Republicans are in outrage against the Democrats because of a memo leaked to the press. The memo, almost certainly stolen by the Republicans then leaked so they could act indignant about it, essentially talks about exposing the lies Bush has told about Iraq. Senator Jay Rockefeller said that it was a draft memo, and not an official one; it “was not approved nor was it shared with any member of the Senate Intelligence Committee or anyone else.”

The GOP, however, will not so easily give up an opportunity to smear their political opponents. Republican Senator John Kyl said, “it is a disgusting possibility that members of the Senate would actually try to politicize intelligence, especially at a time of war, even apparently reaching conclusions before investigations have been performed.”

How’s that for hypocrisy? With the GOP repeatedly politicizing 9/11 and the Iraq war, they’re enraged because the Democrats have a draft memo that suggests they demonstrate how Bush is lying during an election year? How dare they! The fact of the matter is, this memo is about as innocuous as it can possibly be. Among other things, it says that it wants to find “new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials,” to get “Democratic ‘additional views'” attached to reports, and to reveal “the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war.” Those bastards.

The memo also states that they will “launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority” (emphasis mine). The memo suggests politicization only after all efforts to cooperate have been exhausted! And the Republicans are furious about this? The GOP standardly politicizes issues before even trying to cooperate.

The Republicans have also politicized just about everything under the sun they can for their benefit, especially matters of national tragedy, intelligence, and war. Remember the leak of the CIA operative’s name? Remember when the GOP used a photo of Bush on 9/11 for campaign fundraising? How they held a seminar on how to use the “war on terrorism” to their benefit? There are countless examples of crass politicization by the GOP, any one of which make the current unofficial memo look like a positive thing.

I suppose it should not be surprising; the GOP is, hands down, the reigning master of dirty tricks and mudslinging politics.

Here is the text of the memo:

We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:

1) 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 [Sen. Pat Roberts] has agreed to look at the activities of the office of the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, as well as Secretary Bolton’s office at the State Department.

The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and cosigns 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. [We can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.]

2) Assiduously prepare Democratic ‘additional views’ to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it.

In that regard we may have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims. We will contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry.

The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an Independent Commission [i.e., the Corzine Amendment.]

3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration’s use of intelligence at any time. But we can only do so once.

The best time to do so will probably be next year, either:

A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report, thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public. Additional views on the interim report (1). The announcement of our independent investigation (2). And (3) additional views on the final investigation. Or:

B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue, we would attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the use of intelligence.

In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter footdragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman. We have independently submitted written requests to the DOD and we are preparing further independent requests for information.

SUMMARY: Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public’s concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war.

The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration’s dubious motives.