Democrats force Senate into unusual closed session

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
why would the Democrats want to block and delay phase 2 of this investigation? does that make any sense to you shadowofgrey? didn't think so......

Obstruction is their favorite trait.

as for pabster, he has been completely proved wrong in several threads and refuses to admit so. hell, even the ANANDTECH MODERATOR chimed in to tell him he was wrong once.

LOL you seem to have a big ego. I haven't been "proven" wrong, and the Moderator incident you speak of was actually a well-known talking head who forgot he was logged in and which account he was posting under. Perhaps you'll get as lucky one day.

back to the topic at hand, i think the Republicans are just mad that the Dems are finally growing a pair and demanding an investigation into what we all know was faulty and fudged intelligence. the battle has begun, i predict the next few months are not going to be pretty in Washington.

Why don't you try sticking to the topic "at hand" instead of trolling around with your usual style?
 

ShadesOfGrey

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2005
1,523
0
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Of course Roberts is going to blame the Dems, Shades, it's his only defense, and he hasn't offered any evidence in support of his contention. Straight up blame-shifting. Dems have no way of holding up his report- his party has a majority on the committee, and can issue a report any time they please.

He got caught with his shorts around his ankles, and needs to say something, anything, to placate the faithful... and hold the critics at bay.

And ofcourse the dems are going to blame the Republicans - which you believe. So yes, it's blame shifting and a he said- she said game. Thus the whole shutting the Senate was a political stunt.

Sudheer Anne - from what I remember they weren't opposed to the 2nd phase(I never suggested they were), but that they were holding it up because of some wording or proceedure crap. If I could find the article I read last night, I would spell it out for you. But anyway, to make the claim that the 2nd phase wasn't going forward and they had to pull this stunt is absurd. They were notified on monday that it was moving forward.
As for Pabster, you can whine about him all you want but it looks to me like he more than took care of you guys in here. I'd suggest you let it drop because you are only digging yourself a bigger hole.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,839
2,625
136
As an unaffiliated voter, I'm glad the Dems are finally starting to show some gumption. That is the function of a loyal opposition party-to keep the majority party's control honest.

As far as the GOP whining goes, its just noise. And for Frist specifically, ignore him-he has absolutely no moral authority left, he's nothing but a tool. Don't let the GOP continue to stonewall the investigation-it is certainly in their best interests to do so.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
New title for this thread:
"Democrats Deny Open Government To American Electorate"

HT: Captain Ed


LMFAO, the Bush adminstration is probably the most secretive and underhanded adminstration in the past 100 years... But most of that is a result of Bush looking like a underqualified nervous twit when faced with the horrors of a press conference.

How would you know? If other administrations were more secretive you wouldnt know about it.

 

ShadesOfGrey

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2005
1,523
0
0

totalcommand

Platinum Member
Apr 21, 2004
2,487
0
0
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Of course Roberts is going to blame the Dems, Shades, it's his only defense, and he hasn't offered any evidence in support of his contention. Straight up blame-shifting. Dems have no way of holding up his report- his party has a majority on the committee, and can issue a report any time they please.

He got caught with his shorts around his ankles, and needs to say something, anything, to placate the faithful... and hold the critics at bay.

And ofcourse the dems are going to blame the Republicans - which you believe. So yes, it's blame shifting and a he said- she said game. Thus the whole shutting the Senate was a political stunt.

Sudheer Anne - from what I remember they weren't opposed to the 2nd phase(I never suggested they were), but that they were holding it up because of some wording or proceedure crap. If I could find the article I read last night, I would spell it out for you. But anyway, to make the claim that the 2nd phase wasn't going forward and they had to pull this stunt is absurd. They were notified on monday that it was moving forward.
As for Pabster, you can whine about him all you want but it looks to me like he more than took care of you guys in here. I'd suggest you let it drop because you are only digging yourself a bigger hole.

Spin it any way you want - political stunt, crazyness, insult to the "Grand Institution" that is the Senate - the bottom line is Repubs got caught with their pants and it was a brilliant move by Reid.

In the public's mind, "finding out the truth" will stick better than "political stunt", since it's all politics anyways.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Well, Shades, rather than attacking the source, perhaps you'd care to refute the evidence that Dems have tried to push the inquiry forward 20 times? The cites in the Rawstory piece are matters of public record, documented.

Is the summary somehow inaccurate, and if so, how? Or can you offer any additional documented information to shore up your POV?

Have at it.
 

ShadesOfGrey

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2005
1,523
0
0
Originally posted by: totalcommand
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Of course Roberts is going to blame the Dems, Shades, it's his only defense, and he hasn't offered any evidence in support of his contention. Straight up blame-shifting. Dems have no way of holding up his report- his party has a majority on the committee, and can issue a report any time they please.

He got caught with his shorts around his ankles, and needs to say something, anything, to placate the faithful... and hold the critics at bay.

And ofcourse the dems are going to blame the Republicans - which you believe. So yes, it's blame shifting and a he said- she said game. Thus the whole shutting the Senate was a political stunt.

Sudheer Anne - from what I remember they weren't opposed to the 2nd phase(I never suggested they were), but that they were holding it up because of some wording or proceedure crap. If I could find the article I read last night, I would spell it out for you. But anyway, to make the claim that the 2nd phase wasn't going forward and they had to pull this stunt is absurd. They were notified on monday that it was moving forward.
As for Pabster, you can whine about him all you want but it looks to me like he more than took care of you guys in here. I'd suggest you let it drop because you are only digging yourself a bigger hole.

Spin it any way you want - political stunt, crazyness, insult to the "Grand Institution" that is the Senate - the bottom line is Repubs got caught with their pants and it was a brilliant move by Reid.

In the public's mind, "finding out the truth" will stick better than "political stunt", since it's all politics anyways.

Yeah, and you can spin it however you want too. You can claim it's about finding the truth or whatever but when the dems knew it was already moving forward and they still did this - it's quite obviously just a stunt. The Repubs didn't get caught with anything but you can keep dreaming. Once the dust settles, you will see that this stunt will have backfired/not worked for the dems. This is not how you win elections and increase your seats.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
This whole contention that the inquiry was "moving forward" is extremely amusing. And we've determined that just how? By using the same methods used to prove that glaciers are moving- set a line of stakes, check on them next year?
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
For all of those that are claiming that this was a stunt and accomplished nothing but showboating.....you are dead wrong. It accomplished exactly what is was meant to accomplish. You are just not being told that (100% for sure b/c the right looks bad if they actually tell you) or you refuse to see it yourself.

Here is what it accomplished:

Before: Republican-led committee (8 Repubs 7 Dems) to examine whether or not the intelligence was "massaged" to come to a pre-drawn conclusion where the majority controls what actually goes into the final report

After: Bi-partisan (3 Dems 3 Repubs) committee to examine whether or not the intelligence was "massaged to come to a pre-drawn conclusion where BOTH sides have to agree to what goes into the report

For ShadesOfGrey, here is a quote from Sen. Roberts about "Phase Two" in April:

MTP Transcript

MR. RUSSERT: When will we see phase two of your investigation about the shaping or exaggeration of intelligence by policy-makers?

SEN. ROBERTS: I hope this doesn't take too long. There are three phases to phase two. One is to compare the public statements by the administration on all public officials, including the Congress, with the intelligence matrix that we have. Why did you say what you said in regards to some administration official, in regards to some policy-making? And you can go back over some declarative and aggressive statements. Also you can find the same people who are the very top critics of those comments making the same comments. And so you get down to: Did the intelligence--was it really credible? No. It was a mistake. That influenced the comments of the people concerned.

Now, we can put out 50 different statements by the administration, which we've been provided by the Democrats, and we can also put out 50 different statements by members of Congress, including me--I don't know about Jay, but I think that's the case--and say: "What was in your head? What were you thinking? What was the use of it?" My whole point is--and also to get back to the pressure--the pressure question really involves repetitive questioning. In my view, there wasn't enough repetitive questioning to make sure that the analysts at the DOE, State Department, whatever, that those concerns were put into the national intelligence estimate. I don't think that repetitive questioning of analysts, which they expect, amounts to pressure.

Now, there's two more things. One is the Office of Special Plans under the Department of Defense. Now, we've had a statement basically saying that some of the activities may have been illegal. Everybody down there got a lawyer. I would love to get Doug Feith, who is the undersecretary in charge of the Office of Special Plans, back before the committee. We are willing and able to do that anytime that the minority wishes.

And finally, there's the prewar intelligence on the postwar insurgency in Iraq. We have found to date that that was scattered all over the place. Everybody expected a humanitarian wave of assistance. It didn't happen. So they got that wrong, too. All three things we can complete, but we do also have the confirmation of the DNI working with the Intelligence Reform Act, being much more aggressive in terms of the capability of the hard targets that certainly face America. And to go back in and to keep going over this over and over again, I'm more than happy to finish this, and I want to finish it, but we have other things that we need to do.

MR. RUSSERT: But as you well know, when your report came out there were many people who said that you were not going forward with phase two about exaggerations and shaping because you didn't want to involve yourself, influence the election. You made a firm commitment to do just that.

SEN. ROBERTS: Yeah, we're going to do that, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: The United States went to war...SEN. ROBERTS: Tim, we're going to do that. I will bring it here. We'll have the 50 statements. We'll have the intelligence. We can match it up and you can do it with members of Congress, who are very, very critical, who made the same things, and you can say, "OK," and you'll say "Well, Pat, it just looks to me that the intelligence was wrong and that's exactly why they said what they said." Now, I don't know what that accomplishes over the long term. I'm perfectly willing to do it, and that's what we agreed to do, and that door is still open. And I don't want to quarrel with Jay, because we both agreed that we would get it done. But we do have--we have Ambassador Negroponte next week, we have General Mike Hayden next week. We have other hot-spot hearings or other things going on that are very important. So we will get it done, but it seems to me that we ought to put it in some priority of order, and after we do get it done I think everybody's going to scratch their head and say, "OK, well, that's fine. You know, let's go to the real issue."

Considering he chairs the committee and sets the agenda of it, it sounds more like he is the one that is stalling and holding up the process, not the Dems.

For Pabster, in your quote of Clinton stating that WMD was the reason for bombing Iraq, you cropped the second half of that sentence where he states:

Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Was the belief that he had programs there, absolutely. Do Programs == finished result of program, absolutely NOT. You convienently left off the second half of the sentence stating that he was trying to cripple his ability to attack his neighbors. From the same speech that you cherry picked to make a misleading point:

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

You see where Clinton states the REASONS that he is doing this in clear language? I bolded it for you in case you don't see it right off. He never states that they HAVE WMD. He states that he is trying to stop them from making them. Pretty clear to anyone that actually takes the time to read it.

Edit: Added MTP link
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
ok look ShadesOfGrey, let me spell this out for you in simple English. maybe you'll agree with me, maybe not.

This Republican Congress (House/Senate) has always defended Bush and Bush's administration, with a few exceptions (Miers being one of them). They carry the water for the President, so to speak. Now, if an investigation into how we actually got into the Iraq war were to take place, who would be damaged politically by it? Obviously the President, but the public would then most likely identify Republicans with it as well and the Republican party as a whole would take a hit. So, what would be the smartest thing for the Republicans to do politically? Appease the public by allowing for an investigation, but stonewall the whole thing so that it gets done at a very slow pace.

Please, think rationally ok ShadesOfGrey. I know you are partisan and love Bush to death, but take the blinders of for one second. This is all easy to understand politically. The left, of course, want an investigation because it will only damage this administration and the Republicans in general. The right, don't want it because it will damage them. It's so simple.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Wha wha wha. Please don't hold our president, his admin, and their cooked intelligence up to scrutiny. We will simply have to apologize even louder than we usually do and then attack the source even more vociferously since we can't defend this one.

Political Stunt...
But, but, but Clinton...
War Powers...

SSDD. :roll:
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
For all of those that are claiming that this was a stunt and accomplished nothing but showboating.....you are dead wrong. It accomplished exactly what is was meant to accomplish. You are just not being told that (100% for sure b/c the right looks bad if they actually tell you) or you refuse to see it yourself.

Here is what it accomplished:

Before: Republican-led committee (8 Repubs 7 Dems) to examine whether or not the intelligence was "massaged" to come to a pre-drawn conclusion where the majority controls what actually goes into the final report

After: Bi-partisan (3 Dems 3 Repubs) committee to examine whether or not the intelligence was "massaged to come to a pre-drawn conclusion where BOTH sides have to agree to what goes into the report

For ShadesOfGrey, here is a quote from Sen. Roberts about "Phase Two" in April:

MTP Transcript

MR. RUSSERT: When will we see phase two of your investigation about the shaping or exaggeration of intelligence by policy-makers?

SEN. ROBERTS: I hope this doesn't take too long. There are three phases to phase two. One is to compare the public statements by the administration on all public officials, including the Congress, with the intelligence matrix that we have. Why did you say what you said in regards to some administration official, in regards to some policy-making? And you can go back over some declarative and aggressive statements. Also you can find the same people who are the very top critics of those comments making the same comments. And so you get down to: Did the intelligence--was it really credible? No. It was a mistake. That influenced the comments of the people concerned.

Now, we can put out 50 different statements by the administration, which we've been provided by the Democrats, and we can also put out 50 different statements by members of Congress, including me--I don't know about Jay, but I think that's the case--and say: "What was in your head? What were you thinking? What was the use of it?" My whole point is--and also to get back to the pressure--the pressure question really involves repetitive questioning. In my view, there wasn't enough repetitive questioning to make sure that the analysts at the DOE, State Department, whatever, that those concerns were put into the national intelligence estimate. I don't think that repetitive questioning of analysts, which they expect, amounts to pressure.

Now, there's two more things. One is the Office of Special Plans under the Department of Defense. Now, we've had a statement basically saying that some of the activities may have been illegal. Everybody down there got a lawyer. I would love to get Doug Feith, who is the undersecretary in charge of the Office of Special Plans, back before the committee. We are willing and able to do that anytime that the minority wishes.

And finally, there's the prewar intelligence on the postwar insurgency in Iraq. We have found to date that that was scattered all over the place. Everybody expected a humanitarian wave of assistance. It didn't happen. So they got that wrong, too. All three things we can complete, but we do also have the confirmation of the DNI working with the Intelligence Reform Act, being much more aggressive in terms of the capability of the hard targets that certainly face America. And to go back in and to keep going over this over and over again, I'm more than happy to finish this, and I want to finish it, but we have other things that we need to do.

MR. RUSSERT: But as you well know, when your report came out there were many people who said that you were not going forward with phase two about exaggerations and shaping because you didn't want to involve yourself, influence the election. You made a firm commitment to do just that.

SEN. ROBERTS: Yeah, we're going to do that, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: The United States went to war...SEN. ROBERTS: Tim, we're going to do that. I will bring it here. We'll have the 50 statements. We'll have the intelligence. We can match it up and you can do it with members of Congress, who are very, very critical, who made the same things, and you can say, "OK," and you'll say "Well, Pat, it just looks to me that the intelligence was wrong and that's exactly why they said what they said." Now, I don't know what that accomplishes over the long term. I'm perfectly willing to do it, and that's what we agreed to do, and that door is still open. And I don't want to quarrel with Jay, because we both agreed that we would get it done. But we do have--we have Ambassador Negroponte next week, we have General Mike Hayden next week. We have other hot-spot hearings or other things going on that are very important. So we will get it done, but it seems to me that we ought to put it in some priority of order, and after we do get it done I think everybody's going to scratch their head and say, "OK, well, that's fine. You know, let's go to the real issue."

Considering he chairs the committee and sets the agenda of it, it sounds more like he is the one that is stalling and holding up the process, not the Dems.

For Pabster, in your quote of Clinton stating that WMD was the reason for bombing Iraq, you cropped the second half of that sentence where he states:

Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Was the belief that he had programs there, absolutely. Do Programs == finished result of program, absolutely NOT. You convienently left off the second half of the sentence stating that he was trying to cripple his ability to attack his neighbors. From the same speech that you cherry picked to make a misleading point:

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

You see where Clinton states the REASONS that he is doing this in clear language? I bolded it for you in case you don't see it right off. He never states that they HAVE WMD. He states that he is trying to stop them from making them. Pretty clear to anyone that actually takes the time to read it.

Edit: Added MTP link

thank you RightIsWrong, it's about time someone put up some actual evidence to back up their claims in this thread. we all know pabster could care less about the actual truth, he only picks and chooses what he wants to believe. nobody is claiming that Iraq didn't have to be dealt with, there were ways of dealing with him. Full scale invasion into Iraq was just not a smart or effective way of doing so. That is what we are trying to argue, so go ahead and continue to call us "terrorist lovers", your too stupid to realize that there were indeed other options on the table in terms of dealing with Saddam.
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: totalcommand
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Of course Roberts is going to blame the Dems, Shades, it's his only defense, and he hasn't offered any evidence in support of his contention. Straight up blame-shifting. Dems have no way of holding up his report- his party has a majority on the committee, and can issue a report any time they please.

He got caught with his shorts around his ankles, and needs to say something, anything, to placate the faithful... and hold the critics at bay.

And ofcourse the dems are going to blame the Republicans - which you believe. So yes, it's blame shifting and a he said- she said game. Thus the whole shutting the Senate was a political stunt.

Sudheer Anne - from what I remember they weren't opposed to the 2nd phase(I never suggested they were), but that they were holding it up because of some wording or proceedure crap. If I could find the article I read last night, I would spell it out for you. But anyway, to make the claim that the 2nd phase wasn't going forward and they had to pull this stunt is absurd. They were notified on monday that it was moving forward.
As for Pabster, you can whine about him all you want but it looks to me like he more than took care of you guys in here. I'd suggest you let it drop because you are only digging yourself a bigger hole.

Spin it any way you want - political stunt, crazyness, insult to the "Grand Institution" that is the Senate - the bottom line is Repubs got caught with their pants and it was a brilliant move by Reid.

In the public's mind, "finding out the truth" will stick better than "political stunt", since it's all politics anyways.

Yeah, and you can spin it however you want too. You can claim it's about finding the truth or whatever but when the dems knew it was already moving forward and they still did this - it's quite obviously just a stunt. The Repubs didn't get caught with anything but you can keep dreaming. Once the dust settles, you will see that this stunt will have backfired/not worked for the dems. This is not how you win elections and increase your seats.

and i suppose having the leaders of our party be indicted and under criminal investigation is how we should do it?
 

ShadesOfGrey

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2005
1,523
0
0
Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
ok look ShadesOfGrey, let me spell this out for you in simple English. maybe you'll agree with me, maybe not.

This Republican Congress (House/Senate) has always defended Bush and Bush's administration, with a few exceptions (Miers being one of them). They carry the water for the President, so to speak. Now, if an investigation into how we actually got into the Iraq war were to take place, who would be damaged politically by it? Obviously the President, but the public would then most likely identify Republicans with it as well and the Republican party as a whole would take a hit. So, what would be the smartest thing for the Republicans to do politically? Appease the public by allowing for an investigation, but stonewall the whole thing so that it gets done at a very slow pace.

Please, think rationally ok ShadesOfGrey. I know you are partisan and love Bush to death, but take the blinders of for one second. This is all easy to understand politically. The left, of course, want an investigation because it will only damage this administration and the Republicans in general. The right, don't want it because it will damage them. It's so simple.

OK look Sudheer Anne, I know you are a partisan and hate Bush to death, but try thinking rationally for a minute. What exactly did yesterday's Senate closing accomplish? It got the press off the SCOTUS and back to something supposedly "bad" for Bush. Congrats - mission accomplished :roll:

BTW, what topic exactly was so secret that Reid had to invoke Rule 21 to discuss it? If, as you say, it will damage Bush - why did Reid have the doors closed? Why didn't he just go off on a tirade like he usually does about the Republicans stonewalling the investigation? It would have worked better in the press - IF as you claim the Republicans were stonewalling.
 

ShadesOfGrey

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2005
1,523
0
0
SESSION WITH CLOSED DOORS
1. On a motion made and seconded to close the doors of the Senate, on the discussion of any business which may, in the opinion of a Senator, require secrecy, the Presiding Officer shall direct the galleries to be cleared; and during the discussion of such motion the doors shall remain closed.

2. When the Senate meets in closed session, any applicable provisions of rules XXIX and XXXI, including the confidentiality of information shall apply to any information and to the conduct of any debate transacted.

So what required secret discussion Reid? If as some leftists here have tried to claim - it was about Republicans stonewalling phase 2 and not a political stunt, then why did you need to do it in secret?
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
it's hilarious watching the Republicans whine and cry about what Reid did. they are scared that this investigation is now going ahead full steam and the public will now know the real truth behind our invasion of Iraq, and how this administration knowingly misled us into this war.
 

ShadesOfGrey

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2005
1,523
0
0
Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
it's hilarious watching the Republicans whine and cry about what Reid did. they are scared that this investigation is now going ahead full steam and the public will now know the real truth behind our invasion of Iraq, and how this administration knowingly misled us into this war.

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
SESSION WITH CLOSED DOORS
1. On a motion made and seconded to close the doors of the Senate, on the discussion of any business which may, in the opinion of a Senator, require secrecy, the Presiding Officer shall direct the galleries to be cleared; and during the discussion of such motion the doors shall remain closed.

2. When the Senate meets in closed session, any applicable provisions of rules XXIX and XXXI, including the confidentiality of information shall apply to any information and to the conduct of any debate transacted.

So what required secret discussion Reid? If as some leftists here have tried to claim - it was about Republicans stonewalling phase 2 and not a political stunt, then why did you need to do it in secret?

If it was about the investigation and the "real truth" - why did Reid think it needed to be hidden from the public?
 

totalcommand

Platinum Member
Apr 21, 2004
2,487
0
0
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: totalcommand
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Of course Roberts is going to blame the Dems, Shades, it's his only defense, and he hasn't offered any evidence in support of his contention. Straight up blame-shifting. Dems have no way of holding up his report- his party has a majority on the committee, and can issue a report any time they please.

He got caught with his shorts around his ankles, and needs to say something, anything, to placate the faithful... and hold the critics at bay.

And ofcourse the dems are going to blame the Republicans - which you believe. So yes, it's blame shifting and a he said- she said game. Thus the whole shutting the Senate was a political stunt.

Sudheer Anne - from what I remember they weren't opposed to the 2nd phase(I never suggested they were), but that they were holding it up because of some wording or proceedure crap. If I could find the article I read last night, I would spell it out for you. But anyway, to make the claim that the 2nd phase wasn't going forward and they had to pull this stunt is absurd. They were notified on monday that it was moving forward.
As for Pabster, you can whine about him all you want but it looks to me like he more than took care of you guys in here. I'd suggest you let it drop because you are only digging yourself a bigger hole.

Spin it any way you want - political stunt, crazyness, insult to the "Grand Institution" that is the Senate - the bottom line is Repubs got caught with their pants and it was a brilliant move by Reid.

In the public's mind, "finding out the truth" will stick better than "political stunt", since it's all politics anyways.

Yeah, and you can spin it however you want too. You can claim it's about finding the truth or whatever but when the dems knew it was already moving forward and they still did this - it's quite obviously just a stunt. The Repubs didn't get caught with anything but you can keep dreaming. Once the dust settles, you will see that this stunt will have backfired/not worked for the dems. This is not how you win elections and increase your seats.

The bottom line is, Repubs never anticipated such a move. That is why Frist met with at least 10 other Republican Senators in the back of the room while Reid was talking. They got caught with their pants down.

I'm sure if you go to freeperville, you will see them complaining about the same thing.
 

totalcommand

Platinum Member
Apr 21, 2004
2,487
0
0
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
ok look ShadesOfGrey, let me spell this out for you in simple English. maybe you'll agree with me, maybe not.

This Republican Congress (House/Senate) has always defended Bush and Bush's administration, with a few exceptions (Miers being one of them). They carry the water for the President, so to speak. Now, if an investigation into how we actually got into the Iraq war were to take place, who would be damaged politically by it? Obviously the President, but the public would then most likely identify Republicans with it as well and the Republican party as a whole would take a hit. So, what would be the smartest thing for the Republicans to do politically? Appease the public by allowing for an investigation, but stonewall the whole thing so that it gets done at a very slow pace.

Please, think rationally ok ShadesOfGrey. I know you are partisan and love Bush to death, but take the blinders of for one second. This is all easy to understand politically. The left, of course, want an investigation because it will only damage this administration and the Republicans in general. The right, don't want it because it will damage them. It's so simple.

OK look Sudheer Anne, I know you are a partisan and hate Bush to death, but try thinking rationally for a minute. What exactly did yesterday's Senate closing accomplish? It got the press off the SCOTUS and back to something supposedly "bad" for Bush. Congrats - mission accomplished :roll:

The irony of the "mission accomplished" there is hilarious. :thumbsup:

So I guess you admit it - it was a great political move by the democrats.

BTW, what topic exactly was so secret that Reid had to invoke Rule 21 to discuss it? If, as you say, it will damage Bush - why did Reid have the doors closed? Why didn't he just go off on a tirade like he usually does about the Republicans stonewalling the investigation? It would have worked better in the press - IF as you claim the Republicans were stonewalling.

Who cares? Reid got the job done for democrats.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
New title for this thread:
"Democrats Deny Open Government To American Electorate"

HT: Captain Ed


LMFAO, the Bush adminstration is probably the most secretive and underhanded adminstration in the past 100 years... But most of that is a result of Bush looking like a underqualified nervous twit when faced with the horrors of press conference.

So you approve of this secret Senate meeting? You openly support secret meetings and tactics?

You can try to change the subject to Bush but this is the Senate. The democrats are trying to deny America open Government.
This hasn't happened in almost 25 years.
It's nothing more than a stunt by Reid to divert attention away from the wildly good news about Bush's SCOTUS pick.
Are you really as clueless as you sound, or are you just amazingly dishonest?

The reason for the closed session is that the Republicans won't give straight answers in public. Closing the session has nothing to do with the Dems trying to withhold information from the public, and everything with the Republicans' wanting to do so.

Get your facts straight.

 

ShadesOfGrey

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2005
1,523
0
0
Originally posted by: totalcommand
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: totalcommand
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Of course Roberts is going to blame the Dems, Shades, it's his only defense, and he hasn't offered any evidence in support of his contention. Straight up blame-shifting. Dems have no way of holding up his report- his party has a majority on the committee, and can issue a report any time they please.

He got caught with his shorts around his ankles, and needs to say something, anything, to placate the faithful... and hold the critics at bay.

And ofcourse the dems are going to blame the Republicans - which you believe. So yes, it's blame shifting and a he said- she said game. Thus the whole shutting the Senate was a political stunt.

Sudheer Anne - from what I remember they weren't opposed to the 2nd phase(I never suggested they were), but that they were holding it up because of some wording or proceedure crap. If I could find the article I read last night, I would spell it out for you. But anyway, to make the claim that the 2nd phase wasn't going forward and they had to pull this stunt is absurd. They were notified on monday that it was moving forward.
As for Pabster, you can whine about him all you want but it looks to me like he more than took care of you guys in here. I'd suggest you let it drop because you are only digging yourself a bigger hole.

Spin it any way you want - political stunt, crazyness, insult to the "Grand Institution" that is the Senate - the bottom line is Repubs got caught with their pants and it was a brilliant move by Reid.

In the public's mind, "finding out the truth" will stick better than "political stunt", since it's all politics anyways.

Yeah, and you can spin it however you want too. You can claim it's about finding the truth or whatever but when the dems knew it was already moving forward and they still did this - it's quite obviously just a stunt. The Repubs didn't get caught with anything but you can keep dreaming. Once the dust settles, you will see that this stunt will have backfired/not worked for the dems. This is not how you win elections and increase your seats.

The bottom line is, Repubs never anticipated such a move. That is why Frist met with at least 10 other Republican Senators in the back of the room while Reid was talking. They got caught with their pants down.

I'm sure if you go to freeperville, you will see them complaining about the same thing.

So someone pulling a proceedural stunt is now suddenly equal to their opponent getting "caught with their pants down"?
 

ShadesOfGrey

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2005
1,523
0
0
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
New title for this thread:
"Democrats Deny Open Government To American Electorate"

HT: Captain Ed


LMFAO, the Bush adminstration is probably the most secretive and underhanded adminstration in the past 100 years... But most of that is a result of Bush looking like a underqualified nervous twit when faced with the horrors of press conference.

So you approve of this secret Senate meeting? You openly support secret meetings and tactics?

You can try to change the subject to Bush but this is the Senate. The democrats are trying to deny America open Government.
This hasn't happened in almost 25 years.
It's nothing more than a stunt by Reid to divert attention away from the wildly good news about Bush's SCOTUS pick.
Are you really as clueless as you sound, or are you just amazingly dishonest?

The reason for the closed session is that the Republicans won't give straight answers in public. Closing the session has nothing to do with the Dems trying to withhold information from the public, and everything with the Republicans unwillingness to do so.

Get your facts straight.

Ahem, try reading:
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
it's hilarious watching the Republicans whine and cry about what Reid did. they are scared that this investigation is now going ahead full steam and the public will now know the real truth behind our invasion of Iraq, and how this administration knowingly misled us into this war.

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
SESSION WITH CLOSED DOORS
1. On a motion made and seconded to close the doors of the Senate, on the discussion of any business which may, in the opinion of a Senator, require secrecy, the Presiding Officer shall direct the galleries to be cleared; and during the discussion of such motion the doors shall remain closed.

2. When the Senate meets in closed session, any applicable provisions of rules XXIX and XXXI, including the confidentiality of information shall apply to any information and to the conduct of any debate transacted.

So what required secret discussion Reid? If as some leftists here have tried to claim - it was about Republicans stonewalling phase 2 and not a political stunt, then why did you need to do it in secret?

If it was about the investigation and the "real truth" - why did Reid think it needed to be hidden from the public?

 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
SESSION WITH CLOSED DOORS
1. On a motion made and seconded to close the doors of the Senate, on the discussion of any business which may, in the opinion of a Senator, require secrecy, the Presiding Officer shall direct the galleries to be cleared; and during the discussion of such motion the doors shall remain closed.
You still don't get it, do you? The reason this session HAD to be in secret is that the Republicans were unwilling to give straight answers in a non-secret session.

Let me give you an analogy: Your "boy", Scooter Libby, was willing to speak with Judith Miller only if she identified him as a "former hill staffer". In other words, Libby was willing to reveal information only if he could do so with no possibility of being identified as the leaker. The fact that Miller obliged is absolutely NOT an indication that Miller wanted to keep Libby's name hidden. It has everything do do with Libby's need for secrecy.

Again, get your facts straight.