Phase II update: Will Roberts Succeed in Deep-sixing Probe?

[Rose Siding]

Greg Sargent writes:

Is Republican Senator Pat Roberts ever going to allow the Senate Intelligence Committee, which he chairs, to finish its ongoing probe into how public officials manipulated Iraq intelligence in the runup to the war?

~snip~

York writes:

Finally, part five concerns the public statements made by government officials in the lead-up to the war. This area is said to be a matter of such deep division and contention that it might never be completed. Originally, committee Democrats wanted to examine only the statements made by White House and administration officials, comparing those statements to available intelligence to determine whether they were exaggerated. But Roberts pointed out that many lawmakers, Republican and Democrat, had made statements before the war, too. For example, Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy said, in September 2002, that “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” Why not examine statements like Kennedy’s, too? Roberts asked. Democrats resisted, especially when Roberts proposed that senators evaluate each statement on its substance without knowing the identity of the speaker. That course would have been fraught with danger for Democrats: What if they condemned one of their own? A standoff ensued, and it is not clear when, or if, it will be resolved.

This is important. York doesn't pass judgment on this turn of events, but the fact is, what Roberts is doing here is a story that's gotten scandalously little attention. In a nutshell, here's the deal: The potentially most damaging part of this probe is this one, because it risks revealing the extent to which White House officials manipulated available intelligence in the runup to war. So Roberts is trying to muddy the waters by getting the committee to focus not just on the public statements of Bush administration officials, but also on the statements of all public officials going back to the early 90s.

Oh, Senator Rockefeller?.......WHAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaa?

[MissWaverly]

1. No, of course not, he will continue to hide the truth

This is an election year, just like the NY Times sat on their story during an election year.
This must mean that Americans don't need to hear the truth during an election year. Remember
when Clinton tried to delay the Paula Jones case. Oh, no they all cried. This would set up
an example that the President was above the law.

[Igel]

2. Where did the "back to the early 90s" come from.

I looked at the York thing a day or two after it was posted (I read widely, I try to understand lots, but I choose to find ever novel and eccentric ways to show myself an idiot). I couldn't get through the first few paragraphs.

Seems York's saying they'd backtrack to the run-up to the war, hardly the early '90s; and Sargent doesn't say he has any other sources. Nor 'all public officials.'

But I when this forced me to wade through it, I found that the thing that made the least sense--why Hagel would hire a recent grad who's a former Kerry supporter to work on this report--might make sense. Besides the fact that he's probably more than competent. He might also find common ground to finish the report.

"... Roberts proposed that senators evaluate each statement on its substance without knowing the identity of the speaker." That made me smile; anything that might defeat spin makes me smile, part of my warped sense of humor. But as soon as they got a statement, you know the first thing they'd do is figure out who made it.

[Rose Siding]

3. The reason they don't want the speaker ID'd is so no one is accountable

Sorta defeats the whole purpose of an investigation.

They want all the dem quotes from the 90s to try to pin blame for the war on them. But every single remark made by any dem could be followed by "and still we didn't find cause for war"

[Igel]

4. I know how it would be spun, but presumably

the report would include the sources.

I still don't know where Sargent got his 'back to the early 90s' statement. I understand what the motivation would be for such a thing; I just don't see any evidence for it. I didn't find that Sargent said he heard it independently of York, and York didn't make the assertion, so Sargent got it from ... ?

[Rose Siding]

5. That's run through a few of the articles I've read about Phase II

The Hill covered it, I think. And there's this from the LAT:

snip>
Duhnke said that of the statements assembled for scrutiny, about 330 were compiled by Democratic members of the committee, and all represented claims by Bush or other members of his administration. The remainder of the list includes about 100 statements by members of Congress — evenly split between Democrats and Republicans — as well as comments by Clinton administration officials.

Duhnke said Roberts' plan called for committee members to evaluate statements without the names of the speakers attached, to guard against partisanship. If necessary, Duhnke said, the committee could hold a vote on each claim to determine whether it appears to have been substantiated by intelligence available at the time. The results would then be presented in a public report that would carry the names of officials and their comments.

Democrats have balked at that plan, saying staff members should make initial determinations on the validity of officials' comments, just as they rendered preliminary judgments on whether the words contained in prewar intelligence reports were warranted. Senators could then endorse or alter the staff's conclusions.

Having committee members wrangle over hundreds of statements "doesn't seem like a productive use of U.S. senators' time," said a Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity when discussing the issue.

The aide said some questioned whether Republicans intended for the process to become hopelessly bogged down. "Maybe they want … people just to throw up their hands," the aide said.

http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news3/latimes155.html