Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (55029)	7/19/2004 12:42:34 PM
From: Murrey Walker	Respond to of 793565

I suspect misplaced anger, on John's part, is in play today. He's angry with my "drive by" posting and is taking it out on everyone. ;-)

To: LindyBill who wrote (55029)	7/19/2004 1:01:55 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793565

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.