jeez louise...anybody who watched/read the 9/11 committee, and subsequently heard Roberts on the "talk show circuit" clearly understood his job on the panel was to shield BushCo, period. I don't need to read a Raw Story piece for that, it was out in the open for anyone to see. The Raw Story needs to be why the Dems on the committee sat back and let him get away with it at the time. Nothing has been more clear in the Bush years than the fact they have gone to great lengths to keep 9/11 information from public scrutiny. Why would you think they would want to do that? What are they afraid of ? There can be only one answer.

I would have hope Dems in Congress will scream bloody murder if I stop looking at the huge necklaces our congresswomen like Pelosi and DiFi have on their necks. They are so damned rich all of them.

Dems already signed off on the senate report last year so they won't do nothing now. Remember Dems in senate made a deal that if they signed off on the report, the GOP will open hearings on the pentagon and the Feith affairs hah, dream on.

"But the little-reported 2001 Bush directive changed that, ensuring that only two members of each committee received full briefings on intelligence operations, and preventing committee staffs from carrying out meaningful research."

That was after someone in Congress divulged that US intelligence was taping into Al Qaeda cell and satellite phones wasn't it? And if Jane Harman (Democrat from California) felt that she was getting adequate access, why isn't that evidence the change was reasonable?

So much of this comes across as needlessly complicated conspiracy theory. Roberts saw the same intelligence the White House and the Minority leaders did. Why is it suprising he came to the same conclusions?

Rockefeller was the only person who saw the intelligence to have concerns. What concerns were those? Can we see what he really said? The article trys to paint a picture of what this was about, but can we see for ourselves whether or not that's what Rockefeller meant?

The British were fooled by the forgeries, why is it so surprising the CIA was? Why would it have mattered if Roberts had seen them, would he have the wherewithal to detect they were forgeries?

It goes on and on. Frankly, this is all over the top.

...The British were fooled by the forgeries, why is it so surprising the CIA was? ... Posted by Strick

You are incorrect, The CIA know the documents were false. The Brits have hunkered down, but have offered no substantiating evidence of their cliam. Inspections on the ground were showing that all American claims were false, and the IAEC had already debunked Cheney's and Rice's claims of a nuclear program in Iraq.

Pat Roberts is also purposefully standing in the way of another investigation into (alleged) classified leaks by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala).

This has gotten very little attention, none at all in the msm, but it deserves much.

It shows a disturbing trend by Sen Roberts. The Republican senator from kansas takes the GOP omerta very seriously.
He's unAmerican as hell, and if the truth would prevail, he's a criminal who belongs in Gitmo.

from the Hill news
Sen Roberts KS is a serial traitor protector.

Forgive me for being off topic, but I thought this would be something that we all would want to sign. My prayer was answered, as more Mom's are joining Cindy in Texas. You go girl!

Cindy Sheehan was not an anti-war activist, but the loss of her son and the mounting evidence of deception by the Bush administration pushed her to speak out. While Cindy camps roadside in Texas, dozens of other military moms are flying to Texas to join her. Her story is starting to grab national attention, but Cindy needs our support. We're asking moms (and dads, siblings, spouses and kids) from all across America to help send a message by signing our letter of support to Cindy. Will you sign?

http://political.moveon.org/meetwithcindy/?id=5886-3876511-R5XM5PRDxaZnkpQnyCl2dA&t=3

To add to the pressure on President Bush, we'll publish the number of signers and the best comments in a full two-page spread in the newspaper nearest to Crawford. We want to be able to print that at least 200,000 people signed the letter to Cindy before the Friday print deadline.

Cindy simply wants to meet with the president to ask him to tell the truth about why her son died—and to stop using Casey's and other soldiers' deaths to justify continuing the war. But Cindy's reflections on the war are also a reminder to all of us about the importance of getting involved: