or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Government/Politics
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| This is what they call dirty politics. |
ETWolverine |
11/01/05 |
GOP furious at closed Senate session
Minority leader holds unusual secret meeting about prewar intelligence
MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 4:42 p.m. ET Nov. 1, 2005
WASHINGTON - Democrats forced the Republican-controlled Senate into an unusual closed session for just more than two hours Tuesday, questioning intelligence that President Bush used in the run-up to the war in Iraq and accusing Republicans of ignoring the issue.
“They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why,” Democratic leader Harry Reid said.
Taken by surprise, Republicans derided the move as a political stunt.
“The United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership,” said Majority Leader Bill Frist. “They have no convictions, they have no principles, they have no ideas,” the Republican leader said.
In a speech on the Senate floor, Reid said the American people and U.S. troops deserved to know the details of how the United States became engaged in the war, particularly in light of the indictment of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.
Reid’s spokesperson said the purpose of the meeting was to persuade Republicans to reopen the investigation into the prewar intelligence, MSNBC.com’s Tom Curry reported. The Senate Intelligence Committee is chaired by Pat Roberts, R-Kan.
Reid demanded the Senate go into closed session. With a second by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the public was ordered out of the chamber, the lights were dimmed, senators filed to their seats on the floor and the doors were closed. No vote is required in such circumstances.
Reid’s move shone a spotlight on the continuing controversy over intelligence that President Bush cited in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Despite prewar claims, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and some Democrats have accused the administration of manipulating the information that was in their possession.
Provoked by Libby indictment
Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, was indicted last Friday in an investigation that touched on the war, the leak of the identity of a CIA official married to a critic of the administration’s Iraq policy.
“The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions,” Reid said before the doors were closed.
Libby resigned Friday after being indicted on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury in an investigation by a special prosecutor into the unauthorized leak of a CIA agent’s identity.
Reid accused Republicans of playing upon post-9/11 fears as grounds for going to war.
“Obviously we know now their nuclear claims were wholly inaccurate,” Reid said. “But more troubling is the fact that a lot of intelligence experts were telling the Administration then that its claims about Saddam's nuclear capabilities were false.”
Reid’s spokesperson, Jim Manley, said the purpose of this closed session is to persuade Republicans to reopen the intelligence committee investigation into prewar intelligence
Democrats challenging war justification
Democrats contend that the unmasking of Valerie Plame was retribution for her husband, Joseph Wilson, publicly challenging the Bush administration’s contention that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Africa. That claim was part of the White House’s justification for going to war.
Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Reid was making “some sort of stink about Scooter Libby and the CIA leak.”
A former majority leader, Lott said a closed session is appropriate for such overarching matters as impeachment and chemical weapons — the two topics that last sent the senators into such sessions.
In addition, Lott said, Reid’s move violated the Senate’s tradition of courtesy and consent. But there was nothing in Senate rules enabling Republicans to thwart Reid’s effort.
As Reid spoke, Majority Leader Bill Frist met in the back of the chamber with a half-dozen senior GOP senators, including Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, who bore the brunt of Reid’s criticism. Reid said Roberts reneged on a promise to fully investigate whether the administration exaggerated and manipulated intelligence leading up to the war.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
© 2005 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9886959/
-----------
Excon,
Can you find any example where the Republicans did anything quite as dirty as this? Ever?
That is why I call what the Dems do "dirty politics".
Elliot |
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 11/02/05 8:38 am:
see my response to Choux's posting about same subject
Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 11/02/05 11:32 am:
Hello again El, let’s get down and dirty.
In the first place, your penchant for excusing my accusations by saying the other guys did it first, is beneath you. It’s not an argument. It’s an immature response similar to, “well, he hit me first”. If your guy did what he’s accused of, then tell me that what he did was the right thing to do, not that it’s ok because others do it. If it wasn’t the right thing to do, then cop to it.
Secondly, and in a similar vein, answering my accusations by quoting somebody else’s stance on the issue, which you mistakenly presume to be my own, is pointless. I have trouble enough arguing my own points. Your argument above assumes that I have declared the nuclear option to be “dirty politics”. I haven’t made any such declaration.
>>>And yet you criticize Alito who also used the 'rules', aka the Constitution.<<<
Thirdly, your remark regarding rules indicates just how easily activist judges on your side change the rules, and how easily you buy into it. Let me be crystal clear about which “rule” my question referred to - the Constitution.
Alito, and every single judge who perverted the Fourth Amendment by changing what it means, and then citing themselves as the authority IS the epitome of legislating from the bench.
So, if you want to talk about the rules, let’s talk about the rules. We’re gonna have problems though, because you cite made up rules by “activist judges” on your side. As a constitutionalist, that is my authority - my only authority.
If you want a real argument with me, and I think you do, then argue with me in the real world - not the rhetorical one your create with your specious arguments. You’re beginning to sound like talk radio.
excon
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 11/02/05 12:48 pm:
the trouble is that there has never been an agreement as to what original intent implies re. the 4th .Probable cause was never defined so it was left to the judiciary to do so . Find Law explains it well : Thus, the question arises whether the Fourth Amendment's two clauses must be read together to mean that the only searches and seizures which are ''reasonable'' are those which meet the requirements of the second clause, that is, are pursuant to warrants issued under the prescribed safeguards, or whether the two clauses are independent, so that searches under warrant must comply with the second clause but that there are ''reasonable'' searches under the first clause which need not comply with the second clause. This issue has divided the Court for some time, has seen several reversals of precedents, and is important for the resolution of many cases.
|
| |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
