Dick Durbin admits Congress was complicit in WMD Lie!!!

[Leopolds Ghost]

Kevin Zeese wrote this on the Democracy Rising list. As it happens, I believe him.

PLEASE FORWARD

Friends

Dick Durbin made an amazing admission yesterday on the Senate floor. He said he knew Bush was lying to the Congress and the country about weapons of mass destruction because the Senate Intelligence Committee, which he is a senior member of, had been briefed and was being told the opposite of what Bush was saying. Durbin remained silent. He let Bush lie the country into a war that has cost thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, increased U.S. security problems and cost the U.S. taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars.

You can see the video of his comment at:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/28/sen-durbin-drops-bombshells-on-the-senate-floor/

My view is Sen. Durbin has blood on his hands and cleansing them by admitting he withheld the truth from Americans is not good enough. He should resign his office in disgrace. Call him with your views at: [phone].

Kevin Zeese
www.DemocracyRising.US

Below are the other members of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, for the 107th Congress (2001-2002), who must also be held
accountable. Some are no longer in the Senate, like John Edwards, who
is running for President, and Fred Thompson, who may run for President.

Also, "ultra liberal" Maryland Democratic senator -- Barbara Mikluski.

(who also endorsed domestic surveillance)

2001-2002

Democrats:

Bob Graham, Florida Chairman
Carl Levin, Michigan
John D. Rockefeller IV , West Virginia
Dianne Feinstein, California
Ron Wyden, Oregon
Richard Durbin, Illinois
Evan Bayh, Indiana
John Edwards, North Carolina
Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland


Republicans

Richard C. Shelby, Alabama Vice Chairman
Jon Kyl, Arizona
James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma
Orrin G. Hatch, Utah
Pat Roberts , Kansas
Mike DeWine, Ohio
Fred Thompson, Tennessee
Richard G. Lugar, Indiana

The members of the House Committee on Intelligence for the 107th
Congress (2001-2002), must also be held accountable.

[rosesaylavee]

1. Dupe...

check out this thread from yesterday that contains what Durbin actually said and did in 2002: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x789111

Peace.

[Leopolds Ghost]

111. No, this is a press release from Democracy Rising about what Durbin said YESTERDAY

The Iraq war was about the oil law. They smashed every other part of the state (including Iraq's cultural heritage) and deliberately allowed terrorists access to Baghdad, and deliberately allowed those terrorists access to tons of explosives, in order to ensure that the next ruler would be powerless to resist the privatization of Iraq's oil by an American protectorate.

The elected Dems in Congress were and are fully complicit in this, as we
are just now beginning to realize, and as Kucinich has repeatedly stated.

Ask even Kerry or Clark his position on the oil law.

Any congressman who opposes the Oil law goes up against the permanent government in Washington and is sure to be blackballed. That is and always was the only reason for war in Iraq and it's why the Dems went along for the ride until 2005.

Now they are only worried about Iraq being too unstable to profit off of its oil. That is the only reason they are suddenly opposed.

(just ask Hillary, Kerry, and Pelosi, who are calling for a small PERMANENT force in the oil fields to protect our "national interest" while refraining from intervening in the bloodshed.) I feel betrayed by Kerry on this, but there it is.

[rosesaylavee]

115. Yes, I know that this is about what Durbin said last Wednesday.

I suggest you may want to thoroughly read the responses on this thread you started before you answer any more posts.

[Leopolds Ghost]

120. Do you refute what I just said about the oil law?

Dick Durbin and John Kerry and Hillary Clinton are not fools.

They knew we went to Iraq to privatize the oil. That was the
reason for regime change. Our continuing national interest
is in ensuring the flow of Iraq's oil. Senior party leaders,
including Hillary, have said this flat out.

Petraeus went even forther, and said in his confirmation hearing
that if we went to war with IRAN his number one mission would be
to ensure the continued flow of IRAN's oil. Yes, you read that right.

Not one Senator called him on it.

Given that, they allowed the lie to take place because they
supported the real reason for the war, which was to liberalize
the Iraqi economy (i.e. privatize it). They still do. Can
you name me a caucus that opposes the oil law?

[Leopolds Ghost]

121. Also, I didn't put Kerry in this camp until recently -- I feel betrayed by Kerry on this issue

As you know, I have always defended Kerry on these boards against his post-election attackers.

He has quite definitely echoed Hillary's plan to support the oil law and
leave a small "over the horizon" force inside Iraq to keep the government
in power and above all, keep Iraq artificially intact (as we are doing in
Somalia currently) while not intervening in the bloodshed. Our interest
is in ensuring the oil profits go to US firms.

[rosesaylavee]

125. Are you saying there is a formal 'oil law' or

are you concerned that there is an unwritten 'understanding'? I don't know of one that is formal. Wouldn't surprise me if there is an unwritten one.

I would be very surprised if oil is THE reason Kerry and others want us to maintain a presence there. Some are thinking that as we have broken the country so completely we need to have a presence there to maintain some kind of stability in the region. Oil is part of the equation I am sure.

What are you asking me? Wasn't your original post regarding Durbin not breaking his oath regarding the intel reports to invade?

[Leopolds Ghost]

127. Yes, there is a formal oil law mandating the privatization of Iraq's oil to companies chosen by us.

It was supposed to pay for Iraq's reconstruction, which is why they broke as much stuff as possible (Texas-based oil company takes 100% of the profits to sell the oil, Halliburton takes 100% of the sales revenue to rebuild Iraq.)

This was a big deal that many Americans still support us doing it that way, although of course it's entirely immoral of us to "stablilize" a country we invaded in order to ensure it sells oil to us cheaply.

Most of what you hear about the oil law on the news is how it will ensure everyone in Iraq gets a piece of the pie, which isn't actually true, but it makes a good cover story.

If the proposed "over the horizon" force is needed to "stabilize Iraq", why are Hillary et al. promising that they won't intervene in sectarian fighting but instead focus on "defending our national interests in the region"?

What national interests in Iraq exist that are not dependent on whether there is genocide in Iraq?

[H2O Man]

135. You make some

very strong points. I am curious if you think that there is a significant difference in democrats in congress who are saying they made a mistake in allowing the administration to invade Iraq, but want to end the US occupation now, versus those who speak in terms of a need for Americans to be there, in smaller numbers, but for a longer time? Because if some were obeying the "oil law" in 2003, it would seem curious if they became "outlaws" today.

[Leopolds Ghost]

137. I think we should figure out if there's a "free Iraq from foreign influence" caucus

Not just an "out of Iraq" caucus.

Of course this would depend on Iraq not being a haven for terrorism, but then again, occupying it doesn't seem to have discouraged terrorism in Iraq, it seems to have encouraged it.

Al Qaeda counts as "foreign influence" too -- and funded by the same people, the Saudis, playing both sides as usual!

I'm not sure if Joe Biden would be in it, but at least he has the sensible
idea of breaking Iraq into its original three independent provinces (which
would, of course, be more difficult for us to control, because the Kurds
and the Shiites would have increased bargaining power. Or is this some
sort of "divide and rule" thing where the oil law would remain at some
unchallengeable federal level, like the laws of the EU?

Is that why they insist on a rump federal government, sort of like Republicans insist on a rump federal government here in the US?

Why do we keep supporting "liberal", "reformist" "trade liberalization" regimes elsewhere that would be characterized as Reaganesque here at home? Like those guys in Bolivia that tried to privatize the water supply? If the Bush-backed coup in Venezuela had occured, would we be reading about the crimes against free speech by the would-be junta every day in US newspapers since then?

[Kagemusha]

2. Do you have the slightest inkling why he remained silent?

I'm asking because your not mentioning it seems to hold a determination to propagandize the issue. Knowing why Durbin remained silent, I still don't like it or care for it at all, but at least I acknowledge there is another side to the story and there's some gray in there along with the black and white.

[yy4me]

6. I saw him on TV stating that although he knew of the lies and

misinformation, the rules of the committee forbid disclosure of anything they were discussing.
Still no excuse, but that is the reason.

[tulsakatz]

11. I heard that excuse too.......

...and I also heard someone else talk about this (sorry, I forget who it was or where I saw it). Anyway, this other person said the rules could have forbidden him to discuss specifics but at the same time, nothing would have stopped him from saying that Americans were not being given the truth about the situation.

[Kagemusha]

That's making it sound awfully quaint.

I don't want to comment deeply unless I have an opportunity to review the issue but, normally the disclosure of such information would have been, first and foremost, a grave felony crime. At the absolute very least, it would've resulted in the stripping of Durbin's security clearance and cited as justification to halt cooperation with Congress about intelligence issues for the good of national security. The entire Democratic party would have been tainted. But, I'm not familiar with exactly what rules and laws Congress passed to stop lawmakers from doing just that so I'm not going to make irresponsible assumptions based on my impressions from months and years ago about the way the law worked in this case.

[Radical Activist]

88. Thank you for making a sane comment.

This witch hunt against one of the most liberal members of the Senate is moronic.

[H2O Man]

54. Correct.

The use of the word "complicite" seems inaccurate at very best.

[madfloridian]

3. I disagree with him strongly.

Sorry, but Durbin is a good man, one of many people caught in Bush's web of lies and threats.

There are a couple I am truly angry with, one is Bill Clinton for taking up for Bush against "the left". He supported Bush's efforts way too much. He was in a unique position to know, having just been in the white house.

Why does Kevin hate Democrats?

[Dhalgren]

4. Explain to me how it isn't an impeachable offense when we have

a US Senator who testifies that the Bush Admin lied to the American people and to the Congress? How is this not impeachable? Who is the Democrats protecting when they refuse to impeach?

[orwell]

7. It is clearly impeachable...

...If it isn't nothing is.

[orwell]

5. Durbin et al...

...have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. This takes precedence over any secrecy oath required to sit on the Intelligence Committee.

I guess I missed the Article or Amendment that says it is okay to lie us into a war of choice...

[AndyA]

8. This whole thing is very disturbing to me.

I hold everyone who voted for this war responsible. That includes Hillary, John, and all the others. John has apologized for his mistake, and Hillary said that her mistake was in believing "this President" which I agree it was a mistake.

Durbin wasn't able to just come out and state that the facts being told to the public were different than the ones he had heard, because he had preferential knowledge that was secret, and couldn't be made public.

OK. I understand that. But what could Durbin have done differently? Could he have somehow communicated to others in Congress that he very, very, VERY STRONGLY is against the war for reasons he can't share?

It's very frustrating, because I believed for a long time that Congress was told the same thing the American people were told, which was a bunch of lies. But to learn that some in Congress knew this whole thing was straight from Wag the Dog is very disturbing.

I was set straight on some of the facts by others here at DU yesterday, and I do like Durbin very much overall, but I still feel there should have been something else he could have done to impress upon others in Congress that a vote for this war would be a very serious mistake on their part.

We are, after all, dealing with 3,300+ dead troops, and untold thousands of innocent Iraqis.

It's just sickening. But I think I was wrong to be as upset with Durbin as I was, he did state as best he could for the record that the evidence was flimsy. (Paraphrasing.)

[bdamomma]

10. you know I never had a good feeling that they did have WMD

in Iraq, and when they turned their focus on Iraq after Afghanistan I said to myself what the hell?, disgusting absolutely disgusting that these thugs are still there.

[Dhalgren]

13. This makes me completely rethink John Edwards. He not only

co-authored the IWR, he was on the fucking Intelligence subcommittee! If Durbin knew Buchco was lying, then Edwards had to, as well. And if he didn't then he is too stupid to be President. Durbin at least voted against the IWR, because he knew it was a pack of lies. Arguably he should have breached security and told what he knew - even if no one would have listened. But Edwards? There are no excuses for what he did. Someone is going to have to convince me that he isn't just dead in the water...

[AndyA]

18. I've asked his campaign for a response about this.

While I realize it's not possible, nor is it feasible, there are times I'd like to throw the whole lot of them out and start over with all new ones.

I'd keep Feingold, Conyers, Waxman, and a few others who have consistently stood up for the Constitution and the rights of the American people, but the rest of them, see ya...

[Igel]

31. Confirmation bias. n/t

[Dhalgren]

33. What does "confirmation bias" mean?

[Raksha]

53. It's made me completely re-think John Edwards also.

I didn't know until this week that he was on the Intelligence Committee. I just can't overlook that.

[Igel]

29. You know, there's something people are forgetting.

The SWIFT business was classified.

The rendition business was classified.

And yet, somehow, mysteriously, the NYT and other media sources managed to report on them.

Did ghosts come and deposit secret documents on their desks? Were the reporters channelling flies that were buzzing around government offices?

Inquiring minds want to know why anonymous leakers are seemingly braver and apparently more resourceful than Durbin and his staff.

[rosesaylavee]

62. Anonymous leakers are at best, cowards and are always

revealed.

What was he supposed to leak that we on the 'net didn't know already? Was he supposed to leak that a senior member of the Intelligence committee thinks there is little evidence of WMDs in Iraq? Bet they wouldn't have guessed it was him.

[rosesaylavee]

30. "Could he have somehow communicated to others in Congress that he very, very, VERY STRONGLY

against the war for reasons he can't share?"

He did so in his speech on the senate floor before the vote was taken in 2002.

Durbin said:

"There is scant if little evidence that Iraq has a nuclear weapon" - Dick Durbin 10/10/02

Mr. DURBIN . I thank the Senator for his courtesy. When we disagree, he is always courteous in his treatment and fair on the floor of the Senate.

I might say to my friend from Connecticut, it is rare we disagree. I am sorry this is one of those cases. But I would pose a question, if he wants to answer it--without yielding the floor.

Do you believe that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is an imminent threat to the United States today?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend. I agree it is rare we disagree, so I do so with respect.

That is my point. I believe the threat is real. The weapons of mass destruction threat is real. Whether it is imminent or not, I do not know.

As I said, the analogy that comes to mind is of a bomb on a timer. I don't know whether the timer is set to go off in a day or a year. But because the danger is so real, I don't want to establish the standard of imminence before the United Nations or the President of the United States can act to eliminate the danger.

Mr. DURBIN . I thank my colleague from Connecticut, and I think it is an honest answer. But let me tell you, I serve on the Intelligence Committee and I would not disclose anything I learned there because it is classified and top secret, but some things I can say because they are public knowledge.

If you want to talk about threats to the United States, let me quickly add to that list North Korea. Currently, North Korea has nuclear weapons. North Korea has missiles that can deliver that nuclear weapon to many countries that we consider our friends and allies in their region.

Iran may not have a nuclear weapon today but could be further along than Iraq is at this moment. There is scant if little evidence that Iraq has a nuclear weapon.

We do not trust Syria because it is a harbor for some 12 or 15 different terrorist organizations in Damascus, and we certainly do not trust Libya because of our fear of weapons of mass destruction.

So now of all the countries I have listed, Iraq is one of them for sure. But I have given you five or six countries which, under this resolution's logic and under this President's new foreign policy, we should be considering invading. Which one and when?

Historically, we have said it is not enough to say you have a weapon that can hurt us. Think of 50 years of cold war when the Soviet Union had weapons poised and pointed at us. It is not enough that you just have weapons. We will watch to see if you make any effort toward hurting anyone in the United States, any of our citizens or our territory.

It was a bright-line difference in our foreign policy which we drew and an important difference in our foreign policy. It distinguished us from aggressor nations. It said that we are a defensive nation. We do not strike out at you simply because you have a weapon if you are not menacing or threatening to us. Has September 11, 2001, changed that so dramatically?

The words ``imminent threat'' have been used throughout the history of the United States. One of the first people to articulate that was a man who served on the floor of this Chamber, Daniel Webster, who talked about anticipatory self-defense, recognized way back in time, in the 19th century. What we are saying today is those rules don't work anymore; we are going to change them.

From Thomas.gov, Senate Floor, October 10, 2002

(Thanks to LSK for posting this earlier this week!)

[magellan]

9. Here's what former CIA agent Ray McGovern had to say about Durbin

...on Democracy Now! this morning (whilst talking about Tenet).

RAY McGOVERN: I think people like Dick Durbin have to change their whole mindset and realize that they are not a subservient branch of government. You know, I’m a Virginian, and I think George Mason and James Madison and Tom Jefferson of rolling over in their grave. Here’s Durbin saying, “I knew that the war was going to be fought on false pretenses, but I was sworn to secrecy.” Well, he was sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. And that’s what he ought to have done. Classification is to protect sources and methods. It’s not to protect presidents, OK? And so, he should have come out and said, “Look, this is not what I’m hearing in the Intelligence Committee. Hold the presses. We’re not going to go to war until I get satisfaction.” He didn’t do that.

Now they're -- well, now they’re in the majority. They were in the majority then in the Senate, and they didn’t stand up to it. Now, you have to stand up to it now, because this country needs this war to stop. I hope they have the guts to do it.

AMY GOODMAN: That issue that you raise of Senator Dick Durbin saying that he was angry about it, but “frankly, I couldn’t do much about it, because in the Intelligence Committee we are sworn to secrecy.” He was talking about being misled into the war. Durbin went on to say, “We can’t walk outside the door and say the statement made yesterday by the White House is in direct contradiction to classified information that is being given to this Congress.” Why can't he say precisely that?

RAY McGOVERN: Sure, he can. Sure, he can. And for several years now, the people in the House have been saying, “Well, we can’t do anything because we’re in the minority.” Well, in reflecting on this, I realize that when he did that or did not do that, the Democrats were in the majority in the Senate. And so, what I’m saying here is that they have to step up to their constitutional prerogatives, their constitutional responsibilities, and make sure that this war stops, because there is no justification for the surge or for the funding, other than to prevent the war from being definitively lost while George Bush and Dick Cheney are still in office. That’s what our men are dying for, our men and women are dying for now, and it’s unconscionable.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/01/1410229

I agree with him.

[Beaverhausen]

12. Wow. Good points there. I hate this "sworn to secrecy" crap

He and the other dems should have at least said something, and not just on the senate floor.

[magellan]

23. I didn't realize till McGovern pointed it out

The Dems were in the MAJORITY at the time? Durbin and the other Dems on the Intel Committee most certainly could have gotten a presser if they wanted one. Or you start turning tables and chairs over (metaphorically speaking) until the press flocks to you. Maybe they're too polite for the kind of pushiness that's required to get air time, I don't know. But I'm reminded that last year, when the Dems were in the minority, Reid and Pelosi still managed to hold a well-covered presser lambasting Chavez for calling Bush** the devil.

While I do believe the Dems aren't given equal time and coverage, I also think they fail to take advantage when they can. The Iraq intel was just another moment when they failed.

[karynnj]

46. They were in the majority - but that included Leiberman and Zell Miller

Once Leiberman and Daschle signed onto the IWR, it undercut every effort that Democrats were making to further restrict Bush.

Durban's amendment was the cleanest way to do it

[faithnotgreed]

63. i completely agree also magellan - thank you for posting this from ray

i think that usually dick durbin is considered an overall good representative and he has many defenders taking a more black and white approach to his defense
but i dont care what party anyone identifies with and i dont care the topic - if they fail the people and fail their solemn oath to this country and the constitution whether by outright breaking of laws or by their silence or any number of ways that our government continues to show its sickness then they need to be held accountable

this is sickening news
it was bad enough that the dems overall didnt really fight back when many citizens knew the information being pushed on us all was untrue
and it was bad enough when i hear those say they "made a mistake" because they didnt have the information (because we know now they could have if they had really wanted to) but to actually be given the truth and not put a stop to the madness that bush displayed from the beginning is just horrific

i know durbin is overall a good person and its very sad whats going on (i cant imagine what makes someone not take action so needed) but this silence is precisely the kind of washington disease that is very sadly a party-blind epidemic

on edit: lets not single out durbin - unfortunately he has plenty of company
we need real change

[magellan]

123. faithnotgreed, thanks for what you wrote

You really put well how I feel about this. Indeed, Durbin is one of the good guys. But that doesn't necessarily mean we excuse him when he does something wrong, especially when the error is of this magnitude. At the same time, I'm certainly not ignoring Levin and the others who said virtually nothing, or the likes of Edwards and Feinstein who also knew there was a stark difference between the intel and what BushCo were saying publicly yet still voted FOR the IWR.

These are all inexcusable failures of different degrees by the Dems on the intel committee. Inexcusable. But it just so happens that Durbin spoke up.

I think Ray is right, the Dems have got to break out of this weak "minority" mindset and finally start acting like leaders, as if their very lives depended on it. There's no doubt the lives of our troops do.

[Leopolds Ghost]

128. I didn't mean to single out Durbin for saying this--what he's doing now is revealing for our benefit

Congress' overall complicity in the selling of the Iraq war
(which many, many people knew was a tissue of lies at the time,
but felt that removing Saddam and liberating the Iraqi economy
was overall a sanctioned act, regardless of the stated reason.)

[faithnotgreed]

145. oh that was not directed at you AT ALL leopolds ghost

im sorry i wasnt clearer with what i said
please forgive

i was really talking to myself - my post - that i didnt want to single him out

sorry about that

[KoKo]

14. Senator Carl Levin VOTED * AGAINST* IWR!

Carl Levin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Senator Carl Levin announces at a press conference regarding his opposition to the War in Iraq and his willingness to vote "No" on the authorization to give ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Levin - 70k - Cached - Similar pages

[Cameron27]

17. Yes he did.

The others on the committee who had the very same intel as he did chose to vote yes. Why aren't they speaking out now?

[LSparkle]

15. The only Dem who gets a pass from me is Rockefeller

He went as far as he could go -- sending a sealed letter to Cheney. I feel somewhat sorry for the others because they really were in a "no-win" situation -- considering the political climate at the time, had they revealed what they had been told, they would have been tarred and feathered. Still, others besides Rockefeller should have taken whatever steps were available to express their frustration and skepticism of the process.

[dflprincess]

19. Rockefeller voted for the IWR

he does not get a pass.

[LSparkle]

25. OMG -- I take that back

WTF did he vote yes after KNOWING the intel was wrong -- and taking the step of letting Cheney know he knew it?

I'm starting to agree with friends who say there are NO GOOD POLITICIANS ... just scoundrels.

[dflprincess]

102. If I recall this correctly, Mark Dayton was on the fence about how to vote

and spoke to Rockefeller about the issue (as an aside, Rockefeller is Dayton's former brother-in-law). It was after this chat that Dayton made up his mind to vote no. It makes Rockefeller's vote even harder to understand.

[Adelante]

20. Rockefeller voted YES on the IWR

Durbin voted NO, as did Graham, Levin, Milkulski, and Wyden vote NO.

Those are the ones who get a pass from me.

Anybody who was on that committee and voted YES is far more culpable than Dick Durbin,

[Raksha]

61. I agree.

"Anybody who was on that committee and voted YES is far more culpable than Dick Durbin."

Unfortunately, that includes John Edwards.

[karynnj]

57. This was a complete mess for most in the Senate

Rockefeller sending the letter did NOTHING to affect the outcome. The problem was that it was a year after 911 and this bill was rushed through, after a few Democrats signed on.

It seems like many of the others had a flurry of bills to either have an alternative (to make it safe to vote against the IWR - a desperately needed item) and to change the language in the bill itself - limiting it to Iraq and getting rid of a broad set of reasons.

The bill still required trusting the President - as would any alternative bill would have - just look at the signing statement.

Consider what would have happened if someone on teh intelligence committee loudy explained that everything was a lie. He/she couldn't have proved it and it may have changed few votes. At least 50 (the republicans, the Dems on the Intelligence committee who voted yes, Leiberman and Miller) would still have been yeses.

[crappyjazz]

16. Is there something we're missing here?

I heard the "sworn to secrecy" part, but really, is that enough? All those lives lost but you had to keep a secret? WTF?

[AndyA]

21. How do they live with themselves?

I don't know what I would do if I knew a secret, was bound to keep it to myself, but people were dying because of this secret.

I would be sick. The sons and daughters who will never have their parent. The spouses raising a family alone. It's beyond disturbing. I don't think I would be able to do it. Nothing in this world is more sacred than a life.

[Cameron27]

42. See post 30

Durbin did speak out, Kennedy spoke out, Byrd spoke out.

John Edwards not only was on the Intel Commmittee and knew what Durbin knew, he chose not to go with better resolutions but instead co-sponsored Lieberman's, he tried to persuade Kerry not to back off their IWR votes in 2004, and he apologized in 2005 with a lie. Where is he today? Where is his statement? Why is Durbin out there alone?

[lynnertic]

39. Apparently he's not keeping the secret anymore, is he?

I wonder what the other 16 members will say to us.

[Leopolds Ghost]

131. If he was sworn to secrecy then, what are the consequences for his speaking out now?

The job of anyone who voted NO on the IWR is not simply to "vote your
conscience" but to PERSUADE OTHERS. The Senate is a forum for debate.

What better way to persusde than to come out and say "unfortunately,
Bush is lying to the American people?"

[lynnertic]

156. I wonder if they were threatened

and so afraid of retribution, because of the Patriot Act or whatever.

[madfloridian]

22. Kevin Zeese doesn't like Democrats, period.

I choose to stand with Dick Durbin. He is a good man.

[Dan]

24. come on...

They were sworn to secrecy...it was a "Secret" intelligence briefing... if they had said anything, they would have been guilty of a crime.

[Beaverhausen]

26. IMHO - their crime was their secrecy

[Dhalgren]

28. He could have come out and said, " what we are being told is not

what they are telling the people and the rest of congress." The Democrats were in the majority and he and the rest could have at least done that without revealing and double-secret spy info - and we all know that the "secret" was the lie...

[rosesaylavee]

35. He did! See post 30 above that quotes verbatim from

his senate speech before the vote.

[Dhalgren]

43. I am not blaming Durban to the same extent that I blame Edwards

and others, but I think that he could have done more. His statement to Lieberman on the Senate floor was good, but not enough. His amendment to the IWR was good, but not enough. Would it have been hard for Durbin and others to have done more? Yes. Would it have been dangerous for Durbin and others to have done more? Yes. Should they have done more? Yes.

[rosesaylavee]

51. And risked removal from the Senate for same?

I think if I were Durbin, without the benefit of hindsight, I would have thought the DEMs would have had a better chance winning future political battles without the scandal of a senior Dem Senator who couldn't keep his oaths. Durbin has been fighting the good fight for all the years he has served Illinois. I believe he did what he chose the lesser of two evils and has personally suffered for it.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

[Beaverhausen]

45. What, the day of the vote? Hardly does any good then

They should all have been at least telling other senators that their intel didn't match what was being put out by Bush Co. for the weeks preceeding the vote.

[rosesaylavee]

47. So you think he wasn't communicating that before the vote?

That he wasn't trying to convince others without jeopardizing his oath?

As he is my senator and has to date seemed very above board and honest person in that position, I have to believe he was trying his best to persuade.

[Cameron27]

49. I agree with you.

I'm absolutely convinced that Durbin was sharing his info and was trying to persuade others to vote no.

[Beaverhausen]

52. I take no happiness in what I'm saying about him and the other dems here

Hey, I'm am Edwards supporter, so I feel really shitty about this.

But it doesn't seem that they were saying anything to anyone else, otherwise the "NAY" vote tally might have been higher.

I don't want to trash Durbin and the others, I know he is good. But this is a pretty shocking revelation to me.

[rosesaylavee]

56. Shocking to me too but

remember how the media was at the time. If Durbin had chosen to have a press conference similar to Kennedy - would anyone have come? Would any of them have reported? I don't think so. All that would have resulted was the ruination of Durbin's career and shame on the DEM senators for his lack of ability to keep an oath when we were 'at war'.

I remember the war drums beating pretty loudly back then.

[Beaverhausen]

59. I know- I try to remember what the mood of the country was

and how anyone who would vote against the IWR was labeled a traitor.

I also remember marching against the war on the streets of Los Angeles with 100,000 of my closest friends.

I do think Bush would have gone to war anyway. But I just want some proof that the dems who had the most information actually tried to get it out.

[rosesaylavee]

66. I marched here with only a few thousand of my close

friends. Local papers counted that as 200 only. The media at all levels didn't want this info out there. They wouldn't have printed it. It was all over the internet - but NOTHING in the papers about how Powell was referencing intel used prior to Gulf War 1.

I will never forget that time.

[PassingFair]

133. Over HALF of the house managed to vote against that war.

And a GOOD PORTION of our senators, too.

The representatives who voted YES and now claim
to have been lied to, and the representatives who
were on the Intelligence Committee should be
impeaching Cheney and/or Bush for lying to Congress.

Like NOW.

[Dan]

36. ;), I also suspect that

the Patriot Act is also hanging over their heads.... the nation is not the nation as it was, before BUSH.

[in_cog_ni_to]

92. OH PLEEEEAS!!!!! What CRAP! If Durbin had come out and said ANYTHING without PROOF he would have

TRASHED UNMERCIFULLY and they STILL would have had their fucking war! NOTHING HE COULD HAVE SAID AT THE TIME WOULD HAVE MATTERED! NOTHING! HE COULD HAVE COME OUT OF THOSE COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND TOLD THE COUNTRY EVERYTHING HE WAS BRIEFED ABOUT and his ass would have been tossed in GITMO for TREASON and they STILL WOULD HAVE HAD THEIR DAMN WAR and the DEMOCRATS would have lost a GREAT SENATOR!

REMEMBER THE CLIMATE AT THE TIME!! "You're either with us, or you're against us."

"If you don't support this war, you don't support the troops."

"If you don't support the war and the troops, you are unpatriotic."

This thread is CRAP. Durbin is a GOOD MAN and a GREAT DEMOCRAT!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=776980

[Dhalgren]

155. Ok. So he was afraid to come out strongly with the truth.

I'll accept that assessment. :hi:

[angstlessk]

27. How come there are 9 Democrats and only 8 republics when THEY were

in the majority at the time??? you got some numbers or names crossed?

[Dhalgren]

32. The Democrats were in the majority at the time...

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

34. The Democrats were in the majority in the Senate until

January, 2003.

My question to all of you blaming Dick Durbin is this: why don't you go to www.thomas.gov and read what he said on the floor of the Senate.

Also he sponsored an amendment to the IWR to slow things down, but of course, it was defeated with the help of people in Democratic Party.

But then, of course, Dick Durbin is the reason there's 3300+ dead Americans. :sarcasm:

Who is Kevin Zeese anyway. I've never heard of him..

[rosesaylavee]

37. See post 30 above for text from his speech.

Geez, so much easier to blame Durbin than *co this week.

Wish I could shout out that this is a RW DISTRACTION FOLKS!

There, feel better now. :)

[Adelante]

48. Also the White House tried to get Durbin kicked off the intel committee

See here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/s072203.html


Durbin has been in there FIGHTING for these past six years mired in the mess left behind by the YES voters.

So today we have a report that asks only some of the right questions and, at best, comes to only some of the right conclusions.

The responsibility for problems related to prewar intelligence regarding Iraq should not be confined to intelligence analysts at the CIA but should extend to policymakers as well -- particularly those at the Defense and State departments, the National Security Council, and the White House.

Nor should the intelligence oversight committees of Congress, which are charged with scrutinizing intelligence analysis as part of their mandate, be excluded from criticism. It should be noted that the inquiry into prewar intelligence related to Iraq was initiated -- and its scope expanded -- in the face of significant resistance within the committee.

http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-108-2-210

New York Times editorial this week:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/opinion/29sun1.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin


(I believe Kevin Zeese is a Green activist.)

[Cameron27]

64. Kevin Zeese can go Cheney himself.

Durbin's out there alone again. Where's his backup? Where are the statements from those on the committee who voted yes?

[lynnertic]

38. KO sez 17 members of the Intelligence Cte knew

they all knew and said nothing!!!

[rosesaylavee]

40. Not true. Durbin DID say something

if you would bother to read the entire thread. See post 30.

[lynnertic]

50. I read the OP. Do you read a yard-long thread of comments in its entirety before responding?

thanks for pointing out post #30.

[rosesaylavee]

58. Sorry for the snark

but this is about the umpteenth thread about this and as you can guess, I feel pretty strongly about it.

And yes, the longer you are here, you will find it best to read the thread prior to posting unless what you say is pretty innocuous.

Belated welcome to DU... :hi:

snark out.

[Holly_Hobby]

41. So his oath to the American people means less than

his oath to his committee???

The only way any of this makes any sense - no wonder none of them support Kucinich's Cheney impeachment, and Shrub's impeachment is off the table. How could they bring charges against them if they themselves are guilty of keeping this information from the American people?

Now really - all of us here knew Bush was lying and they didn't? Come on.

[yy4me]

44. Senate Intelligence Committee: Oxymorans!

Most of them, anyway. No spine? No courage? No thought to the consequences?

[leftchick]

55. hello? Edwards knew and he voted for war?

:puke:

[Adelante]

65. Edwards Co-sponsored the Lieberman IWR

Voted against every alternative resolution.

And Dick Durbin who voted against the Lieberman IWR and produced his own amendment, which failed, who has been struggling for year to get this out to the American people, he should take the fall for the mess Edwards left behind him. :crazy:

[Adelante]

60. September 11, 2002

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said it is impossible for lawmakers and other government officials to adequately answer the questions about Iraq because the Bush administration has not yet produced a comprehensive threat assessment and may be "missing key intelligence information."

Durbin wrote CIA Director George Tenet Tuesday, as well as Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham, D-Florida, and ranking Republican Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, asking that a the CIA put together a so-called "National Intelligence Estimate," an authoritative written judgment on national security regarding Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/11/senators.iraq/index.html


Did the committee members who voted YES to the IWR do this? No. Richard Durbin and Bob Graham did this and without it there would have never been questioning of the intelligence in the Senate, no investigations, no reports.

[rosesaylavee]

69. Thank you...

I will add that info to future Bash Durbin posts.

This is just so much RW distraction - why do smart DUers get caught up in this crap?

[H2O Man]

70. Thank you. n/t

[Cameron27]

76. Thank you!

:thumbsup:

[HardRocker05]

67. finally a member of congress admits it; that's why i can't get excited over impeaching bush,

because almost the entire congress was complicit, as well as the american people. the american people didn't want to know the truth; they wanted somebody to give them an excuse to lash out at any convenient arab enemy, and bush, congress, and the MSM were more than happy to give it to them.

[rosesaylavee]

72. Wow. this is a pretty long thread...

you didn't read any of the responses did you?

[mdmc]

68. God Bless You Dick Durbin!

`He is one of the best!

[Cameron27]

73. Yes he is!

Sadly, too few of his kind around.

[LSK]

71. not this shit again

:banghead:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=789111&mesg_id=789111

[rosesaylavee]

74. YOU'RE HERE!

Come join the fun.

[LSK]

75. another day, another smearing of our BEST DEMS on DU

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[rosesaylavee]

78. ...

[Peace Patriot]

77. The Bush Junta was saying publicly that Saddam had WMDs and was connected to 9/11.

They were trying to corner the Democrats just prior to the Nov. '02 elections, and riding on the trauma of 9/11 only a year before. Are you with the "terrorists", or are you for protecting America? That was how the war profiteering corporate news monopoly game was being played. And this, of course was the Anthrax Congress, which had had a taste of "terrorism."

I remember this well. "You're either with us or agin us? Either patriots or traitors?" And the tenor of the times gave it real bite, at least in the narrative of our national life that rules in DC. Many Democrats resisted it. ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY-SIX Congress members, mostly Democrats, voted against the IWR. And the majority of the American people didn't buy it either. FIFTY-SIX PERCENT of the American people opposed the invasion of Iraq (Feb. '03).

The Democrats had a way out of this cornering by the Bush Junta, but they didn't use it. Their way out was this: Take it to the UN. See what our allies and the UN weapons inspectors feel about it. And get back to us. No need to precipitously pass a resolution GIVING AWAY CONGRESS' CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DECLARE WAR to George Bush. Instead, pass a resolution backing him up all the way to the UN. Go for it, George! Convince the Security Council!

IF they had done that, it would have been very clear, by the time the Junta brought the matter back to Congress, that Bush, Cheney, Powell & Co. were full of crap--in advocating preemptive war. The UN weapons inspectors were weeks away from concluding that Saddam's WMDs no longer existed. They begged for more time. The buildup of US military forces around Iraq probably influenced Saddam to cooperate. If Bush had stopped there--at threats and pressure, bolstering the inspectors--it would now be considered a brilliant play. Instead, Bush kicked the UN weapons inspectors out--just as they were finishing their job--and invaded.

Consider what THAT debate would have been like--if Congress had not given its power away, and had retained the option to discuss the matter further and declare war, or not declare war. Bush, Powell, Tenet and the gang do their thing at the UN (100% pack of lies). Germany and France disagree. The UN weapons inspectors disagree. Russia disagrees. Most of the world disagrees. War is not necessary. The UN has the matter under control. Bush brings this back to Congress. He wants to invade. The rest of the world (most of--UK excepted) disagrees. MEANWHILE, the UN weapons inspectors complete their task, and issue their report: all the WMDs gone.

Time. Time for that report to sink in. Time for the American people to get better informed. Time for Senators and House members on the Intel committees to compare Bush's secret reports with the UN weapons inspectors' report--and other reports coming in. Time for the forged Niger docs to be exposed. Time for the "aluminum tubes" to be debunked. Time to find out that the British WMD scientists dissented from the 45-minutes to doom lie. Time for everybody to take a deep breath. Why make war? Why kill innocent people? Why "shock and awe" Iraqi babies and old people and young conscripted soldiers--100,000 innocent people slaughtered, in the initial bombing alone (according to the British doctors' report)? Why risk US soldiers' lives? Why do it, on such a slight threat--which was fully contained?

This is what I don't understand. And this is what we have to reckon with, regarding the Democrats who voted for the IWR. The US was not in danger. NOBODY was in danger. There wasn't even a threat of anybody being in danger. It had been 12 years since Saddam had invaded Kuwait. The Iraq army was in rags. They had no air force. The country had been under crippling--and cruel--sanctions for 12 years, with no-fly zones all around it, and bombing raids in the no-fly zones.

Why the rush? Why GIVE AWAY its power to be deliberative, in a situation in which the threat was, at best, highly theoretical--with most evidence against it?

Would the American people have punished Democrats for being deliberative? For taking a month or two to consider the matter, with Iraq surrounded by US forces ready to pounce at the slightest aggressive action?

There is another factor in this situation, which I won't go into in detail, but it needs to be mentioned, because I think it influenced some Democratic leaders. Diebold and ES&S were already spreading their election theft machines far and wide. Congress passed the "Help America Vote Act" (aka, the "Help America Vote for Bush Act") in the same month as the IWR, but the machines had invaded Georgia, for instance, which, by 2002, was voting entirely on Diebold touchscreens, run on "trade secret," proprietary programming code, owned and controlled by a Bushite corporation, with no audit/recount controls. And that's where Max Cleland--a paraplegic vet of the Vietnam war--saw a 15% lead flip over into a big loss on election day.

More Democrats voted for HAVA (or HAVBA) than voted for the IWR. In fact, most of them voted for it--out of ignorance, stupidity, fear and/or corruption.

So THAT was coming down the line. Oppose Bush's war, and you're out. We talk about hidden knowledge--what the Intel committees were hearing, what people in the know in DC knew, what was happening behind the scenes. But couldn't anybody see what a bad idea it was to have Bushite corporations counting all the votes under a veil of secrecy?

It's a no-brainer.

It is also a no-brainer--and I thought this at the time--to WAIT, on Bush's desire for war. To let the UN weapons inspectors finish. To get their report. To find out why France and Germany were so opposed. To bring it back to Congress and debate it.

If only we had!

So, whatever you want to say about the War Democrats--that they were disinformed, or couldn't breach secrecy, or were "cornered," politically--there is really nothing you can say for them about the months of November and December 2002, and January 2003, when they could have been waiting to hear back from Bush, and Colin Powell, and our allies, and the UN, then to make a considered judgment of the need for war, but, instead, by passing the IWR, gave away all of their power over the situation. And Diebold and ES&S took over. And the world grew very dark, indeed.

I oppose calling for Durbin's resignation, unless you were to simultaneously call for the resignations of all who voted for the IWR. I would rather have someone in Congress honestly telling us what happened--Durbin--or, as with Edwards, admitting error and apologizing--than those who are still for this war and a wider war in the Middle East (Clinton, Biden, Lieberman and others--they just want a more efficient war--a successful war) or those who are grandstanding about it with phony antiwar stances (Christopher Dodd comes to mind--who was also one of the chief architects of HAVA, along with felons Tom Delay and Bob Ney). Durbin's remarks were enlightening! They have helped ME to understand what kinds of binds they were in. (And, with the Democrats, it is not a simple picture. They are NOT "pod people" like the Bushites are, on the whole.)

And do remember what dark and fearful times those were. Anthrax. Paul Wellstone. Max Cleland being called a "friend of Osama bin Laden" and it APPEARING to stick (Diebold stickiness). Spying; blackmail. It was the height of the Dark Lords' power. I think we have a BIG PROBLEM with our Democratic leadership's collusion on this war--and also their selling away our right to vote. (WHY don't they have the votes they need in Congress--with 75% of the American people opposed to this war?) It's their own damn fault!) But do be careful who you throw overboard. Honesty is something. We haven't had much from the party leaders, for quite a long time now. It's rather a precious commodity. And I hope that Diebold/ES&S is the NEXT thing "on the table" for some honesty.

[Disturbed]

79. Edwards, the Senate Intelligence Committee

CarolNYC Sun Apr-29-07 06:51 PM

Edwards, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the IWR

"Are any of you Edwards’ supporters upset even a little bit by the fact that the Senator, even knowing what he apparently knew or should have known as member of the Senate Intelligence Committee---given Dick Durbin’s recent statements and Bob Graham’s charges in his Washington Post op-ed from November 2005---not only voted for that blank check IWR but also co-sponsored it and voted down both Levin’s and Durbin’s amendments that at least attempted to limit the damage?"

"Dick Durbin’s recently gotten raked over the coals by some here because he didn’t speak up sooner about what the Intelligence Committee members knew but at least he voted Nay on the resolution and proposed an amendment to limit Bush’s power. And I know others on that committee voted yes as well but Edwards is the only one who actually co-sponsored that God-awful version of the IWR with Lieberman, voted no on both Durbin’s and Levin’s proposed amendments AND is now asking me to help him become President."

[Cameron27]

80. Edwards apologized with a lie.

[Beaverhausen]

90. Great post

I have nothing to add.

[Adelante]

81. Durbin signs Kerry's Downing Street Memo letter

September 24, 2005

In fact, Kerry has been working behind the scenes to get some of his Democratic colleagues to join him in calling for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to look into Downing Street, and now it's finally happening. Kerry -- joined by Sens. Jon Corzine, Tim Johnson, Ted Kennnedy, Frank Lautenberg, Barbara Boxer, Tom Harkin, Jack Reed, Jeff Bingaman and, yes, Dick Durbin -- has just written a letter to the committee's chairman and vice chairman, arguing that the revelations contained in the Downing Street memo "raise troubling questions about the use of intelligence" in the run up to the Iraq war and provide "renewed urgency" for the committee to complete an investigation that Republicans have said is no longer necessary.

-snip

"We write concerning your committee's vital examination of pre-war Iraq intelligence failures. In particular, we urge you to accelerate to completion the work of the so-called 'Phase II' effort to assess how policy makers used the intelligence they received.

"Last year your committee completed the first phase of a two-phased effort to review the pre-war intelligence on Iraq. Phase I -- begun in the summer of 2003 and completed in the summer of 2004 -- examined the performance of the American intelligence community in the collection and analysis of intelligence prior to the war, including an examination of the quantity and quality of U.S. intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the intelligence on ties between Saddam Hussein's regime and terrorist groups. At the conclusion of Phase I, your committee issued an unclassified report that made an important contribution to the American public's understanding of the issues involved.

"In February 2004 -- well over a year ago -- the committee agreed to expand the scope of inquiry to include a second phase which would examine the use of intelligence by policy makers, the comparison of pre-war assessments and post-war findings, the activities of the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group (PCTEG) and the Office of Special Plans in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and the use of information provided by the Iraqi National Congress.

"The committee's efforts have taken on renewed urgency given recent revelations in the United Kingdom regarding the apparent minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting between Prime Minister Tony Blair and his senior national security advisors. These minutes-known as the 'Downing Street Memo' -- raise troubling questions about the use of intelligence by American policy makers-questions that your committee is uniquely situated to address.

"The memo indicates that in the summer of 2002, at a time the White House was promising Congress and the American people that war would be their last resort, that they believed military action against Iraq was 'inevitable.' The minutes reveal that President 'Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.'

"The American people took the warnings that the administration sounded seriously-warnings that were echoed at the United Nations and here in Congress as we voted to give the president the authority to go to war. For the sake of our democracy and our future national security, the public must know whether such warnings were driven by facts and responsible intelligence, or by political calculation.

"These issues need to be addressed with urgency. This remains a dangerous world, with American forces engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other challenges looming in Iran and North Korea. In this environment, the American public should have the highest confidence that policy makers are using intelligence objectively- never manipulating it to justify war, but always to protect the United States. The contents of the Downing Street Memo undermine this faith and only rigorous Congressional oversight can determine the truth.

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

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2005/06/24/downing/index.html

[Firespirit]

82. PURRRRGE!

I thought we were through with this shit.

The bottom line is, IT DOESN'T MATTER. Bush was going to go to war come hell or high water. It was the sole reason why he was even chosen by the neocons to be the Republican nominee. They knew he was a willing tool for their (PNAC) plans because of the family history with Saddam and the interest in oil. There was not a thing that any member of Congress could have done to stop it. It astounds me how people can rant about how Bush does whatever he pleases and must be impeached because there is no other way to stop him, yet continue to blame Democrats for this mess in Iraq. Be consistent, for fuck's sake!

The blood is on the hands of Bush and every member of Congress who votes against overriding his veto on this latest bill.

[Cameron27]

83. It matters.

Whatever Bush was going to do, those who lacked the moral courage to vote no on the IWR when they KNEW there was no evidence should be held accountable. Purge no, but we should expect the truth out of those who voted yes, and not BS apologies.

[Firespirit]

85. This is not about morality

"Moral courage" often leads people to do incredibly foolish things.

I consider it more moral to keep the Senate in Democratic hands rather than turn it over to the Republicans by throwing out good people who made one bad vote -- a vote that changed nothing, I should add.

In 2002, 66% of the public was in favor of going to war. I was in the other 34%. But even within that third, most of THEM thought Iraq had WMD, we just didn't think that the country would be fool enough to use them against the U.S. Very, very few were going to posit that Iraq had NOTHING.

What happened in 2002 is completely, totally irrelevant to what's going on now. Voters in general don't care about the IWR. They want out now.

[in_cog_ni_to]

97. DURBIN VOTED NO ON THE IWR. n/t

[Cameron27]

98. I know in_cog_ni_to!

I've been defending him for the past two days! That post wasn't about him, it was about those who voted yes.

He's an honorable man!

[in_cog_ni_to]

114. Sorry seaoned.....I was seeing red and

didn't read who you were responding to.:( Sorry.:hug:

[in_cog_ni_to]

84. FUCK THIS SHIT!!! NO ONE from MARYLAND is going to attack MY SENATOR without a fucking answer!

Durbin is a GOOD MAN and I suggest if YOU and your cohorts want to 'cleanse' the Senate then start getting rid of the Senators who actually VOTED FOR THE FUCKING IWR! LEAVE DICK DURBIN THE HELL ALONE! YEAH!!!!! LETS GET RID OF A DEMOCRATIC SENATOR BECAUSE WE'RE MAAAAAAAD AT HIM!!! WE NEED ALL REPUKES IN THE SENATE...THEY'RE ALL SOOOOOO MUCH BETTER THAN A GREAT DEMOCRAT LIKE DICK DURBIN!!!! YEAH!!!! WE HATE DEMOCRATS TOO!

If you want to get rid of MY Senator, you're all just going to have to move your asses to ILLINOIS because WE, THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY LIVE HERE, LOVE DICK DURBIN!

THIS IS FUCKING BULLSHIT! DICK DURBIN VOTED AGAINST THE IWR. THAT MEANS....YOU AND YOUR COHORTS ARE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO CLEANSE THE SENATE OF ALL THE DEMOCRATIC SENATORS WHO VOTED FOR THE IWR!! CUT OFF NOSES TO SPITE YOUR FACES! REAL FUCKING SMART!

READ THIS and then tell me Dick Durbin needs to be removed from the Senate!!! This is FUCKING RIDICULOUS!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=776980

[Leopolds Ghost]

113. She's my senator too. I'm free to criticize her

For her wishy-washy statements in support of tracking and domestic spying of American citizens (Rockefeller is another guy who supports domestic spying of all Americans "but only if it's demonstrated to be legal and useful".) I am not impressed by the Maryland democratic delegation these days, especially since Sarbanes left.

As for Durbin, if these guys knew what was being told the intelligence committee, it was their duty to come out and say in public "the intelligence committee has been given classified briefings that reveal the Bush Administration's claims to be a lie." Point blank.

[in_cog_ni_to]

119. MY Senator is DICK DURBIN! I was referring to YOU being from Maryland!

You've just posted to have people call and get rid of MY SENATOR and I, for one, don't fucking appreciate it! Read your fucking thread. MANY Explanations have been given to you. Your calling for one of our BEST SENATORS to resign is BULLSHIT! PURE BULLSHIT...Point Blank!:grr:

[Leopolds Ghost]

126. It's an opinion piece from Kevin Zeese, a hard-core peace activist. I am just posting it FYI.

Posting it here will certainly not result in Durbin losing support on DU,
and this is not election season, and Durbin is not going anywhere,
although as a small-d democrat, we should certainly welcome primary
competition from anyone willing to make Congress's complicity in the Iraq Lie an issue. Remember, it's all about the oil. We knew that, and our senators certainly knew it, too. The oil was going to pay for reconstruction, with the profits going to US companies, remember? That's what sold Congress on the war!

Durbin says he had information from the Intelligence Committee that proves Bush was lying. But he didn't call Bush a liar. My response is the same as the response Joan Walsh gave to George Tenet, namely, there should be a "Son of Sam law for public officials" to prevent officials from profiting off of these sort of after the fact "I wish I had said something" allegations.

You don't even have to claim there was zero WMD to call Bush a liar and say that based on the info he was giving the Senate in private, Durbin could confidently say Bush was lying to the public.

[in_cog_ni_to]

130. Durbin is up for reelection in '08. The 'opinion piece' is a crock of shit calling for MY Senator to

resign. DICK DURBIN IS A GOOD MAN AND A FANTASTIC LIBERAL DEMOCRAT! Leave him alone and spend your excess time attacking the people who are actually RESPONSIBLE for the freakin' war! Durbin IS NOT responsible for it! HE voted against the iWR!

ONCE AGAIN...NOTHING DURBIN OR ANYONE ELSE COULD HAVE SAID WOULD HAVE STOPPED THE WARMONGERS FROM GETTING THEIR WAR ON and you know it...and everyone else bashing Durbin knows it. What WOULD have happened is Durbin would have been tossed in GITMO for treason and THEN where would we have been? One less Dem in Congress and NOTHING WOULD HAVE CHANGED BECAUSE OF WHAT HE DID/SAID. NOTHING.

[Leopolds Ghost]

134. I didn't mean to gang up on Durbin. My impression of the article is that Durbin just revealed to us

What every one of his colleagues knew at the time.

I am not sure he should be commended for that, as Joan Walsh said about George Tenet, officials should not be rewarded for revealing information after the fact that could have saved lives had it been publically revealed earlier. The point is, the bigger the splash, the bigger the impact would have been, regardless of the personal impact on Durbin or the other committee members who chose not to reveal the discrepancy. For the same reason Colin Powell could have resigned and stopped the Iraq war in the process. But I'm certainly not suggesting we single out Durbin for being honest now. Kevin Zeese may believe in punishing honesty after the fact, but I don't.

[madfloridian]

147. Kevin Zeese is very much against Democrats. Nader's press secretary

He was Nader's campaign press secretary. He does not see any Democrats as friends.

I do. I feel they are so much better than the alternative that there is no choice.

I will work in the party to change it, I hate this war. I don't any should have voted for it. But I refuse to condemn a good man.

[LSK]

124. I guess the SENATE FLOOR isnt public enough for you???

Maybe he should have interrupted all 3 networks who were at the time totally ignoring Dems?????

:wtf:

[Radical Activist]

86. What the hell is wrong with you?

Durbin was one of two Senators up for re-election that year who voted against the war in Iraq. Now, he's going public with some very damaging comments to the Bush administration, and your only response is that he should have violated the law years ago? Way to stab an ally in the back, genius!

[in_cog_ni_to]

94. They, apparently, want an all repuke Senate. NOTHING is good ENOUGH for SOME people.

:grr:

[Beaverhausen]

106. Please don't make that assumption. If we want Dems held accountable doesn't mean we prefer repubs

How can we bash the republicans for "drinking the kool-aid" when we are seemingly doing the same thing? When we are being blindly loyal to members of our party when revelations like this come out?

I just think that there must have been something that Durbin and the other dems on that committee could have done or said, even if it did no good stopping the invasion.

Knowing they kept silent - yes- up until the day of the IWR vote-yes I've seen the speech you have posted over and over- bothers me and lots of others a great deal.

No one wants Durbin out- what we want is to learn a lesson here and not have this happen again.

Note- I am an Edwards supporter, so I am far more angry about his "yea" vote than I am at Durbin.

[in_cog_ni_to]

87. AND LET ME JUST ADD....the climate in this country was NOT condusive to ANYONE speaking out against

the fucking war! Durbin was sworn to secrecy. IF he had done what you and your cohorts are bitchin' about...he would have been tossed in GITMO and had the key thrown away and THEN you lose a GREAT DEMOCRATIC SENATOR! YOU are bitching about water over the damn dam!! At least the man EXPOSED this administration and their fucking LIES! THAT'S who you should be pissed off at...not Dick Durbin who actually voted against the IWR!

NOTHING DURBIN COULD HAVE SAID WOULD HAVE STOPPED THE WARMONGERS FROM GETTING THEIR DAMN WAR ON AND YOU KNOW IT! LEAVE DICK DURBIN ALONE!

[Firespirit]

89. Not Gitmo, but he would have been Wellstoned. /nt

[in_cog_ni_to]

93. SOME here don't give a SHIT what would have happened to that man...they're maaaaad at him so he MUST

PAY!!!!! Never mind he voted AGAINST the IWR!:eyes:

[Adelante]

101. That's what I thought about

When I read his statement in the Congressional Record about Bushco trying to get him off the Intel Committee. Black helicoptors. God, I miss Paul Wellstone.

[Adelante]

91. August 2005 "Dead Wrong, Inside an Intelligence Meltdown"

DURBIN: I walked out of those <2002 intelligence committee> hearings having heard something that was truthful and accurate and picked up the newspaper and saw someone from the White House or administration has just said the opposite, or they've said it much differently. I am bound by law not to go to the press and say, something's wrong here. I can't do it.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0508/21/cp.01.html

[illinoisprogressive]

95. Lay off Durbin. Whay is it that you are not holding Edwards just as accountable???

[in_cog_ni_to]

96. Edwards...the man who was ALSO on the committee AND VOTED FOR THE IWR!

:eyes:

Why on earth would they be angry at someone for actually VOTING TO SEND OUR TROOPS INTO IRAQ???!@#$%^&&^%$:grr:

This place is INSANE sometimes.

[Adelante]

99. Take it easy, Incog

We got his back :pals:

[in_cog_ni_to]

112. I wish I could take it easy, but I just fought this same freakin' battle on Saturday

and here it is again! This crap makes my blood boil. Can you tell?;)

Thanks for the support WesDem.:hug:

[Adelante]

122. You missed Sunday and Monday then

This has become a daily event on DU. :eyes:

[in_cog_ni_to]

132. YUP. I was busy on Sunday and Monday...I'm glad I wan't here if this crap

never stopped.:( It's beyond ridiculous what some people will attack. Dick Durbin and Dave Obey???:grr:

[Cameron27]

100. Yes!

And I'll say it again, WHY IS DURBIN THE ONLY ONE TO HAVE THE COURAGE TO SPEAK OUT? ALONE !! AGAIN !! WHERE ARE ALL THE OTHERS!!

[The Count]

103. Edwards co-sponsored IWR, and his war "oops" was one year AFTER Durbin's

But somehow, Edwards is "anti-war" now, but Durbin's "oops" incriminates him.
Yup. makes sense to me.

[in_cog_ni_to]

116. Hey! Up is down, good is bad, love is hate.....on DU.

I've stopped trying to figure some of these people out. NOTHING makes them happy. Some ALWAYS have to have something to bitch about or they're miserable.:(

[MasonJar]

104. Bob Graham voted against the war. I do not know if any of the others did.

[Adelante]

108. Durbin also voted NO on the Lieberman IWR

As did Levin, Milkuski (sp?), Wyden.

[The Count]

139. But Edwards co-sponsored it.(Joementun's) yet he's the anti-war guy on DU. Go figure!

Just to be clear: Edwards co-sponsored both the IWR - as it came to be

as well as Joementum's amendment.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00046:@@@D&summ2=m&
Yet, his "oops" is all cleansing and entitles him to our vote for POTUS, but the rest of them are being demonized.

[Cameron27]

143. But Count,

look what he's saying now! Don't you agree with him? :P

Forget the vote & the co-sponsorship, forget that he was pushing Kerry not to admit that their votes were mistakes in 2004, forget that his apology in 2005 was based on the same lie as the vote, and forget that it wasn't even a mistake, it was a deliberate choice!

Forget all that, because he's authentic now. :-)

[FrenchieCat]

146. Or running for President!

:shrug:

[bling bling]

105. Excuse me, Mr. Leopold. But do you read your own threads?

Do you realize you've started a thread that asks people to call Mr. Durbin's office, offering his phone number, and demand him to resign?

Do you realize you have posted (whether your own words or not) that Mr. Durbin was SILENT and that it has been debunked here dozens of times by responsible DU'ers?????

Nothing from you, huh? No retraction. No apology. No input whatsover? Just ignore the facts and carry on with the witch-hunt, eh? I guess you're just proud that your post has the little flamy icon next to it. Is that how deep it really goes?

What is wrong with people like you? If you're here to initiate witch-hunts against the good guys, take a hike.

What a joke.

[rosesaylavee]

110. Was thinking the same thing.

Apparently he just dropped this flame bait and left.

[indepat]

107. All who knew and all enablers who probably knew have blood on their hands: history will

record their proper places in the life of this Republic, calling them what they really are imo and it is not going to be pretty.

[rosesaylavee]

109. Did you read any of the responses above?

[indepat]

141. Normally do, but you obviously noticed that was not the case here

[rosesaylavee]

142. Its ok. I have been guilty of same.

Lots of good info upthread that tells the full story of what happened.

:hi:

[Leopolds Ghost]

117. The following was posted on the UFPJ list in response to the Durbin letter:

To: UFPJ legislative discussion list < >,
Cc: [e-mail]

Durbin's confession is certainly a big opening for those who want to get the truth out about there being a false official reason for invading Iraq and a true but hidden reason. But if Durbin knew, so too did others, those on his committee and in reality, everybody in Congress and the President and Vice President.

I'm sure everybody remembers the Clinton executive order making regime change America's primary objective in Iraq. That remained the primary American objective untill shortly before the invasion when British Prime Minister Tony Blair explained to George W. Bush that he -- Blair -- could not get the British parlaement behind the invasion based soley on regime change, so practically overnight the emphasis was changed to getting rid of the "weapons of mass destruction." Fact is that such a hasty switch in tactics was a dead givaway and practically everyone had to know that something was fishy when the very reason for war switched over night. You don't have to be a genius to figure out that these reasons for war were all bogus when they were so interchangeble.

Sincerely,
Chris Driscoll

[Adelante]

118. July 18, 2003 "Senator points finger at White House in Iraq flap"

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Democratic senator on Thursday blamed "someone in the White House" for President Bush's now-disputed State of the Union claim that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from Africa, but a Bush spokesman called that "nonsense."

CIA Director George Tenet has accepted responsibility for the inclusion of the statement in Bush's January speech despite the U.S. intelligence community's doubts about that intelligence. Tenet said the line was technically accurate since it cited British intelligence, but he said it should not have been included in the address.

In a speech on the Senate floor Thursday, Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois -- a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee -- blamed unnamed "people in the White House" for the error.

"Someone in the White House decided that they would cut a corner and allow the president to say this by putting in that phrase, 'based on British intelligence.' I would think the president of the United States would be angered over the disservice done to him by members of his staff," said Durbin, who opposed the October congressional resolution that authorized Bush to take military action against Iraq.

"I would think the president of the United States would acknowledge the fact that even if Director Tenet could not discourage that member of the White House staff and stop them from putting in that language, that the president has within his ranks on his staff some person who was willing to spin and hype and exaggerate and cut corners on the most important speech the president delivers in any given year."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/18/intelligence.flap/index.html

[mzmolly]

129. I disagree with your characterization.

http://durbin.senate.gov/issues/iraq101002a.cfm

STATEMENT ON DURBIN AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST IRAQ
Senator Richard Durbin ~ October 10, 2002

[creeksneakers2]

136. Forgiveness promotes truth

We are still far away from the public understanding the larger truth here,that the right wing is evil, fear of the right wing kept the truth about the WMD from coming out, and unless people stand up to it, the right wing will continue to control everything. Durbin is the first to admit what we all know, that while nobody could be certain that Iraq had no WMD, everybody who followed the the story closely knew the WMD intelligence was a pile of agitprop.

Durbin is a start. From here we need everybody,at least Democrats and members of the press to admit they also knew how flawed the intelligence was but remained silent. From there, we need them to admit that nobody questioned the veracity of the intelligence because they were afraid of the right wing attack machine. Once truth about the past is learned by the public, we can start to expose what the right wing really is and how it operates.

The right wing is a greater danger to America than Bush or the war in Iraq. Stopping right wing control should be the highest priority. Without fear,the right wing couldn't operate like they have been.

If those who confess are punished, few will confess. Amnesty should be offered to all who bring this nation back to reality. I welcome Durbin's statement and gladly forgive him.

[Leopolds Ghost]

140. I agree. Kevin Zeese is being a bit too harsh.

When I said I agree with the letter in the OP, I meant I agree that
Durbin's statement is substantially an admission that Congress knew
the truth.

[snappyturtle]

138. They all need to go if this is true. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

144. I am MAD AS HELL, and I AIN'T GONNA TAKE THIS!

Edwards, Bayh, Feinstein and Rockefeller are the guilty ones here.......so much more than the others, it ain't even funny. Had they all come out of that committee and all or more than just the 5 out of 9 voted NAY, it would have sent a "clear" message to the other Dems that something was definitely wrong....and that those on the Intelligence Committee knew that. That would have telegraphed a message without any of them having to breach their "oath" of Silence to betray America and side with President Asshole Bush! But NNNOOooooooo! Couldn't have that!

So all on the committee who voted AYE to the IRW all voted KNOWING THAT there was NO threat, that the intelligence was nothing more than exaggerated LIES based on more LIES! :mad:

I never liked John Edwards that much to begin with (as some may know)....but this is too, too much.

Not only did John Edwards (and Evan Bayh--Glad his ass ain't running) Co-Sponsored Lieberman's piece of Blank check Shit.....

But Edwards wrote an OPed at the time Supporting the Blank check and the War!
http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_09/alia/a2091910.htm
John Edwards Op Ed in the WAPO dated 9/17/02 wrote.....
"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security.
I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear."

John Edwards’ statement on the floor of the senate 9/12/02
"Congress must also make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East.

Iraq is a grave and growing threat. Hussein has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people.

Iraq's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and it poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam Hussein's arsenal and would stop at nothing to use it against us. America must act, and Congress must make clear to Hussein that he faces a united nation."

AND Edwards voted AGAINST the Levin Amendment, the Durbin Amendment and every other amendment meant to slow the march to war down.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3140690

Even after no WMDs were found, Edwards was still supporting that damn war on National TV!
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295 (Hardball Interview - Oct 2003)


But....oh, I forgot....John Edwards said "Sorry" three years after the fact, after he lost the 2004 elections (see Nov 2005 Mea Culpa)and after the polls had turned! So he's OK.....in fact, he's so OK, he's running for President....AGAIN! Such penance! :eyes:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/05/my_john_edwards_problem_and_at.php

http://www.awesclarkdemocrat.com/2007/04/why_not_ask_john_edwards.htm

[madfloridian]

148. There are articles we could all drag out. But we don't.

Not usually. That's a lot blow to post that.

[FrenchieCat]

149. Yeah....Right!

You mean posting articles from 2002? Like you did yesterday? :shrug:

Sorry if I offended your "sensibilities". :rofl:

[madfloridian]

150. No, from 2003. The London Times.

I don't remember a post by you, but I remember some other Clarkies ripping me a good one because I criticized a guy who is pretending to run...maybe...while not running or raising money or anything.

Just waiting...just like he did in 03. Just for the right time.

Sweetie Pie, I have no "sensibilities" left. That is how I survived the last primaries here when my friends did not.

[FrenchieCat]

151. No...I meant your complaining about my posting articles germaine to the

discussion at hand .....While you started a thread yesterday in where you quoted a 2002 statement to make your point. Kinda of hypocritical, don't you think to complain about something you yourself do when you feel like it? See the difference is I ain't complaining.

In reference to the 2003 article you mention.....I'm yawning.

[bling bling]

152. Yeah, FrenchieCat, posting links and articles is a low-blow.

And don't even think about using facts to support an argument, because that's just downright slimy and totally uncalled for. Everyone knows that the facts are trying to Swiftboat Edwards.

You've been here a while now. Haven't you learned anything? Sheesh.

But what else would one expect from someone who supports Clark. Clark supporters opinions don't count. And starting tomorrow anyone who supported Clark isn't allowed to have negative critiques about Obama, either. It'll make it a lot easier for me to just discount whatever it is you have to say...


:crazy:

[FrenchieCat]

153. Well as you know by now, DU politics is not about policies, votes, issues, and thingies like War

and Peace, exhibiting sound judgment and a political track record......

Ironically, I posted those words from John Edwards circa 2002, because in light of our discovering what he actually knew versus what we thought he might have known....gives those words new meaning.

[bling bling]

154. I know, I know.

And I understood the purpose of the links, too. It's actually kinda hard to believe anyone couldn't have understood that. Though it's not at all shocking. I'm starting to see the depths at which some people here are defensive of Edwards to the point that I think they take it very personally and just can't bare to hear it. And I mean, whatever it is, they don't want to hear it. You just hate Edwards. Simple as that (promptly plugs ears, LA LA LA LA LA LA LA).

What can you do.