Blog Feed

Saturday, June 25, 2005 

Senator Kerry & Co. Demand DSM Investigation

Senator Kerry (D - MA) sent a letter to Senate Intelligence Committee demanding an investigation into the Downing Street Memo and other Downing documents. The letter is also signed by Senators Johnson, Corzine, Reed, Lautenberg, Boxer, Kennedy, Harkin, Bingaman, and Durbin.

In the letter, Kerry points out the fact that the Senate Intelligence Committee has never completed a full investigation of how pre-war intelligence was used in the run up to the war. Specifically, while "Phase I" was completed, "Phase II" has been put, in the word of the Republican Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, "on the back burner."

Phase I examined the quality of the intelligence before the war. Phase II was supposed to answer that critical question: How did the administration and policy officials use that bad information?

On July 9, 2004, Chairman Roberts had stated that moving to Phase II was "a priority. I made my commitment and it will get done." Yet in an unexplainable turnaround, Roberts soon backed off those comments, instead throwing up his hands and placing the most critical issue our nation has faced in decades on hold:

"It got to be a problem in regard to a subjective point of view. If you ask any member of the administration, 'Why did you make that declarative statement?' ... basically, the bottom line is, they believed the intelligence and the intelligence was wrong.

"In addition, we were in an even-numbered year and you know what that means.

"So," he concluded, "we sort of came to a crossroads and that is basically on the back burner."

So Chairman Roberts has delayed investigating whether our government misled us into war because it's too "subjective" and, well, the administration is going to just flat out deny it, apparently.

Senator Kerry and the co-signers of his letter rightly point out that too much time has passed, and that this issue is far too critical to remain "on the back burner" much longer:

For the sake of our democracy and our future national security, the public must know whether such warnings were driven by facts and responsible intelligence, or by political calculation. These issues need to be addressed with urgency. This remains a dangerous world, with American forces engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other challenges looming in Iran and North Korea. In this environment, the American public should have the highest confidence that policy makers are using intelligence objectively-never manipulating it to justify war, but always to protect the United States. The contents of the Downing Street Memo undermine this faith and only rigorous Congressional oversight can determine the truth.

We urge the committee to complete the second phase of its investigation with the maximum speed and transparency possible, producing, as it did at the end of Phase I, a comprehensive, unclassified report from which the American people can benefit directly.

Go to the contact page to email your senator and ask them to sign on to this request for investigation. It's time to take the truth off the back burner.

 posted by Georgia  # 6:50 AM  
Let us hope that Senator Kerry and the Senators do not neglect the "spikes of activity" portion of the minutes.

Lt. Gen. T. Michael Moseley, the chief allied war commander, confirms these "spikes" in the July 19, 2003 NY Times article entitled: U.S. Attacked Iraqi Defenses Starting in 2002 (As do the various reports of the change in targets, increased number of bombings and tonnage dropped, etc.)
follow the money...
Defend the Constitution from Bush, please.
And here I was thinking I was the only one concerned about PNAC. A bunch of overly rich, underly mature boys in the guize of "men" playing at war games, and world government. Problem is: The game is real, people are getting killed - as in DEAD! - and they're tearing up the playground. They actually belive that what they're doing is good for all. We're all in deep shit.

Questions- Why is "His Nibs" actively avoiding going after Osama bin Laden and al Qaida?
Why is the Talaban growing again in Afganistan and, once more the Afgan economy is supported by agriculture (read: opium poppys)?
Why did "His Nibs" and his cohorts aggressively ignore ALL the warning signs leading to 9/11, then make excuses ("No-one TOLD me the memo was important!" -Rice) and half assed attempts at security afterwards? How does opening our borders to illegal immigrants and giving them rights nearly equal to citizenship make us safer from terrorism?
And a question I can answer- Why hasn't Osama bin Laden attacked us lately? Answer - with Bush in office, he dosn't have to: His Nibs' incompetence coupled with a scenario penned by the PNAC is more than enough to bring the United States to its knees.

Walt Kelly (Pogo) had it right many years ago. "WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY - AND NOT ONLY IS HE OURS - HE IS US!"
your news media might have reduced foreign coverage, according this revelation:

well, almost everyone in your country can access internet, given that the internet is not banned. it is up to u to decide whether you should be driven by your news media.
Follow the holy rollers........
There are three Hansard links provided in the diary. Link 1 points to a question posed by Menzies Campbell on 27 November 2002. Link 2 points to the No-Fly Zone question by Mr. Campbell on 10 March 2003 and response thereto. Link 3 is a duplicate of Link 2.

There was an article by Richard Norton-Taylor in the Guardian on 4 December 2002 Britain and US step up bombing in Iraq in which it states:

"Ordnance dropped on southern Iraq in response to threats has increased by 300% since March this year, according to figures released by the Ministry of Defence today in response to questions from the Liberal Democrat spokesman on foreign affairs, Menzies Campbell."

So is there another Hansard reference from 4 December 2002 relating to this matter? I have searched Hansard in vain for a reference on that date.
Also, there is some confusion between the figures provided in Hansard and those in the reports on this topic. Hansard provides figures in tons, but the Guardian article of 4 Dec 2002 gives the same figures in tonnes. Then Michael Smith's article in the Sunday Times "RAF bombing raids tried to goad Saddam into war" gives figures in tons but the following day, in his article "The war before the war in" the New Statesman, he give figures in tonnes. All three sets of figures appear to be the same, so are the writers wrongly using tonnes and tons interchangeably?

If the figures were provided directly by the Ministry of Defence, I think one would expect them to be in tonnes, but if they were provided by the US, they would probably be in tons. I'm wondering if the error is in the original Hansard transcript?

US ton (short ton) = 2000 pounds
British ton (long ton) = 2240 pounds
Tonne (metric tonne) = 1000kg = 2204.62 pounds
If any of you were interested in the truth, you'd be fact-checking this man.

I have done the work for you.

Read it and weep

Mr. Smith has some spinning, I mean explaining, to do.
Con Yers is what Plames do. The Bush memo was more fun and professional. So how does it feel to run a US Senator!
Post a Comment

<< Home

Archives (open in new window)

June 2005 | July 2005 | August 2005 | September 2005 | November 2005 | December 2005 | February 2006 | March 2006 | April 2006 | May 2006 | June 2006 |

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?  Go here for full-screen view of the Blog