Dick Durbin on Intelligence Committee Knowledge of Bush Lies re IWR

[Adelante]

I respect Senator Durbin above a whole host of other pols. This is a very difficult video to watch. Please keep in mind that Durbin, as well as Graham, Levin, Mikulski and Wyden, had the courage and good sense to vote NO on the Lieberman IWR, and presented his own amendment, which did not pass. Other members of the Intelligence Committee, Edwards, Bayh, Daschle, Feinstein and Rockefeller, voted YES for the Lieberman IWR.

Here is video of Durbin on the Senate floor on Thursday speaking about classified information the Intelligence Committee had that showed Bush lies:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/28/sen-durbin-drops-bombshells-on-the-senate-floor

Here is a related op-ed Bob Graham wrote in November 2005:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html

[HereSince1628]

1. Was this the worst intelligence overstight ever, or is there something

worse hanging out their in the archives?

[Justice]

2. Edwards, Bayh, Daschle, Feinstein and Rockefeller

how do they explain themselves now, in light of Durbin's statements?

[blm]

7. Senate Intel Dems had the duty to advise the other Dem Senators who did NOT

have the access to the information they had.

[Beaverhausen]

20. I agree. and how about advising the rest of america, too?

I'm am livid about this. "Sworn to secrecy" be damned. These people need to tell us why they said NOTHING.

[blm]

22. May have been harder to do back then - we certainly know the proclivity of the press corps

then and still now is to attack mercilessly anyone who opposed Bush - the press would have gleefully helped BushInc throw any talking Senator in jail. Especially at that time.

[ieoeja]

28. It was illegal. In fact, a couple years later there was talk of charging ...

... a US Senator for talking about classified information in public. Now what was that Senator's name? It's right on the tip of my tongue. Dick something or other from Illinois. Karl Rove accused him of treason in the summer of 2005. Damn! I know I saw his name around here somewhere....

[Beaverhausen]

31. and was he charged? NO

fuck that shit. They had a moral obilgation to let us know what they knew- to do anything they could to try to stop the war.

[cyberpj]

25. Abso-freakin-lutely. nt

[LiberalFighter]

16. I just emailed my Senator, Evan Bayh asking why.

And to think he voted to go to war and wanted to be President.

Screw him. And screw his "Hoosier Family Values" bullcrap.

[karynnj]

26. Daschle and Graham who were among the 8 in Congress

that got the most.

[Connie_Corleone]

3. And Edwards voted NO on the Durbin amendment.

[CarolNYC]

4. And NO on the Levin amendment as well...

Apparently, there is no explanation for it. We're just not supposed to remember that or talk about it. Go figure. :shrug:

[Cameron27]

9. That's exactly what's happening

and the tactic is to ridicule, obfuscate, label any legit question as swiftboating, and completely avoid the issue.

I wish I'd seen this video sooner.

[CarolNYC]

39. Yep....I got to admit,

I understand why they wouldn't want this discussed though. It's pretty ugly. This is not about the price of a haircut or the size of a house. It's about voting to give Bush as much power as he possibly could, even knowing that the whole thing was a bunch of lies, even as he went against his fellow Democrats who tried to limit the power. I can't even begin to imagine how he could have any explanation for it that would make any sense. And then, as someone pointed out, he even lied in his apology...Unless, of course, he neglected to get all of the information that was available to him as a member of the Intelligence Committee because he was too busy campaigning for the Presidency. I would hope THAT's not the case...Oh heck, I really can't even figure what the best scenario would be. I would just like to hear his explanation for the whole thing in light of Durbin's comments.

To his credit, though, KingofNewOrleans was a real King in my thread about my distress about this. He at least seems to be able to understand that I could have a legitimate reason to be upset by this. I appreciate that more than I can express, actually, especially considering the other reactions.

And Durbin continues to take the hits. This place is nuts sometimes.

[Cameron27]

40. I think we need an explanation from Edwards as well,

about all of it, from the Lieberman resolution, right up to his apology when repeated that he voted on the Intel he was given.

I second giving credit to KingofNewOrleans! It's always a pleasure trading thoughts with him, even when we disagree.

[dave_p]

5. Change is needed

There's a problem here beyond some Senators voting one way and some the other.

It's perfectly understandable that Intelligence Committee members adhere to strict protection of sources. But if the rules are such as to stifle any effective challenge on the floor to faulty Commiittee findings, Congress can't do its work.

If the Senator's right that he couldn't tell US legislators what he knew to be the case, subject to approporiate and necessary safeguards, the system isn't working.

[Carolina]

6. Touche

Isn't is interesting that our so-called leaders in the Senate, past and present, all voted for IWR. Here's the vote:

Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Note that Jeffords (R turned I) and Chaffee (the lone R) voted Nay. I know I'll be flamed for this but this is exactly why I have a problem with Clinton, Edwards, Biden and Dodd. All so 'smart' but where's the leadership? Why didn't they even heed the cautious words of Byrd and Kennedy? All I see is 20/20 hindsight and backpedaling as in: "I'm sorry" (too little, too late) and "If I'd known then what I know now" (well, why didn't you? I did, DUers did, the information was there!).

[dflprincess]

21. I'm with you

but, at least some of them said they were sorry (and I agree that is too little too late) - Clinton won't even do that. Her "if I'd know then what I know now I wouldn't have voted that way" just doesn't cut it. I'm not sure I'd buy that line even if the vote had been unanimous.

Someone should ask her what Wellstone knew that she didn't that made him willing to risk his reelection by voting against this.

[Cameron27]

23. Sorry, after seeing this information

the apologies don't cut it and Edwards said the same "if I'd known then...as Clinton:

"The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war."

John Edwards
Sunday, November 13, 2005

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623_pf.html

[allthatjazz]

38. I completely agree

I am totally blown away by Durbin's statement, and the fact that anyone calling themselves a Democrat, and being on the Senate Intelligence Committee could still vote for the IWR. And now claim he made a mistake based on the information available at the time. I don't buy it.

[ieoeja]

29. The majority of Democrats voted AGAINST it.

And includes many of the leaders. Durbin himself, for instance, is the #2 Democrat in the Senate.

[JetCityLiberal]

32. Majority of Dems voted no

but I see what you are saying and you will get no flames from me.

[JetCityLiberal]

33. Majority of Dems voted no

but I see what you are saying and you will get no flames from me.

[Cameron27]

8. This is the first time I'm seeing this!!

So every single member of the Senate Intelligence Committee had direct knowledge that there was NO evidence to go to war, were aware of the lies behind this neo-con scheme and yet Edwards, Bayh, Daschle, Feinstein and Rockefeller, voted YES for the Lieberman IWR.

The apologies are continuing the lies then.

[KingofNewOrleans]

10. Durbin didn't say no evidence

He cited examples of contradictory information, and since there isn't a transcript of the committee debate we don't know what Durbin said in committee. How much of Durbin's doubts were vocal with committee members and how much were discussion with his staff?

Durbin has five years of reality to influence his memory of what occurred in the Intelligence Committee

[Cameron27]

11. They all knew what Durbin knew,

and he's not responsible for their votes. Graham knew and tried to deflect criticism from the others in that OP, but it just reinforces the fact that some ignored the lack of evidence and voted yes on IWR.

Contradictory evidence was enough to stop the yes votes. There's no excuse for this.

[KingofNewOrleans]

13. He's not responsible for their vote but

he is responsible for his part in the debate and we don't know what his part in the debate looked or sounded like. And I think Durbin would even tell you that, in hindsight, he's been surprise by the level of dishonesty (regarding Iraq) by the administration, well beyond the contradictory information the Intelligence committee was receiving.

Clearly, Edwards chose incorrectly. He gave the administration too much benefit of the doubt on information that didn't jibe and he didn't recognize warning signs like Durbin and Graham did.

[Cameron27]

14. He certainly chose incorrectly,

and he chose incorrectly several times on this vote. If he had any doubts about the evidence, and he clearly did, there were several other amendments to vote on, but he chose to co-sponsor Lieberman's, and cheerlead for it.

I don't know what Durbin's part in the debate has to do with anything about Edwards choices, quite frankly. There was enough information available to everyone on the committee to stop a yes vote on the IWR.

Why didn't Edwards recognize the warning signs?...this is something he needs to explain.

[GreenArrow]

15. "this is something he needs to explain."

He said it was a mistake, and he hopes you'll just leave it at that.

[dogman]

41. Edwards did not just give w the benefit of the doubt.

He gave full vocal and written support. Now that he is out of the glass house he throws stones at those still there. He stated that we need leadership and not rhetoric. He has not led and now gives only rhetoric. Durbin was and is Obama's mentor. Is it any wonder Obama opposed the Iraq War? They all had the benefit of Durbin's counsel as well as the testimony of Wes Clark and others. In the South Carolina Primary debate, Edwards called out Kerry for saying there was no connection between 9-11 and Iraq. He said 3,000 plus deaths was enough evidence. Now he is sorry, and so is America. Will only America pay the price? Can we afford to make the wrong choice now?

[Adelante]

12. Bob Graham wrote his op-ed in 2005

He was chairman of the Intelligence Committee. He was the leader and he voted no, as did Durbin and Levin and Wyden and Mikulski. A transcript will never happen, but I think we have to accept that the discussion took place. It's what they were there for, no?

[illinoisprogressive]

17. We have to remember the atmosphere of 2002.

The country was for the war, the bushies were destroying anyone in their way and the label of unpatriotic and terrorist supporter was slung around. people who spoke up did not get to effect change, like Cleeland, after they destroyed them and so, there was no point in it.
I remember being afraid for my mom who lived alone. she is from France and the french resturaunt down the street got vandalized in the mood there was.
It was a scary time and probably like the early 50s. those who did anything were blackballed in 2002.

[Adelante]

18. I do remember

I also think classified information isn't anything to be taken lightly by sworn public officials. It's the YES votes, particularly in view of Durbin's revelations, that I cannot understand.

[Cameron27]

19. Kicking for Sen. Durbin

[cyberpj]

24. As someone else said, he didn't have to disclose facts - but he could have said there were problems!

[Adelante]

27. Durbin did say that much

In his floor speeches before the war. Bob Graham said something similar on TV.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

30. Here is what Sen. Durbin said on the floor of the Senate on

October 10, 2002:

"Mr. DURBIN I thank the Senator for his courtesy. When we disagree, he is always courteous in his treatment and fair on the floor of the Senate.

I might say to my friend from Connecticut, it is rare we disagree. I am sorry this is one of those cases. But I would pose a question, if he wants to answer it--without yielding the floor.

Do you believe that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is an imminent threat to the United States today?

Mr. LIEBERMAN I thank my friend. I agree it is rare we disagree, so I do so with respect.

That is my point. I believe the threat is real. The weapons of mass destruction threat is real. Whether it is imminent or not, I do not know.

As I said, the analogy that comes to mind is of a bomb on a timer. I don't know whether the timer is set to go off in a day or a year. But because the danger is so real, I don't want to establish the standard of imminence before the United Nations or the President of the United States can act to eliminate the danger.

Mr. DURBIN I thank my colleague from Connecticut, and I think it is an honest answer. But let me tell you, I serve on the Intelligence Committee and I would not disclose anything I learned there because it is classified and top secret, but some things I can say because they are public knowledge.

If you want to talk about threats to the United States, let me quickly add to that list North Korea. Currently, North Korea has nuclear weapons. North Korea has missiles that can deliver that nuclear weapon to many countries that we consider our friends and allies in their region.

Iran may not have a nuclear weapon today but could be further along than Iraq is at this moment. There is scant if little evidence that Iraq has a nuclear weapon.

We do not trust Syria because it is a harbor for some 12 or 15 different terrorist organizations in Damascus, and we certainly do not trust Libya because of our fear of weapons of mass destruction.

So now of all the countries I have listed, Iraq is one of them for sure. But I have given you five or six countries which, under this resolution's logic and under this President's new foreign policy, we should be considering invading. Which one and when?

Historically, we have said it is not enough to say you have a weapon that can hurt us. Think of 50 years of cold war when the Soviet Union had weapons poised and pointed at us. It is not enough that you just have weapons. We will watch to see if you make any effort toward hurting anyone in the United States, any of our citizens or our territory.

It was a bright-line difference in our foreign policy which we drew and an important difference in our foreign policy. It distinguished us from aggressor nations. It said that we are a defensive nation. We do not strike out at you simply because you have a weapon if you are not menacing or threatening to us. Has September 11, 2001, changed that so dramatically?

The words ``imminent threat'' have been used throughout the history of the United States. One of the first people to articulate that was a man who served on the floor of this Chamber, Daniel Webster, who talked about anticipatory self-defense, recognized way back in time, in the 19th century. What we are saying today is those rules don't work anymore; we are going to change them.

From Thomas.gov, Senate Floor, October 10, 2002

emphasis added

[Adelante]

34. White House tried to get Durbin kicked off intelligence committee

In the Congressional Record for July 22, 2003 is a rather harrowing tale told by Dick Durbin of a time the White House tried to have him thrown off the Senate Intelligence Committee for releasing classified information; information which had actually already been declassified. The entry in the Congressional Record is entitled "Misleading the American People."

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/s072203.html

[Cameron27]

35. Thanks for posting that.

:thumbsup:

[Adelante]

36. The black helicoptors must have been busy elsewhere

Durbin's really been tested.

[Adelante]

37. 9.11.2002

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said it is impossible for lawmakers and other government officials to adequately answer the questions about Iraq because the Bush administration has not yet produced a comprehensive threat assessment and may be "missing key intelligence information."

Durbin wrote CIA Director George Tenet Tuesday, as well as Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham, D-Florida, and ranking Republican Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, asking that a the CIA put together a so-called "National Intelligence Estimate," an authoritative written judgment on national security regarding Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/11/senators.iraq/index.html


Did the committee members who voted YES to the IWR do this? No. Richard Durbin and Bob Graham did this and without it there would have never been questioning of the intelligence in the Senate, no investigations, no reports.