He said he heard something in committee or it was explained to the committee and then he would pick up a newspaper later and read that the white house was saying something different. and it was "against the law" for him to go to the paper and "say something's wrong here"
why is it against the law for him to talk to the paper/press and say something was wrong.
i don't get it.
(i wasn't able to tape the show but i think my two quotes are correct--i wrote them down quickly)
my impression was it had something to do with either cheney's saying iraq had wmd crap or bushie reconstituting their nuclear programs or something along that line.
but why couldn't durbin SAY ANYTHING? why was it against the law for him to talk to the press and call the white house on their lies?
3. It goes back to getting "journalists" involved;
politicians are not supposed to share inside info w/reporters, despite what Rove has done. Durbin has more integrity but was troubled by the two differing stories-what he was told as a Senator vs. what was being leaked/reported.
There must be ways to let reporters know the White House was lying without giving the classified info. Amazing how the WH was able to leak all that classified stuff.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.