So let me get this straight regarding Durbin

[LSK]

ARE DUers too lazy to use thomas.gov and read Durbins Senate Floor speechs during the week of the IWR?

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

How about looking up the roll call votes on senate.gov during that time and noticing Durbin proposed an amendment that would make the IWR more restrictive (which was defeated)?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236

Isnt it common knowledge that he voted against the final version of the IWR?

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

Did they not watch the Bill Moyers documentary last week where he illustrated how DEMOCRATS WERE IGNORED BY THE MEDIA?

Can someone explain to me why DUers feel the need to blindly slam Sen Dick Durbin who is one of our best Senators instead of doing some RESEARCH!?!?!?

[atreides1]

1. It's called being lazy

N/T

[Adelante]

2. Dick Durbin will not go down alone on this

Not if I can help it. There are others who were on that committee FAR more culpable than Durbin, who voted NO to the IWR.

[LSK]

3. why should he go down at all???

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

[Cameron27]

6. He shouldn't.

Classified information has to be handled appropriately. He didn't do anything wrong.

[Adelante]

7. If he is to go down

Which is what I keep reading at DU.

[Beaverhausen]

4. I find it hard to forgive any democrat on that committee

They could have done something but they didn't. Just voting "NO" on the IWR wasn't good enough.

Maybe they could have stood together as a group and spoken out about what they were hearing in that committee.

We have to hold democrats accountable, just as we do republicans.

[LSK]

8. but you are wrong, he did speak up

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

[Cameron27]

9. Excellent work LSK,

I'm sorry I missed it when you posted it.

[Beaverhausen]

10. I'm saying why didn't every democrat on that committee call press conferences...

...to publicly state that the intel they were getting was different than what was being reported?

I'm sorry- they have absolutely no excuse for not speaking out and trying to do more.

As you know, a speech on the senate floor isn't heard by very many people. These senators had a moral obligation to try to stop this war before it started. They didn't.

Hey, I like Durbin too. And I am supporting Edwards for president. This is breaking my heart.

Don't be blinded my loyalty. We have to hold them accountable - at the very least so it doesn't happen again.

[LSK]

12. did you see the Bill Moyers documentary?

The part where Kennedy held a press conference to slam the Intel and that it was given only 36 lines in all the newspapers during that time.

Dems were IGNORED in 2002.

[Beaverhausen]

14. I didn't see that documentary - I wish I had

Ok- I know this is hindsight, but I just think if they stood together as a group, instead of one at a time trying to get the word out, they might have had more impact and had more people listening to them.

Think about it- if every democrat on that committee broke the secrecy and spoke out, don't you think they might had received a little more attention than one or two speechs by 2 of them?

I don't know that they could have stopped the war- but they might have.

I don't blame them for the war, but it now looks like they could have tried a little harder to stop it.

[LSK]

16. in 2002, I think if every Dem on Congress held a press Conference

Nobody would show up.

[Beaverhausen]

18. OK- that may be true. But they didn't do it. That is my point

Just saying, "well no one would have listened to them" isn't good enough.

They should have tried to do more to stop the war. They had facts and intelligence.

I'm not so sure people wouldn't have listened to them.

They should have at least tried.

[LSK]

19. you really need to watch this

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html

[Zhade]

30. Thank you. I was wrong, he did sound an alarm.

Fucking media.

[Joe Fields]

42. He didn't use the media and beat it into our brains, like republicons

are so great at doing, when they want to spin something. Speaking on the floor of the senate chamber and hitting the Sunday morning political show circuit and being a guest on the daily pundit shows screaming about the lies are two completely different things.

And, even though we believe that MSM is biased, don't you think for a minute that all media wouldn't have been interested if a member of the intelligence committee screamed long and loud that the emperor had no clothes?

No, I don't let Durbin off the hook, or anyone else on that committee.

[Monkeyman]

5. All I will Ask him is about his timing

Senator Durbin has helped me with Vets in our State Big Time. His Staff will fight hard for the poor, vets and real people. But I will still ask him why he said nothing. I will report back.

[LSK]

11. Im thinking the reason of now is

1. Everything that he was probably told in those meetings has now been debunked by Intel Reports and just by not finding anything in Iraq.

2. Tenants book.

3. Getting Condi to testify.

[Monkeyman]

13. I think your right

Everytime We have been with him. Like at vet forums and push backs on Cheney and others. He told us there are things we do not know and he could not talk about.

[blm]

15. Durbin did also sign the letter of inquiry for Downing Street Memos.

He is catching alot of blame for what was actually a forced silence.

Bush also brought in key Democrats to the oval office to extract promises that they would not 'politicize' Iraq during the 2004 campaign.

Gee - that was helpful.

[Adelante]

17. Good point on Downing Street Memos

Thanks for posting that.

[leftchick]

20. Durbin voted correctly, Any Dem on the Intel Committee that voted yea?

for the IWR? Edwards? Wasn't he on it at the time?

[Cameron27]

23. Yes, Edwards was on the Intel Committee

and he not only voted yes, he co-sponsored Lieberman's resolution.

[GreenArrow]

40. not only that: "Congress Must Be Clear"

http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_09/alia/a2091910.htm

(Senator Edwards' somewhat difficult to locate 2002 Op-ed in the Wasington Post but perhaps worth bookmarking. There's no copyright, so I'm posting the whole thing.)

19 September 2002

"Congress Must Be Clear," by Senator John Edwards, September 19, 2002

(Op-ed column from The Washington Post on Thursday, 09/19/02)

(This byliner by John Edwards, U.S. Senator (Democrat-North Carolina), first appeared in The Washington Post September 19 and is in the public domain. No republication restrictions.)
(begin byliner)

Congress Must Be Clear John Edwards

Quick Action Will Ensure that Politics Plays no Part in the Debate About Iraq.

The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Fast congressional action to reinforce our resolve is more imperative, not less, in light of Saddam Hussein's recent overture to allow U.N. inspectors back into Iraq. That is a gambit we have seen before. Congress needs to act now to make clear to our U.N. allies and to Iraq that the United States will not stand for the usual half-measures or delaying tactics.

Drafting an appropriate resolution that a large majority of Congress could support should not be difficult. The outlines of such a resolution are already clear. In fact, the biggest debate right now is over the politics of "timing."

There's no better way to remove politics from the process than to go straight to a debate over substance. Quick, bipartisan congressional action will ensure that politics plays no part in this debate. It will also strengthen America's hand as we pursue support from the Security Council and seek to enlist the cooperation of our allies.

The resolution should be strong and unambiguous. It should not be a blank check for the administration, but neither should it try to micromanage a war from Capitol Hill. It should spell out the broad elements of a process that will preserve the legitimacy of American actions, enhance international consensus and strengthen our global leadership.

Here's what I believe the resolution should say. First and foremost, it should clearly endorse the use of all necessary means to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Second, the resolution should call for an effort to rally the international community under a U.N. Security Council mandate. The president's speech last week was an important first step, and his belated diplomatic efforts have already borne fruit. At the same time, we must not tie our own hands by requiring Security Council action. Congress should authorize the United States to act with whatever allies will join us if the Security Council is prevented from supporting action to enforce the more than 16 resolutions against Iraq.

Third, Congress should demand that the administration take real steps to win the peace. The only chance for Iraq to become a democratic, tolerant state -- and a model for the Arab world -- will be through sustained American involvement. We will need to help provide security inside Iraq after Hussein is gone, work with the various Iraqi opposition groups, reassure Iraq's neighbors about its future stability and support the Iraqi people as they rebuild their lives. Congress also should consider authorizing funds now to support such efforts, rather than waiting for events to force us to act with emergency spending.

Congressional pressure to secure our victory is especially necessary because of the administration's performance in Afghanistan, where we have been dangerously slow to help provide security and support democracy. This is wrong today in Afghanistan, and it will be wrong tomorrow in Iraq. In fact, the president's silence about any U.S. commitment to a post-Hussein Iraq was a conspicuous flaw in his speech last week before the United Nations.

Congress must also make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East. We must do more to support existing nonproliferation and disarmament programs that can help prevent access to the weapons-grade materials that tyrants such as Hussein want. We must demand America's active and continuous involvement in addressing the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and in promoting democracy throughout the Arab world. We must commit to developing a national strategy for energy security, one that would reduce our reliance on the Middle East for such critical resources.

Iraq is a grave and growing threat. Hussein has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people.

Iraq's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and it poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam Hussein's arsenal and would stop at nothing to use it against us. America must act, and Congress must make clear to Hussein that he faces a united nation.

(The writer is a Democratic senator from North Carolina and a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.)

(end byliner)

[rosesaylavee]

21. THANK YOU!

A big KICK so all the DUers harping about Durbin can see this. WTF are we fighting Durbin for - this is RW manipulation at its worst.

Come on people! Durbin is NOT the target... He is and always has been on the right side. He is an honorable man that doesn't deserve this shi**.

[mikelgb]

22. he should have spilled his guts on the Senate floor

let the SOBs prosecute him, at least the truth would have been known and a war averted

[Norquist Nemesis]

43. No, it wouldn't have been averted

He would have been arrested and used as a distraction. The "war" would still have happened, we'd have lost a great Senator and for what??? His truth-telling would not have made one bit of difference in getting arrested and probably forced to resign. By law, he can't say anything--true or false.

Personally, I have a bigger problem with him not helping to drum up support to either Censure or Impeach.

[Stinky The Clown]

24. Because outrage and eating our own is so much easier

I posted about this a few days ago ...... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3239844

[slipslidingaway]

25. Was there not enough information in the public domain that

could have been pointed to without disclosing intelligence that was discussed during committee hearings?

The Democrats controlled the Senate and Senator Byrd argued for more time, many times.


Forgetting the intelligence for a minute Senator Byrd also said,


"This is a blank check," he said. "Congress is ceding, lock, stock and barrel, its power to declare war - handing it over to a chief executive. Congress might as well just shut the door and put a sign up there that says, 'Going fishing.'"

and

"....The President's doctrine--and we are about to put our stamp on it, the stamp of this Senate. The President's doctrine, get this, gives him--Him? Who is he? He puts his britches on just the same way I do. He is a man. I respect his office. But look what we are turning over to this man, one man....."

[GreenArrow]

38. there was enough information in the public domain

and it was all lousy and bogus, demonstrably so. If the public info was rotten, and flimsy to the point of insubtantiability, there's no need to assume the "closed door" info was any better. The knowledge that the "intelligence" was bad was not limited to those on the Intelligence committee; I suspect most members of the Senate knew it, and a sizable majority of those in the House knew it.

[slipslidingaway]

44. Thanks, that is what I think as well, some saw the bogus sales

pitch and did not buy the product.

[slipslidingaway]

26. "Wrong on Iraq? Not Everyone"

An article citing news reports that were questioning the WH position.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2847

[LSK]

27. Bill Moyers documentary covered the Knight Ridder guys extensively

[slipslidingaway]

28. Thanks I saw it last week and one item they mentioned was

the discrepancy with the aluminum tube story. If they figured it out then our elected officials should have figured it out.

At least Durbin voted no and unfortunately he is currently getting most of the bad press because of his recent speech. We should question everyone, regardless of party IMO.


Again leaving the intelligence aside, as Senator Byrd said 'Why are we giving this one man so much power on going to war.'

And we were in the majority in the Senate at the time, why rush this vote?


http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/transcript1.html

"BILL MOYERS: What got even less ink than the protestors, was the release of something called the national intelligence estimate. Before voting to give the President war powers, Congress asked the administration to detail all the top secret evidence it was using to justify an invasion.

The press got a declassified version. Most of the media gave it a cursory reading, but jonathan landay examined the text closely…

JONATHAN LANDAY: I got my copy, and I opened it up…

JONATHAN LANDAY: This is the white paper that…

JONATHAN LANDAY: And I came to the part that talked about the aluminum tubes. Now, it said that the majority of analysts believed that those tubes were for the nuclear weapons program. It turns out, though, that that majority of intelligence analysts were-- had no background in nuclear weapons."

[LSK]

29. here is the famed NIE

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2002/nie_iraq_october2002.htm

[LSK]

31. do I have to kick this every day now???

[mdmc]

32. yes!

:toast: to Dick Durbin! One of our best, for sure.

He is still complicit, but he is one of the good guys.

[mantis49]

33. Kick

:kick:

[LSK]

34. kick

[LSK]

35. kick

[greatauntoftriplets]

36. Amen!!! People either have short memories....

or else they just want to throw some blame at Durbin because he is in the Democratic leadership.

Anyone who didn't see this veto coming needs a reality check.

Durbin is a great senator. Who opposed the IWR from the very beginning. And unlike John Kerry, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards.

[saltpoint]

37. Durbin is not one of my senators. I wish he were. He is one of the

finest public officials I have ever seen.

People in Illinois were very smart to send him to represent them in the U.S. Senate. I believe he will be in that body in leadership positions for as long as he wishes to be, and that we are all better off for it.

[BlooInBloo]

39. Because there's nothing DUers enjoy more than doing republicans' work for them.

[LSK]

41. kick

[Cameron27]

45. kick

because someone is again asking questions about Durbin.