Blue Cat Lair Reads

Since I'm an avid reader, I'm now posting my monthly reads at Blue Cat Lair Reads.

I tend to be an eclectric reader, so stop by, you might come across something interesting.

Oh, yeah, there might be some DVD or CDs listed occassionally, although they'll usually be at Chasing Waves of Light.

A Democrat plan for Iraq

At least someone has a plan. Think the administration will listen? Nah, not until their purse strings are affected. (Cynical little critter, ain't I?)

This is from Harry Reid's site:

First, 2006 should be a significant year of transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqis taking more and more responsibility for their own security. It’s time to take the training wheels off the Iraqi government. Iraqis must begin to run their own country. In 2006, the US and our allies must do everything we can to make that possible.

Second, the Administration must advise the Iraqi people that U.S. military forces will not stay indefinitely in Iraq, and that it is their responsibility to achieve the broad-based and sustainable political environment essential for defeating the insurgency.

Third, the President needs to submit – on a quarterly basis - a plan for success to Congress and the American people. This plan must specify the challenges and progress being made in Iraq, timetables for achieving our goals and estimated dates for redeployment from Iraq as these goals are met.

Click here for the entire text.

Jimmy Carter weighs in on the real America

All I can say is -- he's absolutely right. I hope everyone listens to him.

This isn't the real America, By Jimmy Carter

JIMMY CARTER was the 39th president of the United States. His newest book is "Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis," published this month by Simon & Schuster.

IN RECENT YEARS, I have become increasingly concerned by a host of radical government policies that now threaten many basic principles espoused by all previous administrations, Democratic and Republican.

These include the rudimentary American commitment to peace, economic and social justice, civil liberties, our environment and human rights.

Also endangered are our historic commitments to providing citizens with truthful information, treating dissenting voices and beliefs with respect, state and local autonomy and fiscal responsibility.

At the same time, our political leaders have declared independence from the restraints of international organizations and have disavowed long-standing global agreements — including agreements on nuclear arms, control of biological weapons and the international system of justice.

Instead of our tradition of espousing peace as a national priority unless our security is directly threatened, we have proclaimed a policy of "preemptive war," an unabridged right to attack other nations unilaterally to change an unsavory regime or for other purposes. When there are serious differences with other nations, we brand them as international pariahs and refuse to permit direct discussions to resolve disputes.

Regardless of the costs, there are determined efforts by top U.S. leaders to exert American imperial dominance throughout the world.

These revolutionary policies have been orchestrated by those who believe that our nation's tremendous power and influence should not be internationally constrained. Even with our troops involved in combat and America facing the threat of additional terrorist attacks, our declaration of "You are either with us or against us!" has replaced the forming of alliances based on a clear comprehension of mutual interests, including the threat of terrorism.

Another disturbing realization is that, unlike during other times of national crisis, the burden of conflict is now concentrated exclusively on the few heroic men and women sent back repeatedly to fight in the quagmire of Iraq. The rest of our nation has not been asked to make any sacrifice, and every effort has been made to conceal or minimize public awareness of casualties.

Instead of cherishing our role as the great champion of human rights, we now find civil liberties and personal privacy grossly violated under some extreme provisions of the Patriot Act.

Of even greater concern is that the U.S. has repudiated the Geneva accords and espoused the use of torture in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, and secretly through proxy regimes elsewhere with the so-called extraordinary rendition program. It is embarrassing to see the president and vice president insisting that the CIA should be free to perpetrate "cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment" on people in U.S. custody.

Instead of reducing America's reliance on nuclear weapons and their further proliferation, we have insisted on our right (and that of others) to retain our arsenals, expand them, and therefore abrogate or derogate almost all nuclear arms control agreements negotiated during the last 50 years. We have now become a prime culprit in global nuclear proliferation. America also has abandoned the prohibition of "first use" of nuclear weapons against nonnuclear nations, and is contemplating the previously condemned deployment of weapons in space.

Protection of the environment has fallen by the wayside because of government subservience to political pressure from the oil industry and other powerful lobbying groups. The last five years have brought continued lowering of pollution standards at home and almost universal condemnation of our nation's global environmental policies.

Our government has abandoned fiscal responsibility by unprecedented favors to the rich, while neglecting America's working families. Members of Congress have increased their own pay by $30,000 per year since freezing the minimum wage at $5.15 per hour (the lowest among industrialized nations).

I am extremely concerned by a fundamentalist shift in many houses of worship and in government, as church and state have become increasingly intertwined in ways previously thought unimaginable.

As the world's only superpower, America should be seen as the unswerving champion of peace, freedom and human rights. Our country should be the focal point around which other nations can gather to combat threats to international security and to enhance the quality of our common environment. We should be in the forefront of providing human assistance to people in need.

It is time for the deep and disturbing political divisions within our country to be substantially healed, with Americans united in a common commitment to revive and nourish the historic political and moral values that we have espoused during the last 230 years.

Bill O'Reilly drips on...

"I mean, look, everybody knows what’s going on there. What I said isn’t controversial. What I said needed to be said. I’m sitting here and I’m looking at a city that has absolutely no clue about what the world is. None. You know, if you had been hit on 9/11 instead of New York, believe me, you would not have voted against military recruting. Yet the left-wing, selfish, Land of Oz philosophy that the media and the city politicians have embraced out there is an absolute intellectual disgrace."

"Land of Oz" philosophy. Sounds interesting, but why does the face of Bill O'Reilly on a flying monkey keep popping into my head now?

Bill O'Reilly spouts off against SF.

This beautiful picture of Coit Tower is from SF Images. It's a great site - a way to tour San Francisco without being there. I stare at this particular picture often. Seriously. It's like being there.

Bill O'Reilly is having another hissy fit:

O'REILLY: Hey, you know, if you want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money. You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, "Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead."

"And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead. "

He says some pretty out there stuff, but this is just outrageous. On the other hand, if SF ever decides to go ahead and be their own country, my husband and I just might go out and join them. I've only been there once, but I fell in love with the place.

You know, Bill, in America we get to disagree with one another. It fine to say what you want to say, but don't try to tell others that they shouldn't disagree. If the citizens of SF want to ban military recruiting in schools, and a majority wants it - that's democracy. Don't say it's OK for al Qaida for blow up something because they disagree with you.

Why make a fuss over the 2,000th casualty?

We've reached the 2,000th casualty and American death toll is continuing to rise. Why is that number important? Why is the 2,000th soldier to die any different than the first? The 2,001st?

Every one of those numbers represent not just a statistic, but a person who was loved by someone, who loved others in return, and who served their country willingly. They were not drafted. They all had their reasons for volunteering; it's safe to say that part of the reason was they loved their country and wanted to defend it.

The 2,000th casualty, Staff Sergeant George T. Alexander, Jr was no lesser or greater than the first casualties, Major Jay Thomas Aubin (USMC), Captain Ryan Anthony Beaupre (USMC), Corporal Brian Matthew Kennedy (USMC), Staff Sergeant Kendall Damon Watersbey (USMC), Second Lieutenant Therrel S. Childers (USMC), Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez (USMC) and Lieutenant Thomas Mullen Adams (USN).

So why is the number 2,000 important, aside from the fact that we love to mark milestones, however macabre? It's not because the 2,000th death is more important than the first and will be less important than the 3,000th. (God forbid we have that many, however I fear we will.)

It's important because with each death we are forced to think back and remember why we went to war in the first place. This is where it starts getting disturbing. This is where we have to look back at the reasons given to justify the war. It's now obvious that lies and misinformation formed the basis for this war.

Were the lies inadvertent or deliberate? Was the misinformation known to be wrong but was used anyway because it was politically expedient? That is what we must find out. We need to know if individuals within the administration can be proven without a shadow of a doubt to have misled the American people and the rest of the world into entering the war under false pretexts. We need an independent investigation to determine this. Fitzgerald may just have touched on the tip of the iceberg and we need to see the entire picture, no matter how high in the government the evidence leads, even if it leads to the Oval Office itself.

That's why the 2,000th death marked such a milestone. Because there were many of us who didn't believe the administration's reasons for going to war in the first place. There was evidence by sources that contradicted what the administration was presenting, but people were cajoled into joining the bandwagon. Now many are jumping off that same bandwagon.

Each of the deaths that occurred as a result of this war is one more nail in the coffin in which the truth was buried for a political agenda based on greed and deceit.

As long "Bush's Folly" is allowed to continue, the United States will continue to rot from within unless people stand up and DEMAND THE TRUTH. That is why the 2,000th death is an important milestone. It showed that people are now waking up to the fact that we were lied to. The United States is no longer fit to consider itself the moral compass of the world. We need find a way to stop the next milestone, before the soul of our country is forever tainted.

HARRY REID FORCES CLOSED SESSION!

The Senate was forced to operate behind closed doors thanks to Harry Reid, D-Nevada, who firmly won his place in my heart. This is the speach he gave before the Senate closed its doors. I think he deserves lots of credit for doing this.

Thanks to dmsilev for posting a transcription. I've cleaned it up a bit to post here. There are some areas where it's unclear and I've put (unclear) in those spots.

Mr. Reid: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Just a couple of days ago, my son Lief called me and indicated that his lovely wife Amber was going to have another baby. That will be my -- our 16th grandchild. Mr. President, i have thought about that, and I have to say that I've been in public service a long time.

Never have I been so concerned about our country. We have gas prices that are really unbelievable. This year they've been over $3 in the state of nevada. Diesel fuel is still over $3 a gallon in nevada. The majority leader of the House of Representatives is under indictment. The man in charge of contracting for the federal government under indictment. Deficits, Mr. President, so far you can't see them. The deficits have been basically run up by President Bush's administration these last five years. We're the wealthiest nation in the world but we are very poor as it relates to health care. We have an intractable war in Iraq. Is it any wonder that I'm concerned about my family, my grandchildren?

This past weekend, we witnessed the indictment of l. Lewis Libby, the Vice President's chief of staff, also on the President's staff, a senior advisor to the President. Mr. Libby is the first sitting White House staffer to be indicted in 135 years. Is it any wonder, Mr. President, that I'm concerned about my grandchildren?

This indictment raises very serious charges. It asserts this administration engaged in actions that both harmed our national security and were morally repugnant. The decision made to place United States soldiers, our military into harm's way I believe
is the most significant responsibility the Constitution vests in the Congress and in the President.

The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions. Mr. President, these are not just words from Harry Reid.

Larry Wilkerson, Colonel Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff -- Colin Powell, of course, was Secretary of State. This man was his chief of staff for four years. Here's what he said about the war in Iraq. "If -- in President Bush's first term, some of the most important decisions about U.S. national security, including vital decisions about post-war Iraq, were made by a secretive, little-known cabal, was made up of a very small group of people led by vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. But the secret process was ultimately a failure. It produced a series of disastrous decisions."

That's what I'm here to talk about today, Mr. President. As a result of its improper conduct, a cloud now hangs over this administration. This cloud is further darkened by the administration's mistakes in prisoner abuse, Hurricane Katrina, and the cronyism and corruption in numerous agencies throughout this administration. And unfortunately, it must be that said a cloud also hangs over this Republican-controlled
Congress for its unwillingness to hold this Republican administration accountable for its misdeeds on these issues.

During the time that we had a Democratic President, eight years, and when the Democrats were in charge of the co committees, we were in the majority, oversight hearings were held covering the gamut of what went on in this administration -- that administration. Today there is not an oversight hearing held on anything. Let's take a look at back how we got here with respect to Iraq.

The record will show that within hours of the terrorist acts of 9/11, senior officials in this administration recognized those attacks could be used as a pretext to invade Iraq. The record will also show that in the months and years after 9/11, the administration engaged in a pattern of manipulation of the facts and retribution against anyone who got in its way as it made its case for attacking, for invading Iraq. There are numerous examples of how the administration misstated and manipulated the facts as it made the case for war.

The administration statements on Saddam's alleged nuclear weapons capabilities and ties with al Qaeda represent the best examples how it consistently and repeatedly manipulated the facts. The American people were warned time and time again by the President, the Vice President, the current Secretary of State and their other capacities about Saddam's nuclear weapons capabilities. The Vice President said -- and I quote -- "Iraq has reconstituted its nuclear programs." Playing upon the fears of Americans after september 11, these officials and others raised the specter that left unchecked, Saddam could soon attack America with nuclear weapons. Obviously we know now that their nuclear claims were wholly inaccurate.

But more troubling is the fact that a lot of intelligence experts were telling the administration then that its claims about Saddam's nuclear capabilities were false. The situation very similar with respect to Saddam's links to al Qaeda. The Vice President told the American people -- I quote again -- "we know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al Qaeda organization."

These assertions have been totally discredited, not a little bit, totally discredited. But again, the administration went ahead with these assertions in spite of the fact that the government's top experts did not agree with these claims. Again, Wilkerson is a person in point.

What has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress to the administration's manipulation of intelligence that led to this protracted war in Iraq? Nothing.

Did the Republican-controlled Congress carry out its constitutional obligations to conduct oversight? No.

Did it support our troops and their families by providing them the answers to many important questions? No.

Did it even attempt to force this administration to answer the most basic questions about its behavior? No.

Unfortunately, the unwillingness of the Republican-controlled Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities is not a limit -- is not limited to just Iraq. We see it with respect to the prison abuse scandal. We see it with respect to Katrina, and we see it with respect to the cronyism and corruption that permeates this administration.

Time and time again, this Republican-controlled Congress has consistently chosen to put its political interests ahead of our national security. They have repeatedly chosen to protect the American -- the Republican administration -- rather than to get to the bottom of what happened and why it happened.

There's also another disturbing pattern, namely, about how this administration responded to those who challenged its assertions. Often this administration has actively sought to attack and undercut those who dared to raise questions about its preferred course. For example, when General Shinseki indicated several hundred thousand troops would be needed in Iraq, his military career was ended -- fired, relieved of duty when he (unclear) out its inspectors.

When Nobel Prize winner and head of the IAEA raised questions about the administration's claims of Saddam's nuclear capabilities, the administration attempted to remove him from his post. When Ambassador Joe Wilson stated that there was an attempt by Saddam -- no attempt by Saddam to acquire weapons from Niger, the administration not only went after him to discredit him, they launched a vicious and coordinated campaign going so far as to expose the fact that his wife worked as a C.I.A. spy. These people are now having 24-hour protection fearing for their own safety. Given this administration's pattern of squashing those who challenge its misstatements, and I've only mentioned a few, what has been the response of the Republican-controlled Congress? Absolutely nothing.

And where their inactions they provide political cover for this administration at the same time they keep the truth from our troops who continue to make large sacrifices in Iraq. Now everyone may think that the troops in Iraq are 100% Republican. I've met a friend -- I've made a friend. He's a Marine. He was over in when the elections were held ten months ago. He said where he was and he never even went to the bathroom without a rifle, wherever he was in his duty all over this area, he said he couldn't find anyone that was happy with the way the elections turned out.

They, the Republicans, do anything they can to keep the truth from people like my Marine friend. This behavior -- I would give you his name -- this behavior is unacceptable. The toll in Iraq is as staggering as it is solemn. More than 2,000s died 2,025 now, Americans have lost their lives. Over 90 Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the month of October alone, the fourth deadliest month in this go-on three-year war. More than 15,000 have been wounded. More than 150,000 remain over there in harm's way. Enormous sacrifices have been made and continue to be made.

Mr. President, we've had soldiers and marines from Nevada killed, from Eli, from Las Vegas, from Henderson, from Boulder City, from Tonapaw. Every time one of these deaths occur, it's a dagger in the heart of that community. This behavior is unacceptable. I'm a patient man, mr. President. I'm a legislator and I know things don't happen over night. I'm a parent man but the call from my son has put this in perspective. I'm worried about my family. The toll in Iraq is as staggering
as I repeat it is solemn. The troops have a right to expect answers and accountability worthy of that sacrifice.

For example, more than 40 Democrats wrote a substantive and detailed letter to the President canning -- asking four basic questions about this administration's Iraq policy, and we received, Mr. President, -- we received a four-sentence fence that is response. "Thank you for your letter to the President expressing your concerns with Iraq. I've shared your letter with the appropriate administration officials." Remember we wrote it to the President. "And agencies responsible in this area. Please be assured your letter is receiving the attention it deserves. Thank you for your compliments, Candy Wolf. (Condi Rice? - No, there really is a Candy Wolf. Jon Stewart did point out it does sound like a porn name.)"

That's the letter the senators of the United States wrote to the President of the its and we get a letter from Candy Wolf that says, thanks, we're working on it. America deserves better than. This they also deserve a searching and comprehensive investigation about how the Bush administration brought this country to war, key questions that need to be answered include how did the Bush administration assemble its case for war against Iraq?

We heard what Colonel Wilkerson said. Who did the Bush administration officials listen to and ignore? How did the senior Bush administration officials manipulate or manufacture intelligence presented to the Congress or the American people?

What was the role of the White House Iraq Group, a group of senior
white house officials, tasked with marketing the war and taking down its critics. We know what Colonel Wilkerson says. How did the administration coordinate its efforts to attack individuals who dared to challenge the administration's assertions. We know what happened to them. I listed a few. Why has this administration failed to provide Congress with the documents that would shed light on their misconduct and the misstatements?

Unfortunately, the Senate committee that should be taking the lead in providing these answers is not. Despite the fact that the Chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee publicly committed to examine these questions more than a year and a half ago, he has chosen not to keep that commitment. Despite the fact that he's restated the commitment earlier this year on national television, he has still done nothing. Except assemble a few quotes from Democratic and Republican senators going back to the first Iraq war. We need a thorough investigation that that committee is capable and tasked to do. At this point, we can only conclude he will continue to put politics ahead of our national security. If he does anything at this point, I suspect it will be playing political games by producing an analysis that files any of these important questions.

Instead, if history is any guide, this analysis will attempt to disperse and deflect blame away from this administration. Key facts about the intelligence --

a Senator: Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. Reid: Key facts:

June 4, 2003, Intelligence Committee commits to bipartisan review of the deeply flewed intelligence in Iraq's W.M.D. Phase one.

February 12, 2004, Intelligence Committee commits to Phase 2, an investigation looking at five areas including whether the administration exaggerate and manipulated mel dense (unclear).

July 9, 2004, committee publishes Phase One report on the intelligence agencies mistakes on Iraq. Senator Rockefeller says publicly that Phase Two is as yet unbegun. Republican chairman Roberts says it is one of my top priorities.

July 11 on Meet The Press, Republican chairman Roberts says, even as I'm speaking our staff is working on phase two and we'll get it done.

Fall of 2004, House IntelligenceCommittee, after no follow through on the Iraq W.M.D. investigation, the House announced on May 2003, no final report. Republican committee chairman Porter Goss is selected to
C.I.A. Director.

Regarding the question of vetting the Valerie Plame leak Goss said
show me a blue dress and some DNA and I'll give you an investigation. End of quote.

November, 2004, we had the Presidential election.

March 2005, President's hand-picked W.M.D. intelligence committee says the intelligence agencies got the intelligence dead wrong but says that under the President's terms of reference we are not authorized to investigate how policy-makers used the intelligence assessments they received from the intelligence community.

March 31, 2005, Senator Roberts says it would be monumental waste of time to
replow this ground any further?

April 10, 2005, "Meet The Press" Senator Roberts commits to Tim Russert that the review will get done. September 2005, committee democrats file additional views to their authorization bill blasting the committee for failing to conduct phase two. There have been letters written to the committee, a press release was issued even saying that they were going to go forward with this.

Mr. President, enough time has gone by. I demand on behalf of the
American people that we understand why these investigations aren't being conducted, and in accordance with rule 21, I now move that senate go into closed session.

Mr. Durbin: Mr. President, I motion the -- second the motion.

The presiding officer: the motion has been made to closed session. The. The chair pursuant to rule 21 directs the sergeant at arms to clear all galleries, clear all doors of the senate chamber and exclude from the chamber and its immediate
corridors all employees and officials of this senate who under the rule are are -- are not eligible to attend the closed session and are not sworn to secrecy. The question is nondebatable.

Then there is this is from his website, Give 'em Hell, Harry.

This past weekend, we witnessed the indictment of the I. Lewis Libby, the Vice President’s Chief of Staff and a senior Advisor to President Bush. Libby is the first sitting White House staffer to be indicted in 135 years. This indictment raises very serious charges. It asserts this Administration engaged in actions that both harmed our national security and are morally repugnant.

The decision to place U.S. soldiers in harm’s way is the most significant responsibility the Constitution invests in the Congress. The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really about: how the Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions.

As a result of its improper conduct, a cloud now hangs over this Administration. This cloud is further darkened by the Administration’s mistakes in prisoner abuse scandal, Hurricane Katrina, and the cronyism and corruption in numerous agencies.

And, unfortunately, it must be said that a cloud also hangs over this Republican-controlled Congress for its unwillingness to hold this Republican Administration accountable for its misdeeds on all of these issues.

Let’s take a look back at how we got here with respect to Iraq Mr. President. The record will show that within hours of the terrorist attacks on 9/11, senior officials in this Administration recognized these attacks could be used as a pretext to invade Iraq.

The record will also show that in the months and years after 9/11, the Administration engaged in a pattern of manipulation of the facts and retribution against anyone who got in its way as it made the case for attacking Iraq.

There are numerous examples of how the Administration misstated and manipulated the facts as it made the case for war. Administration statements on Saddam’s alleged nuclear weapons capabilities and ties with Al Qaeda represent the best examples of how it consistently and repeatedly manipulated the facts.

The American people were warned time and again by the President, the Vice President, and the current Secretary of State about Saddam’s nuclear weapons capabilities. The Vice President said Iraq “has reconstituted its nuclear weapons.” Playing upon the fears of Americans after September 11, these officials and others raised the specter that, left unchecked, Saddam could soon attack America with nuclear weapons.

Obviously we know now their nuclear claims were wholly inaccurate. But more troubling is the fact that a lot of intelligence experts were telling the Administration then that its claims about Saddam’s nuclear capabilities were false.
The situation was very similar with respect to Saddam’s links to Al Qaeda. The Vice President told the American people, “We know he’s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know he has a longstanding relationship with various terrorist groups including the Al Qaeda organization.”

The Administration’s assertions on this score have been totally discredited. But again, the Administration went ahead with these assertions in spite of the fact that the government’s top experts did not agree with these claims.

What has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress to the Administration’s manipulation of intelligence that led to this protracted war in Iraq? Basically nothing. Did the Republican-controlled Congress carry out its constitutional obligations to conduct oversight? No. Did it support our troops and their families by providing them the answers to many important questions? No. Did it even attempt to force this Administration to answer the most basic questions about its behavior? No.

Unfortunately the unwillingness of the Republican-controlled Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities is not limited to just Iraq. We see it with respect to the prisoner abuse scandal. We see it with respect to Katrina. And we see it with respect to the cronyism and corruption that permeates this Administration.

Time and time again, this Republican-controlled Congress has consistently chosen to put its political interests ahead of our national security. They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican Administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why.

There is also another disturbing pattern here, namely about how the Administration responded to those who challenged its assertions. Time and again this Administration has actively sought to attack and undercut those who dared to raise questions about its preferred course.

For example, when General Shinseki indicated several hundred thousand troops would be needed in Iraq, his military career came to an end. When then OMB Director Larry Lindsay suggested the cost of this war would approach $200 billion, his career in the Administration came to an end. When U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix challenged conclusions about Saddam’s WMD capabilities, the Administration pulled out his inspectors. When Nobel Prize winner and IAEA head Mohammed el-Baridei raised questions about the Administration’s claims of Saddam’s nuclear capabilities, the Administration attempted to remove him from his post. When Joe Wilson stated that there was no attempt by Saddam to acquire uranium from Niger, the Administration launched a vicious and coordinated campaign to demean and discredit him, going so far as to expose the fact that his wife worked as a CIA agent.

Given this Administration’s pattern of squashing those who challenge its misstatements, what has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress? Again, absolutely nothing. And with their inactions, they provide political cover for this Administration at the same time they keep the truth from our troops who continue to make large sacrifices in Iraq.

This behavior is unacceptable. The toll in Iraq is as staggering as it is solemn. More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives. Over 90 Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice this month alone – the fourth deadliest month since the war began. More than 15,000 have been wounded. More than 150,000 remain in harm’s way. Enormous sacrifices have been and continue to be made.

The troops and the American people have a right to expect answers and accountability worthy of that sacrifice. For example, 40 Senate Democrats wrote a substantive and detailed letter to the President asking four basic questions about the Administration’s Iraq policy and received a four sentence answer in response. These Senators and the American people deserve better.

They also deserve a searching and comprehensive investigation about how the Bush Administration brought this country to war. Key questions that need to be answered include:

o How did the Bush Administration assemble its case for war against Iraq?
o Who did Bush Administration officials listen to and who did they ignore?
o How did senior Administration officials manipulate or manufacture intelligence presented to the Congress and the American people?
o What was the role of the White House Iraq Group or WHIG, a group of senior White House officials tasked with marketing the war and taking down its critics?
o How did the Administration coordinate its efforts to attack individuals who dared to challenge the Administration’s assertions?
o Why has the Administration failed to provide Congress with the documents that will shed light on their misconduct and misstatements?

Unfortunately the Senate committee that should be taking the lead in providing these answers is not. Despite the fact that the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee publicly committed to examine many of these questions more than 1 and a half years ago, he has chosen not to keep this commitment. Despite the fact that he restated that commitment earlier this year on national television, he has still done nothing.

At this point, we can only conclude he will continue to put politics ahead of our national security. If he does anything at this point, I suspect he will play political games by producing an analysis that fails to answer any of these important questions. Instead, if history is any guide, this analysis will attempt to disperse and deflect blame away from the Administration.

We demand that the Intelligence Committee and other committees in this body with jurisdiction over these matters carry out a full and complete investigation immediately as called for by Democrats in the committee’s annual intelligence authorization report. Our troops and the American people have sacrificed too much. It is time this Republican-controlled Congress put the interests of the American people ahead of their own political interests.