Feinstein on the Closed Session of the Senate

[kerrygoddess]

Senator Feinstein on the Closed Session of the Senate
November 2, 2005

Senator Dianne Feinstein released the following statement regarding yesterday’s closed session in the Senate that was spurred by Harry Reid invoking Rule 21.

“It’s now very clear that the intelligence that led many members of Congress to vote to authorize the use of force was both bad and wrong. I believe that the American people deserve to know whether that intelligence was misused by the Administration in building up the case for war.

The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on phase one of its investigation, which focused on the actual intelligence on Iraq, has been released. But there is much frustration on the Democratic side about the status of phase two, which deals with the potential misuse of intelligence.

It is our belief that very little progress has been made on phase two, that there has not been an intensive staff effort, and that every time Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice-chairman of the committee, or other members urge action, none is forthcoming.

Therefore this issue was aired in closed session. Six members of the Intelligence Committee were charged with reporting to the full Senate by November 14 on the progress and schedule for completion of phase two of the investigation.”

The following are details of the unanimous vote on Feb. 12, 2004 by the Senate Intelligence Committee to refine the terms of reference of its inquiry into the pre-war intelligence to include an investigation of the possible misuse of the intelligence:

A. The matters set forth in the joint release of the Chairman and Vice Chairman on June 20, 2003 (known as phase one of the investigation):

1. the quantity and quality of U.S. intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs, ties to terrorist groups, Saddam Hussein’s threat to stability and security in the region, and his repression of his own people;

MORE - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1030

[still_one]

1. good for her, she actually admitted it was bad and wrong

that is close to admitting that her vote was a mistake knowing what she knows now

I imagine more will follow. Too bad they didn't have the courage until bush's poll numbers started to fall

definitely not profiles in courage

[orwell]

2. The Intel

We don't know whether the intel was "bad or wrong." In fact, most cursory evidence indicates that it was neither. The real problem was that the Bush Davidians manufactured "intelligence" from forged documents, whisper campaigns from disgruntled expatriots and conmen, and wholesale lying.

We will never know what the raw intel was, nor should we. We do know enough now to assert that we were lied to willfully in order to "stampede the herd" into a war.

If that isn't high crimes and misdemeanors, I don't know what is.

[AntiCoup2K4]

3. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

But I find it hard to believe that Feinstein and her warmonger husband didn't know better.

[kerrygoddess]

4. No it's not.

Many didn't know. It's a fact - well documented at this point.

[welshTerrier2]

5. Feinstein: "misuse"; Reid: "manufacturing and manipulating"

perhaps it was just semantics, but Feinstein's definition of her charter on this special committee differs significantly from the words Reid used yesterday ...

Feinstein said "I believe that the American people deserve to know whether that intelligence was misused by the Administration in building up the case for war."

"misuse" allows for the possibility of "not using the evidence correctly but doing so in an UNINTENTIONAL manner" ... in this context, the investigation could potentially be limited to mere incompetence ... the conclusion could be that evidence was mistakenly used incorrectly (i.e. evidence was "misused")

Reid's use of the term "manufacturing and manipulating" clearly implies INTENT ...

Feinstein's definition allows the possibility that the investigation might do little more than point to ERRORS; under Reid's definition, the investigation could readily point to CRIMES ...

so ... what do you think? ... just nit-picky semantic oversight or shifting the committee's charter just a few important notches to the right???