The Senate Dems did sign it. Every report says they have. You don't have a single source that says they haven't. Why do you continue to post this?
Marshall argues that. But he also argues you can find this statement in the report, p. 442, that the Dems did not sign the portion dealing with Wilson.
Here is the text from the Senate report, from page 442.
Despite our hard and successful work to deliver a unanimous report, however, there were two issues on which the Republicans and Democrats could not agree: 1) whether the Committee should conclude that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's public statements were not based on knowledge he actually possessed, and 2) whether the Committee should conclude that it was the former ambassador's wife who recommended him for his trip to Niger.
And here is the text from Marshall's website. He's discussing the WaPo omsbundsman article.
Both of them, I think, come up a bit short on this one, but Getler more so. It is a 'bipartisan report'. But on the Wilson-Niger matter it's not unfair to identify this as a Republican document since the Democrats did not agree with the majority's conclusions on this matter. Indeed, as the Republicans themselves (specifically Sens. Roberts, Bond and Hatch) complained in their 'additional views' (p. 442) section, "Despite our hard and successful work to deliver a unanimous report ... there were two issues on which the Republicans and Democrats could not agree: 1) whether the Committee should conclude that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's public statements were not based on knowledge he actually possessed, and 2) whether the Committee should conclude that it was the former ambassador's wife who recommended him for his trip to Niger."
Seems pretty clear to me. I thought we were all in agreement on this "fact." But I gather not. |
