cnn.com— WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new biography of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton says she and most other senators did not read a key intelligence report before the 2002 vote to authorize war in Iraq.
May 29, 2007View in Crawl 4
Of course they didn't read it. As many have already pointed out, they don't even read the laws they vote on. They're too busy running around doing fund raisers to do the job people expect from a congressperson. If you're in the House or the Senate today, your job boils down to: Making promises to special interests for campaign funds, campaigning for your next term in office, voting on a law on behalf of your funding sources, spinning that vote into some kind of moral structure so the voters don't figure you out, and in your spare time doing your real job in Congress. But only if you're not on vacation. Unfortunately they are so saturated with money interests and a packed schedule it never occurs to them the Constitution might be a guide in their voting.The worst part is that none of this is necessary, yet they all do it anyway because they are so afraid of losing their cushy job in Congress. Ron Paul has managed to avoid the trap of focusing on money by sticking to the Constitution. Special interests know he won't go along with them. This has allowed him to *truly* vote his conscience and vote the Constitution, and maintain moral consistency.
So you're saying that all these senators and representatives that are calling for Mr. Bush to be impeached didn't read one of the reports they should have prior to their vote?Wow... that sounds like incompetence to me! I'm calling for all who voted to go to war that didn't read the report to be impeached. Who's with me? - Joe Levi, <a class="user" href="http://www.JoeLevi.com">http://www.JoeLevi.com</a>
I know the first part is towards me, but I never asked you to ask if the president read the report, so I assume that is directed at someone else. I'll answer the first question.It was known at the time. Granted, if your only access to information is the American media, or even worse, Fox News, then it would appear that this was the only information available at the time. However, there was plenty of people screaming loudly from the highest mountain they could find trying to warn us that it was all a pack of lies. David Albright, an IAEA inspector made numerous statements to the press. Scott Ritter was an inspector from 1991 to 1998. Here's what he had to say in a book PUBLISHED IN *2002* titled "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know":We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services. (page 32)If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we’d have proof, pure and simple. (page 37)[A]s of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance. (page 46)In summary, the people that keep saying "they couldn't have known" were simply avoiding knowing, they wanted to NOT KNOW, they had decided in 1999 or 2000 (actually many had decided in 1992) that Iraq must be invaded, and nothing was going to stop them. You didn't need to a be an informercial clairvoyant, you just had to be looking at all the information, not just the cherry-picked information that was chosen solely to convince the American people that war was unavoidable. It was avoidable. The information was there, it was just never televised, because, well, most of the TV networks are owned by defense contractors, and gosh, reporting that stuff just isn't good for business. Or maybe it's "selective reasoning", you dismiss anything that doesn't support your point of view out-of-hand, and only focus on the things that agree with what you already believe.I was also very aware, in early 2003, that it was highly probable to find ourselves in the same situation in Iraq that the Soviets found themselves in Afghanistan. The situation that contributed to the Soviet Union's collapse. And that was just common sense, mostly, but also it had been spoken of, we were warned but the warnings were dismissed, because, again, we had to go to war and nothing was going to stop the neocons. This was their only opportunity to fulfill a long-standing dream of their's.
"Buried as lame. I don't want to see anything about Congress until they actually do something. Their opinion means nothing to me."Fair enough. But this is an article about actions (or lack thereof), not opinions; specifically, the lack of most of the Congress actually reading a critical intelligence report. I didn't even *read* the article and I can glean as much from the title/summary.
moofedMay 30, 2007
Your comment was read by the voices of Adama and Roslin in my head. o.O
stealthcMay 30, 2007
Of course they didn't read it. As many have already pointed out, they don't even read the laws they vote on. They're too busy running around doing fund raisers to do the job people expect from a congressperson. If you're in the House or the Senate today, your job boils down to: Making promises to special interests for campaign funds, campaigning for your next term in office, voting on a law on behalf of your funding sources, spinning that vote into some kind of moral structure so the voters don't figure you out, and in your spare time doing your real job in Congress. But only if you're not on vacation. Unfortunately they are so saturated with money interests and a packed schedule it never occurs to them the Constitution might be a guide in their voting.The worst part is that none of this is necessary, yet they all do it anyway because they are so afraid of losing their cushy job in Congress. Ron Paul has managed to avoid the trap of focusing on money by sticking to the Constitution. Special interests know he won't go along with them. This has allowed him to *truly* vote his conscience and vote the Constitution, and maintain moral consistency.
scoobydoo84May 30, 2007
@aschocoboYour'e right, it shouldn't be the kids!! Members of congress should be thrown right in the middle of that sunni triangle!!
lateralusMay 30, 2007
oh you're so right. I agree, we should've reduced minimum instead thus raising the dollar's value. I nominate you to replace Wolfowitz.
joeleviMay 31, 2007
So you're saying that all these senators and representatives that are calling for Mr. Bush to be impeached didn't read one of the reports they should have prior to their vote?Wow... that sounds like incompetence to me! I'm calling for all who voted to go to war that didn't read the report to be impeached. Who's with me? - Joe Levi, <a class="user" href="http://www.JoeLevi.com">http://www.JoeLevi.com</a>
phillesh69May 31, 2007
I know the first part is towards me, but I never asked you to ask if the president read the report, so I assume that is directed at someone else. I'll answer the first question.It was known at the time. Granted, if your only access to information is the American media, or even worse, Fox News, then it would appear that this was the only information available at the time. However, there was plenty of people screaming loudly from the highest mountain they could find trying to warn us that it was all a pack of lies. David Albright, an IAEA inspector made numerous statements to the press. Scott Ritter was an inspector from 1991 to 1998. Here's what he had to say in a book PUBLISHED IN *2002* titled "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know":We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services. (page 32)If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we’d have proof, pure and simple. (page 37)[A]s of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance. (page 46)In summary, the people that keep saying "they couldn't have known" were simply avoiding knowing, they wanted to NOT KNOW, they had decided in 1999 or 2000 (actually many had decided in 1992) that Iraq must be invaded, and nothing was going to stop them. You didn't need to a be an informercial clairvoyant, you just had to be looking at all the information, not just the cherry-picked information that was chosen solely to convince the American people that war was unavoidable. It was avoidable. The information was there, it was just never televised, because, well, most of the TV networks are owned by defense contractors, and gosh, reporting that stuff just isn't good for business. Or maybe it's "selective reasoning", you dismiss anything that doesn't support your point of view out-of-hand, and only focus on the things that agree with what you already believe.I was also very aware, in early 2003, that it was highly probable to find ourselves in the same situation in Iraq that the Soviets found themselves in Afghanistan. The situation that contributed to the Soviet Union's collapse. And that was just common sense, mostly, but also it had been spoken of, we were warned but the warnings were dismissed, because, again, we had to go to war and nothing was going to stop the neocons. This was their only opportunity to fulfill a long-standing dream of their's.
iandeforJun 1, 2007
"Buried as lame. I don't want to see anything about Congress until they actually do something. Their opinion means nothing to me."Fair enough. But this is an article about actions (or lack thereof), not opinions; specifically, the lack of most of the Congress actually reading a critical intelligence report. I didn't even *read* the article and I can glean as much from the title/summary.