Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Silat on December 16, 2005, 04:02:04 PM
-
For those that have been asserting that the dems saw the same intel when voting to support Bush.
You didnt want to believe or admit that it wasnt so............
Congress doesn't see same intelligence as president, report finds
By Jonathan S. Landay
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - President Bush and top administration officials have access to a much broader ranger of intelligence reports than members of Congress do, a nonpartisan congressional research agency said in a report Thursday, raising questions about recent assertions by the president.
Bush has said that Democratic lawmakers who authorized the use of force against Iraq and now criticize the war saw the same pre-invasion intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that he did.
The president made that claim in recent speeches about Iraq. Support for the war has decreased, and critics have said that the administration misled the country when it relied on erroneous intelligence about Iraqi weapons programs that supported its case for war and discarded information that undermined it.
"Some of the most irresponsible comments - about manipulating intelligence - have come from politicians who saw the same intelligence I saw and then voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein," Bush said on Wednesday in his most recent speech. "These charges are pure politics."
The Congressional Research Service, by contrast, said: "The president, and a small number of presidentially designated Cabinet-level officials, including the vice president ... have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods."
Unlike members of Congress, the president and his top officials also have the authority to ask U.S. intelligence agencies more extensively for follow-up information, the report said. "As a result, the president and his most senior advisers arguably are better positioned to assess the quality of the ... intelligence more accurately than is Congress."
The CRS report identified nine key U.S. intelligence "products" that aren't generally shared with Congress. These include the President's Daily Brief, a compilation of analyses that's given only to the president and a handful of top aides, and a daily digest on terrorism-related matters.
The White House didn't respond to a request for comment.
The CRS produced the report in response to a query by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a critic of Bush's policy on Iraq. Feinstein asked about the kinds of intelligence information that are available to Congress and the White House.
Feinstein asserted that the report's findings underscored how critical it is for the Republican-controlled intelligence committee to complete a long-delayed inquiry into the intelligence used by the White House to make its case for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
"This report goes to show that members of Congress were not seeing the same picture as the administration," she said. "When the Senate voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq in 2002, it was based on a more limited scope of prewar intelligence than was available to the administration."
Several post-invasion inquiries have found that U.S. intelligence agencies produced for the White House and Congress seriously flawed assessments on Iraq. The assessments erroneously concluded that Saddam was trying to revive a nuclear weapons programs and was hiding chemical and biological warfare stockpiles in violation of a U.N. ban.
Knight Ridder also has reported that the Bush administration relied on information that wasn't shared with Congress, including bogus claims by Iraqi defectors supplied by a former Iraqi exile group.
Also withheld from Congress was a discredited report by a now-defunct Pentagon unit that alleged that Saddam was cooperating with the al-Qaida terrorist network. No evidence of such a link has been found.
-
OMG! A politician might have lied!!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!! ROFL!
-
time to move on
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
OMG! A politician might have lied!!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!! ROFL!
Funny :)
But this is in response to the Boosh supporters who have wailed and wailed that Congress saw the same intel as Boosh.
But as usual FACTS dont matter.
Unless of course its a Dem :)
-
Originally posted by john9001
time to move on
No its never time to move on when politicians lie us into war.......
-
Originally posted by Silat
Funny :)
But this is in response to the Boosh supporters who have wailed and wailed that Congress saw the same intel as Boosh.
But as usual FACTS dont matter.
Unless of course its a Dem :)
Just for clarification. I have not yelled about anything, I just thought this was funny. I mean,..who would have thunk it. A politician lieing. ROFL!
I dunt play that 'blame game'. It dunt solve anything.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Just for clarification. I have not yelled about anything, I just thought this was funny. I mean,..who would have thunk it. A politician lieing. ROFL!
I dunt play that 'blame game'. It dunt solve anything.
I didnt mean that YOU yelled... I meant the Boosh supporters on this board...
And I get the joke:)
-
From the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence website:
JURISDICTION
Created pursuant to S.Res. 400, 94th Congress: to oversee and make continuing studies of the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government, and to submit to the Senate appropriate proposals for legislation and report to the Senate concerning such intelligence activities and programs. In carrying out this purpose, the Select Committee on Intelligence shall make every effort to assure that the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States provide informed and timely intelligence necessary for the executive and legislative branches to make sound decisions affecting the security and vital interests of the Nation. It is further the purpose of this resolution to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States.
-
The CRS report identified nine key U.S. intelligence "products" that aren't generally shared with Congress. These include the President's Daily Brief, a compilation of analyses that's given only to the president and a handful of top aides, and a daily digest on terrorism-related matters.
who would have thought that congress doesnt get the presidential daily breif......shocking.
what's worse is if they did get it it'd be "leaked" to the press in no time.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
who would have thought that congress doesnt get the presidential daily breif......shocking.
what's worse is if they did get it it'd be "leaked" to the press in no time.
LMAO they act like this is somehow new news.
I cant even count the amount of times I've heard that congress doesnt get the same intel the president does its been said so many times already.
And they shouldnt.
the more people that know all the intel the higher the probability is that somen is going ot run their mouth and reveal classified information.
If your going to give congress the exact same intel the Pres gets you might as well publish it in the NY Times
-
Several post-invasion inquiries have found that U.S. intelligence agencies produced for the White House and Congress seriously flawed assessments on Iraq.
Hmmm White House, AND Congress.
So. they both got flawed intel.
How does that equate into Bush Lieing?
bush got flawed intel and Congress got a smaller version of the flawed intel.
I still dont see a single thing that would indicate the congress would have acted differently then they did in giving authorization as none of this has been shown to be flawed untill after the invasion took place.
Sounds like a typical hindsight being 20/20 to me
Hell if I knew my shoes werent in the bedroom closet before I looked ther I wouldnt have looked there before I found them in my sons room
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
LMAO they act like this is somehow new news.
I cant even count the amount of times I've heard that congress doesnt get the same intel the president does its been said so many times already.
And they shouldnt.
the more people that know all the intel the higher the probability is that somen is going ot run their mouth and reveal classified information.
If your going to give congress the exact same intel the Pres gets you might as well publish it in the NY Times
What's even funnier is they quote Dianne Feinstein......Yea why don't they just get their quotes from KOS or Newsmax while they're at it.
-
You know how to tell when Bush is lying? When Cheney's lips are moving.
-
I was watching the White House news briefing today and McClellan was still saying that congress was getting the same intel as the White House.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
I was watching the White House news briefing today and McClellan was still saying that congress was getting the same intel as the White House.
shamus
in essence they were. What they werent getting was every single scrap of information
Just a smaller and more condenced version of it The overall intel albeit faulty was the same
Pres got intel that was faulty.
congress got a smaller version of the same faulty intel.
Again. I havent seen anything tht would indicate that congress would have acted any differently even if they had the same exact intel.
In hindsight the intel at the time was faulty at all levels Both the intel that the white house was given and the intel congress was given.
-
Was the intel being shown to congress different than what the prez saw?
It would make sense that the president sees a more thorough classified version of the intel but I doubt there was any concerted effort to mislead congress with wrong intel or puposefully contradicting intel.
Seems like the left wing of american politics is gasping again...a single day after the elections in iraq went off amazingly well, all we here about is bush spying on honest law abiding american citizens and congress only being shown the comic books from the CIA during the lead up to the iraq campaign.
something just aint right lucy.....
-
anyone else notice how all this news seems to surface during "low time" or during "Iraqi elections"?
-
You mean that Congress was not supplied every single detail of the intel on this? The pure friggen horror. :)
If congress had been supplied with every single detail, just think..........They could have still been debating this and not making a decison. By now they could have gave theirself 3 or 4 more raises while they were debating.
That`s why we have a prez. To make decisions. Someone has to get off their butt and actualy DO something. :)
-
I don't think that anyone here thought that the old ladies in congress got all the daily briefings that the pres got.
Most here belive that they got the high points and essentialy the same intel.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I dunt play that 'blame game'. It dunt solve anything.
If "dunt" is an abbreviation of "doesn't", how would you abbreviate "couldn't"?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't think that anyone here thought that the old ladies in congress got all the daily briefings that the pres got.
Most here belive that they got the high points and essentialy the same intel.
lazs
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. The question is, was it intentionally false. Either way, the mistake was made and heads should roll. Dem or publicans. This is a massive catastrophe for the financial health of the US. We are borrowing masive sums of money from foreign countries to finance this war. We have to pay that back, with interest. You and me. I would rather see my money put into schools, roads, tax breaks for the middle class, CPR for the social security system, etc. Things that help all of our standard of living by creating good paying jobs. I dont want see my tax money going straight into the pockets of a wealthy saudi oil shiek with a loan shark business. We havnt even started the 'rebuilding' of Iraq yet. Hows that grab ya, the republicans eliminate social programs for the US but are about to embark on the most costly social program of all for little Iraqi children. Kind and gentle children. Thats what we get for letting Haliburton run the country. The only thing saving my sanity is the 40,000 I made off of the HAL stock in the last 2 years. If ya cant beat em, join em. :lol
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Several post-invasion inquiries have found that U.S. intelligence agencies produced for the White House and Congress seriously flawed assessments on Iraq.
Hmmm White House, AND Congress.
So. they both got flawed intel.
How does that equate into Bush Lieing?
Well if Bush got more flawed intel than congress, then presumably he would be more convinced that the Iraqis had the weapons of mass destruction that his predecessor's administration was also convinced they had. We seem to be missing the point that everyone agrees that ALL the intel that was being received and passed on by every intel outfit said "WMDs exist in Iraq" (oh that is with the possible exception of what Joe Wilson was able to find at the Gawaeye hotel bar).
Silat, is it your contention that Bush got secret never before seen or released intel that congress didn't have that indicated that Iraq did not have the level of WMDs that everyone thought they had? If that's the case, did Clinton have access to this super secret intel as well? If so, where did the intel Clinton didn't have access to come from? Republican pollsters?
-
Congress received as much intel as they wanted at the time. That is a pathetic article that highlights how important deniability is in congress.
Or... are we to believe that the idiot GWBjr and his idiot staff managed to masterfully dupe congress into going to war? It's amazing how clever and stupid he can be at the same time.
How about this scenario:
America had just been the victim of what many considered to be an act of war. Going into Afghanistan was not enough of a statement as to our intent... something more was needed and Sadaam had made himself a more than ideal target over the last 15 years. A minimal excuse was needed. WMDs became the hot item of the day and everyone hopped on the boat and voted in the war.
Here's the catch: Everyone knew the value of the WMD data. Erm... everyone that had an IQ over 70 that is. Everyone knew it was more of an excuse than a reason. Everyone also knew that more of a statement was needed and decided to take something AT FACE VALUE BEFORE VOTING TO GO TO WAR. This wasn't a duping... it was a massive "look the other way and vote what you think people want you to vote" scenario.
Jeez... I almost think people were so busy arguing that they weren't really paying attention to what was going on.
You can sit back and argue philosophy all you want, but this lame bellybutton attempt to make it look as if one party were more "guilty" than the other is simply stupid. It's the same old crowd doing the same old thing much to the detriment of this forum.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
You mean that Congress was not supplied every single detail of the intel on this? The pure friggen horror. :)
If congress had been supplied with every single detail, just think..........They could have still been debating this and not making a decison. By now they could have gave theirself 3 or 4 more raises while they were debating.
That`s why we have a prez. To make decisions. Someone has to get off their butt and actualy DO something. :)
Iraq wasn't the threat that it was presented to be. A little more debating wouldn't have hurt at all.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
LMAO they act like this is somehow new news.
I cant even count the amount of times I've heard that congress doesnt get the same intel the president does its been said so many times already.
And they shouldnt.
the more people that know all the intel the higher the probability is that somen is going ot run their mouth and reveal classified information.
If your going to give congress the exact same intel the Pres gets you might as well publish it in the NY Times
You are missing the point.
The pres and his supporters here and elsewhere, cabinet etc have been saying that congress saw the exact same intel he did when deciding to go to war...
They have been saying this as an excuse for their many mistakes.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
in essence they were. What they werent getting was every single scrap of information
Just a smaller and more condenced version of it The overall intel albeit faulty was the same
Pres got intel that was faulty.
congress got a smaller version of the same faulty intel.
Again. I havent seen anything tht would indicate that congress would have acted any differently even if they had the same exact intel.
In hindsight the intel at the time was faulty at all levels Both the intel that the white house was given and the intel congress was given.
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.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
anyone else notice how all this news seems to surface during "low time" or during "Iraqi elections"?
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.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
You mean that Congress was not supplied every single detail of the intel on this? The pure friggen horror. :)
If congress had been supplied with every single detail, just think..........They could have still been debating this and not making a decison. By now they could have gave theirself 3 or 4 more raises while they were debating.
That`s why we have a prez. To make decisions. Someone has to get off their butt and actualy DO something. :)
The horror of an actual debate on such an insignificant issue as going to war..........
-
So did the Senate Select Committee lie or were they just incompetant?
In carrying out this purpose, the Select Committee on Intelligence shall make every effort to assure that the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States provide informed and timely intelligence necessary for the executive and legislative branches to make sound decisions affecting the security and vital interests of the Nation.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Congress received as much intel as they wanted at the time. That is a pathetic article that highlights how important deniability is in congress.
Or... are we to believe that the idiot GWBjr and his idiot staff managed to masterfully dupe congress into going to war? It's amazing how clever and stupid he can be at the same time.
How about this scenario:
America had just been the victim of what many considered to be an act of war. Going into Afghanistan was not enough of a statement as to our intent... something more was needed and Sadaam had made himself a more than ideal target over the last 15 years. A minimal excuse was needed. WMDs became the hot item of the day and everyone hopped on the boat and voted in the war.
Here's the catch: Everyone knew the value of the WMD data. Erm... everyone that had an IQ over 70 that is. Everyone knew it was more of an excuse than a reason. Everyone also knew that more of a statement was needed and decided to take something AT FACE VALUE BEFORE VOTING TO GO TO WAR. This wasn't a duping... it was a massive "look the other way and vote what you think people want you to vote" scenario.
Jeez... I almost think people were so busy arguing that they weren't really paying attention to what was going on.
You can sit back and argue philosophy all you want, but this lame bellybutton attempt to make it look as if one party were more "guilty" than the other is simply stupid. It's the same old crowd doing the same old thing much to the detriment of this forum.
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..
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Silat....aren't you missing some chunk of truth on Air America?