Before I begin to reply I have to say what should be the most interesting aspect of our discussion is that we are closer than we are farther apart in how we view things.
----------------------------------------------------------
> Ok, I understand you disagree but I do believe that is the
> whole gist of the memo. That's why they wrote it, I feel,
> and it's about the fact that they feel they have a
> responsibilty to expose them.
Ok, in this respect, we are both correct. The subject of the memo is not that the Bush Administration lied, but was drafted as a response to the Democrats' belief that it did so, and their desire to promote that idea to the American public at a critical time in an election year.
I can see that as a reasonable meeting point. I'll only add so that it's on the table and I'm being up front that I do believe the Bush administration has been quite dishonest. Probably, that is understood at this point anyway.
> We certainly have a different opinion in this case. The
> memo does discuss options and timing of when and how to
> release information and use it but with the idea that they
> have the goods on them. I think, in general, the memo
> expresses the idea they believe they do. There are no
> specific facts addressed in the memo, so I guess that would
> be information that will show up later. I certainly agree
> that they are probably stockpiling info to use during the
> campaign when it would cause the most damage.
This is an interesting viewpoint that shows the difference in our stance. You feel that they released this memo under the pretext that they do have "the goods".
This is true. I do think they have probably seen enough information at this point to make that determination. I believe that there is certain etiquette that even during these bizarre times they adhere to and I think they are being careful how they handle this situation.
I feel that they released this memo to bring this issue to the forefront during an election year with an independent investigation because they do not have "the goods".
Well, you're saying that you believe the Democrats leaked this memo then. Or am I missing something? I certainly would have to say that, yes, you are correct if you say the Democrats want to bring up whatever they've got during an election year...ahh, no arguement from me on that...Republicans would do the same if they had it. But I am leaning more toward the idea that they do have something...I think the tone of this memo...which supposedly was meant for Democrat eyes only, indicates they know there is something there. Now on the subject of who actually leaked it...Dems or Republicans...well that is a curious issue...because it's a matter of who has more to gain and what they may be setting up for a bigger play later...I can't say I really could make a solid guess yet. I will say this about the memo...the first thing I thought when I read it was it was sort of idiotic...and more than a little...ahh, for lack of a better word...dramatic. So, I'm not sure why it was written in the first place or who wrote it. It sort of stinks like propaganda...and I'm not sure because it seems on the surface damaging to both sides...who might have more to gain from it. So to some extent I think we...and I mean you and me here Chris...are being made the fools with this thing. It's hard to say why it exists but there is no doubt that it exists to be discovered. I don't think it's at all an accident that it was written or that we've been able to read it...it never is. See what I mean? I was reminded of the "Protocols Of The Wise Men Of Zion" to some extent. It does after all allude to this evil plot being hatched to...well you could argue...take over the free world...as that's what the American presidency represents.
I guess its a matter of trust at this point since noone but those on the committee actually know the facts. Personally, I don't trust that they have any substantial evidence, yet plan to make a media frenzy out of nothing just to hurt Bush.
I don't trust either side at this point and think we have to play the waiting game because they are both playing for such high stakes. I do believe that there's plenty of evidence available to them though...we're always the last to know what it is though.
I honestly feel they would do anything possible...honest or not...to get their man in the White House. Of course, you probably feel the Republicans would do the same to keep their man in the White House. Its this distrust that makes us disbelieve everything coming from the other side...not that this has anything to do with the truth.
Yes, I feel both sides will do whatever they think it takes. Sad, but for me, true. I don't really disbelieve everything but I do think you have to look at what purpose their actions or words serve. It's not always clear but sometimes the murk can be revealing as well.
Here is my problem with content of the memo: It suggests that an independent investigation has already been planned,
Not really, but it says they are certainly willing to go that route.
which leads me to deduce two logical conclusions:
1. The current investigation has not uncovered any damaging evidence.
The simple fact that an independent investigation has been planned, or is even being considered, begs the question "Why?" It can only be explained by one fact: they believe that the current investigation will not result in the outcome they want, and thus, will exhonerate the administration; therefore, they need another investigation with an alternative result.
Well, I'd have to say that the reasoning may be that they have evidence to support their allegations and they may be chasing down leads to force the majority (Republicans) to have to confirm this evidence. If this memo can be taken at face value, then I'd say they more than likely have their claws in something. The memo also alludes to there being some roadblocks being thrown up to stop them from looking in certain places. Are we to take that at face value or ignore it? Also if this is to be taken at face value, they state at the end in the summary that they feel a responsibility to expose this dishonesty. It's actually odd the way it reads...as if it was written to make us think certain things and not really written for an already bloodthirsty bunch of coconspirators.
If the committee investigation has uncovered extremely damaging evidence, there would be absolutely no need for an independent investigation, and hence, no need for this memo. The bottom line is, they obviously are not happy with the progress of the current investigation.
I don't actually see any need for this memo at all...with the general understanding that there are always leaks...and they are always intentional from my perspective...why put something as stupid as this in writing. It expresses very little that could not be said in a 30 second conversation. It's not understood...well at least by me...what the current status of this investigation is so who knows. I would say there are far to many oddities that exist though to say there was not some sort of issue that the Bush people would prefer not to discuss.
2. The Democrats will refuse to accept any findings that do not support their claims, regardless of the validity of the outcome.
By planning another investigation before the current investigation has completed proves that this an attempt to circumevent the system to acheive a political goal rather than a fair and just investigation.
I can honestly say I think the "purpose" of this whole ordeal is a more than a bit obscure. They have not really planned another investigation...but if taken at face value again...they do say that is an available option in this memo. But the memo, again if taken at face value, is not really a hard plan but some suggestions to be considered. I think all that can be truly assumed is that they want to find a way to get harmful information out on the table and do so at the most critical times...and again I would say according to the summary they believe they have some.
The purpose of an investigation is to ascertain the truth. This memo demonstrates an intent by the Democratic party to discredit the committee's current investigation by launching their own regardless of what truths have been uncovered.
Again, I'd say not really. It says they will take full advantage of the chance to add their perspective to the findings...which is acceptable under the rules...and that they can always push for that other investigation...really it seems that idea is all based on the timing of that annoucement. I don't think they specifically state they'd like to discredit the current investigation... but I can see how you can make that assumption.
If the committee investigation is done properly, and finds no "goods" on the President or his administration, there should be no need for an independent investigation.
Here's something interesting to consider at this point and could be a motive for the memo itself. This memo could be evidence of bizarre tampering in itself and be just cause to call for an independent investigation because this one is now corrupt. You certainly could make that argument no?
The only valid premise on which an independent investigation should be launched is a flawed committee investigation. At which time the committee itself should also be investigated to uncover why it's investigation was corrupted.
See above comment. Now we may be getting somewhere.
Otherwise, any subsequent investigation should uncover the same truths, unless those subsequent investigations are flawed.
All I can say here is truth is a slippery slope indeed in Washington.
At this point, there is no reason to suspect the committee investigation to be flawed, yet they are already making plans to begin another. There is no basis for this except for purely political propaganda. This is where I see the rub. Prove that the existing investigation is biased or corrupt, and I can accept an independent investigation. Otherwise calling the administration a "liar" till you blue in the face is not going make it true.
Hmmm...there now is reason to suspect this investigation is flawed...the memo. Could it be that's why it was written in the first place? Could we have just stumbled on to the reason this memo exists? Funny if we did...though probably not far fetched.
As an additional note, I believe what they want is not an "Independent" investigation, they want a "Democratic" investigation. But that's purely my opinion, and reverts back to the trust issue I spoke of earlier.
Yeah, well trust is not something I think these guys will come by too easily...at least not from me. They've not shown they really deserve it and I mean both sides.
> What I find most disturbing is that they have to discuss
> this at all. I think there should be "no lingering doubts"
> when you choose to use force against another nation. It is
> obvious there were many and loads of backtracking has made
> it clear there was no real "clear cut case" we should have
> attacked Iraq when we did. I think they have seen enough
> evidence to disturb them and they have seen administration
> officials create roadblocks to hinder this
> investigation...basically the gloves are off on both sides.
> My guess would be they will be quite careful with the
> timing of the release of information because they don't
> want to squander the opportunity to do the most damage. So,
> I think they are going to be quiet about what they have
> until 2004...you know the game.
The first part of your argument simply questions whether we should have gone to war in Iraq or not. This is such a grey area issue with no clear right and wrong answer (its based more on opinion at this point), and is a broad enough subject for another topic in itself (not a bad idea).
Well, it is also at the heart of why this memo exists. I also don't think this should be, in any way, considered a grey area...a preemptive strike against a nation that had not attacked us and that our allies did not not agree with should leave no room for a grey area...it's gotta be clear cut and it was not.
Your claim that they will be careful to relase the information they have at the time able to do the most damage proves that they are simply politicizing this committee (which has a history of being the most non-politicized of all the committees) and its investigation into our national security for their own personal, and partisan gain.
In all honesty I would say either side would do this given the chance. So, yes, that's probably true.
I find that absolutely unacceptable, unstatesman-like, and abhorrently dishonorable. If you cannot set your party affiliation aside for the sake of national security, you are a disgrace to this country and have no business in politics.
Agreed. The sad fact is this probably includes most of the guys from both sides.
The fact that this is acceptable behavior demonstrates the enormity of outright dishonor now prevalent in our political system. There truly are no more statesmen...just partisan pawns.
Yup...most of them probably are...which is why the problem is so hard to fix.
> I also feel we have not heard the last about the Bush
> administration outing that CIA agent. That was a serious
> crime and it will at some point, I believe, return to
> create some real damage. The way Bush handled that was
> shameful and I really don't understand his lack of outrage
> on the matter.
Hehe...the Joe Wilson "scandal"...this truly perplexed me when it blew up in the media. I agree with you that it will probably resurface (without merit), and attempt to create damage, but I also believe the American public could care less.
Well, the first time around they did not seem to care...that's true. But it was sort of a long and confusing story to follow for them. It will resurface in simpler terms I think...meaning this was a crime, this is who commited it, this is what it means...that won't be as easily glossed over. I'm not sure why you say without merit because it is one of the most obvious and overall dumbest crimes any administration has ever commited. Don't forget it's already been established it was someone at a high level in the Bush administration who leaked her name...it's not a big mystery.
It is extremely far-fetched to even suspect that Bush had anything to do with this. I will grant you that it is possible that someone in the administration could be guilty, but to blame Bush himself is ludicrous.
I think it's only fair to say at this point I don't really believe Bush himself is responsible for much because I think Cheney is the guy that pulls all the strings. I really believe Bush is just a front man.
You state that the way Bush handled it was "shameful", and that he displayed a "lack of outrage". How so?
Easy, the leak came from his people. The reporter said so. It was never disputed. It destroyed the relationship between the CIA and the current administration because it destroyed any trust that may have been there. It was outrageous, unethical, stupid and the most harmful breach of National Security that could have taken place. It made our government look assinine worldwide due to the fact we'd out one of our own agents so how do you think that made us appear in the eyes of other intelligence agencies in terms of looking for their cooperation. It's the biggest mistake Bushco could have made and it came from his people...it's a federal crime that requires jailtime. He should have solved the problem in days at the most...at the very least you'd think he would have scapegoated someone...this administration has at least proved good at that...but they didn't. It's a credibility issue for them...and now they have none. Meaning it went higher up than they'd care to admit so nothing was said and nothing has been done. Bush smirked his way through it...not too bright really.
It actually surprised me that he took it more serious than anyone else in the administration. I thought he would just ignore it, yet he ordered immediate compliance with the investigators. He made a public statement denouncing those that outed her name, and vowed to take appropriate action.
Funny, I'd say he ignored it. That was all lip service. He immeadiatly denied it was Rove...according to a spokesman "because he just knew it wasn't"...that was super dumb and an admission that he (Bush) knew something...and I'm sure he did.
If your comments were directed at the denial of an "independent investigation" then I direct you to my prior comments.
Honestly, if Bush wanted credibility he would have called for an independent investigation himself because he (if you want to believe he was unaware) just found out he had people in his own organization he couldn't trust that just destroyed the credibility of his intelligence gathering efforts. Bottom line is the situation should have been handled quickly...as it appears now it was not a priority to him and nothings been done. Also a big coincidence the Bush administration had been having it out with the CIA...Hhmmm...Don't try and tell me you're that blind to this stuff Chris. I know you're not...it's obvious.
It seems that every time the Democrats think something is awry, they call for an independent investigation.
Come on now the Republicans use that tactic as well. Personally I think I'd prefer an independent investigation whoever it is that's calling for one.
As if we don't already have a mechanism for handling these types of investigations. If this mechanism is flawed, this must be proven, and a new mechanism created; however, this has not been done. I guess they just don't trust the Justice Dept....hmmm, there's that trust issue again...
I'd say it is flawed.
> They do, again, discuss the options and best plan under the
> rules. It's not a surprise that they'd like an independent
> investigation now is it?
No, not a surprise. The surprise is that they offer no compelling reason for such an investigation. They must first prove that the existing investigation, of which Rockefeller is a major part, is flawed. Otherwise, what is the point?
Well, that thing was a memo not an attempt to show the current investigation was flawed so it does not argue those points. In fact, it states they are happy with some of the parts of the investigation and the cooperation they had got that they felt was "crucial".
> Rockefeller did not draft the memo and whoever did is never
> mentioned. There is a weak reference to an article written
> by Robert Novac that states Rockefeller asked his people
> for "options"...but in reading it, it's intentionally vague
> about what he asked for options on and why...and never
> states who actually provided them or wrote the memo. So,
> you'd have to agree that these articles are blowing this
> story up to suit a conservative agenda. To call for
> Rockefeller's head is the exact response these articles are
> shooting for.
I agree, calling for Rockefeller's head is probably the response the article aims to ellicit from the reader, but calling for Bush's head is the response the memo in question actually does.
Agreed.
Regardless of the article, simply reading the memo itself is enough to condemn motives behind the actions it suggests.
Well, I'm certainly not a fan of the memo but I guess you have to ask yourself what is more wrong...writing that memo or manufacturing a war with a country that had not attacked us or anyone else.
And while true, Rockefeller never admitted writing the memo, he never denied it either.
I don't know...that's sort of a weird statement...lot's of people didn't deny it does that make them all guilty?
When asked point blank if the memo was indeed from his office, all he could say was that it was stolen, and that the theft should be investigated.
I don't recall reading that I only recall reading that he said he didn't write it.
He never condemned nor voiced any disagreement with what was in the memo. To me, this verifies his complicity. At the very least, it questions his loyalty, and his fitness to serve on the committee. Had he denied and renounced the memo, my opinion would be reversed, but the fact remains that he did not.
I'm not sure if he's not responsible he's required to deny or renounce anything about it. I think it seems you're looking for a way to hang him on it.
