WP: Democrats Looking for a Road Map to Downing Street (Kerry Letter to *)

Democrats Looking for a Road Map to Downing Street

By Terry M. Neal
Washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 14, 2005; 10:26 AM

Democrats this week are escalating their efforts to highlight the so-called "Downing Street Memo."

Rep. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), the senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee has scheduled a public forum for Thursday on the subject. And 104 House Democrats have signed a letter written by Conyers to President Bush asking him for a detailed response to the memo.

After struggling during his failed presidential bid last year to stake out a clear and compelling position on the nation's most pressing issue -- Iraq -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) has come out swinging. A senior aide close to Kerry said this week that a Kerry is circulating a letter about the memo among Democratic senators before sending it to Bush. The aide predicted that Kerry would make the letter public in the next few days.

-snip-
There is much to fault in both the right's and the left's interpretation of the memo. First, the memo is not the smoking gun that some liberal politicos and bloggers see. No matter what Richard Dearlove said in the memo about fixing the facts, it was still merely one man's analysis of the situation. At the same time, Dearlove is a credible source who was, essentially, the British equivalent of former CIA director George Tenet. It doesn't have to be a smoking gun for it to be an important document. The document should not be ignored simply because it does not answer every question. The Downing Street Memo is a starting place, not an ending place.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061400563.html

This seems big to me. WP reporter is saying the press needs to start investigating. Well, better late then never. Get to work.

"Neither Bush nor Blair denied the authenticity of the memo, and therein lays the rub.

-snip-
The memo is important not only because it suggests Bush made up his mind well in advance of the actual invasion, but because it undercuts Bush's post-war response to questions about whether he made a mistake in going to war with Iraq. Bush's answer has been, essentially, that every credible government official in the United States and Europe believed Saddam Hussein was amassing weapons of mass destruction, based on the unanimity of intelligence reports."

starting point, not an ending in the Original Post so more people will see it.

This is very good news. They are finally getting it.

for anyone without a 4th grade education

Basically, you can only tell people the truth, if they WANT to hear it.

That is bullshit. Tell them the truth and they will want more of it. Look at Watergate - start telling the truth about abuse of power and government lying and people will want more of it. Put the truth and real stories on page 17 and Michael Jackson, Terry Schiavo, Lacey Peterson, runaway brides on the front page day after day and you dumb down and numb down the audience.

Bullshit is right.

re-discovery of the leaked documents from Sept/04, I wonder if the writer will still say there is not much there, there. His final snark at Kerry shows where his bias is, imo.

... either by intent or ignorance. His statement regarding Kerry's campaign ignores his own complicity, and he's talking about the DSM as though it's a standalone document.

However, the DSM is just another bit of evidence regarding the WH's deception, along with the other Brit docs coming out, plus the O'Neil, Clarke and Woodward books.

Bottom line is, though, nothing will come of any of it whilst Washington remains under one-party control -- unless the media REALLY digs into the issue and comes up with a modern Deep Throat.

with the letter.

I will bet that he obtained the evidence he needed from allies in Great Britain to further the story and to force an official investigation.

... especially if it passes through Biden's and Lieberman's hands.

It also should quiet those complaining that Kerry wasn't moving on this story when in fact he's been working to share the evidence with other senators and present a more united front when they confront Bush with a letter of inquiry.

is important.

thats in the bottom left corner

thanks karynnj

"Recommend Topic for Greatest page". You click on that. Three votes are needed to get on the GP. We now have many more then 3.

What percentage of Republicans are white Christians?

results don't suprise me.

dp

What do they need, fucking bread crumbs? ARghhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Here is link... shall I draw little stick figures for them?
http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/muriel/path_of_war_timeline_613.htm

Raw Story's timeline.

It is the DNC/DLC that seems to be missing in action and looking far and wide for something in front of them.

Kerry knows too. So what I mean is, who the hell is sending these letters out and on behalf of whom? Does no one check in with the leadership at all prior to hitting the send button? Arghhhhhhhhhhh

The strategy is to throw a bone here and there to the grassroots, all the while remaining true to political opportunism by "not rocking the boat."

JB

Geeze, they really need to get a clue!

These are things that we should not let slip from our consciousness during the coming months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Norton-Taylor, Vikram Dodd and Nicholas Watt
Tuesday August 12, 2003
The Guardian

The government's attempts to bolster its case for the war against Iraq suffered a heavy blow on the first day of the Hutton inquiry yesterday when it was revealed that unease about the dossier on Saddam Hussein's weapons programme ran much deeper than Downing Street has claimed.
Evidence presented to the inquiry into the apparent suicide of the Ministry of Defence scientist David Kelly showed that concerns expressed by Dr Kelly about the language of the government's dossier was shared within the intelligence community, even at a senior level.
In a further undermining of Tony Blair's case, the inquiry heard that Dr Kelly's status was much more significant than the government has admitted, a direct rebuttal of last week's description of the dead scientist by a No 10 press officer as a Walter Mitty fantasist.
The inquiry, under the law lord, Lord Hutton, also heard that Dr Kelly's role in advising officials on the dossier was far more extensive than has hitherto been acknowledged.
Intelligence officials were sufficiently concerned about the wording of the dossier that they expressed worries to their superiors. Some said they were unhappy about the way it was claimed that Iraq could deploy some chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order to do so - the claim at the heart of the row between No 10 and the BBC.
One unnamed official, now retired, expressed concern to Martin Howard, the deputy chief of defence intelligence, in a letter which was read out. The official wrote: "As probably the most senior and experienced intelligence community official working on 'WMD', I was so concerned about the manner in which intelligence assessments for which I had some responsibility were being presented in the dossier ... that I was moved to write ... recording and explaining my reservations." The inquiry heard evidence that one defence intelligence official had discussed a claim in the dossier about growth media for Iraq's biological weapons programme. After speaking to Dr Kelly as the September dossier was being drawn up, the intelligence offi cial wrote: "The existing wording is not wrong - but it has a lot of spin."

<SNIP>
The government wasted little time last night in mounting a damage limitation exercise on concerns about Downing Street's use of intelligence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
And this little morsel from the CIA

----------------------------------------------------------------------
CIA admits lack of specifics on Iraqi weapons before invasion
Sat Nov 29, 8:55 PM ET Add World - AFP to My Yahoo!

WASHINGTON, (AFP) - The US Central Intelligence Agency (news - web sites) has acknowledged it "lacked specific information" about alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction when it compiled an intelligence estimate last year that served to justify the US-led invasion of Iraq (news - web sites).



But it said that and other uncertainties surrounding the case had been fully presented to President George W. Bush (news - web sites) and other US policymakers in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a document often referred to by members of the Bush administration as a basis of their claim that Iraq had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.


US Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) told the UN Security Council last February that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and his regime were "concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction" and that their weapons programs "are a real and present danger to the region and to the world."


However, an explanation issued over the weekend by veteran CIA (news - web sites) analyst Stuart Cohen, who was in charge of putting together the 2002 intelligence estimate and currently serves as vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council, made clear the case against Iraq, as presented by the CIA behind closed doors, was much less clear-cut and more nuanced.


"Any reader would have had to read only as far as the second paragraph of the Key Judgments to know that as we said: 'We lacked specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD program,'" Cohen wrote in an article posted on the agency's Web site.

False Statements Accountability Act of 1996
Under this Act, amending 18 U.S.C. § 1001, it is a crime knowingly and willfully (1) to falsify, conceal or cover up a material fact by trick, scheme or device; (2) to make any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) to make or use any false writing or document knowing it to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; with respect to matters within the jurisdiction of the legislative, executive, or judicial branch.

and many people seem to act like it is OK for the Government to lie to the people.

I was wondering if anything Bush sent to Congress was "under oath" in some manner because I just don't get the "we already know they lied" so what is the big deal attitude - like if he just lied in all of his speeches, etc. we can't do anything.

Does the Act you site apply specifically to citizens, governmental officials, etc.?

Was this a good government type of legislation?

You would think the lies about the cost of the Medicare Bill would fall under this also.

I do know that it came out in 1996 "False Statements Accountability Act of 1996" I am thinking it is something that was put before congress to clean up President Clinton and has now bit Un-Curious George in the butt.

I do not have the full text of the law, I got that little bit from the Resolution of Inquiry put forth by Mr. Bonifaz regarding the DSM.

I will look around and see what I can find. I am a slow reader so it may take a few days.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00902.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
902 1996 Amendments to 18 U.S.C. § 1001

The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996 (FSAA), Pub. L. No. 104-292, H.R. 3166 (October 11, 1996), made several changes that affect the work of United States Attorneys' Offices, including revisions to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1505, 6005, and 28 U.S.C. 1365. This section describes the changes to section 1001.

Section 2 of the FSAA revises section 1001 of title 18, United States Code. The new 18 U.S.C. § 1001, effective October 11, 1996, reads as follows:

a. Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully --

1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

b. Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

c. With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only in --

1)administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

2)any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.


The new section 1001 contains several important features. First, section 2 of the FSAA restores the Department's ability to prosecute false statements made to the judicial and legislative branches. In 1995, the Supreme Court reversed long-settled precedent in Hubbard v. United States, 115 S.Ct. 1754 (1995), and held that a court is neither a "department" nor an "agency" under § 1001. Although the Court's opinion left open the possibility that a judicial or legislative entity might still be considered an "agency" under section 1001, several courts interpreted Hubbard broadly to mean that section 1001 applies only to false statements made to the executive branch. See, e.g., United States v. Dean, 55 F.3d 640 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1288 (1996); United States v. Rostenkowski, 59 F.3d 1291, 1301 (D.C. Cir. 1995). As of March 1997, there was pending in the District of Columbia Circuit an interlocutory appeal concerning whether the old version of section 1001, even after Hubbard, still applies to financial disclosure statements that Members of Congress filed, pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act, with the Clerk of the House of Representatives before October 11, 1996. See United States v. Oakar, No. 96-3084 (D.C. Cir.). Prosecutors therefore should not concede, in any pleadings or arguments presented in federal courts, that the old section 1001 does not apply to such statements, at least until the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decides this case.

The new statute effectively overrules Hubbard, and expressly provides that section 1001 covers false statements that are made to all three branches of the federal government, without regard to whether the entity may be categorized as a "department" or "agency."

By including certain statutory terms (e.g., "jurisdiction" and "statement") from the former section 1001 without change, Congress intended that those terms, as reenacted, continue to carry with them the body of existing judicial constructions of those terms. For example, with respect to statements made within the jurisdiction of the executive branch, prosecutors should continue to consider all statements -- whether oral or written, and whether sworn or unsworn -- as being within the scope of the new section 1001. See H.R. Rep. No. 104-680 (July 16, 1996) at 8 ("Other than establishing materiality as an element of all three offenses, the Committee does not view the offenses defined in paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) as changing already existing case law as it relates to the elements of the offenses.")(There was no Senate report concerning the Act, and the House report covers only the changes that the Act made to section 1001).

Section 2 of the FSAA, however, contains certain limitations concerning statements within the jurisdiction of the judicial and legislative branches. Subsection 2(b) of the FSAA provides that statements made to a judge or magistrate by parties or their counsel in a judicial proceeding will not be subject to prosecution under section 1001. Section 2 of the FSAA thus codifies a limited version of the "judicial function exception," which was created by the courts under the old section 1001 to avoid the chilling of advocacy that might occur if attorneys and parties were subject to prosecution for concealing facts from a court or jury. Under the codified version of the judicial function exception, parties or their counsel may be prosecuted for false submissions to other entities within the judicial branch, such as the probation office. See H.R. Rep. No. 104-680 at 9. Non-parties may be prosecuted for any false submission within the jurisdiction of the judicial branch.

In subsection (c) of amended § 1001, Congress created a "legislative function exception." Under the new provision, false statements within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch are subject to prosecution only if they relate to administrative matters or congressional investigations conducted consistent with the applicable congressional rules. Amended § 1001 will thus reach those documents that have most often been the subject of congressional false statement prosecutions, such as vouchers, payroll documents, and Ethics in Government Act (EIGA) financial disclosure forms. The exception was intended to protect, among other things, the free flow of constituent submissions to Congress. See H.R. Rep. No. 104-680 at 4-5.

Amended § 1001 also expressly includes materiality as an element under each of the three clauses in subsection (a). This resolves a conflict among the courts on that issue. See, e.g., United States v. Corsino, 812 F.2d 26 (1st Cir. 1987); United States v. Elkin, 731 F.2d 1005 (2d Cir. 1984).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 1997 Criminal Resource Manual 902
Now to digest it, get out the pepto bismal.

It applies to the government only, from what I can tell. If I am reading it correctly, Bush should be fined, imprisoned up to 5 years or both. If somebody pressed this issue, I would bet that Bush was only fined, then his daddy would bail him out once again. He would not spend time in jail because somebody would say it was a matter of national security. I must admit I do derive some pleasure from the thought of Geo. sharing a cell with somebody named bulldog or horse dong the gay guy. I personally feel he is a bigger threat to national security as a sitting president than he would be as a president sitting in a jail cell.

falls into that category, it is an under oath speech and he lied like a rug throughout. Yellow cake, mushroom clouds, I want peace etc. etc. etc.

That was created when Clinton was in office? It seems the Republican'ts wanted that to get rid of Clinton. Wouldn't it be great if it finally got rid of one of their own?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8194578

fyi: Here's ya ROAD MAP...

http://tinyurl.com/9j5y2 (DU thread)

peace

Are together a hell of a smoking gun, but feel free to spin as you will. Really, I enjoy watching a shill in action.

last week, Monday to be exact. What happened to that? Now we have a letter. You know, these letters are thrown into the WH trash basket. I know this may be an important adjunct, but you know what? I am tired of these games. I sometimes think that Kerry should have done a Gore and examined what his priorities are, without the mantle of "Senator" cloaked around him. Gore has grown from his defeat and grown substantially within himself imo.

Conyers is my man and is the real hero. Not those who reneg on their promises and then belatedly jump on the Conyers bandwagon after all the work has been done. I hate that.

Guess it is better than nothing though.

"When I go back on Monday, I am going to raise the issue," Kerry told the New Bedford (Mass.) Standard Times newspaper two weeks ago. "I think it's a stunning, unbelievably simple and understandable statement of the truth and a profoundly important document that raises stunning issues here at home."

Tired of it.

I wouldn't be holding my breath to hear Kerry's "floor statement" anytime soon.

JB

Statement?????????????

From the original article:



Did you think the ONLY way to "raise the issue" was to make a floor statement????

WHEN did he say he was going to make a "floor statement"?? Oh that's right, HE DIDN'T.

(and he probably still will anyway - after he gets some other Senators to go along with it. Why don't you go call some up and tell them to sign the letter???)

Why does Sen Kerry NOW need to have HIS OWN PERSONAL LETTER???
Is he not aware that there is already another letter (Conyers) that has already been signed by over 1/2 Million Americans AND 90 members of Congress?

Why pen another letter that calls into question some subjective parts of the other LETTER and dilutes the IMPACT of the Conyers Letter and the credibility of the GrassRoots movement?

Sen. Kerry, you are jumping on this bandwagon TOO LATE. You may publicly sign Conyer's Letter along with the rest of us, and publicly support this movement, but it is too goddamned late to try to pretend to be a leader on this issue. That risk was taken by braver and more righteous REAL LEADERS!


NOTE: I generally support John Kerry, but this move is just too transparent, and actually discredits the Conyers effort, and the grassroots efforts. He had his chance to take the lead and promised to do that over two weeks ago. While I support his speaking out, the Letter Thing has ALREADY been done.
If Kerry is REALLY interested in advancing this issue, he should appear as a guest speaker at Conyer's rally on Thursday, and appear on the CorpoMedia supporting Conyer's and the GrassRoots efforts. Too Late to take the credit, John.

I would think the Senate letter would work in conjunction with the House letter. They are different branches and I want the Senators on the record also calling for an investigation.

I hope some Senators join in Conyers' forum on Thursday. We need to broaden this effort, not limit it.

The WP reporter is finally acknowledging that the DSM should be the beginning of an investigation into this matter, not the end. They have finally woken up. That is good news.

This issue has to move beyond the grassroots and Conyers to have the broad political implications we all know it should have.

I re-read the linked article, and have tempered my initial anger. John Kerry IS taking a lead role in the Senate. I will need to see a copy of his letter before judging the content.
The MORE people speaking out, the better... as long as they don't undercut each other.
John Kerry is much more recognizable to the average American, and his voice will carry some weight.

that is why I am convinced that any candidate that Democrats may put forth in '08, should have NO connections to the congress at all because I think it is too corrupt.

Too many years on the hill develops an approach that is hesitant, wary, plays games, and most important, the recipiant of, therefore the benefactor of, the largesse of lobby groups and other groups seeking to woo those who legislate.

letter.

Surely, you knew that Kerry said over a week ago that he would do this at the same time he CASTIGATED the media for their "inexplicable silence" on the DSM. Soon after, the media stopped denying the DSM existed.

A letter from either side is Congressional.

-Hoot

.

I'm still reeling from "count every vote",not.

Conyers is one of the co-sponsors of the House version of Kerry's Kids First Act. So I imagine they get along just fine.

Second, if you think Kerry is the kind of person who's into discrediting honest men like Conyers, then you never knew Kerry in the first place. And that's sad, esp. if you were campaigning for him.

Third, he is still involved in the effort to count ever vote, via Clinton's election reform bill as well as a lawsuit that has yet to be resolved in Ohio.

He's doing the best he can. He's not Superman.

He's also going at this like the obsessive/compulsive person I know he is. He's going at this like the prosecutor I know he is. He's going at this like the good man I definitely know he is.

(/soapbox)

He discredited himself TO ME on Nov.3, 2004 around 3pm EST.

I was never a huge fan to begin with due to the "brotherhood" of the 2 candidates. Then to see him not hold off from conceding for at least a while finished it for me. I hadn't put much faith in any politician until Conyers. How could he seriously believe that waiting til later was good for what?

You have your opinion and I have mine.

Peace.

You don't mean Skull and Bones do you?

If so, you didn't offend my loyalty to Kerry. Just my loyalty to reality.

:eyes:

Don't they swear to cover each other's behinds? Have I been misinformed on this issue? Willing to learn more.

It's so hard to know whom to trust when it comes to politicians.

I do pray that Kerry makes head way with this, just don't have much faith left that he will.

I'm just tired of what has been an uphill battle, sorry if I offended you in any way.

I don't have a Kerry altar set up (unless computer wallpaper counts) :)

And I can understand being burnt around the edges. Hang in there.

But most of the Skull and Bones stuff sounds so tinhatted to me. We don't know what they swear really. It's a secret society. Which is why so much speculation grows out of it. But I don't see alot of facts.

The thought does occur that even if any of the S and B stuff were true, then Kerry had senority. Bush probably should have let him win then.

Be that as it may, watching Kerry, I see someone who wouldn't have let a frat membership get in the way of trying to make people's lives better. He didn't fake almost breaking down in his concession speech. I was in a battleground state. I watched him bust his ass here in Wisconsin. He was in it to win it. He got outgamed. I don't blame him for that. And I as as ABB as anyone last spring. I'm Little Clarkie for a reason.

Kerry doesn't move very fast. I find that frustrating at times too. But I trust that he will do something. Just not in our timeline. We need to focus on what we can do on these issues, and keep calling our Representatives if we think they're too slow. But I will not attack them. I don't know what they're doing exactly. Not everything is visible. And neither should it be.

I want Howard Dean say it!

Yeah, right, Mediawhore, just like "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out!," uttered by George Jr. in March, 2002, was just another man's "analysis of the situation..."

It could be, and probably is a perfectly accurate statement about what the man heard - that they're "fixing the intelligence".

By now we know for a fact that that's exactly what they did.

<snip>
o Democratic strategists I talked to said their party should forge ahead on the memo -- but carefully.

Erik Smith, a former longtime adviser to former House minority leader Richard A. Gephardt, said that although there are "cracks in the president's Teflon," most voters are turned off by suggestions that he purposefully lied to make the case for war.

"I think that the party can get an advantage talking about it, but it has to be done very carefully," said Smith, who has studied research of voter perceptions last year while at the liberal Media Fund. "The research found that you couldn't make the argument that there was malevolence involved, that the president intentionally lied to get to war. You can make the argument that there was thorough planning, and you can make lots of arguments about mishandling. But saying that he purposefully put people in harm's way was not a credible argument."

Similarly, Dane Strother, who advises numerous congressional and gubernatorial candidates, said: "I'm not sure is news. People know he lied. Paul O'Neill said that Bush planned on attacking Iraq all along in his book two years ago. haven't showed themselves to be very vulnerable. . . . They forge ahead anyway."

<snip>

Chris Lehane, a former adviser to Vice President Gore, said the memo was worth discussion from a policy perspective because it might shed light on how a decision was made to go to war. But politically, he said, Democrats had more to gain by looking forward. Democrats could be stronger on defense issues by focusing on a plan to return troops from Iraq while maintaining security in the Middle East. Lehane said Democrats should simultaneously hit Bush while proposing their own policy prescriptions.

"I would like to see the party talking about why is Osama bin Laden still running around after the president said three years ago we were going to get him dead or alive," Lehane said. "Now you can't even get this administration to mention his name. .

<snip>

Why are these assholes still in DC? Why is anyone still listening to them?

They know which jerks are the worst ones to include. I swear, some of these strategists have GOT to be GOP operatives.

Shouldnt we work to change all these erroneous perceptions rather than lying for Bush???

Why do these Dems listen to FAILED advisors? WTFU? Apparently, you cannot be a Dem strategist unless you have helped a Dem lose an election or you are a complete invertebrate.

JB

I FUCKING KNEW IT! Kerry threw out a bone to the grassroots by hinting that he would be making a forceful statement on the DSM almost two weeks ago. Now, we're faced with him acting like a complete wimp. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FLOOR STATEMENT?????????

Kerry is a worthless beltway Dem. Face it.

JB

Kerry confidantes say senator is seeking others to cosign letter on Downing minutes

If not, why don't you go call them?

Now, the guys been working on this, as well as a bunch of stuff in the past two weeks. HE NEVER SAID HE WAS GOING TO MAKE A FLOOR STATEMENT. He said AND I QUOTE "I am going to raise the issue."

I'd say he's raising it.

Oh, never mind. You think taking this approach is being "a complete wimp". You are so amazingly wrong.

Nice long yawn.:boring:

Wow, I just wish he would really come out and say something. :crazy: