The Grandstanding Harry Reid
The Senate Minority Leader has just taken a quite remarkably partisan and reckless step and moved the Senate into ‘closed session’ to discuss the intelligence that led to war. Fitzmas was a bust, and Alito stole the spotlight, so Reid is trying to steal it back, plan and simple. Horribly irresponsible, but I do hope while the Senate is in closed session, they’ll discuss the faulty, shoddy work of the CIA under Presidents Clinton and Bush…more later…but for now, the gloves are off, ladies and gentlemen. Reid has gone too far, and he has neither the votes or the power…but we do…and we’ll have opportunity to show him quite soon, I expect…
UPDATE 4:02 p.m. Bill Frist: “Once again, it shows the Democrats use scare tactics. They have no conviction. They have no principles. They have no ideas,” Frist said. “But this is the ultimate. Since I’ve been majority leader, I’ll have to say, not with the previous Democratic leader or the current Democratic leader have ever I been slapped in the face with such an affront to the leadership of this grand institution.”
Trent Lott:”This is not the way it has been done,” Lott said. “We would never surprise each other … It’s not to say that there’s not important information that we could discuss or would be discussed in secret or closed session, but I’m astounded by this. I don’t really know what the tenor of this is, what is the justification for it and why this extreme approach was used.”
UPDATE 2 4:31 p.m.: Kos is reporting that Reid’s office is declaring victory:
For more than two years we have been seeking this investigation. Finally thru the course of this closed session we were able to get the attention of the majority and lock in (with a timeline) the commitment of the senate intelligence committee to investigate how intelligence was manipulated and manufactured with. Its an investigation we desperately need.
In other words, if we don’t get what we want from Fitz, we’ll just keep throwing stuff at the walls until something sticks…
meltdown…
This ‘event’ will shortly be followed by Boxer and Pelosi carrying signs that say:
“Send money.”
This is simply the best means they have to raise cash.
The Senate Select Intelligence Committee HAD an investigation and produced a unanimous report on this topic. In it Joe Wilson is exposed as the liar that he is. I suggest the Republicans begin this session by reading into the record…. LITERALLY, not this crappy “revise and extend” crapola… the results of that investigation. Perhaps the MSMers will then be obliged to give that report the attention it deserves. If such an event transpires Joe Wilson may find himself on the business end of a grand jury.
I’m still waiting to see how this move plays out–not well, I’m guessing. Shutting down the government in the mid-1990s did very little for Newt Gingrich and the Republican Class of ’94. One thing I’m quite sure about, though: Reid just reduced the Democrats’ chances of blocking Alito’s confirmation from remote to nonexistent.
I’ve got to agree with everyone above me:
make some noise, earn some money
you want full disclosure, I’ll give you full disclosure
shut down the government, ha ha, go ahead!
Reid has little power, he knows that, but he just can’t stop himself from acting like a petulent child. He thinks he has nothing to lose so he’ll do anything and everything to stay in the news. I think he has lots to lose (see: Tom Daschle).
Ailito will be confirmed – really, look at the pathetic attempts to attack him, even Chris Matthews is offended. The investigation of the pre-war intelligence will be delivered long before the November 15th deadline agreed to today and, like the Libby indictment, there will be no there there.
They got nothing, they just don’t realize it yet. Unless mtl is dead-on and it is all about the $$$$$.
I don’t know MtL and Steves–sure, you can always use more, but money isn’t really their problem. Hillary can raise a ton for the 06 senate campaigns (unless she keeps it all for herself), and Soros stands ever ready to turn on the spigots–and of course you’ve got the Deaniacs who send in the internet dollars. This seems to me frantic reaction to the fact that the reports of the President’s demise have turned out to be greatly exaggerated.
I think Harry Reid looks like the Grinch who stole Fitzmas. I’m off to see if I can find a good movie still to back up this theory.
Well, now. Everyone is shocked – shocked! – that the Senate Democrats are finally showing some backbone. Here are the facts: in July, 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee released phase one of its report. Chairman Pat Roberts promised to start the second phase, dealing with how the administration handled intelligence prior to the war, after the election was over (Roberts: “It is a priority. I made my commitment and it will get done.”) Needless to say, once the election was over, Roberts reneged on his promise. (Roberts in March 2005: “That is basically on the back burner.”). Well, a deal is a deal, and Roberts did not hold up his end of the bargain. Who can blame the Democrats for using parliamentary maneuvers to force the issue?
Moreover, hearing Bill Frist attacking the Democrats for lack of principle and being an affront to his leadership is truly rich. This is the man who broke Senate precedent and personally campaigned against the minority leader (Daschle). The same guy who diagnosed Terri Schiavo on the Senate floor without ever having seen her. The same guy who spoke at an evangelical event which described Democrats as being against “people of faith.” Is there a more craven politician than Bill Frist?
Obvious Desperation
They are so desperate to find scandal in the Bush adiministration that they invoke a rule that has not been used since President Clinton’s impeachment trials.
Peter: fair enough, as far as it goes, but the fact remains they have little power. You can spin it as “finally showing some backbone” but I suspect they are motivated more by disappointment at the pathetic catch the Fitzgerald net produced (especially given all the hype and expectation).
Well, there are probably several motives at work here, of which I think fund-raising is probably the least important. One motive may (shockingly enough) be principled: the fact is that faulty intelligence led us to war, and the role of the administration in using this intelligence was, shall we say, aggressive (e.g., Rice’s declaration that the aluminum tubes were meant only for nuclear weaponry, when her staff told her otherwise; the Niger connection; Cheney’s talk about mushroom clouds, etc.). If the Congress did not investigate this, it would be shirking its duties. The GOP was clearly dragging their feet here, and the Democrats forced the issue.
I don’t think Fitzgerald’s indictments has much, if anything, to do with this. I also don’t think that it is a “pathetic catch” – this sounds to me like the GOP playing the expectations game. (We thought our team would lose 10-0, but we only lost by 6-0, so we did pretty good, huh?) Rather, if anything, it probably has much to do with the Alito nomination. Bush could have nominated a moderate and sailed by with over 90 votes. Instead, he chose someone who appears to be at the far end of the spectrum. Well, if you ask for a fight, you will get a fight.
The Democrats are, after all, the opposition party. This does not mean that they should mindlessly oppose whatever comes from the other side (and they don’t, as they split the vote on Roberts and were mostly silent on Miers). However, you can’t blame them for not being patsies.
“Bush could have nominated a moderate and sailed by with over 90 votes.”
Name one. Name one “moderate” – really moderate, not by the standards of Harvard law school and the ACLU – that would get 90 votes.
peter, believe it or not, I do think we need to understand the failures of the intelligence community…and I’m aware that there is some backsliding by Roberts…but the timing of the move, a mere two business days after Fitzgerald failed to bring down Karl Rove? A little suspect, no?…
Here’s two: Patrick Fitzgerald and Rudy Giuliani. Maybe Eliot Spitzer. Admittedly their forte is not constitutional law, but they have many other virtues in their favor…
Re timing: well, I could turn it around on you, and note that Bush nominated Alito three days after Libby was indicted — a little suspect, no?
peter, no question, the Miers withdrawal, the Alito nod…I do think it has to do with a conscious decision by Bush to go on the attack…but hey, he’s one of my guys, so it’s okay…
Seriously, though, both sides are playing politics here, no doubt…I’m just saying the principle Reid says he is fighting for was there before, but the Democrats expected Fitzgerald to do their dirty work, and clearly he’s not satisfying their appetites…
Dirty work? The Fitzgerald investigation was leak-proof, professional, and had high standards of integrity — and there were (apparently) serious crimes involved — so while the result may be beneficial to the Democrats, it is not because of anything the Democrats did. The indictments are the result of the system (apparently) working as it should. It’s very different than, say, suggesting that McCain was mentally unstable in the South Carolina primary, or using surrogate groups like the Swift Boat guys –
No, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying Fitzgerald’s investigation was dirty – what I meant was a good chunk of the Democrats hoped he would deliver some sort of crushing blow – see O’Donnell, Lawrence…
Well, for pure emotional satisfaction, you just can’t beat schadenfreude –
The ‘shocked-shocked’ expression is causing me to have flashbacks to every Chris Matthews show for the past 3 years. It is as if it is the only movie Matthews has seen…love to know how many times he makes a Casablanca reference to include the shocked line, the usual suspects etc. Probably has used it more times than Wilson appearred on Countdown.
I’m sticking with the money thing. Hollywood is a great source of cash, but you have to carry their message, or they hold off on you. Nothing brings the kooks out of the woodwork like Downing Street Memo or razzing the WH over pre-war intel. The move strongly suggests that they have given up on Alito, already.
Corzine is out as the dem fundraiser, Schumer is in…and the dems seem to be doing well.
To support the money argument look at the DSCC…
http://www.dscc.org/
It supports the money theme, as every story on the page is about Iraq. 2004 was bad for Dems, because soft money, which was the bread and butter before McCain-Feingold, is falling to National PAC’s. The commercials help you if you are in a blue state, but if you are a dem running for reelection in a red state, they hurt. The dems really need to wrest control of the money away from the Special interest groups within their party. DSCC is the committee structured to do the fundraising for specific campaigns.
The good news for dems? Polling has 53% of US thinking the Administration misled on WMD’s and only 44% believe the US should have gone to War.
The problem for the dems? The War is winding down. Parlimentry (sp) vote goes down December, Rummy is sandbagging the actual Iraqi troop levels, which is making dems ‘uncomfortable’. The election is a year away, but troop draw-down is about 6 months or less. Any significant drawdown is the panacea for the dems hyping Iraq. Establishing victory for all to see is the WH plan. The WH has shown the ability to sit on good news until it is needed, unlike the dems, who float along on the need for instant gratification.
Iraq is a great issue now, but time is on Bush’s side.
I am curious about the 20 plus democratic Senators who voted for it. You’d think they’d be the first to rush out and declare they were misled, buttressing the dem talking points. Their reluctance is two fold. Understanding that the mission involving large troop deployments is almost done, and trying to find what intelligence they relied upon to explicitly say they voted for war for reason ‘x’, but reason ‘x’ was hyped.
The SSCI is hard to refute. Wilson was in Niger in October 2002, the same month the Senate authorized the use of force based on WMD’s-whatever he found in Niger-the decision was already made.
And to quote Joe Wilson from a speech he made in June 2003-
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/10/before-novak-joe-wilson-speech-that.html
“… I remain on the view that we will find biological and chemical weapons and we may well find something that that indicates that Saddam’s regime maintained an interest in nuclear weapons…”
So even the great War critic/skeptic/debunker believed we would find WMD capability after ‘knowing’ that the American people were ‘misled’.
whoomp there it is…
http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_10_30_corner-archive.asp#081690
money.