Abuse of Power statement read on Senate Floor!

[RainDog]

---don't forget to contact your representatives in support of Dashcle's statement---

http://democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/releases/2004330506.html

Tuesday, March 30, 2004

Floor Statement of Sen. Daschle on the Abuse of Government Power

Mr. President, last week I spoke about the White House's reaction to Richard Clarke's testimony before the 9-11 Commission. I am compelled to rise again today, because the people around the President are systematically abusing the powers and prerogatives of government.

We all need to reflect seriously on what's going on. Not in anger and not in partisanship, but in keeping with our responsibilities as Senators and with an abiding respect for the fundamental values of our democracy.

Richard Clarke did something extraordinary when he testified before the 9-11 Commission last week. He didn't try to escape blame, as so many routinely do. Instead, he accepted his share of responsibility and offered his perceptions about what happened in the months and years leading up to September 11.

We can and should debate the facts and interpretations Clarke has offered. But there can be no doubt that he has risked enormous damage to his reputation and professional future to hold both himself and our government accountable.

The retaliation from those around the President has been fierce. Mr. Clarke's personal motives have been questioned and his honesty challenged. He has even been accused, right here on the Senate floor, of perjury. Not one shred of proof was given, but that wasn't the point. The point was to have the perjury accusation on television and in the newspapers. The point was to damage Mr. Clarke in any way possible.

This is wrong–and it's not the first time it's happened.

When Senator McCain ran for President, the Bush campaign smeared him and his family with vicious, false attacks. When Max Cleland ran for reelection to this Senate, his patriotism was attacked. He was accused of not caring about protecting our nation -- a man who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, accused of being indifferent to America's national security. That was such an ugly lie, it's still hard to fathom almost two years later.

There are some things that simply ought not be done – even in politics. Too many people around the President seem not to understand that, and that line has been crossed. When Ambassador Joe Wilson told the truth about the Administration's misleading claims about Iraq, Niger, and uranium, the people around the President didn't respond with facts. Instead, they publicly disclosed that Ambassador Wilson's wife was a deep-cover CIA agent. In doing so, they undermined America's national security and put politics first. They also may well have put the lives of Ambassador Wilson's wife, and her sources, in danger.

When former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill revealed that the White House was thinking about an Iraq War in its first weeks in office, his former colleagues in the Bush Administration ridiculed him from morning to night, and even subjected him to a fruitless federal investigation.

When Larry Lindsay, one of President Bush's former top economic advisors, and General Eric Shinseki, the former Army Chief of Staff, spoke honestly about the amount of money and the number of troops the war would demand, they learned the hard way that the White House doesn't tolerate candor.

This is not "politics as usual." In nearly all of these cases, it's not Democrats who are being attacked.

Senator McCain and Secretary O'Neill are prominent Republicans, and Richard Clarke, Larry Lindsay, Joe Wilson, and Eric Shinseki all worked for Republican Administrations.

The common denominator is that these government officials said things the White House didn't want said.

The response from those around the President was retribution and character assassination -- a 21st Century twist to the strategy of "shooting the messenger."

If it takes intimidation to keep inconvenient facts from the American people, the people around the President don't hesitate. Richard Foster, the chief actuary for Medicare, found that out. He was told he'd be fired if he told the truth about the cost of the Administration's prescription drug plan.

This is no way to run a government.

The White House and its supporters should not be using the power of government to try to conceal facts from the American people or to reshape history in an effort to portray themselves in the best light.

They should not be threatening the reputations and livelihoods of people simply for asking – or answering – questions. They should seek to put all information about past decisions on the table for evaluation so that the best possible decisions can be made for the nation's future.

In Mr. Clarke's case, clear and troubling double standards are being applied.

Last year, when the Administration was being criticized for the President's misleading statement about Niger and uranium, the White House unexpectedly declassified portions of the National Intelligence Estimate. When the Administration wants to bolster its public case, there is little that appears too sensitive to be declassified.

Now, people around the President want to release parts of Mr. Clarke's earlier testimony in 2002. According to news reports, the CIA is already working on declassifying that testimony – at the Administration's request.

And last week several documents were declassified literally overnight, not in an effort to provide information on a pressing policy matter to the American people, but in an apparent effort to discredit a public servant who gave 30 years of service to his American government.

I'll support declassifying Mr. Clarke's testimony before the Joint Inquiry, but the Administration shouldn't be selective. Consistent with our need to protect sources and methods, we should declassify his entire testimony.

And to make sure that the American people have access to the full record as they consider this question, we should also declassify his January 25 memo to Dr. Rice, the September 4, 2001 National Security Directive dealing with terrorism, Dr. Rice's testimony to the 9-11 Commission, the still-classified 28 pages from the House-Senate inquiry relating to Saudi Arabia, and a list of the dates and topics of all National Security Council meetings before September 4, 2001.

I hope this new interest in openness will also include the Vice President's Energy and Terrorism Task Forces. While much, if not all, of what these task forces discussed was unclassified, their proceedings have not been shared with the public.

There also seems to be a double standard when it comes to investigations.

In recent days leading congressional Republicans are now calling for an investigation into Mr. Clarke. As I mentioned earlier, Secretary O'Neill was also subjected to an investigation. Clarke and O'Neill sought legal and classification review of any information in their books before they were published.

Nonetheless, our colleagues tell us these two should be investigated, at the same time there has been no Senate investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity as a deep cover CIA agent; no thorough investigation into whether leading Administration officials misrepresented the intelligence regarding threats posed by Iraq; no Senate hearings into the threat the chief Medicare Actuary faced for trying to do his job; and no Senate investigation into the reports of continued overcharging by Halliburton for its work in Iraq.

There is a clear double standard when it comes to investigating or releasing information, and that's just is not right. The American people deserve more from their leaders.

We're seeing it again now in the shifting reasons the White House has given for Dr. Rice's refusal to testify under oath and publicly before the 9-11 Commission.

The people around the President first said it would be unprecedented for Dr. Rice to testify. But thanks to the Congressional Research Service, we now know that previous sitting National Security Advisors have testified before Congress.

Now the people around the President are saying that Dr. Rice can't testify because it would violate an important constitutional principle: the separation of powers.

We will soon face this debate again when it comes time for President Bush and Vice President Cheney to meet with the 9-11 Commission. I believe they should lift the limitations they have placed on their cooperation with the Commission and be willing to appear before the entire Commission for as much time as the Commission deems productive.

The all-out assault on Richard Clarke has gone on for more than a week now. Mr. Clarke has been accused of "profiteering" and possible perjury. It is time for this to stop.

The Commission should declassify Mr. Clarke's earlier testimony. All of it. Not just the parts the White House wants. And Dr. Rice should testify before the 9-11 Commission, and she should be under oath and in public.

The American people deserve to know the truth -- the full truth -- about what happened in the years and months leading up to September 11.

Senator McCain, Senator Cleland, Secretary O'Neill, Ambassador Wilson, General Shinseki, Richard Foster, Richard Clarke, Larry Lindsay ... when will the character assassination, retribution, and intimidation end?

When will we say enough is enough?

The September 11 families – and our entire country – deserve better. Our democracy depends on it. And our nation's future security depends on it.

[Catfight]

1. Amen

[BeHereNow]

2. OUTSTANDING!~

However, I disagree with this statement:

"There are some things that simply ought not be done –
even in politics. Too many people around thePresident
seem not to understand that, and that line has been crossed."

I believe that these people understand COMPLETELY.
THAT is what should scare the hell off of every single
person in this country.
The fact that they DO understand and fear no consequence.

BHN

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

3. & probably 50% of Americans support crossing that line...

...and applaud the "fuck u up" approach of the Administration.

THATs whats REALLY scary.

[BeHereNow]

5. Precisely-

I was at an orthodontist appointment for my
daughter earlier today.
My husband was sitting across from me in the waiting
room. I was reading an Anti-Bush book and
came across a particular passage delineating
the facts around the US supplying Iraq with the
bio-chemical weapons that he eventually used
on his people. I read it alooud to my husband with
an oh-my-God, this is hideous tone, like,
"Can you believe this?"
I thought I was going to get lynched by some of the
parents in the room with us..
Interesting how the public has been trained to ignore
the facts when presented and simply kill the messenger.
BHN
On edit- forgot to say I read the facts aloud
to my husband and therefore evoked the lynching vibe.

[NightTrain]

4. Thank you, Senator Daschle!

I'm going to forward that speech to everybody on my e-mail list!

[RainDog]

6. He could have added...

retired Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who has been smeared ever since her series of articles first appeared in The American Conservative, then in Salon.

She also voted for Bush, and then saw the neocons in action and subsequently resigned because she was so disgusted.

As she noted, the neocons also called General Zinni a TRAITOR because he thought their invasion plans for Iraq were not based upon reality.

They were thrilled when Elliot Abrams, convicted Iran-Contra conspirator who was pardoned by Bush Sr., was selected by Bush junior to lead the middle east policy.

The Bush junta has no problem with having people in the executive branch who have lied to Congress, who have worked with fascists in other countries to overthrow elected govts...

this is biz as usual for them.

A vote for Bush is a vote for fascism in America.

[shtinkycat]

7. excellent

I wrote both my Senators (Fla- both Dems) and urged them to keep this in front of ALL their colleagues. Tomorrow I'll write to my congressman, Dave Weldon, a Rebup and a bush rubber-stamper. Like he'll change his mind . . . and so far he's running unopposed in November :puke:

[RainDog]

8. Thank you for writing your reps!!

There are moderate Republicans who are also appalled by what the White House is doing.

They also need to know that we support their bipartisan support for the rule of law, rather than the exercise of raw power that is what the Bush thugs are all about.

The biggest abuse of power by Bush, and one which Congress acceded to and should now take back, is the "Bush Doctrine" which allows Bush to invade any other country at will...AND allows him to use nuclear weapons, even, without any consent from Congress!

This is appalling.

But if we can support them for doing the right thing in moments like this, maybe they will realize they can and should take back their own (and our) power.

[Dickie Flatt]

9. turkee!

Don't forget to send some turkee to Daschle and the DSCC. Make sure the Dem's recent spine transplant doesn't go bad.

[RainDog]

10. kick --write your reps!!!

:kick:

[Sugarbleus]

14. I've been writing my reps AND your reps........and

I'm going to start writing the winger reps!

It's good that we give credit where and when credit is due. Thanks T. Daschle, at last!

[Kimber Scott]

11. Bravo, Tom Daschle!

:kick:

[9215]

12. WOW! Who can deny Daschle

is doing good?

[RainDog]

13. Worse Than Watergate-- read what John Dean thinks

http://salon.com/news/feature/2004/03/31/dean/index.html  

this is the headline on Salon...an interview with John Dean... 

Salon: At least until recently, the Bush administration has successfully used the public's fear of terrorism to advance its agenda. You go so far as to agree with Gen. Tommy Franks' dark prediction that another major terror attack on U.S. citizens will drive the country to suspend the Constitution. Why do you fear that?

Dean: As I state in the book, I agree for reasons that probably differ from those of Gen. Franks. The short summary of what is really a thread that runs through the book is that when you have a presidency that has no regard for human life, that develops and implements all (not just national security) policy in secrecy, and is driven by political motives and a radical philosophy, it is impossible not to conclude that they will overreact -- and at the expense of our constitutional safeguards. Bush and Cheney enjoy using power to make and wield swords, not ploughs. They prefer to rule by fear. We've had three years to take the measure of these men. I've done so and reported what I found in a book I never planned to write, but because others were not talking about these issues, I believed they needed to be placed on the table.

Bush and Cheney have exploited terrorism ever since 9/11. Now they are exploiting it to get reelected. Should there be an even more serious threat, they have found that when Americans are frightened they can be governed like sheep, which suits Bush and Cheney perfectly. Rather than taking the terror out of terrorism by educating and informing Americans, they have sought to make terrorism as frightening as possible -- using terrorism to launch a war of aggression that is breeding a new generation of terrorists and getting the Congress to pass the most repressive new laws imaginable and calling it an act of patriotism.

[BeHereNow]

15. Operative sentence:

"you have a presidency that has no regard for human life,"
Uh, my fellow 'murikkkans, that includes you.
Hmm... but here is the question- do the brain dead feel pain?
Only when they can no longer graze at the mall, I suppose-
Wont be long now-
BHN

[RainDog]

16. which begs the question

since they have a radical philosophy, no concern for human life, and, as the nasty Machiavellians they are, an ability to justify horrid acts for the sake of their political goals...

if there is an act of terrorism in America before the elections, I would have to wonder about LIHOP or MIHOP, sad to say.

[RainDog]

17. good morning kick