If Durbin was sworn to secrecy – what allows him to speak now?

[SnoopDog]

What has changed to allow him to speak about the fake Iraq evidence? And if they know the evidence was fake – would that not be immediate grounds for impeachment of Bush and Cheney?

[Lone_Wolf]

1. He was also sworn to to support the US Constitution

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

He should have said something.

[Old and In the Way]

2. Interesting question.

Durbin's comments have added yet another confirmation that the intel disclosed in committee didn't support this administration's case. So if the intel was bogus....what is Durbin protecting?

[SnoopDog]

5. Sometimes I think...

that even some of our dems are in on this crime. A lot of money has been drained from our treasury. And it seems that the Dems, for the last 4 years could have screamed bloody murder. Did they get paid off too? I don't know...

[Adelante]

3. Actually, he isn't just speaking now

It's been about two and a half years that he's been speaking of it. I don't know the answer, but what I suspect is it has to do with Phase II of the prewar intelligence report which has been blocked all these years by the Repugs. Durbin, Levin, Rockefeller - they are all pushing back.

[Adelante]

8. New York Times editorial "Still Waiting for Answers."

It has long been evident that President Bush decided to invade Iraq first, and constructed his ramshackle case for the war after the fact. So why, after all this time, are Americans still in the dark about the details of that campaign?
-snip

It is imperative for Senator John Rockefeller, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, to finish two remaining studies on prewar intelligence that his Republican predecessor, Senator Pat Roberts, had no intention of completing. The first, on the errors made by the intelligence agencies in predicting what would happen after the invasion of Iraq, is expected to be finished next month. The final piece of the report will compare what administration officials said about Iraq with the actual information they had. Both reports are essential for understanding how this country got into this mess. Mr. Rockefeller will have to make sure the White House does not drag out the declassification procedure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/opinion/29sun1.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[bigbrother05]

4. The information has been

declassified, so now he is able to speak.

[SnoopDog]

7. How did you find that out? And..

if it is fake info for going to war - isn't that an impeachable offense?

[bigbrother05]

9. I believe Durbin said it

on the floor, when he made his statement.
You would think, I don't understand the mindset of the american public,
I think with the MSM reporting, that they could not report anything, other than a blowjob,
where the masses would understand, and bush is all over the place.

[JanusAscending]

11. He did say it on the floor.

I specifically heard him say it had been declassified, so he was now able to disclose it. If you don't believe us, look up the transcript on the Senate website!

[momster]

6. Why Not Deepthroat II?

It took them 30-odd years to find out who that was. If nobody had the guts to walk out in front of the mikes and declare the lies, how hard would it have been to call some pressperson up and demand secrecy and anonyminity? Maybe if there'd been a Pentagon Papers style leak there'd be a lot more live soldiers and Iraqis today.

Gutless wonders the lot of 'em.

[OHdem10]

10. Just a Reminder--Someone did Speak OUt

Senator Bob Graham Fla. Good Senator had been one of
the best Govenors Fla ever had. Respected by Dems and Republicans.

How many of these hindsighters even on this board even
paid attention to Bob Graham. He lost election.

He said The evidence does not measure up to going to war.

The Media either ignored him or insinuated he was a little
nutty.

Why did the Media not cover all the people who did not vote
for the war and ask them why. Why did all our Hindsighters
not ask the Senators and Congressmen why they did not vote
for the war???? These people were not covered by the Media.
The Media had their flag pins, their patriotic logos on theTV Screen
and the Military Music Playing. If anyone questioned anything
they would scream in the person's face--How dare you--question a most
popular president. Go back to the time and think. You either were
for Bush or if against Bush, God Help you.

The very fact that Durbin and some others on Intel Committee
voted against the war should have alarmed the Media. This
says more about Media than Durbin.

Dubrn would have been breaking the law to come forward on his
own. He would have been declared a disgruntle nutcase or worse
and he would probably have lost another Dem. Seat.

The only thing that could have changed things would have been--
that our party as a whole--all members had come forth along
with Colin Powell or George Tenet. The Media had to be convinced.
Look what happened to Senator Graham.
Individuals would have committed political suicide.

S

[saltpoint]

12. I love Dick Durbin. He's an absolutely terrific senator.

I hope he considers a run for the White House one of these days.

And for 2008, I wouldn't want to rule him out as a veep nominee either.

Illinois generally is considered in the bag for us Democrats -- the GOP there is in disarray, but Durbin's sheer smarts and abilities would be greatly welcome anyway.

He's got fans all over the place, too.

If he is not a household name everywhere, it doesn't mean he can't be one later, and it sure doesn't mean he wouldn't be effective in a higher post, or continuing in the Senate, perhaps as majority leader one of these days.

A tremendous asset to our party.

____
edit: spellin'