Redstate

By Mark Kilmer Posted in Special Features — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

These non-binding resolutions have captured some minds, and House Dem Leader Steny Hoyer promised on MTP that there would be "simple, straight-forward, clear resolution" dealing with the President's cooties. He mocked the Senate for using clauses. It's the right think to do, he said, because everyone, "even Hagel," thinks the surge is a bad idea. Steny Hoyer wants a resolution to voice support of the troops, and Hoyer said maybe later.

Doug Feith went on FNS to explain that he was not doctoring intelligence; rather, he created a counter to the CIA's report which used intelligence to fit its conclusion that bin Laden and Saddam hated each other for religious reasons.

Later on FNS, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell explained that the GOP had voted last week for a broader debate, that they had blocked a vote on the resolution because they wanted debate of more than just the one, Warner-Levin hissy fit. Jack Reed came on next and told Wallace that the "Warner" resolution was just a first-step toward an eventual vote on defunding the troops.

On TW, Kerry showed that he hasn't changed his fundamental view that American foreign policy should be conditioned to meet the whims of other nations. The global test this time is that the solution to Iraq must satisfy our security needs and the desires of other nations. George Stephanopoulos, the host, insisted that the President is sending more troops to Baghdad to referee sectarian violence.

On LE, Doug Feith had a chance, in an interview taped Friday, to try to rebut a string of media-spawned assertions and accusations regarding his report on pre-war intelligence. Blitzer's uninformed view of reality would not be altered.

After that, Senator John Cornyn said that Iran posed a problem in Iraq and that we have to take care and solve it. Ron Wyden, channeling Democratic foreign policy guru Joe Biden, insisted that the President was going to attack Iran and needed to get Congress's permission before doing so.

The question of the morning was: Do you trust the Bush Administration when it says it is not going to invade Iran? To a man, and to John Kerry, they said that NO, he lied about Iraq. That's there weak excuse for the constant mention of facts not in evidence.

Read More for the show-by-show review….

BOEHNER AND HOYER ON MTP. On NBC, Meet the Press host Tim Russert sat at the table and argued with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland and his Republican counterpart, John Boehner of Ohio.

Hoyer proclaimed that next week, the House will vote on a "simple, straight-forward, clear resolution" about whether or not they like the President and the troop surge. He said that they like the troops but they don't like the surge. Russert asked why they didn't like the surge, and Hoyer explains that this was because "everyone" opposes it.

Hoyer complained that the Senate resolutions had "problems" because of the various clauses. Steny no like clauses.

Hoyer said that every general to whom he's spoken, as well as every enlisted man and woman, has told him that things are not getting better in Iraq. Even "Hagel," no given name from Steny, said that it was time for a change in Iraq. John Boehner tried to explain that the President's plan was a change in strategy, that it was not merely a troop surge.

Hoyer said that "almost every Democrat" will vote against the surge. Boehner conceded that "some Republicans" will vote with Steny, but he added: "We might lose the vote, but we will win the debate." He argued that Lincoln didn't quit, FDR could have quit but didn't.

Hoyer called the mission in Iraq, "Supply-side warfare." He described it as "on the cheap." He said that even "Hagel" had said that it was a mistake. (Was he trying to conjure post-Kantian idealism?)

Hoyer said that the matter will be debated on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, and the vote will be on Friday. Boehner wants a vote also on a resolution declaring that they will not cut funding for the troops. Neither resolution means a thing substantially, but the one Boehner suggests would send a message to the troops that we support them and the work they do; Hoyer's could well send the opposite signal.

Russert asked them about the "bad intelligence coming out of the Pentagon." Boehner explained that everyone had bad pre-war intelligence, and Steny said that he had sent a letter to the President and to the current SecDef demanding to know what happened. Why did Doug Feith "subvert" evidence presented to the President?

DOUG FEITH ON FNS. [transcript] This matter will be covered at RedState.com in the coming days, but FOX News Sunday host Chris Wallace gave former U.S. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith ten minutes, interrupted by questions, to explain himself. Feith explained that the CIA was putting forth intelligence to further its own conclusion – no contacts between Saddam and al Qaeda – with no alternative looks. Feith constructed the alternative, and he showed the report to then-SecDef Donald Rumsfeld who showed it to the DCI. He said that there was substantial "intelligence" to indicate that there were connections, and he indicated that he wanted to avoid the term "evidence," as it is a legal term which does not apply in the legal sense.

Wallace kept asking him about an alleged April, 2001 meeting in Prague between hijacker Mohammed Atta and Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, an Iraqi government official. That the meeting took place had been suggested by the Czechs, and it apparently never did. Feith said that the intelligence at the time said that the meeting occurred, and that no one in his office "ever claimed that there was an operational relationship" between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government.

Feith called it "absurd" for the Inspector General to say it wasn't the best intelligence, as he had said that he hadn't read the intelligence.

He explained to Wallace that SecDef Rumsfeld and his team had put together a case against the war in Iraq, a case that Saddam wasn't a danger. Wallace pointed out that it was not a part of the briefing contradicting the CIA. Feith responded that they wanted all sides; it was a part of "good government."

MITCH MCCONNELL ON FNS. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell was Wallace's next guest on FNS. He explained that the Republicans had blocked the Warner-Levin resolution only because they wanted to broaden the debate, have other resolutions also debated and brought to a vote. Wallace asked him about the perception of obstructionism, and Mitch said that it was not obstructionism. The Senate Majority cannot do what the Dems tried to do, he explained, when the Senate has a "robust minority." He reminded Wallace that the Republicans were a minority of 49 Senators.

It was interested to hear Senator McConnell repeatedly cite and praise a New York Times editorial: last Wednesday's It's the War, Senators, which calls for debate and votes on all resolutions, even though the paper's editorial board asserts that it wants to defund the troops. Mitch did not praise that bit of snivelry.

JACK REED ON FNS. Speaking of sniveling, Jack Reed was next on Wallace's show, to give the Dems' side of the story. He referred to Warner-Levin as "Warner," because Jack Warner is a Republican and it gives Warner-Levin the false guise of something truly bipartisan. It's not.

Reed insisted that the Republicans no-vote on cloture had nothing to do with votes on the Gregg resolution or any other; rather, he said it was about blocking a vote on "Warner."

Reed complained that the Republicans insisted on 60 votes for passage of "Warner." He sniveled that this meant that "Warner" would have failed but Judd Gregg's resolution (not to defund the troops) would have succeeded. This would not have sent the message the Dems wish to send, but it would have better described the "sense of the Senate." And, of course, it all means nothing substantial.

Wallace posited that the Dems were afraid of the headlines that such a scenario would generate. Reed said that it is more than the headlines. Wallace challenged that if the Dems think this troop surge is wrong and harmful, why not defund it. Reed left open that possibility but insisted that the "Warner" resolution should be done first, as it is the "first step" towards defunding the troops.

JOHN KERRY ON TW. ABC News' George Stephanopoulos, on his This Week program, talked to John Kerry about his decision not to seek his party's nomination to be President of the United States. The implication was clearly that we are expected to care one way or the other.

John Kerry told Steph that he does not know if the Administration will invade Iran: "We need to ask tough questions," he said. "We will." He did admit that there are Iranian agents and "instigators" in Iraq. Steph asked what he wants to do about it. Kerry heralded the wisdom or the Iraq Study Group (Baker-Hamilton) and "those of us in Congress": we have to "engage in the region," jawbone the mullahs, if you will. And "engage with Syria." There are a "set of issues that Iran has enormous interest in." He said that everybody who is anybody insists that Iran wants to have a stable Iraq.

Steph cited the NIE which said that an immediate withdrawal from Iraq would leave chaos in Iraq and the region. Kerry changed his tune a little: "That's not what I'm recommending." He insisted that he wants to get out over eighteen months, and Steph said that they said it would have the same effect. Kerry accused them of "doing it in a vacuum without looking at what I have proposed."

Kerry explained that we need a date certain for leverage and for a summit. Kerry started dropping names, saying that James Baker is not someone "to be taken lightly." He admitted to himself that "even Larry Eagleburger" cannot be taken lightly, "or Ed Meese." (Steph should have her drawn a line. Ed Meese, were he there to speak for himself, would have chewed Massachusetts' junior Senator into a pulp and spat him out on the wall.)

Stephanopoulos told Kerry that the President is sending additional troops to Baghdad "to keep Sunnis and Shi'ites from killing each other in Baghdad." Actually, the President is sending the troops not to referee, as Steph and Kerry would have it, but to end it to the extent at which a political solution can be achieved. Steph's lie justified Kerry's insistence that the egg must come before the chicken, the cart before the wagon: "Yeah, but the only way you're ultimately going to keep Shi'a and Sunni from killing each other is by having the kind of political reconciliation that there's no benchmark for today. That's the point!" Kerry thinks they'll create a political solution in an insecure world.

Steph brought up that Tom Vilsack wants to defund the troops. Kerry insisted that we must be "intelligent" and "thoughtful," keeping in mind our interests and the interests of others (read: global test).

Kerry insisted that his date is not arbitrary because Baker-Hamilton uses that date. (And Baker-Hamilton used it arbitrarily, but that is lost on this fellow.)

Steph asked what was the "tipping point" which made Kerry drop out of the race for the Dem nomination. Kerry answered that it was the war in Iraq, and he is "liberated" by not running for President; he explained that if he had chosen to run, he would have had to say certain things which sounded good at given times. The other reason he dropped out, he said, was "global climate change." It is "George, the most serious thing I've confronted since I've been here." You see, he and his wife, Theresa Heinz, are writing a book which will be, in part, about the damage mankind has done to the Earth.

CHRIS DODD ON FTN. Host Bob Schieffer of CBS' Face the Nation first talked to Connecticut Chris Dodd. He told Dodd that the war was the big issue "to Americans all across the country." Dodd complained about the Senate leadership. He wants a "real vote" on defunding the troops, not meaningless sense of the Senate resolutions. He said that he has an ability to bring people together, so he should be President. Dodd said that he is an expert at getting Republicans and Democrats to "march in the same direction."

John Harris, a guy with the web site The Politico, asked Dodd how he felt about Obama being a child when he (Dodd) became a Senator. (What's the Senator's favorite color?) Harris then suggested that the American people are tired of the meaningless resolutions and want to defund the troops. Dodd explained that none of the resolutions could get 60 or 70 votes. Congress had to take a decision on whether or not to fund the war. "Kids are dying there," he explained.

Schieffer asserted that the White House will claim that Iraq will become a "haven for terrorists" if we leave now. Dodd said that it was already a haven for terrorists and that most Iraqis believe that we are the cause of their problems and want us out.

Dodd said that we had to talk to Iran because Nixon talked to Mao. He complained that Doug Feith "was trying to doctor the information" and that John Bolton fire analysts.

Dodd said that "Baker and Hamilton were right," and that we should use diplomacy.

He is worried that this Administration will doctor the information and invade Iran.

Harris pointed out that Joe Lieberman doesn't back Dodd's Presidential candidacy, and Dodd indicated that he eventually would. He insisted that Lieberman is a Democrat, no matter that he was elected as an Indie. (Joe Lieberman himself has used the Sunday Shows to insist that he is an Independent, not a Democrat.)

TRENT LOTT ON FTN. Senate GOP whip Trent Lott was next for Schieffer and Politico Harris. Schieffer cited Dodd as being askared that the President wants to invade Iran. Lott said that he doesn't think "there is any basis for that."

Lott explained that "diplomacy is an arcane world"; Harris countered that the Senate was an arcane world, discussing cloture resolution when they should be debating whether or not to defund the war. Lott called this "inside baseball," but Schieffer said that "every newspaper in the country" had the headline that Republicans blocked the debate. Lott explained that the vote was to continue debate. He explained that the "American people want action," and the Senate is doing nothing of substance.

Lott explained that the GOP also wanted a vote on whether or not the Senate supported the troops, which he thinks is important, but the Dems wanted to block that.

Harris suggested that Mississippi was a haven for blind patriotism and even Mississippians were tiring over the Iraq war. Harris insisted that Trent Lott has "saved the White House's bacon" on this issue, but the White House hadn't saved his bacon all those years ago.

Lott explained that the plan which the Dems oppose is not only about a surge in troops; there are economic and political considerations as well.

FEITH ON BLITZER'S SHOW.Wolf Blitzer, host of CNN's Late Edition, first talked to Doug Feith.

The interview consisted of Blitzer making statements based on faulty assumptions and bad press accounts. Feith smiled but seemed stretched to wit's end trying to explain that what Blitzer was saying just wasn't so.

"No, no it didn't. What it said was that the CIA work was not of quality." The CIA was filtering its intelligence to support their conclusion that bin Laden would never cooperate with Saddam because he was too secular. The CIA, Feith asserted, had ignored its other intelligence. Blitzer played a clip of Carl Levin saying that Feith had been trying to manipulate intelligence to make the case for war.
Feith responded that the statement was "as wrong as anything Senator Levin has ever said about Iraq." Feith explained that the CIA, that intelligence needs to be criticized. He said that despite how it was being characterized, he was not making the case to invade Iraq.

Wolf demanded that Feith concede that there were no WMD and was no al Qaeda connection; I have no idea from where that attempted gotcha came. Feith answered that there were no WMD as the CIA had described it, and he added that George Tenet's findings on the Iraq-al Qaeda relationships was the U.S. government's best understanding of the subject.

The I.G. had said that what Feith had done was perfectly legal but was inappropriate. Senator Rockefeller insists that it was illegal and threatened to hold hearings. (Rocky insists that Feith was gathering intelligence without informing the Congress.) Feith explained that he was not gathering intelligence; rather, he was criticizing the CIA's intelligence product. He explained that policy people, like he was, regularly criticize intelligence agencies. The I.G. insists that criticism of intelligence was itself intelligence work, adding that Feith's work was not quality work because "it was at variance with the consensus of the intelligence community." Of course it was, Feith said.

CORNYN AND WYDEN ON LE. Blitzer next spoke to Senators John Cornyn and Ron Wyden. Cornyn appeared via uplink from Texas, while Wyden sat almost so upright as to appear almost otherworldly.

Wyden said that the Administration lied about WMD and an Iraq-al Qaeda connection, adding that Feith had done was "inappropriate."

Blitzer asked Cornyn about the Iranian anti-tank weapons being smuggled to the Iraqis. Cornyn said that it was troubling and that the Senate would try to stop it. Wyden faulted the Administration for not updating the Senate on what is happening in Iran.

Blitzer played a clip of Joe Biden saying that what the Administration was doing with Iran is a lot like what they did before we invaded Iraq. One of the many Joe Biden foreign policy sycophants in Congress, Wyden agreed. ("You're right, Joe!")

Did the Administration claim that they were not going to attack Iraq? That's what Biden-Wyden seem to remember.

Wyden demanded a full briefing from the Administration; they'd promised, he said, but never delivered. Wyden tossed in his demand for a "diplomatic surge." (It's Larry Korb's term.)

Blitzer played a clip of current SecDef Gates saying that we would not strike Iran. Wyden said that this is exactly what the President said before we invaded Iraq, and the President should have to ask Congress before he invades Iran.

Cornyn said that no one is suggested that the U.S. would attack Iran. Blitzer countered with a report from the British lefty broadsheet Guardian, that we'll invade by the Spring. Cornyn suggested that their sources might not be real, that they could be making this stuff up.

Wyden insisted that the "drumbeat" with Iran is similar to the "drumbeat" with Iraq, and the Congress is going to insist that the President ask them before he attacks Iran.
-----

Have at it – but can you dance to it?