I dont usually post in these sections..but thought this was interesting....
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/10076.htm
>
> DEMO-CRAVEN
>
> November 6, 2003 -- AT first glance, the memo just looks like Politics 101
> - the work of a Democratic staffer advising his colleagues on how to gain
> partisan advantage over the Republicans. But there's a reason why the
> document that leaked on Tuesday from the staff of the Senate Select
> Committee on Intelligence is creating a firestorm in Washington.
>
> Some Democrats desperate to stay on offense in the war over the Iraq war
> have now revealed just how nakedly and cynically partisan their line of
> attack against the Bush administration has been.
>
> The document lays out a Machiavellian strategy for the committee's
> Democrats to gull, use and then turn on the committee's Republicans.
>
> It's a fascinating and clever piece of political strategizing. It says, in
> essence, that Democrats should con the committee's chairman, Sen. Pat
> Roberts (R-Kan.), into cooperating with an aggressive political fishing
> expedition.
>
> Democrats should "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 . . . The fact that the chairman
> [Roberts] supports our investigations into these offices and co-signs our
> requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know
> what we will find, but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far
> greater when we have the backing of the majority."
>
> Oh, and they'll do some leaking to reporters, even without proof of
> administration wrongdoing. "We can verbally mention some of the intriguing
> leads we are pursuing," the memo says - meaning that as part of their
> strategy, Democratic staffers are already anticipating the phone calls
they
> will make to Walter Pincus of The Washington Post and Seymour Hersh of The
> New Yorker with all kinds of unsubstantiated innuendo.
>
> All the while, as they act as though they are working in a bipartisan
> fashion with Roberts and the Republicans, Democrats will be preparing to
> declare the committee's efforts invalid and politicized. The Democrats,
the
> memo says, intend eventually to "castigate the majority for seeking to
> limit the scope of the inquiry."
>
> Let's try to follow the logic here. Democrats on the committee are already
> planning to invalidate an investigation in which they will serve as active
> participants. Sounds nuts, until you find out that what they really want
to
> do is give themselves political cover to "launch an independent
> investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to
> usefully collaborate with the majority."
>
> The purpose of such an "independent investigation" is purely and simply to
> trash Bush in time for the election: "We can pull the trigger on an
> independent investigation at any time - but we can only do so once. The
> best time to do so will probably be next year." Next year, of course,
being
> the election year.
>
> "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 memo
> concludes. "The approach outline above seems to offer the best prospect
for
> exposing the administration's dubious motives and methods."
>
> Welcome to the world of the prejudged conclusion, in which the purpose of
> the investigation is not determining the truth but "exposing the
> administration's dubious motives and methods."
>
> In practical terms, these Democrats have now screwed themselves. Pat
> Roberts now knows what his colleagues across the aisle intend, and what
> Democratic staffers want to do to him. He has no reason hereafter to serve
> as front man for the Democratic fishing expedition.
>
> But there's a more disturbing aspect to this story than the revelation of
> cynical Democratic partisanship. The structure of the Senate Select
> Committee on Intelligence is unique, in part to ensure that staffers and
> senators do not misuse the classified material to which they are given
access.
>
> That kind of thing happened during the 1970s, when House and Senate
> committees really did damage to the nation's intelligence capacity. The
> Senate Select Committee was created in the wake of those fiascoes to try
to
> insulate both senators and staff from the temptation to politicize
> intelligence.
>
> The structure was meant to create a bipartisan approach. As a result,
> senators who belong to the Senate's minority party actually have nearly
> equal power with the senators in the majority, and - unlike any other
> Senate committee - the ranking minority senator actually has the authority
> to run the committee when the chairman is away.
>
> With a few exceptions over the years, the Senate Select Committee has been
> an oasis of reason in an increasing polarized and partisan Washington. Not
> any more. In their desperate hunger to destroy George W. Bush, they have
> destroyed the oasis.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/10076.htm
>
> DEMO-CRAVEN
>
> November 6, 2003 -- AT first glance, the memo just looks like Politics 101
> - the work of a Democratic staffer advising his colleagues on how to gain
> partisan advantage over the Republicans. But there's a reason why the
> document that leaked on Tuesday from the staff of the Senate Select
> Committee on Intelligence is creating a firestorm in Washington.
>
> Some Democrats desperate to stay on offense in the war over the Iraq war
> have now revealed just how nakedly and cynically partisan their line of
> attack against the Bush administration has been.
>
> The document lays out a Machiavellian strategy for the committee's
> Democrats to gull, use and then turn on the committee's Republicans.
>
> It's a fascinating and clever piece of political strategizing. It says, in
> essence, that Democrats should con the committee's chairman, Sen. Pat
> Roberts (R-Kan.), into cooperating with an aggressive political fishing
> expedition.
>
> Democrats should "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 . . . The fact that the chairman
> [Roberts] supports our investigations into these offices and co-signs our
> requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know
> what we will find, but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far
> greater when we have the backing of the majority."
>
> Oh, and they'll do some leaking to reporters, even without proof of
> administration wrongdoing. "We can verbally mention some of the intriguing
> leads we are pursuing," the memo says - meaning that as part of their
> strategy, Democratic staffers are already anticipating the phone calls
they
> will make to Walter Pincus of The Washington Post and Seymour Hersh of The
> New Yorker with all kinds of unsubstantiated innuendo.
>
> All the while, as they act as though they are working in a bipartisan
> fashion with Roberts and the Republicans, Democrats will be preparing to
> declare the committee's efforts invalid and politicized. The Democrats,
the
> memo says, intend eventually to "castigate the majority for seeking to
> limit the scope of the inquiry."
>
> Let's try to follow the logic here. Democrats on the committee are already
> planning to invalidate an investigation in which they will serve as active
> participants. Sounds nuts, until you find out that what they really want
to
> do is give themselves political cover to "launch an independent
> investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to
> usefully collaborate with the majority."
>
> The purpose of such an "independent investigation" is purely and simply to
> trash Bush in time for the election: "We can pull the trigger on an
> independent investigation at any time - but we can only do so once. The
> best time to do so will probably be next year." Next year, of course,
being
> the election year.
>
> "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 memo
> concludes. "The approach outline above seems to offer the best prospect
for
> exposing the administration's dubious motives and methods."
>
> Welcome to the world of the prejudged conclusion, in which the purpose of
> the investigation is not determining the truth but "exposing the
> administration's dubious motives and methods."
>
> In practical terms, these Democrats have now screwed themselves. Pat
> Roberts now knows what his colleagues across the aisle intend, and what
> Democratic staffers want to do to him. He has no reason hereafter to serve
> as front man for the Democratic fishing expedition.
>
> But there's a more disturbing aspect to this story than the revelation of
> cynical Democratic partisanship. The structure of the Senate Select
> Committee on Intelligence is unique, in part to ensure that staffers and
> senators do not misuse the classified material to which they are given
access.
>
> That kind of thing happened during the 1970s, when House and Senate
> committees really did damage to the nation's intelligence capacity. The
> Senate Select Committee was created in the wake of those fiascoes to try
to
> insulate both senators and staff from the temptation to politicize
> intelligence.
>
> The structure was meant to create a bipartisan approach. As a result,
> senators who belong to the Senate's minority party actually have nearly
> equal power with the senators in the majority, and - unlike any other
> Senate committee - the ranking minority senator actually has the authority
> to run the committee when the chairman is away.
>
> With a few exceptions over the years, the Senate Select Committee has been
> an oasis of reason in an increasing polarized and partisan Washington. Not
> any more. In their desperate hunger to destroy George W. Bush, they have
> destroyed the oasis.
