Bush Commission coverup - What is the Democratic Response?

[Q]

Report: Iraq intelligence 'dead wrong'

Bush says fundamental changes needed in spy agencies

Friday, April 1, 2005 Posted: 5:15 PM EST (2215 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a scathing report on the intelligence community, a presidential commission Thursday said the United States still knows "disturbingly little" about the weapons programs and intentions of many of its "most dangerous adversaries."

The panel also determined the intelligence community was "dead wrong" in its assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities before the U.S. invasion.

"This was a major intelligence failure," said a letter from the commission to President Bush.

The panel -- called the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction -- formally presented its report to Bush on Thursday morning.

Bush praised the commission for presenting an "unvarnished look at our intelligence community."

He said the report's recommendations were "thoughtful and extremely significant," adding that the "central conclusion is one that I share -- America's intelligence community needs fundamental change to successfully confront the threats of the 21st century." ---- http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/

-----------

What the hell is going on? Why is history being rewritten with little or no response from the Democratic leadership? Why is the Bush White House once again allowed to escape scrutiny or accountability?

The RWingers have been trying to destroy the CIA and FBI for decades and turn them into their own personal Gestapo. Will they be allowed to get away with this?

[Al-CIAda]

1. "Will they be allowed to get away with this?"

Yes.

There isn't even the faint appearance of superficial opposition anymore. The truth doesn't matter. The Dems do not even try to present it anymore. This is but the latest example. The dems are the official dive takers in this PNAC Christo-fascist takeover. Their catastrophic failure to speak the truth will be written about in years to come -if we survive.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. DLC response:

OK we've whitewashed this enough. This is the final and authoritative whitewash. On to Iran!

[Mist]

3. "Democratic leadership" = oxymoron

I didn't know the RW's were trying to destroy the CIA and FBI "for decades." But this administration surely is. I guess all foreign intelligence will come from alcoholic con men now, 'cuz they're a great source!

[Al-CIAda]

4. "I didn't know the RW's were trying to destroy the CIA"

Actually I do not think this at all. In fact, it was because they felt threatened by Kennedy that the RW corpora-fascist element in the CIA had him killed.

No they aren't out to destroy, but to make them a more obedient servant to the nutjobs in power.

[atommom]

18. Bush has a soft spot in his heart for alcoholic con men.

Can't imagine why ...

[EVDebs]

5. The response should have been a bill of impeachment entered

Sure it will be ignored, but Bring It On ! Get them on record supporting this President's actions.

[leveymg]

6. Assume the default position, and kiss the WH and Hill majority goodbye

forever.

We need new Party leadership -- most may as well not even return from vacation. They simply have nothing to say on "national security" and "intelligence" issues.

They've been virtually silent on 9/11, Iraq WMDs, Plamegate, prisoner torture, the OPC-AIPAC spy scandal, the politicization of intelligence, etc.

They've taken a pass on virtually every important foreign policy issue. Their silence speaks for itself - its a cowardy endorsement of Shrub's agenda. If the Party leaders can't even mount an effective opposition, how can you expect to convince the American people that Democrats can govern?

I am continually disgusted. Can anyone, please, offer a prescription for this feeling?

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[wyldwolf]

7. hmm... all through the primaries and beyond...

Clark, Kerry, Edwards, Dean, etc. ALL preached this.

And the media actually reported it.

But SINCE the report's release? How about this:

Sen. John Kerry, focused on the most important conclusion of the report. ``This report is much more than a wake-up call. Not only was the intelligence dead wrong about Iraq, but with growing threats in Iran and North Korea we must take deadly seriously the commission's conclusion that we know disturbingly little about the weapons programs of hostile nations,'' Kerry said.

http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=76292

and...

Underscoring the political divide, Democrats – including Bush's 2004 opponent, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry – used the findings to demand faster changes and to point fingers.

"The investigation will not be complete unless we know how the Bush administration may have used or misused intelligence to pursue its own agenda," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/terror/20050331-1436-intelligencecommission.html

Wes Clark will be testifying before the House Armed Services Committe next week on Iraq where this will surely be discussed.

and, honestly, I just stopped Googling at this point.

So, being out of power, what other response would you expect the Democrats to make?

(PS. - Q - got Google working overtime the weekend trying to find bad news for us Democrats, huh?)

[Malva Zebrina]

8. What else do you expect?

They voted for it. For a lot of people, the war was THE most important issue and a whole presidential campaign went on without Kerry or Edwards ever objecting to the war and why? Because they backed themself into a corner with that vote. Unless of course, they really did want to invade Iraq. Whatever--people saw no difference between the two candidates, as far as the war went.

That has been the excuse ever since that Bush provided the intelligence, so OK, let's just believe him, a known liar, without further ado. Invade!

Well duh--we were just going on what he said.

Except for a few who did have a sense of moral integrity.

What do we say about them?

[wyldwolf]

10. that isn't the premise of the thread

... if you would like to start DU's 1,000,000th thread on IWR, go ahead.

But the original poster is asking for the Dem's response to the report's release. (actually insinuating none has occurred.)

[Malva Zebrina]

11. Oh, did I step out of line?

so sorry. Remind me not to post to these threads anymore, since I apparently failed to stick to the topic YOU think is appropriate.

If you would think a little deeper, you would see WHY there is NO response or WHY the response is weak and ineffectual. It is because of the original vote.

Anything else?

[wyldwolf]

12. no, you didn't step out of line

Just as you can post just about anything you want - someone else can point out that your post is irrelevant to the premise of the thread.

If you would think a little deeper, you would see WHY there is NO response or WHY the response is weak and ineffectual. It is because of the original vote.

If you would think a little deeper, you'd realize that reporters aren't shoving mics in every elected Democrat's face to guage their reaction to the report.

and, as I said, I simply stopped looking for the reaction after finding some from two of the party's biggest leaders - effectively proving the original poster's premise wrong.

Now - feel free to start the 1,000,000th IWR thread.

Anything else?

[Malva Zebrina]

13. I guess, then, the reason for it all is

once again--ta da--the media! Right. I mean all that the Demcrats are saying is NOT being reported. Right?

If you would think a little deeper, you'd realize that reporters aren't shoving mics in every elected Democrat's face to guage their reaction to the report.

OK, since you seem to think so,and have thunk deeper than I, please, if you will, provide then, those responses that are NOT being reported!

I mean are those unreported responses swimming somewhere in cyber space, or is it just magical thinking to believe there is a great and loud response, but it just isn't "being reported"?

I would appreciate the information.

[wyldwolf]

15. unless you have some magical means of obtaining info beyond the media

... then, yeah, we have to rely on the media for this information.

Now, I haven't gone to every city newspaper in every state to look for quotes.

I haven't watched every talking head program for quotes which was wall to wall Pope this weekend, anyway.

So, ummmm... how can I provide responses that are NOT being reported?

I mean, If I said, "Howard Dean has condemned the Bush admin..." you would want to know where the quote came from. When I provide the source, it would be the media, and thus reported.

Considering the report was released late last week, and the Pope has been THE news item, what you ask is comical.

Nevertheless, quotes from Kerry and Pelosi effecively defang the original poster's insinuation.

But I'll bookmark this thread so I can jump in and point out each time a Democrat responds to the report.

[Malva Zebrina]

16. Extraordinary claims require evidence

You made the claim that the evidence is absent because it just is not being reported.

If you cannot provide evidence for that statement, you are just talking out of your hat.

Oh do jump in with any report as it comes your way. I will take ANY report that you wish to provide and mull it over.

[wyldwolf]

19. I presented the evidence

Both Kerry and Pelosi have spoken out.

Clark will be testifying on it.

You made the claim that the evidence is absent because it just is not being reported.

No I didn't. Where?

[Malva Zebrina]

20. My friend, you claimed that Democrats are speaking out but they are just

not being reported by the media and you also volunteered to provide that information that is NOT being reported, as soon as you can find it. I will patiently wait for it as promised.

and my original post WAS the RESPONSE to both Kerry and Pelosi, which you said was off topic.

Make up your mind.

[wyldwolf]

21. my friend, I did not

..but I will post for you each time an elected Democrat does speak on it.

Your original post went off topic in reference to who voted for the IWR and that (unproven) people saw no difference in Kerry and Bush in regards to the war.

[Malva Zebrina]

23. that's fine

I look forward to the publication of what Dems said what, that the media did NOT report.

and, reiterating that my post went off topic, is a little like whining.

[wyldwolf]

24. correction

Once the quotes become available, they will have been reported by the media.

And again, I never said the media has not reported them.

And, you brought up the irrelevancy of your post again - which is a little like whining.

[Malva Zebrina]

26. and the tooth fairy will put a quarter under your pillow

You did say that the media is not reporting what the democrats have said.

All we have is the Kerry blurb and the Pelosi blurb to go on and my premise is that there is little else to be said, in view of their vote to give Bush his way in invading Iraq. In fact, they cannot say anything much more, in view of that vote. They were for the invasion and the war. How more plain can it be?

Since they were for that atrocity, anything else they say, in the aftermath, is subject to severe criticism from anyone. Therefore, they may think they are better off saying NOTHING for it would be too damaging to bring up that whole vote again.

They have hoisted their own petard.

[wyldwolf]

27. quote me where I said that

[leveymg]

14. Is that really the best our Party "leaders" can do?

Look, I read the papers, listen to CSPAN, watch the news (cable and network). I know when the Dem biggies really want to make a statement about something, they have no problems getting their share of soundbites and column inches.

With the exception of endless repetition of "we deplore deception" and "the Administration wastes resources" prattle, I haven't heard a single major Democratic figure actually say they opposed the invasion of Iraq or advocate that we leave anytime soon.

Similarly, I observe that no top Democratic official has crossed the threshold and publicly state what has been obvious since at least September 2002, when the Congressional Joint Intelligence Inquiry published its findings - Bush and his national security team were criminally negligent in their handling of 9/11.

Finally, when is someone going to finally come out and use the words "war crimes", "indictment" and "prosecution" with reference to the actions that must be taken against top DOD officials for the multitude of crimes committed against detainees in Iraq?

Until and unless the Party leadership stands up and speaks plainly about prosecuting Bush for these serious violations of law, these same politicians are complicit in the same crimes. They appear to lack a spine and any real desire to see the rule of law restored in America.

That's how many Democrats and even some moderate Republicans view it. The Party needs to deal with it.


:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[wyldwolf]

17. as I said above

...if you want to discuss IWR, exiting Iraq, war crimes, etc., this discussion forum is wide open for it as it has been for several years and repetitive thread after thread.

The original poster insinuated that our party leader have no spoken out on this report.

I've shown they have - and it wasn't completely buried in wall to wall Pope coverage.

Now, if you have a problem with the level of fierceness or vitriol expressed by the Dems, then that still is another matter entirely.

[leveymg]

22. No, actually its all about how the Democratic response frames the issues.

You said something interesting. "Now, if you have a problem with the level of fierceness or vitriol expressed by the Dems, then that still is another matter entirely."

No, it's not another matter entirely. A weak response may be worse than none at all. After 9/11, the Dem leadership adopted a policy of avoiding direct opposition to the Bush White House on issues of war and peace and terrorism at the urging of James Carville and Stan Greenberg. That was shown to be a disaster with the 2002 Congressional election. Then, they got another chance.

I wish the Party had followed their advise offered in a late February memo. The two wrote: "We ask progressives to consider, why have the Republicans not crashed and burned?"

"Why has the public not taken out their anger on the congressional Republicans and the president?" they added. "We think the answer lies with voters' deeper feelings about the Democrats who appear to lack direction, conviction, values, advocacy or a larger public purpose."

There could be no clearer demonstration of a renewed Democratic purpose and assertion of values than to call for the criminal indictment of the President, VP and his top appointees. If we don't do it ourselves, then someone else is going to.

It's better if Americans take care of this problem ourselves.


:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[wyldwolf]

25. It's very much another matter

Since DU's inception, we've seen such claims, "Dems didn't do____" and when it was shown they did, we get, "Well, they weren't loud enough or mean enough or clear enough or detailed enought, etc."

There are some here who want the Dem party to fail, those who enjoy finding bad news about the Dems and/or assuming the worse of the Dems, and they did for the info weekly.

Nothing is good enough for them (or loud enough, or mean enough, or forceful enough...)

[leveymg]

28. I'm sorry, but, triangulation works when you're in power, For

challengers, however, it's a prescription for permanent oblivion.

Look at the British Liberal Party. If after the defeat of Goldwater in 1964, the Repugs had adopted a paler than thou strategy, Hubert Humphrey would have been the 37th President of the United States.

In 2000, we lost the White House to a bloodless coup. After 9/11, the rule book changed again. You DLC guys had your chance to adapt -- thrice -- and blew it in 2000, 2002 and 2004. Not again. The Republic is at stake, and America's at the verge of a civil war. It's us or them, and we'd better start playing politics as if this were for keeps. They do.

This is no time to go along to get along, wyldwolf. That was before, "If you're not with us, you're against us."

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[wyldwolf]

29. we're not discussing triangulation

We're discussing the fact that some here set the bar just high enough so that the Democrats can't reach it.

And when the Democrats do reach the bar, it gets set a little higher.

You contradict yourself.

You claim we lost the White House in coup, yet the DLC lost it?

PROVE the DLC had anything to do with losses in 2000, 2002, and 2004.

That often repeated meme isn't based on any documented evidence.

[Q]

30. It's too bad...

...that you can't be honest and just say what you mean. Your not-so-subtle hints that i want the Democratic party to 'fail' are laughable. If I WANTED them to fail...I would join you in applauding their politics of appeasement.

I don't care if you choose to ignore the truth...but please don't encourage others to join you in neverneverland.

[wyldwolf]

31. It IS too bad...

...that some people will spend their lives fighting windmills.

I do understand that it is the fight that these types thrive on. They don't really want success (well, beyond each of their own distinct and unique interpretation of it) because then the fight would be over and whatever would they do? You know - not the kill but the thrill of the chase?

So instead they google like mad, trying to find dirt on Democrats - anything to moan and whine about.

[leveymg]

33. You really aren't interested in addressing issues or facts, are you?

"They don't really want success (well, beyond each of their own distinct and unique interpretation of it) because then the fight would be over and whatever would they do? You know - not the kill but the thrill of the chase?"

Your lofty abstractions are ultimately self-referential.

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[wyldwolf]

34. there have been no issues/facts presented

..I've tried to discuss Democratic policy issues with Q. All I get is, "DLC is evil... they're going to destroy us... proof is in the pudding.... blah blah blah"

Now, you've just said above, "You DLC guys had your chance to adapt -- thrice -- and blew it in 2000, 2002 and 2004. Not again. "

So if you want to discuss facts, PROVE what you just said. I asked you to, and the request went ignored and I got more of the standard lines from anti-DLCers.

"Your lofty abstractions are ultimately self-referential."

[sendero]

36. Thank god..

... there are brave senators like Hillary who are taking on the video game problem. Good thing she's not worried too much about a war that is actually killing people instead of pixels on a computer screen.

Fighting windmills indeed.

[Q]

32. Spoken out? Wow...how impressive...

Politicians are good at 'speaking out'. But to be an effective politician...they must take the next step: ACTION.

We also heard Kerry blustering about 'counting every vote'...but that has fizzled out like every other thing he has 'spoken out' about. His dog and pony show may impress some...but I'll wait to be impressed when he and other leaders in the party finally go beyond talking and actually DO SOMETHING.

Bush has rigged a commission to get himself off the hook, avoid obstruction of justice and charges of treason. It's indeed a high crime to wage war under false pretenses. Kerry knows this...as does the rest of the so-called leadership. Yet...they continue to DO NOTHING as their GOP opponents literally rewrite history and redirect blame.

No one is looking for 'fierceness' or 'vitriol'. But we do expect them to do their jobs and honor their oath of office.

[wyldwolf]

35. Your reply? Wow... how impressive

Since you're post decried lack of response from the Democrats (which I disproved), and you know the Dems are out of power which limits their ability to do little more than speak out, this reply of yours just proved my point from posts 25, 29, and 31.

[Q]

37. Lack of power limits their vocal cords?

It's easy to see why the Democratic party has become the minority party. They have an excuse for everything. But in the end result...it's nothing more than the cowardice of politicians who treasure their careers and corporate connections more than the oath they swore to protect and defend the Constitution.

The Democratic leadership won't take a position on this issue...given that they've already allowed Bush to steal two elections and escape accountability for 9-11.

You would be sadly mistaken to believe that this isn't pissing off a lot of Demorats.

This isn't like a few Democrats voting for bankrupcy bills or tax cuts for the rich. We're talking about a 'president' committing high crimes and being treated like he's guilty of nothing more than jaywalking.

[Al-CIAda]

39. Yes sir!

>It's easy to see why the Democratic party has become the minority party. They have an excuse for everything. But in the end result...it's nothing more than the cowardice of politicians who treasure their careers and corporate connections more than the oath they swore to protect and defend the Constitution.
The Democratic leadership won't take a position on this issue...given that they've already allowed Bush to steal two elections and escape accountability for 9-11.
You would be sadly mistaken to believe that this isn't pissing off a lot of Demorats.
This isn't like a few Democrats voting for bankrupcy bills or tax cuts for the rich. We're talking about a 'president' committing high crimes and being treated like he's guilty of nothing more than jaywalking. <

[wyldwolf]

40. of course not

...but it does limit them from doing what you demand of them. Setting the bar just out of reach.

The rest of your reply was more of the same.

I think you wrote that last week.

[Q]

41. "Demand" of them?

The problem seems to be that there are not enough Democrats DEMANDING that the leadership do their jobs. You call it a 'demand' to make it look unreasonable for an American citizen to expect politicians to do their jobs. In the two-party system in America...it's their job to oppose and represent those who vote them into office and pay their salaries with their hard-earned tax dollars.

That's right. They're our employees. They're public servants. They're supposed to represent us...not the monied interests that stuff their Cayman Island accounts.

If you 'demand' nothing of politicians...that's exactly what you'll get.

Thank God all Democrats aren't like you. We'd be polishing Bush's hobnail boots forever if it were up to you.

On edit: and why is it that YOU don't seem very concerned with Bush revisionism? Is it your position that he got 'bad intelligence'? Or did he manipulate it to make it appear as if Iraq was a threat to national security?

[wyldwolf]

42. yes, Q, demand

Weekly, your little rants demand that the Democrats do what you feel needs to be done.

I'm very concerned about Bush revisionism and fight it in the real world.

In cyberspace, I often fight Leftist revisionism.

[Q]

43. So you're 'fighting' Bush revisionism in the 'real world'? How so?

By supporting the DLC? What a great sense of humor.

Strange that you're always around to read and respond to my 'little rants'. I can see the fear in your posts...as you come to the realization that you've taken up with a group of charlatans and corporate shills.

I'm not demanding anything. My posts are a reflection of a majority of Democrats that want their old party returned to them intact. Of course...you'll continue to pretend that the DLC represents a majority and that Democrats really WANT to be sellouts and Republican-lite.

We're not buying what you're selling. And what you're selling is a cheap imitation of the truth...a trinket that glitters only for the gullible and greedy.

[mattclearing]

9. To answer your question: Yes.

Who's going to stop them?

[Q]

38. No one will stop them...

...because it's already a done deal. This scandal will be replaced by another scandal tomorrow and we'll see the same non-response from the 'opposition' party.

Let's just be done with all of this foolishness and declare the US a one-party state.