VIDEO: WOW-Dick Durbin says senate intel committee knew Bush lying, but...

[yurbud]

kept quiet because of their vow of secrecy.


I'm almost more shocked that they would let Bush get away with starting a war without doing more than just voting against it than the fact that they knew.

I understand the value of secrecy, but this secrecy was not protecting our national security. It was protecting thugs who were planning to use our military to rob Iraq.

Hundreds of thousands of dead later, keep that vow of secrecy looks like a pretty fucking empty accomplishment.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/28/sen-durbin-drops-bombshells-on-the-senate-floor/

[aquart]

1. He wasn't willing to take a risk to save American lives

and treasure. Well, he's still safe.

[madokie]

2. as much as I like dick I think he might find himself out of a job the next time it is time for him

to be relected, or I would hope so now. w's* war is/was wrong no matter how one slices it.

[yurbud]

7. or 600,000 Iraqis.

[Adelante]

3. This is the question Brian Williams didn't ask

Why did John Edwards, knowing what he knew, co-sponsor the Lieberman IWR?

Durbin and Graham, along with Carl Levin, Barbara Mikulski and Ron Wyden, voted No on the IWR in October 2002. Edwards, along with Evan Bayh, Tom Daschle, Diane Feinstein and Jay Rockefeller voted Yes to the IWR. Edwards co-sponsored the IWR and hawked the war in the media, until he was "sorry" in November 2005, the same month Graham wrote about this in the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html

On what Senate Intelligence Committee members knew and based their votes on, whether or not they knew the Bush administration was lying to the American public, let's hear from John Edwards, not just Dick Durbin and Bob Graham. Edwards is the one, after all, running for, God help us, Commander-in-Chief.

It is too bad Brian Williams didn't think to ask.

[yurbud]

4. was Edwards on the intel committee?

[Adelante]

9. US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

2001-2002
Democrats

Bob Graham, Florida, Chairman (NO to IWR)
Carl Levin, Michigan (NO to IWR)
Ron Wyden, Oregon (NO to IWR)
Richard Durbin, Illinois (NO to IWR)
Barbara A. Mikulski (NO to IWR)

Evan Bayh, Indiana (YES to IWR)
John Edwards, North Carolina (YES to IWR)
John D. Rockefeller IV , West Virginia (YES to IWR)
Dianne Feinstein, California (YES to IWR)

http://intelligence.senate.gov/members107thcongress.html

[yurbud]

10. the yeses can't very well claim they were fooled now.

[karynnj]

11. As Durbin said the Senators not on the Committee

did not get the same detail and in many cases got only cherry picked information with caveats removed.

They also had to consider that lack of positive proof did not mean that Saddam had nothing - especially as there were 4 years with no insppections.

[Adelante]

12. Bob Graham made that point also about the non-members

In the op-ed of November 2005.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html

[karynnj]

13. True - and he said it is 2005

I wonder if Durbin saying this, in conjunction with Graham's 2005 comments will lead to the investigation of whether the intelligence was manipulated. It had shocked me that Kerry could only get 10 signatures on his letter demanding this in 2005. (Durbin was one)

[yurbud]

20. Graham put up the best and smartest resistance, but couldn't be heard above sounds of Bushies

pinching off loafs of bullshit.

[yurbud]

18. Having something still wouldn't make Saddam a threat to us

Sen Bob Graham forced Tenet to release a summary of the classified intel that said even if Saddam had WMD he would be unlikely to use them first or give them to terrorists.

Those on the committee have no fig leaf, but those not on the committee have a pretty damn small one.

[blm]

14. The Intel Committee wouldn't tell OTHER SENATORS? That should've been their priority

advisement to their colleagues. That is the way it is set up.

[yurbud]

5. my impression at the time was they were telling BIGGER lies behind closed doors

which would have at least given congress the gullibility and incompetence excuse. This amounts to criminal negligence.

[yurbud]

6. the plus side of this is it should be a slam dunk for impeachment.

[WinkyDink]

8. Then there are those who learned the hideous torturre/rape/murder truths.

And said nothing.

[mnmoderatedem]

15. The thing is...

Durbin could have come out and stated generically that the intelligence was twisted and distorted and does not justify invading Iraq, and would not have violated any type of confidentially agreement.

Worth noting though, that he voted against IWR.

[davsand]

16. He would have been liable for charges of treason had he spoken publicly.

From what I have been able to glean, Durbin (and all the others on Intel) would have been violating about a kerjillion different laws had they spoken out about what they'd been briefed on in committee.

While I agree fully that Iraq is an illegal war based on lies, I will also say that I am amazed at the crap flying around Durbin right now simply because he didn't violate his oath. If I recall correctly, we here at DU have been screaming for several heads to roll based on the entire Plame affair. Plamegate would be a case of somebody "talking out of school," in case anyone has forgotten...

Durbin voted No on that war (unlike a few other Dems on that Intel Committee.) He didn't break any laws, and I am ok with him. I still respect my Senator.



Laura

[Adelante]

17. I agree

I have a great deal of respect for Senator Durbin and everyone who voted NO. That's where the rubber hit the road.

[yurbud]

19. difference between Plame case and this: saving vs. taking lives

Bush didn't like Wilson putting stink on his war and deflate support for it. He outed Plame so he could kill and steal more.

If Durbin had stepped forward, he might have saved our troops lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

In truth, I don't think he would have been able to cut through the propaganda. The truth was nuance and analysis, and the propaganda was Cat in the Hat simple.

But the whole thing stinks of using tea party manners while Jeffrey Dahmer is eating your children in front of you.

[frogcycle]

23. yeah, apt description!

but we, of course, have the benefit now of having had all the lies exposed. So maybe its more like you THINK Jeffrey Dahmer MAY be eating your children... depends on how egregious the contradictions were, I guess.

[frogcycle]

21. I have a big problem with this

Durbin is my Senator, and I generally respect him. I understand the security laws and secrecy on the information they are given in closed briefings...

BUT

why the hell is there a security oversight committee?

Is it not supposed to provide oversight?

It gets briefed BECAUSE the members are supposed to be leaders, not lackeys.

I suppose to an extent we have to consider the then-current atmosphere - dems were minority, and if the rep membbers of the committee did not have a problem with the contradictions, then the dems would be way out on a limb trying to "blow the whistle." If they just "expressed concern" over "apparent contradictions" - about all they could do without violating the secrecy - they'd have been shouted down as naysayers, and only if they showed the proof bt telling what they had been told could they make a case. So I understand they were between a rock and a hard place,


BUT

lives were at stake; a war was being contrived. I don't accept that just voting no and keeping quiet was doing their duty.


I need a whole lot more 'splainin' from Durbin before I can accept this.

[The Stranger]

22. That is called conspiracy to commit war crimes.

[LSK]

24. wrong - there is a DISGUSTING lack of research on this topic

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x789111

[nomatrix]

25. Here You Go

EVERY SENATOR HAS THIS INFORMATION

Demand that every senator stop the cover-up.

Read this from Carl Levin



http://www.carllevin.com/news/2006/09/08/levin-floor-speech-on-the-senate-intelligence-committees-phase-ii-report/

"Among what remains classified, and therefore covered up, includes deeply disturbing information. Much of the information redacted from the public report does not jeopardize any intelligence source or method but serves effectively to cover up certain highly offensive activities. Even the partially released picture is plenty bleak about the administration’s use of falsehoods and distortions to build public support for the war. But the public is entitled to the full picture. Unless this report is further declassified, they won’t get it. While the battle is waged to declassify those covered-up portions of the report–unless, of course, those portions truly disclose intelligence sources or methods–every Senator should read the classified version of this report. It is available to every Senator, and I urge every Senator to read the classified version of this report and reach his own conclusion about what Senator Rockefeller and I have said about the portions of this report that remain classified and unavailable to the public."

[Morgana LaFey]

26. Vow of SECRECY????

What the hell does that mean? VOW????

I'm not shocked, I'm revolted.

[yurbud]

27. president gets to decide what's classified

and they go along with it.