Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., continues to draw fire for his slow-going inquiry into how the Bush administration handled prewar intelligence about Iraq and his apparent reluctance to hold the White House accountable on other issues, such as the warrantless domestic eavesdropping. Roberts’ latest blow came Sunday from The New York Times editorial board, which said he’s running the Iraq inquiry “in a way that makes it unlikely that anything useful will come of it” but nevertheless urged: “The least Mr. Roberts and his committee can do is to finish the flawed investigation and make the results public.” Such impatience is well-founded. As we said in an Eagle editorial nearly three years ago on Roberts’ inquiry — “what is at stake is the credibility of the American intelligence system.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
17 Comments
Is the WE being sold to the Traitor Times when McClatchy takes over?
When is Roberts up for re-election?
Lets show this jack-ass how we feel next time around!!!!
This is a bit of Devil’s advocate, but what effect will it have on this country if the true does come out? We would then know that the President of the United State lied to us and the world, that a country was invaded by the U.S. for those lies which is the same as for no reason. That the majority had been made fools of and would have to live with that , reminded daily of it by the fact that the U.S. has lost all it creditably. And any standing we had before this occurred. It would prove that the mistrust of the Government is warranted and should never be trusted again. It would erode our very system of governing, meaning that this democracy is a sham. A society, form of government can only function as long as there is a believe in that society and government.
You can’t sustain a republic without an informed citizenry and a government that is honest and accountable to its citizens. Mr. Roberts seems to be tipping his hand that he’s not altogther interested in maintaining a republic.
Rhonda,
You know that this is pure exageration of what was really happening:
“warrantless domestic eavesdropping”
Why don’t you get some integrity?
Uhm, no, Nathan, it’s reality. Even if what Bush insists is true–that an overseas Al Quaeda person is on the other end–that doesn’t change the meaning of English words.
There are no warrants.
It’s being done domestically.
It’s eavesdropping.
Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan just signed a bill congratulating Zionist Israel for 58 years of murdering Palestinians, threatening nuclear war, and spending 1.6 trillion dollars of US taxpayer money.
Is Sen. Pat Roberts R-Kan a crazy man?
You don’t congratulate, you prosecute.
It doesn’t matter which side of the legalities you are, it still remains that Roberts is dragging his feet, and denying the Public the right to consider this information. This whole thing reeks, and Roberts is clearly putting his party above his country. His actions show what happens when someone is in office too long; he needs to go bye-bye ASAP.
Roberts is yet another partisan hack, guilty as pointed out above of putting Republican party interests above those of the United States.
Can’t have anyone knowing the truth about the criminal in the White House, can we?
As I recall, Senator Pat Roberts’ U.S. Senate Committee on Intelligence presented an interim report some two years ago which criticized the CIA for failure to correctly assess WMD’s (weapons of mass destruction} in Iraq.
Regarding the next (final??) report, the Senate Committee on Intelligence is made up of both Republicans and Democrats. In true bureacratic fashion, the Senator committee members are assisted by many, many staff members of all political persuasions. Getting these power hungry politicos to agree on anything including what to eat for dinner is nye on to impossible. We are not talking about the wishes of one man here, thank you.
The sources of the Iraq war will be debated for many years in Congress, political science classes, newspapers, books, and blogs so I suspect the Intelligence Committee members will want to get this report “right” before it is issued.
JWINK- If a Senator Committee-Head wants something to come out of his committee , or not- he can. He controls the process. Granted it may be a group effort of sorts, but the Head is just that and the buck stops there, unless he won’t accept it, as seemingly in this case.
Cut-off the MONEY.
THE “war” stops. { No bullets }
Brownnose Pat will make sure that there is never a real investigation into intelligence (sic) failures. The only way we will ever get a real investigation is with new leadership in the Senate.
Nathan–
If it weren’t “warrantless,” nobody would have a problem with it.
Old Rubber Stamp . . . isn’t it time for somebody to spend more time with the grandkids?
LH, maybe that is why he is thumbing his nose at the 70% of americans who think the country is headed in the wrong direction.
Maybe pat doesnt give a damn about kansas or america because he is indeed planning to spend more time with his family. With a well funded retirement, courtesy of american taxpayers and K street.
Do you suppose, when pat retires, his bushgod will say “well done good and faithful servant”?
If Roberts is bush’s senator, as he is determined to prove at every moment, and brownback is god’s evangelical senator, which he ALSO proves at every moment…
…who is kansas’ senator?
Had enough?
NO INCUMBENTS!!!!!!!
This long post from Steven Aftergood. It is dedicated to Hank Price…++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++CIVIL LIBERTIES AS AN ANTIDOTE TO VIOLENT EXTREMISM
It is often asserted or assumed that American traditions of opengovernment and civil liberties place the United States at adisadvantage in confronting terrorism. But the opposite may becloser to the truth.
“In an open society like ours… it is impossible to protect againstevery threat,” said President Bush in an August 24, 2005 speech.”That’s a fact we have to deal with. In a free society it isimpossible to protect against every possible threat,” implying thatit might be possible in a closed or unfree society.
Similarly, according to February 15 testimony by Secretary of StateCondoleezza Rice, “terrorists and criminals… would exploit ouropen society to do us harm.”
And “precious little can be done to prevent [terrorist attacks onsoft targets] in a society like ours that rightly values personalliberty so highly,” wrote Clark Kent Ervin, former Homeland SecurityInspector General, in a Washington Post opinion piece on May 7.
But a distinctly different perspective was offered by John C. Gannon,former CIA Deputy Director for Intelligence, in testimony before theSenate Judiciary Committee last week.
Among the reasons that there has not been another terrorist attack onU.S. soil since September 11, he proposed, are precisely theopenness and freedom that some others view with anxiety.
“I believe that the hard-won Constitutional freedoms enjoyed byAmericans, along with our unparalleled commitment to civil libertiesembedded in law, work against the development of domestic terroristnetworks that could be exploited by foreigners,” testified Gannon,who is now a Vice President at BAE Systems Information Technology.
Secrecy News asked Dr. Gannon to elaborate on this point.
“Americans have unparalleled Constitutional and legal protections toexpress grievances and to openly criticize government at all levels,”he replied in a May 6 email message.
“This doesn’t mean that terrorists wouldn’t try to operate here. Itmeans that the terrorists or other extremists would find lessfertile ground to build networks in the US because local supportwould be harder to come by and because local opposition would bemore certain.”
“In this sense, our liberties are a powerful antidote to violentextremism.”
“This is not an academic point for me. It is an observation from acareer of watching the domestic consequences of repressive regimeselsewhere in the world–including US-friendly Islamic governmentssuch as Saudi Arabia and Egypt,” Gannon wrote.
The question of whether openness and civil liberties tend to enhancenational security or to undermine it is not a theoretical one. Muchdepends on which one of the two perspectives prevails.
If openness and the rule of law are sources of vulnerability, orviewed as such, then they will be quickly surrendered in the name ofsecurity. Torture may be redefined to permit non-lethal abuses,habeas corpus may be suspended, statutes regulating domesticsurveillance may be disregarded.
Conversely, if civil liberties and the rule of law are a source ofstrength, it follows that they should be bolstered and scrupulouslyupheld even in the conduct of vital security operations.
Secrecy News asked Dr. Gannon whether his views on civil libertiescould be reconciled with intelligence programs such as warrantlessdomestic surveillance.
“The NSA warrantless surveillance program–the details of which aremired in secrecy–should not be seen as a tradeoff between securityand civil liberties. But, for this to be true, the program must bebound by law and subject to both judicial review and competentCongressional oversight–the latter now in short supply,” heexplained.
“I believe our democracy has the instruments to advance security andprotect civil liberties at the same time,” he said.
Go here for Gannon’s congressional testimony:
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr/050206gannon.html