why we can't run Kerry, Edwards, or Lieberman..

[MaverickX]

None of them can logically criticize Bush for presenting to Congress faulty intelligence about the uranium from Niger. As Senators, especially Edwards being on the Intelligence Committee, they arguably should've known the Niger report was false. Instead of checking out this claim these 3 Senators voted for the war authorization. Their mistake wasn't so much in supporting war but a failure to investigate whether or not they justification given for war was accurate.

[lcordero]

1. That's why Gephardt can't get the nomination either

EOM

[MaverickX]

2. no...

I don't think House members have access to intelligence reports.

[Andy_Stephenson]

3. Oh tes they.....

do have access to them.

[MaverickX]

4. I don't think they do...

Only the Senate does. The House doesn't have oversight of executive agencies.

[goobergunch]

5. yes it does

RULE X
* * * * * * *

2. (a) The various standing committees shall have general oversight responsibilities as provided in paragraph (b) in order to assist the House in (1) its analysis, appraisal, and evaluation of

(A) the application, administration, execution, and effectiveness of Federal laws; and

(B) conditions and circumstances that may indicate the necessity or desirability of enacting new or additional legislation; and

(2) its formulation, consideration, and enactment of changes in Federal laws, and of such additional legislation as may be necessary or appropriate.

(b)(1) In order to determine whether laws and programs addressing subjects within the jurisdiction of a committee are being implemented and carried out in accordance with the intent of Congress and whether they should be continued, curtailed, or eliminated, each standing committee (other than the Committee on Appropriations) shall review and study on a continuing basis

(A) the application, administration, execution, and effectiveness of laws and programs addressing subjects within its jurisdiction;

(B) the organization and operation of Federal agencies and entities having responsibilities for the administration and execution of laws and programs addressing subjects within its jurisdiction;

(C) any conditions or circumstances that may indicate the necessity or desirability of enacting new or additional legislation addressing subjects within its jurisdiction (whether or not a bill or resolution has been introduced with respect thereto); and

(D) future research and forecasting on subjects within its jurisdiction.

(2) Each committee to which subparagraph (1) applies having more than 20 members shall establish an oversight subcommittee, or require its sub committees to conduct oversight in their respective jurisdictions, to assist in carrying out its responsibilities under this clause. The establishment of an oversight subcommittee does not limit the responsibility of a subcommittee with legislative jurisdiction in carrying out its oversight responsibilities.

(c) Each standing committee shall review and study on a continuing basis the impact or probable impact of tax policies affecting subjects within its jurisdiction as described in clauses 1 and 3.

(d)(1) Not later than February 15 of the first session of a Congress, each standing committee shall, in a meeting that is open to the public and with a quorum present, adopt its oversight plan for that Congress. Such plan shall be submitted simultaneously to the Committee on Government Reform and to the Committee on House Administration. In developing its plan each committee shall, to the maximum extent feasible

(A) consult with other committees that have jurisdiction over the same or related laws, programs, or agencies within its jurisdiction with the objective of ensuring maximum coordination and cooperation among committees when conducting reviews of such laws, programs, or agencies and include in its plan an explanation of steps that have been or will be taken to ensure such coordination and cooperation;

(B) review specific problems with Federal rules, regulations, statutes, and court decisions that are ambiguous, arbitrary, or nonsensical, or that impose severe financial burdens on individuals;

(C) give priority consideration to including in its plan the review of those laws, programs, or agencies operating under permanent budget authority or permanent statutory authority; and

(D) have a view toward ensuring that all significant laws, programs, or agencies within its jurisdiction are subject to review every 10 years.

(2) Not later than March 31 in the first session of a Congress, after consultation with the Speaker, the Majority Leader, and the Minority Leader, the Committee on Government Reform shall report to the House the oversight plans submitted by committees together with any recommendations that it, or the House leadership group described above, may make to ensure the most effective coordination of oversight plans and otherwise to achieve the objectives of this clause.

(e) The Speaker, with the approval of the House, may appoint special ad hoc oversight committees for the purpose of reviewing specific matters within the jurisdiction of two or more standing committees.

http://clerk.house.gov/legisAct/The_Legislative_Process/rules/rule10.php

[MaverickX]

7. over intelligence though?

n/t

[goobergunch]

6. Regarding intelligence

RULE X 3. (l) The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence shall review and study on a continuing basis laws, programs, and activities of the intelligence community and shall review and study on an exclusive basis the sources and methods of entities described in clause 11(b)(1)(A).

http://clerk.house.gov/legisAct/The_Legislative_Process/rules/rule10.php

[ilpostino]

8. On the other hand

The 70% of Americans who went along with the war may not really hold against anyone who was taken in as badly as they were. They just might feel more comfortable with a candidate who's credibility trajectory pretty much tracks with their own.

[jpgray]

9. If we went by your logic, we'd lose a lot of criticism

Just because you get fooled (whether or not the above were really "fooled) doesn't mean you have to shut up about the thing you got fooled for. That's how the general public feels, and they will sympathize with a candidate who feels the same. Maybe the antiwar folks have an advantage, but I don't think the Congressional Dems (Gephardt as well) are a liability because of this.

[MaverickX]

13. they can't challenge Bush on it..

If Bush should've known the Niger report was false then why should Congress not have known?

[ShaneGR]

10. FALSE!!! They were GIVEN FALSE INTELLIGENCE!!!!

By the Bush administration!

[salin]

11. This is my read as well

and I just read an item last night (maybe the most recent Seymour Hirsh (sp?) piece in the New Yorker) that says that two people present at the "top secret" presentation of evidence to members of Congress (in attempts to swing war res votes) included the cooked up/hyped and known to be false information - including (i believe) the uranium charges.

What does seem important to watch in the ensuing weeks is HOW those who were decieved on the Hill act over time. Will they continue to express public outrage? Will they push for hearings ala Iran Contra where representatives of the administration will be put under oath about "lying" to congress? Will the expressly make the charges that they were intentionally decieved by WH folks in the weeks preceding the war resolution vote?

I recognize the need for some of these folks to tread carefully. But silence over time, especially if others are raising the charges, would be very indicative that they might overly respect the right of the WH to engage in such deceptions? Or that the election politics is more important than deceptions that led to giving a near blank check to the president for this war. How this will be balanced by these candidates will be very important signs about their political integrity not as candidates, but as elected officials - and an indicator as to the level of importance integrity on issues of war and peace/life and death/ and national security would be to an administration under their leadership.

I will give them time - but will watch very, very closely.

[MaverickX]

12. they still should've looked at more than..

Just Bush's statements. They could've looked at the CIA intelligence reports.

[CWebster]

16. hell,

they didn't even read the patriot act.

[CWebster]

15. Perhaps

but soon enough it was exposed to be unsubstantial and I didn't hear a thing, did you? Edwards claimed on Tweety's show that the Iraqis would be cheering in the streets and just days ago, Kerry claimed he still "stood 100% behind his vote".

[MaverickX]

17. honestly..

If we presented the necessity for the war based on humanitarian purposes I would've voted for it too. Of course, I'd need evidence of genocide.

[MaverickX]

21. they also likely received the CIA

Reports that the Niger incident was false.

[Terwilliger]

14. you?

yeah right

I could have told ya that they knew already. THEY WERE TRYING TO PLAY POLITICS TOO!

[tjdee]

18. A couple of things:

They were given faulty intelligence, obviously. If you want to argue about how they should have known because we knew, there is still the fact that they are privy to more information than we are--and that could mean they were given more 'classified' lies above the ones we were given.

It could be argued (not by me) that what they really voted for was to go through the UN blah blah blah. It could also be argued that Americans would rather hear "I was lied to, just like the rest of you 60% that supported the war, and I'm angry" rather than "I told you so, and you 60% people are gullible and stupid."

Also--
John Edwards has a reason/excuse/whatever none of the others have. He represents the people of North Carolina and voted in a way that would represent them. At the end of the day, isn't that his job?

[MaverickX]

20. John Edwards supporting the war is worst of all..

He's on the Senate Intelligence Committee. You don't think the CIA told them the Niger reports were false? Bob Graham was on Intelligence and voted against the war. Obviously something changed his mind because in 2001 he supported using force against Iraq.

[WilliamPitt]

19. How can you 'arguably know'

that the Director of the CIA is lying to your face? Telepathy?

Must be nice to be able to make such decisions from the cheap seats.

[PATRICK]

23. our luxury

I made it my rule to distrust Bush and company when they stole the election. I would be a rich man today if I could have bet the farm on predicting the worst. It makes liberalism seem wise and too easy.

The mainstream power people and media howver are too close, too fair and up close to the madness. I compare it to my son who bet money every time(without much reasoning required) against the Buffalo Bills- and got rich in Bills country where no one would even grudgingly respect his infuriating and often irrational sounding opinion.

I think most of Congress has a built in bias that they are dealing with human beings and rational institutions with a long stable history. I think it is hard to see a nightmare casually moving through this system and social structure. No way did they condemn thousands to die through Macchiavellian calculation or career fear. Being duped or prejudiced to giving their fellow Washingtonians the benefit is hardly an exoneration, but it seems to be the case. A step behind and a light bulb short.

Someone on their staffs however, OUGHT to be capable of being a better Devil's Advocate and doing some of the skeptical legwork that makes DU'ers all say "I told you so." Despite the WORLD shouting pretty much the same thing but with less particulars, I don't think they got it.

That fatal lack of vision to make accountability and oversight WORK is what is letting the goons walk right in and dare what they want. Scoop Jackson's suicidal remark "I was brainwashed" is not necessary. Upgrading your leadership and knowledge immediately is.

[Larkspur]

24. Well then House Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi did

She was on the House's Intelligence committee and she led two thirds of the House to vote AGAINST the 2002 Iraq War Resolution.

Maybe she based her decision and lead of revolt against Gephardt on her "female intuition" or as men would call it, gut instinct. But I think that she reviewed the "evidence" and read the characters promoting the war -- Andrew Card: You don't introduce a new product (Iraq War) before Labor Day -- better than Gephardt and the other 80 reps who signed it.

Of course, she wasn't considering running for President either, and that may have been the overriding factor.

[NNN0LHI]

22. First thing I ever ageed with you on MaverickX

I am very sad about this too. I listened to Kerry yesterday trying to explain that he was fooled by photos the the WH was saying the Iraqis are doing this or that in and now he just found out that it was not true. Bullshit I say Mr. Kerry. Why didn't you get your ass over there and look for yourself, I was sayng to myself. His explanation does not hold water. I don't want to replace one liar with another liar. I am not happy about this at all. But it is the truth. Edit: If these people have not learned to know that usually what comes from the WH is nothing but lies they have no business being president.

Don