Politics > Politics-USA > Republicans use phony excuse to run away from the investigation of George W. Bush
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
08 Nov 2003 05:13:49 PM |
| Object: |
Republicans use phony excuse to run away from the investigation of George W. Bush |
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_11_02.html#002178
-- Josh Marshall
We all know how this works.
Two guys walk into a ring for a fight.
One knows he’s about to get creamed.
But he can’t bear the shame and humiliation of walking away from a
fight.
So at the very last moment he whips out some phony claim that the
other guy’s cheating.
He puffs himself up with forced indignation.
And huffily storms off.
Everybody knows it was bogus --- the accused, the accuser, everyone
else.
But it gives the coward just enough of an angle, just enough of a
smokescreen to get out of the place without having a glove laid on him
and with a bit of his dignity intact.
This is of course more or less exactly what the Republicans are doing
with the hullabaloo over this unsent Democratic staff memo.
Precisely the same.
(The actual memo bears reading because, though Jay Rockefeller has
said he never authorized it and it was never sent, it's much more tame
than the hyper-ventilating coverage would suggest. The 'plot' is
essentially a plot to have a real investigation.)
As I said in this earlier post, the Republicans are trying to use this
memo riduculousness to shut down any scrutiny of the intelligence
related bad-acts in the lead-up to the war.
And they’re already starting.
According to Newsmax, Newt Gingrich said yesterday that the president
should refuse to cooperate with the committee altogether.
"I don't see how the White House can cooperate with an intelligence
committee which has this level of partisanship," he told Sean Hannity
on Thursday.
See where they’re going with this?
_____________________________________________________
Things were gettin' a li'l too hot for the guilty right wing. Here's
the whole memo. So what's the problem?
The memo;
"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 has agreed to look at the activities of the Office of the
Secretary of Defense as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State
Department. The fact that the chairman supports our investigations
into these offices and co-signs 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. (Note: 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 have already compiled all the public statements on
Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the
most exaggerated claims and 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) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes
clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with
the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation
at any time-- but we can only do so once. 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: 1) additional views on the interim
report; 2) announcement of our independent investigation; and 3)
additional views on the final investigation; or
B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to
pursue. We could 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
foot-dragging 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 questions to DoD; and we are
preparing further independent requests for information."
Once again. So what's the problem?
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Republicans use phony excuse to run away from the investigation of George W. Bush |
08 Nov 2003 07:12:01 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 23:13:49 GMT, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote or quoted :
"I don't see how the White House can cooperate with an intelligence
committee which has this level of partisanship," he told Sean Hannity
on Thursday.
Isn't it funny how much Republican news comes via this Sean Hannity
character. It is as they figured anyone else could not be trusted to
keep a straight face when they told their lies.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
