Quantcast

Rule 21 Invoked; Democrats Force Closed Meeting on Iraq

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,007
149
The Cleft of Venus
Now this oughta be good!!!

Look for Clinton's and Kerry's actions/words on Iraq to come back to haunt them...
:p


Democrats Force Closed Meeting on Iraq
Nov 01 3:11 PM US/Eastern
LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON

Democrats forced the Republican-controlled Senate into an unusual closed session Tuesday, demanding answers about intelligence that led to the Iraq war. Republicans derided the move as a political stunt.

In a speech on the Senate floor, Democratic leader Harry Reid said the American people and U.S. troops deserved to know the details of how the United States became engaged in the war, particularly in light of the indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff.

Reid demanded the Senate go into closed session. With a second by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the public was ordered out of the chamber, the lights were dimmed, senators filed to their seats on the floor and the doors were closed. No vote is required in such circumstances.

"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," Reid said before the doors were closed.

Libby resigned Friday after being indicted on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury in an investigation by a special prosecutor into the unauthorized leak of a CIA agent's identity.

Democrats contend that the unmasking of Valerie Plame was retribution for her husband, Joseph Wilson, publicly challenging the Bush administration's contention that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Africa. That claim was part of the White House's justification for going to war.

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Reid was making "some sort of stink about Scooter Libby and the CIA leak."

A former majority leader, Lott said a closed session is appropriate for such overarching matters as impeachment and chemical weapons _ the two topics that last sent the senators into such sessions.

In addition, Lott said, Reid's move violated the Senate's tradition of courtesy and consent. But there was nothing in Senate rules enabling Republicans to thwart Reid's effort.

As Reid spoke, Majority Leader Bill Frist met in the back of the chamber with a half-dozen senior GOP senators, including Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, who bore the brunt of Reid's criticism. Reid said Roberts reneged on a promise to fully investigate whether the administration exaggerated and manipulated intelligence leading up to the war.
 

Radarr

Turbo Monkey
Feb 25, 2004
1,129
0
Helena, MT
I've been watching this on CNN - it's pretty crazy. I guess it hasn't really been done for anything significant like this in 25 years.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,007
149
The Cleft of Venus
Rule 21 Invoked by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid; Dems Seek to Investigate Pre-War Intelligence, Libby Indictment; Frist: 'The United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership'...
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
38,900
5,591
Sleazattle
I'm not sure if "Scooters" indictment is a big deal and this stunt would never get the administration to tell the truth but I'd really like to know why Bush and Co wanted to go to war. We've all heard the excuses and but it is pretty clear they were all a cover up for some other reason, or they are just completely retarded.
 

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
30,921
4,074
Portland, OR
:stupid:

If you recall, W was in the oil industry and stands to continue to make a lot of money off the deal. Besides, without Iraq, we would have a lot of military just sitting around not being killed, and who wants that?
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,914
14
Hypernormality
The first thing to be secured after the invasion wasn't the Republican Guard Barracks, wasn't any civilian population centres, wasn't a major communications route - It was the Oil Refineries. The very first exective order Bush signed after the invasion was to to start trading the Iraqi oil in US$ rather than Euros. It's so transparent.
 

Inclag

Turbo Monkey
Sep 9, 2001
2,404
102
MA
Changleen said:
The very first exective order Bush signed after the invasion was to to start trading the Iraqi oil in US$ rather than Euros. It's so transparent.
Well Bush probably didn't know how to convert Euro's to US Dollars. He must have figured this was easier :p
 

dan-o

Turbo Monkey
Jun 30, 2004
6,449
2,736
How did Frist figure out the Dems have hijacked the Senate? He must have inside info....
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,846
0
Orange County, CA
dan-o said:
How did Frist figure out the Dems have hijacked the Senate? He must have inside info....
And yet, it may be more accurate than his Schiavo diagnosis from the Senate floor. He's getting better!
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
38,900
5,591
Sleazattle
dan-o said:
How did Frist figure out the Dems have hijacked the Senate? He must have inside info....

Because Democrats hate America and are terrorists, of course they are going to hijack things.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,243
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
Changleen said:
The first thing to be secured after the invasion wasn't the Republican Guard Barracks, wasn't any civilian population centres, wasn't a major communications route - It was the Oil Refineries. The very first exective order Bush signed after the invasion was to to start trading the Iraqi oil in US$ rather than Euros. It's so transparent.
Why would you secure something that you had bombed to bits (the Republican Guard Barracks or their CCC ability. None of that was the least bit of a threat. The destruction of the oil infrastructure was going to cause a long term disaster on two fronts. First, oil is the key to rebuilding and providing Iraq with a long term future. Rebuilding even partially damaged refinieries is extending into the 100s of millions in from hurricanes. Imagine what an armed force could do to one. Secondly, Saddam had already shown that it meant nothing for him to create an environmental nightmare with oil.

At the time of the invasion, there was no chance that OPEC, Norway or the UK were going to replace the dollar for Euro. So that wasn't even a worry then and its barely a worry now. All the talk of 6 to 8 months ago of that happening on a widespread basis has pretty much gone the way side. Even Venezeula has skirted the issue only making marginal trades and sales in currencies other than dollars. Now with the prime rate being raised, foreign investment is flowing back into the US strengthening the dollar. Look at the value of the dollar over the last 10 months. It might not always be this way but for the foreseeable future it will be.

As for the killing the oil industry was going to make because of the Iraq invasion..... they are all waiting for the windfall. The reality is that most of the oil companies and oil services companies are leary of doing any work short or long term.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,914
14
Hypernormality
DRB said:
Why would you secure something that you had bombed to bits (the Republican Guard Barracks or their CCC ability. None of that was the least bit of a threat. The destruction of the oil infrastructure was going to cause a long term disaster on two fronts. First, oil is the key to rebuilding and providing Iraq with a long term future. Rebuilding even partially damaged refinieries is extending into the 100s of millions in from hurricanes. Imagine what an armed force could do to one. Secondly, Saddam had already shown that it meant nothing for him to create an environmental nightmare with oil.

At the time of the invasion, there was no chance that OPEC, Norway or the UK were going to replace the dollar for Euro. So that wasn't even a worry then and its barely a worry now. All the talk of 6 to 8 months ago of that happening on a widespread basis has pretty much gone the way side. Even Venezeula has skirted the issue only making marginal trades and sales in currencies other than dollars. Now with the prime rate being raised, foreign investment is flowing back into the US strengthening the dollar. Look at the value of the dollar over the last 10 months. It might not always be this way but for the foreseeable future it will be.

As for the killing the oil industry was going to make because of the Iraq invasion..... they are all waiting for the windfall. The reality is that most of the oil companies and oil services companies are leary of doing any work short or long term.
Apologist. :)
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,914
14
Hypernormality
DRB said:
As for the killing the oil industry was going to make because of the Iraq invasion..... they are all waiting for the windfall. The reality is that most of the oil companies and oil services companies are leary of doing any work short or long term.
Did you see what the Iraqis did to the pipelines? Pow.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,914
14
Hypernormality
From The Guardian:

Republicans, who were not warned of the manoeuvre in advance, described it as a stunt. "The Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership," the majority leader, Bill Frist, said. "Never have I been slapped in the face with such an affront to the leadership of this grand institution."
Dude, It's in the rules! What a dick.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,243
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
Changleen said:
Did you see what the Iraqis did to the pipelines? Pow.
But I thought pipelines is why we invaded Afghanistan? :nope: That whole line of crap doesn't make so much sense now does it when the world sees images of the Iraqi pipelines blowing up. Imagine the effort to not only protect a pipeline running the length of Afghanistan but the resources and danger in building such a pipeline.

In the long run, Saddam/Iraq was going to have to open its oil industry up to outside companies to modernize it. And the oil companies were perfectly willing to wait that out. Don't think for a second that an invasion was preferrable to the oil industry to waiting out Saddam, the UN and the rest to get in and make a buck.

You can call me an apologist if you like but the gigantic oil conspiracy is a load plain and simple.
 

skatetokil

Turbo Monkey
Jan 2, 2005
2,384
0
DC/Bluemont VA
It was all very clearly an attempt to either democratize the middle east or to make it so unstable that it couldn't mount a serious threat to the U.S. or Israel. All morality aside, leaving a black hole in Iraq which is drawing in all the region's suicidal islamists isn't such a bad move. maybe the theory is that they'll all detonate themselves over there and not come knocking on our door.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,914
14
Hypernormality
DRB said:
But I thought pipelines is why we invaded Afghanistan? :nope: That whole line of crap doesn't make so much sense now does it when the world sees images of the Iraqi pipelines blowing up. Imagine the effort to not only protect a pipeline running the length of Afghanistan but the resources and danger in building such a pipeline.
Hmm, Afghanistan was an exercise in displaying power. You only sent 11,000 troops. Be serious. That wasn't about oil. It was an unserious flexing of muscle. I am in contact with a Kiwi guy who lives in Afghanistan and I've been discussing this with him. He is thoroughly of the opinion that the Americans don't actually care about Afghanistan. His region has 2 US troops who visit once a month. It's basically a joke about control.

In the long run, Saddam/Iraq was going to have to open its oil industry up to outside companies to modernize it. And the oil companies were perfectly willing to wait that out. Don't think for a second that an invasion was preferrable to the oil industry to waiting out Saddam, the UN and the rest to get in and make a buck.
I will happily bow to your knowledge about the oil industry, but I honestly don't think Bush and the Neocon agenda (which was/is clearly behind most of their decision making) has your level of maturity about the situation. Bush wanted to prove a political point, and his personal rational was based, obviously, on his personal background. Secondly, how was Bush, of all people, Mr. 1/0 going to back down from his position of sanctions/no fly zone on Iraq to let this happen? I appreciate your rational economic reasoning about the situation, but I honestly don't think Rumsfield, Cheney et al. saw it the same way as you. I think on the :monkey: we are realists, and you have to remember that these guys are ideologists.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,243
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
Changleen said:
Hmm, Afghanistan was an exercise in displaying power. You only sent 11,000 troops. Be serious. That wasn't about oil. It was an unserious flexing of muscle. I am in contact with a Kiwi guy who lives in Afghanistan and I've been discussing this with him. He is thoroughly of the opinion that the Americans don't actually care about Afghanistan. His region has 2 US troops who visit once a month. It's basically a joke about control.
I wonder who said this?

Afghanistan was about a pipeline. If you're to dumb to see that through the haze your media throws in your face then I'm sorry.
Or what about this

Hmm, funny that nearly all the perpitrators of 9/11 came from Saudi eh? And that you got to build a nice oil pipeline across Afghanistan that you'd wanted for ages? How convenient for America that idiots like you just ignore the facts of situations and happily buy into the story pedalled by the US leadership.
Changleen said:
I will happily bow to your knowledge about the oil industry, but I honestly don't think Bush and the Neocon agenda (which was/is clearly behind most of their decision making) has your level of maturity about the situation. Bush wanted to prove a political point, and his personal rational was based, obviously, on his personal background. Secondly, how was Bush, of all people, Mr. 1/0 going to back down from his position of sanctions/no fly zone on Iraq to let this happen? I appreciate your rational economic reasoning about the situation, but I honestly don't think Rumsfield, Cheney et al. saw it the same way as you. I think on the :monkey: we are realists, and you have to remember that these guys are ideologists.
My only point is that the oil conspiracy is happily left in place because it does screen some of the things that you are talking about, which are the real reasons behind this administrations foreign policy moves. The disappointing thing is that its often you beating the oil horse. Look no farther than this thread for your preoccupation with oil.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
38,900
5,591
Sleazattle
skatetokil said:
It was all very clearly an attempt to either democratize the middle east or to make it so unstable that it couldn't mount a serious threat to the U.S. or Israel. All morality aside, leaving a black hole in Iraq which is drawing in all the region's suicidal islamists isn't such a bad move. maybe the theory is that they'll all detonate themselves over there and not come knocking on our door.
I can't find the article, it is a few weeks old, but messages were intercepted ordering jihadists in Iraq to go back to their home countries to cause trouble. Iraq may be attracting jihadists now but largely because it is being used as a training ground. When all these people go home the whole world is going to feel the affects.

How come democratization of the M.E. wasn't used as an excuse before the war?

By the way the middle east already has a big Democracy, Turkey, it hasn't had the democratic domino effect that proponents of an Iraqi invasion have been touting.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,914
14
Hypernormality
DRB said:
I wonder who said this? Or what about this
Yes yes, well done. It's no defence but I was quite drunk last night when I was responing to you. That'll teach me. Or not.
My only point is that the oil conspiracy is happily left in place because it does screen some of the things that you are talking about, which are the real reasons behind this administrations foreign policy moves. The disappointing thing is that its often you beating the oil horse. Look no farther than this thread for your preoccupation with oil.
I think the 'real reasons' are a combination of all of the above. It's hard to know which is the prime mover, and it probably doesn't matter. The real point is it sure isn't WMD or any humanitarian instinct.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,185
17
TN
I got no issues with the dems on this one at all. Its high time we were given this info. Anyone who doesnt want it is just hoping to remain blissfully ignorant. I for one, would like to find out if my trust was taken for granted.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
38,900
5,591
Sleazattle
BurlyShirley said:
I got no issues with the dems on this one at all. Its high time we were given this info. Anyone who doesnt want it is just hoping to remain blissfully ignorant. I for one, would like to find out if my trust was taken for granted.
Are you referring to the whole issue of Iraq or just the CIA leak thing?
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,185
17
TN
Westy said:
Are you referring to the whole issue of Iraq or just the CIA leak thing?
The whole shebang.

Oddly enough, I dont even care about the CIA leak thing. Is it that big a deal? Really?
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
38,900
5,591
Sleazattle
BurlyShirley said:
The whole shebang.

Oddly enough, I dont even care about the CIA leak thing. Is it that big a deal? Really?
The leak in itself seems minor as long as the agent themselves weren't placed in danger because of it, it the whole executive branch breaking the law to sway public opinion to go to war thing.