months ago, right? WHY are we not hearing more about it?
Bless Mark for getting us fired up about it.
You are welcome.
I wasn't on Marks thread yesterday because of work.
Thanks.
Thank you kindly, Mr. Holdonnow:)
Political strategy is one thing. Directly undermining the military in war-time is another.
Treason?
ROFL!!! GO GET 'EM FLUFFY!!!
Sharpen the sticks...time for an old fashioned Rat Killin'!
Oh,well thank you for putting in all that hard work and I know about screaming about the two moon bats.LOL.
Oops what was I the fourth? And I don't close my bold tags -- wiped out the hottest paragraph.
Why is it I don't remember this memo? Good work guys!
I hate how work gets in the way of life, don't you?! lol
Even though my new job is wonderful, with a conservative boss who loves our prez and hates Hitlery. [It's 180 degrees from what I had to put up with at my last job.]
Andy McCarthy is a very bright fellow...read him often on NRO.
That's true. It's why Manuel Miranda lost his job as a staffer on one of the Senate committee's. Yet the memo was stored on a computer or database that was openly accessible. Dems started off claiming that Republican staffers had hacked into their computer, but later had to admit it simply required sitting down, scrolling through the directory and opening up anything on there that looked interesting. Lo and behold, this memo was one of them.
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.