Sen. Durbin knew

[donsu]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/28/sen-durbin-drops-bombshells-on-the-senate-floor/

Sen. Durbin Drops Bombshells on the Senate Floor

-video-

Senator Dick Durbin, who was on the Senate Intelligence Committee during the lead up to the war, fills us in on what was going on behind the intel scenes in 2002-2003 and how accurately it matched up with what we were being told publicly. Unfortunately for all of us, he was sworn to secrecy back then…
--------------------------------


he didn't tell because he had sworn to keep it a secret.

bunch of crap

I'm calling him on it - since when do Senators keep secret lies and treachery?

would Durbin come on Wash. Journal and explain his treachery and take calls from viewers?

[AndyA]

1. He could have publicly stated that the information being fed to the public

was not the same as what he was given.

Enough said. He wouldn't have been violating any trust, but the message would have been good enough that people would know we were being lied to.

This is all such bullshit. Now it's safe to come out and say, but no one was brave enough to do it then. We have over 3,300 dead troops because of your silence. Their blood is on the hands of everyone who kept their mouths shut in the lead up to the Iraq war.

It was all a lie, and apparently everyone knew it was except for the American people. :mad:

[karynnj]

5. So could Edwards - who you are supporting

He was on the same committee - except he was a co-sponsor and yes voter.

In fact, he and the others on that committee who voted yes - made it harder for others to see there was likely a discrepancy. What if all of them voted no - even if they said nothing, that would send a signal.

[AndyA]

8. I'm not excluding Edwards from this at all.

Edwards has said he made a mistake, he regrets his decision, it was a bad one, one he will have to live with for the rest of his life, etc.

People do make mistakes, and yes, this was a big one.

[karynnj]

21. Why don't you give the same break to Durbin?

He voted "no" and he is making this statement on what the intelligence committee knew - something Edwards, who doesn't mention that he was a co-sponsor hasn't done.

[AndyA]

56. Maybe I should give Durbin a break, but I don't like the way he's handled this at all.

I'm not sure why, other than the whole thing just doesn't set well with me.

Just because he voted "NO" does not excuse him, he kept the secrets just like everybody else did. Yes, I realize he couldn't reveal secrets, but I feel like more could have been done.

Declaring war on a sovereign nation based on trumped up charges is pretty serious. And now thousands of innocent people have been killed because of it. And America's reputation will be forever tarnished as well.

I'm not happy with any of the ones who voted for the war, and I'm sure there's more to it than what we currently know.

My apologies if I'm being unfair to Durbin, I like him very much but I'm very unsettled about this latest news.

[karynnj]

57. That's fair

I would also consider what we know of the war powers act and Bush's signing statements.

- He had a signing statement with the IWR saying he gave up nothing in signing it.

- His interpretation of the war powers act was if HE preceived the nation in peril he could attack. The DSM discus making up an incident.

So, in a different universe pretend the Democrats gave him an air tight bill or no bill at all, from the above - it is clear Bush wanted to go to war and as CIC he could get us involved and nobody "in the middle of a war" is going to impeach the President.

To me it looked like various Democrats were trying - in different ways - to delay war on the hopes that going to the international community could avoid it. Durbin was clearly a leading Democrat working on this. What is more disheartening than October 2002 was that Congress did nothing in early 2003 - to demand the inspectors be given more time. That was the point things were known. The Moyers documentary explains the climate and how dangerous it was politically to speak out then.

To me, in 2004, it was very important that Kerry did speak out in Jan 2003 because it proved he was sincere in his anti-war op-ed in Sept 2002 and in the reasons he gave when he voted. His speaking out was especially noteworthy because he spoke out on January 23. He had learned on Dec 24 2002 that he had cancer and was undergoing tests in Jan and had surgery in Feb 2003. In the midst of that, he gave a strong speech against rushing to war.

[LSK]

60. maybe you should read the ENTIRE THREAD

Like post 19.

What exactly would you have him do that he didnt do?

[AndyA]

62. Yes, I've read the thread. Several times.

I don't profess to know everything he did or did not do, but when you have knowledge that the country you help run is about to start a war with a sovereign nation on trumped up charges, you must do something to stop it.

I would think he could have made a point of speaking to others in Congress, and telling them how strongly he is AGAINST the war in Iraq. It could have been done in a way that maintains secrecy, yet gets a very strong message across that going to war is not the way.

As I said, if I'm being unfair to him, I apologize, but it seems to me when a person is in his position and knows what he knows, there are always ways of influencing others without violating any oaths.

[rosesaylavee]

42. Durbin did say it at the time. He said on the Senate floor in 2002

to explain why he wasn't voting for invading Iraq.

[Sapphire Blue]

2. Since he's 'talking' now, has he been released from his secrecy oath?

[Adelante]

18. Has Edwards been released from his secrecy oath?

He has been out of government for years. Surely if Durbin can finally speak out, Edwards can.

[ieoeja]

33. Probably been declassified. n/t

[Sapphire Blue]

40. If that's the case, wouldn't his office have been able to answer the question?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x788735#788895

[Atman]

3. EVERYBODY knew!

That's what's so fucking ridiculous. And another thing...what do all these revelations do to Bush's (and the freepers') "But they all had the same intelligence WE did?" meme? Seems to kinda shoot a big gaping hole in it, doesn't it?

"When once you practice to deceive..."

.

[karynnj]

6. Many Democrats long ago hit that meme

In 2005, Graham, Kerry and Durbin all explained on various talk shows who got what. There were very likely more who I forgot or never heard.

[rodeodance]

9. the details are all so vague at the moment. Will have to read more.

[mdmc]

24. love your avatar

:toast: for the truth you post...

[Don Claybrook]

4. First, a huge caveat

I haven't read much about this yet, just thread titles such as this, and since I'm at work, I'll need to take time later to do some reading.

But, if true, I believe a price needs to be exacted from him and other Democrats (and of course Republicans) on the Intelligence committee. I maintain that those who got us into war need to be held accountable. This obviously includes just about every Republican on the Hill, but what's good for the goose is what's good for the gander, and I hold myself and my side to higher standards than the knuckledraggers from Fresno do.

Too many children have died for this sort of thing to get a pass. Too many parents are grieving for their dead or wounded children. Too many lives have been ruined. A senator's career is NOTHING by comparison.

Thanks.

(edited to add the parenthetical 'and Republicans')

[Atman]

7. I agree.

No one should get a pass on this. NO ONE.

.

[illinoisprogressive]

10. You do not know Durbin. We in Illinois do. Lay off! he is a good person.

You know what the Bushies did to people. Durbin is an honorable man who is loved and respected here. Everyone I know who knows him says he is decent and honorable.
And he will be re elected. He is our senator.
he would not have held back if he thought he could do something but to some people, giving an oath and keeping your word is important. Him and Levin tried to produce legislation restricting Bush's power.
Edwards was part of that committee and he voted against the bill even when though he knew the same information.
Why is he not being held responsible for his actions as well.

[Sapphire Blue]

11. Has he been released from his secrecy oath?

[dave_p]

38. No

He hasn't revealed anything that was secret. The absence of WMDs has since been acknowledged by the Committee and by the intelligence community. In 2002 there wasn't that admission. He isn't breaching his oath now because he doesn't need to. In 2002 it appears that he would have had to do so to support his case conclusively. That means the system doesn't work. It needs overhauling.

[donsu]

13. doesn't swearing an oath to a criminal make you a criminal too?

he knew the info given to us was false.

if he is so upstanding then he should come before us and explain why he kept his oath and deceived us.

[truebrit71]

27. BECAUSE. HE. COULD. HAVE. BEEN. PROSECUTED.

THAT IS WHY!

Jebbus...lay off the guy will ya?

He was under LEGAL obligation NOT to divulge what he had seen...

[magellan]

47. So if you were watching soldiers and civilians die day after day

...in a war you knew was based on lies, and watching those lies be propagated day after day, you wouldn't tell what you knew for fear of prosecution?

[WinkyDink]

55. Exactly. Just as Sir Thomas More was. No "Man for All Seasons" is Durbin, I guess.

[truebrit71]

58. I think Sen Durbin could have down more...but you must keep in mind the context...

...of the times...this country was fueled by the lies, false patriotism, macho-military swaggering chest-thumping apes, aided and abetted by the "liberal" media..and his voice would have been drowned out or he would have been tarred and feathered...

As it is, he said nothing, but voted AGAINST the war...which was all he could do under the restraints of the secrecy imposed upon him...

[MH1]

14. Exactly - Edwards behavior seems worse, to me

Levin and Durbin tried to craft legislation that would have restricted Bush more, but Edwards helped block it, instead supporting, cosponsoring, and (I've been told) even floor-managing the version that passed.

Edwards' mea culpa might be meaningful if he addressed his own actions in full - but I've only ever heard him speak of his "vote." If all Edwards will apologize for is his "vote" then that is not enough for me.

I am not an Edwrads basher - on the whole I think he is okay as far as the current crop of candidates (my preferred President isn't running). But this issue is a serious concern to me about him, and is enough to tip the scale against him if other measures come out equal with another candidate.

It's the disingenuousness.

[Roland99]

12. Did he and does he continue to vote to fund the war? All we need to know about him, really.

[OHdem10]

15. Bob Graham Ex Senator from Fla lost his seat

because he said the Intelligence did not convince him.

How many of you 20-20 hindsetters even supported or
looked at Graham when he ran for President. Here
was an outstanding Senator. This is what happens.

Every Democratic Senator on the Intel Committee knew
what Durbin knew. Should they all have been as brave
as Graham. He lost a Democratic Seat for us by coming
forward.

In that time Bush was 80% approval in the polls. The
Media would slap down anyone who sloghtly questioned
Bush. Yes, some of them made Graham look like a
"nutcase". for disagreeing.

If you go after Durbin go after them all. Help the
Republicans win the next election.

[donsu]

16. sunshine will win us the next election - enough with keeping silent

nt

[Adelante]

17. I supported Graham when he ran for president

I admire him and Durbin and Levin greatly for their courage and leadership in 2002. My problem is with those who voted YES, not those who voted NO on the IWR.

[jsamuel]

20. He did not lose his seat. He left it.

[karynnj]

25. He CHOOSE not to run a race he would have won

He was not thought to be in jeopordy.

[flyarm]

36. Graham knew all durbin did and alot more he didn't tell!!

just look up who Graham was with the morning of 9/11!!

Graham's hands were not clean on this..he did speakout a little..but not enough!

HE DIDN'T SMELL TO WELL EITHER!!

FLY

[LSK]

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

Mr. DURBIN . I thank the Senator for his courtesy. When we disagree, he is always courteous in his treatment and fair on the floor of the Senate.

I might say to my friend from Connecticut, it is rare we disagree. I am sorry this is one of those cases. But I would pose a question, if he wants to answer it--without yielding the floor.

Do you believe that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is an imminent threat to the United States today?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend. I agree it is rare we disagree, so I do so with respect.

That is my point. I believe the threat is real. The weapons of mass destruction threat is real. Whether it is imminent or not, I do not know.

As I said, the analogy that comes to mind is of a bomb on a timer. I don't know whether the timer is set to go off in a day or a year. But because the danger is so real, I don't want to establish the standard of imminence before the United Nations or the President of the United States can act to eliminate the danger.

Mr. DURBIN . I thank my colleague from Connecticut, and I think it is an honest answer. But let me tell you, I serve on the Intelligence Committee and I would not disclose anything I learned there because it is classified and top secret, but some things I can say because they are public knowledge.

If you want to talk about threats to the United States, let me quickly add to that list North Korea. Currently, North Korea has nuclear weapons. North Korea has missiles that can deliver that nuclear weapon to many countries that we consider our friends and allies in their region.

Iran may not have a nuclear weapon today but could be further along than Iraq is at this moment. There is scant if little evidence that Iraq has a nuclear weapon.

We do not trust Syria because it is a harbor for some 12 or 15 different terrorist organizations in Damascus, and we certainly do not trust Libya because of our fear of weapons of mass destruction.

So now of all the countries I have listed, Iraq is one of them for sure. But I have given you five or six countries which, under this resolution's logic and under this President's new foreign policy, we should be considering invading. Which one and when?

Historically, we have said it is not enough to say you have a weapon that can hurt us. Think of 50 years of cold war when the Soviet Union had weapons poised and pointed at us. It is not enough that you just have weapons. We will watch to see if you make any effort toward hurting anyone in the United States, any of our citizens or our territory.

It was a bright-line difference in our foreign policy which we drew and an important difference in our foreign policy. It distinguished us from aggressor nations. It said that we are a defensive nation. We do not strike out at you simply because you have a weapon if you are not menacing or threatening to us. Has September 11, 2001, changed that so dramatically?

The words ``imminent threat'' have been used throughout the history of the United States. One of the first people to articulate that was a man who served on the floor of this Chamber, Daniel Webster, who talked about anticipatory self-defense, recognized way back in time, in the 19th century. What we are saying today is those rules don't work anymore; we are going to change them.

From Thomas.gov, Senate Floor, October 10, 2002

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x775754

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

32. For me, the most important quote of all in LSK's post is this:

"There is scant if little evidence that Iraq has a nuclear weapon.

Were those 12 words that Sen. Durbin spoke, reported anywhere in the corporate media in Oct. 2002?

As for the posters wanting to know if Sen. Durbin has been "released" from his oath, I think his words on Oct. 10, 2002 provides the answer.

He did everything he reasonably could to alert the millions of mindless Americans that went along with all the BS the White House and the corporate media was foisting during that time.

Even if he had called a press conference how much coverage would it have received? Probably none and even if it had, the spinmeisters on MSNBC, CNN and Faux would have skewered him.

Get real people, Dick Durbin is a great Senator and a great Democrat. Get off his back, start pointing fingers at the other Democrats on the Intelligence Committee in October 2002 that voted for the IWR, not against it.

[LSK]

34. Bill Moyers documentary illustrated how Dems were IGNORED in 2002

I thought everyone saw that last week???

Memory loss problems at DU?

:shrug:

[davsand]

44. Not just memory loss on the subject of Durbin.

Seems to me that there are a raft of DUers that have been clamoring for heads to roll over Plame's outing. I have seen any number of discussions (and participated in them too!) about the treason involved with outing a CIA agent, yet I see people on here now ragging on Durbin's ass for NOT talking outside of the Intel Committee.

Can't have it both ways. If Plame's outing was treason, then Durbin's silence about Top Secret info in the Intel committee is what you should demand.




Laura

[BuyingThyme]

48. Treason is allowing Americans to die in war based on a lie.

[davsand]

51. Taking Top Secret info public is also considered treason.

Durbin voted no on that war, unlike some of the other Dems on that committee. I don't see anybody busting Pelosi's butt right now, and I think SHE voted yes to go to war. Very few folks are saying much about Edwards either, come to think of it...

Is everybody gonna go after THEM too?



Laura

[BuyingThyme]

52. Yes.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

46. Exactly LSK, and for those who missed it, check out

www.PBS.org. I believe the entire show is available to watch on-line.

But of course, even after watching the show many holier-than-thou DU'ers would still say that is no excuse for Sen. Durbin's so-called "lack of candor".

Instead of calling Sen. Durbin's office and asking questions about when he was "released" from his secrecy oath, it never occurs to them to call the offices of the Democrats on the Intelligence Committee in 2002 and still in the Senate, why they voted "Aye" for the IWR.

Just pile it all on Dick Durbin and forget everybody else. Yeah, Dick Durbin is the reason there's over 3300 dead American soldiers in this stupid BS war in Iraq. :sarcasm:

[Cameron27]

35. Yes, Sen. Durbin spoke out about this

and those who voted for the IWR are soley responsible for their lack of moral courage.

[mdmc]

22. Everyone knew. Now that it is popular, everyone is anti-war.

Maurice Hinchey knew in 2002 / 2003. Hinchey is not smarter then Edwards, Kerry, Leiberman, or Clinton. Hinchey was able to tell the truth in 2002 / 2003. The others were not willing to open their mouths (Except for Joementum, he told it like it is; he crazy).

Dick- If you knew and were silent, then you are a traitor. Or just another enabler.:toast: Don't worry, it is all good.

[ieoeja]

29. I guess you posted this before reading post #19. n/t

[mdmc]

37. Back then, I remember Dean and Kucinich opposing the war

And Kennedy too. Everyone else was quiet (not everyone, but almost everyone). While Maurice Hinchey and others went on record as opposing the war, the only senator that I remember being anti-war was Kennedy. I might be wrong, but I never remember Durbin calling BS back in 2003.
I remember HRC making all sorts of hedging comments, as most of the DLC and DNC did at the time. But no one wanted to be "anti-troop" and everyone supported the war.

If Durbin was out in the street shouting against Bush's crimes, then I owe him an apology.

Durbin is still one of the best we have.:kick:

[leftchick]

23. wasn't Edwards on the Intel Committee?

and Feinstein? hmmmmm.....

[truebrit71]

26. Since when? Since they are bound by LAW to not disclose TOP SECRET information...

...if he had he could have been prosecuted.

GET.YOUR.FACTS.STRAIGHT.


What he COULD have done is say, LOUDLY, that the information being fed publicly is much, MUCH different than that which was being shown privately, and that he does NOT support action against Iraq and let people deduce the truth from that...

[magellan]

28. If there's no statute of limitations on intel committee secrecy

...and it appears that may be the case, then why is he talking now?

[ieoeja]

31. Probably been declassified. n/t

[magellan]

41. True, portions were declassified September last year

...for the Phase II report. Nearly 8 months ago now.

[dave_p]

43. The "intelligence" is already discredited

There are enough reports - Congressional and on the part of intelligence agencies - to establish that the WMD claims were bogus. So he doesn't need to risk breaking his oath to state his case now. That wasn't so then to anything like the same extent, I think that's the problem. And it's a big problem if oversight is to count.

[nomatrix]

45. Senate Intelligence Committee Report Pre-War Iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_of_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq

At the conclusion of PHASE I (see statement at bottom)

Senators Rockefeller, Levin, and Durbin

Senators John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) (the Committee's vice-chairman), Carl Levin (D-MI), and Richard Durbin (D-IL), used their additional view to say that the report painted an incomplete picture, because the Committee had put off until phase two of the investigation the key question of "how intelligence on Iraq was used or misused by Administration officials in public statements and reports." Because of this, they said, "the Committee’s phase one report fails to fully explain the environment of intense pressure in which Intelligence Community officials were asked to render judgments on matters relating to Iraq when policy officials had already forcefully stated their own conclusions in public."

-snip-

"At the time of the report's release (July 9, 2004), Democratic members of the committee expressed the hope that "phase two" of the investigation, which was to include an assessment of how the Iraqi WMD intelligence was used by senior policymakers, would be completed quickly. Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) said of phase two, "It is a priority. I made my commitment and it will get done."


From July 9, 2004 to September 8, 2006 Committee Chairman Roberts(R) stalled the release of Phase II keeping it classified.

"Two volumes of the phase II report were released on September 8, 2006: "Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments" and "The Use by the Intelligence Community of Information Provided by the Iraqi National Congress." The conclusions of these reports were that there was no prewar evidence that Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction and there was no evidence that Saddam had links to al-Qaeda."

Until this book by former CIA director came out, making it sound like he was the only one claiming "I told you so" Levin didn't need to stand up and make it clear THEY HAD BEEN SAYING IT ALL ALONG-BUT ROBERTS KEPT IT CLASSIFIED. You can look it up under Thomas.gov how many time Senators John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) (the Committee's vice-chairman)pushed Roberts to release this information.

[Adelante]

63. Rockefeller: Cheney applied 'constant' pressure to stall investigation on flawed Iraq intelligence

January 2007

Rockefeller: Cheney applied 'constant' pressure to stall investigation on flawed Iraq intelligence
By Jonathan S. Landay
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney exerted "constant" pressure on the Republican former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee to stall an investigation into the Bush administration's use of flawed intelligence on Iraq, the panel's Democratic chairman charged Thursday.

-snip

In the 45-minute interview, Rockefeller said that it was "not hearsay" that Cheney, a leading proponent of invading Iraq, pushed Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., to drag out the probe of the administration's use of prewar intelligence.

-snip

Rockefeller's comments were among the most forceful he's made about why the committee failed to complete the inquiry under Roberts. Roberts chaired the intelligence committee from January 2003 until the Democrats took over Congress this month.

The panel released a report in July 2004 that lambasted the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies for erroneously concluding that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was concealing biological, chemical and nuclear warfare programs. It then began examining how senior Bush administration officials used faulty intelligence to justify the March 2003 invasion.

Robert promised to quickly complete what became known as the Phase II investigation. After more than two years, however, the panel published only two of five Phase II reports amid serious rifts between Republican and Democratic members and their staffs.

-snip

The most potentially controversial of the three Phase II reports being worked on will compare what Bush and his top lieutenants said publicly about Iraq's weapons programs and ties to terrorists with what was contained in top-secret intelligence reports.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16546019.htm

[ieoeja]

30. And ... he DID. See post #19.

I don't know if the national media ignored him or not. But here in Illinois his opposition to conquering Iraq was loud and clear.

[BuyingThyme]

39. Not true at all.

See Daniel Ellsberg.

[Laurab]

49. 16 Senators on the Intelligence Committee Knew.

Democratic and Republican. Why is this the second Durbin thread I've seen? Edwards knew. He voted "yes". Why is Durbin being held to a different standard than everyone else on the committee? Every single one of them knew. Durbin spoke out about it, as much as he was legally able to. He voted "no". He has now told us that everyone on the committee knew, but were bound by law not to say anything.

If we are going to have numerous Durbin threads, let's include each member of the Intelligence Committee - including Edwards, who is now running for President, and was apparently NOT misled, as he says he was, when he voted "yes". Lets not exclude the other Dems and Republics who were on that committee. They ALL knew, and thanks to Durbin, we now know that.

I don't know what the consequences would have been for Durbin or anyone else, if they broke the law and revealed what they knew. I also don't doubt that this administration would have destroyed anyone who spoke out. The only thing I know for sure is that Durbin is one of 16 people, and should not be singled out, when every single one of them knew the same thing he did. It seems more than a little unfair to him - he's the only one speaking out now, or we wouldn't even know that they ALL knew.

[Cameron27]

50. Durbin is far less

culpable for this than those on the Intel Committee who knew what he knew and still voted yes on the IWR. It's completely unfair to single him out.

[Adelante]

54. My problem is with those on the committee who voted YES

Durbin had the courage to vote NO. He should not be taking the heat.

[truebrit71]

59. Exactly.

Could he have done more? Hindsight would seem to say yes, but he did not authorize the illegal invasion.

[Cameron27]

61. You said it better than I did...

:thumbsup:

[brentspeak]

53. If I wanted to read Democrat-bashing, I'd go to Freerepublic.com

I don't expect this knee-jerk bashing on Democraticunderground

[Pachamama]

64. Wake up folks! Durbin voted AGAINST the IWR & look at his voting record!!!

Jeebus, I can't believe all this Durbin bashing in this thread over what he said!!! If anything, folks should be rejoicing that he is saying this now! This man has been consistently speaking out against the Bush Administration on so many things and taking steps (even when he was in the Minority) to try and challenge them.

I think that he is finally saying what he did because the environment and timing are right. Did it occur to anyone that beyond the conditions that the members of the Intel committee are sworn to uphold, that maybe there were other pressures, like threats????

Anyone recall the "note" that Rockefeller wrote to himself and kept in a safe place regarding Cheney? Well, I do. And I have a little theory: I believe that many, many members of Congress have had "pressure" applied to them from this administration - possibly even the kind of pressure that is scary. The kind of pressure that threatens to crush careers or ruin people - and their families. I think that now that the Dems control both Chambers (even if it is by a narrow margin) that many are feeling that now is the time to be "bolder" and speak the truth, even if its leaking some details...and I think that's what Durbin is doing here.

I for one rejoice in this and thank the good Senator....I don't think this is the last we have heard from him or others. And while many of us may be frustrated and get angry that many like him didn't speak up sooner, I have to believe there were legit reasons for why he didn't. I forgive him.

People that I want to scream at and rage are people like George Tenet who on the one hand claim to be so concerned about their countries' safety and yet he stood by and allowed the lies to be told. Then he sits on television on 60 minutes and acts like he's been wronged....no, he wronged the American People and somehow expects we are supposed to feel sorry for him. He I will not forgive.

[Adelante]

68. White House tried to have Durbin thrown off the Senate Intelligence Committee

In the Congressional Record for July 22, 2003 entitled "Misleading the American People."

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/s072203.html

[Pachamama]

69. And behind the scenes, I bet they were doing far worse....

Seriously....I think that some day, when we are finally rid of this plague called the "Bushies", that we will hear about what kind of things were done to "enemies". There will probably have to be some kind of "Truth and Reconciliation" commission implemented because it will be so terrible and wounding. It's like when the STASI in East Germany had everyone spying on eachother (parents on their kids, siblings on eachother, students on their teachers, etc.)

[mark414]

65. who was on that committee that still voted YES on the IWR?

Durbin voted NO...but does anyone know who else was on that committee at the time?

[FrenchieCat]

67. The Dems on the Committee and how they voted....

The Dems Who voted NO.....

Bob Graham, Florida, Chairman- VOTED NO
Carl Levin, Michigan - VOTED NO
Ron Wyden, Oregon - VOTED NO
Richard Durbin, Illinois - VOTED NO
Barbara A. Mikulski - VOTED NO


The Dems Who voted YES....
Evan Bayh, Indiana - VOTED YES
John Edwards, North Carolina - VOTED YES
John D. Rockefeller IV , West Virginia - VOTED YES
Dianne Feinstein, California - VOTED YES

_______________________________________________________________________
108th Congress 2002-2003

Also Levin and Durbin both came out with amendments that would have slowed things down and not given Bush a Blank Check. It appears that those Dems that Voted YES on the IWR, Voted down both of those amendments! :wtf:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/FrenchieCat/99
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/03/the_levin_amendment_the_resolu.html

[Tatiana]

66. Once more, with feeling....

STATEMENT ON RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING USE OF U.S. TROOPS AGAINST IRAQ

Senator Richard Durbin
October 10, 2002

Mr. DURBIN: I serve on the Intelligence Committee and I would not disclose anything I learned there because it is classified and top secret, but some things I can say because they are public knowledge.

If you want to talk about threats to the United States, let me quickly add to that list North Korea. Currently, North Korea has nuclear weapons. North Korea has missiles that can deliver that nuclear weapon to many countries that we consider our friends and allies in their region.

Iran may not have a nuclear weapon today but could be further along than Iraq is at this moment. There is scant if little evidence that Iraq has a nuclear weapon.

We do not trust Syria because it is a harbor for some 12 or 15 different terrorist organizations in Damascus, and we certainly do not trust Libya because of our fear of weapons of mass destruction.

So now of all the countries I have listed, Iraq is one of them for sure. But I have given you five or six countries which, under this resolution's logic and under this President's new foreign policy, we should be considering invading. Which one and when?

Historically, we have said it is not enough to say you have a weapon that can hurt us. Think of 50 years of cold war when the Soviet Union had weapons poised and pointed at us. It is not enough that you just have weapons. We will watch to see if you make any effort toward hurting anyone in the United States, any of our citizens or our territory.

It was a bright-line difference in our foreign policy which we drew and an important difference in our foreign policy. It distinguished us from aggressor nations. It said that we are a defensive nation. We do not strike out at you simply because you have a weapon if you are not menacing or threatening to us. Has September 11, 2001, changed that so dramatically?

The words ``imminent threat'' have been used throughout the history of the United States. One of the first people to articulate that was a man who served on the floor of this Chamber, Daniel Webster, who talked about anticipatory self-defense, recognized way back in time, in the 19th century. What we are saying today is those rules don't work anymore; we are going to change them.

I might also add, even though the Senator from Connecticut didn't address it directly, as to whether Iraq is an imminent threat, the minority leader, Republican minority leader, Senator Lott, today on the floor came forward and said, and I quote:

“He is prepared to try to find a peaceful solution here. But unless we make it clear he is committed, we are committed, the U.N. is committed, this problem will not go way. It is serious and it is imminent.”

The words of Senator Lott on the floor today, recognizing the point I am trying to make here. If the President believes it is an imminent threat from weapons of mass destruction, he should have the authority to go forward.

But this is not just a matter of striking a strong position and showing that we have resolve. It is a matter of the people of the United States, through the Senate and the House, giving authority to the President of the United States to commit the lives of our men and women in the U.S. Armed Forces.

I, for one, have thought long and hard about voting for war. As I said on September 14, 2001, I did. I would do it again on the war on terrorism. I believe every Senator--every Senator--Republican and Democrat alike, takes this responsibility particularly seriously.

I had a personal experience in my district as a Congressman in the Persian Gulf war. One of my friends had a son who was in the Marines. She called me and said: He has just been sent over there, and I am worried to death about him.

I said: Let's wait and see how this goes.

We engaged in a debate on the floor of the House and Senate, and we gave President Bush's father, the President, authority to go forward. If you remember, we built up our troops and forces for 6 months, the day came, and the war began, and we were prepared, and we were decisive; in a matter of 48 hours the war ended and I breathed a sigh of relief. It was over quickly, and there were just a handful--I think about 200 American--of casualties out of the thousands and thousands of troops who were in harm's way.

No sooner had I had this feeling of relief than I got a call. One of the 200 killed in that 48-hour period was Christian Porter, a lance corporal in the U.S. Marine Corps, killed by friendly fire--the son of my close friend. I went to that funeral, faced his mother and his father. There was little I could say. I went to the veterans’ cemetery, the National Cemetery, afterwards, as I am sure all of the Members of the Senate would do to pay their respects to his family and respect to this man who served his country.

The image of that funeral at that service in that day is still in my today as I think about the decision we are making, about whether or not we are just striking a position to show our resolve or whether we are in fact, as this resolution says, giving to this President the authority to call into combat men and women who will put their lives on the line for the decision we make today.

Is it unfair for us to say, on this side of the debate, that we should exhaust every reasonable and realistic option before we engage in war? That we should work through the United Nations if we can find an inspection regime that is honest, to try to lessen the threat on the United States at any time in the future? That we should gather a coalition of forces?

I couldn't disagree more with my colleague from Texas. Yes, it is a threat to the United States. All of the countries I listed are threats. But why should we bear this burden alone? Should this burden not be shared by our allies and those who agree with us that we need a peaceful and civilized world? Shouldn't their troops be in the field with American troops fighting side by side for this cause? Only American soldiers? Only American tax dollars? Only America is assuming the responsibility for stability when the war on Iraq is over?

I don't think it is a fair approach. It is far better for us to have a coalition working on it. But what triggers it, goes to the heart of this amendment, is that moment in time when this President--and he is the one who has the authority as Commander in Chief--says we now face an imminent threat from weapons of mass destruction.

What could that be? It could be the identification of fissile material that is now going into Iraq which could lead to their development of a nuclear weapon. That, in my mind, shows imminent threat. It could be his using weapons of mass destruction and sharing them with terrorist organizations. That is clearly an imminent threat. All of these things would trigger the United States to step forward and say now we have to defend ourselves. But at this point in time, none of that is here.

We are being asked, by voting on this resolution, not to wait for the United Nations, not to wait for a coalition, but to move forward on a continuing threat. Member after Member comes to the floor and tells us: The threat against the United States of weapons of mass destruction is an imminent threat. We have to take it seriously. We have to vote on this before the election. That is what the White House says: We have to do it now, we have to do it before we leave town.

Yet when you ask them to put the words ``imminent threat'' in the resolution, watch them scatter and run when the vote comes to the desk here. There will be a handful of us voting for that, a handful of us who believe the foreign policy which has guided the United States for so many generations, so successfully, which has brought us peace and stability, should be honored and respected even on this resolution of great historic moment.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. I don't know if there are others who wish to speak.

Mr. Durbin voted AGAINST the IWR and advised his colleagues to do the same. I wish people would stop smearing a good man and a good Senator. I say that not only as his constituent, but as a citizen.