RW sites post about Closed Session (You know you wanna look)...Eeeeuuu

[AnnInLa]

1. From John Podhoretz:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_10_30_corner-archive.asp#081544

I'M BACK, BUT FOR A MOMENT
I think the Democratic move today in the Senate is politically canny. In the past five days, Democrats have seen the political momentum shifting the president's way with shocking speed. They don't know what to do about the inspired Alito nomination, which they almost certainly can't filibuster. And with the president's announcement of a war against bird flu this morning -- which strikes me as ridiculous policy but inspired Clintonian politics -- Democrats were on the verge of having the Fitzgerald probe consigned to the ash-heap of history. And what do they have going for them right now but Scooter-gate? So by pulling this unprecedented maneuver with Section 21, they're staging a counterassault against the president's effort to change the political story of the moment. This is the sort of thing to make the Huffington Puffington people shriek with happiness and the Kossians to chortle with joy -- almost as much as Bush pulling Miers's nomination did for us (I know, we're not supposed to gloat, but come on). And unfortunately, what the GOP has to respond to the maneuver is Bill Frist, who's a great and noble human being but a stinko political leader. It may not work, but there's no sense pretending this is a dumb thing to do. It isn't.

2. Paul Mirengoff at Power Line

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012121.php

Bless the Dems

The Democrats have forced the Senate into a closed session, demanding answers about the pre-war intelligence on Iraqi WMD. Minority leader Reid used the Libby indictment as a pretext for this meaningless stunt. Presumably, Reid needed a closed door session to prevent the public from witnessing the spectacle of Democrats making fools out of themselves trying to explain the connection between that indictment and pre-war intelligence on Iraq.

The Democrats must feel that they are losing momentum now that the Republicans have their act together on the Supreme Court, and Fitzgerald did not indict Rove. That the Dems see throwing a temper tantrum as a way to regain momentum, rather than as reminder to the public that they are unfit to govern, speaks volumes.
Posted by Paul at 03:19 PM

3. Byron York:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_10_30_corner-archive.asp#081534

WHY REID DID IT

Perhaps the best explanation for the Democrats' decision to virtually shut down the Senate today can be found in one passage from CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's news conference last Friday:

"This indictment is not about the war. This indictment's not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel....The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction. And I think anyone who's concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn't look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that."

Fitzgerald's statement, and his decision to confine the indictment of Lewis Libby to charges of lying and obstruction, threatened to dash the Democrats' hope of using the CIA leak case as an opportunity to re-debate the reasons for going to war in Iraq. So the party, or at least its leaders in the Senate, has decided to use another route, the shutdown of the Senate, as a way to achieve that goal.

4. RedState.org:

http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/11/1/161752/281

The Rockefeller Memo
By: Dales · Section: War

November, 2003:

We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:

1) 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...

More below the fold...

Nov 1st, 2005: 16:17:52

2) Assiduously prepare Democratic 'additional views' to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it...

The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an Independent Commission

3) 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...

(end of Rockefeller Memo)

"It appears the time is now. Bush and the Republicans have had the Democrats' script in hand since it was accidentally revealed back in late 2003. We're about to find out if they developed an effective plan to counter."


((Anyone wanna discuss the Rockefeller Memo? This is the first I've heard of it.))

[corkhead]

1. I want some of whatever they're taking eom

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. how dare they use - - - the RULES?

:rofl:

[bluedawg12]

3. Again with mis-direction, Byron Pork: here is a news flash

prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation was never about the war, a legal investigation has a narrow focus either the main charge of releaseing a covert agents name, or in the present form, obstruction of that self same investigation.

What a f*cking straw man argument.

No matter what Fitz found, there was still the need for a Congressional investigation because notone of the stated reasons for war was jsutified. No al queda, no connection to 9-11, and no WMD.

[Inland]

4. So what is it about demanding answers that is a meaningless stunt?

I guess the point is, anyone who treats the repug caucus as if it were interested in finding out whether the WH lied to us or was merely incompetent is wasting his time. But that's not meaningless. It's FUTILE, but not meaningless.

The meaning is, look at how angry the repugs get when somebody tries to get them to think about what Bush is doing.