Wyden wants to launch investigation of Donald Rumsfeld
As new material comes out about the Bush Administration's campaign to promote the war, Senator Ron Wyden has called for an investigation into the actions of former SecDef Donald Rumsfeld. From the O:
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., on Thursday called for an investigation of Donald Rumsfeld, suggesting that the former defense secretary mislead - even lied - to Congress to build the case for invading Iraq.``Look at what the secretary said. It is a very troubling, significant, stunning example of misleading the Congress. You need to hold public officials accountable,'' Wyden said in an interview.
What did Rumsfeld lie about?
Assertions that Iraq's weapons program was buried and invulnerable to air strikes was a major argument for sending U.S. troops. The administration insisted that the protected nature of Iraq's network guaranteed that U.N. nuclear inspectors would not detect the program and that military action was needed.But a study released Thursday by the Senate Intelligence Committee found that the Pentagon concealed information from other intelligence agencies and that Rumsfeld and other public officials made statements that were not supported by information known at the time.
``The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence,'' the committee report said.
Moreover, ``none of the underground government facilities that had been identified were buried deeply enough to be safe from conventional airstrikes,'' the report said.
It might even go beyond a congressional investigation:
Wyden declined to rule out criminal [proceedings] against anyone who knowingly misled Congress.``Are people going to be prosecuted? Are there going to be criminal proceedings? I want to be very specific: I think this is a stunning example of Congress being mislead. I think it warrants further review and in that review you let the facts take you where you need to go,'' he said.
Discuss.
|
June 05, 2008
Posted in in the news. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
1:47 p.m.
Jun 5, '08
Uhhh, Rumsfeld hasn't been Sec. of Defense for a year and a half. We've known there weren't any WMDs since the UN inspectors reported that before the war even began. We've known there were no "underground WMD facilities" for five years.
Wyden's supposed to be on the Intelligence committee. Did it really take the release of a report to tell him what's been in the newspapers for years?
Jun 5, '08
Wyden is a clueless buffoon who slept through Senate Intel Committee meetings. He also refused to indict Bush/Chenney on war crimes or impeachment.
And now that it is so late in the game that soon eveybody will want to Move-On once Obama is in office... why bother? Especially when it will take more legal ammo than even what was spent on Whitewater. And Bush will hand down some last day pardons that'll make even Bill LCinton blush.
A day late and a dollar short there Wyden! Move on already.
Jun 5, '08
About time.
As long as he is living, Rumsfeld should be held accountable, and Cheney, and Bush. This is just the outer edge of the onion. Peel this away, and the issues of deliberately set up war profiteering pop up.
As to the two comments above, I've seen them before. It is exactly what the Republicans said about the Watergate investigation.
Jun 5, '08
I think that Senator Wyden should be nominated in the Bama administration as Attny General. There he could prosecute and convict Rove, Libby, Cheney, Bush, Rummy, Condi and Colin (unless Colin is the Bama VP).
Who needs impeachment, when we can hound them with our lawyers for the next decade. The Bama DOJ could sick all of their resources against them, something would surely stick.... who knows, maybe they'd find an old stained dress somewhere.
Jun 5, '08
Anne: We should feel compassion for the intellectually disabled.
"Even though Wyden has been named one of the dumbest members of Congress, he is something of an idiot savant when it comes to having his cake and eating it too. Wyden will go on to more timber PAC and other corporate money, yet he will enjoy high LCV ratings and Sierra Club endorsements. Gordon Smith should cry foul. They have nearly identical records on National Forest policy (log more), yet Wyden pockets money from both Big Timber and Big Green." (from: Idiot Savant?)
And on the rights of detainees at GITMO? (William Ansardi on Democracy Now: "The fifth [Democrat] vote was Ron Wyden. I'm not sure whether it's fair to make a joke about Wyden because I'm honestly not sure he knew what he was voting for.")
Jun 5, '08
I can't think of anything more entertaining, with the word games and all that son-of-a-buck plays, than watching Rummy testify under oath. I hope they fry that bastard!!!
Jun 5, '08
Where the evidence in this Intelligence report differs from previous Bush administration statements that have been proven wrong, is that many of the previous statements were "supported" by (dubious or inaccurate) intelligence reports at that time. Rumsfeld, like many senior administration officials, can and has claimed that he believed that he was giving truthful testimony based on what he was hearing from the intelligence community. Dana Perino reiterated that argument today when she said “the administration's statements on Iraq were based on the very same intelligence that was given to the Congress.”
Congress can not afford to gloss over evidence of Rumsfeld's lies just because they are finding the evidence at a frustratingly late time. It is important for future generations and Presidents who might be tempted to emulate the Bush model that Congress send a message that lying to Congress will never be tolerated.
While I am no fan of the Senate's oversight, Wyden can't be faulted for this. Only the chair of the committee has subpoena power, or the power to convene investigations and hearings. While a few commenters (I assume not Wyden fans) and the Bush administration are selling Wyden's story today as rehashed old news, this is the first time that I have seen direct, unclassified evidence that Rumsfeld testified to something that was directly contradicted by the available intelligence at the time. It's rather odd to criticize Wyden for acting where others have done so little.
Jun 5, '08
Congress and the justice department (after we get rid of Upchuck Schumer's AB Mukasey) should get a copy of the 1998 letter from the Project for the New American Century and indict everyone who signed it. Then indict anyone who actively supported it and got the war in Iraq going. That should include everyone miserable wretch in Congress who voted for the war.
On the other hand, perhaps this threat explains why Bush and Cheney may be planning a war on Iran. With three wars going they will claim that this is no time to change presidents and this nation of sheep will very likely go along with that crap, just as they did non Iraq. That would also keep future administrations from opening the archives to the Bush I, Clinton and Bush II files.
Jun 5, '08
I don't understand.
Didn't Bush and Cheney give him Rumsfeld party on his last, drawn-out day, and say that he was one of the BEST EVER?
And don't forget his sex appeal!
Jun 5, '08
Yep, and a whole lot more people than just a few hundred Congressmen and women, and 70-80 Senators.
And after we indict them, then we can have a long drawn out trial. And if we convict them, then we can throw them in jail and throw away the key (okay, maybe hide it for a while).
And I thought that on BueOregon, the unrealistic dreamers were only Clinton supporters.
Next proposal!
3:45 p.m.
Jun 5, '08
While I am no fan of the Senate's oversight, Wyden can't be faulted for this. Only the chair of the committee has subpoena power, or the power to convene investigations and hearings. While a few commenters (I assume not Wyden fans) and the Bush administration are selling Wyden's story today as rehashed old news, this is the first time that I have seen direct, unclassified evidence that Rumsfeld testified to something that was directly contradicted by the available intelligence at the time. It's rather odd to criticize Wyden for acting where others have done so little.
Agreed.
I also found the criticism of Wyden on this rather puzzling under the circumstances. I personally think its fantastic that he's stepping up and taking a role here where others have failed so dreadfully.
It seems like there are those who would put Wyden (and others) in a kobayshi maru. When a legislator actually does something right, we should be lauding them, not beating the shit out of them because they should have had some magical, mystical ability to call hearings.
Its not as if Wyden had evidence-in-hand that Congress was lied to by the Bush Admin previously. Then I could see a legit gripe. It appears that Wyden acted when he saw the evidence that he could act upon.
I think that the oversight system of the legislative branch has been wretched and that those who actually had the power to conduct it have been negligent in their responsibilities. They are deservedly smacked around.
But Wyden is actually working to hold feet to the fire. Its lame to attack him on this.
Jun 5, '08
Dang Bodden, I was almost happy for a moment thinking of that old nazi fart in a cage and you had to ruin it by bringing up my worst fear. They have to start World War 3 or everything they worked so hard for turns to mud. Crap! Why the hell won't it stop raining?
3:53 p.m.
Jun 5, '08
Hans Blix said in February 2003 that his inspectors -- actually in Iraq had found no WMD. That was "available intelligence" that directly contradicted everything the administration had claimed in the run-up to the AUMF vote the previous October, as well as statements by just about every administration official in the month after Blix's report. Not the least of which was Sec. of State Colin Powell and his dog-and-pony show at the UN a week later.
A post-invasion UN analysis of their WMD inspections in Iraq went further and stated that there hadn't been any WMD in Iraq after 1994. That report was released more than four years ago.
So no, the Intelligence committee report isn't exactly news. And if your point is that Wyden wasn't able to do anything before the release of this report because he wasn't the chairman of the committee, well, he's still not the chairman of the committee, so he has no more power now than he's had for the year and a half that the Democrats have been in control of the Senate.
So, he -- and the rest of the world -- have had access to the inspection reports since before the invasion. That alone was evidence that the administration was lying. The UN managed to review a dozen years' worth of inspection data in the first year after the war. That, too, has been in the public knowledge for several years and was also data available to the US intelligence community even before that (on top of which, one of the reasons Saddam threw out the UN inspectors in the first place was that some were spying for the US). Rumsfeld and others had all of that material.
This may be the first time that the Intelligence committee has released a report saying that the data didn't support the administration's claims, but it's years past when those claims were contradicted -- in public -- by sources outside the US government.
4:02 p.m.
Jun 5, '08
But Wyden is actually working to hold feet to the fire. Its lame to attack him on this.
Right on Carla. Of course I'm right in there with most commenters in being totally frustrated for the past 5, make that 7, no make that 30 years of criminal behavior and pardons coming out of the Whitehouse.
We know exactly what these guys have done and no one in gummint seems to be doing anything about it.
The fact though, as Robert points out, is that United States Senators have to have direct, unclassified evidence that Rumsfeld testified to something that was directly contradicted by the available intelligence at the time or some other equally concrete example before they can act.
And as far as Bill Bodden's point aboput PNAC goes, it'd be a danged good place to start, but the pardon card will moot everything in Dec/Jan anyway.........
4:14 p.m.
Jun 5, '08
Well, when he actually does something right instead of simply talking about doing something right, I'll gladly give him praise.
Sort of like how he got some great press last year in places like The New Yorker for placing a hold on John Rizzo, the nominee to be CIA general counsel, who'd been involved in decisions on torture and all sorts of other good stuff. Sounds pretty tough, eh? Only problem is, the same guy had been acting general counsel for most of the Bush administration already, and despite Wyden's hold, he's still acting general counsel.
The evidence about the non-existence of WMD has been "in-hand" since before the war began, as I mentioned above. The fact that there was no actual evidence of WMDs was presumably apparent to Wyden himself when he voted against the Iraq AUMF -- I really can't imagine him voting against it if he truly believed Saddam Hussein had them. That lack of evidence was what many people across the world didn't believe the administration's claims. And that lack was verified by UN weapons inspectors before the war began. Just because the US government hadn't issued a statement acknowledging that lack doesn't mean it didn't exist.
Wyden could have made this same case any time in the past five years. That's where my own criticism for him begins. Since he doesn't control the Intelligence committee, he's not going to actually be able to do anything, but if all he could do was speak up about it, he could have done that long ago and tried to rally people to the truth.
But he didn't step up.
4:24 p.m.
Jun 5, '08
There was plenty of evidence that administration officials were lying about everything.
4:26 p.m.
Jun 5, '08
The evidence about the non-existence of WMD has been "in-hand" since before the war began, as I mentioned above.
Yes, I'm aware of what you mentioned-I read it. But I don't think that this gets us where you think it ought to have. Wyden needed unclassified, direct evidence in hand. He has that..and it would appear that as soon as he did, he started the call.
That's the correct thing to do and he should be praised for it, not slapped back because he didn't do something else that frankly might have undermined future efforts.
For example, everyone knows that GW Bush didn't exactly serve out his National Guard experience the way he was supposed to. There's evidence in-hand to prove it. Yet when Dan Rather went to press with it, he was crucified and pilloried because he didn't have all the correct ducks in a row..and some of the evidence was deemed questionable. In the end, it submarined the opportunity to legitimately nail Bush on an issue where he'd clearly been lying to the public.
In my view, its not that far off from this situation. Wyden needs very specific and incontrovertible evidence before he steps up and starts calling for the former Secretary of Defense before congressional investigation hearings on this. The accusations against Rumsfeld are very, very serious and could turn out to be very much the way impeachment was against Clinton unless its handled properly.
It would appear that Wyden now has that evidence. While the evidence that Blix gathered may have been good (or even great), its not nearly at the same level as what's coming out of the Senate Intelligence Cmte in terms of legitimacy before the American people, in general.
I think the criticisms of Wyden on this matter are pretty shallow, frankly. We're talking about some of the most serious crimes ever committed against the U.S., in my opinion. The American people absolutely MUST be behind this sort of investigation if its to go forward appropriately.
4:30 p.m.
Jun 5, '08
Wyden's going after the wrong people. To paraphrase Hal Holbrook as Deep Throat, "You don't think this is all the work of little Donald Rumsfeld, do you?"
Where are the calls for forwarding the information to the House for referral on potential impeachment proceedings against Bush, Cheney, and Rice?
4:33 p.m.
Jun 5, '08
I think it's been pretty well established that information was available years ago. This is all a day late and a dollar short, and frankly is rather insultingly belated outrage.
Jun 5, '08
adjusting my tinfoil hat a bit... why did rockefellar wait until after the primaries to release this report?
Jun 5, '08
i'm still flabbergasted at the caller today on KPOJ who suggested Colin Powell for vp
lying war criminal for vp? we're still in big trouble, folks
5:04 p.m.
Jun 5, '08
I hope something comes of this, but I won't hold my breath. All the Bush team's lies have been known with certainty almost since the beginning of the invasion.
Congress's power of the purse cannot be credibly used once troops are in combat; as Sen. Biden has repeatedly pointed out was the real political lesson of Vietnam. And trying to control defense dept. appropriations to end the war hasn't worked for this one (sorry, Earl, time for a new tactic); neither have hearings and the other posturing. What would work would be if the first branch of government started acting like they gave a damn and used their real power--impeachment--to keep the executive in line.
Before we kick Wyden around too much, let's remember he was smart enough not to authorize the war in the first place. I give him that and always will. I hope he can get some of his colleages interested in perhaps, just maybe, kind of defending the Constitution as part of their job description.
Jun 5, '08
And I thought that on BueOregon, the unrealistic dreamers were only Clinton supporters.
Next proposal!
Indicting all the people who played prominent roles in getting us into this war on Iraq is only unrealistic because of the caliber of people we have in government and in this country in the first decade of the 21st Century. If we weren't such hypocrites when we talk about being a nation of laws, we would have to indict them. In an earlier era we indicted and tried hundreds of Nazis and Japanese for their roles in World War II. Several of them were executed.
Try a Google for the Nuremberg Trials when we had people stand on principle even though there was some hypocrisy with it being victors' justice. You might learn something in the process.
There have been books and many articles outlining cases against Bush and Cheney for "high crimes and misdemeanors" and Vincent Bugliosi is coming out with a book making a case for them being guilty of murder. But again, we are operating under two sets of rules. And the guilty go free with the nation's complicity while the dead, the mutilated and their loved ones cry out in vain for justice. But, no, Nancy Pelosi and her accomplices are keeping impeachment off the table. That's the loyal opposition. Loyal to the president.
How do you feel about the way the military-industrial complex has ripped off the American taxpayer? Is that okay as long as the guvmint isn't taxing us for schools and health care and that sort of sissy stuff?
5:19 p.m.
Jun 5, '08
jamais, i'd have to do a little digging, but I thought there were multiple occassions where cutting funding halted military operations. I don't see why there'sany reason to fund a atfor anything other than dedicated withdrawal.
Jun 5, '08
Fellow Delegates to the 3rd Congressional District Convention, this Saturday:
I am sending you a photograph, and a second copy of my Candidate Statement for delegate to the Denver Democratic Convention.
I understand there will be no speeches for the first round of voting Saturday, so I would appreciate it, if you would open at least my Candidate Statement and give it a quick read. I am a lawyer of 28 plus years experience in the biggest and smallest law firms in the State. I am an active Democrat and serve as the Chair of the Multnomah County Delegation to the State Central Committee.
But, the reason it is important to send me to Denver is that my family and I have lost much to the Bush Regime. and I have a trained voice of support for Barack Obama, and against four more Bush years.
The photo is of my nephew Marine Corporal Travis Bradach-Nall. It was taken August 8, 2008 at our family campout at the Oregon Coast. Travis was home on leave from Camp Pendleton. He is with his grandparents, Fran and Marilyn Bradach. The campout was a celebration of Marilyn's 71st birthday.
Travis was mobilized to Kuwait in January 2003. He was among the first troops into Iraq, on March 21, 2003.
Unknown to him, his grandparent died the week before in a carfire on Mt. Hood, evidently the result of the stress of growing old in Bush America and the impending War.
Travis volunteered to stay on in Iraq, after his invasion troop came home.
On July 2, 2003, the day Bush said, "Bring them on!", Travis died in the explosion of a U.S. cluster bomb, during the clearing of unexploded ordnance near Karbala, Iraq.
I have dedicated much of my time since, to achieving some measure of justice for the fraud that launched the War. Today, the Senate Intelligence Committee finally released its findings on the manipulation of pre-war intelligence to sell the invasion. Senator Ron Wyden, a member of that Committee has called for the investigation of Donald Rumsfeld and possible prosecutions, if it turns out members of the Bush Administration lied to Congress.
The War is and will continue be a central issue in the Presidential Campaign. Obama needs in Denver some who suffered direct and painful personal loss from the Bush debacle, to voice support for his pledge to get us out of Iraq.
I am that Voice.
Please vote for me on Saturday. Tell your friends.
The Travis, Fran and Marilyn Photo:
http://john.bradach.net/
Bradach Candidate Statement:
http://restricted.dpo.org/delegates/vp/1727.html
Jun 5, '08
And I thought that on BueOregon, the unrealistic dreamers were only Clinton supporters.
Next proposal!
The consolation for people who tend to be "unrealistic" is that they often find themselves in good company. For instance, Thomas Paine, Martin Luther King, Jr., and - Barack Obama and his early supporters. How many people told Paine, MLK, and Obama they were unrealistic? And, what does that say about the "realists"?
Jun 5, '08
I think I am going to have a big problem with (statements made by Bush and Cheney in postwar Iraq which didn't reflect the concerns and uncertanties expressed in the intelligence pruduct). What possible reason in the conduct of a war would you have for disregarding the situation on the ground? My nephew made his decision to extend his tour in Iraq a couple of days after "Mission Accomplished" in early May of 2003. I don't get to know if he heard the presidents statement or if it played apart in his decision to stay. I long ago decided Bush's actions constitued murder and the whole group are war criminals.
9:23 p.m.
Jun 5, '08
What about the UN reports rules them out as unclassified, direct evidence? It was openly available. It was available to the administration as well as Congress and the rest of the world. It was based on direct observation of sites in Iraq.
This war's gone on for years because people like Wyden -- who I'm fairly sure was aware Iraq didn't have any WMD when he voted against the AUMF -- didn't speak out about the how the administration was lying for years. That not to say that he's as culpable as the idiots in the Democratic party who actually supported the war in the first place.
Jun 5, '08
This war's gone on for years because people like Wyden -- who I'm fairly sure was aware Iraq didn't have any WMD when he voted against the AUMF
When Wyden was holding one of his "town hall" meetings in Central Oregon in 2002 people got the impression he was leaning in favor of the war. He got an earful in CO opposing war and, presumably, elsewhere in Oregon. That may explain why he didn't vote for the war.
Jun 5, '08
Cool!! Central Oregon (Goldy's quip: Bend?? Middle of NOWHERE!) sold the liberal, metro-Senator from P-town on opposing the war. Maybe Earl should come over here too, and get some real Oregon values.
9:46 p.m.
Jun 5, '08
What about the UN reports rules them out as unclassified, direct evidence? It was openly available. It was available to the administration as well as Congress and the rest of the world. It was based on direct observation of sites in Iraq.
But its from the UN--not from a U.S. source. I'm not saying that evidence from the UN is illegitimate, Darrel. I'm saying that in order to get the American people behind the serious investigations and hearings necessary to take on the necessary task of going after Rumsfeld--the evidence has to be incontrovertible and unimpeacheable, including the sourcing.
Without that kind of deliberate, careful and weighty sourcing of evidence, we could easily end up with another disastrous effort to go after a legitimately bad character. It happened with Bush (as I cited above).
This is just too important to not have Americans completely on board.
This report includes the backing of some Republicans, which is an important part of this. The fact that Wyden is touting this report and working to bring this to the fore is a huge step toward garnering in support for these investigations.
Wyden may have had his suspicions about whether or not Iraq had WMD. But this report clearly outlines that Rumsfeld was keeping key information from NIC from Congress. That takes this to a whole new level--and one in which Wyden and others can leverage to get Americans who don't pay wonky attention to politics and news the opportunity to buy into the investigations.
This issue is much to meaningful to do it any other way. We HAVE to bring Rumsfeld (and the rest of the Bush Admin involved with this) to justice.
9:47 p.m.
Jun 5, '08
closing bold tag
I hope.
How annoying.
Jun 5, '08
There were many arguments against WMDs and al-Qaida in Iraq when the Bush Administration was claiming they were there, but regardless of that evidence the war on Iraq was in violation of the U.N. Charter and the Geneva Convention. It is therefore a war crime and the people pushing for it should be charged with war crimes.
Does anyone have sufficient legal knowledge to say whether or not victims of this war could press a civil suit against the perpetrators? Probably cleaning out their bank accounts would hurt them more than a few years in prison.
9:11 a.m.
Jun 6, '08
Bill Bodden,
I am not the only one who finds your posts frightening. The signatories of the Project for the New American Century Letter includes many private citizens who were exercising their right to free speech.
To associate your statements with Thomas Paine, Martin Luther King, and to compare the signatories to the Nazi war criminals tried at Nuremburg shows an astounding lack of perspective.
Jun 6, '08
Iraq submited the 12000 pages of their weapons declaration on December 7 2002. The declaration was titled "Currently Accurate, Full and Complete Declaration", it was the required response to UN resolution 1441. John Negroponte dismissed this as "Saddams new lie". So America can move some 130000 men and women and their equiptment to Iraq's border and Gorge Bush can continue to make public statements the "no decisions on Iraq have been made", in the eighty some day before the invasion. Yet no one appears to have taken the time to verify an confirm that Iraq's December declaration was in fact currently accurate, full and complete. It is obvious that it was more important to have a war than deal straight with the world or the American people. I can clearly remember late in the evening on December 25th, 2002, after a lovely dinner at my sister's house, giving my nephew a hug at the door as I was headed for home. You don't get to know that you will never see these kids again. I know that at that time I had no concern that he would be sent to Iraq.
9:45 a.m.
Jun 6, '08
Virtually none of the intelligence "supporting" WMDs was from US sources. The "Curveball" source for much of the material was from German intelligence. Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress supplied much of the "evidence". The report cited by Bush about Saddam acquiring yellowcake from Niger came from British intelligence -- he even said that in the infamous sixteen words he spoke at the 2003 State of the Union.
What you seem to be missing is that there was no evidence of WMD at all -- because there were no WMDs. What existed was rumor and conjecture derived from third-party sources. Nobody in the administration or Congress ever saw any evidence that WMD existed in Iraq in the years just prior to the invasion because those weapons simply did not exist.
Claims that they did exist were directly contradicted by actual boots on the ground investigations conducted by the UN weapons inspectors.
Jun 6, '08
PNAC is a criminal enterprise like none other in human history!
10:07 a.m.
Jun 6, '08
What you seem to be missing is that there was no evidence of WMD at all -- because there were no WMDs.
Actually I'm quite aware of it. Your explanation of where previous sourcing for the lack of WMDs in Iraq rather makes my point, Darrel.
The SIC report accuses Rumsfeld of directly lying to Congress by withholding intelligence gathered from our own sources. That's the lynchpin here. Rumsfeld had complete access to American intelligence gathering that directly refuted the statements he was making to Congress, according to this report. That's what Wyden is now leveraging in attempt to swell support for investigations of Rumsfeld.
The evidence and sources you're citing are certainly legitimate and serve to bolster the SIC report. However, had Wyden jumped in earlier without the evidence from domestic sources to solidify what he's trying to do--it could have very easily turned into a disaster.
Please take a few minutes and go back to read my earlier comments. I'm well aware that of the UN reports. I'm saying that without more to back up the allegations against Rumsfeld (the evidence using American sourcing), it would have been a much tougher threshold to haul him in for investigations and hearings.
Wyden is taking what I hope is the first, bold step in holding these guys accountable for the treasonous acts they've committed against our nation.
Jun 6, '08
paul g:
I am not the only one who finds your posts frightening. The signatories of the Project for the New American Century Letter includes many private citizens who were exercising their right to free speech.
Freedom of speech does not include the right to shout "Fire" in a theater when there is no fire because it could cause a panic that could bring unnecessary injury to people. It does not include the right to libel and slander. Nor should freedom of speech include a right to lie and start a war that has the potential to cost hundreds of thousands of people their lives and their well-being. That's how the signatories and their allies exercised their freedom of speech. The precedent of being punished for lying is well established. Ask "Scooter" Libby and others who lied to federal grand juries.
To associate your statements with Thomas Paine, Martin Luther King, and to compare the signatories to the Nazi war criminals tried at Nuremburg shows an astounding lack of perspective.
Why not compare those signatories with Nazi war criminals? Evil is evil even if the scale is different. They were major factors in getting this war going and causing the crime against humanity that occurred in Iraq? Or is the war in Iraq old news to you? Are you bored with that even though it continues to cost young American men and women their lives and limbs and minds? Are you now indifferent to this war that has cost the treasury of the United States hundreds of billions of dollars while schools and infrastructures are decaying? Have you no concern for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have been killed and maimed and the millions who have become refugees? And the slaughter and mayhem continue for no one knows how long. If you have the decency to show some concern, don't you think the people responsible for this should be tried and punished if found guilty?
People are lying and distorting the truth to get a war going in Iran. Are you looking forward to another round of shock and awe there?
Maybe the reason you find my comments frightening is that you can't face reality beyond your own narrow perspective. Or do you operate on double standards? One set of rules for them and another for us?
10:55 a.m.
Jun 6, '08
Carla, you're not only ignoring the fact that the "sourcing" for American intelligence claims weren't from American sources in the first place but you're ignoring the fact that one very significant piece of American-generated data that did refute the administration's claims came from Joe Wilson and was revealed back in the summer of 2003.
The idea that pushing back on the claims for the war would have turned into a "disaster" is ludicrous. Do you somehow mean it would have created a worse disaster than the 4,000+ dead servicepeople, the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, the millions of displaced Iraqis, and a country that had already suffered under a cruel dictatorship even further destroyed? You mean that would have been made worse by Wyden pointing out that there was no actual evidence that there were any WMDs? Or are you just saying it would have been disastrous for his career?
10:58 a.m.
Jun 6, '08
That explanation was about where the sourcing for the presence of WMDs came from, Carla. Curveball, Chalabi, and British intelligence were the sources cited by the administration to buttress their position.
12:11 p.m.
Jun 6, '08
That explanation was about where the sourcing for the presence of WMDs came from, Carla. Curveball, Chalabi, and British intelligence were the sources cited by the administration to buttress their position.
I understand that, Darrel. And the evidence to rebut came from the UN.
You're still not addressing the main point.
You are an incredibly engaged, wonky guy who follows politics and news to the point of understanding such things. Very few Americans are. That's why waiting until its demonstrated that Rumsfeld lied to Congress by omitting intelligence from an American source (NIC) makes it a much easier case to make.
We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess. I think that asking the American public to follow the twisted chain of events here in order to set up investigations and hearings is futile--and frankly will undermine the effort. We now have a very easy to explain, simple demonstration of Rumsfeld's law-breaking that Americans can wrap their brains around.
I want to see the guy nailed. Wyden's stepping up to do it in a smart way, IMO.
12:12 p.m.
Jun 6, '08
Do you somehow mean it would have created a worse disaster than the 4,000+ dead servicepeople, the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, the millions of displaced Iraqis, and a country that had already suffered under a cruel dictatorship even further destroyed?
If it means that no one is brought to justice for this, then yes, absolutely its more disastrous.
12:30 p.m.
Jun 6, '08
Personally, if I'd been Wyden I would have been more concerned about stopping people from getting killed, to keep the country from torturing people, to keep war profiteers from bleeding the treasury dry, maybe by bringing these points up in order to discredit Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. years ago, but perhaps that's just me.
Someone who watches a gang slowly beat someone to death before they call for help isn't exactly the kind of person I trust as a "watchdog." Sure, they run the risk of getting attacked themselves by doing that, but sometimes the backup call is answered.
Jun 6, '08
You are an incredibly engaged, wonky guy who follows politics and news to the point of understanding such things. Very few Americans are.
It didn't take "incredibly engaged, wonky" guys to figure out that the Bush Administration was lying. Just getting out of their rut and away from the boob tube and mainstream newspapers a little would have been sufficient. But this nation of sheep listened to their sheep herders on ABC, CBS, NBC, Faux News and CNN and thought they knew all they needed to know. If they had, instead, read articles in publications such as The Nation, Mother Jones, Harper's and similar, then they might have raised their consciousness to a higher level away from their trough.
Since we operate on a double standard as a nation, it is unlikely that the perpetrators of this crime will be brought to justice, but at a minimum we should have something like the South African Truth and Reconciliation Committee to face the reality of what we have done and perhaps admit to our national guilt and maybe not screw up again - at least until the next liars come along and the sheep buy into their lies.
Jun 6, '08
Someone who watches a gang slowly beat someone to death before they call for help isn't exactly the kind of person I trust as a "watchdog."
Are you suggesting that Wyden was complicit in death of tens of thousands of Iraqis and American soldiers? I tracked this relatively closely and remember Wyden consistently voting with around a dozen or so patriots (Kerry, Feingold, Byrd) to stop or end the war. Wyden obviously knew these guys were lying -- that's why he voted against the war -- but now he has access to the evidence. Evidence kind of counts when you are a senator (and not venting on a blog).
Also, someone earlier commented that Wyden at one time seemed to be leaning toward voting for the war, but I asked him directly about the war vote about a month before it took place, and he sure didn't sound like he was leaning toward supporting it to me. He played his cards pretty close to the vest because he didn't commit, either, and said that he was listening to the classified intelligence and would make the best decision he could. I could accept that, but only if he chose correctly, which he did.
My take on it was that Wyden had the good sense to reject the same lies that most other Democratic Senators were sold by the Bush intelligence operation. With all of the people complicit in this nightmare, I'm pretty proud our senior senator has stood out by comparison in opposition to this war.
2:47 p.m.
Jun 6, '08
As George McGovern said on September 1, 1970, just before the vote on the McGovern-Hatfield amendment:
He didn't exempt himself from that. And no, he wasn't successful at ending the war, either. But he and Hatfield did at least try. And it's hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, plus even more wounded. And tens of thousands of wounded veterans. And a trillion or three dollars that the country didn't have.
All Wyden has as a result of the currently-released Intelligence document is evidence that Don Rumsfeld lied about some very specific claims made under oath to the Intelligence committee. Other claims by the administration were debunked long ago, even before the war began. And again, there was never any hard evidence shown by the administration to back up their claims of WMDs in Iraq. There was a lot of speculation. There was a lot of hearsay evidence from foreign sources. But that doesn't constitute proof.
Wyden waited three years to speak out against the war -- according to his own timeline that was passed out at last summer's Portland town hall on Iraq -- even though he knew there was no evidence to support the WMD claims. I think you're right that he knew the administration's claims were lies, but after he voted on the AUMF he kept his mouth shut about those lies for years. He certainly could have made the case that no actual evidence of WMD had been displayed. That didn't need to wait five years.
Look, Wyden's not alone in this. None of the senators who opposed the war said anything in the early years. But I don't bitch about the others because Wyden's my senator. I've voted for the guy. And I'm pissed off that he's been on the Senate Intelligence committee since before the war began and he's just sat on his hands.
BTW, John Kerry was one of the 29 Democratic senators who voted for the Iraq AUMF. He supported the war in its first phases. So did John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, and -- of course -- Hillary Clinton. And Evan Bayh, Maria Cantwell, Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, jay Rockefeller, and Chuck Schumer. And some others.
Jun 6, '08
And I'm pissed off that he's been on the Senate Intelligence committee since before the war began and he's just sat on his hands.
Dick Durbin (D-IL) was also on the intelligence(?) committee before the war and a few months ago admitted that members of the committee received evidence that contradicted what the administration was saying, but they were prohibited from going public because of some obligation they undertook to not disclose to the public what they were told. It was time then for another Daniel-Ellsberg moment, but they all passed it up. No profiles in courage there. Dick Durbin at least had the decency to 'fess up and apologize.
Jun 6, '08
I don't know what timeline you are referring to, but I heard Wyden talk out against the war at a Gresham townhall in either 2002 or 2003. I also heard him talk out against the war at a DPO event in 2004, and I'm assuming he spoke about it elsewhere if I heard it the only two times I saw him during that period. So your math is wrong. And he said at at least one of those events that Bush misled Congress and that he didn't believe what he was told in his closed door briefings. So your facts are also wrong.
As for what he could have done on the Intelligence Committee, I really have no idea, but you have no idea, either. Virtually every one of their meetings is classified and members are subject to secrecy laws that apply to classified material. When asked about his vote against war in Iraq in 2002 or 3, I remember Wyden repeating himself (seems to be a habit of his) 10 times at the town meeting about how he couldn't go into what he learned on the Intelligence Committee.
I think where I differ from your perspective is that I am inclined to give Wyden the benefit of the doubt because I don't know everything he might have done, but know he is one of the most liberal Senators on the issue of Iraq. You assume the worst, and that's your choice, but I don't think there is a basis for your criticism beyond your conjecture.
I voted for Wyden and am damn glad he's there. I wish we had another Democratic senator just like him. Okay, maybe without the whole bipartisan thing, but a lot like him.
Jun 6, '08
darrelplant said: "...one of the reasons Saddam threw out the UN inspectors in the first place was that some were spying for the US..."
This is one more right-wing propaganda point that we need to stop repeating. As Ray McGovern (How George Tenet Lied) said, "Bush told the U.N. to withdraw its inspectors promptly and let them watch the fireworks of shock and awe from a safer distance on TV. (The real shocker is President Bush's repeated insistence that Saddam threw out the inspectors. But, again, he has so successfully 'catapulted' this piece of propaganda that most Americans do not realize it is a lie.)"
Furthermore, every time the issue of WMDs is brought up it bolsters the right-wing arguments, because it implies that if there had been "WMDs" then our invasion and occupation of Iraq would have been okay. By this logic, it would be okay for Russia to invade and occupy the U.S.
As for Wyden's "anti-war" positions, you guys have got to stop worshipping false idols:
On Friday, September 14, 2001, the House passed H.J. Res. 64, "Authorization for Use of Military Force" by a vote of 420 - 1. The Senate passed this authorization by a vote of 98-0. Barbara Lee was thus the only member of Congress who voted to uphold and defend the Constitution's separation of powers principle, the principle that no one person should be empowered to conduct war on behalf of the United States.
What of the many times Wyden voted for Iraq funding while he claimed to be against the "war"?
What about his vote on the rights of detainees at GITMO?
What about his positions on Lebanon and Palestine?
He's no more "anti-war" than your other clay-footed heroes.
Jun 6, '08
Very interesting discussion of the legalites. BTW, have you noticed all the legislation that the Congress DID get around to passing in the first few years of this administration. Closed LOTS of loopholes. Mainly defined "protected persons" which means "protection from prosecution". My favorite is the one authorizing the President to carry out military operations against Europe. You really SHOULD read the Congressional Record.
Personally, I'm distracted by the fact that Rumsfeld's and Wyden's names are both Dutch and mean largely the same thing. Pun intended.
It IS politics. Take the issue-position challenge. Right down which issues matter to you, in order of importance, and what you want to see done. Then, have an impartial person summarize the same for each candidate. Compare your list TO THE ORIGINAL FIELD and find a best match. Isn't the person you are supporting, is it? Why are you doing it? Because we have a creaking old non-parliamentary democracy where one vote more than the other person means complete victory. As long as we have it you and your reps will continue to vote for things you don't want because you think if you don't you'll get something you like less.
And during the 1960s, how did we claim to be different than the Soviets? Something about "they have elections but they're not real"...
Jun 6, '08
<>As for what he could have done on the Intelligence Committee, I really have no idea, but you have no idea, either. Virtually every one of their meetings is classified and members are subject to secrecy laws that apply to classified material.
As I indicated, he could have done something similar to what Daniel Ellsberg did - blow the whistle and perhaps have prevented the war. Admittedly, that would have been a formidable challenge that few would rise up to, but in hindsight he could have prevented the horrible waste that came with this war.
When asked about his vote against war in Iraq in 2002 or 3,...
The senate voted for the war on October 11, 2002.
Jun 6, '08
What's Ron up to now? Trying to appease his constituency for the monumental mistake he's made in waiting until the very last minute to support Obama? For allowing and perhaps encouraging his staffer Josh Kardon to run around Oregon setting up rallies and supplying the Clinton camp with ammunition to distort Obama's record. For not speaking out against the occupation of Iraq when he could. Senator Wyden seems to be a day late and a dollar short in all of his actions--it's the safe route. Make your constituency THINK you are doing something, but never take a clear position that might displease someone in power. Now if he decides to hold impeachment hearings for Bush/Cheney and to support investigation of Karl Rove, we may begin to take him seriously. Sorry things didn't work out for you in getting a post in Clinton's cabinet, Ron.
Jun 6, '08
What's Ron up to now? Trying to appease his constituency for the monumental mistake he's made in waiting until the very last minute to support Obama? For allowing and perhaps encouraging his staffer Josh Kardon to run around Oregon setting up rallies and supplying the Clinton camp with ammunition to distort Obama's record. For not speaking out against the occupation of Iraq when he could. Senator Wyden seems to be a day late and a dollar short in all of his actions--it's the safe route. Make your constituency THINK you are doing something, but never take a clear position that might displease someone in power. Now if he decides to hold impeachment hearings for Bush/Cheney and to support investigation of Karl Rove, we may begin to take him seriously. Sorry things didn't work out for you in getting a post in Clinton's cabinet, Ron.
Jun 7, '08
Making false statements to Congress is a felony punishable by up to five years imprisonment. Go get 'im Ron!
10:41 a.m.
Jun 7, '08
That's not right wing propaganda. Saddam stopped allowing UNSCOM inspections in 1998 because he alleged that they had been infiltrated by CIA operatives. That infiltration was confirmed in 1999, and the knowledge the spies provided was used for targeting strikes in the December 1998 bombing of Iraq ordered by Bill Clinton.
And the 2001 vote you're referring to, Harry, was about the invasion of Afghanistan.
10:48 a.m.
Jun 7, '08
Or not. Wyden didn't put out even a press release challenging the war until 2006. You can check his web site, I did. He never made the case that the war was wrong. He never made the case that anyone should be held accountable for the disparity between reality and allegations -- even in the months after the invasion when it was clear to everyone that there were no WMDs. Not until now.
11:00 a.m.
Jun 7, '08
Actually, I do have an idea. All the people on the Intelligence committee (the majority of Democrats there voted against the Iraq AUMF) would have had to say was that they hadn't seen any evidence to back up the administration's claims. They wouldn't have had to reveal what they had seen (which was garbage anyway). They just would have had to say that nothing the administration had shown them was reliable proof that Iraq had WMDs or was a threat to the US. They could have said that the administration was making claims for which there was no evidence. That they were, in effect, stretching the truth -- or lying.
Jun 7, '08
darrelplant: I thought you were referring to the canard of 2003 ("one of the reasons Saddam threw out the UN inspectors..."), which many still believe was true.
As for: "And the 2001 vote you're referring to, Harry, was about the invasion of Afghanistan", this I will debate with you:
H.J. Res. 64, "Authorization for Use of Military Force", authorized Bush to single-handedly conduct war against unspecified nations, organizations, or persons for an unspecified duration.
The fact that Bush again asked for authorization prior to the attack on Iraq was meant to deflect criticism by those who previously had authorized him to attack anyone he wanted to. No Democrat in all of Congress opposed this except for Barbara Lee, who spoke for me.
And, by the way, an attack on the people of Afghanistan was also an aggressive and therefore illegal war against a nation that did not attack us. It was the last thing we should have done in 2001, especially considering that the Taliban had announced that they would turn over bin Laden if they received evidence of his guilt.
"At the final meeting with the Taliban, on Aug. 2, 2001 [5 weeks before 9/11!], State Department negotiator Christine Rocca clarified the options: 'Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold [for a pipeline to connect the immense oil and gas resources of the Caspian Basin to the richest markets], or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.' With the futility of negotiations apparent, 'President Bush promptly informed Pakistan and India the U.S. would launch a military mission into Afghanistan before the end of October.'" (The Mega-Lie Called the "War on Terror")
Jun 7, '08
This is from an article on the Think Progress web site discussing a Keith Olbermann interview with Richard Clarke:
“Someone should have to pay in some way for the decisions that they made to mislead the American people,” said Clarke. He suggested that “some sort of truth and reconciliation commission” might be appropriate because, he said, we can’t “let these people back into polite society”:
The complete article is here.
11:24 p.m.
Jun 7, '08
Harry, I never said I thought Wyden was "anti-war," only that he had voted against the original Iraq AUMF (which was all that had been discussed above).
Jun 8, '08
"Or not. Wyden didn't put out even a press release challenging the war until 2006. You can check his web site, I did. He never made the case that the war was wrong. He never made the case that anyone should be held accountable for the disparity between reality and allegations -- even in the months after the invasion when it was clear to everyone that there were no WMDs. Not until now."
Darrel, the fact is that I heard Wyden speak against the war twice in the time period you said he didn't. Do you really think the media would have reported it if Wyden had issued a press release? They didn't report either of the two times I heard him. By the media's standards, there is no news value in a politician who has been against the war issuing a press relase to say they are still against the war.
As for never saying anything about holding people responsible, again, neither you nor I were privy to the classified discussions, but the administration has been able to consistently point to actual intelligence reports to back up their phony Iraq claims. It is impossible to successfully prosecute someone for saying they relied on faulty intelligence if, in fact, that faulty intelligence existed.
Obviously Bush and his cronies knew they were relying on faulty intelligence, but Wyden and Feingold, the two most active and liberal members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, could not successfully prosecute on that basis.
Jun 8, '08
"Actually, I do have an idea. All the people on the Intelligence committee (the majority of Democrats there voted against the Iraq AUMF) would have had to say was that they hadn't seen any evidence to back up the administration's claims. They wouldn't have had to reveal what they had seen (which was garbage anyway). They just would have had to say that nothing the administration had shown them was reliable proof that Iraq had WMDs or was a threat to the US. They could have said that the administration was making claims for which there was no evidence. That they were, in effect, stretching the truth -- or lying."
Darrel, you are once again ignoring the facts to prosecute your cause, whatever that is.
The fact is that the CIA presented Congress with reams of intelligence to back up Bush's case in the build up to the war. Wyden is one of the most active Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, but it is beyond stupid to suggest he had his own intelligence operatives in the Middle East and Africa to directly refute the thousands of administration operatives who compiled the actual evidence and data Congress was allowed to view. The CIA presented to Congress hard evidence that, as the months and years ticked forward, turned out to be bullshit. But at the time Congress was presented with this evidence, and every member of Congrss had access to it, not just Wyden, it would have been impossible for a member fo Congress to reliably assert that "they were making claims for which there was no evidence."
I am thankful that Wyden, like Blumenauer, Wu, Hooley, and DeFazio had the good instincts to understand the high likelihood of a Bush snow job.
If you hate Wyden or the other Democrats in Congress, that's fine by me, but hold yourself to the same standard that you want to hold them to. You are currently the one making claims for which there is no evidence.
Jun 8, '08
"Actually, I do have an idea. All the people on the Intelligence committee (the majority of Democrats there voted against the Iraq AUMF) would have had to say was that they hadn't seen any evidence to back up the administration's claims. They wouldn't have had to reveal what they had seen (which was garbage anyway). They just would have had to say that nothing the administration had shown them was reliable proof that Iraq had WMDs or was a threat to the US. They could have said that the administration was making claims for which there was no evidence. That they were, in effect, stretching the truth -- or lying."
Darrel, you are once again ignoring the facts to prosecute your cause, whatever that is.
The fact is that the CIA presented Congress with reams of intelligence to back up Bush's case in the build up to the war. Wyden is one of the most active Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, but it is beyond stupid to suggest he had his own intelligence operatives in the Middle East and Africa to directly refute the thousands of administration operatives who compiled the actual evidence and data Congress was allowed to view. The CIA presented to Congress hard evidence that, as the months and years ticked forward, turned out to be bullshit. But at the time Congress was presented with this evidence, and every member of Congrss had access to it, not just Wyden, it would have been impossible for a member fo Congress to reliably assert that "they were making claims for which there was no evidence."
I am thankful that Wyden, like Blumenauer, Wu, Hooley, and DeFazio had the good instincts to understand the high likelihood of a Bush snow job.
If you hate Wyden or the other Democrats in Congress, that's fine by me, but hold yourself to the same standard that you want to hold them to. You are currently the one making claims for which there is no evidence.
Jun 8, '08
The fact is that the CIA presented Congress with reams of intelligence to back up Bush's case in the build up to the war.
The fact is that statement is unadulterated BS. Dick Durbin, a member of the Senate Intelligence (?) Committee stated on the senate floor a few months ago that he and other members were getting straight intelligence that was at odds with the propaganda the Bush/Cheney was putting out to the media that, for the most part, regurgitated it for their readers and viewers. If there were no WMDs and no Iraq-al-Qaida link, how could the CIA come up with reams of intelligence to back up Bush?
Jun 8, '08
Bill, I think you are extrapolating without basis, but feel free to provide the actual quote from Durbin to prove your point.
It is widely accepted by countless journalists who have done post mortems on the run-up to war that the CIA, under pressure from Cheney, cooked up "evidence" to present to Congress on WMDs and al-Qaida.
Jun 8, '08
Bill, I think you are extrapolating without basis, but feel free to provide the actual quote from Durbin to prove your point.
It is widely accepted by countless journalists who have done post mortems on the run-up to war that the CIA, under pressure from Cheney, cooked up "evidence" to present to Congress on WMDs and al-Qaida.
I'm not going to the trouble of researching transcripts of senate debates to quote for you the words I heard Dick Durbin say on C-Span, especially when your second paragraph essentially shoots down your own point. Your "reams of evidence" have now evolved into "cooked up 'evidence'."
Bottom line, millions of people who were paying attention to the likes of Hans Blix, Scott Ritter and other sources outside the U.S. mainstream media, such as Robert Fisk and the alternate media, recognized that the Bush Administration points were BS, and if our elected officials in Congress didn't have enough sense to see through that crap, they should have been thrown out of office in 2002 and certainly no later than 2004 when the whole Iraq scenario was collapsing.
1:40 p.m.
Jun 8, '08
"The fact is that the CIA presented Congress with reams of intelligence to back up Bush's case in the build up to the war. "
There are a couple of big things wrong with that statement. First, let's not confuse CIA with OSP, the raw intel shop set up by Dick Cheney and relying primarily on Curveball and other sources that even the CIA said were UNRELIABLE. The CIA presented evidence in the NIE to suggest that Saddam seemed relatively likely to have programs for chem and bio, but not nuclear. And it was assumed that the remainder of the weapons destroyed by UN were lying around somewhere, but their potency was highly questioned.
In addition, the State Dept had their own report in the NIE (which the White House and Pentagon pushed to the back and in one version I think took out completely), contradicting some of the claims--particularly the links between Saddam and al Qaeda.
Congress had access to the full NIE, and I believe only five Members availed themselves of anything beyond the White House-declassified version that shaded the truth so strongly.
The statements made to the effect of nuclear capabilities, aluminum tubes, the Prague visit, yellowcake and the links between al-Qaeda were ALL discredited by at least part of the intelligence community, at the time the decision to invade occurred. The hard fact is that using the NYT and to a lesser extent Washington Post to push the raw OSP intel into the marketplace, Cheney and his group intentionally misled the nation as the to best estimates of the intelligence community on Iraq.
Jun 8, '08
Most of this debate is irrelevant. Progressives have argued since the slaughter began that a principled objection to the invasions would be condemnation on the grounds that aggression is a crime under both international and U.S. law, in fact the "supreme international crime," as the Nuremberg Tribunal determined.
The liberal corporate wing argues, instead, that the problem is that "intelligence" was ignored, or the "war" was poorly executed, or it's too costly for us. This is the same kind of reasoning that guided the Nazis. We had no right to have done it, regardless of WMDs, Saddam's crimes, or anything else posited here as a potential reason for "pre-emption".
If we have any decency left in us, we will work to make sure that it does not happen again, regardless of what party is in power. That means rejecting the talking points of both major parties.
3:22 p.m.
Jun 8, '08
Robert, there's a big difference between saying the war was wrong in town hall meetings and in the confines of the DPO and saying the same thing on the floor of the Senate or at a press conference. I haven't been able to find evidence that Wyden did either of those things, and I spent some time last fall doing a LEXIS/NEXIS search of articles from the period. If you want to provide me with proof otherwise, then feel free to do so, otherwise I think my statement that Wyden hasn't "made the case" against the war stands.
As to whether I think "think the media would have reported it if Wyden had issued a press release", well how do you think the information about him threatening Rumsfeld that sparked the news story this post is based on came about? He held a press conference. And when he got all fo the press last year about ineffectually holding up John Rizzo's nomination (as I mentioned above)? That was because he was contacting reporters and telling them what he was doing.
I'm pretty sure that if a senator on the Intelligence committee had come out and said that he thought the Bush administration was lying about Iraq five years ago, the press would have been all over him. He would have taken some incredible heat, but he would have gotten coverage. Of course, it would also have put him at odds with most of the other Democrats in the Senate -- including the head of the DSCC -- who were rabid war supporters, a year before re-election.
Jun 8, '08
If we have any decency left in us, we will work to make sure that it does not happen again, regardless of what party is in power. That means rejecting the talking points of both major parties.
Unfortunately, Harry K., as you well know we, as a nation, lack the decency, intelligence and guts to make sure something like this never happens again. Just as Wilson's war to end all wars wasn't. And since both parties are allied with corporations that make money off wars, their talking points will be more inclined towards war than peace.
Has anyone in Congress made a vociferous statement against a potential war on Iran? I believe a couple have said Bush will have to come to Congress to ask for funding, but that shouldn't be much of an obstacle given his success in keeping this crime against humanity in Iraq well-funded.
3:37 p.m.
Jun 8, '08
The CIA presented evidence in the NIE to suggest that Saddam seemed relatively likely to have programs for chem and bio, but not nuclear. And it was assumed that the remainder of the weapons destroyed by UN were lying around somewhere, but their potency was highly questioned.
Not to pick nits, but that's not entirely correct. The October 2002 NIE stated that Saddam Hussein had vigorously been trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake. As you say, the NIE stated that Hussein didn't have nuclear weapons yet--but estimated that Hussein would have them by the end of the decade (it specifically stated 2007-2009, I believe).
In addition, the language of the NIE very clearly stated that Iraq was in possesion of chemical and biological weapons. It was in fact, unequivocal. The dissenting view from the State Department was, as I recall, on the basis of Iraq's alleged reconstitution of nuclear weapons. The other dissent was (I think) from military intelligence about the UAVs being able to spread chemical and biological weapons.
The Iraq-Al Qaida link was debunked by the CIA in late 2002 according to the 9/11 Commission Report. As I understand it, that link was not included in the NIE that the Senate Intelligence Cmte worked from. The day that Powell gave testimony to the UN, a report was leaked from Britain saying that their intelligence showed no link between Al Qaida and Hussein.
The British also had an intelligence estimate in 2002 hyping up Iraq's WMD.
Its my understanding that the Office of Special Plans (OSP) was mostly about trying to gin up a relationship between Al Qaida and Hussein and to marginalize the CIA/Tenet. There was some WMD chatter in that organization, but I was under the impression that this wasn't their first priority.
3:45 p.m.
Jun 8, '08
Just as Wilson's war to end all wars wasn't.
Ain't that the truth?! He thought only as far as framing the whole thing as a holy war against the godless commie infidels and shooting down the Soviet helicopters as the solution, without giving five minutes of thought as to what the Holy Warriors would do once the commies were gone and Osama Bin Laden went shopping for Toyota pickups for his BFFs in the Taliban.........wait a minute........You must be talking about Woodrow.
Never mind.
Jun 8, '08
Here is one example of Senator Durbin exposing intelligence lies. You'll get more if you Google for "durbin senate intelligence committee iraq"
Jun 8, '08
Bill Bodden: re "...we, as a nation, lack the decency, intelligence and guts to make sure something like this never happens again."
We need to remember that there is a very efficient and well-funded public relations industry that works overtime to convince us that the emperor and his naked earls are wearing suits of finery. The political elites, even the sainted, charismatic ones, do not represent us, and they are impediments to justice and peace, but...
"Nevertheless, circumstances may change, and perhaps the candidates along with them, to the benefit of the United States and the region. Public opinion may not remain marginalised and easily ignored. The concentrations of domestic economic power that largely shape policy may come to recognise that their interests are better served by joining the general public, and the rest of the world, than by accepting Washington's hard line." Can a Democrat change US Middle East policy?
5:27 p.m.
Jun 8, '08
Statements are not evidence. It had no evidence to back up that assertion. It could have said there was a strong confidence in the existence of fairies with the same amount of evidence.
5:34 p.m.
Jun 8, '08
Ron Wyden, in his own words:
A "real threat" to the US? And to "the world"? Really? Maybe I've been giving him too much credit.
Jun 8, '08
A "real threat" to the US? And to "the world"? Really? Maybe I've been giving him too much credit.
That's what happens when politicians sip some of the Kool-Aid and straddle the fence.
6:28 p.m.
Jun 8, '08
Statements are not evidence. It had no evidence to back up that assertion. It could have said there was a strong confidence in the existence of fairies with the same amount of evidence.
I'm not saying they did, Darrel. I'm saying that this NIE is in part what was used by the SIC and the general Senate as part of their decision making process in voting on the authorization. In addition, there were other intelligence agencies (the British come to mind) that were offering similar POVs. Of course they were as full of shit as the NIE.
You're awfully quick to come down with a smack, here. I submit you'll get more people to actually consider your arguments if you stop looking at every comment as a nail in need of a hammer.
6:30 p.m.
Jun 8, '08
A "real threat" to the US? And to "the world"? Really? Maybe I've been giving him too much credit.
Given that this speech was articulated on the heels of the October 2002 NIE, you might consider the context.
Jun 8, '08
It would be pretty lame for me to say "not to beat a dead horse, but," so I'll take the whip to this poor, dead horsie one more time.
Darrel, the reason the press covered the two Wyden press events you cite (and have deemed bullshit) is because in each case, there was something new and dramatic involved. You appear to think both instances were non-events, but the top national newspapers and network news shows seem to differ.
Meanwhile, you give Wyden a hard time for not putting out press releases about his continued opposition to the war. What, exactly was the news value to announcing that one of the few senators who voted against the AUMF was still against the war? (This just in, Generalissimo Franco is still dead!) If you're in the news business, trying to sell papers, not a bit. I'm sure reporters heard Wyden talk about his opposition to the war many times, including at his town halls, but decided it wasn't news. It would be a meaningless press event or press release simply for the sake of getting press coverage, the type you seem to think Wyden engages in when he denies a CIA torture-approver a coveted promotion or when he releases to the public a smoking gun on Rumsfeld. You're being obsessively unfair.
You also seem to want him to have announced that the 2002 NIE was full of lies. But again, despite your online omniscience, you have no proof whatsoever that Wyden or any other member of Congress had that evidence during your time frame. Members of Congress do not, to the best of my knowledge, have intelligence assets in the Middle East that they keep on staff payroll. Absent their own intelligence sources, how were they supposed to blow the whistle on the lies if they didn't have the goods? Feeling it and being able to prove it are different things, except when some people comment online.
Alright, my future glue pot, prepare for another senseless pummeling.
Jun 8, '08
But again, despite your online omniscience, you have no proof whatsoever that Wyden or any other member of Congress had that evidence during your time frame.
Robert; You seem determined to excuse the people in Congress who voted for the AUMF regardless of the facts. It did not take "omniscience" to conclude that what the Bush administration was putting out was fearmongering and propaganda. Many people with experience in the Middle East and with independent judgment made cogent arguments and demolished everything the neocons and administration puppets broadcast.
10:32 p.m.
Jun 8, '08
Actually, you seemed to have lost the thread of the argument, Robert. You're clutching at an argument made of straw, there.
I never claimed that he should have just pointed out his opposition to the war. What I've said -- repeatedly -- was that there were discrepancies between reality and the claims the administration made in both the run-up to the war and in the months immediately after the invasion.
So far as I'm aware, Wyden didn't need any outside proof to know that he, himself, had not seen any evidence of WMDs in Iraq. Why would he need an intelligence agency to tell him what he had or had not seen?
Did he see evidence of the weaponized UAVs that the NIE claimed the Iraqis had or were developing? Could he have read news articles in the months before the vote on the AUMF that the Pentagon was having troubles with its own, technologically-advanced UAVs, and was still in the first stage of arming them with weapons? I know I read those stories during 2002, as the hunt for Osama bin Laden was going on on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border.
The claim in the NIE that Iraq -- a country with no aerospace technology and no ready access to the materials needed -- could create drones capable of flying hundreds of miles, being controlled remotely, and capable of carrying any significant amount of biological or chemical weapons was simply ludicrous, yet there it was in the NIE, and on the lips of every administration official. I know a lot of people were stupid enough to believe that, but is Wyden really that stupid? Why would he need someone in an intelligence agency to tell him that that was a bogus claim? Even if he thought the administration believed it it was a stupid claim.
Robert, I've deemed those press releases bullshit because they do exactly -- and will do exactly -- nothing. Wyden's hold last year on the CIA general counsel nomination did nothing except keep the guy from assuming the official title. He's still the acting general counsel. He's still performing the same duties he has been for the past six years. He's not going anywhere. And the idea that Rumsfeld's going to be held accountable? The only thing the Intelligence committee is likely to do about it is bring him up on charges of lying to Congress under oath. BFD. He's already done his damage, as have Bush and Cheney.
10:59 p.m.
Jun 8, '08
Then why bring the NIE up at all? It didn't contain any evidence. It's just a summary of opinions from intelligence agencies. I was talking about actual evidence of the existence of WMDs in Iraq and whether that existed or not.
I really don't expect "people" to consider my arguments, Carla. You and Robert entered this conversation with your minds as made up as mine is. But the fact remains, no senator spent much time in the early years of the Iraq war publicly pointing out the distance between the facts and the administration's claims before the war began. And they should have been doing that even after the war began.
At this point, even John McCain labels himself a critic of the war. He was grumping about Rumsfeld years ago. He'll probably be signing on to tar and feather Rumsfeld any minute.
11:16 p.m.
Jun 8, '08
Hey, did you guys write Fred Hiatt's op-ed piece for him or something? Because his take on the "How could Wyden know anything but what he read in the intelligence briefs?" sounds pretty much the same, except he used Bush's name instead of Wyden's.
11:33 p.m.
Jun 8, '08
You seem to have some sort of perverse obsession with whether I am "online", Robert. Especially for someone writing comments on a blog.
You're right, I don't have any proof of Wyden's knowledge at the time. but your assertion would mean Wyden didn't hear about the whole Hans Blix thing with the UN weapons investigators in Iraq and all. I don't know if I want someone that uninformed on the Intelligence committee.
As to what he actually was thinking at the time (March 12th, 2003):
That sort of sounds like he was either unaware of or ignoring the Blix report the month before that they hadn't found anything. He doesn't mention Blix, but Greg Walden does, in the same article. Is Walden better informed than Wyden?
I can keep digging up more, if you like.
Jun 9, '08
So because Wyden didn't answer questions precisely the way you want him to answer them in abbreviated responses to WW, that means "he was unaware of or ignoring the Blix report?" That's patently goofy for most mortals to conclude, but not for you, my friend. I keep forgetting, you are the decider for what is news (more press releases on why the war is wrong) and what isn't (exposing the torture lawyer, punishing the torture lawyer, exposing the criminal, Rumsfeld). You're a genius, and I'm only sorry it took this long to recognize it.
No, Darrel, I didn't enter this discussion with my mind "made up as [yours] is." I don't know what Wyden and the others heard from the CIA, though apparently you do. I'm dying to know, actually, and if you happened to be right, I would be right there with you tearing Wyden a new one to his dying day. But I'm just not as all-knowing, all-seeing as you. At least not as baselessly judgemental. My point about you and I being online, Darrel, is that it allows us to be armchair quarterbacks in a fantasy Congress and fantasy Intelligence Committee. It's fantasy because we don't have any actual clue what evidence they were presented with in a closed-door, classified setting. We (actually, you) can speculate wildly, but we really have no clue. Despite your being omniscient and all, online.
As for Bill who said: "Robert; You seem determined to excuse the people in Congress who voted for the AUMF regardless of the facts. It did not take "omniscience" to conclude that what the Bush administration was putting out was fearmongering and propaganda. Many people with experience in the Middle East and with independent judgment made cogent arguments and demolished everything the neocons and administration puppets broadcast."
No, Bill, I excuse no one who voted for the AUMF. I'm defending Senator Wyden because he voted against the goddamn thing. Yes, good congresspeople sometimes cast horrendous votes, but I think the AUMF vote is one that these people will regret the rest of their lives. At least, they ought to. But Wyden isn't one of them, because it is a fact that WYDEN VOTED AGAINST THE AUMF! Against. Really. You don't have to be omniscient like Darrel to confirm that.
I'll not convince you that your criticism is rather oddly placed, and you'll not convince me that exposing a potentially criminal offense on the part of Rumsfeld is a phony gesture.
8:02 a.m.
Jun 9, '08
Then why bring the NIE up at all? It didn't contain any evidence. It's just a summary of opinions from intelligence agencies. I was talking about actual evidence of the existence of WMDs in Iraq and whether that existed or not.
The NIE is part of this story, Darrel. Its a big chunk of what the SIC is investigating.
However, my comment that you're referencing was in response to someone else, who was a bit factually shallow on the content of the document. If you follow the thread of comments, that's pretty obvious.
But the fact remains, no senator spent much time in the early years of the Iraq war publicly pointing out the distance between the facts and the administration's claims before the war began. And they should have been doing that even after the war began.
With the exception of the members of the SIC (who had taken an oath of secrecy), which Senators had solid and incontrovertible evidence of that distance, Darrel? Its perfectly easy in hindsight to say they should have known and acted. But in the context of everything that was happening--and with no reason to fundamentally doubt the CIA or British Intelligence, exactly which Senators should have been taking the public stand in the way you say?
In terms of "minds made up", I rarely come into a debate with a fellow progressive that way. Usually its my way of being a devil's advocate in an effort to either confirm where I'm leaning or tip the balance when I'm fence-sitting. So in fact, I didn't have my mind made up when I waded in to this.
Your assertion that Wyden should have put more weight on the UN/Blix reports than he put on the CIA and British Intelligence is founded in what, exactly? In late 2002/early 2003 (when all of this was going down),the UN had its problems. Around that time, the "oil for food" thing was starting to bubble to the surface. That certainly cast down on the veracity of the UN as a whole, for many. Why should anyone have believed that the UN had it right?
I think the oversight on these matters was absolutely neglectful and dreadful. But I have yet to see how casting blame at Wyden and other Democrats is appropriate or entirely fair when the situation is viewed as a whole. I'm inclined to think that outside of the Bush Administration, the Republicans in charge of the SIC and other oversight allowed this to go on unchecked and subverted their role as a body.
I'd be interested in reading compelling evidence to show that that Senators had reason to give much greater weight to the UN evidence--and exactly how the Dems serving on the SIC were supposed to handle the secrecy oath other than the way that they did. Something besides "they should have known better" would be helpful.
Jun 9, '08
I'd be interested in reading compelling evidence to show that that Senators had reason to give much greater weight to the UN evidence--and exactly how the Dems serving on the SIC were supposed to handle the secrecy oath other than the way that they did.
As Dick Durbin said on the senate floor a few weeks ago, members of the senate intelligence (?) committee (SIC) were receiving information that contradicted what the Bush Administration was promoting in public. Something you appear to equate with the CIA.
Hans Blix and the UNMOVIC team were an entirely separate entity from the Oil-for-Food program and should have been regarded as such.
There was information provided by authoritative and reliable sources that was readily available in the public domain and should have been sufficient to cause elected officials in Congress to question the Bush/Cheney/neocon cabal. This bunch, for example, tried to link Saddam Hussein with Usama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida despite the fact, as knowledgeable people said, that SH and UBL were hostile towards each other.
Our elected officials are supposed to think (as millions of war opponents did) and not just buy into anything that is fed to them. As for being sworn to secrecy, that has its limits as Daniel Ellsberg rightly demonstrated. Admittedly, that takes a measure of courage found in few people and less in politicians, but just think of the lives that could have been saved if one or two senators had followed Ellsberg's example and blown the whistle.
Jun 9, '08
The truth is I believed that Saddam had VX nerve gas, anthrax and a significant missle capablity in March of 2003. They had me pumped up to the eyeballs with the propaganda. Imagine the special hell of having a loved one on the border of Kuwait. It made no sense that we would have a land invasion against such weapons where you would risk such tremendous casualties. Chemsuits and all, someone knew what we were facing or rolled the dice in an unbelievably irresponsible manner. Given that we attacked a ninth rate , broken military the results are unfathomable.
Jun 9, '08
It was not unreasonable to assume 4100 US troops would die in the first hour of such an attack if you took these folks at their word.
11:04 a.m.
Jun 9, '08
Supporting Carla and Robert here re Wyden.
I'm pretty clear that the threshold for action for a US Senator had better be a bit higher than it is for...say....some freelance commenter. Keeping in mind that the senate is our house of Lords and was designed specifically to be a brake on the intemperate rabble, it seems pretty clear that our senior senator continues to be measured in his response.
Give him credit for what he did with virtually no cover to fall back on.
<hr/>All that said, the rest of us did know what was going on so a recommendation to Wyden/Kardon going forward:
Why don't you guys hire a young wild-eyed lefty who regularly reads The Nation, Truthout, Indymedia, and reporters like Greenwald, Blumenthal, Goodman, and so on.
He/she could be the senator's canary-in-the-coalmine, and wouldn't cost much to maintain for the early warning that they'd provide.
Jun 9, '08
Keeping in mind that the senate is our house of Lords and was designed specifically to be a brake on the intemperate rabble, it seems pretty clear that our senior senator continues to be measured in his response.
The senate is also supposed to be a brake on the presidency but failed miserably on Iraq and many other cases where they have been, instead, complicit in a number of international crimes.
There are also the Constitutional responsibilities of all elected officials who take an oath to uphold the Constitution as explained to them by Senator Byrd before the vote to authorize the use of military force. Of course, as we have since learned the Constitution means nothing to most senators and representatives except when it suits their purposes. Same goes for the people who elect and re-elect them.
Why don't you guys hire a young wild-eyed lefty who regularly reads The Nation, Truthout, Indymedia, and reporters like Greenwald, Blumenthal, Goodman, and so on.
A very good idea. In the case of Middle East issues I would add Juan Cole and Robert Fisk who should also be consulted by Barack Obama - voices he clearly needs to heed.
4:16 p.m.
Jun 9, '08
First of all, the entire argument that Wyden couldn't have known until now falls apart with the very link you cite here, Carla. It's dated 2004, and makes exactly the same assertions by the Democratic members of the cmte, that I'm making now--the information was available fairly soon after the war started, if not in fact before.
Yellowcake and ore are not programs, they are materials necessary for an active program. And the problem with turning the search for yellowcake into an active program is:
1) It was known very quickly that the yellowcake claims were nonsense. They were removed from the Cincinnati speech in October, then put back. The documentation on the 'yellowcake document' was also very quickly debunked by our own CIA, and should have carried no credence with informed members of the Intel Cmte. 2) Once you get the uranium, you need a bunch of centrifuges to get it ready. It was also known very quickly--contemporaneous with Powell's speech, in fact--that the aluminum tubes were not for centrifuges. 3) There was no actual evidence of any active nuclear program, and as you agree the NIE had dissent from State on that score.
The case that the White House's claims on nuclear capabilities were verifiably bogus was an easy one to make, even before the invasion.
I agreed the NIE said there were definitely chem and bio weapons. However, what I said in this regard was that the "definite" part referred to existing stockpiles, none of which was likely to be the least bit usable. Scott Ritter was among those who beat this drum loudly before the invasion--with documentation on the extent of his assets, the depth of the UN's destruction of them, and the tiny likelihood that they were of any potency--to no avail.
If I knew the story and could cite available documents at the time (which I did, relentlessly in 2002 and 2003), there's no excuse for someone on the Intel Committee not to. It's an apologia for the Democratic Party to let them off the hook for this. It wasn't because they didn't have the info, it was because they were politically afraid of using it. It's really that simple, and pretty disingenuous to suggest that they just didn't know. It's crap.
Jun 9, '08
Another point that should be considered regarding the justification for war concerns Saddam Hussein's possession of WMDs. Let's accept for discussion purposes that he did have them. Possession by itself is no justification for war. There is a long list of negative statements that can be made about SH, but the man wasn't stupid enough to use WMDs knowing the kind of retaliation that this would have provoked. This would have been as asinine as that other piece of crap about him having WMDs but he got rid of them before he was attacked. Can you imagine anyone having a couple of guns in his house and getting rid of them after getting a phone call that someone was heading his way to shoot him?
Jun 9, '08
Exactly, Bill.
The Wyden answer to Willamette Week cited earlier shows that Wyden believed Iraq possessed WMDs, but agreed with your point that that fact alone was no justification for war.
My guess is that Congress was shown impressive looking evidence about WMDs by the CIA, but that a few level-headed ones thought "I'm not sure I can believe these people, and even if they're right, how is that grounds for war?"
Jun 9, '08
Robert said, "Members of Congress do not, to the best of my knowledge, have intelligence assets in the Middle East that they keep on staff payroll. Absent their own intelligence sources, how were they supposed to blow the whistle on the lies if they didn't have the goods?"
This shows the problem with making the WMD red herring argument. As long as we presume that it's morally and legally valid to attack the citizens of a sovereign nation because their government might have weapons that could be used against us, the right wing has the upper hand. However, once we acknowledge the salience of international standards of decency like the determination of the Nuremberg Tribunal that aggressive war is the "supreme international crime", then the WMD argument is defeated, unless those who argue for war are prepared to allow others to attack us for similar reasons.
Here's the radical message: Don't do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you.
On Wyden: What of the many times he voted for Iraq funding while he claimed to be against the "war"? And why did he fail to filibuster a single "supplemental"?
<h2>Go darrelplant! Hammer those nails.</h2>