Talk:Pat Roberts

The bit about the committeework

It appears to be a LONG quote from his office or something, and then a very long quote from a newspaper?! The first seems too much to be really neutral and the second too much to be fair use. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This article so biased against Roberts it isn't even funny. If Roberts were a Democrat, I can assure you that people would be all over this page, making sure it was "unbiased." Wikipedia is a joke when it comes to liberals and conservatives. I'm a liberal myself, but wikipedia is so biased against conservatives it's insane. Burroughsks88 (talk)

Rewrite

The political positions section of this article reads as if it is a list of political positions with which the author disagrees. Where is information about his positions on economic matters, health care, education? -76.17.236.181 (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Quote of article exceeds fair use?

I excised the following lengthy quote from a KC Star story. A direct quote of this length, even with attribution, strikes me as copyright violation. A paraphrase, perhaps including shorter quotes, seems indicated; and there should be a footnoted citation rather than an in-line statement of the source. --Ammodramus (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The following is an article on the release from the Kansas City Star published August 4, 2006 and Written by Matt Stearns:

The Senate Intelligence Committee approved two reports in its oft-delayed, much-maligned investigation into whether the Bush administration misused intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq, committee chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas said. The two reports focus on Saddam Hussein's connections to terrorism and his weapons of mass destruction program, and how they compare with prewar intelligence assessments. They also examine the use by intelligence agencies of information from the Iraqi National Congress, much of which was later discredited. That leaves unfinished three reports in the so-called Phase II investigation, including the potentially explosive one that compares the prewar public statements of government officials to what the intelligence they had at the time indicated. The committee expects to vote on releasing the two completed reports in September, after Congress returns from its summer break. The Bush administration still must declassify the information in them before they can be released."Taken together, I believe the American people will have a better view of the intelligence which contributed to the decision-making that led us to war," said Roberts, a Republican. "The public won't have to listen to the political 'he said, she said' — which certainly abounds in an election year."Roberts said he would pressure the White House to declassify most of the information in the reports: "I will not tolerate a report which is overly redacted. This committee will not settle for anything less. Neither will the American public."Partisan politics have dogged the investigation virtually since it began in February 2004. Democrats, who had hoped to have it completed before the 2004 presidential election, accused Roberts of dragging his feet and protecting the White House. Roberts has said Democrats are responsible for politicizing the investigation. The committee appeared to overcome partisanship Thursday: It voted 14-1 to approve the report on Hussein's weapons program and terrorist ties, and 11-4 to OK the report on information from the Iraqi National Congress. John Pike, director of the think tank Globalsecurity.org, thought the two reports would be instructive on documenting how U.S. intelligence agencies failed in recent years."I think the first one will show there's enough blame to go around that our Iraq policy had been malpremised for a decade," Pike said. "The second one, it will be interesting to see what they conclude on sources and methods. Talk about gullibles' troubles."Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the Democratic vice chairman of the committee, said all five reports were important "to determine where mistakes were made in the full cycle of intelligence — collection, analysis, dissemination and use. Only then can we begin to fix problems that are critical to our national security."Besides the report on officials' public statements, the others to be completed are on the intelligence role of the Pentagon's controversial Office of Special Plans, which challenged the CIA on Hussein's terrorist ties and other issues; and what intelligence agencies predicted about Iraq's postwar conflagration.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammodramus (talk • contribs) 17:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)