Truespeak

A little over a month ago, the New York Times ran an articleby James Dao about the mounting death toll in Iraq. The count had recently reached 2,000 and Dao was reporting on what he described as "the painful stresses and recurring strains that an extended conflict, with all its demands for multiple tours, is placing on families, towns and the military." In the article he told the stories of several soldiers who have died in Iraq and the struggles their families have had to endure. One of those soldiers was Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr.

Another member of the 1/5, Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr, rejected a $24,000 bonus to re-enlist. Corporal Starr believed strongly in the war, his father said, but was tired of the harsh life and nearness of death in Iraq. So he enrolled at Everett Community College near his parents' home in Snohomish, Wash., planning to study psychology after his enlistment ended in August.

But he died in a firefight in Ramadi on April 30 during his third tour in Iraq. He was 22.

Sifting through Corporal Starr's laptop computer after his death, his father found a letter to be delivered to the marine's girlfriend. "I kind of predicted this," Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. "A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances."

His father, Brian Starr, had been preparing a basement apartment in his home for Corporal Starr to live in after leaving the Marines. Now Mr. Starr plans to turn it into a memorial of sorts, to display Corporal Starr's war ribbons and the neatly folded flag that once draped his coffin. Perhaps he will also install a pool table there to remind people of his son's fun-loving side.

Mr. Starr, an accountant, said he remained convinced that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. But he said he would also like firsthand confirmation that the war, and Corporal Starr's death, were not in vain.

"I'm hoping, my wife is hoping, that we can visit Ramadi," he said, fighting back tears. "And feel safe. And feel like Jeff died for something."

If you read the actual letter from Cpl. Starr (which is absolutely heart-breaking) you'll see that he did indeed write what Dao had quoted.But leave it to the crazies to complain. And who should complain the loudest? Well, none other than uber-wingnut Michelle Malkin. Little did she know that what she was doing would eventually come back to bite one of her own.

Two days after the NYTimes article ran, Malkin complained on her website that the Times had not told the entire story. She included a letter that she alleges to have received from Cpl. Starr's uncle in which he includes more of the original letter's content, including the entire paragraph from which the Times had quoted:

"Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."

Malkin remarked:

Now you know what the Times left out. Now you know the rest of Corporal Starr's story.

[...]

Thank God for men like him.

As for the Times, what do I always say? It's always more informative for what it leaves out than for what it puts in.

Five days later, Malkin followed up on the story with an Op-ed piece in the NY Post and another rant on her website where she stated:

"OTHERS HAVE DIED FOR MY FREEDOM. NOW THIS IS MY MARK."

These are words you did not read in the New York Times. They are the words of the late Corporal Jeffrey B. Starr, whose letter to his girlfriend in case of death in Iraq was selectively edited by the Times to convey a bogus sense of "fatalism."

My column in the New York Post today and elsewhere follows up on last week's blog post about the Times' butchery.

All feelings for Ms. Malkin aside, she obviously dislikes it when people misquote, or as she says "selectively edit"s, someone's words. Especially, it would appear, the words of our fallen soldiers. So it is with this knowledge that I am sure she is now applying the same scrutiny and resulting ire to George W. Bush's speech this morning. After all, Bush told us about Cpl. Starr's letter when he said:

We pray for the military families who mourn the loss of loves ones. We hold them in our hearts -- and we honor the memory of every fallen soldier, sailor, airman, Coast Guardsman, and Marine.

One of those fallen heroes is a Marine Corporal named Jeff Starr, who was killed fighting the terrorists in Ramadi earlier this year. After he died, a letter was found on his laptop computer. Here's what he wrote, he said, "[I]f you're reading this, then I've died in Iraq. I don't regret going. Everybody dies, but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so they can live the way we live. Not [to] have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators_. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."

You may have noticed the omission. Bush clearly left out the line that the NYTimes quoted to portray, in Malkin's words, a bogus sense of "fatalism." I wonder what she would call Bush's selective editing... Possibly a bogus sense of optimism?

As for Malkin, I find it interesting that someone who has played fast and loose with the truth on so many occasions should take exception to the NYTimes' "selective editing" of Starr's letter when they were clearly using his to illustrate a specific point. Bush's "selective editing," on the other hand, was a blatant attempt to eliminate any negativity or doubt that our soldiers might harbor about their mission. In my opinion, Bush's omission is a much more egregious misrepresentation of Starr's true feelings than Dao's.

Now, as for Bush, here's what I always like to say: He's always more informative for what his speech writers leave out than for what they put in.

Colin Powell's former chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson really needs to quit beating around the bush and tell us how he really feels. This is priceless:

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff says President Bush was "too aloof, too distant from the details" of post-war planning, allowing underlings to exploit Bush's detachment and make bad decisions.

In an Associated Press interview Monday, former Powell chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson also said that wrongheaded ideas for the handling of foreign detainees after Sept. 11 arose from a coterie of White House and Pentagon aides who argued that "the president of the United States is all-powerful," and that the Geneva Conventions were irrelevant.

Wilkerson blamed Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and like-minded aides. Wilkerson said that Cheney must have sincerely believed that Iraq could be a spawning ground for new terror assaults, because "otherwise I have to declare him a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard."

[snip]

[Wilkerson] said he has almost, but not quite, concluded that Cheney and others in the administration deliberately ignored evidence of bad intelligence and looked only at what supported their case for war.

For the last several years, the Republican party's strongest attribute has been their unity. Whatever one Republican said you could count on hearing the same thing from at least a dozen others. If nothing else, they had their talking points down pat. But that was when Bush's approval numbers were high. Now that his numbers are tanking, we're finally starting to see the cracks in the facade. People are finally starting to realize that the emperor truly has no clothes. If the Democrats are going to take advantage of this, they need to keep hammering. A little party unity could go a long way right now.

Well, that's one.

Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham said Monday he is resigning from Congress after pleading guilty to taking more than $2 million in bribes in a criminal conspiracy involving at least three defense contractors.

After entering his plea in San Diego, California, the eight-term California Republican said he was "deeply sorry."

"The truth is I broke the law, concealed my conduct and disgraced my office," he told reporters, his voice strained with emotion. "I know I will forfeit my reputation, my worldly possessions -- most importantly the trust of my friends and family."

Asked by U.S. District Judge Larry Burns if he had accepted cash and gifts and then tried to influence the Defense Department on behalf of the donors, Cunningham said, "Yes, your honor."

Cunningham's plea agreement with federal prosecutors stemmed from an investigation of the 2003 sale of his California home to a defense contractor for an inflated price.

Under the agreement, Cunningham acknowledged a conspiracy to commit bribery, mail and wire fraud and tax evasion. He also pleaded guilty to a separate tax evasion violation for failing to disclose income in 2004.

So who's next? DeLay? Frist? What about former IL Gov. George Ryan? These guys have got to be stopped.

(Just for the record, I don't care if they're Democrat or Republican. If they're corrupt, they need to be gone.)

same as the old boss.

As the poll numbers continue to plunge and as the questions continue to mount, the Bush administration has decided to call upon an old hero to help them combat the growing discontent in America. When all else fails, they always revert to McCarthyism to quell the dissention. On Monday, Five Deferment Cheney had his McCarthyistic mojo going full force:

American soldiers and Marines serving in Iraq go out every day into some of the most dangerous and unpredictable conditions. Meanwhile, back in the United States, a few politicians are suggesting these brave Americans were sent into battle for a deliberate falsehood. This is revisionism of the most corrupt and shameless variety. It has no place anywhere in American politics, much less in the United States Senate.

One might also argue that untruthful charges against the Commander-in-Chief have an insidious effect on the war effort itself.

In not so many words, Cheney is saying that any attacks on the administration's handling of the war are false and thereby hurting the troops. But we know from past experience that the administration committed a collosal amount of errors in the run up to the war. They consistently relied on faulty intelligence, known forgeries, and known fabricators to bolster their case with the American public. So the claim that all of the attacks are untruthful is clearly erroneous.

But it's the "hurting the troops" claim that reeks of McCarthyism. Because basically what Cheney is saying is that you can't question the administration without harming the troops and thereby aiding the enemy. In other words, it's better to not question anything. Lies? Don't question them, it hurts the troops. Mistakes? Don't point them out because it hurts the troops. Incompetence? Don't talk about it. Ineptitude? Don't mention it. Complete assbackwards fuck ups? Well now, that would hurt the troops if you pointed those out too.

In the world of Cheney, Bush and the rest of the McCarthy Cabal, it is better to let the troops die for what may be lies and mistakes than to question the actions and motives of those responsible. Now who really supports our troops? Those that would let them die for mistakes and missteps or those that want to know the truth about how they got there?

(Thanks to wanda for the inspiration for this post.)

As I have mentioned several times before, one of the more intriguing books I've read about the Bush administration is Worse Than Watergate by John W. Dean Yes, that John W. Dean). Written in 2004, Dean claimed that this White House had several scandals bubbling just below the surface and that they were bound to come out over time. Boy-oh-boy was he ever right. Just take a look at the news and you're bound to read about something that has just surfaced about prewar intelligence or backroom deals or incompetence. They seem to be coming with a little more regularity now and with Georgieboy's and Five Deferment Cheney's ratings in the shitter, the press doesn't seem to be holding anything back. Hell, even the tabloid headlines are getting attention. But today might be the start of the deluge. This from the National Journal's Murray Waas:

Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.

The information was provided to Bush on September 21, 2001 during the "President's Daily Brief," a 30- to 45-minute early-morning national security briefing. Information for PDBs has routinely been derived from electronic intercepts, human agents, and reports from foreign intelligence services, as well as more mundane sources such as news reports and public statements by foreign leaders.

One of the more intriguing things that Bush was told during the briefing was that the few credible reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group. Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime. At one point, analysts believed, Saddam considered infiltrating the ranks of Al Qaeda with Iraqi nationals or even Iraqi intelligence operatives to learn more about its inner workings, according to records and sources.

The September 21, 2001, briefing was prepared at the request of the president, who was eager in the days following the terrorist attacks to learn all that he could about any possible connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Well, whaddya' know? George and the gang knew all along that Iraq and al Qaeda had nothing to do with each other. Good thing they never made that claim, huh? Good thing they never insinuated anything like that, eh? What a bunch of fucking liars. Unbelievable. Un-fucking-believeable.

As I've said before, sometimes the blog almost writes itself.

Dick Cheney today:

In light of the commitments our country has made, and given the stated intentions of the enemy, those who advocate a sudden withdrawal from Iraq should answer a few simple questions: Would the United States and other free nations be better off, or worse off, with Zarqawi, bin Laden, and Zawahiri in control of Iraq? Would we be safer, or less safe, with Iraq ruled by men intent on the destruction of our country?

It is a dangerous illusion to suppose that another retreat by the civilized world would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone. In fact such a retreat would convince the terrorists that free nations will change our policies, forsake our friends, abandon our interests whenever we are confronted with murder and blackmail. A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for the terrorists, an invitation to further violence against free nations, and a terrible blow to the future security of the United States of America.

The Iraqi government today:

Iraqi leaders have reached a tentative agreement to demand a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops during talks ahead of a reconciliation conference to be held next year.

Dozens of leaders representing most of Iraq's factions have been holding tough talks in Cairo since Saturday in a bid to reach a common agenda.

In a draft final statement, a copy of which was obtained by AFP, they demanded 'a timetable for the immediate withdrawal of foreign troops'.

Too funny!

If you read this, please check your e-mail. I sent you something.

well.....torture.

For weeks, the MSM has been all abuzz about the "debate" over whether or not the US should torture. George W. Bush has stated somewhat unequivocally, "We do not torture!" Yet in the true conservative hypocritical style, he has promised a veto on any bill containing anti-torture legislation. At the same time, we've got Five Deferment Cheney all but advocating the use of torture as a means of "interrogation." Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle (which is where I'm located, just to avoid any confusion), we've got human rights advocates, clear thinking individuals, John McCain, and now the former CIA director who have stated that torture is wrong no matter what the situation may be.

First of all, I can't believe that we're even having this "debate." At what point did our country's moral fiber deteriorate to the point where bully-style, Tony Soprano-like behavior even merits consideration? When did "the land of the free and the home of the brave" become the "break your knee caps" society? Anyone who believes that this thug-like approach to security is a good thing only needs to look at the reputation of the mob to know how we're being viewed around the world. And if you're still comfortable with that, then I guess there's really not much hope in trying to get you to see the error of your ways.

But my favorite justification for terror came earlier this week when NBC (I think it was the Today show, but all those talking head shows blur together) presented one of the lawyers responsible for the Bush administration's policy alongside a military vet for one of their so-called "discussions." (By discussion I mean that they let both sides regurgitate their talking points ad nauseum and that way the station can claim to be non-partisan.) Anyway, the lawyer for the Bush administration said that the reason we can't outlaw torture is because al-Qaeda is not a country and has not signed on to the Geneva Convention. He further stated that we can't count on them to treat our captured soldiers hospitably just because we might do so with our detainees. In other words, they did it so that makes it okay for us. It's just like all of the other administration arguments right now such as "Clinton believed that Saddam had WMD, so therefore Bush couldn't have misled anybody" or some other such bullshit.

But what this lawyer was really advocating was the United States sinking to the level of the terrorists. By justifying torture on the grounds that al Qaeda would do it to us is, at best, the equivalent of the juvenile defense of "well, he did it first!" Is this what our nation has become? Not the beacon of leadership in a global society but the followers and the copycats of the worst among us? To me, this is just pathetic. My, how far we have fallen. What's next, are we going to hi-jack airplanes and fly them into buildings occupied by al Qaeda sympathizers? I can't wait to see the "debate" about that one.

So what do you do when you just can't seem to get anything accomplished? Why, you steal your opponent's idea and pass it off as your own, that's what. And that's just what the Republicans did today.

The Republican-controlled Senate easily defeated a Democratic effort Tuesday to pressure President Bush to outline a timetable for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. It then overwhelmingly endorsed a weaker statement calling on the administration to explain its Iraq policy.

Yesterday, House minority leader Harry Reid announced the Democratic Party's plan for Iraq as an amendment to the defense bill. Then today, Sen. Warner of Virginia introduced his own amendment in which he literally crossed-out the names of the Democratic Senators and penciled in his own name along with Sen. Bill Frist's. The Republicans then changed a scant few words and crossed out the last section of the original amendment and called it their own. (Compare them for yourself: Democratic version - Republican version) Damn! Talk about lazy. It's like the loser from high school who didn't even bother to reformat the book report he copied off the internets.

Typical conservatives. Take a Democratic idea and claim it as your own. We've seen it before with the 9/11 commission and the Dept. of Homeland Security. But I'm sure it won't stop them from claiming that the Democrats aren't offering any ideas. However, those of us who are paying attention know it's all a lie just like everything else we've been getting from the conservatives for the last five years.

On the bright side, however, at least something is getting done while these ignorant fuckers are in control.

the tough get going the White House lies.

Such was the case this past weekend as the Sunday-morning talk shows were overrun with Republican party lackeys attempting to resuscitate Georgieboy's plummeting poll numbers. On Meet the Press it was RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman spinning the lies.

MR. RUSSERT:  Let's go through this carefully, because The Washington Post has done a fact-check analysis of some of the president's comments. "President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq War in recent days with a two-pronged argument:  that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.  Neither assertion is wholly accurate.  ...Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers who were depending on the administration to provide the material.  And the commission cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions."

So the president had more intelligence, more data, more information than a senator or a congressman.

MR. MEHLMAN:  In fact, Tim, the Robb-Lieberman commission--excuse me, the Robb-Silverman Commission looked at this and they found something very different.  The president got briefed every single day.  The members of Congress had access to information.  The information was basically the same, except what the Robb-Silverman Commission found was that the information the president got was more dramatic.  In other words, the argument here says that if somehow they saw what he saw, they wouldn't have believed the case for war was made.  In fact what the commission who looked at it found out was the opposite was true, which was that the evidence for war was more dramatically presented to the president than it was to Congress...

On CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, it was National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley doing the deception dance.

BLITZER: The president was very forceful on Friday in defending his record and going after Democrats and other critics of the war in Iraq. But when all is said and done, it's the president of the United States who was responsible for that bad intelligence on weapons of mass destruction that led to the war.

HADLEY: The president made clear yesterday -- on Friday that he took responsibility for the difficult decisions that he had made. He also made clear that he made those decisions on the basis of intelligence which reflected the best collective judgment of the intelligence community. This was intelligence that had been developed over a period of over a decade.

It was roughly the same intelligence that the Clinton administration saw. They drew the conclusion that Saddam Hussein was a threat to peace, that he had weapons of mass destruction. They acted against him militarily in 1998. It was the same intelligence that other world leaders had that led them to conclude that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. It was the same intelligence that 77 members of the Senate relied upon in authorizing the president to use military force in 2002. So this was a collective intelligence judgment. It was relied on by the prior administration and other world leaders, the Congress, the president of the United States. Turns out we were wrong.

But I think the point that we need to emphasize here was, allegations now that the president somehow manipulated intelligence, somehow misled the American people are flat wrong. They were looked at by the Silberman-Robb Commission, they were looked at by the Senate Intelligence community -- Committee. Both of them concluded that there was no manipulation of intelligence.

And just in case that wasn’t enough, the White House web page got into the act of spreading the bullshit.

...Congressional And Independent Committees Have Repeatedly Reported No Distortion Of Intelligence
[...]
The Robb-Silberman Commission Finds "No Evidence Of Political Pressure." "These are errors serious errors. But these errors stem from poor tradecraft and poor management. The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments." (Charles S. Robb And Laurence H. Silberman, The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction, 3/31/05, Pg. 50-51)

So, you might ask, what’s the problem? The problem is, as has been pointed out numerous times in numerous places, that in each and every case the Robb-Silberman report is being misrepresented. The charge being refuted (albeit pathetically) by these inept attempts from the White House is that the administration misled the public by manipulating or misusing the intelligence. But the “evidence” being used to do the refuting, the Robb-Silbermann report (aka - The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction) clearly states:

Finally, we emphasize two points about the scope of this Commission's charter, particularly with respect to the Iraq question. First, we were not asked to determine whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That was the mandate of the Iraq Survey Group; our mission is to investigate the reasons why the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments were so different from what the Iraq Survey Group found after the war. Second, we were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community. Accordingly, while we interviewed a host of current and former policymakers during the course of our investigation, the purpose of those interviews was to learn about how the Intelligence Community reached and communicated its judgments about Iraq's weapons programs--not to review how policymakers subsequently used that information.

(emphasis mine)

The White House is counting on the American public not paying attention to this little three-card monty scam they’re running. The Robb-Silberman report indicates that there was no pressure from the White House on the intelligence agencies. It makes absolutely no claims, whatsoever, as to what the White House did with the unpressured information.

So why would the White House run this little misdirection scheme? Why would they use non-evidence as evidence? I know of only one reason to lie and that’s because the truth makes you look bad.



Sidenote - Now that my little Blogger problem is fixed, I hope to be a little more consistent with my posting. For the record, Blogger was very polite and extremely helpful even if they seemed rather slow.

Last time, I swear!

For the last few days, the internets have been buzzing about white phosphorus. According to the Italian state-run television station RAI, the US military used white phosphorus (also known as whiskey pete) during last year's siege on Fallujah. (You can see the documentary here.) White phosphorus is an incendiary device used by the military to provide smoke screen for operations and to illuminate a darkened battlefield. However, WP can also be used much the same way as napalm was years ago. Such is the charge leveled by the Italian documentary. According to Wikipedia:

Detonating a WP shell will cause an effect comparable to the use of lung agent poison gases for those exposed to the gas. Death will occur from lung edema, phosphoric acid poisoning or the resulting shock, or burns while leaving clothes and other solid material intact. Most victims would die from the second cause, as in a confined area it is hardly avoidable to inhale a considerable quantity of smoke, which will immediately dissolve to form concentrated phosphoric acid in the lungs and airways, leading to a condition similar to phosgene poisoning, but (due to the higher concentration of phosphorous oxide smoke) with a more rapid onset, death from shock or lung edema occurring after a short time.

All I can say is that if this is true, we have truly become everything we've allegedly been fighting against. Do you remember back when the invasion of Iraq began? I do. And what I remember most is the embedded reporters reminding us every ten minutes or so of the possibility of a chemical or biological attack. I even remember an MSNBC reporter having to don a mask on-air as a siren blared in the background. Who would have thought that the country responsible for the chemical attack may have ultimately been us.

Watch the documentary for yourself and make your own decisions. I can only hope that it is false. But if not, I don't think we could possibly sink any lower.

Is this thing on?

testing 1..2..3

(Thanks go to pb over at DailyKos for the cleaned up transcript.)

Mr. Reid: thank you very much, Mr. President. Just a couple of days ago, my son lief called me and indicated that his lovely wife Amber was going to have another baby. That will be my -- our 16th grandchild. Mr. President, I have thought about that, and I have to say that I've been in public service a long time. Never have I been so concerned about our country. We have gas prices that are really unbelievable. This year they've been over $3 in the state of Nevada. Diesel fuel is still over $3 a gallon in Nevada. The Majority Leader of the House of Representatives is under indictment. The man in charge of contracting for the federal government under indictment. Deficits, Mr. President, so far you can't see them. The deficits have been basically run up by President Bush's administration these last five years. We're the wealthiest nation in the world but we are very poor as it relates to health care. We have an intractable war in Iraq. Is it any wonder that I'm concerned about my family, my grandchildren?

This past weekend, we witnessed the indictment of I. Lewis Libby, the Vice President's chief of staff, also on the President's staff, a senior advisor to the President. Mr. Libby is the first sitting white house staffer to be indicted in 135 years. Is it any wonder, Mr. President, that I'm concerned about my grandchildren?

This indictment raises very serious charges. It asserts this administration engaged in actions that both harmed our national security and were morally repugnant. The decision made to place United States soldiers, our military into harm's way I believe is the most significant responsibility the constitution vests in the Congress and in the President. The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions.

Mr. President, these are not just words from Harry Reid. Larry Wilkerson, Colonel Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff -- Colin Powell, of course, was Secretary of State. This man was his Chief of Staff for four years. Here's what he said about the war in Iraq. "If -- in President bush's first term, some of the most important decisions about U.S. national security, including vital decisions about post-war Iraq, were made by a secretive, little-known cabal, was made up of a very small group of people led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. But the secret process was ultimately a failure. It produced a series of disastrous decisions." That's what I'm here to talk about today, Mr. President. As a result of its improper conduct, a cloud now hangs over this administration. This cloud is further darkened by the administration's mistakes in prisoner abuse, Hurricane Katrina, and the cronyism and corruption in numerous agencies throughout this administration. And unfortunately, it must be that said a cloud also hangs over this Republican-controlled Congress for its unwillingness to hold this Republican administration accountable for its misdeeds on these issues.

During the time that we had a democratic President, eight years, and when the democrats were in charge of the co-committees, we were in the majority, oversight hearings were held covering the gamut of what went on in this administration -- that administration. Today there is not an oversight hearing held on anything. Let's take a look at back how we got here with respect to Iraq. The record will show that within hours of the terrorist acts of 9/11, senior officials in this administration recognized those attacks could be used as a pretext to invade Iraq. The record will also show that in the months and years after 9/11, the administration engaged in a pattern of manipulation of the facts and retribution against anyone who got in its way as it made its case for attacking, for invading Iraq.

There are numerous examples of how the administration misstated and manipulated the facts as it made the case for war. The administration statements on Saddam's alleged nuclear weapons capabilities and ties with al-Qaeda represent the best examples how it consistently and repeatedly manipulated the facts. The American people were warned time and time again by the President, the Vice President, the current Secretary of State and their other capacities about Saddam's nuclear weapons capabilities. The Vice President said -- and I quote -- "Iraq has reconstituted its nuclear programs." Playing upon the fears of Americans after September 11, these officials and others raised the specter that left unchecked, Saddam could soon attack america with nuclear weapons.

Obviously we know now that their nuclear claims were wholly inaccurate. But more troubling is the fact that a lot of intelligence experts were telling the administration then that its claims about Saddam's nuclear capabilities were false. The situation very similar with respect to Saddam's links to al-Qaeda. The Vice President told the American people -- I quote again -- "We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups,
including the al-Qaeda organization." these assertions have been totally discredited, not a little bit, totally discredited. But again, the administration went ahead with these assertions in spite of the fact that the government's top experts did not agree with these claims.

Again, Wilkerson is a person in point. What has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress to the administration's manipulation of intelligence that led to this protracted war in Iraq? Nothing. Did the Republican-controlled Congress carry out its Constitutional obligations to conduct oversight? No. Did it support our troops and their families by providing them the answers to many important questions? No. Did it even attempt to force this administration to answer the most basic questions about its behavior? No. Unfortunately, the unwillingness of the Republican-controlled Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities is not a limit -- is not limited to just Iraq. We see it with respect to the prison abuse scandal. We see it with respect to katrina, and we see it with respect to the cronyism and corruption that permeates this administration.

Time and time again, this Republican-controlled Congress has consistently chosen to put its political interests ahead of our national security. They have repeatedly chosen to protect the American -- the Republican administration rather than to get to the bottom of what happened and why it happened. There's also another disturbing pattern, namely, about how this administration responded to those who challenged its assertions. Often this administration has actively sought to attack and undercut those who dared to raise questions about its preferred course. For example, when General Shinseki indicated several hundred thousand troops would be needed in Iraq, his military career was ended -- fired, relieved of duty when he out its inspectors.

When Nobel Prize winner and head of the IAEA raised questions about the administration's claims of Saddam's nuclear capabilities, the administration attempted to remove him from his post. When Ambassador Joe Wilson stated that there was an attempt by Saddam -- no attempt by Saddam to acquire weapons from Niger, the administration not only went after him to discredit him, they launched a vicious and coordinated campaign going so far as to expose the fact that his wife worked as a CIA Spy. These people are now having 24-hour protection fearing for their own safety. Given this administration's pattern of squashing those who challenge its misstatements, and I've only mentioned a few, what has been the response of the Republican-controlled Congress? Absolutely nothing. And where their inactions they provide political cover for this administration at the same time they keep the truth from our troops who continue to make large sacrifices in Iraq.

Now everyone may think that the troops in Iraq are 100% Republican. I've met a friend -- I've made a friend. He's a marine. He was over in when the elections were held ten months ago. He said where he was and he never even went to the bathroom without a rifle, wherever he was in his duty all over this area, he said he couldn't find anyone that was happy with the way the elections turned out. They, the Republicans, do anything they can to keep the truth from people like my marine friend. This behavior -- I would give you his name -- this behavior is unacceptable. The toll in Iraq is as staggering as it is solemn. More than 2,000 dead, 2,025 now, Americans have lost their lives. Over 90 Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the month of october alone, the fourth deadliest month in this go-on three-year war. More than 15,000 have been wounded. More than 150,000 remain over there in harm's way. Enormous sacrifices have been made and continue to be made.

Mr. President, we've had soldiers and marines from Nevada killed, from Eli, from Las Vegas, from Henderson, from Boulder City, from Tonapaw. Every time one of these deaths occur, it's a dagger in the heart of that community. This behavior is unacceptable. I'm a patient man, Mr. President. I'm a legislator and I know things don't happen overnight. I'm a parent man but the call for my son has put this in perspective. I'm worried about my family. The toll in Iraq is as staggering as I repeat it is solemn. The troops have a right to expect answers and accountability worthy of that sacrifice. For example, more than 40 democrats wrote a substantive and detailed letter to the President canning -- asking four basic questions about this administration's Iraq policy, and we received, Mr. President, -- we received a four-sentence fence that is response. "Thank you for your letter to the President expressing your concerns with Iraq. I've shared your letter with the appropriate administration officials." remember we wrote it to the President. "and agencies responsible in this area. Please be assured your letter is receiving the attention it deserves. Thank you for your compliments, Candy Wolf."

That's the letter the senators of the United States wrote to the President of the its and we get a letter from Candy Wolf say, thanks, we're working on it. America deserves better than this. They also deserve a searching and comprehensive investigation about how the Bush administration brought this country to war, key questions that need to be answered include how did the Bush administration assemble its case for war against Iraq?

We heard what Colonel Wilkerson said. Who did the Bush administration officials listen to and ignore? How did the senior Bush administration officials manipulate or manufacture intelligence presented to the Congress or the American people? What was the role of the white house Iraq group, a group of senior White House officials, tasked with marketing the war and taking down its critics. We know what Colonel Wilkerson says. How did the administration coordinate its efforts to attack individuals who dared to challenge the administration's assertions. We know what happened to them. I listed a few. Why has this administration failed to provide Congress with the documents that would shed light on their misconduct and the misstatements?

Unfortunately, the senate committee that should be taking the lead in providing these answers is not. Despite the fact that the Chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee publicly committed to examine these questions more than a year and a half ago, he has chosen not to keep that commitment. Despite the fact that he's restated the commitment earlier this year on national television, he has still done nothing except assemble a few quotes from Democratic and Republican senators going back to the first Iraq war. We need a thorough investigation that that committee is capable and tasked to do. At this point, we can only conclude he will continue to put politics ahead of our national security. If he does anything at this point, I suspect it will be playing political games by producing an analysis that files any of these important questions. Instead, if history is any guide, this analysis will attempt to disperse and deflect blame away from this administration. Key facts about the intelligence --

A Senator: Would the Senator yield for a question.

Mr. Reid: Key facts: June 4, 2003, intelligence committee commits to bipartisan review of the deeply flewed intelligence in Iraq's WMD Phase one.
February 12, 2004, intelligence committee commits to phase 2, an investigation looking at five areas including whether the administration exaggerate and manipulated intelligence.

July 9, 2004, committee publishes phase one report on the intelligence agencies mistakes on Iraq. Senator Rockefeller says publicly that phase two is as yet unbegun. Republican Chairman Roberts says it is one of my top priorities.

July 11 on Meet the Press, Republican Chairman Roberts says, even as I'm speaking our staff is working on phase two and we'll get it done.
Fall of 2004, House Intelligence Committee, after no follow through on the Iraq
WMD Investigation, the house announced on May 2003, no final report. Republican committee Chairman Porter Goss is selected to CIA Director. Regarding the question of vetting the Valerie Plame leak Goss said show me a blue dress and some DNA and i'll give you an investigation. End of quote.

November, 2004, we had the Presidential election.

March 2005, President's hand-picked WMD Intelligence committee says the intelligence agencies got the intelligence dead wrong but says that under the President's terms of reference we are not authorized to investigate how policy-makers used the intelligence assessments they received from the intelligence community.

March 31, 2005, Senator Roberts says it would be monumental waste of time to replow this ground any further?

April 10, 2005, "Meet the Press" Senator Roberts commits to Tim Russert that the review will get done.

September 2005, committee democrats file additional views to their authorization bill blasting the committee for failing to conduct phase two. There have been letters written to the committee, a press release was issued even saying that they were going to go forward with this.

Mr. President, enough time has gone by. I demand on behalf of the American people that we understand why these investigations aren't being conducted, and in accordance with rule 21, I now move that Senate go into closed session.

Mr. Durbin: Mr. President, I motion the -- second the motion.

The presiding officer: the motion has been made to closed session. The. The chair pursuant to rule 21 directs the Sergeant at Arms to clear all galleries, clear all doors of the Senate chamber and exclude from the chamber and its immediate corridors all employees and officials of this senate who under the rule are are -- are not eligible to attend the closed session and are not sworn to secrecy. The question is nondebatable.

In one fell swoop, Harry Reid took the entire Republican party by the balls and he refused to let go until they agreed to play ball. Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant! Send him a note of appreciation. I did.