Dick Durbin's tell all re Bushcos lies

[malaise]

Is it Truth Little, Truth Late as KO says?

[jamesinca]

1. What did the Senator tell?

Where did he tell it?

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. Durbin sits on the Intel committee and KNEW the prez and repukes were LYING as they debated

invading Iraq, but he had sworn an OATH not to repeat top secret, classified info that he learn in the briefings. He knew they were LYING and that's why HE voted against it.

Durbin could have said they were LYING, but how could he prove it if he couldn't repeat what he learned in the intel briefings? I dunno.:shrug:

[karynnj]

9. If all the Democrats on the Intelligence committee

saying the internal information that they had was "less alarming" than what the rest of the Senate got that would have gotten the information out. However, I think half voted each way. So no inference could be made. Graham has also said that he voted no based on the intelligence committee report and said the intelligence for the other Senators was cherry picked.

In November 2005, when the Republicans were saying the Democrats saw the same thing, Durbin was excellent explaining the tiers of who saw what. The President and his administration saw everything, then the 8 designated people in the Congress (The Senate Dems were Daschle and Rockefeller.) Then the Intelligence committee, then the rest of them.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

12. Just imagine if all the Dems did get together, arms linked and spilled the beans.

How many thousands upon thousands of people would still be alive? How much more money would we have in our Treasury? How much easily would it have been back then to make a case for Impeachment?

I hate "would haves" and "should haves" but just imagine....

[in_cog_ni_to]

15. I don't think ANYTHING would have stopped their invasion. They were hellbent on getting to

Iraq's OIL and NOTHING would have stopped them.

If what Durbin says is TRUE, and I don't doubt it is, why did any of the Intel Committee members vote for it? ESPECIALLY the DEMOCRATS??!!! I wonder which Dem members voted yes?:(

[PaDem]

25. honestly I think many Dems hedged their bets..........

because they thought it would be "a slam dunk". While they knew it was an immoral and unjustifiable war, they were worried about the political fallout of being on the "defeatist" end of the vote for a "slam dunk" military operation. It would be nice to see our politicians stand up on principle, but sadly to few do.

[karynnj]

41. I don't think so

Even if the likelihood of weapons was very low, there was some potential based on the proximity of the former USSR with its unsecured nuclear weapons. The BCCI funded A.Q. Khan was able to secretly build Pakistan's bomb. The situation was also not static. The sanctions - that should never have been kept in place - were likely to be dropped. All of that meant we had to watch, though not invade Iraq.

Beyond the lies on potential WMD, there were another set of lies.

- Colin Powell said that Bush needed the support of the country to leverage support at the UN to getting the inspectors in.

- Bush promised he would not go to war unilaterally

- Bush promised Senators that he would go to war as a last resort.

Those last things weren't based on intelligence - they were matters of policy. Bush point blank lied to the Senators on these things. Even before the DSM proved the lies on the WMD, it was this set of lies that were known by early 2003.

So there were plenty of lies. the second set were known to be lies by early 2003. The WMD ones were shown to be lies after the inspectors got in and more certainly after the DSM came out.

[karynnj]

31. Edwards, Bayh and I think Rockefeller for 3

[krkaufman]

62. We'd very likely be in the very same mess. Except...

Several Dem Senators and Congresscritters would be in jail or out of office

Repubs could still hold Senate and House majorities

They would have been torn apart back in the environment of late-2002/early-2003, but they would have been vindicated, in the long run. Durbin's comments raise many questions, and each Committee member needs to be judged individually.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. Sure it's too late, the plan was to wrap us up in a war that we couldn't

ever escape from. We are there.

[Dude_CalmDown]

3. Gee Thanks Dick!

Toofuckenlate

[Solly Mack]

4. We could always ask the dead

Oh wait...it's too late

[karlrschneider]

5. I don't give him a pass on this. He claims they were sworn to secrecy...

and couldn't say anything. I say BULLSHIT...a real American would blow the whistle on the bastards and suffer any consequences. :grr:

[spartan61]

13. I so agree with you, Karl.

I have lost so much respect for Durbin and the others who knew the truth about what this admin was telling the American people. How can they sleep at night?

[karlrschneider]

16. They sleep in comfortable, expensive beds. With Egyptian cotton sheets.

To me, a Democrat who behaves like a Republican is worse than a Republican who behaves like one.
Bah, humbug. He's very little better than Zell or Holy Joe if he did as it appears...put his own personal comfort above
integrity and his oath of office.

[krkaufman]

65. No, Durbin's not worse than a Republican. But he *does* need to be held accountable.

That's where we can differ from the Republicans. We need to demand that our elected officials be held accountable.

Durbin and the rest of the Intelligence Committee members are certainly more complicit, though, than other Congress members, if what Durbin says is true. (And Durbin's veracity on this is not guaranteed. Somebody's lying, but who?)

[malaise]

20. Yep that's my view as well.

Tenet is even worse, although you expect patriotism from Dems. Tenet is going to be skewered next week and so will Colin Powell. Both could have stopped the invasion.

[Monkeyman]

7. To one of my Senators no shit

:grr:

[AlCzervik]

8. i understand he couldn't say directly but come on he could have made some noises

about what was up, say like--"Hey fellow dem senators, i'm voting no and i wish i could tell you why but i can't but i am voting no and i'm on the intel committee so i see a lot more stuff than you do and thats why i'm voting no"

[karynnj]

10. If all the Dem Intelligence people had voted "no" that would have sent a signal

especially if they put out a joint statement listing the committee and saying they were all voting no.

[AlCzervik]

11. what i don't get--how could any of them on that committee vote yes?

[krkaufman]

68. Excellent point. They could have made a public show of being opposed ...

... without actually revealing any details. That certainly would have made it obvious that the hidden truth was different from the public spin.

Which means...

Dem Intell. Committee members were cowards; or

Dem Intell. Committee members have no political sense, whatsoever; or

Dick Durbin is as honest as Tony Snow.

I'd love to hear John Edwards perspective on Durbin's comments. (As I have to wonder whether Durbin's comments weren't intended to specifically undercut Edwards, given that Edwards was also on the Senate Intell. Committee and voted for authorization. Durbin *is* the senior senator from Illinois, the same state as Obama.)

[karynnj]

71. Durbin at least voted no

I had always wondered what he, Graham and others who did so told their peers. Graham insisted on getting more information to the others - but it was still cherry picked.

The key though is that the IWR or any other resolution was NOT what got us into war. It is clear from the DSM, which have still not been fully investigated in the Senate, that Bush and Blair would have manufactored a crisis incident to get us into war anyway. The Democrats do each other a disservice when they blame the Senators who voted for the IWR and here one who voted against it, but who didn't do everything possible to move others.

The key was that even if intelligence didn't show it, the lack of intelligence for 4 years made it impossible to RULE OUT the possibility. What the Democrats voting no and yes agreed on was that there was a potential of a threat and it was important to not ignore it, but get the inspectors in.

As it were, once the inspectors were in and finding nothing and Hussein was destroying missiles, we were at a different point. That was when millions across the world were in the street. The story at that point, if the media had not been complicit, could have been very different. The pressure would have been on Bush and the Republicans. He actually was on the virge of a huge victory - which he threw away. He could have come on TV, taken credit for openning Iraq and cleaning things up. He could have pointed to the missiles being destroyed. If Saddam agreed to this, I assume agreeing to a good system to monitor the country long term would have been easy to get. He also could have spoken about how the sanction hurt Iraq and how much damage they did to our reputation in the area. He actually could have had the higher moral ground and history would have considered the 12 years of sanctions an unfortunate side effect of the first Gulf War. Imagine, Bush would have beat his father and Clinton on Iraq, by having the wisdom not to attack - but wisdom is not a W characteristic.

That's what those of us who protested hoped to influence. The media was missing in action and so were some of the strongest Democratic voices. At that point Gore, Clark, Kennedy, Dean, Kerry, and Carter were speaking against attacking, but very few people heard them. Hillary Clinton now says she voted in good faith to get the inspectors in - but she did NOT speak out in opposition in early 2003. She and her husband were the strongest Democratic voices, imagine if they had been on our side.

But there is only one person who ever - with or without the vote - had the power to take the country to war. Assigning blame, in various measures, to any of the Democrats ignores that the choice in March 2003 was Bush's and Bush's alone. The only thing I would ask of those who did not clearly speak in early 2003, is that they explain fully enough what their criterion for taking the country to war would be - this is a fair question. It is impossible to know if they would have taken the country to war in March 2003, though they would all now say they wouldn't. If they did, they clearly would have done it differently.

[krkaufman]

72. Agreed. Two facts are always omitted by the MSM ....

The "authorization to use military force resolution" was to provide Bush leverage at the UN to get inspectors back in to Iraq, and was not built-up as an authorization for war.

On gaining approval of UN resolution 1441, Bush's UN Ambassador stated that the resolution contained "no hidden triggers and no automaticity with the use of force. The procedure to be followed was laid out in the resolution." The resolution did not implicitly or explicitly authorize the use of force.

Make that three facts.

Bush's war in Iraq was illegal. This seems to slip by the attention of most media outlets, as well.

[AlCzervik]

14. members of the senate intel committee in 2003---

Committee membership at the time of the investigation

The following nine Republicans were members of the Committee at the time the investigation was launched: Committee Chairman C. Patrick Roberts (R-KS), Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), R. Michael DeWine (R-OH), Christopher S. "Kit" Bond (R-MO), C. Trent Lott (R-MS), Olympia J. Snowe (R-ME), Charles Hagel (R-NE), C. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), and John W. Warner (R-VA).
The following eight Democrats made up the rest of the Committee: Vice-Chairman John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (D-WV), Carl Levin (D-MI), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ronald L. Wyden (D-OR), Richard J. Durbin (D-IL), B. Evans "Evan" Bayh III (D-IN), Johnny R. "John" Edwards (D-NC), and Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD).

[in_cog_ni_to]

18. Here's how they voted.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114
Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Vote Counts: YEAs 77
NAYs 23





Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---77
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)....VOTED YES!!!:grr:
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)...VOTED YES!!!:grr:
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)...VOTED YES!!!:grr:
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)...VOTED YES!:grr:
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)


NAYs ---23
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)....VOTED NO!
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)....VOTED NO!

Mikulski (D-MD)....VOTED NO!
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)....VOTED NO!


http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

21. Thanks for posting this..

According to "some people" on this thread, Durbin, Levin, Mikulski and Wyden are "spineless motherfuckers".

I guess the four of them should have stood on the steps of the Capitol Building in October 2002 and told everyone what they knew. :sarcasm:

If they had, they would have been pummelled by the corporate media in this country and, more than likely, all four of them would have been arrested.

Does anyone recall what the attitude of the American people was like in 2002? Hell, people in my own family called me unpatriotic because I saw through the BS and I was a 49 year old housewife from the burbs of Chicago, let alone someone on the Senate Intelligence Committee..

[in_cog_ni_to]

28. I remember what it was like in '02. I felt like I was the ONLY person in my village

who was against the invasion. My son was ostracized at school for being the only kid there who hated Bush and thought the war was wrong. In 2004 HE was the ONLY child in his class who voted against the psycho in the mock election. I was harassed for my anti-Bush/anti-war bumper stickers on my car by all the kids walking out of the school Yep...I remember it well.

Those 4 Senators would have been SKEWERED by the cabal AND the WH propaganda media machine. I don't blame them. They took at oath. They would have broken the LAW and gone to jail...after their public skewering and you can damn well bet they would have been charged with a CRIME (TREASON) by the chickenhawk regime...for leaking classified, TOP SECRET intel. No doubt in my mind.

[MN ChimpH8R]

37. If any of the Dem senators would have publicly told the truth

they would have been in Gitmo faster than you can imagine.

<--This guy voted no, and it is entirely possible that he paid for that vote with his life, and the lives of his wife and daughter.

[krkaufman]

69. They would have been destroyed in the press (see Moyers' program) ...

... but they could have avoided jail. See post POST 10

(p.s. I don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist, but Wellstone was getting a LOT of traction with his anti-war stance, and may have done a LOT of damage to the NEO-CON spin with another 4 months on the Earth. Heck, the Senate may have remained under Democratic control, which by itself may have limited Shrub's lunacy. Or maybe not. It should be noted that the authorization bill had already passed at the time of the crash, and we are now all too familiar with how bat-shxx crazy this guy is.)

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

47. You are absolutely right - The shrill cries of treason would have drowned out

anything that Sen. Durbin or other committee members revealed. The truth of their statement would have had no impact whatsoever, but Durbin would have been censured by the Senate and drummed out of the Intelligence Committee.

I thought Olbermann was way off base, and neither he nor Larry Johnson answered the question of what legal restraints prevented Durbin from speaking out. But like you I recall that in 2002 most Americans were drunk on bloodlust and ready to go to war. I am unconvinced that any revelation would have changed that course.

[orleans]

53. i kept thinking why the fuck didn't someone leak this to the press

and by press i mean someone worth a shit (helen thomas maybe?)

but why wasn't this leaked? if they couldn't speak--leak!

[in_cog_ni_to]

70. The committee is a SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE. That LEAK could have been VERY EASILY traced back to the

source (ONLY committee members KNEW this info) and if they couldn't have pinpointed WHICH Dem leaked it...they would have made a clean sweep and replaced them ALL. REMEMBER...CHENEY was doing these briefings. He's PURE EVIL and would have done anything to get his war on.

[MoJoWorkin]

63. You are SO RIGHT. Durbin would have been crucified.

If I remember correctly, he was about the only one who dared say anything. I remember hearing rumblings about the intel not supporting going to war back then. I think the media drowned out anyone who said ANYTHING remotely against going to war. I think KO needs to go back and revisit that time-- the speeches given by Durbin, etc. more closely. I was disappointed in KO this time, NOT Durbin. KO needs to pick on those who voted YES and knew better--not ANYONE who had the courage to vote NO.

[lonestarnot]

29. Yes thanks for the reminder.

arrrrrg ::grr:

[Joe Fields]

17. Spineless motherfuckers. All of them! Not one true patriot among them.

[frazzled]

19. How do we know he didn't tell?

After all, someone told some journalists about the aluminum tubes not being right for nuclear applications, for example, because I remember reading it. If it were Durbin (and I'm not saying it was, just could've been) who leaked such information about conflicting views on the tubes, he would not tell us now--he could be prosecuted (although let them dare). Of course, the true aluminum tubes story ran on p. 18 in the gutter, and only for a day. Durbin could proably have sat down in the middle of the street in front of the Washington Post with "liar" written on his bare chest, and no one would have reported it.

When you look at the list of the other Democrats on that committee, and how they voted, it is clear that if anyone were to leak it would have been Durbin, Mikulski, Levin, or Wyden .... because the other Democrats, even having seen the intelligence, still voted for it. And that includes the regretful candidate Edwards. He wouldn't even say it was lies well after the invasion, when he had the bully pulpit of the vice-presidential campaign.

Yes, they would have done it anyway. There were plenty of stories leaked to the press about the faulty intelligence before the invasion. The press didn't care and the administration didn't care.

[madrchsod]

22. durbin is taking the hit for every member in that committee

durbin finally admitted that the committee was lied to. the problem is that they are "sworn" to secrecy and if he had no one to back him up the msm would have beat him senseless.
we knew before the war that the bush case for war was bullshit and there were hints coming from that committee that they were being lied to. to get pissed at durbin because he finally admitted to what we all knew is kind of pointless. he did vote against the war and has done everything possible to change the course of this war and the public`s view of this war.

[malaise]

23. Here's a great link on the subject

http://www.correntewire.com/executive_branch_cant_be_trusted_with_state_secrets
<snip>
State secrets were revealed in a scripted event on Meet The Press - so Cheney knew they were already out in public and therefore had not exercised his responsibility to protect the U.S. by keeping state secrets. In this instance, though, it was worse. He lied about those state secrets and depended on the Senate Intelligence Committee members with ‘Need to Know’ to keep their oaths to protect the country. If this were written by Shakespeare, Cheney could be well described as ‘thrice damned’. I’m not William Shakespeare. I’ll just call Cheney a war criminal of the lowest and most despicable order. Lying while trusting the honorable people around him not to reveal state secrets - which would have stopped us from going to war.

The Hague may be too good for them.

[lonestarnot]

30. It certainly is too good for them!

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

24. Well said, madrchsod.

:yourock: :applause:

[FrenchieCat]

26. So if Durbin is getting this kind of heat on this,

Why is John Edwards who also sat on that same committee, who also co-sponsored the IWR Blank Check bill, and who also wrote an Op-Ed in support of going to war, and who also voted AYE not mentioned with the same distain? Because Edwards apologized in November of 2005 for what he did in October of 2002? 3 years later after the polls had turned, he had lost an election and is now running as the populist peace candidate...and is a favorite here on DU? :shrug:

[malaise]

27. It's hysterically funny in a sad way n/t

[FrenchieCat]

32. At least both Durbin and Levin put out Amendments to slow the shit down.....

The Levin Amendment that Failed but was recognized to be the best option once the Lieberman Bill was introduced to slow things down (required to come back for a 2nd vote by congress AFTER Bush went to the U.N.)
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/03/the_levin_amendment_the_resolu.html


The Durbin Amendment that failed and restricted Bush's actions if he did decide to attempt to wage war...
http://durbin.senate.gov/issues/iraq101002a.cfm

and if you research the record, those Dems on that Committee (including Edwards) who voted AYE for the Blank check, voted NAY on those amemdments (except for Feinstein)-

[malaise]

36. Thanks for that

I'll do some digging tomorrow. Durbin has sunk Edwards with one comment.

[karynnj]

74. That may explain the timing of this - He was the first major Obama supporter

The Durbin amendment was very good and seemed the most straight forward way to fix the resolution that the Senators at that point knew was the one that would be voted for. Had it passed, it would have been even clearer tha Bush abused his promises and the resolution itself - though as it was Bush had a signing statement that basically said he gave up nothing in siogning the IWR and that it was in his power to go to war.

The fact is that Edwards has minimized his role and misstated his 2003 position. His apology was accepted because people wanted to accept it.

[orleans]

54. (and i sit here thinking: why? why would they do that?) n/t

[jillan]

45. Edwards - 2 Americas!

The ones who knew and kept quiet

and the ones who were lied to.

Is that the 2 Americas he should really be talking about?

[Raksha]

49. Edwards is paying for his sins, right here and now,

as I sit reading this thread with tears in my eyes. He was my favorite among candidates who have declared so far, second favorite after Al Gore. I knew he co-sponsored the IWR and hoped an explanation for that would be forthcoming. I did NOT know until I read this thread that he was on the Intelligence Committee and knew Bush was lying about Saddam's WMD. Regretfully, I have to say I can no longer support him.

[orleans]

55. i didn't know he was on the intel committee either.

i liked edwards too but i liked all the candidates--am trying to be open minded about them all, just happy that we have such good candidates.....

and now, not only can i not support edwards -- i no longer respect him.

and i wonder WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH HIM??

[illinoisprogressive]

33. Durbin is an honorable man. He took that oath and felt he could not break it.

everyone I know who knows him says he is a decent and good man. I think he felt he could not say anything.
he is my senator and many around here know him.

[saged52]

35. He is also my senator

and I believe he is an honest and trustworthy person. Considering the media and an administration that was going to war regardless I feel he was literally between Iraq and a hard place. I believe he did what was in his limited power at the time.

[WinkyDink]

43. Some might say an even more honorable man would have told the truth, saved lives, and damned the

torpedos.

Sort of like the Berrigan Brothers, or Daniel Ellsberg, or MLK, Jr.

Instead, we have "honorable" men who put a state oath above human life.

[karynnj]

75. Even if he had come forward and said everything I doubt it would

have made much difference. Just the Republicans and the Democrats who saw the intelligence who voted for it would have been enough to pass it.

At most, it might have shifted a few people who might have shifted because it was absolute proof the President was lying that they did not yet have. (Remember the vote was before Wilson's editorial after Bush's Jan 2003 SOTU, before the inspectors found nothing). This would have helped those people - like Harkin and Kerry - but would not have changed anything in the outcome.

[Tinksrival]

34. Don't dis my Senator Durbin!

He doesn't deserve it! Focus it where it belongs! Dick Durbin is one of this countries greatest true progressive leaders.
He quietly does the job that we progressives demand and asks nothing in return.

He personally got involved when in 1986 the Army tried to hold my husband in a military jail on trumped up charges. They held him over three months pending DNA testing results that were repeatedly delayed. After contacting all our representitives, Dick Durbin was the only one to step up and pressure the military to release the results and release my husband. We were stationed at Redstone Arsenal, Al. and he was being held at Fort Campbell, ky. Being accused of something you didn't do is frightning but in the Army you have no rights, no lawyer, no bail, and the can confine you anywhere they like. Senator Durbin was so kind and helpful to me and my husbands family. His pressure had my husband released within days. I will always defend Dick Durbin. He works for me!

[orleans]

56. since you will always defend durbin then go right ahead and explain

to me (please) why the hell he didn't do ANYTHING? why didn't he say this info the public was being fed was not the same the intel committee had, why didn't he give anyone a clue? why didn't he do SOMETHING?

please go right ahead and defend him and explain this to me. because i don't understand. don't tell me all he has done/accomplished--just defend him on this issue.

you see, i love durbin too. he works for me too. and, in the past, i have stood up for him and defended him as well.

but with this....i don't understand how he could have done NOTHING. not when it comes to a war--how do you allow it to happen when you know so much better? i am at such a loss over his rationale and the ethics of this situation.....

[MN ChimpH8R]

38. It seems to me that very few Dem Senators

were capable of believing that ANY administration was capable of lying on the scale and to the degree that is the Bush Crime Family's standard operating procedure. This kind of deliberate malfeasance, corruption and plain old-fashioned evil is not something that this country has had experience with. Vietnam and Watergate were very bad, but the BCF truly does represent something new in American politics. I don't think that at that time most Dems could let themselves believe that Chimpoleon was truly and actually batshit crazy and mentally unbalanced.

Five years of razor-sharp hindsight has clarified the minds of some congresscritters and senators. Five years ago those of us who KNEW that Chimpoleon and Shooter were lying through their teeth were marginalized so far that we couldn't be found with the Mt Palomar telescope. We were the "crazies" and "un-American" (dogs, I hate that expression) appeasers. The only problem is that we were right about everything.

For these reasons I am not going to crap on Dick Durbin, who is a good senator.

[fed-up]

39. Boxer (D-California) voted NO-Feinstein (D-CA) voted YES her hubby made blood $$$$$$$$$ nt

[nomatrix]

40. Wait a minute

before the anthrax attack on democrat senators at the Hart building, and before the spying on their offices and computers,

Bush issued an order to the Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the State Department, and his cabinet members that severely curtailed intelligence oversight by restricting classified information to just eight members of Congress.

"The only Members of Congress whom you or your expressly designated officers may brief regarding classified or sensitive law enforcement information, are the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, and the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Intelligence Committees in the House and Senate."

Lets also remember,

Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Pat Roberts (R-KS) dogged every serious investigation into how the administration fixed the intelligence that took the United States to war in Iraq or the fabricated documents used as evidence to do so.

If you haven't been following this since 2002, it's absurd to jump into it and pretend they had all the info in front of them.
Dump this in the laps of the people who made up the intel to feed to them.

[Adelante]

73. The Intelligence Committee chair, Bob Graham

Demanded a new NIE from Tenet and got it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html

The members of the Intelligence Committee knew what the Senate at large may or may not have known, having nothing to do with Bush's earlier order.

[karynnj]

76. Durbin in 2005 gave an excellent explanation of that on many talk shows

The information was different for:

The 8 mentioned (Daschle and Rockefeller were the Senate Democrats
------------------------------------------------------------
The members of the Intelligence Committee
-----------------------------------------------------------
The rest of the Senate

Durbin here is speaking of what that 2nd tier got versus the 3rd tier. Durbin was also one of the few Senators who signed Kerry's demand that the intelligence committee investigate the WMD part II including reviewing teh DSM.

[ChiciB1]

42. I Posted This At "Politics" & I'm Just So Sick About It!!!! n/t

[magellan]

44. I'm far from impressed with any of these Johnny Come Latelys

...Durbin included. Moreso because for some inscrutable reason he waited FOUR YEARS to so much as hint at this. No, that he voted against the resolution isn't enough. He's just another coward who bided his time, waiting for the least personally damaging moment to tell the truth...WHILE AMERICANS AND IRAQIS DIED NEEDLESSLY!!!!

It's obvious why the Repugs on the Intel Committee kept quiet. What can be said about them that hasn't been said already, thousands of times over. But every Dem on that committee should be ashamed and in my opinion is just as responsible for perpetuating the lies that got us into this travesty of a war as BushCo and the Repugs...regardless of how they voted.

Durbin may not have changed things by speaking out. But his cowardly silence made him an accomplice in Bush**'s plot and the resulting deaths as surely as if he had then voted FOR the resolution knowing what he did.

I'm TIRED OF THE BULLSHIT from these so-called "LEADERS". There are PRINCIPLES. You tell the truth even if it means you get roughed up by the press and perhaps even lose your precious seat in Congress. You do it because the opposite -- the fucking games and "political maneuvering" -- leads us to what we've got now. Nearly everyone's playing, no one's being held accountable (because you'd have to arrest the entire government), and the country's going down THE FUCKING TOILET.

And what pray tell will our glorious Congress do NOW?? They're already half bent over to take another one from Bush**. Even knowing this. GODDAMMIT!!

[Grandrose]

46. Hey...lay off my Senator!!!

He is a great and honorable man and daily fights this war!:grr: :mad: Back Off!

[jillan]

48. In the news.....

http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?action=fullnews&id=23186

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070427-124842-1706r.htm

[moondust]

50. Context matters.

Bushco and the MSM were going to war no matter what anybody said. Senators Byrd and Kennedy and plenty of others in Congress stood up and told the truth loud and clear to no effect. I don't think Durbin ever misled anybody although that might be said of ALL the senators on the intel committee who voted for the IWR.

[LSK]

51. Keith Olbermann GOT IT WRONG regarding Durbin

"There is scant if little evidence that Iraq has a nuclear weapon" - Dick Durbin 10/10/02 on the Senate Floor.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=775754&mesg_id=775754

[MoJoWorkin]

64. Thank you . I think we should inform KO he needs to say that himself.

[Ino]

52. Why is it OK for Durbin to talk NOW...

If it wasn't OK before? Because of Tenet's book?

[LSK]

57. HE DID TALK BACK THEN!!! DOES ANYONE READ MY THREADS?!?!?!?!

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Ino]

58. I've read all the Durbin threads & posts...

I'm referring to this, specifically:

http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/04/27/173043.aspx

"Democratic Senator Dick Durbin admits members of the Senate Intelligence Committee knew the American people were being lied to in the run-upo to the Iraq war, but remained silent because they were sworn to secrecy."

Why is it OK for him to admit this now? Because it's come to light with the Tenet book, or...? I'm not attacking Durbin for anything. I know he did what he could at the time.

[LSK]

59. but my point is Durbin did speak out and probably others did as well

The problem is hardly anyone watches CSPAN and almost nobody remembers what was said in 2002.

We know for a FACT that the media completely ignored the Democrats during that time. Bill Moyers PBS special confirmed that.

So, if a Democrat shouts in a forest, does anyone hear him?

[katmondoo]

60. I remember a very impassioned speech Durbin made

against the Repugs and was forced to apologize even though he told the truth. Saw this on C-Span

[karynnj]

77. That was pathetic and it was disgusting how few Democrats defended him

I think it was in 2005 and was about comments that were against Gitmo. I wondered last week when Reid had his words twisted and few Senators defending him immediately (other than John Kerry), whether he wished he had assertively organized the Democrats to defend Durbin when the Republicans smeared him. It was great to see yesterday that the entire Democratic Senate Caucus signed a letter to the WP supporting Reid. It seems they are learning that anyone can be a victim. I wonder if Durbin wrote it? Does anyone know who was behind it?

[malaise]

61. The bo ttom line is that Bush and Cheney lied

and invaded Iraq. Yes, we wish Dems had done more, but it is Bush and his Rethugs who lied with MSMs complicity. Durbin et al would probably have been arrested for treason in that environment.

[WinkyDink]

67. The man himself said he "couldn't" reveal the truth ("couldn't" meaning, without being punished).

[WinkyDink]

66. Question: WHEN was Durbin RELEASED FROM HIS OATH??

Now that he's spilling the beans.