Dirty Tricks in D.C.

[Luke T.]

So we all know about, and have our own opinions on, the intelligence data referred to by President Bush and members of Congress and the Senate to support the war in Iraq. Bush is not the only one who bought it and believed it. Many Democrats did, too. Some of whom are running for President. But Bush is the one taking the hits for it.

Anyway, the Senate Committee on Intelligence is looking into the matter. This committee has both Republicans and Democrats on it.

Apparently, the Democrat members are just playing along. They are leading their Republican counterparts along, pretending to be all friendly and cooperative. But they are waiting until next year to shoot them between the eyes by launching an independent counsel investigation. Why next year and not right now? Because that is when it will have the most impact on the election.

How do I know this? Because they said so.

Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time, but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year.

Link here.

I think we will be hearing more about this.

 

[Luke T.]

this is a duplicate because the forum is being very bad today. Ignore this one and go to this one.

 

[Tony]

Typical, you can always count on politicians to put the good of the party over the good of the country.

 

[Solitaire]

It's worse than I thought!

A lobbyist, on his way home from work in Washington D.C. came to dead
halt in traffic and thought to himself, "Wow, this seems worse than usual."

He noticed a police officer walking between the lines of stopped cars,
so he rolled down his window and asked, "Officer, what's the holdup?"

The officer replied, "The president is depressed, so he stopped his
motorcade and is threatening to douse himself in gasoline and set
himself on fire. He says no one believes his stories about why we went
to war in Iraq, or the connection between Saddam and 9-11, or that tax
cuts will help anyone except his wealthy friends; the press called him
on the lie about Iraq trying to buy uranium from Niger; he and Powell
are caught in their lie that the weapons inspectors were thrown out
of Iraq under Clinton, and now Campbell Brown is threatening to sue
him for a sexual innuendo he made at a recent press conference. So,
we're takingup a collection for him."

The lobbyist asked, "How much have you got so far?"

The officer replied, "About 14 gallons, but a lot of folks are still siphoning."

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

HANNITY: Senator, I've got to be honest. It seems that these people that wrote this did not learn a thing from 9/11.

Well, you know, after 9/11, whoever doesn't march in lock step with the president is a traitor. I mean, if we don't remember the mistakes of 9/11, and it's Iraqi masterminds, we're doomed to have 9/11's every year!

 

[renata]

Dirty tricks in DC? Sure, got plenty of them, on all sides, for decades if not centuries.

Like Republican Committee Chair calling the police on Democrats

The day began with a fairly ordinary procedural fight over an otherwise-innocuous pension bill. Committee Democrats complained that the Republican majority had not given them enough time to review a substitute bill that they had received shortly before midnight Thursday.

Most of the Democrats then moved to a nearby library to plot strategy after they demanded that Republicans read the legislation line by line.

Infuriated, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) instructed the Capitol Police to remove the Democrats from the ornate library. Republicans said Democrats were being disorderly and did not have the right to occupy the libary.

.....
When the Democrats left for the library, Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark (D-Calif.) stayed behind to prevent the Republicans from obtaining unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.

After several minutes, Thomas again asked unanimous consent to dispense with the reading, and instantly brought down his gavel. Stark said later that he had objected, and Thomas had replied, "You're too late."

Thomas then recognized Portman for an opening statement on the bill. Stark attempted to make a "parliamentary inquiry," and Thomas ignored him. Stark then joined the other Democrats in the nearby room.

or Karl Rove presentation
What is first line of Republican Strategy for winning elections?

Focus on War and Economy

Check slide 20 &21, really instructive

And how do they go about doing it?
http://observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=6018

Consider slide 21, which summarizes the White House plans for various constituencies that Mr. Rove hopes to draw into the Bush camp over the next two years. It says that they intend to "maintain" support from "Coal & Steel," "Farmers" and "Ranchers." Then skip ahead to slides 24 through 26, which show the states most narrowly won or lost by Mr. Bush in 2000, including West Virginia (coal), Missouri (farmers), Iowa (farmers), Pennsylvania (steel), Ohio (coal and steel), Wisconsin (farmers) and so on.

What Mr. Rove omitted from his show-and-tell, of course, were the little actions the President took to help himself in these states of "special concern," as they’re called in PowerPoint prose.

The political guru might have added a slide of Mr. Bush signing that $190 billion farm bill, which the White House obstructed for months as a supposed affront to its free-market ideology, but now touts as its own. He might also have added another slide detailing those steep new steel tariffs announced by Mr. Bush a few weeks ago, in direct contradiction of the administration’s free-trade rhetoric. Or he could have slipped in a slide about Mr. Bush’s abandonment of his promise to reduce carbon dioxide and other air pollution, a straight sellout to the coal industry.

Such additions would no doubt have been excessively candid. Speaking of candor, Mr. Rove’s purloined disc delineates several states where the White House expects bad trouble in the midterm elections. Notable on the "special concern" list was Florida, where the President’s brother is seeking re-election as Governor (and where the White House, coincidentally, announced a plan to buy unpopular offshore-drilling leases, despite the "energy crisis" that necessitates drilling off California and in Alaska.)

....

As soon as the disc leaked out, the White House announced that its contents didn’t accurately reflect Mr. Rove’s opinions. None of the Republicans is really in trouble, they insisted. A senior official also told the Associated Press that recent policy reversals by the President have "no connection to political gain" for him and his party.

And whatever happened to the Plame investigation?

Earlier Tuesday, President Bush said he hoped the source of the leak would be found quickly, but he also expressed doubts.

Bush spoke several hours before the deadline.

"I want to know the truth," the president told reporters after a meeting with his Cabinet. "I want to see to it that the truth prevails."

But, he added, "This is a town full of people who like to leak information. And I don't know if we're going to find out the 'senior administration official.' "

As to the story you quoted, sure it was a memo by an idiot Democrat. The transcript you posted does not give quite the full story, it appears

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/intelligence.flap/index.html

Democrats and Republicans have been at odds over questions on whether the Bush administration exaggerated the threat from Iraq's Saddam Hussein to justify the war. White House officials have steadfastly denied that suggestion.

The memo suggested a strategy to challenge administration claims about its prewar intelligence.
......
Democrats, it said, should "pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard."

It went on to say: "We will identify the most exaggerated claims. We will contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified.

"Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue, we would attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the use of intelligence.

"The best time to do so will probably be next year," a presidential election year, the memo said.

"Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral and preemptive war," it said in conclusion.

Rockefeller and Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas sent letters to the White House, Pentagon, State Department and CIA last week complaining the agencies were ignoring requests for key documents and interviews.

....
A side controversy was brewing over how Republicans obtained the memo in the first place.

Pointing out that the Intelligence Committee meeting room is under 24-hour guard, Democrats suggested Republicans stole the memo or fished it from a trash can, then leaked it to the news media.

So we know that White House is not cooperating fully with the Committee. We know there is rancor, has been before. We know there are a lot of questions about intelligence.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/31/senate.intel/index.html
Story from 10/31/03

With a noon Friday deadline passing, staff members of a Senate panel said they didn't expect federal agencies to deliver all their documents and to schedule testimony on prewar intelligence about Iraq's weapons programs by that time.

But one staff member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said, "Some things are coming in."

The Senate committee had sent bluntly worded letters this week to the White House, State Department, Pentagon and CIA, demanding documents relevant to its investigation into prewar intelligence by the Friday deadline.
.....

Committee staffers said they want the matter resolved, pointing out that many requests for materials have been in the Bush administration's hands since July.

......
A committee staffer said the senators felt that after months of delay "if you don't give them a deadline, then who knows when the bureaucracy would get its act together?"

.....
The committee is working on a report about prewar intelligence the administration had about possible weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and how the intelligence was used. The administration is under growing political pressure as months have passed without the discovery of any such weapons.
......
White House officials have suggested that the president may decide to refuse to supply certain intelligence documents, such as presidential daily briefs, citing executive privilege.
.....

We also know that some Democrats stand by their choice, and some demand more answers. More importantly, voters, like I, for example, feel misled, and I need answers. Where is the imminent threat? Where are the WMDs? I am not naive, and I know it is good for everyone Saddam is gone. But we did not attack merely because we wanted to build schools or depose a bad man or some other feel good bs they are feeding us now. We attacked because we were told we did not want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud, because we were afraid we was cooperating with the terrorists. I do not expect to know every detail of intelligence, I expect to trust my leaders to make rational choices based on the best minds and best information available.

Of course Democrats want to make political hay of it to win elections, just like of course Republicans are using the war to win elections. I am sure we will hear Bush blame any problems on 9/11 (like he already tried to do with his trifecta comments) and anyone who disagrees will be painted insensitive, unpatriotic and weak on homeland security. Of course some Democrat stole Rove's presentation and leaked to make him look bad, and of course Republicans stole and leaked some idiot Democrat's memo (was it a real memo? a draft? did it go out? who wrote it? an intern? a high placed official?) to try to discredit the work committee and make people forget the purpose of it, and forget the fact that White House is not cooperating with the committee. It is all a brothel, and it is unbecoming for either side to claim blushing innocence. I am sure Republicans will be just as indignant now as Democrats were over Rove presentation. And so on it goes, again and again. It does not matter which side does what, the speeches and the indignation are iterchangeable by now.



Edited to add- looks some of my questions have been answered by a more careful read of the story, and another link (damn insomnia tonight!). It was a draft memo, not approved to distribution, dealing with potential strategies for various outcomes of the report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6021-2003Nov5.html

A barely contained partisan squabble over assessing blame for the apparent failure to find chemical and biological weapons in Iraq broke into the open yesterday when Republican senators said they had a memorandum indicating their Democratic colleagues were preparing a campaign to disparage a Senate committee report on the quality of prewar intelligence before it is even completed.

A senior Democrat countered that Republicans had probably stolen the memo from a trash can or a computer file.
.....
The memo laid out options for handling a report the committee is preparing that will largely focus on weaknesses in intelligence gathering and analysis by the intelligence community.

One option outlined in the memo is to work within the committee, which has a history of bipartisanship unusual in congressional committees, to "pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials."

Another option is to attach a Democratic dissent to any interim or final report that would also "castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry."

A third option is to launch a Democrat-only "independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority."

The memo makes clear that the committee staff does not have concrete evidence of administration misconduct, but is looking hard for it. "Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue, we would attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the use of intelligence."

Rockefeller has been pushing the committee to broaden the inquiry to include a look at how the administration used the intelligence it was provided, specifically whether the White House exaggerated claims on Iraq or had a separate, secret intelligence pipeline at an obscure office in the Defense Department.

The memo's existence was first reported by syndicated radio host Sean Hannity on Tuesday afternoon. By yesterday morning, Republican senators were lining up to denounce it and to demand that Democrats publicly repudiate it by this morning -- never mind that Rockefeller said he had not approved the memo for distribution. Nor did he share it with any Democrats on the committee or the Senate Democratic leadership, he said.

.....

Rockefeller, in a released statement, said the memo "was likely taken from a waste basket or through unauthorized computer access."

"Exploring or asserting the rights of the minority under the intelligence committee rules in no way amounts to politicizing intelligence," he said. "The American people deserve a full accounting of why we sent our sons and daughters into war."

The committee has combed through thousands of pages of documents and interviewed more than one hundred intelligence analysts, operatives and scientists. It is preparing a report that is said to be harshly critical of the CIA and other intelligence agencies for their lack of substantive information and analysis on Iraq.

I do hope these very indignant Republicans are not seriously going to say they do not have political strategy internal memos.

 

[Luke T.]

I do hope these very indignant Republicans are not seriously going to say they do not have political strategy internal memos.

Of course they do. But this particular memo is insidious because it is politicizing intelligence matters. Things that have to do with life and death of our military personnel. They have reached a conclusion before all the data is in. They are going to use the intelligence committee for political purposes. Why else directly express the importance of the timing of a partisan, separate investigation and its impact on the public opinion? I think it is interesting that presidential candidate John Edwards is on that committee, don't you?

Chances are some poor staff member is going to have to take a bullet over this memo. A sacrificial lamb.

Speaking of indignance, the Democrats are upset because they got caught. "It must have been taken out of a trash can or stolen off a computer." Waaaaahhh! We got caught! How dare they!

Bush did not start this war alone. He had both Republican and Democrat members of the House and Senate standing right beside him. It takes Congress as much as it takes the Executive to wage this kind of war. And they reviewed and concurred with the same intelligence data as the President.

If they are going to slam the White House for that data, they will find some of the slop splashing back on themselves, too. They believed it just as much as he did. Their investigation into the validity of that data was lacking as much in depth as the President's.

If they are unhappy with the information they are receiving now, they should say so now. Not play games. Not pretend to be going along so they can short-sheet the situation later for political advantage. The intelligence committee is one of the most important committee's in Congress. It should be the last place where these kinds of shenanigans take place.

 

[toddjh]

If they are unhappy with the information they are receiving now, they should say so now. Not play games. Not pretend to be going along so they can short-sheet the situation later for political advantage.

I agree that things like this are terrible, but how do you intend to solve the problem? The people in power today got there precisely because they did play childish games like that. Sad as it is, that's what gets people elected in this country.

My answer is to set a limit of a single term for all elected offices. That would at least cut down on personal ambitions, if not party ambitions. Do you have any ideas?

Jeremy

 

[renata]

Of course they do. But this particular memo is insidious because it is politicizing intelligence matters. Things that have to do with life and death of our military personnel. They have reached a conclusion before all the data is in. They are going to use the intelligence committee for political purposes. Why else directly express the importance of the timing of a partisan, separate investigation and its impact on the public opinion? I think it is interesting that presidential candidate John Edwards is on that committee, don't you?

No, I don't find it particularly interesting. I believe he was a member of the committee before he announced his candidacy- do you have any information to suggest otherwise? Furthermore, the memo was authored by the staffer of Senator Rockefeller and not distributed or shared with other committee members.

I do not think they reached a conclusion, I believe they are merely debating potential options having to do with report's outcome. I think brainstorming on a draft is allowed.

As to who plays with life and death with military personnel- I think that is the whole purpose of the investigation- why exactly did US send milatary to Iraq. The investigation is not going to cost an extra life, but it may save some, if it reveales what we relied to go there.

Chances are some poor staff member is going to have to take a bullet over this memo. A sacrificial lamb.

A novel idea in Washington, indeed.

Speaking of indignance, the Democrats are upset because they got caught. "It must have been taken out of a trash can or stolen off a computer." Waaaaahhh! We got caught! How dare they!

Did you forget the indignation when Rove's presentation was leaked? Or recently, Rumsfield's memo? Both times White House tried to say- oh, they don't actually mean it, and those were actual memos/presentations by senior members of their teams used and approved in presentations. This was either stolen off computer or fished out of a trash can, it was not approved for anything. Imagine if Democrats hacked into computers or Republicans, or went through trash of Republicans and stole some memos. Do you honestly think that they would not find the exact same things, and that Republicans would not flip out over this theft and invasion?

But I do find it interesting this memo surfaced 3 days after White House missed its deadline in providing some documents to the committee. What a lucky coincidence for the White House.

Bush did not start this war alone. He had both Republican and Democrat members of the House and Senate standing right beside him. It takes Congress as much as it takes the Executive to wage this kind of war. And they reviewed and concurred with the same intelligence data as the President.

Of course, and when Congress in the wake of 9/11 voted to give the President power to wage war without their express approval, it was the first sign of problem. But at the time, anyone saying no was deemed soft on Homeland Security and unpatriotic. Administration officials were talking about WMDs, mushroom clouds, and incomptent inspectors. They refused to give Congress a lot of the data, and said- trust us, we have it, so Congress did trust them. Remember at the time there was some friction and complaining because White House refused to share some data with most members of the Congress, because it was a matter of National Security, and they said people would leak it.

If they are going to slam the White House for that data, they will find some of the slop splashing back on themselves, too. They believed it just as much as he did. Their investigation into the validity of that data was lacking as much in depth as the President's.

I agree they should own up to the mistakes, and they will all get mired. But who led the charge? Who provided the information? Who gave the orders? Who again and again talked about imminent threats?

If Congress screwed up, should they now not investigate. I say they should be furious. I am. I supported the war, because I believed that my government will not lie to me on the big verifiable things, such as, say- WMDs. Oopsie. I think the intelligence committee should have access to every piece of paper on this, and I am hoping heads will roll in every intelligence agency, Republican and Democrat, Clinton appointee, Bush administration, I don't care. Politicians will always play their dirty games, I will not waste my breath being upset about them. I just want someone to be accountable for this, for the big picture. This memo- it is a tempest in a teacup, and the hypocrisy of Republicans' indignation is breathtaking, just like hypocrisy of Democrats was on other issues.

If they are unhappy with the information they are receiving now, they should say so now. Not play games. Not pretend to be going along so they can short-sheet the situation later for political advantage. The intelligence committee is one of the most important committee's in Congress. It should be the last place where these kinds of shenanigans take place.

Well, for one thing they have been saying that, for months. For another thing, like I said before, it was a draft memo, discussing several potential options, by one Democrat, not "they" as in all Democrats. I have absolutely no doubt that Republican strategist have mirror images of these types of things.

 

[Luke T.]

I agree that things like this are terrible, but how do you intend to solve the problem? The people in power today got there precisely because they did play childish games like that. Sad as it is, that's what gets people elected in this country.

My answer is to set a limit of a single term for all elected offices. That would at least cut down on personal ambitions, if not party ambitions. Do you have any ideas?

Jeremy

In the topic on here the other day about which of the amendments in the bill of rights we would repeal, I said then I believed there should be an amendment for term limits for Congress.

I don't think one term is a good idea, though.

 

[Luke T.]

If Congress screwed up, should they now not investigate. I say they should be furious. I am. I supported the war, because I believed that my government will not lie to me on the big verifiable things, such as, say- WMDs. Oopsie. I think the intelligence committee should have access to every piece of paper on this, and I am hoping heads will roll in every intelligence agency, Republican and Democrat, Clinton appointee, Bush administration, I don't care. Politicians will always play their dirty games, I will not waste my breath being upset about them. I just want someone to be accountable for this, for the big picture. This memo- it is a tempest in a teacup, and the hypocrisy of Republicans' indignation is breathtaking, just like hypocrisy of Democrats was on other issues.

I think you are missing what this memo means. The intelligence committee has been investigating the intelligence data that led to support attacking Iraq to discover what was bogus and what was real. They have been trying to get to the bottom of this business about WMDs.

This memo states the Democrats are just playing along as though they are cooperating in that investigation to get to the bottom of things. All serious-like. But that is a cover until the time is right for them to take off in a partisan investigation under the guise of an "independent" counsel. The time being right next year, during the heat of the election.

They haven't been interested in finding out the truth. They've been interested in figuring out how to use the situation to their political advantage.

 

[toddjh]

In the topic on here the other day about which of the amendments in the bill of rights we would repeal, I said then I believed there should be an amendment for term limits for Congress.

I don't think one term is a good idea, though.

Why not? I'm sick of all the campaign BS we get every year or two. I'd like to see a six-year term for President, eight years for the Senate, and maybe three years for the House. For the House I could maybe live with allowing multiple nonconsecutive terms, but I can't stand career politicians.

Hell, at the moment I'm feeling depressed enough that I think just picking random citizens would be a good idea. At least we'd get some decent people in office some of the time.

Jeremy

 

[Luke T.]

Why not? I'm sick of all the campaign BS we get every year or two. I'd like to see a six-year term for President, eight years for the Senate, and maybe three years for the House. For the House I could maybe live with allowing multiple nonconsecutive terms, but I can't stand career politicians.

Hell, at the moment I'm feeling depressed enough that I think just picking random citizens would be a good idea. At least we'd get some decent people in office some of the time.

Jeremy

Frequent elections, as I mentioned in another topic, is more advantageous than disadvantageous. If elections are held far apart, then the losing side may become desperate and resort to violence. History has proven this. And when an infrequent election comes up, passions from desparation are high.

The down side to frequent elections is inconsistency in policies when power changes hands. Our foreign policy suffers most.

Our founding fathers knew this and felt it was worth it in the face of the alternative.

I would support Congressional elections remaining the same. Once every two years for the House, and once every six years for the Senate, with one third of the Senate being up for reelection every two years. That works pretty well.

What I take issue with is that once someone is elected, they have over a 90 percent chance of reelection. And so you get guys who stay for 30, 40 years. That is too long. And they have given themselves a retirement plan that is way out of line.

It wasn't always that way.

I must give another plug for Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America. It is an awesome explanation of the American democratic system.

 

[renata]

I think you are missing what this memo means. The intelligence committee has been investigating the intelligence data that led to support attacking Iraq to discover what was bogus and what was real. They have been trying to get to the bottom of this business about WMDs.

This memo states the Democrats are just playing along as though they are cooperating in that investigation to get to the bottom of things. All serious-like. But that is a cover until the time is right for them to take off in a partisan investigation under the guise of an "independent" counsel. The time being right next year, during the heat of the election.

They haven't been interested in finding out the truth. They've been interested in figuring out how to use the situation to their political advantage.

I think you are basing that on a selective quote of that memo by Hannity. If you read the more of the memo in the CNN and Washington Post article you get a different picture, at least I did.
This is what you quoted, from Hannity's program

Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time, but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year.

These are quoted from Washington Post and CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/intelligence.flap/index.html

The memo suggested a strategy to challenge administration claims about its prewar intelligence.
Democrats, it said, should

"pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard."

It went on to say: "We will identify the most exaggerated claims. We will contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified.

"Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue, we would attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the use of intelligence.

"The best time to do so will probably be next year," a presidential election year, the memo said.

"Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral and preemptive war," it said in conclusion.

Washington Post

The memo laid out options for handling a report the committee is preparing that will largely focus on weaknesses in intelligence gathering and analysis by the intelligence community.

One option outlined in the memo is to work within the committee, which has a history of bipartisanship unusual in congressional committees, to "pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials."

Another option is to attach a Democratic dissent to any interim or final report that would also "castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry."

A third option is to launch a Democrat-only "independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority."

The memo makes clear that the committee staff does not have concrete evidence of administration misconduct, but is looking hard for it. "Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue, we would attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the use of intelligence."

That, to me does not say they already did it, or are doing it, just that it was proposed. Furthermore, the fact that the memo was not approved for distribution tells me that it is likely the plan was likely nixed. We have seen many screweups by "overeager underlings" in the Bush administrations, and have had defenders of the White House people descend on critics saying we cannot hold the administrations responsible for everything everyone does on their behalf.

This was a single Democrat underling, whose name and position we do not know, writing a draft comment, exploring several options, which was not approved and obtained under rather shady circumstances. How about seeing the full memo? Do we know when it was written? Who wrote it? Was it approved? Does it not bother you that it was released now, just as it was about to get embarassing for the White House that they refuse to release documents to this commission? How about imposing the 48 hour rule, and not condemning all Democrats out of hand? Let's do that

 

[Luke T.]

Renata, I wanted to say this earlier and forgot: I do not deny Republicans play dirty tricks, too. Some people have had their fun with Republican dirty tricks on here already, I'm just having my own fun with Democrat dirty tricks now.

The kinds of things that bother me about the memo are statements like "once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue," which implies precognition that the majority will have leads they don't want to pursue, and "Democrat-only 'independent investigation'", which is a contradiction in terms, and the aforementioned timing of when to "pull the trigger."

Granted, it is perhaps pragmatic or realistic for the Democrats to believe there will be leads the Republicans don't want to pursue which can be interpreted in embarassing ways for the Administration. But a simple examination of this topic about this memo goes to show how a "fact" or piece of "evidence" can be interpreted or twisted to reflect very badly on someone. And so the Democrats probably aren't too enthusiastic about pursuing any leads that may tell us the origins and true nature of this memo, not because they think there was any wrongdoing, but because it is too easy for the appearance of wrongdoing to be inferred. So it will be with Republicans on these "leads" mentioned in the memo that they won't want to pursue.

Politics. It is all dirty.

 

[renata]

Renata, I wanted to say this earlier and forgot: I do not deny Republicans play dirty tricks, too. Some people have had their fun with Republican dirty tricks on here already, I'm just having my own fun with Democrat dirty tricks now.

Hey, no problem. As long as you don't try and defend Republican dirty tricks later on .

The kinds of things that bother me about the memo are statements like "once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue," which implies precognition that the majority will have leads they don't want to pursue, and "Democrat-only 'independent investigation'", which is a contradiction in terms, and the aforementioned timing of when to "pull the trigger."

I think given poor cooperation from the White House it is rather realistic for the to expect some resistance from Republican leadership on this. I do not think it is poor form for them to explore this possibility, but it was poor form for them to do it this way. I mean good leaders prepare for all contingencies. I assume there are memos for eventualities of full cooperations as well.

Granted, it is perhaps pragmatic or realistic for the Democrats to believe there will be leads the Republicans don't want to pursue which can be interpreted in embarassing ways for the Administration. But a simple examination of this topic about this memo goes to show how a "fact" or piece of "evidence" can be interpreted or twisted to reflect very badly on someone. And so the Democrats probably aren't too enthusiastic about pursuing any leads that may tell us the origins and true nature of this memo, not because they think there was any wrongdoing, but because it is too easy for the appearance of wrongdoing to be inferred. So it will be with Republicans on these "leads" mentioned in the memo that they won't want to pursue.

And like I said it is likely stupid and nasty. However, it appears to me our interpretations differ slightly, because you seemed to think they are already doing it, while from what I read they were simply exploring options for the future, plus it was a draft, not distributed, by a single person....well, I already said what I said earlier

What bothers me is not your comments but Republicans commentators and politicians shocked , shocked I tell you that politicians would play politics. Shocked and awed.

Politics. It is all dirty.

Yup!

Want to bet Republicans are writing memos right now about how they can use this to political purposes in the next election? Want to bet Democrats are going through Republican trashcans looking for their own gotcha memos?