Congress did not see same Intel

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Silat
GUns this has been news for years now. Many have been saying that the Pres and his admin cherry picked the info that was giving to them. There has been a fight for the pres briefings for sometime now.

But it's old news and still doens't prove anything.  I figured it would be common sense that the president and his staff are briefed MORE OFTEN than congress as they are the executive branch of govt.  

I just don't see new news here.  The only thing the article really says is he get's more Volume of the same intel and get's in more offten and with information that may be sensative such as source material.

Seriously why is this news?  WHy are they quoting fientstien on this.......why don't we just run out and get a statement from Rush Limbaugh while we're at it.

[Mini D]

Originally posted by Silat
Wrong... Congress does not get the same intel. The pres and his admin cherry picked what they wanted. Not listening when being told that the alum tubes were not for weapons, no yellow cake etc..

WRONG?

Congress gets the intel they wish to get or we hear about it. Or can you link to a "we were not allowed to review...." quote from the time of the vote?

You're mistaking the concept of being spoon fed information with meaning it's the only way they could have gotten it.

Congress got exactly what they wanted: A reason to vote yes at the time.
Congress got exactly what they wanted: A way to blame teh boosh if things went wrong.

[Seagoon]

Hi Sandy,

Originally posted by Sandman
Iraq wasn't the threat that it was presented to be. A little more debating wouldn't have hurt at all.

Respectfully, I don't agree.

First what would further debating have accomplished? Remember the situation as it stood prior to the invasion. Iraq had essentially nullified the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, to whit they were making it impossible for weapons inspectors to operate, were routinely attempting to shoot-down coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone (including offering a bounty to anyone capable of doing so), and were constantly looking for ways to confront the West. Additionally, their intelligence services were actively up to no good on a regular basis, including but not limited to supporting suicide bombers and attempting to assassinate an ex-president of the USA.

Additionally, had we not invaded, after saying "Stop, this is your last chance" to them, so many times, the US would have been exposed as the paper-tiger the terrorists took so much advantage of in the 90s. Libya would not have dumped their own WMD program out of fear that they might be next, and would be dealing with a saber-rattling Iran and Iraq, both of which were claiming to the encouragement of the Jihadi community that they had the ability to to strike the West and its allies.

Further Debate would not have generated intel that disproved the presence of WMDs, such intel did not exist. Rather it would have showed the world that despite the fact that we (and everyone else) thought the Iraqis had them we were not going to invade Iraq under any circumstances. We would however, undoubtedly have had to do multiple useless Clinton era "Tomahawk tantrums" were we responded to Iraqi aggression by firing off a salvo or two of missiles. The situation would not have improved, but rather steadily worsened.

The only real difference is that the bulk of the Jihadis would now be pouring into Afghanistan, not Iraq, and the opposition party would currently be describing Afghanistan as the "quagmire," demanding a timetable for our getting out of there, and sending over teams to discover how little good we had actually done there.

[Silat]

Originally posted by Mini D
WRONG?

Congress gets the intel they wish to get or we hear about it. Or can you link to a "we were not allowed to review...." quote from the time of the vote?

You're mistaking the concept of being spoon fed information with meaning it's the only way they could have gotten it.

Congress got exactly what they wanted: A reason to vote yes at the time.
Congress got exactly what they wanted: A way to blame teh boosh if things went wrong.

Mini you are wrong. Google it bud. Congress does not have access to the same info hence the pres packages the intel the way he wants. Congress doesnt have the same security clearances as the pres and his cabal. Saying it doesnt make it so. They trust the pres to give them the truth....

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Sandman
Iraq wasn't the threat that it was presented to be. A little more debating wouldn't have hurt at all.

No ,Iraq wasn`t the threat it was presented to be. It was a much greater threat than was ever put forth. It would continue to be a threat if we have to pull out before the job is finished. We have good solid base to work from there. We should and I suspect will, take care of a few other pesky problems in the area before it is a done deal.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Silat
Mini you are wrong. Google it bud. Congress does not have access to the same info hence the pres packages the intel the way he wants. Congress doesnt have the same security clearances as the pres and his cabal. Saying it doesnt make it so. They trust the pres to give them the truth....

Where does it say that in the article.  From what I read in the article it's more or less an issue of volume and sources.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Silat
Dred let me help you out here.
Congress was getting a CHERRY PICKED version that left out any details that didnt go along with the admins opinion. That is lying in my book.

And you have some sort of proof to back this claim up?

Exactly what details were left out that the administration had that didnt go along with the administrations opinion were left out that you can prove?

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by WhiteHawk
I dont know that it matters.  The intel that was crucial in whipping up public support for the war was false.   Saddam was not a threat to the USA.  

Lets not forget that we no longer. nor can we any longer live as isolationists only worrying about the threat directly to the US country itself.

It is also imperative we defend what is our national interests.

Saddam so long as he remained in power. while he may not have been a threat to the US portion of the american continent was without question a threat to the region which is vital to our interests (read OIL).

His ultimate goal as has been widely reported by even the most liberal of media was to dominate the region.
Even years after GW1 he was still claiming Kuwait was part of Iraq. Shouldnt that tell you something

With Oil for Food failing, With backdoor deals with other nations for free drilling rights in exchange for the lifting of sanctions. it would only be a matter of time before santions failed and fell apart alltogether leaving Saddam to once again do as he pleased.

Yea yea no fly zone. And how long after sanctions collapsed would we still be enforcing it? We couldnt keep doing that forever either

Bottom line is once the sanctions either collapsed or were lifted there would a be a strong push for the end to the no fly zone.
Which again leaves us in the situation with a dictator whos ultimate aim was to dominate the ME. (Which in itself is a threat to our national interests and thus a threat ot the US) as well as re establishing his NBC programs.

His heir apparents didnt look to be any better then he was so for the as far ahead as you can see the situation wasnt going to change by itself.
Iraq as it was and would be had we not gone in would remain a threat to the region for the foreseeable future.

Like it or not OIL is  not only in our national interest. it IS our national interest.
Like it or not it is so important to us that it is worth going to war over.

Dont shake your heads. Its not like this  is all that unusual. Wars have been fought over all sorts of things, From Gold to trade routes throughout history.
And countries sometimes have to fight wars for reasons other then being attacked. They sometimes have to fight them to preserve and keep secure what is in their national interests. At this moment in time it happens to be oil.
100 years from now it will probably be something else.

And lets not forget this is not just a war on the 9/11 attackers and Bin Laden but a "global war on terrorism" and the countries that support them
Iraq is a logical step as it unquestionably supported terrorism but also is in an area that has and is in what is in our national  interests.

[Mini D]

Originally posted by Silat
Mini you are wrong. Google it bud. Congress does not have access to the same info hence the pres packages the intel the way he wants. Congress doesnt have the same security clearances as the pres and his cabal. Saying it doesnt make it so. They trust the pres to give them the truth....

I can google excuses all day long silat. I know you live for it yourself. How about coming up with something for sometime around December of 2002. I bet you can't find it.

I bet you can find alot of people making excuses for their votes these days... with alot of other people trying to explain how it was all bush's fault. That's what makes this argument so stupid... it completely ignores the motivation behind everything in politics. Somehow you think that those poor duped congress men are being straightforward. I feel sorry for you on this... really.

You might also want to google a bit on who has access to security these days. It's not just the president and his cabinet. There's a few congressional boards that oversee it too. And... every congressman has the ability to ask for more... and to complain if they don't get it. You seem to be missing this very simple concept.

[Rude]

Silat....aren't you missing some chunk of truth on Air America?