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 (55441)	7/21/2004 8:21:13 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793883

Democats Block Seventh Judicial Nominee Captain Ed Senate Democrats hauled out their filibuster for the seventh time to block a Bush nominee from a fair floor vote for confirmation, this time unhappy with the nominee's environmental record. William Myers is the latest nominee sent packing by the Democrats, who this time didn't even bother arguing that Myers would endanger the Constitution, their heretofore consistent argument against Bush nominees: The vote on Myers, who was accused by Democrats of hostility to environmental causes, was 53 to 44, seven short of the 60 needed to force action on his nomination to the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. He was the seventh Bush choice for the federal bench to be stopped by a Democratic filibuster. ... The vote was less about Myers than "a reflection of special interest group disdain for policies favored by farmers, ranchers, miners, the Bush Interior Department or anyone else who advocates balanced uses of western lands," said Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah). Previous filibusters have centered around Constitutional issues regarding abortion rights, equal protection, and free-speech decisions or opinions cited by Democrats in their unprecedented use of filibustering nominations. This time, the issues were nakedly partisan and strictly political. Such a display of naked politicization of the judicial nomination process should shame the Democrats, who have turned this session into the most radical Senatorial opposition to any American executive in the history of our nation, excluding the Civil War. It's now quite clear that Democrats will never allow any nominee to pass through the Senate until they subject him or her to policy litmus tests -- an abhorrent and corrupting practice which forces judicial nominees into the unethical position of committing to ruling in certain ways before ever hearing a case. Is this what the Democrats think of an independent judiciary? Fortunately, in November, we have the opportunity to correct this perversion of the Constitution. Identify those Democratic Senators who are up for re-election, like Tom Daschle, Barbara Boxer, and others, and help their opponents unseat them. You can find links to the requisite sites through Hugh Hewitt's website. Posted by Captain Ed at July 21, 2004 06:20 AM Trackback Pings TrackBack URL for this entry: captainsquartersblog.com

To: LindyBill who wrote (55441)	7/21/2004 8:30:02 AM
From: Andrew N. Cothran	Respond to of 793883

Joseph Wilson revisited The Chicago Tribune Published July 21, 2004 In July of 2003, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson went public with a sensational charge: The Bush administration had "manipulated intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq." At issue was 16 words in President Bush's State of the Union address the previous January, asserting that Iraq had sought to buy "significant quantities" of uranium from Africa, later narrowed to the nation of Niger. Wilson said he'd gone to Niger at the behest of the CIA to investigate that claim and found it to be "highly doubtful." Even though Bush had cited the British government as the source for the assertion in his speech, that didn't matter much in the bitter atmosphere that followed. Wilson's allegation that Bush had "twisted" intelligence to "exaggerate the Iraqi threat" became a rallying cry for those who opposed the war. It was proof positive, they claimed, that Bush had lied in making his case for war. That view gained credence when embarrassed administration officials admitted that the sentence was probably wrong and, in any event, should not have been included in Bush's speech because the CIA had not independently confirmed it. CIA Director George Tenet personally accepted blame for the mistake. At the time, the evidence seemed convincing. Then the controversy got personal--and ugly. Wilson accused the administration of attempting to discredit him by exposing the identity of his wife, a CIA officer, thus potentially putting her life at risk. He asserted that his wife had no role in the decision to send him to Niger. Thus the 16 words and the brave former ambassador willing to challenge the president's case for war--at great risk to his family--passed from one man's claims into the realm of unassailable truth. Wilson wrote a book, toured the country and criticized the administration. But now, in quick succession, two massive reports on prewar intelligence failures, one from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and another from a British commission, give reason to believe that Wilson played fast and loose with the facts--or worse. The British inquiry into prewar intelligence says that British intelligence was "well-founded" in its assertion that Saddam Hussein had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. By implication, that means the 16 words from Bush's State of the Union also were correct. While the Senate report does not reach that conclusion outright, it does contain information that bolsters the view that Iraq tried to acquire uranium from Niger and possibly other African nations. It says a French official told the U.S. State Department in November 2002 that France believed the reporting was true that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger. The Financial Times reported last month that European intelligence agencies believe Niger negotiated on the sale of uranium to several nations, including Iraq. There's another reason to question Wilson's veracity. Wilson said his wife, who worked for the CIA at the time, had no role in sending him on the Niger assignment. But the Senate committee report says she suggested his name for the trip and sent a memo to her boss that said "my husband has good relations" with Niger officials and "lots of French contacts." Then, according to the report, she "approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him `there's this crazy report' on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq." That doesn't sound like Wilson went to Niger to find the truth. That sounds like he and his wife had an agenda and she pushed to get him the Niger assignment so he could prove their preconception of the truth. Wilson is now countering those reports with explanations that ring hollow. The lesson here should be clear. The truth about Saddam Hussein's intentions and capabilities is still out there. It will be revealed, probably in small increments, over months if not years. What seems incontrovertible today may be convincingly contradicted tomorrow. We still don't know the complete story about the Iraq-Niger connection, among many other things. As the Senate report makes clear, prewar intelligence on the Niger-Iraq connection was built not on lies but on what the report called "contradictory" and "inconsistent" assessments by the CIA. That, more than anything else, would explain why the White House backed off the 16 words even as some foreign intelligence agencies were still convinced that an Niger-Iraq connection had existed. The 16 words were not the crux of the administration's case for war. But they were brandished by opponents of the administration as symbolic of a case that they claimed was built on lies. As the political atmosphere has grown increasingly venomous, it's unlikely that any single report will change many minds about the war. Yet there's still a lot of information out there--in intelligence files, in the minds of people who will one day write their memoirs, in the files left behind by the Hussein regime, even material that was redacted from the most recent reports--that will contribute to the full picture. The story of this war and the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein is only beginning to be told. It may not be revealed completely for years. It is best, still, to keep an open mind. Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune