Dodd: Iraq Has Left Us More Vulnerable

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Now that the Dimocrats have voted for the war, with access to the same intelligence the President had

Is this correct?

No.

 

[heartsurgeon]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Now that the Dimocrats have voted for the war, with access to the same intelligence the President had


Is this correct?

your right, i exaggerated..by Hillary's own account,,,Hillary didn't spend the time to actually read the National Defense Intelligence Report herself... upon which the war authorization bill was promulgated....

as a matter of fact, it is actually KNOWN who read the document, because I believe it was classified, and you had to "sign in" somewhere to read it, and the number of Dimocrats who actually went and read it is documented. Almost NONE of the DIms read it!!!!


gee.they VOTED FOR A WAR AUTHORIZATion BILL without ever reading the intelligence report....exactly how ere they lied to???? they were to LAZY to read the inteligence reports and decide if they were credible or not...they weren't "misled", your feckless Dimocrat politicians were just voting the way their polling told them to....

the Dimocrats have foisted the biggest lie of them all upon their clueless followers....they were not mislead...they were to lazy to read the reports...



READ IT AND WEEP

Only a handful of senators outside the Intelligence Committee say they read the full 92-page National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq?s ability to attack the U.S. before voting to go to war, according to a survey conducted by The Hill.

Critics of the war suggest that more senators may have voted against the war authorization had they had read the full report.

Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, one of the senators who read the report and a staunch critic of the war, said the findings were ?enough to have me vote against going to war in Iraq.?

It?s probably pretty hard to say with 100 percent certainty how many read it,? the senior staffer said. ?You can say with 100 percent certainty that it?s less than 10.?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Now that the Dimocrats have voted for the war, with access to the same intelligence the President had


Is this correct?

your right, i exaggerated..by Hillary's own account,,,Hillary didn't spend the time to actually read the National Defense Intelligence Report herself... upon which the war authorization bill was promulgated....

as a matter of fact, it is actually KNOWN who read the document, because I believe it was classified, and you had to "sign in" somewhere to read it, and the number of Dimocrats who actually went and read it is documented. Almost NONE of the DIms read it!!!!


gee.they VOTED FOR A WAR AUTHORIZATion BILL without ever reading the intelligence report....exactly how ere they lied to???? they were to LAZY to read the inteligence reports and decide if they were credible or not...they weren't "misled", your feckless Dimocrat politicians were just voting the way their polling told them to....

the Dimocrats have foisted the biggest lie of them all upon their clueless followers....they were not mislead...they were to lazy to read the reports...

This isn't a Hillary thread so unless you have something on topic to add to the OP go troll in your own thread. Your drivel; is proving nothing nor adding to the attempt at civil conversation here.

 

[heartsurgeon]

civil conversation here

your the one with the potty mouth sonny....

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

civil conversation here

your the one with the potty mouth sonny....

I'm most likely older then you "sonny", so take you spittle elsewhere.... or at least stay on topic.

 

[heartsurgeon]

i know reading is such a task for so many of you libs....but if you read the article i linked above, about the National Intelligence Estimate and the vote on the Iraq War Resolution..you will notice that the drunken horndog Dodd, failed to read the NIE, but VOTED FOR THE IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

That's what I call leadership

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
i know reading is such a task for so many of you libs....but if you read the article i linked above, about the National Intelligence Estimate and the vote on the Iraq War Resolution..you will notice that the drunken horndog Dodd, failed to read the NIE, but VOTED FOR THE IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

That's what I call leadership

And Bush failed to heed the warnings about Bin Laden and airplanes and missiles.. now what?

 

[Lemon law]

There are basically two competing versions.

a. The congress was extremely careless in reading the fine print of the resolution and the supporting documentation. And hence its somehow OK for GWB&co. to take advantage of congressional suckers. And that the American people who pay the price should now blame congress instead of GWB because congress ordered GWB to go to war.

b. The supporting documentation was nothing new and just a rehash of the same defective intel. And that the administration sold the resolution as war as a last resort and instead planned war as a first resort. Had the congress not voted for the resolution many in congress felt that the Presidents negotiating position regarding Saddam and the international community would be weaker and instead many congressional members felt the President should have the strongest possible negotiating position.

Since these type question really involves unknowables states of mind, maybe we should conclude both are partially true and false.

So to decide, maybe we should examine the question of war being the last resort. What I most clearly remember in the last days before the invasion is Saddam making all kinds of concessions GWB spurned.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
i know reading is such a task for so many of you libs....but if you read the article i linked above, about the National Intelligence Estimate and the vote on the Iraq War Resolution..you will notice that the drunken horndog Dodd, failed to read the NIE, but VOTED FOR THE IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

Nice of you to edit in the link after the fact, but so what?

That doesn't prove Dodd didn't know what was in the report, all it shows is he didn't read the full 92 page report.

I notice that McCain didn't read the full report either and Thompson didn't even return think the matter important enough to return the call. As a matter of fact no one running for President read the full report except Biden and he was on the intelligence committee so it would have been negligent of him not to.

Though former Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), then the Intelligence chairman, pushed for the document?s release to all senators in the run-up to war, the NIE?s much-maligned reliance on single sources ? often biased in favor of invasion ? makes it a dubious indicator for some.

"I don?t think it's fair to call it a litmus test and say people wouldn?t be qualified to be president of the United States if they didn?t read this particular document,? said one senior congressional intelligence staffer, now off the Hill. ?People gave [the administration] the benefit of the doubt, and it turned out they were skewing things."

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who also sat on the Intelligence panel and voted for the war, said there ?was a little bit of partisanship in the report, which really bothered me.?

Whether the number of senators who read the document can ever be known is also in dispute. The Washington Post reported in 2004 that only six senators had read the NIE, citing logs that senators were required to sign, but the Intelligence panel now says no such proof exists.

Nice attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill, but you got squat, just more spittle.

 

[heartsurgeon]

There are basically two competing versions.

that's a lie.

the most compelling version, which is suspiciously left out, is that GWB, and the Senate (Repubs and Dimocrats) acted upon the facts, as they best knew them, at the time, and authorized the War.

I most clearly remember in the last days before the invasion is Saddam making all kinds of concessions GWB spurned.

that's a lie.

stalinist, revisionism....

That doesn't prove Dodd didn't know what was in the report, all it shows is he didn't read the full 92 page report.

either way, he voted for the war. if he read the report and voted for it, he made the same assessment as GWB. If he didn't read the assessment, then he's even MORE culpable for his vote.

I notice that McCain didn't read the full report either and Thompson didn't even return think the matter important enough to return the call. As a matter of fact no one running for President read the full report except Biden and he was on the intelligence committee so it would have been negligent of him not to.

I think it's utterly outrageous that anyone would vote on a war resolution without having read te report...repub or dimocrat..simply outrageous to use that power, and grant that authorization for war without reading that document. Now, I will say, it's a COMPOUNDED outrage to then claim you were misled, and you really didn't understand what was in the bill you just voted for......that kinda crap shouldn't cut it with anyone....the Dims that voted for the war resolutin act PULLED THE TRIGGER, and now they are trying to say they had no idea the gun was loaded....feckless and craven...

 

[Lemon law]

I see heartsurgeon gets desperate and says---that's a lie.

stalinist, revisionism....

I seem to recall at least two concessions Saddam made. One is to dismantle all of a current generation of missiles that were a few miles of range over the treaty limit dead empty. Add a war head of even a few pounds and they were under. And also Saddam bent over backwards to allow inspectors back in with no balking this time. I sure there were some others but thats enough to make you position dubious.

And by the way, you are also wrong on -- "I think it's utterly outrageous that anyone would vote on a war resolution" In fact this was only a resolution that authorizing the President to use force as a last resort and not a war resolution. And the President is the one expected to have the proper judgment any way you cut it.

And as usual heartsurgeon, you are long on political spin but weak on actual argument. But cheer up, I won't call you a Stalinist revisionist.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
they are trying to say they had no idea the gun was loaded....feckless and craven...

I think it's feckless and craven to start a war based on intelligence that was gathered and distributed only because it said what they wanted it to say with no real conclusive evidence, just a "curveball" for the suckers.. That in no way shape or form prevents any person of good consicence from changing their opinion based on new information and facts.

I guess that lets you out of the loop, doesn't it "sonny".

Now take your spittle elsewhere because your off topic again troll.

and one more just to round it out to an old fashioned baker's dozen

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I see heartsurgeon gets desperate and says---that's a lie.
.
.
.

And as usual heartsurgeon, you are long on political spin but weak on actual argument. But cheer up, I won't call you a Stalinist revisionist.

He's long on spittle too.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Now that the Dimocrats have voted for the war, with access to the same intelligence the President had

Is this correct?

I won't quote your long response about Dems not reading the report because it doesn't answer the question. See the word access? Now, did they have access to the same intelligence that Bush did (as you claim), or are you, like others on this board, knowingly making false staements?

I wish the people (on both sides of the fence) who cruise P&N for no other reasons than to lie, talk shit, or find other ways to push buttons, would just get the hell out of here.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Now that the Dimocrats have voted for the war, with access to the same intelligence the President had

Is this correct?

I won't quote your long response about Dems not reading the report because it doesn't answer the question. See the word access? Now, did they have access to the same intelligence that Bush did (as you claim), or are you, like others on this board, knowingly making false staements?

I wish the people (on both sides of the fence) who cruise P&N for no other reasons than to lie, talk shit, or find other ways to push buttons, would just get the hell out of here.

I really try not to push buttons, but my buttons are too easily pushed (especially when people just outright lie) to be very successfull at it and I'm thinking of giving myself a "vacation" becasue of that.

 

[heartsurgeon]

did they have access to the same intelligence that Bush did

why wouldn't they?? after all the congress is tasked with oversight responsibilities and they have intelligence committee's that have access to everything....

they can hold closed hearing anytime they want, and get anyone they want to inform them..

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

did they have access to the same intelligence that Bush did

why wouldn't they?? after all the congress is tasked with oversight responsibilities and they have intelligence committee's that have access to everything....

they can hold closed hearing anytime they want, and get anyone they want to inform them..

You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Please educate yourself on the three branches of government.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

did they have access to the same intelligence that Bush did

why wouldn't they?? after all the congress is tasked with oversight responsibilities and they have intelligence committee's that have access to everything....

they can hold closed hearing anytime they want, and get anyone they want to inform them..

You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Please educate yourself on the three branches of government.

Before you spout off again about people educating themselves in this forum, and you have a nasty habit of frequently flinging that arrogant statement around, you should educate yourself first:

http://intelligence.senate.gov/jurisdiction.html

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 SSCI has access to every bit the same intelligence information that Bush does.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Before you spout off again about people educating themselves in this forum, and you have a nasty habit of frequently flinging that arrogant statement around, you should educate yourself first:

http://intelligence.senate.gov/jurisdiction.html

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 SSCI has access to every bit the same intelligence information that Bush does.

*sigh*. Not you again. Prepare to be smacked down.

Here's an interesting link for you from a CRS report that spells out how intel sharing actually works. Congress receives what the executive branch gives it... and while it can ask for lots of things, when there is a dispute it often gets somewhat less then a complete intel package. Guess what though? "informed and timely intelligence" doesn't end up meaning everything the executive branch sees.

Shocking.

To save you some time I'll quote you from the first paragraph. You are certainly encouraged to read the rest however.

By virtue of his constitutional role as commander-and-in-chief and head of the executive branch, the President has access to all national intelligence collected, analyzed and produced by the Intelligence Community. The President's position also affords him the authority - which, at certain times, has been aggressively asserted (1) - to restrict the flow of intelligence information to Congress and its two intelligence committees, which are charged with providing legislative oversight of the Intelligence Community. (2) As a result, the President, and a small number of presidentially-designated Cabinet-level officials, including the Vice President (3) - in contrast to Members of Congress (4) - have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods. They, unlike Members of Congress, also have the authority to more extensively task the Intelligence Community, and its extensive cadre of analysts, for follow-up information. As a result, the President and his most senior advisors arguably are better positioned to assess the quality of the Community's intelligence more accurately than is Congress. (5)

So what were you saying again? Looks like someone jumped the gun on incomplete information. You should really stop doing that.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Before you spout off again about people educating themselves in this forum, and you have a nasty habit of frequently flinging that arrogant statement around, you should educate yourself first:

http://intelligence.senate.gov/jurisdiction.html

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 SSCI has access to every bit the same intelligence information that Bush does.

*sigh*. Not you again. Prepare to be smacked down.

Here's an interesting link for you from a CRS report that spells out how intel sharing actually works. Congress receives what the executive branch gives it... and while it can ask for lots of things, when there is a dispute it often gets somewhat less then a complete intel package. Guess what though? "informed and timely intelligence" doesn't end up meaning everything the executive branch sees.

Shocking.

To save you some time I'll quote you from the first paragraph. You are certainly encouraged to read the rest however.

By virtue of his constitutional role as commander-and-in-chief and head of the executive branch, the President has access to all national intelligence collected, analyzed and produced by the Intelligence Community. The President's position also affords him the authority - which, at certain times, has been aggressively asserted (1) - to restrict the flow of intelligence information to Congress and its two intelligence committees, which are charged with providing legislative oversight of the Intelligence Community. (2) As a result, the President, and a small number of presidentially-designated Cabinet-level officials, including the Vice President (3) - in contrast to Members of Congress (4) - have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods. They, unlike Members of Congress, also have the authority to more extensively task the Intelligence Community, and its extensive cadre of analysts, for follow-up information. As a result, the President and his most senior advisors arguably are better positioned to assess the quality of the Community's intelligence more accurately than is Congress. (5)

So what were you saying again? Looks like someone jumped the gun on incomplete information. You should really stop doing that.

Let me repeat what I wrote:

"The SSCI has access to every bit the same intelligence information that Bush does."

From your own link:

The President's otherwise exclusive control over national intelligence, however, is tempered by a statutory obligation to keep Congress, through its two congressional intelligence committees, "fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities..." (7) Current law also prevents the executive branch from withholding intelligence information from the committees on the grounds that providing the information to the congressional intelligence committees would constitute the unauthorized disclosure of classified information or information relating to intelligence sources and methods. (8)

Now what were you saying again? Looks like someone didn't even bother to read their own link and owned themselves.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

deleted double post

 

[fskimospy]

Ugh, must we continue this? If we keep reading we get to:

Despite conflicting legal authorities governing congressional access to national intelligence, the U.S. Judicial Branch has not addressed the issue, since no case involving an executive-legislative branch dispute over access to intelligence has reached the U.S. courts. (11) Absent a court ruling more clearly defining executive and legislative branch authorities in this area, which most observers view as unlikely, the executive branch has contended that it is under no legal obligation to provide Congress access to all national intelligence. By contrast, Congress, through its congressional intelligence oversight committees, has asserted in principle a legal authority for unrestricted access to intelligence information. The Committees, historically, have interpreted the law as allowing room to decide how, rather than whether, they will have access to intelligence information, provided that such access is consistent with the protection of sources and methods. In practice, however, Congress has not sought all national intelligence information. (12) Unless there has been a compelling need, the intelligence committees generally have not routinely sought access to such sensitive intelligence information as intelligence sources and methods. When they have cited such compelling need for access, the committees generally have reach an accommodation with the executive branch usually, but not always.

Which is what I said from the beginning. They butt heads, and when they do... they come to an accomodation. The president has in the past, and will again withhold information from Congress based on his constitutional powers. Stop it.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ugh, must we continue this? If we keep reading we get to:

Despite conflicting legal authorities governing congressional access to national intelligence, the U.S. Judicial Branch has not addressed the issue, since no case involving an executive-legislative branch dispute over access to intelligence has reached the U.S. courts. (11) Absent a court ruling more clearly defining executive and legislative branch authorities in this area, which most observers view as unlikely, the executive branch has contended that it is under no legal obligation to provide Congress access to all national intelligence. By contrast, Congress, through its congressional intelligence oversight committees, has asserted in principle a legal authority for unrestricted access to intelligence information. The Committees, historically, have interpreted the law as allowing room to decide how, rather than whether, they will have access to intelligence information, provided that such access is consistent with the protection of sources and methods. In practice, however, Congress has not sought all national intelligence information. (12) Unless there has been a compelling need, the intelligence committees generally have not routinely sought access to such sensitive intelligence information as intelligence sources and methods. When they have cited such compelling need for access, the committees generally have reach an accommodation with the executive branch usually, but not always.

Which is what I said from the beginning. They butt heads, and when they do... they come to an accomodation. The president has in the past, and will again withhold information from Congress based on his constitutional powers. Stop it.

Shall we continue reading on?

More recently, the SSCI included language in its version of the fiscal year (FY) 2006 intelligence authorization bill (S. 1803) requiring that the Intelligence Community, upon the request of the either the chairman or ranking member of either of the congressional intelligence committees, provide "any intelligence assessment, report, estimate, legal opinion, or other intelligence information," within 15 days of the request being made, unless the President certifies that the document or information is not being provided because the President is asserting "a privilege pursuant to the Constitution of the United States."

The only time access is restricted is when Bush cites executive priviledge. He did not cite executive priviledge in regard to intelligence information on Iraq except during one short period in Oct 2001 because of a suspected intel leak in Congress (which was an appropriate use of EP):

"1. Reportedly "furious" about what he apparently believed to be unauthorized disclosures of classified information by Congress, President Bush on Oct. 5, 2001, ordered that the provision of classified information and sensitive law enforcement information be restricted to the Republican and Democratic leaders of both the Senate and House, and to the chairmen and ranking members of the two congressional intelligence committees. Until the President issued his order, and in keeping with prior practice, all Members of the intelligence committees had access to most such information. Bush agreed to rescind his order after several days, following a personal telephone conversation between the President and Sen. Bob Graham, then-chairman of the Senate's intelligence committee, and after negotiations between White House staff and Graham. See Bob Woodward, Bush at War, pp. 198-199. (Simon and Schuster)."

The SSCI had every bit of access to the intelligence on Iraq.

Now stop being an arrogant tool and go educate yourself on the 3 branches of the government.

 

[fskimospy]

Read your own quotes.

Oh, and executive priviledge is not what they're talking about there. *sigh*. I dont know why I bother with you. Read up on your own, I won't do it for you.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Read your own quotes.

Oh, and executive priviledge is not what they're talking about there. *sigh*. I dont know why I bother with you. Read up on your own, I won't do it for you.

iow, you got nothin so you commence with the handwaving and a pathetic attempt at dismissal.

The SSCI had access to the same intelligence Bush did on Iraq. The Democrats trying to blame Bush for somehow being hoodwinked on Iraq is pure crap.