Republican senators going apeshit on CNN right now. 

Phase Two.  Let's roll.

Everyone should e-mail their Senators and request that they back Senator Reid on this one. We will never learn from our mistakes if they keep getting swept under the rug. We need to know why and how Iraq happened so it won't happen again in our lifetimes.

Now is the time for Democrats to unite and fight! Go, Harry, go!

What are the Senate rules for going into closed session?  It seems a majority cannot overrule this?  Or did enough Repubicans also agree to a closed session?

We need to all write to Reid!  Although seemingly long overdue, perhaps the timing was wise.  Maybe Fitzgerald paved the way for the possibility of sanity to prevail.

<img class="gravatar" title="Gravatar" alt="Gravatar" src="http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=502d469e154d24fa4420fb4ca0a1a0d9&default=&rating=PG&size=28" border="0"> This is why Harry Reid forced the Senate into a closed session.

Republican Chairman Pat Roberts on the Phase 2 Report on possible Bush White House manipulation of Iraq WMD intelligence:

- "I don't think there should be any doubt that we have now heard it all regarding prewar intelligence. I think that it would be a monumental waste of time to replow this ground any further." (March 31, 2005)

- "To go though that exercise, it seems to me, in a post-election environment--we didn't see how we could do that and achieve any possible progress. I think everybody pretty well gets it." (March 31, 2005)

- "[Phase 2] is basically on the back burner." (March 10, 2005)

For the full details, see:

"Fitzgerald, Iraq and the Truth About Pre-War Intelligence."

MARMOTS NO MORE!!!!

Chris Mathews is rightly pasting the Demo leadership for not having the guts to admit they made a mistake in 2002 and call for withdrawal from Iraq.

They'll stumble into the Straight Path

I'm glad somebody in the senate said something, but I'm sorry I have to ask the obvious question:  where the hell was Harry Reid two and a half years ago?  Why wasn't he asking exactly these questions then?  Why wasn't any Democrat seriously asking these questions?  When the Bush administration first started rumbling about invading Iraq, *I* knew immediately it was all phony.  Nuclear weapons, Al Qaeda connections, WMDs, terrorist, *I* knew all along it was phony.  And who am I?  Just some schmo with a computer and not particularly too much free time on my hands.  And only now Harry Reid is getting up in arms about this?  Is this man qualified to be a senator?  Are any Democrats?  And why does his statement make constant reference to the Republican led-congress without once mentioning the Democrats who did nothing serious to stop the war?

I'm glad he's demanding an investigation but I just can't congratulate the guy on this and I don't respect him.  He's just capitalizing on a political moment.  I hope there's an investigation that demonstrates to the public that the case for war was a fraud.  But Harry Reid already blew it so big time it's sad.

It's a shame for all the dead, wounded, and traumatized that more Americans couldn't figure this out in February 2003 they way so many millions of people around the world did when they marched on 2/15/2003. Now we need more and more Americans speaking out the way Senator Reid did. We need to "Cindy Sheehan" the offices of everyone of the 435 in Congress who won't speak out this way. We need impartial hearings; we need resignations; we need impeachments (plural - not just Bush); we need convictions (in more than one sense); we need to restore America's good name; and we DON'T need W and his cronies.

Just when I thought we were on the right track, I call the Senator's office and the voice mail is full.  IDIOTS. 

At least let those who want to support him have a voice. 

A whole Senate full of Fighting Dems!

This is great to see. Reid's remarks are right on target.

We The People deserve the truth!!!

I found this quote from Trent Lott (WaPo) to be pretty darned funny:

"... Reid's move violated the Senate's tradition of courtesy and consent."

Given the meta-narative of changing Senate rules by the nuclear option, that's quite a statement.

Nice job by Reid.  The Republicans are walking right into his trap - the more they whine, complain, and generally create a spectacle, the more the media will look into Harry's claims.  The idea here is to put something in the public eye that hasn't gotten noticed.  And there's no better way to do it than pissing off Senate Republicans until they become impulsive, sputtering twits.  

Get 'em mad and people will pay attention...

Way to change the subject right back again!

Give 'em hell, Harry! 

From CNN: 

"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."

Yeah, Trent: like all those rules that allowed the minority, or even just one Senator, to block the President's judicial nominees, that - funny thing! - you guys dropped the minute YOUR guy was President.  Or like the filibuster rule.

You worthless hypocrite - you like courtesy and consent as long as those traditions work in your favor.  Then the moment you're able to pull off a naked power grab, courtesy and consent are out the window.  Fuck youwith the horse you rode in on.

The reason we keep losing elections is that we insist on holier-than-thou garbage such as "where was (insert name here) in 2003?"

It doesn't matter -- the fight is now, to be won now, and to say that someone isn't deserving of our respect because he was fooled back then is totally pointless and self-destructive.  The point is that a LOT of people were deceived, lied to, and fooled; that's why there are investigations and indictments.

Now let's concentrate on winning the fight, OK?  Holding Reid to some sort of arbitrary purity standard isn't going to help do that unless you want the Bushies to win.

Although I would not have voted for it in the US senate, I think this attack against Kerry, Reid, etc is unfair, and unfair in an easily explained way.  The resolution was viewable at the time as necessary to get the inspections going.   Recall that it passed in October, and that the inspections commenced in December.  The threat of force enabled them, and that threat of force was in turn enabled by the resolution.

The key passages at the end of the resolution are these (emphasis mine): 

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

The point is that this resolution at the time gave the President the muscle to take to the UN reauthorizing inspections.  That worked.  It is also true that it grants authority to the POTUS for war- but not without significant stipulations.  In particular, the POTUS has to supply to Congress 48 hours before the investigation a finding justifying the incrsion. At that point of course, this resolution did enable war.  

However, John Dean has made a strong argument that the submission of this letter with the knowledge available at the time is very likely an impeachable offense.  

Could the dems have done better?  Perhaps.  But it was by no means clear at that point that the dems would lose their majority.  If the dems had retained their majority then this clause about the 48 hour notice may very well have enabled a stoppage of the whole process.  We cannot know at this point, because Rove and BUsh skillfully employed the Dems holding up of the Homeland Security Department bill for reasons of  the poison pill on the civil service AGAINST them in the 2002 elections, stripping the majority away.  

Principles or not, there was very little room to politically leverage a stop to the war by the time March 2003 rolled around.  There is political room now, and I am very thankful that Wily Harry Reid stepped in to do something. 

  Although I would not have voted for it in the US senate,

 Why not?

Sorry. I don't buy it. Congress abdicated its responsiblity and gave Bush a blank check to wage his war of choice. I like what Reid is doing now. It's a shame that he and so many others in Congress were not there in October 2002. It's important to remember that most of the people in the world were opposed to our invasion in March 2003. It was the bribed and bullied leaders of some countries who made "the coalition of the willing" possible, not the people of those countries.

Peatey, you're abusing the ratings.

Big time.

I've been all over the Democrats for their lameness, but this was brilliant. And Frist looked like the spoiled child he is . . .