Dick Durbin, Mike Gravel and Sibel Edmonds: When Silence is treason

[lukery]

Presidential candidate Mike Gravel gave Scott Horton a terrific interview today. I recommend you listen to the whole thing.

Gravel mentions Dick Durbin's recent statement that, because he was on the Senate Intelligence Committee, he knew that the egadministration was telling WMD lies prior to the Iraq invasion, but that Durbin couldn't say anything. Gravel says that's a lie - and that he, Gravel, is living proof. In 1971, Gravel read out the Pentagon Papers on the Senate floor, entering them into the Congressional Record, and later won a court case, proving that he was right, and within his rights, to do that.

I've been meaning to bring up the Durbin brouhaha in the context of Sibel Edmonds case (of course). Downstairs, I'll tell you why it's relevant (and also a heads up about some other Sibel-related stuff coming down the pike later in the week)

*************


In case you missed it, late last month, Senator Dick Durbin dropped this 'bombshell' on the Senate floor (C&L has the video, courtesy of Olbermann):

""A few hundred feet away from here, in a closed room, carefully guarded, the Intelligence Committee was meeting on a daily basis for top secret breifings about the information we were receiving and the information we had in the Intelligence Committee was not the same information being given to the American people.

I couldn't believe it. Members of this administration were in active, heated debate over whether aluminum tubes really meant the Iraqis were developing nuclear weapons. Some within the administration saying of course not, it's not the same kind of aluminum tube, at the same time that members of the administration were telling the American people to be fearful of mushroom shaped clouds.

I was angry about it. Frankly, I couldn't do much about it. Because you see in the Intelligence Committee we were sworn to secrecy. 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's being given to this Congress." We can't do that. We couldn't make those statements.

And so, in my frustration, I sat here on the floor of the Senate and listened to this heated debate about invading Iraq, thinking the American people are being misled, they are not being told the truth. And that's why I joined 22 of my colleagues in voting no. I didn't feel at the time that the American people knew the real facts.

So what happened? We invaded, turned loose hundreds, if not thousands of people scouring Iraq for these weapons of mass destruction, never found one of them. Looked for nuclear weapons, no evidence whatsoever."

Of course, that means that everyone in the committee knew that the American public was being lied to - and nobody said anything, until now.

It turns out, apparently, that Durbin was either lying or mistaken when he said that he "couldn't do much about it."

In the interview that Presidential candidate Mike Gravel gave to Scott Horton yesterday, Gravel explained that "any member of Congress can release all kinds of stuff if they want to, in conscience, that they think the people should know." Gravel knows of which he speaks, in 1971, he put the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional record, and was vindicated in a Supreme Court ruling.

Here's a partial transcript (mine) from the interview:

"Mike Gravel: (22 mins)Are you familiar with what happened with (Senator Dick Durbin), making the statement that he was conflicted because he could observe the fact that the President was saying one statement to the people and that the members of Congress were briefed on something else?

Scott Horton: Right - in the run up to the war... Durbin was on the Intelligence Committee and he knew that what they were telling us was lies.

MG: Right - now let's analyze that for a minute, and we'll see something very interesting. First off, Dick Durbin, making that statement, right now, in my mind is very courageous. Here's a guy, who has now got his conscience, and he's reacting to it, and made it public. What he's doing is destroying the argument of Hillary, by God, and Edwards - all of the people who voted for the war, at the same time when he knew there was a shell-game going on, and when Hillary or any of the others, say 'Well, if I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have voted for it' - well, they knew *then* That's what Durbin's statement says - they knew then! But what Durbin did unfortunately not know was that the Supreme Court ruled in my case, Gravel vs US Government, about the Pentagon Papers, that a member of Congress cannot be held responsible for the secrecy of the administration. And so, any member of Congress can release all kinds of stuff if they want to, in conscience, that they think the people should know!

SH: So Durbin's excuse that he would have gone to prison if he'd told us is null?

MG: Just the opposite! And of course, he said this statement, he said: "I thought that if I released this secret information, that people would die." Well, by not releasing it, people have died. And he was not at risk for anything that he might have revealed. And none of them would be, because the operative law is what the Supreme Court ruled in my case. The problem is there's nobody, nobody has dared to do anything about this since I was in office. And even after the courtcase, I released stuff - (inaudible) and other things.

It's just very sad, the level of timdity, and the lack of conscience. I say 'lack of conscience' because this is exactly what we had during the Vietnam era - people detached themselves from the loss of life. They don't appreciate the fact that... you know, when Murtha came out and was saying 'these people are dying, this is not right' - this was quite a change of heart for him, because he's been one of the major forces in Congress supporting the military-industrial-complex which brought about the Iraq war. So, it's the timidity, it's the lack of getting your moral sights up until you realize what you are doing with the power that you have, as a Senator. So, the game-playing is on, and that's what I'm trying to cut through. I'll be able to cut through it Scott, I'll tell you, if after my press conference, next Monday, the peace groups get organized, and make a showing at the press conference, and then turn around and make this the cause, I'll have the details all lined out, what the leadership is supposed to do. I'll tell you what, they'll respond!"

(As I say, go check out the rest of the interview, lots of great sensible-sounding stuff there, including his plan to end the war (by taking specific action steps in Congress), and details about his upcoming press conference (Monday) etc.)

Which brings me to Sibel Edmonds. Again.
involved in treasonous activity
Sibel has told her story (that Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Marc Grossman and Eric Edelman are involved in treasonous activity) to the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Some day - soon if we can get Henry Waxman to hold hearings - not only will we learn everything she knows, we'll also have to consider that many people knew all the details all along, and did... nothing! They stood by, knowing what they knew, while Richard Perle was Chairman of the Defense Policy Board. They stood by, knowing what they knew, while Doug Feith was running the Office of Special Plans, leading us into war.

It's enough to make me angry.

And to be clear, at the time, Sibel's claims weren't just 'allegations' - they'd already been investigated and proven. As Sibel said recently:

"This has been going on for five years, and it's not a case (that needs) to be investigated, that part has already been done by the Senate Judiciary Committee, by the DoJ's Inspector Generals office, so it just have to have a hearing and just put an end to it and see some oversight and accountability as a result. "

In other Sibel news, as you know, we've been demanding that Waxman hold hearings into her case - hearings that he promised would occur when Dems were in the majority. Details are available at Let Sibel Edmonds Speak. At some point later this week, we will have some new content being released, and when that gets published, we'll start with the phones again - calling Waxman's office demanding hearings. We'll need your help.

(let me know if you want to be added to an email list for announcements)

x-posted at my place http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2007/05/dick-durbin-mike-gravel-and-sibel.html
and in Orange at dkos http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/8/22215/41665

[StateSecrets]

1. K & R

[lukery]

2. the silence from waxman

is deafening

i'll get an answer of soe description from him one way or other by the end of next week.

[pberq]

23. thanks for your work, lukery.

We can only hope that Waxman just has too much on his plate at the moment, and that he will get to this in good time.

[lukery]

26. waxman could save himself some friends

if he simply said - 'yeah, sweet, we'll do it in august'

[lukery]

3. john edwards

apparently edwards was on the committee too

[Toots]

6. Edwards was "Co-Sponsor" to the damn thing

I can't believe all the people who are taken in by him..

[Blackhatjack]

12. To what are you referring 'the damn thing'? The IWR? I thought lukery was talking about intel...

Do you know exactly what intelligence was presented to Edwards as a member of the Intelligence Committee? (If you do, then you have a security clearance).

I do not think you can bootstrap condemnation of Edwards for not acting on intelligence which you only suspect Edwards received.

[FrenchieCat]

37. Yes, we do know.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=844597&mesg_id=850835

and then explain his votes.

[Blackhatjack]

51. If you count the number of versions redacted differently, there were more than two...

... and to this day neither you nor I know exactly what information was made available to Edwards and others on the Intelligence Committee. What you have is a suspicion, certainly not enough to prove what you are alleging in the linked thread.

[Blackhatjack]

10. lukery, you need to research what Rockefeller was told, different from other committee members ...

He has said on occasion that he was unable to share that information with the other members of the intelligence committee at the time, that he objected vigorously, and wrote a letter to preserve his objection.

I do not know exactly what the other committee members were presented in the way of intelligence(and neither do any of the others attacking them) but I do know that the Bush policy of only informing the Committee Chair and the Ranking Minority member was S.O.P.

Durbin's remarks should be read in light of this information.

[lukery]

13. agreed

in fact, he said that he actually couldnt get info.

but there are people who know what sibel knows - shes told her story to Senate Intelligence, Senate Judiciary, 911 Commission, Waxman's team - and the DoJ knows the details of her story, as does the FBI mgmt etc.

[Blackhatjack]

15. You are 100% correct and we need to stay on this issue until she gets a public hearing...

I suspect that there has been furious action behind the scenes to keep Sibel from ever appearing in a public hearing where she could reveal what she knows.

I still have faith that Waxman will eventually hold a hearing and call her to testify. However, her allegations may involve ongoing investigations that would be affected if she were allowed to testify right this moment.

If Sibel ever testifies publicly, you will know that the floodgates have been opened ....

I hope it happens.

[FrenchieCat]

38. They all had access to the Classified NIE after October 1, 2002

and later, they had access to the Declassified NIE on October 7th.

There was much difference between the 90 page classified version versus the 25 page declassified version, that just the differences between the two raised alarm bells to some on the Intel Committee. Graham begged congress to read them both. Many didn't.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=844597&mesg_id=850835

[Blackhatjack]

52. I do not believe that fact has been proven .... certainly not the same information

[FrenchieCat]

58. What It is clear is that Sen. Graham saw the intel, as did Sen. Levin, Durbin, Wyden,

and Mikulski(all on the intel committee)and they all voted NO on the IWR.

It is also clear that other Dems on the Intel Committee, i.e., Feinstein and Rockerfeller saw fit to vote for some sort of "slow the shit down" amendment.

It appears that the only two Dems on the Intel Committee that felt that the "evidence" pointed to a Blank check authorization and nothing less were Sen. Evan Bayh and John Edwards.

Maybe that's why I am convinced that the Intelligence said plenty like....."There is no real there, there."

----------------------------------

DEMS ON THE INTEL COMMITTEE WHO VOTED NO ON THE IWR -

BOB GRAHAM, voted NO on Durbin/Voted No on Levin, BUT also Voted NO on IWR

CARL LEVIN, who also introduced the Levin Amendment to only vote to force bush to go to UN first, then come back to congress AFTER going to the UN, for another vote for Congress. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00235
Amendment Defeated.
Voted YES on Durbin/Voted YES on Levin

RON WYDEN - Voted YES on Durbin/Voted Yes on Levin

RICHARD DURBIN, who also introduced the Durbin Amendment to limit authorization to an "imminent" threat from Iraq only.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236
Amendment Defeated
Voted Yes on Durbin/Voted Yes on Levin

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI - Voted YES on Durbin/Voted YES on Levin
-------------

DEMS ON THE INTEL COMMITTEE WHO VOTED YES ON THE IWR -

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV - Voted NO on Durbin/Voted YES on Levin

DIANNE FEINSTEIN - Voted NO on Durbin/Voted YES on Levin

EVAN BAYH - Voted NO on Durbin/Voted NO on Levin

JOHN EDWARDS - Voted NO on Durbin/Voted NO on Levin

-----------------
THESE ARE THE FACTS!

[lukery]

4. "treasonous activity"

oops - i've just realized that i mistranscribed the "treasonous activity" quote in the OP

sorry about that.

btw - does anyone have a reference to a site or a tool or something that converts html to DU-Speak? the manual task is soooo annoying.

[Skinner]

5. Point of order: Gravel did not say that Durbin lied.

Here is what Gravel says:

Right - now let's analyze that for a minute, and we'll see something very interesting. First off, Dick Durbin, making that statement, right now, in my mind is very courageous. Here's a guy, who has now got his conscience, and he's reacting to it, and made it public. What he's doing is destroying the argument of Hillary, by God, and Edwards - all of the people who voted for the war, at the same time when he knew there was a shell-game going on, and when Hillary or any of the others, say 'Well, if I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have voted for it' - well, they knew *then* That's what Durbin's statement says - they knew then! But what Durbin did unfortunately not know was that the Supreme Court ruled in my case, Gravel vs US Government, about the Pentagon Papers, that a member of Congress cannot be held responsible for the secrecy of the administration. And so, any member of Congress can release all kinds of stuff if they want to, in conscience, that they think the people should know!

Gravel did not accuse him of lying. Gravel said that Durbin did not know the relevant law. (For the record, I am not in a position to judge whether Gravel's case is relevant to Durbin, but that's irrelevant to the point of this post.)

And Gravel is correct. If Durbin believed that the law forbade him from disclosing what he knew, then his admission that he knew the truth but "couldn't do much about it" is not a lie. It is an honest accounting of his viewpoint.

[lukery]

7. correction accepted/acknowledged

i didn't mean to impugn durbin - i included Gravel's statement that he thought (generously, IMHO) that Durbin was being 'courageous'

otoh, durbin should have known that he did have alternatives.

[Edith Ann]

43. Durbin/Edwards

You'd think with all the lawyers in Washington someone would do some research. I tend to be for Edwards since Clark isn't running, but I'd like to hear what he has to say about this. By the way Sen. Gravel is no joke. He's an angry man, angry at what he has seen and heard from both sides. He's been there and stood up for the Vietnam soldiers and helped expose lies that stopped that killing.

[Blackhatjack]

53. Then you should be very happy with all of Edwards positions on ending this war...n/t

[donsu]

21. it still makes Durbin a coward who should leave office

our dead military don't think silence is golden

[Tinksrival]

27. Your post makes me very sad.

Senator Dick Durbin is one of our most hardest working true progressive voices in the Senate. He did not stay silent. He went out on that senate floor and spoke his heart out to his fellow Dems. He tried his hardest to at least get an amendment to that damn IWR to remove the wording "imminent threat".
Losing Dick Durbin would be like shooting yourself in the foot. Point that barrel somewhere else.

[karynnj]

46. Rather than kick him out, I would prefer him as the Presidential candidate

over the entire group running. For all the reasons you give and the fact that he is incredibly articulate and seems to be a very honest, good person.

[never cry wolf]

22. It doesn't sound relevant to me

I am not in a position to know either, not being a lawyer, but a few quick googles tells me that Gravel received the papers from Ellsburg as a leak. He entered them into the record a few weeks after portions had already been printed in the NY Times and the WaPo and 3 days after the SCOTUS had already upheld the paper's right to print it.

He claims a member of congress cannot be held responsible for the secrecy of the administration. To me that says that if someone from the administration leaks info to a member of congress, that is the administrations problem, not the congresscritter's, he is under no obligation to protect an admin's secret on the floor of the house or senate if the admin did not do so itself.

In Durbin's case, he received the classified information directly from the administration in closed hearings, not from an outside source. Durbin would have been in Ellsburg's shoes who likely would have been convicted if not for the gross misconduct of Nixon's plumbers breaking into his psychiatrist's office.

Interesting synopsis on Gravel vs. US here: http://law.jrank.org/pages/12642/Gravel-v-United-States.html

It seems the main significance of the case was that The Supreme Court ruled that congressional aides are in fact "alter egos" of the legislators for whom they work. As such, their speech receives special protection under the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause.

It appears that upon a cursory look no where does it say that it defined that a congress person can leak classified information and be protected by the Speech or Debate Clause.

Sorry, I'll back Durbin all the way on this one. Leaking classified information COULD put intelligence officers lives in jeopardy as well as compromise their sources. I'd rather have Dick hounding the admin on the senate floor rather than have him sitting in prison disgraced.

[LSK]

56. DURBIN TRIED TO WARN PEOPLE

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x789111

[LSK]

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

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x775754

[Venus Dog]

8. Why all this backtracking all of a sudden?

and all these mea culpas - Tenet...Durbin...Edwards...After 5 years of this hell and thousands of lives lost and wasted, why is everyone suddenly finding their consciences and "speaking out"? What is going on? Does anyone have a list of all the members on the Intelligence committee at that time? This all makes me even more sick than usual. There is an inordinate amount of CYA going on right now and I'd like to know why?

[randyconspiracybuff]

18. Mea Culpas Are a Way of Life in Washington

Especially, as the war grows more and more unpopular.

Coming out and saying these kinds of things is easy and cheap once the public has turned against the policy.

[orleans]

39. here ya go:

Committee membership at the time of the investigation

The following nine Republicans were members of the Committee at the time the investigation was launched: Committee Chairman C. Patrick Roberts (R-KS), Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), R. Michael DeWine (R-OH), Christopher S. "Kit" Bond (R-MO), C. Trent Lott (R-MS), Olympia J. Snowe (R-ME), Charles Hagel (R-NE), C. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), and John W. Warner (R-VA).
The following eight Democrats made up the rest of the Committee: Vice-Chairman John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (D-WV), Carl Levin (D-MI), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ronald L. Wyden (D-OR), Richard J. Durbin (D-IL), B. Evans "Evan" Bayh III (D-IN), Johnny R. "John" Edwards (D-NC), and Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD).
posted by chimpsrsmarter
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=773814

and then this posted by in_cog_ni_to

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114
Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Vote Counts: YEAs 77
NAYs 23





Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---77
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)....VOTED YES!!!
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)...VOTED YES!!!
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)...VOTED YES!!!
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)...VOTED YES!
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)


NAYs ---23
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)....VOTED NO!
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)....VOTED NO!

Mikulski (D-MD)....VOTED NO!
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)....VOTED NO!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=773814

[FourScore]

9. kick

[Horse with no Name]

11. Okay let's have a reality check

Do you believe the SCOTUS would vindicate Durbin or Edwards or any Democrat who violated the rules of silence? Or, most likely, they would be sentenced to death for treason.
This *IS* the same SCOTUS that installed Bush so that he could inflict his mayhem on the world. Convince me that they weren't complicit in any of this.
Gravel was in a different time--a different Supreme Court. Back before the our government was a continuous branch of the repub party.

[Blackhatjack]

14. Lots of intelligence that should have been revealed to Congress was restricted by Bush/Cheney...

If you recall Bush claimed he was concerned about 'leaks' and said he would only be briefing Committee Chairs and Ranking Minority members, and dared them to share that information with anyone else.

I agree that this was a different time --and Bush was just aching to charge a Democrat with 'leaking' classified information.

But to this day we do not know exactly what any member was told.

[Carolina]

55. No we don't

know what every member was told, nor does it really matter because there was sufficient information publicly available for our senators to do their own homework and discern the lies, inconsistencies and spin. We at DU knew IWR was a bad idea. Timing was also noteworthy. B/C were pushing IWR as a 'do or die' vote conveniently just before the 2002 midterm elections and a repuke operative even quipped something to the effect that you don't unveil a new product before Labor Day! Sheesh.

Regardless of the intel, Robert Byrd warned on 10/10/2002:

"I should point out that the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and S.J. Resolution 46 have several things in common. Congress is being asked to vote on the use of force without hard evidence that the country poses an immediate threat to the national security of the United States. We are being asked to vote on a resolution authorizing the use of force in a hyped-up, politically charged atmosphere of an election year. Congress is being rushed into a judgment.

That is why I stand here today, before this chamber and before this nation, urging, pleading for some sanity, for more time to consider this resolution ... for more hard evidence, not more presidential rhetoric ... before we put this great nation on the track to war ...

If the need for taking military action against Iraq is so obvious and so urgent, then why are nearly every one of our allies opposed to it? ... We need to be more careful ... to build up our intelligence efforts ... If we clobber Iraq today, do we clobber Iran tomorrow? When do we attack China? North Korea? Syria?

September 11 should have made us more aware of the pain that comes from being attacked ... the damage, the deaths and the suffering ... This is what we are about to do to another country. We are about to inflict this horrible suffering upon other people ..."

His fellow Democratic Senators who now seek the presidency should have heeded those all-too-true words THEN ... WHEN IT MATTERED no matter what B/C were telling them!

[randyconspiracybuff]

19. You're Not Serious, Are You?

There is no way Bush would have tried to prosecute Durbin.

It was all about politics and career. Durbin is a politician. He was afraid of political ramifications. Basically being kicked off the Intelligence Committee and being accused of being a traitor.

[StateSecrets]

20. With you

I am with you on that!

[ajeffersonian]

16. Who trusts the intelligence committees?

Lukery - thanks for another informative post. I have a basic mistrust of anyone and everyone on the "intelligence" committees, in fact, of the committees themselves. They are used to give cover to congress - to Senators & Representatives who want to give the impression that they have the interests of the Nation in mind - but are "restricted" by "national security". So for any Senator or Representative to use an excuse that even though he knew that the nation was being misled, he was "sworn to secrecy" by the committee is BS, he is sworn to uphold the Constitution and to represent the people of the nation, not some fabricated committee. Constitutionally he has the same authority over and access to information as the executive branch - and the same responsibility to exercise that authority for the benefit of the nation. So, no, I don't buy into his argument, and don't trust him to act any different in the future.

As to a hearing on Sibel's case - I am still hopeful re Waxman - but as for members of the intelligence committees, I won't hold my breath waiting for their support.

"How much better is it for neighbors to help than to hurt one another; how much happier must it make them. If nations will cease to make war on one another, if they will live in friendship with all mankind, they can employ all their time in providing food and clothing for themselves and their people. Their men will not be destroyed in war, their women and children will lie down to sleep in their homes without fear of being surprised by their enemies and killed or carried away. Their numbers will be increased instead of diminished and they will live in plenty and in quiet." --Thomas Jefferson

[StateSecrets]

17. Agreed

I Share your mistrust 'ajeffersonian':-)

[lukery]

24. i share your distrust

not only in the intelligence" committees, but in the whole damn congress (and the other 2 branches of govt don't look much better)

someone call 911.

[BeHereNow]

25. Kick, thanks for posting he interview. Listening now. N/T

Why has this thread sunk to the second page with so few responses?
Can anyone tell me?

BHN

[lukery]

29. it's a conspiracy!

or everyone hates me.

or something.

[BeHereNow]

59. I don't hate you.

I appreciate you VERY much.
BHN:hug:

[ftr23532]

28. K&R!

Keep up the great work Lukery!

:kick:&:thumbsup:

[Hieronymus]

30. I've lost respect for Durbin.

[lukery]

33. to be fair

the others are worse...

[mmonk]

47. No.

He didn't stay silent.

[faithnotgreed]

31. a big kick and recommend

[lala_rawraw]

32. And if some publication let's reporters

Write the story, then we might know. Right Luke?

[lukery]

34. i'm not exactly sure what you're asking

but, yep, i'd sure appreciate some help from the media, and/or Mr Waxman.

[fooj]

40. I've got a newsworthy story...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x848470

Air Traffic Controllers call for Criminal Investigation

[mmonk]

45. That's the right thinking.

More information in the public domain creates more questions and pressure than currently exists with this sweeping things under a rug.

[upi402]

35. kick and recommend for Sibel

:applause:

[FrenchieCat]

36. Durbin tried......what he felt he could try. He voted NO on the IWR,

Put in his own admendment, and spoke on the Senate Floor about Saddam not having any Nukes. He was nearly kicked off the Intelligence Committee--http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/03/07/23.html

THE NIE (INTELLIGENCE REPORTS MAKING THE CASE FOR WAR), BOTH THE CLASSIFIED AND DECLASSIFIED VERSIONS, WERE BOTH AVAILABLE PRIOR TO THE VOTE TO ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. SOME MAY HAVE NOT KNOWN THAT THE 90 PAGE CLASSIFIED VERSION EXISTED, BUT THOSE ON THE INTEL COMMITTED CERTAINLY DID KNOW. THOSE TWO NIE VERSIONs (THE DECLASSIFIED VERSION WAS 25 PAGES) WERE INCONSISTENT WHEN COMPARED TO EACH OTHER, AND CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERs READING THE LONGER CLASSIFIED VERSION WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THE INTEL HAD BEEN "COOKED" FOR MARKET TO SELL WAR. SEN GRAHAM BEGGED THEM TO READ IT! MANY DIDN'T....BUT SOME DID.

THE INFO WAS DIFFICULT TO GET, BUT IT WAS GOTTEN. THANKS TO SEN. GRAHAM!

Here's the timeline!
(They all knew or could have known if they would have read the classified NIE that Sen. Grahm begged them to read.....and those voting YEAH on the IWR who sat on the intel committee are the most culpable; Republicans AND Democrats)......

(8:00pm) October 1, 2002: CIA Delivers National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq to Congress
The CIA delivers the classified version of its 90-page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq (see October 1, 2002) to Congress. It is available for viewing by Congresspersons under tight security in the offices of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. But no more than a half-dozen or so members actually come to review the NIE, despite the urgings of Peter Zimmerman, the scientific advisor to the Senate foreign relations committee, who is one of the first to look at the document. Zimmerman was stunned to see how severely the dissenting opinions of the Energy Department and the State Department undercut the conclusions that were so boldly stated in the NIE’s “Key Judgments” section. He later recalls, “Boy, there’s nothing in there. If anybody takes the time to actually read this, they can’t believe there actually are major WMD programs.” One of the lawmakers who does read the document is Senator Bob Graham (D-Fl). Like Zimmerman, he is disturbed by the document’s “many nuances and outright dissents.” But he is unable to say anything about them in public because the NIE is classified.
Entity Tags: US Congress, Peter Zimmerman, Bob Graham, Central Intelligence Agency
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion


October 2, 2002: Closed-Door Congressional Testimony by Top CIA Officials Undercut Conclusions Made in NIE
In a congressional closed-door hearing, CIA Director George Tenet and his deputy John McLaughlin appear before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to discuss the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE-) on Iraq that was released the day before (see (8:00pm) October 1, 2002). When Tenet is asked whether the agency has any of its own spies on the ground in Iraq who can verify the NIE’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s alleged arsenal of illicit weapons, he replies that the agency does not. “I was stunned,” Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) later recalls. At some point during the hearing, Levin asks McLaughlin: “If didn’t feel threatened, did not feel threatened, is it likely that he would initiate an attack using a weapon of mass destruction?” McLaughlin responds that under those circumstances “the likelihood… would be low.” But the probability of Hussein using such weapons would increase, McLaughlin says, if the US initiates an attack. Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) asks McLaughlin whether he has read the British white paper (see September 24, 2002) on Iraq and whether he disagrees with any of its conclusions. McLaughlin says, “The one thing where I think they stretched a little bit beyond where we would stretch is on the points about Iraq seeking uranium from various African locations. We’ve looked at those reports and we don’t think they are very credible…” Graham and Levin ask the CIA to release a declassified version of the NIE so the public will be aware of the dissenting opinions in the document and so members of Congress can have something to refer to during their debates on the Iraq war resolution. The CIA will comply with the request and release a declassified version of the document two days later (see October 4, 2002).
Entity Tags: Jon Kyl, Carl Levin, George J. Tenet, John E. McLaughlin, Bob Graham
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion


October 4, 2002: CIA Releases Public Version of National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq
The CIA releases a 25-page declassified version of its October 1 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq (see October 1, 2002) and posts it on the agency’s website for public viewing. The document, titled “Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs,” presents a very different assessment of the threat posed by Iraq than the original document. Printed on slick glossy magazine-style paper, and full of colorful maps, graphs, tables, and photos, the document contains few of the caveats and nuances that are in the classified version. Nor does it include the dissenting opinions of the Energy Department’s in-house intelligence agency, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, or the Air Force’s National Air and Space Intelligence Center. Paul Pillar, the principal author of the paper, will later admit, “In retrospect, we shouldn’t have done that white paper at all.” Instead of intelligence analysis, the “paper was policy advocacy,” he admits.
Entity Tags: Paul R. Pillar, Central Intelligence Agency
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion


October 4, 2002: Senator Angry over Omissions in CIA White Paper
When Senator Bob Graham reads the CIA’s white paper on Iraq, a document written for public consumption that was supposed to have been an accurate summary of the agency’s recently released NIE (see October 1, 2002), he begins “to question whether the White House telling the truth—or even an interest in knowing the truth,” he later says. The document includes none of the dissenting opinions or caveats that were in the NIE, and therefore makes the CIA’s evidence against Saddam Hussein appear much stronger than it actually is. When Graham calls Tenet to ask what happened, the CIA director becomes defensive and accuses the senator of questioning his professionalism and patriotism. Graham then sends the CIA a letter requesting that the agency declassify the dissenting opinions as well as the passages that contained more nuanced and cautionary language. He also requests that the agency declassify his October 2 exchange (see October 2, 2002) with Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin concerning the NIE. In that exchange, McLaughlin had conceded that the likelihood of Saddam Hussein launching an attack with weapons of mass destruction were “low.”
Entity Tags: Bob Graham, George J. Tenet, Central Intelligence Agency
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion


October 7, 2002: CIA Declassifies Some Iraq Intelligence at Senator’s Request
In response to a letter from Senator Bob Graham of the Senate Intelligence Committee (see October 4, 2002), the CIA agrees to declassify three passages from the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq (see October 1, 2002) that said Saddam Hussein is unlikely to use chemical or biological weapons unless he is attacked. The CIA also agrees to release a portion of the October 2 exchange between Graham and Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin, in which McLaughlin stated that the probability that Saddam would initiate and attack was low (see October 2, 2002). Finally, in response to Graham’s request for additional information on alleged links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, the CIA says its “understanding of the relationship… is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information… received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.”
Entity Tags: George J. Tenet, Bob Graham
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq_146

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEMS ON THE INTEL COMMITTEE WHO VOTED NO ON THE IWR -

BOB GRAHAM, voted NO on Durbin/Voted No on Levin, BUT also Voted NO on IWR

CARL LEVIN, who also introduced the Levin Amendment to only vote to force bush to go to UN first, then come back to congress AFTER going to the UN, for another vote for Congress. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00235
Amendment Defeated.
Voted YES on Durbin/Voted YES on Levin

RON WYDEN - Voted YES on Durbin/Voted Yes on Levin

RICHARD DURBIN, who also introduced the Durbin Amendment to limit authorization to an "imminent" threat from Iraq only.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236
Amendment Defeated
Voted Yes on Durbin/Voted Yes on Levin

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI - Voted YES on Durbin/Voted YES on Levin
-------------

DEMS ON THE INTEL COMMITTEE WHO VOTED YES ON THE IWR -

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV - Voted NO on Durbin/Voted YES on Levin

DIANNE FEINSTEIN - Voted NO on Durbin/Voted YES on Levin

EVAN BAYH - Voted NO on Durbin/Voted NO on Levin

JOHN EDWARDS - Voted NO on Durbin/Voted NO on Levin

-----------------
THESE ARE THE FACTS!

[HardRocker05]

41. i generally like durbin, but his statement indicates messed up priorities; i don't care what

kind of 'vow of secrecy' he took - telling america the truth so that it will not enter into an unneccessary, unwinnable war based on lies takes precedence over everything else. it is clear now and it was clear then that many members of congress had priorities leading up to the war that had nothing to do with honesty, courage, or doing the right thing for america.

[whyzayker]

42. K&R

[mmonk]

44. Thanks again lukery.

Someday soon I hope, justice will prevail.

[malaise]

48. Good for Gravel!! n/t

[lukery]

49. new thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x851301

[seemslikeadream]

50. Don't forget about the Sibel Edmonds and other Whistleblowers Group

:hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=344

[robertpaulsen]

54. Kicked & bookmarked!

:kick: