Space Holder

Page 55 classification is similar to the redaction problem in the DoD emails. The key codes in the classification line may shed light on other intelligence issues.

Nuremberg Indictments Match GOP Preparations, Planning

The Republican Party in the Senate, working in concert with the President, White House counsel and White House political office have ignored the Nuremberg precedents; and would absurdly ask that we not challenge the same abuses of power adjudicated at Nuremberg.

From the Nuremberg indictments, we find instructive language showing us what the GOP would have us believe does not warrant review. The key words, as they related to the Senate Phase II report, DoD emails, and McClellan's book are: "Promoting," "preprations" and "Participated":

he promoted the preparations for war set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he participated in the political planning and preparation of the Nazi conspirators for Wars of Aggression and Wars in Violation of International Treaties, Agreements, and Assurances as set forth in Counts One and Two of the Indictment

The GOP would have us believe -- on assertion alone -- that the evidence does not exist. A plain reading of McClellan's book, the NYT, and the DoD emails substantially destroy any last remaining credibilty of the Republican Party.

It is reckless for the Republicans and the minority to suggest there was no illegal activity. Nuremberg indictments show a responsibility to put evidence on the table, examine facts, and explore information. The minority would have us believe propaganda.

Impeachment Watch: President and Republicans Suddenly Recognize Applicable Legal Standards With They Recklessly Ignored

Finally, we have an agreement from the Republicans: They do recognize that procedures, rules, and legal requirement exist and are relevant. Page 55. Suddenly the legal requirements are of intere*st to the alleged war criminals working for the President:

"US Government policies and procedures"

Minority report fails to define "appropriate intelligence" agencies.

Notice they're shifting attention away from the illegal conduct and propaganda (action); and focusing on procedures, and rules.

The issue is not what should be happening going forward by way of new policy reviews; but what existing legal requirements were ignored. The Minority would ask that we spend time ensuring people understand the rules. The time to have reviewed the policies and procedures was one the President, DOJ OLC, Addington, and the Republican legal counsel should have done before issuing orders.

The Republicans, in asking for a review, are implicitly admitting they never did a (required) legal review; but issued orders in reckless defiance of procedures they knew, or should have known were applicable. That is the job of the White House, DOJ OLC, and the GOP legal counsel which, by all accounts, they ignored. At best Yoo and Addington worked with Gonzalez to say the existing requirements, policies, and other rules did not apply.

Now, the republicans want us to believe that those "inapplicable standards" should be studied. That is absurd. The standards were clear. Legal counsel had access to those standards. Those standards were ignored.

The question is what will timely ensure, when the US government ignores the law, what will ensure there are meaningful reviews and consequences for that reckless disregard for a legal requirement. The Republicans would ask that we spend more time studying reports they've ignored. The way forward is to apply the standards -- which the GOP now wants to examine, as if new -- in a war crimes trial.

Senate Republicans At Odds With President

The Republicans and President have failed to point to a "Presidential signing statement" that says these procedures are inapplicable, or should not have been considered. The White House staff counsel and Republicans have failed to explain why they would like to spend time reviewing legal requirements they previously said were inapplicable.

Dissension Within Republican Party

The evidence on page 55 must be taken seriously: IT shows the GOP has a mixed policy on whether the laws, procedures, or rules do or do not apply. The Senate GOP is contradicting the President who says the rules and laws do not apply. The Senate GOP cannot explain why they are off message, and not cooperating with the White House information warfare campaign. Some are appealing to the laws; while other Republicans are appealing to the President. This shows some Republicans are willing to put the laws before their agreement with the President to perpetuate war crimes propaganda.

How does Senator McCain plan to organize his public communications with this type of dissension with people connected with the DoD emails?

This shows the GOP is spreading propaganda about the Senate vote on charges against the President. The Senate Republicans are not blindly supporting the President above procedures or laws. The GOP is willing to consider the law, if the weather is favorable. No one can argue there is a good reason not to start a war crimes investigation; or to make the GOP Senators go on the record to either continue with their illegal war crimes propaganda; or stand for the rule of law and procedures.

Confronting GOP Senators

Our job must be to make the GOP Senators confront this issue with a recorded vote on the charges against the President. Then the voters can make an informed decision -- this November -- whether they trust the GOP to put the Constitution and Geneva conventions before the President's illegal war crimes rebellion.

Page 55 notice the date they want the report: September 2008.

That would mean between Jun-Sept 2008 (four months), the GOP would say, "We can't comment on this, the Senate is investigating."

The correct approach is to use this Phase II evidence during a war crimes trial. We don't need reports. We need the President and others complicit with this illegal warfare put on trial.

Testing,

Do you know what a link is and how to condense material? Try it. You might even get more comments from people other than yourself.

No, let me be more clear than my previous comment. You have a bad habit of using this reader blog as a dumping ground for raw information. I see nothing in this post that is particularly newsworthy or new. You have failed to digest the information yourself and failed to present a coherent entry that makes any point. And you have taken up a shitload of page space to do it.

Page 34 shows CIFA.

The President's information warfare propaganda shows a link in the DoD emails to CIFA.

Page 34 shows Cambone, which matches the name at the NYT reporting at 11.

More Signs Senate Staff Counsel Incompetent

When the lazy Senate Staff counsel start to read the DoD emails and compare then with the absurd recommendations in the Phase II report, they'll (possibly) comprehend how stupid, lazy, and foolish they look. This isn't a final report, this is an interim report saying, "We're too tired to challenge the President on war crimes." No wonder the Italian war crimes prosecutor is continuing: The Congressional staff counsel are incompetent and have no understanding of the laws of war; nor are they interested in timely moving to enforce Geneva.

7696 shows Cambone was the focal point for the information.

The Senate has failed to adequately consider the DoD emails showing a link between Cambone, the information coordination, and the planning and coordination with the President.

The DoD emails already show the date the planning occurred, and who was involved: DIA, NSA, NRO.

7696:

"guts of a snowflake secdef sent out to Cambone and the heads of defense intelligence agencies (nro, dia, nsa, etc.)"

Here's where the President is mentioned in connection with the Cambone information, which the Senate ignored. The President's schedule was factored into the review cycle:

"Let's use it as the basis for a draft release that we could put out tomorrow after the silberman (stet) report is received by potus from the commissioners"

Then they mention a "sec def prep" showing us there is a meeting, a disclosed schedule which others can read in advance.

I have already reviewed for the secdef's 3:00 prep today

Then we get back to the name mentioned in the Phase II report:

Please coordinate your responses through Steven Cambone

Note the name "Ruff", the same person who left their Iraq WMD-related notes at Starbuchs.

Email Header, 7696

From: Di Rita, Larry, CIV, OSD-OASD-PA
Sent: Wed Mar 30, 2005, 11:49
To: Whitman, Bryan, SES, OASD-PA
CC: Ruff, Eric, SES, OASD-PA, Rhynedarica, George, COL OASD-PA

Review

Cambone was assigned the job to coordinate responses. SecDef issued a snowflake, matching the "snowflake" disclosed on the DoD emails with Libby's name. The snowflake mentions by-name intelligence agencies.

By this time, the Iraq invasion was two years old. It does not appear the WMD propaganda-review could adequately be complete until the the Senate reviewed the DoD emails on that propaganda coordination.

The Phase II report at Conclusion 6, 7, and 8 concludes investigations were not complete. However, the DOD emails substantially provide details that would help answer:

- Who was on the distribution list within the intelligence community for the snowflakes and the coordination with Ghorbanifar;

- Which DoD officials were providing staff support for the meetings between DoD officials and Ghorbanifar

- Which intelligence agencies were involved, but did not adequately meet their legal obligations under Geneva to remove themselves from illegal warfare.

The Nuremberg precedents are clear. The indictments show clear consequences for engaging in planning. The Senate has not adequately outlined what action the Senate will or should take to independently review the DoD emails to provide Senate answers to what did or didn't answer. The Senate is supporting the President's policy of delay, inaction, and waiting.

The Senate has the information within the DoD emails to do what Cambone is alleged to have refused to do: Review the CIFA, the meetings CIFA had, and understand which DoD officials were using DoD emails to prepare for their meeting with Ghorbanifar.

It doesn't matter that the Senate found there was no DoD failure to implement recommendations. The issue is what budget-leverage will the Senate use, or should have used, to punish DoD for failing to do what was reasonably expected under the laws of war: Conduct investigations, and review information. At best, the DoD emails and McClellan show CIFA is conflicted because they are connected with Feith who was approving things the military analysts published.

Conclusion 6 is absurd because its asking for the DoD General counsel to have done something; but the Senate fails to independently do this. The Senate is acting as if it is a staff agency for the President, an auditor working for GAO, or the DoD IG. This is absurd.

Time to haul these people before the Senate, stop "recommending" responses, and quit waiting for the President and DoD to "maybe" respond.

This report shows the Senate is not organized, nor is it taking its responsibility seriously. This takes us to the few weeks before the election:

Provide the appropriate Congressional oversight committee with the outcome of this determatin no mor than 90 days after the issuance of this report.

This is more delaying. The Senate has the power -- now -- to issue subpoenas, demand this information, and do what the President refuses to do: Conduct investigations, analyze, and make independent assessments. Page 34 of the Phase 2b report shows the Senate is not acting like it is part of a different branch of government, but as if it were a staff agency of the President.

Page 5, phase2b (57 pages)

Note 19

"Presumed to be a typo"

No original document to examine to evaluate reasonableness of the Senate Committee assertion/conclusion.

Preliminary Assessment

It is inappropriate to take these reports at face value. It is the job of the Senate to make the case that they can be trusted. Stop using these reports as a starting point for discussions. These reports need to be vetted. They are flawed.

The more time you spend arguing over these reports, the less time you're spending making the President and Senate respond to questions about their incompetence, war crimes complicity, and illegal propaganda.

Those who want to use these reports as a basis to defend or justify the President's or Senator's actions have a heavy burden. The same manipulation used to get the Congress to rubber stamp the invasion of Iraq is being used to demand we accept this Senate report as something worthy of respect, or serious consideration.

It is the job of the President and Senate to respond to the public. If you have concerns or questions about the information in these reports; or you believe the reports justify confidence in the President or Senate, then you need to defend the Senators and President before war crimes tribunals.

You're wasting your time if you believe you can use these documents to make the public "understand" something. No, these reports are part of the President's misdirection: Away from him, and designed to spark pointless debate. By design, that will consume time, resources, and destroy the needed alliances between the DNC and GOP to confront the flawed leadership in the House, Senate, and Executive Branch.

These reports are trash. They are worthless misdirection that do not reflect well on the Senate as an independent chamber in a separate branch of government. The Senators are recklessly asking the public to wade through this garbage, connect the dots, and point out to them -- Senators -- that they've missed the big clues in the DoD emails and the open media.

This was the same problem we had with the original illegal invasion decision-rubber stamp. We were supposed to have change. This reckless crew in DC is spewing forth non-sense, pretending it is change, but doing more of the same: Worthless leadership.

These reports are evidence the system of checks and balances continues to fail and that a modernized system of oversight is required. This Senate report is a symptom of a problem the Senators and their staffs appear incapable of comprehending.

Page 90 Additional views of committee members.

Flawed Phase 2a Report Methodology

McClellan shows us the scope of the information warfare: It touched many levels. The objective of the report was to review information after Gulf War I.

Page 2 (3 of 172) highlights one problem:

This report does not include statements made prior to summer 2002 or statements made by officials of the United States government beyond the top levels of the Executive Branch

There is an inherent flawed assumption with this approach. McClellan shows us the propaganda was part of the permanent campaign. The Committee has not explained why it did not review statements linked with military analysts after Gulf War I, or other PNAC related documents.

The DoD emails show us the information dissemination was wide. It is impossible to credibly discuss how intelligence information was or was not linked with public statements, when the intelligence was misleading, and provided through non-US government channels.

The report incorrectly presumes that only official US government positions should be examined. This impermissibly allows government officials to debate whether the policy statement or comment was or was not official; and misses whether or not they had a behind-the-scenes role in disseminating propaganda, as appears to be well supported in re Feitn in the DoD emails.

The report is incomplete and not a reasonable basis to make assessments, unless the DoD emails and McClellan book are factored into the analysis.

This may partially explain the disagreement in the committee in their personal statements, at the end of the report: They're arguing over whether or not statements should or should not be included; but they're not addressed the key information provided to mislead the public through indirect channels.

A Recipe For Flawed Oversight

This is a very important problem, and shows the Committee doesn't understand information warfare, or how McClellan's propaganda drove intelligence assessments, which were cycled back into other propaganda.

Page 2, 3 of 172:

"The Committee is fully aware that officials may have had multiple credible sources of information upon which to base statements, but has not attempted to document or analyze source materials other than the intelligence, since that is beyond the scope of this report."

The above passage highlights several problems:

1. There is a false assertion that sources are "credible"; this is an invalid assumption.

2. The committee shows they did not analyze source material, but accepted that as true

3. The committee did not look at how propaganda may have created false intelligence

In short, the Committee has accepted as true the original intelligence, and narrowly looked at whether the (false, planted, propaganda) information called "intelligence" does or does not link with the speeches.

The is misdirection.

The entire propaganda effort was to distract attention from an illegal decision -- to unlawfully invade without an imminent threat -- to create the impression there was a belief about something.

The committee has not adequately explored the problem:

How was propaganda used to fabricate illusory intelligence; and how was this "confirmed, reliable" intelligence repeated in speeches, talking points through the media to mobilize the nation for illegal warfare?

Looking at five (5) speeches [per p. 2, 3 of 172] in no way captures how DoD military analysts (a) complemented these speeches with other White House-approved information; or (b) used other non-disclosed information to perpetuate alleged frauds.

They focused on seeing whether there was a link btweeen statements and intelligence; but did not explore whether that intelligence was flawed, or the source of propaganda.

Irrelevant Analysis

The GOP induced the DNC to believe they were engaging in oversight, but not conduct the needed oversight.

Is there a valid link between a speech and intelligence

is a different question than

whether the intelligence was or was not linked with valid or invalid original sources, data, or information; or whether it was based on propaganda.

The former remains subject to debate because the latter was never done.

Revised

A Recipe For Flawed Oversight

This is a very important problem, and shows the Committee doesn't understand information warfare, or how McClellan's propaganda drove intelligence assessments, which were cycled back into other propaganda.

Page 2, 3 of 172:

"The Committee is fully aware that officials may have had multiple credible sources of information upon which to base statements, but has not attempted to document or analyze source materials other than the intelligence, since that is beyond the scope of this report."

The above passage highlights several problems:

1. There is a false assertion that sources are "credible"; this is an invalid assumption. As evidenced by the DoD emails, McClellans' book, and the failure to find WMD, the "source" could be and most likely was propaganda, not a bonafide source of real intelligence from the ground;

2. The committee shows they did not analyze source material, but accepted that as true. There is no basis for this assertion;

3. The committee did not look at how propaganda may have created false intelligence; and

4. The committee failed to provide a reasonable basis for why some information was or was not excluded from the analysis. They used arbitrary criteria which may have been driven by the President. We don't know how the Committee arrived at the conclusion that something was or wasn't reasonable; nor do we know how the GOP worked with the Senate Staff to make "reasonable" suggestions which were designed to mislead.

In short, the Committee has accepted as true the original intelligence, and narrowly looked at whether the (false, planted, propaganda) information called "intelligence" does or does not link with the speeches.

The is misdirection.

The entire propaganda effort was to distract attention from an illegal decision -- to unlawfully invade without an imminent threat -- to create the impression there was a belief about something.

The committee has not adequately explored the problem:

How was propaganda used to fabricate illusory intelligence; and how was this "confirmed, reliable" intelligence repeated in speeches, talking points through the media to mobilize the nation for illegal warfare?

Looking at five (5) speeches [per p. 2, 3 of 172] in no way captures how DoD military analysts (a) complemented these speeches with other White House-approved information; or (b) used other non-disclosed information to perpetuate alleged frauds.

They focused on seeing whether there was a link btweeen statements and intelligence; but did not explore whether that intelligence was flawed, or the source of propaganda.

Irrelevant Analysis

The GOP induced the DNC to believe they were engaging in oversight, but not conduct the needed oversight.

Is there a valid link between a speech and intelligence

is a different question than

whether the intelligence was or was not linked with valid or invalid original sources, data, or information; or whether it was based on propaganda.

The former remains subject to debate because the latter was never done.

Inadequate Committee Disclosure of Baseline Used For Analysis

The Joint Intelligence Guides and Information Warfare guides provide the templates for Congress to review. Congress provides us with no details of the specific procedures, policies, or other things it used to ensure it knew -- before deciding what to do -- what it was going to review or evaluate.

These should have been discussed as starting points, either to comment on why they were used or not used; then show the public in the report how the actual intelligence did or did not follow these guidelines:

jp2

jfq1407

We have no idea, based on the committee report alone, whether they were or were not aware of this information, or using it to evaluate the credibility, completeness, and validity of the incoming information.

It's anybody's guess, but this should have been decided at the beginning, not still unclear after the report is published. This is more evidence the Senate is confused.

Absurdly, the "recommendation" asks the Intelligence Director to conduct a policy review. Hello!?! That's something that should have been finished, and part of the original set of review assumptions, not still unclear.

This report is backwards: It's a mishmash of information; but they still aren't clear what procedures should have been used, not to mention what was really happening on the DoD email-disclosed classified network, SIPR.

SETA

We need some independent auditors to review what this Congressional Committee has done, using Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards. Not financial standards, but process engineering. The public needs to assign an independent Systems Engineering Technical Analysis (SETA) team that will rip this Phase II apart, and closely compare it with the disclosed Joint Intelligence Guidance. This is a mess and the leadership in both parties appear to be clueless how big of a mess they have presented in these reports.

We need to get some state-level auditors reviewing Congressional Staff counsel and their work products. This is something that should raise some concerns about the competence of legal counsel, and their ability to hire adequate consultants to guide them through this review since 2004.

Unclear What Committee Did

We're missing three (3) important pieces of this
puzzle:

A. The written procedures the Committee used to do this review;

B. The actual process and steps the Committee was reviewing;

C. A comparison between the real process used and the process that was supposed to have been used.

There's no way to know, as information was coming in to the Committee, whether they had someone monitoring the procedures and saying, "We should have something about this, but aren't getting anything. There is a problem here." It doesn't look as though they had a marshaling system to align the incoming data the committee was reviewing; and check how this data was or was not fitting into:

A. Requirements: The written procedures (Standards);

B. Beliefs: What people thought they were doing (Assumptions);

C. Reality: What was really going on, by way of real interactions supported by email and other written records of meetings (Evidence).

The committee has not independently created nor disclosed the planning templates used to create intelligence products.

The committee fails to disclose what process it assumed was working or being used; nor does it refer to any established procedures or review by way of a table, chart, or illustrative guide to information flow.

The committee appears to have accepted there is "a process" without reviewing whether that process is or isn't flawed; or whether something else was really being used to develop intelligence products.

We have no information what standards the committee used to know whether it was or wasn't getting the complete picture; the right products; or whether it was or wasn't asking the right questions.

2 of 57

The reports listed in the footnote were published before the DoD FOIA and McClellan's book. The reports are not precedent, but evidence of continuing Congressional Staff recklessness.

The methodology disclosed today demands a revisit of the previous reports, all the While putting attention on the President. This is his mess. The Congress is complicit.

Action Alert: The public must review to what extent the Congress and President have been reckless in not investigating the disclosed connections in the DOD emails with the propaganda efforts, key names in the NYT times, and other ACLU FOIAs.

Unjustified, Narrow Committee Scope, Investigation

This Senate report is about propaganda. The Committee leaves the incorrect impression about other activities and the connection or non-connection with this propaganda. The committee has, without justification, asked the public and Senate to believe convictions related to lobbying are unrelated to propaganda.

We disagree. The Committee appears to be pretending that some activity is unrelated to other activity; or that, on their assertion alone, there are no connections between different personnel, organizations, plans, and alleged illegal activity.

In our view, the committee issued a misleading note. The committee stated an AIPAC-related indictment was unrelated to the issues in this report. The DoD emails show there is an AIPAC connection through a DoD military analyst-connected law firm.

This statement at note 7 4 of 57 is not supported:

Mr. Franklin is currently awaiting direction from the Department of Justice to report to prison on matters unrelated to those discussed in this report. He was indicted in August 2005 along with two employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) for conspiring with each other to unlawfully disclosed classified national defense information.

There are two lines of evidence linking Franklin's conviction to the propaganda and the DoD military analysts:

1. NYT discloses Franklin was Feith's assistant;

2. The DoD emails show Feith reviewed military analyst comments before release.

It defies reason to believe Franklin is unrelated to Feith, the McClellan-disclosed "propaganda" (MCClellan's word), the DoD emails, or other alleged illegal war crimes.

It remains to be understood what role Franklin played in the alleged illegal domestic propaganda linked with Feith. It cannot be credibly asserted that the illegal activity Franklin was convicted is unrelated to DoD emails and propaganda the Committee has not reviewed or examined in the context of Presidential war crimes and illegal warfare.

Preliminary Assessment For Italian War Crimes Prosecutor

The GOP and DNC are on two different sides of the same tyranny. They are the alleged domestic enemies of the Constitution and Geneva Convention requirements. We've read nothing from the report to believe it should be taken seriously.

It is entered into evidence as alleged war crimes evidence, evidence of alleged malfeasance by the Senators named on the report:

Individually, by name, as alleged war crimes defendants;

Members of both parties, for alleged malfeasance in re war crimes.

They are innocent of all allegations until adjudicated by a competent war crimes tribunal. There is no statute of limitations. If convicted, those adjudicated with war crimes could be punished with the death penalty.

Reasonable Doubts About Committee

The report shows the Senators are not serious about their Geneva obligations or conducting coherent oversight. The Senate Committee has falled down on the job and not provided a work product the public should reasonably expect after four years of work.

The poor quality of the work product raises serious doubts about whether the Senate can timely review important issues of war. This report strongly suggests the Senate Committee is not well equipped to support timely, robust, or coherent oversight. The Committee leadership in both parties and their staff need assistance.

The Senate Committee has given the public a pile of trash to wade through. This is not acceptable. The Founders intended for elected officials to do the work of governing. This Senate Report turns the Founders' assumption on its head. Those who refuse to lead cannot be called leaders.

This Committee wants it both ways. It wants to provide trash, but expected the public to treat the Senators, the Committee, and the legal counsel and staff as professionals. The public is not obliged to show deference to those who shift the burden of oversight from the Committee to the public. The public is not up for re-election. The Senators are. This product shows the SEantors are not providing leadership.

The Committee has not provided sufficient information to justify confidence in its report as a a stand-alone document. Until the Senate provides additional information, nobody can responsibly use this report to argue for specific sanctions against the President. This report is a first draft, the first step, and requires a follow-up into the DoD emails and open media information largely supporting the reports conclusion: The President used propaganda to mobilize the nation for war.

Those using this report without a fair showing they've fact checked the report will face a reasonable accusation they're relying on flawed arguments or a faulty report.

Report Is An Unreliable Source, Reference

The Committee report is not reliable and needs to be fact checked. The report cannot be used, on its own, as a basis for subsequent arguments or recommendations. Other analysis is needed on the DoD emails, the full information trail from (a) the original sources to (b) the decision makers then to (c) the Public and Congress.

One problem with this report is how they've argued their case. The conclusion -- the President used propaganda -- may be true, but it does not follow from their arguments.

Report Mirrors President's Faulty Reasoning

This report duplicates what the Congress alleges the President did: Made faulty arguments using flawed analysis. Those duplicate the errors of those they're overseeing cannot be expected to independently oversee.

Even if the conclusion were true, the report does not convincing spring from that conclusion to reasonable action: A broader investigation. It does the opposite: Recommends to the Intelligence Director that he respond to a request for information.

Invalid Justification For Needed Oversight

The report has the right conclusion but for invalid reasons. The conclusion -- that there was propaganda -- is valid if we look at the DoD emails and McClellan's book. This report did not do that.

DoD Emails and Feith

The report does not adequately address the information about Feith in either the DoD emails or the media reporting on the Feith-connected groups. The report would be stronger if the Committee used this information and coherently discussed the connection between Feith and propaganda. However the overall flaws with the report are not offset by an isolated, coherent argument.

The way Feith couched his public comments, he's correctly stated that he did not use his official office to make public statements. Feith, however, fails to address the real propaganda concern: The DoD emails show he had a role in reviewing and approving what the military analysts were publicly releasing. Feith is right because he's parsed his words; but he's not adequately explained his role in unofficial communication through the military analysts.

By excluding the DoD emails -- issued in early May -- from this June report, they've shown they haven't fact checked their claims, and have ignored other important lines of evidence. We can speculate what other lines of evidence they've ignored, not reviewed, or may have selectively couched.

GOP Concerns Not Well Grounded

Because of the above, the Republican's have the ammunition they need to discredit the report, shift attention from the President. The report is flawed because the GOP and DNC have issued a flawed report through the Committee.

The Republicans can correctly say the DNC has cherry picked; and the DNC-GOP problem is that they've agreed to a report that has faulty reasoning. This means the GOP leadership can point their constituents to the report and use it as evidence the DNC is being unreasonable.

The problem with the GOP argument is that their comments do not adequately address the fundamental flaws with the report: The GOP is looking for an excuse to discredit the conclusion. This report does not have a valid argument; the conclusion is likely correct using other information which the Committee has not provided.

Further Analysis

This report requires additional information from the Senate, which the Senate does not appear inclined to provide. For those reasons, we cannot support the Senate.

A reasonable analysis will take time. This report as it stands cannot be supported. It must be rejected.

Further analysis of the data will require extensive e fact checking. This is beyond what the Senate Report was supposed to do: Resolve issues, not create confusion and cause delays.

Something has gone terribly wrong with the committee leadership, report oversight, and the legal counsel staffing and investigation. This Committee cannot be trusted to independently act, conduct oversight, nor responsibly perform it's Constitutional mandate.

Committee Decertification

The Committee should be decertified, and required to provide a fair showing to the public that it should be taken seriously. This report shows it is not capable of coherently investigating, analyzing, or confronting this President's war crimes.

This report on its own well supports the Italian war crimes prosecutors conclusion the United states is not serious about enforcing Geneva.

Reasonable Doubts About Geneva Compliance

The foreign war crimes prosecutors are reasonable in concluding the United States government is not effectively positioned to credibly enforce the laws of war, conduct fact finding, nor ensure its combat forces fully comply with all Geneva obligations.

It remains to be seen what options foreign powers put on the table to ensure the United States fully complies with Geneva obligations. This report should send a troublesome warning to all Americans: Your government is not serious about timely ensuring it coherently enforces teh laws of war, nor that it's civilian policy makers and leaders are competently conducting robust oversight using sound reasons, careful analysis, and prudent use of scarce resources.

The report tends to support the distasteful conclusion the United States citizens are not well served by this government as it is currently manged, led, or structured. These are issues of sovereighty and legitimacy. Foreign powers are concerned. The United States Senate report is troubling. Foreign powers did not expect to see this departure from the rule of law, nor a failure of the oversight to enforce the laws of war.

This report tends to tip the balance in favor of foreign powers concluding the United States government cannot be trusted to responsibly conduct its affairs of states within the laws; nor that the Congress or Senate will conduct competent oversight.

This report is a black eye on the United States government, Congress, Senate, and this Committee. The American public have a reasonable basis to reject this report in its entirety, and immediately demand an open debate on the floor of both houses of Congress to resolve the leadership problems in both leading political parties. The first step would be to remove the Speaker from office and make way for an impeachment investigation.

Lawful change in Leadership To Make Way For Public Investigations

This report shows the investigation must be in public, and conducted with careful, deliberate, and close scrutiny by the American public. This committee has wasted four years conducting irrelevant investigations into red herrings. An open investigation of the President would ensure the House Judiciary Committee does not repeat what this Senate Committee has done: Used secrecy to avoid need, timely, and relevant input.

This committee report shows what both parties, left to their own devices, will do when they conduct secret investigations. The results speak for themselves: The report is invalid, the conclusions are not logically linked with data, and the review failed to consider important information.

This is the definition of an irrelevant Congress and repeats the problem of the German Reichstag. Foreign powers have noted this troubling development. The American Senate must do what it expects of the Iraqis: Engage in open, visible, and competent government. This Senate Report does the Iraqis a disservice: It shows the flaws of the Committees.

The Senate Committee wished for this.

Committee Failure To Meet Adequately Oversee Matters Under Jurisdiction

The committee's report shows the Committee cannot adequately demonstrate it is meeting it's obligations under its jurisdiction. What seems most baffling is the contrast between this report and the Committee's stated mission:

"[T]o oversee and make continuing studies of the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government" From

The committee jurisdiction does not overlap with the Committee Report nor intersect the contents of the report. It's as if the report is from a committee with substantially different missions and jurisdictions. The mission and report do not reconcile.

This report would have us (incorrectly) believe the Committee has never done staff work or published a report; or its reports have been meaningless. This committee has not been newly created, but has conducted other investigations.

A. Doubts about Committee Effectiveness

A wanting report suggests the meaningless oversight cannot ensure the intelligence activities fully comply with the Constitution and laws of the United States. It cannot be argued the Committee is providing "vigilant" oversight when it produces a shoddy Phase II report.

"provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States."

One definition of "vigilant":

carefully observant or attentive

The Phase II report fails to meet this standard of "vigilance": The report was neither observant nor attentive to key DoD emails, nor reliability of key facts or assertions in the report.

B. Leadership Problem in Senate, not Just Committee

The Committee leadership in both parties seems wanting. Their idea of "every effort" is incomplete staff work:

"[E]very effort to assure that the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States provide informed and timely intelligence necessary for the executive and legislative branches to make sound decisions affecting the security and vital interests of the Nation."

- What are they missing?

- Do they have "other" things to do?

- Why isn't the committee ensuring the judicial branch has the needed information as well?

- What is the committee's plan to reform itself?

C. Senate Committee and Senate Remain Vulnerable to Presidential Manipulations

The basis for legislation is flawed, suggesting the White House can (still) manipulate the Committee on FISA violations:

"[T]o submit to the Senate appropriate proposals for legislation and report to the Senate concerning such intelligence activities and programs."

Unclear they have a credible definition of "appropriate," nor plans in place to support their recommendations. There is no reason the Senate should take the Senate Intelligence Committee's reports on face value. Their work requires independent fact checking, and reflects poorly on the Senate, the Senators, the leadership in both parties, and the Committee Staff.