>> With this statement, I have to disagree. The subject of
>> the memo is not that the Bush Administration lied.

> 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.

>> The subject of the memo is how certain Democratic party
>> members can abuse their position of power to defame the
>> Bush administration right before the election.

> 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". 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". 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 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.

Here is my problem with content of the memo: It suggests that an independent investigation has already been planned, 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. 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.

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. 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.

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. 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. Otherwise, any subsequent investigation should uncover the same truths, unless those subsequent investigations are flawed. 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.

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.

>> What is so disturbing about this memo is that they have
>> already made up their minds as to what the findings will
>> be, yet they haven't even finished the investigation. They
>> are simply usingthe investigation as a political
>> campaigning tool...regardless of its outcome.

> 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). However, the issue at hand here is the memo and its intentions / repercussions, so I will resist digression.

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. 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. 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.

> 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. 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.
 
You state that the way Bush handled it was "shameful", and that he displayed a "lack of outrage". How so? 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. If your comments were directed at the denial of an "independent investigation" then I direct you to my prior comments.

It seems that every time the Democrats think something is awry, they call for an independent investigation. 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...

>> They state in plain english that if the investigation has
>> not damned the administration by election time, they can
>> fire off their own investigation and make sure it does.

> 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? 

>> In my opinion, Rockefeller should be ousted from the
>> committee and replaced by someone with honor and respect
>> for the committee and it's responsibilities.

> 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. Regardless of the article, simply reading the memo itself is enough to condemn motives behind the actions it suggests. And while true, Rockefeller never admitted writing the memo, he never denied it either. 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. 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.

>> Nowhere in there does it state that they have any "goods"
>> on the president. Nowhere does it state that the
>> administration "lied".

> I bolded the summary of the memo which states why they
> wrote it. No, they don't use the terms I used but...and you
> could call this my opinion I suppose...I think it certainly
> implies they know the Bush administration was dishonest.

Ok, simple misunderstanding, I see your point...you see mine. We move on.

>> Fact is, they don't have the "goods" on him. If they did,
>> we all know they would be shouting it from the
>> mountaintops and moving for impeachment. Yet they are not,
>> because they have no grounds to do so.

> I'm not so sure about that. I think they are saving up all
> this information to unload it at the worst possible time.
> Again, we know someone in the Bush administration committed
> a crime when they outted that CIA agent. They've got stuff
> on them but I think the silence at this point is
> intentional. They know this coming election will be a fight
> and I think they are stockpiling ammo. This is of course my
> opinion, so we'll just have to wait and see.

I see your point that their silence does not necessarily indicate they have no evidence, however, their insistence on an independant investigation leads me to believe otherwise. As far as "knowing" someone in the administration commited a crime, who? I don't think anyone other than Novak really does know, and we probably never will. And if the Democrat committee members do, and are sitting on the information, they are illegally witholding information from a federal investigation. Playing political games like this has devasted the political landscape of this country.

>> Reg, all I can say about that statement is Amen! I agree
>> that both sides of the aisle are corrupt, and much of the
>> time just full of BS.

> Be careful what you agree with there Chris...you may have
> just killed any political career you may have had as well.
> I can say that according to Dan you and I have just lost
> the schoolgirl vote. Ha!

Hehe...true my friend, but if I wanted a political career, I wouldn't be telling you how I truly feel. I'd just lie through my teeth. Practice makes perfect, and to get very far in politics, I would need a lot more practice!

>> But in this case, because they are already planning to
>> ignore the investigation if it's findings don't suit their
>> needs and "pull the trigger" on their own investigation
>> before the election, it goes above and beyond the petty
>> partisanship normally seen in politics.

> I agree, it's getting uglier all the time. I think this
> coming election will be the worst and most disgusting
> spectacle we've ever witnessed in the history of American
> politics. It will probably have a lasting effect on the
> American publics opinions.

I have been saying this all along. I, like you, am truly afraid of what will come out of this election. This last year has been the most cutthroat, blasphemous, dishonorable political year I have ever seen. It reminds me of the Clayton Williams / Ann Richards gubenatorial race here in Texas. That was disgusting and disgraceful. To see that happen in the race for this great country's leader would be just nauseating. George Washington must be rolling over in his grave cursing. If only people valued personal honor more in this country, these types of problems would not exist. It seems as if the mentality today is that if you can get away with it, just do it.

>> This is manipulation of national security and abuse of
>> power.

> I'm sorry to say that's a running theme in DC and in my
> opinion no one does it better than the Bush boys. We
> certainly need sweeping changes. Thanks again for your
> interesting comments. I hope you continue to hang around
> and contribute your thoughts.

I agree, except the Bush comment, hehe. And yeah, I'll be hanging around here for a while. It's nice to hear opposing viewpoints. Its especially nice that it can be done without resorting to a shouting match or name-calling. Just respectful debate and discussion. I really enjoy discovering the differing ways in which we both view the same issues. Its too easy to get caught up in disagreeing and ignore the reasons why we disagree. This gives us a forum to agree to disagree.

-=CE=-