Somebody please shed some light on this.

[fjc]

This is the 3rd time I've posted this. It got no reply elsewhere, and since this forum seems the most active, I'll try it here. It concerns the Senate Committee on Intelligence report issued in July of 2004? Here's a link:

http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqreport2-textunder.pdf

This report very pointedly raises questions on the veracity of Mr. Wilson and this whole episode of "forged Niger documents" which is, as I understand it, the basis of the charge this administration manipulated intelligence to justify the war in Iraq. Anyone out here read this report? None of the recent news reporting on this issue, particularly after Mr. Reids forcing of a closed door session over Iraq, even mentions this report and its findings. Anyone out here able to shed some light on this?

[RobertSeattle]

1. What is your question?

FYI - the GPO version is here:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html

(And it still sucks - no searchable text version is available)

[fjc]

8. That's a good link

It provides what my link does not, views from the Democratic senators on the committee. My question is, really, if the committee had nailed this matter, the matter of Wilson etc, in their report, then why is the media, and even the Republicans, for that matter, not referring to this report in the current embroglio over what Reid did in the Senate? It would seem that the committee's report did not nail this for anyone, or they'd be saying so. But I had never seen a critique of this report and the right seems to rely on it heavily.

[RobertSeattle]

13. Try ThinkProgress

They've had some great pieces on Wilson, RW Myths, etc. Just do a search there.

http://www.thinkprogress.org

[TallahasseeGrannie]

15. OT RobertS, what is your avatar? It is a service ribbon?

[Jackpine Radical]

23. That's an Iraq War I ribbon.

[justiceischeap]

2. I believe what you are seeing is the "doctored" version

After the initial report was released several Repugs got together and "edited" it. There is an entire thread devoted to this discussion. I'm sure someone will post the link.

[fooj]

The "veracity" of Mr. Wilson is no longer in question...

The VP and "Scooter" decided to OMIT over 200 pages of documents re: the Senate Report. Go figure. Wonder WHY that happened? Oh, that's right. It was EDITED!!! Geez......

Peace.

[Gabi Hayes]

3. "this report very pointedly...." is total BS. read some of the linx here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5215940

[justiceischeap]

4. Thanks for adding the link (eom)

[cynatnite]

5. I've been wondering about this, too

Thanks!

[fjc]

9. Thank you. I needed to see some kind of critique.

As I said in my reply above, it escapes me why this report is bascially being ignored by both sides and the media. Apparently, it didn't settle a thing. I'll read those links. Thanks again.

[Bridget Burke]

6. I don't have time to read the report right now.

Perhaps you could summarize some of those very pointed points?

[blm]

7. Sen Pat Roberts PLANTED antiWilson talking points into an ADDENDUM to the

Senate Report that ONLY THREE GOP senators signed onto. Roberts, Hatch and Bond. No other GOP senator on the committee would even agree to those bogus "findings" and would not sign their names to it. And certainly no Dem on the committee did.

I would like Fitzgerald to subpoena Roberts and ask him to produce the evidence which he used to draw his conclusions in the addendum and to explain his findings UNDER OATH.

Now, please explain your interpretation and why you are so puzzled about an obvious ADDENDUM that was signed by 3 political hacks?

[loudsue]

10. Now THAT is a good idea!!!

"I would like Fitzgerald to subpoena Roberts and ask him to produce the evidence which he used to draw his conclusions in the addendum and to explain his findings UNDER OATH."



And it would ABSOLUTELY go to the heart of the "conspiracy" charges that SHOULD come as a result of Fitz's investigation.

:kick:

[fjc]

11. Because..

the committee was bi-partisan. I know it says in there that the Democrats would not allow the committee to conclude some things about Mr. Wilson, but it does not say "why". There is no reference to why the Democrats refused this part. Someone else provided some links to the views of the Democrats on the committee, but so far I have not read anything that explains this.

[blm]

12. The same reason that the other GOPs wouldn't sign onto it - IT'S PLANTED

TALKING POINTS AGAINST WILSON FOR THE WH.

[fjc]

14. I'm afraid that won't do.

What other GOPer's would not sign unto it?

[blm]

17. ALL the other Republicans on the Senate Intel Committee.

That's why it was written in as an addendum. Surely you must be aware that addendums are attached findings by some committee members and are not the findings of the entire committee?

[fjc]

18. Yes, I am aware of that. But the report said

the Democrats would not allow some conclusions to be drawn. It did not say there were Republicans on the Intel committee that agreed with the Democrats, or who had their own reasons for refusing to support that addendum. I'd like to know who they were, that's all.

[blm]

21. Well, since Fitzgerald has not found that Wilson lied, how did Roberts?

And if Roberts had evidence that Wilson was the one lying, then why didn't he demand that Fitzgerald consider his evidence?

He could have OFFERED to testify if he really believed his report and conclusions were the truth. Why would he withhold such important evidence from a prosecutor?

BTW...I couldn't find the other threads where you asked about this. Can you point me to them? I'd like to post what happened for others that may be mystified.

[blm]

24. Hello? There are some pertinent, logical questions here...why no reply?

.

[blm]

26. BTW...here is the list of Republican committee members who DIDN'T sign

Roberts' addendum:


Mike Dewine, Ohio
Trent Lott, Mississippi
Olympia J. Snowe, Maine
Chuck Hagel, Nebraska
Saxby Chambliss, Georgia

[fjc]

29. Thank you. That helps.

[blm]

30. Well, anyone can get that info by searching Senate Intel Committee. Surely

it must also have been on the front page of the Intel Report that you read.

[fjc]

31. Well, thanks again., and stuff it.

[sandnsea]

16. The Partisan Addendum

It would be nice to hear that over and over, thanks BLM.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

19. I didn't read the report you posted.

mainly because I have no reason to doubt the veracity of former Ambassador Wilson.

[fjc]

20. Well, that's one strategy.

It matters not one wit that "you" have no reason to doubt him. It matters alot, however, to be able to say a bit more than that to those who may because of things like the addendum to that report.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

22. i guess you mean one "whit"

but anyway, does the report mention that they in fact did find that Niger sold yellow-cake to Saddam? And find the yellow cake in Iraq along with all the other WMD's?

Please do IM me when that happens, because that's when I'll begin to doubt the former ambassador's veracity. Deal?

[blm]

25. Well, if Fitzgerald hasn't found that Wilson lied, I expect that means he

didn't lie.

But some of us can figure that out all by our lonesomes. ;)

[SlavesandBulldozers]

27. oh there you go with those crazy assumptions again.

Now, can we just get back to questioning Joseph Wilson's veracity;-)

[leftchick]

32. and he means " a lot "

:eyes:

I find the fact that Fitzgerald and the CIA take this seriously enough to pursue investigations and indictments credible enough for most Americans.

[AntiFascist]

28. I know I'll get tin foil thrown at me for this....

but I would submit that the forged document issue strikes deep into the heart of the matter and some would say may compromise national security. It has been mentioned before that worldwide intelligence has been cooked by some sort of conspiracy between DC, Rome, London and Jerusalem. Recall that Bush I used to head the CIA. Have you seen this report yet? (Get the flame retardent ready!)

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/