Why Reid HAS to investigate/comment on the DSM! Ask him to support Kerry.

[mzmolly]

The RW is stating that Bush/Cheney were cleared of any wrong doing on false WMD claims in the final Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Pre-War Intelligence: Senator Reid was on that committee.

RW case is presented here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200506060801.asp

Was the WMD Intelligence Faked?

Dearlove’s comments include the intriguing passage noted above, “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” To the president’s critics, the meaning is clear — the WMD intelligence was being faked to support the rationale for intervention.

This passage needs some clarification. Maybe Rycroft or Dearlove could elaborate; by “fixed around” did they mean that intelligence was being falsified or that intelligence and information were being gathered to support the policy? There is nothing wrong with the latter — it is the purpose of the intelligence community to provide the information decision-makers need, and the marshal their resources accordingly.

But if Dearlove meant the former, he should be called upon to substantiate his charge. It can be weighed against the exhaustive investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on prewar intelligence assessments in Iraq. The committee examined this very question, whether the White House had pressured the intelligence community to reach predetermined conclusions supporting the case for war. The investigation found no evidence that “administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities” or 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 on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.” One would think that the Senate investigation would have somewhat more weight than the secondhand impressions of a foreign intelligence officer, but if Mr. Dearlove is able to elaborate, one hopes he will.

The memo itself notes that the British assumed that Saddam had limited WMD capabilities — and the September 24, 2002, British white paper on the topic spelled out exactly what Whitehall believed to be the facts. Surely, this was not the result of pressure from the vice president or any other American officials.

Like it or not the Senate Intelligence Report is cumbersome:

http://intelligence.senate.gov/conclusions.pdf

Senator Reid as you know has called Bush a "liar." Perhaps he has some nagging questions he'd like answered?

He is the perfect person to comment on and or call for a deeper investigation into this matter as he heard testimony, and was part of a bi-partisian group that basically cleared Bush and Cheney of hyping intelligence.

Contact Senator Reid and ask him to look into the matter of the DSM along with Senator Kerry.

Office and Email contacts here:

http://reid.senate.gov/offices.cfm

I called Reid's Washington office at 202-224-3542. They were not aware of Kerry's intent to speak on the DSM. They are now.

When your done, kick this thread.

Yeah, I know ... I'm still posting LOL. One of these days I'll slither away. ;)

[mzmolly]

1. Yeah, I know it's a long post, but it's important.

:kick:

[mzmolly]

2. .

[cornermouse]

3. What do you mean Reid's office is not aware of Kerry's intentions?

How can that be? It doesn't make sense.

[mzmolly]

4. It makes perfect sense if you understand how busy these guys are.

They are all working on a number of issues.

Reid's office was not aware that Kerry was going to speak on the matter of the DSM.

Reid may have been, can't speak for him.

Call and ask Reid to investigate.

[cornermouse]

9. Let's think about this a moment.

If Kerry is about to make an important statement or launch an investigation, wouldn't it make sense that he would have called up Reid (the party leader in the Senate) and mentioned it?

[mzmolly]

10. I said Reid's office was unaware. I don't know about HR personally.

Perhaps he did call. But, if he didn't Reid will hear in when Kerry delivers his speech. I don't think they go around calling one another every time they take up an issue. Reid's busy the Senate is full of Senators about to make speeches.

[cornermouse]

11. All I'm saying is

that if this is an important announcement, wouldn't it seem sensible for Kerry to call up Reid a few days early and say "Harry, I'm making an important announcement in the Senate on this week, probably Thursday about _________ and I would really appreciate it if we had some people lined up with information and comments ready to follow me to support and emphasize the importance of this issue."

[mzmolly]

13. I can't argue with that!

I wish we were more coordinated as well.

[mzmolly]

5. One last pitiful kick and I'm out.

:hi: :kick:

I know the SIC report is not in our favor, but these people knew only what they were told by those who feared for their jobs.

Peace out.

[sabra]

6. thank you, and done.

[stillcool]

7. i just sent an email....

not quite the one i intended. Funny how that happens...

Dear Senator Reid, I am emailing you out of frustration, and confusion. It is not news that the invasion of Iraq was illegal and immoral. Many Americans felt from the very onset of this administration that this country would soon be at war. Ordinairy people have access to information about this administration and the corporations connected to its members. It is of obvious what is going on, and yet...no elected representative speaks of it. The lack of truth in all things government has the effect of the assumption that all government is corrupt. While this may very well be the case, I wish somebody would let the people know, so we can let go of those false hopes of the constitution, the rule of law, etc. You, Senator Reid, appear to be more frank then many of your colleagues, which is why I thought I may get a response. Thank You for all you do...Sincerely,

[MeDeMax]

8. kicked...n/t

:kick:

[sandnsea]

12. Bush Doctrine & Pre-Emptive Wars of Choice

They set the intelligence around the policy in order to implement their Bush Doctrine of "expanding the American perimeter". If we don't get that out, people will never understand why Bush started this war or why he won't seek international cooperation in stabilizing Iraq. It's all about American supremacy (and being oil cops).

"..All of these, of course, miss the point. The only way any of these excuses leads to an invasion of Iraq is through the window of the Bush Doctrine and Pre-emptive War in order “to reform the politics of the Middle East”. Without the good intentioned doctrine of American Primacy, a true imperialist America, a Pax Americana (the exact opposite of John F. Kennedy’s vision), there could be no basis for the Iraq war. The only basis to strike a country that is not preparing an imminent attack is if you believe in your power to shape that country’s economic and political landscape, you believe in your own “expansive geopolitical purposes”.

Whether you believe the “Bush Doctrine” is or isn’t sound American foreign policy, the truthfulness of the WMD intelligence is critical. The basis for preemptive invasions is potential threat. The Downing Street Memo states the Bush Administration’s war “intelligence and facts were fixed around the policy”. This is far beyond anything their own doctrine outlined. The war was not merely to prevent the threat of Saddam Hussein to the region, it was intentionally planned for the “expansion of the American perimeter”. What this means, obviously, is war anywhere, any time, a neocon administration calls for it..."
More:
http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/?view=plink&id=1020

[mzmolly]

14. Yes indeed.

But we need proof. And that requires people coming forward.

Good analysis at Light Up The Darkness, thanks for posting.

[sandnsea]

18. The National Security Policy

That's what it says. That's what AEI says it says. The Downing Street Memo and the remarks by Clarke, O'Neill, and others prove that they intended to start a war. The Bush Doctrine is the reason. If we make the case correctly, it's already proven.

Next thing to tie in, they ignored terrorism in order to implement the Bush Doctrine, with Iraq as their first step.

[mzmolly]

20. Agreed!

The pieces of this puzzle only fit together one way.

[Just Me]

15. RW can't overcome fact that this is new evidence.

Moreover, there are still many eyewitnesses out there that verify the BushCo & neoCON plan to intentionally misrepresent the intelligence.

IOW, they not only lied,...they conspired to lie ON PURPOSE!!!

[mzmolly]

16. I agree, but we need a new investigation and we need someone to

come forward .. again.

I hope this time America Listens. I hope Conyers gets the tips he's asking for.

We all know Bush lied, and I hope history will attest to that.

However, I mainly hope Reid will step up, which is why I'd like people to call him.

[Roland99]

17. The RW response is a CROCK and here is the PROOF!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1258055,00.html

That was, however, not what the Democrats on the commission believed, nor is it necessarily what the investigation proved. In the body of its report the senate committee reported that the CIA ombudsman had talked to 24 CIA officers about pressure from administration officials.

The ombudsman told the committee that about half a dozen mentioned "pressure" from the administration; several others did not use that word, but spoke in a context that implied it.

At its core, the row over the Bush administration's role in persuading the country into the Iraq war came down to a single semantic question about the meaning of "pressure". Like much else, it was a question left unresolved by yesterday's report.

Both sides agreed that CIA analysts came to the wrong conclusions over Iraq's possession of WMD. They also agreed that before coming to those conclusions they were subjected to intense questioning and "repetitive tasking" (being asked to do their work over again) from senior administration officials.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/14/politics/14inte.html?hp

The White House and the Central Intelligence Agency have refused to give the Senate Intelligence Committee a one-page summary of prewar intelligence in Iraq prepared for President Bush that contains few of the qualifiers and none of the dissents spelled out in longer intelligence reviews, according to Congressional officials.

<...>

"In determining what the president was told about the contents of the N.I.E. dealing with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, qualifiers and all, there is nothing clearer than this single page," Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said in a 10-page "additional view" that was published as an addendum to the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on Friday.

<...>

Mr. Bush and his advisers had full access to the classified 90-page intelligence estimate, "Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction," which provided a more detailed and qualified account of the intelligence agencies' views, the Senate Republican official noted.

The main body of the 511-page report that was approved unanimously by the Senate Intelligence Committee made no mention of the summary sent to Mr. Bush. In interviews, Democratic officials said that Republicans on the panel, which meets in closed session, had blocked their efforts to formally request the document from the White House. They also said that Democrats on the panel had tried and failed to persuade Republicans to include in the committee report a description of the one-page summary as having been an inadequate reflection of the full intelligence estimate.

[mzmolly]

19. BRAVO!

Thanks much for the info. I know their case is a crock, but this is the spin none the less. And the final report says what it does.

The info you provide is more reason to call Harry Reid and ask him to get on the DSM stick.

:hi:

Thanks again!

[Roland99]

21. And where is this "next phase" of the SIC investigation? We were promised

[mzmolly]

22. Good question for Reid.

:hi: