I see one member of the Plame Brigade has finally decided to discuss the leaked memo outlining Democrat plans to use the non-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee. Unfortunately, the Calpundit’s offering was lame, and Professor Bainbridge explains why. My favorite quote from Kevin:
Bottom line: Republicans want to limit the investigation in order to protect the president. Democrats are fighting this because they think the president had a lot to do with the misuse of prewar intelligence.
There’s nothing wrong with this, and it wouldn’t have happened if Republicans had been willing to conduct a fair and thorough investigation in the first place. So let’s save the mock outrage, OK?
A.) The investigation has not been completed, so it can’t be unfair and not thorough.
B.) As the memo itself stated: “Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard. For example, in addition to the president’s State of the Union speech, the chairman has agreed to look at the activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense as well as Secretary Bolton’s office at the State Department. The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and co-signs our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial.”
In other words, they are cooperating.
C.) This was not a plan to really conduct an investigation, this was a plan to leak information and to attempt to gain some sort of partisan gain in 2004.
D.) I am now wholly convinced that Democrats think words mean whatever the hell they want them to mean, and if the words themselves can not be contorted enough to fill the need, you can just state that it was ‘suggested’ or what was ‘really meant.’ The memo is damned clear about the minority party’s intent, yet Kevin somehow divines the motives of the Republicans (“Republicans want to limit the investigation in order to protect the president”). It is dizzying.
New Slogan: “Democrats- Straight Making Shit Up Since 1992”
Dodd
Lileks and Hugh Wewitt summed this flap up very well on the latter’s show the other day: These people act like they don’t believe we’re in a war. That struck me as an apt descrition not only of this particular imbroglio but of almost everything that almost all Dems do and say these days.
Dean
Dodd hits this right on the head.
I was in Cambridge in Spring 2002 attending a conference, and many of the speakers openly derided the idea that we are at war.
As one commenter noted, “I just came from WAshington, and it’s amazing. Down there, they REALLY think we’re at war!” in a tone of utter disbelief (and condescension).
He went on to say how the folks in Cambridge, of course, knew far better, and that the only war was in the minds of the likes of Rumsfeld and Dubya.
This is, of course, the intellectual foundation of the Dem Party…..
M. Scott Eiland
Yes–it is fascinating how they argue out of one side of their mouth that we’re not at war, and keep shouting “quagmire!” (or less overused synonyms) out of the other.
Bill Quick
Out of one side of their what?
The Mighty Reason Man
Your lame points, in order:
A. So the Democrats should wait until the investigation is over before they plan out how they want to help conduct the investigation?
B. My God, you’re right! Because one party has never, ever gone through the motions of cooperation while actually stonewalling the other party before!
C. How about, for just a moment, we pretend that you are a Democrat, and you actually, truly believe that this administration has mishandled intelligence in the lead up to war. Don’t YOU want to tell the public about it before he gets elected to 4 more years in office? (“But he didn’t mishandle intelligence! He was righteous and pure, as were his motives!” I’m not arguing that right now. Just assume you, as a temporary Democrat, believe it)
D. I’d address your point here if I could say for certain what it is (besides simply an insult that I would call clever had us Democrats not been saying the same thing about Republicans for quite some time now. Maybe this is of a sort with the various “Democrats are racists” posts I keep seeing, attempting to dilute the meaning and seriousness of a charge by haphazardly throwing it around everywhere? Or maybe you’re still pissed about all that “imminent threat” stuff?).
New Slogan: “Cole- At least Dodd agrees with him.”
drew
I really don’ think this represents a large portion of the Democratic party. This would maybe apply to the Kucinich branch. In their defense, this War on Terror is radically different from wars past; no set target, no set borders, no forgein army to attack.
I think Marshall had a good note about this memo. He suggested Democrats and Republicans from in the government swap all of their internal memos, intellgence reports, etc.. That way we can see which party has done more politicizing of intellgence. As a Democrat I think that swap would be more than fair…Don’t you Cole?
Dodd
Yep, most of the time I do. What can I say? Mr. Cole is very bright.
HH
Per usual, Marshall succeeds in completely missing the point.
Dean
Drew:
Let me just note that this conference included folks who are on the short-list for any Democratic Administration’s foreign policy.
And were in the last Democratic Admin.
This was NOT a conference of the Internationaly Federation of Liberal and Radical Youth.
Tongue Boy
I posted the following to Kevin Drum’s discussion thread. I received 2 responses, neither of which were germane to my points. Not surprising.
—-
The summary states:
“Yet, we have an important role to play in the revealing the misleading — if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives — of the senior administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, preemptive war. The approach outline above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration’s dubious motives and methods.” (Emphasis mine)
Note that this isn’t put into the form of a thesis or question; Bush’s medancity/deception/etc. is asserted as a foregone conclusion. Therefore, this effort appears to be framed by the memo writer(s) themselves as a fishing expedition; the conclusion is foreordained so let’s cast our line into the water and hope something, anything bites. Supporting my contention is the conspicuous exclusion from the summary — well, the entire memo for that matter — of any call to use the obtained information for any additional purposes like — oh, I dunno — enhancing national security by fixing any data collection and interpretation problems by the CIA so that future unnecessary wars may be prevented.
Posted by Tongue Boy at November 10, 2003 08:56 AM
—-
Bottom line: Republicans want to limit the investigation in order to protect the president. Democrats are fighting this because they think the president had a lot to do with the misuse of prewar intelligence.
In a prior post,I’ve highlighted a possible Democrative motive (politically motivated fishing expedition) based on the text of the memo. Kevin, please highlight points in the memo that support your conclusions regarding the motives of the various parties.
Posted by Tongue Boy at November 10, 2003 09:08 AM
Tongue Boy
And perhaps the Mighty Reason Man would care to address the points I raise.
John Cole
Whatever, you brown shirt Rove operative.
Kimmitt
“Note that this isn’t put into the form of a thesis or question; Bush’s medancity/deception/etc. is asserted as a foregone conclusion”
Do you really believe that Senate Democrats, who have endured broken promise after broken promise from this President on bills of various sorts — and who were rewarded for their solidarity with the President just after 9/11 with relentless attacks on their patriotism — would think otherwise? President Bush is a habitual liar, and this is nowhere more evident than in his relentless push for unaccountable government. Yes, of course President Bush is going to lie. That’s what he does. That’s who he is.
David Perron
No, Kimmitt, it’s part of the normal give-and-take of national politics. Remember?
Kimmitt
There are two essentially valid ways to measure employment which get around the problem of seasonal employment.
The first is to use nonfarm data. This has the advantage of being extremely quantifiable — no statistical analysis is necessary, and nonfarm employment appears to correlate quite well to the underlying strength of the job market.
The second is to use statistical techniques to attempt to compensate for seasonal variation. There are multiple methods of doing this, and at least a few economists aren’t thrilled with any of them. Certainly, the Department of Labor has reevaluated its approach twice over the past twenty years.
What would I do? Probably do some research into statistical techniques and see which of the current ones suits my biases for how data should be displayed. But there is a case to be made that the nonfarm data is the best indicator of employment strength, at which point using it is entirely a matter of discretion for a given argument.
On the other hand, maybe it is part of the normal give-and-take of national politics for both Parties to make statements which are provably false. Maybe we should look into whether it’s worse than it used to be, or why the national discourse has degraded so much.
Kimmitt
There are two essentially valid ways to measure employment which get around the problem of seasonal employment.
The first is to use nonfarm data. This has the advantage of being extremely quantifiable — no statistical analysis is necessary, and nonfarm employment appears to correlate quite well to the underlying strength of the job market.
The second is to use statistical techniques to attempt to compensate for seasonal variation. There are multiple methods of doing this, and at least a few economists aren’t thrilled with any of them. Certainly, the Department of Labor has reevaluated its approach twice over the past twenty years.
What would I do? Probably do some research into statistical techniques and see which of the current ones suits my biases for how data should be displayed. But there is a case to be made that the nonfarm data is the best indicator of employment strength, at which point using it is entirely a matter of discretion for a given argument.
On the other hand, maybe it is part of the normal give-and-take of national politics for both Parties to make statements which are provably false. Maybe we should look into whether it’s worse than it used to be, or why the national discourse has degraded so much.
David Perron
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Kimmitt. I’ve been jabbing at you a bit on this, and you’ve refused to be riled by it.
I was more than a little annoyed by the Hoover comment, and I felt you hadn’t adequately explained your comments in that respect. As far as what I actually know in this field goes, I admit I’m pulling the trigger on an empty clip.
Props again to you for the reply.