Partisan Clash, Senate Closed Session, Right Now!

[NoCalMike]

The democrats have been calling for a discussion on this matter for three years, but since they were in the minority they have had no real power or leverage to make things happen.

Republicans can pretend they were "blindsided" all they want, but it is not as if they haven't known for a few years that Democrats wanted a discussion on pre-war intelligence and why it was faulty. Republicans for the most part could have cared less and didn'nt want it discussed.

The Democrats haven't done anything outside of the rules here.

[chomerics]

Here :laugh:

( ) Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." This was just one day before CPD sent a cable DELETED requesting concurrence with CPD's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger and requesting any additional information from the foreign government service on their uranium reports. The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him "there's this crazy report" on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq.

(

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2-b.htm

Now will you drop it

Yes, I was wrong there, and does this change ANYTHING on the case? And if you look at his statements, and what was said, it was not about her recommending him, it was that "She sent him".

Edit: No, I wasn't wrong.

In the last four days, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times and Time magazine have all reported on a classified State Department memo that may have been where White House officials first learned the identity of then-covert CIA operative Valerie Plame before that information was leaked to syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, Time correspondent Matthew Cooper, and possibly others. While all these articles reported that the memo and/or its accompanying materials mention that it was Plame who recommended her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, for his CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, all failed to note that CIA officials reportedly dispute this part of the document.

The memo, written by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), contained an intelligence assessment disputing the allegation that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger, as well as an attachment with an INR analyst's notes from a February 19, 2002, meeting where the CIA discussed sending Wilson to Niger to investigate the allegation. The notes reported that Plame recommended Wilson for the trip. (It's not clear whether the claim that Plame suggested her husband for the trip was also included in the memo itself, or only in the accompanying notes.) But CIA officials reportedly dispute this part of the document because, they claim, the CIA agent whom the notes record as describing Plame's role at the 2002 meeting could not have attended it.

While reporting on the central role that the classified memo may have played in Plame's exposure, all the articles have noted its claim that Plame recommended her husband for the Niger trip:

* The Washington Post: "The memo 'identifies her as having selected or recommended her husband' for the Niger assignment, according to a person who has seen it." [ 7/16/05]

* The New York Times "The memorandum was prepared at the State Department, relying on notes by an analyst who was involved in meetings in early 2002 to discuss whether to send someone to Africa to investigate allegations that Iraq was pursuing uranium purchases. ... The notes, which did not identify Ms. Wilson or her husband by name, said the meeting was 'apparently convened by' the wife of a former ambassador 'who had the idea to dispatch' him to Niger because of his contacts in the region." [7/16/05]

* The Los Angeles Times: "The memo was written by the State Department's intelligence and research bureau. It outlined the history of the Niger uranium controversy and emphasized the bureau's view that there was no substance to reports that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium from Niger. A State Department analyst who had attended the meeting at which the CIA decided to dispatch Wilson to Africa to check out the story kept the notes from that session, the former [state Department] official ["who because of the sensitive nature of the case asked not to be named"] said. The notes mentioned that Wilson's wife had suggested sending Wilson. After getting [former Deputy Secretary of State Richard] Armitage's request, the State Department's then-intelligence chief, Carl Ford, ordered the original memo -- along with the analyst's notes about that meeting -- to be sent to [former Secretary of State Colin L.] Powell, the former official said." [7/17/05]

* The Wall Street Journal: "[The memo] details a meeting in early 2002 in which CIA officials discussed how to verify reports that Iraq had sought uranium ore from Niger. Ms. Wilson, an agent working on issues related to weapons of mass destruction, recommended her husband, an expert on Africa, to travel to Niger to investigate the matter." [7/19/05]

* Time: "The memo, originally dated June 10, 2003, identified Plame and discussed her role in recommending her husband for the mission to Niger." [7/17/05]

All these articles, however, failed to mention that CIA officials have reportedly disputed the memo's accuracy on this point. The Washington Post reported on December 26, 2003:

Sources said the CIA is angry about the circulation of a still-classified document to conservative news outlets suggesting Plame had a role in arranging her husband's trip to Africa for the CIA. The document, written by a State Department official who works for its Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), describes a meeting at the CIA where the Niger trip by Wilson was discussed, said a senior administration official who has seen it.

CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of the INR document, the official said, because the agency officer identified as talking about Plame's alleged role in arranging Wilson's trip could not have attended the meeting.

source

[chomerics]

Actually that wasnt it.. AND Wilson admitted that IRAQ was trying to negotiate trade with Niger... NOW, tell us the top 2 things that Niger exports.

Period. The top 2....

Bear, Iraq was NOT trying to acquire nuclear material, so don't even try to imply it.

[Thiebear]

Yes, I was wrong there, and does this change ANYTHING on the case?

Ohhh Godbless you man.. was that so freaking hard... And it doesnt change anything with the outing of the wife.... But it does call into account other things he has definately lied about... Of which that also doesnt count towards the outting either... BUT

Thats not what the 21 was called for.. it was called for the information.. Unfortunately they are going by this man that lied on several occasions and its making a mockery of the Senate. Wait, they do that everyday on their own...

Carry on.

[@DCGoldPants]

if what comes of this is a deeper understand for everybody on the pre-war information that we used.

Isn't that a good thing? Its either going to be.

#1. Yeah, the info was bad. But nobody twisted it to fit a plan already in place.

or

#2. Yeah, the info was bad. But what's worse is that we knew it was shady and still went at it to fit a plan already in place.

What's the harm in being honestly and truthful about what happened? Shouldn't every member of the Senate and Congress want to be honest with the folks from their state? Look, I even saw Trent Lott tonight of all people say that he based his beliefs on the intell that turned out to be wrong. He didn't say he wasn't supporting the war or the president or whatever. But, amazingly enough. He basically said "Hey, we blew it on the intell"

I'll like to see a few more folks do that.

[Thiebear]

Bear, Iraq was NOT trying to acquire nuclear material, so don't even try to imply it.

page 53 of the Senate Intelligence committee 521 page report

http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqreport2-textunder.pdf

The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim

Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states

for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-

1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have

been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, | ^ ^ ^ H ^ H | ^ m ^ | ^ |

businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss

"expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that

Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to

discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting

took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."

Werent you big on MIT putting their curriculum on the web? How about this?

[Larry]

Taken by surprise, furious Republicans derided the move as a political stunt.

Two words: Terry Schiavo

[Zen-like Todd]

Really, you think Navy Dave is far from a neoconservative? Please refer me to a post where he disagrees with the neoconservative platform. If he isn't one, then please refer me to some of his posts which differ from the party line.

Sure, but only if you promise to stop spewing tripe and actually take some thoughtful consideration going forward... oh wait, that'll never happen.

The neoconservative intellectual movement was spawned by Northeastern liberal Democrats who were agressively anti-communist and considered the Democratic Party of the time to be corrupt beyond repair. The term was originally coined by a socialist (Micheal Harrington), insulting those with an undeniably liberal bent who had moved to the right on foreign policy matters. Clearly not NavyDave, who is simply a traditional evangelical right wing type. Neoconservatives true to the actual intellectual movement leading to the origin of the term are not particularly averse to social welfare programs, among other things (again, doesnt sound like NavyDave, does it).

Furthermore, an interesting characteristic of most of the original group to whom the term was applied was that they were not just formerly liberal, they were liberal Jews (again... not too NDish). The term neoconservative has therefore often been used perjoratively as a reference to Jews (which is a faulty reference, given that American Jews are overwhelmingly liberal), or slightly closer to the realm of reality, as a reference to "Zionist" Jews, with overtones to some sort of cabal. While you clearly try to use neoconservative as a perjorative term, I'm virtually certain that you are aiming with a broader brush than that. Stick with righty, or right winger. At least it puts you on the playing field.

[jbooma]

Sure, but only if you promise to stop spewing tripe and actually take some thoughtful consideration going forward... oh wait, that'll never happen.

The neoconservative intellectual movement was spawned by Northeastern liberal Democrats who were agressively anti-communist and considered the Democratic Party of the time to be corrupt beyond repair. The term was originally coined by a socialist (Micheal Harrington), insulting those with an undeniably liberal bent who had moved to the right on foreign policy matters. Clearly not NavyDave, who is simply a traditional evangelical right wing type. Neoconservatives true to the actual intellectual movement leading to the origin of the term are not particularly averse to social welfare programs, among other things (again, doesnt sound like NavyDave, does it).

Furthermore, an interesting characteristic of most of the original group to whom the term was applied was that they were not just formerly liberal, they were liberal Jews (again... not too NDish). The term neoconservative has therefore often been used perjoratively as a reference to Jews (which is a faulty reference, given that American Jews are overwhelmingly liberal), or slightly closer to the realm of reality, as a reference to "Zionist" Jews, with overtones to some sort of cabal. While you clearly try to use neoconservative as a perjorative term, I'm virtually certain that you are aiming with a broader brush than that. Stick with righty, or right winger. At least it puts you on the playing field.

It is good to hear from Zen again

[twa]

Bear, Iraq was NOT trying to acquire nuclear material, so don't even try to imply it.

And yet they people selling it say:

the former Nigerien Prime Minister said an Iraqi delegation had visited Niger for what he believed was to discuss uranium sales.

:

[Thiebear]

How about this on page 35 of the above 521page report..

Problems with the Intelligence Community's HUMINT efforts were also evident in

the Intelligence Community's handling of Iraq's alleged efforts to acquire uranium from Niger. The Committee does not fault the CIA for exploiting the access enjoyed by the spouse of a CIA employee traveling to Niger. The Committee believes, however, that it is unfortunate, considering the significant resources available to the CIA, that this was the only option available.]/b]

[chomerics]

page 53 of the Senate Intelligence committee 521 page report

http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqreport2-textunder.pdf

Werent you big on MIT putting their curriculum on the web? How about this?

Bear, do you know who the business man was??? It was Baghdad Bob, and there was NO discussion of uranium!!!

I have already stated your exact scenario either in this thread or the other one. It was in his book, as well as who the Iraqi was and what they discussed.

[chomerics]

And yet they people selling it say:

the former Nigerien Prime Minister said an Iraqi delegation had visited Niger for what he believed was to discuss uranium sales.

:

Man, do you guys ever give up? This meeting did NOT discuss the sale of Uranium. The papers were forged, the entire story was a ruse, and Fitzgerald is looking into who actually gave the Italians the papers.

[Thiebear]

Bear, do you know who the business man was??? It was Baghdad Bob, and there was NO discussion of uranium!!!

I have already stated your exact scenario either in this thread or the other one. It was in his book, as well as who the Iraqi was and what they discussed.

Ohhh it was in his book, my fault i'm going by the Intelligence committee report. The same book you used to say She didnt recommend him and basically walk him through the whole thing?

and does this sound like research to you? Was this in his book.

1. The Ambassador there doesnt talk about Uranium in specifics.

2. She asked him not to talk to any "current" officials as they will make her job harder to "not ask them specific questions" in the future.

(U) On February 26, 2002, the former ambassador arrived in Niger. He told Committee

staff that he first met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick to discuss his upcoming meetings.

Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick asked him not to meet with current Nigerien officials because

she believed it might complicate her continuing diplomatic efforts with them on the uranium

issue. The former ambassador agreed to restrict his meetings to former officials and the private

sector.

d ) The former ambassador told Committee staff that he met with the former Nigerien

Prime Minister, the former Minister of Mines and Energy, and other business contacts. At the

end of his visit, he debriefed Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick H | | | | ^ ^ ^ H H ^ ^ ^ H I | | | | ^H

| ^ | ^ | , Chad. He told Committee staff that he had told both U.S. officials he thought there

was "nothing to the story." Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick told Committee staff she recalled

the former ambassador saying "he had reached the same conclusions that the embassy had

reached, that it was highly unlikely that anything was going on."

(U) On March 1, 2002, INR published an intelligence assessment, Niger: Sale of

Uranium to Iraq Is Unlikely.

He arrived on Feb 26th.. feb 27, feb 28th.. Mar 1.. done! thats one heck of an investigation... 4 days including travel...

[chomerics]

Sure, but only if you promise to stop spewing tripe and actually take some thoughtful consideration going forward... oh wait, that'll never happen.

You may be suprised at what you find out

The neoconservative intellectual movement was spawned by Northeastern liberal Democrats who were agressively anti-communist and considered the Democratic Party of the time to be corrupt beyond repair. The term was originally coined by a socialist (Micheal Harrington), insulting those with an undeniably liberal bent who had moved to the right on foreign policy matters. Clearly not NavyDave, who is simply a traditional evangelical right wing type. Neoconservatives true to the actual intellectual movement leading to the origin of the term are not particularly averse to social welfare programs, among other things (again, doesnt sound like NavyDave, does it).

No, that sounds a LOT like Navy Dave. That's why I asked you for one of his posts. I know how neoconservatism was founded, and I can also recognize the similarities between Kennedy and Bush, and yet have been ridiculed for it. If you look at the reckless forign policy (Bay of Pigs & Cuban Missle Crisis/Iraq), military spending, big government formation (NASA/DHS) and a myriad of other issues, they are very similar. I also think ND, through no fault of his own, is espousing exactly a neoconservative viewpoint.

Furthermore, an interesting characteristic of most of the original group to whom the term was applied was that they were not just formerly liberal, they were liberal Jews (again... not too NDish). The term neoconservative has therefore often been used perjoratively as a reference to Jews (which is a faulty reference, given that American Jews are overwhelmingly liberal), or slightly closer to the realm of reality, as a reference to "Zionist" Jews, with overtones to some sort of cabal. While you clearly try to use neoconservative as a perjorative term, I'm virtually certain that you are aiming with a broader brush than that. Stick with righty, or right winger. At least it puts you on the playing field.

Sorry, but I don't consider being "Jewish" a pre-req for being a neo-con. I know it was a bunch of Jewish Liberals that founded the movement, but they are not the symbol of the party now. Would you agree that Bush is a neo-con? Well how do you explain that he is not Jewish and panders to the Christian right?

My point is that supporting a neoconservative viewpoint transforms your viewpoint into theirs. We are run by neoconservative government, and if you support them lock step and barrel, like Navy Dave does, then you are considered part of the crowd by default.

If I was posting a far left viewpoint, and I was supporting a far left canidate, would I be considered the far left? Hell yes.

[chomerics]

Ohhh it was in his book, my fault i'm going by the Intelligence committee report. The same book you used to say She didnt recommend him and basically walk him through the whole thing?

and does this sound like research to you? Was this in his book.

1. The Ambassador there doesnt talk about Uranium in specifics.

2. She asked him not to talk to any "current" officials as they will make her job harder to "not ask them specific questions" in the future.

He arrived on Feb 26th.. feb 27, feb 28th.. Mar 1.. done! thats one heck of an investigation... 4 days including travel...

Bear there is ABSOLUTELY nothing that states Iraq was looking for Uranium!!!!!

Here, LOOK AT YOUR OWN QUOTE!!!!!

The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it.

So the Prime Minister says there were no contracts.

Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."

So a Nigerian "thought" that the Iraqi wanted to discuss Uranium, yet it was not discussed!!!!

Bear, where does any of this say that Iraq bought yellowcake, tried to buy yellowcake, or even DISCUSSED yellowcake???

There is nothing Bear, because it is a lie. This is EXACTLY what the book said, and this is EXACTLY how it was perpetrated in your links. Maybe you should read the book, because it will stop you from posting and infering false theories.

[Zen-like Todd]

You may be suprised at what you find out

Sadly, I'm not.

No, that sounds a LOT like Navy Dave. That's why I asked you for one of his posts.

Are you joking? NavyDave is a Christian right wing moral conservative. It sounds nothing like NavyDave. I swear to god, this is like talking to a brick wall.

I know how neoconservatism was founded,

You do now.

I also think ND, through no fault of his own, is espousing exactly a neoconservative viewpoint.

You think incorrectly. That the neoconservative movement pulled the religious right on board in their foreign policy objectives does not make them remotely the same, nor does it necessitate the same viewpoint (in this case, christian morality versus the classical neoconservative spread of democratic values).

Sorry, but I don't consider being "Jewish" a pre-req for being a neo-con. I know it was a bunch of Jewish Liberals that founded the movement, but they are not the symbol of the party now.

What you consider is irrelevant in this case. The origins are the origins, the intellectual history is the intellectual history. NavyDave is a run of the mill, right wing christian conservative. That he espouses a certain foreign policy view because of his moral objections to islam doesnt make him remotely neoconservative, as much as you might wish it to be the case.

Would you agree that Bush is a neo-con? Well how do you explain that he is not Jewish and panders to the Christian right?

Again, you suffer from your simplistic zeal in attempting to label individuals and administrations with the same brush, failing to account for the fact that policy is to a large extent impacted by a variety of members within the administration, which is composed of both traditional conservatives, and neoconservatives.

My point is that supporting a neoconservative viewpoint transforms your viewpoint into theirs.

Your point is invalid. Usng your logic, it makes the bulk of true neoconservatives associable with the left, due to support for social welfare initiatives.

We are run by neoconservative government,

That's not a correct statement, again, a simplistic projection. But don't worry, it gets even worse for you:

... and if you support them lock step and barrel, like Navy Dave does, then you are considered part of the crowd by default.

Nope, again, NavyDave is a traditional right wing evangelical. To the extent which policies supported by the current administration fall in line with ND's views, it does not follow logically that the motivations behind the policies are the same, and correspondingly, that the philosophies are similar.

If I was posting a far left viewpoint, and I was supporting a far left canidate, would I be considered the far left? Hell yes.

You just made the same mistake again. Left->Right does not match neoconservatism. Again, its like a brick wall.

Frankly, the fact that you even wrote that reply is patently absurd. It boggles my mind that you could even attempt to associate NavyDave with someone of an intellectually liberal viewpoint laced with a splash of realism and aggressive foreign policy viewpoints when he is one of the clearest example of died in the wool religious evangelical conservatives on this board.

Again and again you get corrected. Again and again you pound away meaninglessly at the keyboard, instead of gaining a better understanding of your own position. Honestly, you waste the time of those who take a shot at the possibility that you might not be trolling and actually engage in a discussion. The worst part is that you arent intellectually incapable of doing so, as evidenced by numerous scientific topics that come up on the board. It just seems that you are stricken with a P-Chip of sorts (get it, P-Chip, like a V-Chip, I'm so witty...) that blocks all sense of reason from your political rantings. I'd recommend having that looked into, its a real drag.

[Chopper Dave]

Buff he hasn't, he called all people in texas basically idiots. I am curious how he knows this for a fact when he doesn't even live here.

I don't like others bashing because of age as long as they understand what they are taking about. It iis even worse when people bash other people when they have no clue.

I would say there is more PWT in Florida then Texas anyway

Stevenaa is from Texas. I'm sure he got the jab.

[Chopper Dave]

Apologize for what stating a fact?

18 year old can have an opinion but comeon they are kids and don't know as much as they think they do.

You need to abandon the thin skin epidemic permeating among liberals

You see, that's false. You might not have known that much when you were 18, but I think it's pretty arrogant to assume that's a universal thing.

[jbooma]

Stevenaa is from Texas. I'm sure he got the jab.

my bad, continue

[visionary]

Vis- any updates would be appreciated for those of us still at work.

Sorry I was finally about to get on World Of Warcraft, after a dang long wait and was watching the news all afternoon and evening while playing (not to mention the hour or so spent at church in between all that)

Not sure if anyone else has updated it, but I assumed that someone would.

Anyway what it looks liek is thought there was some initial compromise, not much really came otu of it, except that they will do what they were already going to do (apparently ;-) and they will now update themselves on its progress a little mroe.

6 senate members will be in charge of keeping the rest of them up to date, on the Democrat side that is Feinstein, Levine, and uh, I can't recall who the first name given was.

I don't think Frist has had time to choose anyone yet, but i coudl well be wrong by now.

The main thing to get out of this is that both parties trashed the hell out of each other afterwards and this is about as bad and as persoanl as I have ever seen it. There are so many insulting generalizations and criminal insinuations flying around on boths sides that I kind of wish we could get a new hand from the dealer right now.

I have a feeling that the Democrats may try for a filibuster on Alito just n pure spite at this point, and I think the Republicans kind of hope that they do, just so they can use their nuclear option and so they can tarnish them in the press. So far neither bunch of party leaders is looking very good right now, especially Frist and Reid, who after what they both said ought to be censored. (sp?)

[chomerics]

Frankly, the fact that you even wrote that reply is patently absurd. It boggles my mind that you could even attempt to associate NavyDave with someone of an intellectually liberal viewpoint laced with a splash of realism and aggressive foreign policy viewpoints when he is one of the clearest example of died in the wool religious evangelical conservatives on this board.

So in your version of the world Zen, even though a person can agree 100% with a viewpoint of a neoconservative, they can't possibly be a neo-con because the are not Jewish. . . Got it

Again and again you get corrected. Again and again you pound away meaninglessly at the keyboard, instead of gaining a better understanding of your own position. Honestly, you waste the time of those who take a shot at the possibility that you might not be trolling and actually engage in a discussion. The worst part is that you arent intellectually incapable of doing so, as evidenced by numerous scientific topics that come up on the board. It just seems that you are stricken with a P-Chip of sorts (get it, P-Chip, like a V-Chip, I'm so witty...) that blocks all sense of reason from your political rantings. I'd recommend having that looked into, its a real drag.

No, I was actually willing to debate you on the topic Zen, yet you FAILED to prove your point. I asked you for a single post by ND where he goes against the neo-conservative agenda, and you decided to instead attack. He has over 10,000 posts, you should OBVIOUSLY be able to find a post or two by ND where he is not sprouting off the party line right? You can OBVIOUSLY find somewhere he has diverted from the neo-conservative agenda driven by the Bush Administration right?

I actually don't disagree that ND is a evangelical republican, but the neoconservative ideology has BECOME evangelical with Bush. You do believe that people can change the platform of the party don't you? Or are you still under the impression that a republican is for a fiscally sound government?

You see Zen, the advent of neoconservatism is nothing like the neo-cons running the office now. The ideology has evolved, yet you want to paint this small postage stamp size ideology of which very few fall under. I do not look at politics like that, instead I understand that platforms evolve and change over time. I understand that the moderates and paleocons have pretty much stayed put, while the neocons have evolved dramatically. Right now, neo-conservatisim IS evangelical conservatism.

You were right before, the neo-cons alligned themselves with the christian right, the melding of the two had already been completed, but you have failed to notice a change. You still invision the neoconservative platform as 70's libralism not 00's neoconservatism. It now IS the party of the christian right. You may say that is wasn't born under the guise of christianity, but there is no denying that it IS the party of christianity right now.

[chomerics]

I have a feeling that the Democrats may try for a filibuster on Alito just n pure spite at this point, and I think the Republicans kind of hope that they do, just so they can use their nuclear option and so they can tarnish them in the press. So far neither bunch of party leaders is looking very good right now, especially Frist and Reid, who after what they both said ought to be censored. (sp?)

What did they say?

[visionary]

Taking off the cynical hat for a moment... what if these guys just wanted honest answers and they knew that in order to do that they had to get away from the rhetoric. What if they had been trying for months or nearly a year to get examine the situation and they recognized that because of gamesmanship from both parties nothing was getting done or could get done. So, they said lets close the doors, roll up our sleeves, and deal with the issues. Let's take the campaigning/politcing out of it and actually deal with serious issues.

Too much of modern politics is 24-7 campaigning and grandstanding. Maybe they thought this was so important that they needed to stop grandstanding and go behind closed doors and work.

Maybe, kind of funny that this was hatched the previous night...after Senator Roberts and co. decided earlier (maybe in secret) that they would go to phase 2 next week. At least that is their story....

Another interesting thing is that on CNN they were getting inside info from the Democrats and their aides saying that this was done also to position themselves for the Alito fight and to re-set the nation's agenda (I suppose away from Bush's Bird flu speech and Alito's nomination for the time being).

[visionary]

The democrats have been calling for a discussion on this matter for three years, but since they were in the minority they have had no real power or leverage to make things happen.

Republicans can pretend they were "blindsided" all they want, but it is not as if they haven't known for a few years that Democrats wanted a discussion on pre-war intelligence and why it was faulty. Republicans for the most part could have cared less and didn'nt want it discussed.

The Democrats haven't done anything outside of the rules here.

Maybe, but it is questionable that this was neccessary. They could have just told them and then done it anyway if the Republicans did not agree to it, which I think they probably would have, if the Democrats pushed hard enough.

In any case, this sets a disturbing and dangerous precedent, whether it was necessary or not.