Senate Closes to hear in on Iraq

[Pra]

I for one will be watching this closely. It seems like the facade for fighting this war-at least the initial one of supposed "WMDs" should come crashing down.

US Senate in secret Iraq debate
The US Democratic Party has forced the Senate to hold a rare closed session to debate intelligence used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The Democrats said they had acted because Republicans were refusing to hold a full investigation into the government's use of intelligence.

Republicans said it was a political stunt by the Democrats, but both sides have now agreed to finish the inquiry.

Republican leader Bill Frist accused the Democrats of hijacking the Senate.

In a speech on the Senate floor, Democratic leader Harry Reid demanded the Senate go into closed session.

The public was ordered out of the chamber, the lights were dimmed, television cameras were turned off and the doors were closed.

No vote is required in such circumstances. Previous secret sessions to discuss classified material have always been held by the agreement of the two parties.

It was last used in 1999 to debate then President Bill Clinton's impeachment trial.

Political theatre

Under Senate rules, the private session could be halted by a majority vote but it took the Republicans two hours to find the necessary numbers.

By that time, the BBC's Justin Webb reports from Washington, prominent coverage in Wednesday's papers had been assured.

The secret debate is being seen as a big coup for the Democrats - who are in a minority in both Houses of Congress - and a sign of their new-found confidence after the indictment last week of Vice-President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby.

It was a piece of political theatre staged by a party which for years has been disunited and disheartened, our correspondent adds.

Mr Reid said the Republicans had "repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why" in the run-up to the war.

He said the indictment of Mr Libby showed how the administration of President George W Bush had manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to justify the 2003 invasion.

Mr Libby has been charged with obstructing justice, perjury and making false statements to a federal grand jury, in a case stemming from the leaking of the identity of a CIA agent, which has also touched on the Iraq war.

Democrats contend that the unmasking of Valerie Plame, the CIA official, was retribution for her husband, Joseph Wilson, publicly challenging the Bush administration's contention that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Africa.

The claim was part of the White House's justification for going to war.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...as/4398142.stm

Published: 2005/11/02 07:52:59 GMT

© BBC MMV

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

Well, good for them. It only took almost 3 years for the indignance to build up. That's actually very short for the Democrats. Jesus H. Christ, it's about freaking time.

I wonder what they do in there during private session...I bet it involves a lot of whiffle canings.

[RZZZA]

Go Democrats! Omg, has the dmocratic party finally found their balls? Amazing stuff, although I dont understand why they chose to exlude T.V. camera and the press from the meeting as well? I can just see conspiracy theorists going ape$%&$ already...accusing both parties of being controlled by the Illuminati and how the closed senate session was actually an excuse to perform ancient pagan rituals. Seriously, all the American people have IS the press and T.V. cameras....dont deny the public that.

But this is great, I just hope it isnt too little too late for the democrats.

[Pra]

Go Democrats! Omg, has the dmocratic party finally found their balls? Amazing stuff, although I dont understand why they chose to exlude T.V. camera and the press from the meeting as well? I can just see conspiracy theorists going ape$%&$ already...accusing both parties of being controlled by the Illuminati and how the closed senate session was actually an excuse to perform ancient pagan rituals. Seriously, all the American people have IS the press and T.V. cameras....dont deny the public that.

But this is great, I just hope it isnt too little too late for the democrats.

Nope, the Public Aproval Rating has found its balls.

-A Democrat.

[RZZZA]

Well, what do you want? Of course Democrats read the polls....they always have, its how they operate.

In the words of Lewis Black..."We have the Democrats, the party of no ideas and the Republicans, the party of bad ideas. A republican stands up and says 'Excuse me, I have a :wub: idea!' and then a democrat stands up and says 'And I know how to make it even :wub:!".

[Pra]

Well, what do you want? Of course Democrats read the polls....they always have, its how they operate.

In the words of Lewis Black..."We have the Democrats, the party of no ideas and the Republicans, the party of bad ideas. A republican stands up and says 'Excuse me, I have a :wub: idea!' and then a democrat stands up and says 'And I know how to make it even :wub:!".

The Democratic Party would be a lot stronger if the public didn't have such a stigma towards the word 'liberal.' Reagan really changed the demographic of this country, and now policies seem to be more and more conservative-oriented, some good others bad.

If you look back to the post-war years, some Republicans could be considered Democrats today.

[Francisco Montana]

I agreed with everything danzig said right up until the last sentence. But then, that's covered on another thread.

[RZZZA]

*sigh* I just knew people would find the need to argue with me...I've noticed people love to argue on this forum just for the sake of arguing.

Why are you explaining to me what the Dixie Chicks occupation is? Do you think I'm retarded, do you think I don't know that they are just singers and not scholars? I know that, the only reason I even mentioned them was to compare what would happen to a democrat or republican who decided to go against the republican party (I.E. the bush people) agenda which was war. They were determined to go to war and they were determined to make it look as if we absolutely HAD to asap. Remember the WMDs? Remember how they said Saddam could reach one of our major cities? Remember Colin Powell holding up the vials of anthrax? It would be a few more years before people started to discover that much of the CIA intelligence we had was faulty...then we didn't find any catastrophic wmds...and no chemical weapons were used on our boys...and it was about this time (note, a year or two later) that we started to realize that saddam wasnt much of a threat to the U.S. and the Bush people seemed to have lied about many, many things. Do you honestly doubt that a senator speaking out against the war in 2001 or 2002 wouldnt have been absolutely DESTROYED by the republican machine? When they have done it before, and to many people I might add? Thats what the republicans do, they single their enemies out and destroy them.

What good does rallying the democrats and bringing up these old unresolved issues so blatantly and publically do? Well, it makes the republicans (I.E. the bush people) look bad because they were the ones who wanted to go to war so rashly, they were the ones who brought the issie to the American people...it wasnt the other way around...remember what happened? We were ****** about the WTC so we wanted to go and get Al Queda and Bin Laden and suddenly we found ourselves in Iraq fighting to depose Saddam. Wait a second, what? How'd that happen? The republicans (I.E. the bush people) said it was because Saddam had ties with Bin Laden...woops that wasn't true, was it? So what was the reason? Well I hope thats one of the questions the Democrats asked today in the senate. The democrats have been unfocused and fractured as a political party for years now. What good does closing down the senate do for them? It rallies more democrats to Reid and his cause, its great publicity. Democratic leadership is not united like the republican leadership...its all over the place, and this helps unite the democrats a bit more. I am also still very weary what these "new" democrats will do and what their policies will be...but HOPEFULLY they will come together and present a real opposition to the republicans on many of their policies and issues.

I know what a politicians job is supposed to be, ideally, but it rarely boils down to just that in real life. I'm merely saying that the political air in washington and amongst our politicians and leaders in the months following 9/11 was one of hostility towards people who did not support the decisions and policies of the republicans in the white house(I.E. the bush people). I repeat, destroying people is what the republicans are good at.

P.S. I'm not proofreading this, so sorry.

[danzig]

*sigh* I just knew people would find the need to argue with me...I've noticed people love to argue on this forum just for the sake of arguing.

What you posted deserved to be responded too imo because it shows a failure to see the big picture.

They were determined to go to war and they were determined to make it look as if we absolutely HAD to asap. Remember the WMDs? Remember how they said Saddam could reach one of our major cities? Remember Colin Powell holding up the vials of anthrax?

Hindsight now but you prove my point the time to be noble and stand up was THEN not now years later where it doesnt matter and is nothing more then political grandstanding. I dont care if the republicans wanted to go to war or not that isnt the issue the issue is many democrats agreed entirely with it at the time, they could have abstained, they could have spoke out against it they didnt. If post war had gone better not one now we are anti war democrats would be speaking about the lack of wmd or faulty intelligence because it wouldnt have been an issue they could attach themselves to. Too little too late for most of the 'anti war' democrats, atleast I can respect those of them that spoke out against it day 1.

Do you honestly doubt that a senator speaking out against the war in 2001 or 2002 wouldnt have been absolutely DESTROYED by the republican machine? When they have done it before, and to many people I might add? Thats what the republicans do, they single their enemies out and destroy them.

So what your saying is a senators career and the will to stand up against the war is more important then people who have died in this war? Congratulations you just summed up the major failure of American politics today and didnt even realize it, politicans putting themselves and their 'career' above actually doing their job. It might not be what you mean but it is what you are saying. Ill remind you republicans dont 'destroy' people that is a naive and stupid thing to say...politicans and political hacks destroy people and is not exclusive to either party.

What good does closing down the senate do for them? It rallies more democrats to Reid and his cause, its great publicity. Democratic leadership is not united like the republican leadership...its all over the place, and this helps unite the democrats a bit more. I am also still very weary what these "new" democrats will do and what their policies will be...but HOPEFULLY they will come together and present a real opposition to the republicans on many of their policies and issues.

That requires developing ideas that go beyond no, and not republican something the democratic party lacks now and have since Clinton presidency. The Democratic party for the most part is a joke, they have no idea what their message should be, they have no idea what image they want to project. A group of democrats, Clinton style did their report on changes needed to turn things around its been mostly ignored by the Reids and Deans in the party. Democrats could do themselves and the American people a favor instead of dwelling on the past and their own failures to do their job focus on the now and current situtation in Iraq. As Ive said repeatly I wasnt prowar, I believed Iraq was a mistake but what is done is done and what the focus now needs to be on fixing the situtation that exists right this moment. The time to be 'anti war' is long past and solves nothing.

the bush people). I repeat, destroying people is what the republicans are good at.

Pure nonsense.

[Francisco Montana]

*sigh* I just knew people would find the need to argue with me...I've noticed people love to argue on this forum just for the sake of arguing.

Well, yea... Otherwise, what's the fun in coming here?

[First Crusader]

I am wondering if this was just an excuse by the democrats NOT to discuss the Alito nomination. He is so qualified that they may just be stumped and are trying to find other topics to discuss over him.

[RZZZA]

Who knows what they discussed in there? Thats why I'm kinda ****** they barred the T.V. cameras and the press. I guess it had good dramatic effect though. I'm also wondering if democrats will fight this nomination or just kinda let it slide like they did with Roberts. If i'm not mistaken Alito is another ultra conservative isnt he? Even more so than miers was I believe...

[First Crusader]

Who knows what they discussed in there? Thats why I'm kinda ****** they barred the T.V. cameras and the press. I guess it had good dramatic effect though. I'm also wondering if democrats will fight this nomination or just kinda let it slide like they did with Roberts. If i'm not mistaken Alito is another ultra conservative isnt he? Even more so than miers was I believe...

So what if he's an "ultra conservative"? At least he doesn't see the supreme court as a theocratic legislature, like the "moderates" already on the court do.

[Richard the Lionheart]

Hmmmm. This is going to be very interesting. The Republicans are very ******. Haha. Good for the Democrats I say. Maybe there will some impeachment! Who knows.

[Erik]

The public was ordered out of the chamber, the lights were dimmed, television cameras were turned off and the doors were closed.

The lights were dimmed?
Is this some kind of metaphore?
Or did they actually turn the light down?

[RZZZA]

Of course many democrats were pro-war in the beginning, they believed the lies being fed to them through the republican PR machine just like we all did. Did you not pay attention to how I explained the political environment in 2001 and 2002? Being anti-war was not a popular stance back then, of course many democrats wanted to believe the republicans when they tried to scare the country into going along with their war. I wanted to believe them, we all did to some degree didn't we?

[Punkus]

I daresay the enigma of 9/11 still hung ominously over this whole nation even as our representatives were voting whether or not to invade Iraq.

That the vote was more in favor of invasion the second time is not so surprising when this is taken into account(though I note that it was by no means unanimous). Generally it is suicide for any politician who is considering a long future career to oppose public opinion - and with regards to how we all felt about the thousands who died in the WTC disaster, opposing the invasion of Iraq seemed to carry a taint with it not like anything we'd seen in a long time.

I'm not sure what all the factors were, but I know that at the time I had reviewed the cases for and against and I could see no overriding justification for the invasion. Ousting Saddam was in itself not such an ignoble goal; that we did it because we were afraid for our own safety(well, and for purely selfish reasons also) seemed ridiculous to me.

[danzig]

The lights were dimmed?
Is this some kind of metaphore?
Or did they actually turn the light down?

No literally, though why it matters or is even part of a report or even why they do it who knows

Of course many democrats were pro-war in the beginning, they believed the lies being fed to them through the republican PR machine just like we all did. Did you not pay attention to how I explained the political environment in 2001 and 2002? Being anti-war was not a popular stance back then, of course many democrats wanted to believe the republicans when they tried to scare the country into going along with their war. I wanted to believe them, we all did to some degree didn't we?

How you explained it is your own twisted view on reality, I dont care if it was popular or not it is (and Im sounding like a broken record here) congress's job (BOTH parties, republicans are *not* innocent in this) to ensure what they are voting on especially on something as serious as war is in fact the right course. Im sorry but saying politicans who's job is to lead arent doing their job because they are scared doing their job will get them a bad rep is a lame excuse. If the same % of Democrats voted against the war as Republicans did for then the authorization probably wouldnt have passed the house or would have come down to Cheney casting the tie breaker...then democrats would be on the moral high ground as it is they are as knee deep in it as everyone else.


Talking about the same congress that passed the Patroit act where few of them even read the damn thing before signing on to it. You want to see right/wrong, good side and bad side in this when its just not the case there is simply the different side to the same coin. I mean god with all the antiwar rhetoric going on with the Democrats now a days the front runner for them in 2008 is a goddamn hawk who supported and still does (as someone else said not as vocally for fear of backlash as shown by Cindy Sheehan attacking her) the war, just not and rightfully so the handling of occupation/post war which is where most of the effort spent by congress on Iraq should be on. One thing you'll notice thru out this entire affair is that the democrats with the best knowledge of this Bill and Hilliary Clinton never once discounted the evidence the Bush admin used to justify the war.

[RZZZA]

"How you explained it is your own twisted view on reality, I dont care if it was popular or not it is (and Im sounding like a broken record here) congress's job (BOTH parties, republicans are *not* innocent in this) to ensure what they are voting on especially on something as serious as war is in fact the right course"


We're talking about two different things here I think. I'm trying to explain to you what actually happened in 2001 and 2002 amongst politicians and in Washington and You're explaining to me what, ideally, a politician is supposed to do. I know theyre supposed to act in the interest of the people and represent us...I know all that.

[Rush Limbaugh]

So let me get this straight. This is all about Bush LYING about Iraq having WMDS. Well if he was how do you explain this?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

I guess its only when Bush said it that it became a lie.