Q: Do Senators have the same intelligence as the President?

[Yzzim]

I'm trying to figure out this whole WMD thing in Iraq and why all the Democrats said what they did. Were they going off the information the President was giving them, or were they looking at the same intelligence as he was?

Is there a law saying that the Senate and/or Senate Intelligence Committee has to have the exact same intelligence as the President?

Also, if the problem is with the CIA, why did the KGB and MI6 confirm that Iraq had WMDs?

Don't mean to beat a dead horse but something just isn't making sense.

 

[MoFunk]

Don't believe the neo-con propaganda, this was never said by anyone other then Bush. Iraq never had ANY weapons of any kind. We needed to let the UN keep up the good work. This was 100% Bush wanting to invade this country.

Just preparing you for some of the comments that you will probably get from here, go search and you will find the answer. You probably wont find it here.

 

[Yzzim]

Originally posted by: MoFunk
Don't believe the neo-con propaganda, this was never said by anyone other then Bush. Iraq never had ANY weapons of any kind. We needed to let the UN keep up the good work. This was 100% Bush wanting to invade this country.

Just preparing you for some of the comments that you will probably get from here, go search and you will find the answer. You probably wont find it here.

I did search, however, I couldn't find anything stating whether or not they had the same intelligence.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: MoFunk
Don't believe the neo-con propaganda, this was never said by anyone other then Bush. Iraq never had ANY weapons of any kind. We needed to let the UN keep up the good work. This was 100% Bush wanting to invade this country.

Just preparing you for some of the comments that you will probably get from here, go search and you will find the answer. You probably wont find it here.

I did search, however, I couldn't find anything stating whether or not they had the same intelligence.

i belie e that the intelligencewas lass available. to non-intellgence comitee menbers

 

[gutharius]

I believe the same intelligence was given to both senators and president. Both arrived at the same conculsion based on that intelligence. Both decided to goto war. Tho i have no idea if the intelligence came directly from the CIA or the CIA via the whitehouse.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: gutharius
I believe the same intelligence was given to both senators and president. Both arrived at the same conculsion based on that intelligence. Both decided to goto war. Tho i have no idea if the intelligence came directly from the CIA or the CIA via the whitehouse.

The NIE given to the Senate days before the vote contained filtered and massaged data. All of the objections, doubts, etc. were removed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: gutharius
I believe the same intelligence was given to both senators and president. Both arrived at the same conculsion based on that intelligence. Both decided to goto war. Tho i have no idea if the intelligence came directly from the CIA or the CIA via the whitehouse.

The NIE given to the Senate days before the vote contained filtered and massaged data. All of the objections, doubts, etc. were removed.

Yep.

Officially the CIA "gave" the same intel to both Congress and the President. The catch is that the CIA answers more to the President, and the administration was working with (or perhaps against) them. The reports the President "received" was the same as Congress, however in effect the President determined what would be in it.

 

[conjur]

Find out how the intelligence was cooked up (BTW, if you're basing your research on Glenn Beck, well, there's not much I can say that will probably change your mind. He's no better than Hannity, Limbaugh, etc.):


THE STOVEPIPE by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact

SELECTIVE INTELLIGENCE by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact

The new Pentagon papers - By Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski
http://www.salon.com/opinion/f...2004/03/10/osp_moveon/

Hijacking Catastrophe - by Karen Kwiatkowski (Lt. Col. USAF retired)
http://www.informationclearing...e.info/article6895.htm
Hijacking Catastrophe is powerful, understated, straightforward and educational. In a single meticulously organized hour of evidence and analysis, viewers are treated to a thoughtful explanation of modern American empire, neo-conservatism as a driving force for the current Bush administration.

Video (right-click and Save As)...this requires Real Player (I use Real Alternative) to view
http://www.informationclearing...jacking_catastrophe.rm

 

[DoubleL]

Originally posted by: MoFunk
Don't believe the neo-con propaganda, this was never said by anyone other then Bush. Iraq never had ANY weapons of any kind. We needed to let the UN keep up the good work. This was 100% Bush wanting to invade this country.


I think some people live under rocks but your post has no truth at all. Have a nice day

 

[BBond]

Bush is fond of telling America that Congress has the same intel he has except when the intel shows him to be a flat out liar. Then he tells America that he has intel Congress has never seen.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: BBond
Bush is fond of telling America that Congress has the same intel he has except when the intel shows him to be a flat out liar. Then he tells America that he has intel Congress has never seen.

Exactly. That's what Bush wants the public to think.

In reality, when something bad happens, it's solely Bush's fault. When something good happens...it's more of Congress's doing and even more so, the Democrats in congress

 

[Yzzim]

Originally posted by: conjur
Find out how the intelligence was cooked up (BTW, if you're basing your research on Glenn Beck, well, there's not much I can say that will probably change your mind. He's no better than Hannity, Limbaugh, etc.):

I'm not basing my research on any one person or party. I just typed in "Democrat WMD Quotes" to see what the Democrats had to say about Iraq having WMD (I think we knew what the republicans said) and that was the first page that showed up. He had good sources backing up all the quotes so I figured it was legit.

Thanks for the links, I'll take a look at them

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: BBond
Bush is fond of telling America that Congress has the same intel he has except when the intel shows him to be a flat out liar. Then he tells America that he has intel Congress has never seen.

Exactly. That's what Bush wants the public to think.

In reality, when something bad happens, it's solely Bush's fault. When something good happens...it's more of Congress's doing and even more so, the Democrats in congress

You had to add that caveat about the Democrats in Congress once you realized that it's a Republican Executive branch and Congress so the usual tactic of blaming Congress doesn't wash.

 

[BBond]

Yzzim,

AFAIK and from everything I've read Congress doesn't get the same intel as Bush. Intel committees get more than Congress but even they don't see everything Bush sees unless he makes it available to them.

With the recent Bush administration take over of the CIA the disparity will only increase.

 

[Yzzim]

Originally posted by: BBond
Bush is fond of telling America that Congress has the same intel he has except when the intel shows him to be a flat out liar. Then he tells America that he has intel Congress has never seen.

Then why did Clinton and Gore say what they did, if the CIA was giving them the same intel as Bush?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source


I really think somehow, someone, or some group in the CIA either really screwed up or really wanted to get Iraq. But then that wouldn't explain why the KGB and MI6 said what they did...unless they were basing it off US intelligence, which would be doubtful.

 

[Yzzim]

Originally posted by: BBond
Yzzim,

AFAIK and from everything I've read Congress doesn't get the same intel as Bush. Intel committees get more than Congress but even they don't see everything Bush sees unless he makes it available to them.

With the recent Bush administration take over of the CIA the disparity will only increase.

Read my above post ^^

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: BBond
Bush is fond of telling America that Congress has the same intel he has except when the intel shows him to be a flat out liar. Then he tells America that he has intel Congress has never seen.

Exactly. That's what Bush wants the public to think.

In reality, when something bad happens, it's solely Bush's fault. When something good happens...it's more of Congress's doing and even more so, the Democrats in congress

You had to add that caveat about the Democrats in Congress once you realized that it's a Republican Executive branch and Congress so the usual tactic of blaming Congress doesn't wash.

As a democrat, I like to think that even though we don't hold a majority in congress, our congressmen can still pressure moderates to side with us.

That way, anything good that comes out of Washington can still be credited to Democrats.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: BBond
Bush is fond of telling America that Congress has the same intel he has except when the intel shows him to be a flat out liar. Then he tells America that he has intel Congress has never seen.

Exactly. That's what Bush wants the public to think.

In reality, when something bad happens, it's solely Bush's fault. When something good happens...it's more of Congress's doing and even more so, the Democrats in congress

You had to add that caveat about the Democrats in Congress once you realized that it's a Republican Executive branch and Congress so the usual tactic of blaming Congress doesn't wash.

As a democrat, I like to think that even though we don't hold a majority in congress, our congressmen can still pressure moderates to side with us.

That way, anything good that comes out of Washington can still be credited to Democrats.

I've read several of your posts, no offence, but what kind of Demcorat are you? Like a Zell Miller Democrat or something?

 

[Colt45]

KGB no longer exists. It is FSB now... ???

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: BBond
Bush is fond of telling America that Congress has the same intel he has except when the intel shows him to be a flat out liar. Then he tells America that he has intel Congress has never seen.

Exactly. That's what Bush wants the public to think.

In reality, when something bad happens, it's solely Bush's fault. When something good happens...it's more of Congress's doing and even more so, the Democrats in congress

You had to add that caveat about the Democrats in Congress once you realized that it's a Republican Executive branch and Congress so the usual tactic of blaming Congress doesn't wash.

As a democrat, I like to think that even though we don't hold a majority in congress, our congressmen can still pressure moderates to side with us.

That way, anything good that comes out of Washington can still be credited to Democrats.

I've read several of your posts, no offence, but what kind of Demcorat are you? Like a Zell Miller Democrat or something?

How about the moderate kind?

"Liberal" used to refer to someone who was tolerant and open to any ideas, looked at all the different sides of an argument before making a decision, and favoring reform where it was necessary. Nowadays, many of those who call themselves liberals are as closed-minded as the stale ideas we're against.

 

[b0mbrman]

In this thread, a reporter who went undercover in the Republican party found that

During my time on the campaign, I noticed an unusual phenomenon. The more involved a person was with the campaign, the more likely he was to be politically moderate....It was the casual volunteers and the people whose only involvement was a bumper sticker who were likely to rant about liberals being traitors and agents of Islamo-Fascism who should be exiled from the country or jailed, etc.

I don't doubt for a second that the same goes for our side. That is to say that I'd be willing to bet money that 9 out of 10 of those same people who spout off the most inflammatory posts did not volunteer at as many Democrat events as I did during the Presidential campaign, did not put as as many Kerry/Edwards signs as I did, and did not sign up as many new voters as I did.

Heck, because of my meager earnings, I only donated $100 to the Kerry/Edwards campaign and I bet that's still more than the majority of those liberal inflammatory types donated...

[Edit] Sorry, I get enough posts and PMs from people who tell me I'm not "Democrat enough." You just happened to catch the brunt of it

 

[Stunt]

Do Senators have the same intelligence as the President?

I think 90% of americans are more intelligent than the President.
Therefore most if not all Senators must have at least that.

Somebody had to say it.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: BBond
Bush is fond of telling America that Congress has the same intel he has except when the intel shows him to be a flat out liar. Then he tells America that he has intel Congress has never seen.

Then why did Clinton and Gore say what they did, if the CIA was giving them the same intel as Bush?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source


I really think somehow, someone, or some group in the CIA either really screwed up or really wanted to get Iraq. But then that wouldn't explain why the KGB and MI6 said what they did...unless they were basing it off US intelligence, which would be doubtful.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

In context Clinton of the rest of the piece, Clinton was leaning toward a peaceful settlement but saying he would use force to DENY Saddam WMD.

The rest of the piece tells the full story clearly.

"Meanwhile, two top Republicans said they believe any military action against Iraq should result in the removal of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power.

"We should do everything we can to get this resolved and find a way to have him removed from office, one way or the other," said Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich went further, saying the world's leaders must avoid "incremental timidity" that will only leave Hussein in place and stronger.

"My hope is that military planning will be designed to coerce him or replace him and will not simply punish him and leave him in charge of building the weapons," Gingrich said. "That's not a victory. That's a defeat."

But Defense Secretary William Cohen, in an interview with CNN's Judy Woodruff, said the goal of any military strike would be to "degrade" Hussein's capability of producing weapons of mass destruction.

"It is not our goal to remove Saddam Hussein," Cohen said. He also said any military action would involve air strikes and that the United States has no plans to introduce ground troops into Iraq.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

I believe this was in reference to air strikes to destroy WMD.

"In a visit to Iowa Monday, Sen. Bob Smith of New Hampshire, a potential presidential hopeful, suggested that Clinton had lost the "moral authority" to order air strikes against Iraq.

"He has a severe credibility problem. He has it with the media. He has it with the American people.... If he can't tell me the truth about this, is he telling me the truth about Iraq?" Smith said.

Diplomacy may still work. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is headed to Baghdad this week in a last-minute attempt to avert a U.S.-led attack on Iraq. But if the nation moves even closer toward war, Clinton may find that to win political support, he needs to spell out in greater detail -- and probably on national TV -- the U.S. goals and why he believes air strikes can achieve them."

Here's an interesting link from PBS Frontline.

The War Behind Closed Doors

That contains an interesting letter written just three weeks prior to Clintons quote above.

Dear Mr. President:

Bush surrounded himself with people who were bent on invading Iraq and removing Saddam since 1992. With Bush they had the president who would do it. So Bush used the intelligence that fit their ends and invaded Iraq based on it although he knew some of the intel was outright forgeries and lies. The yellow cake. The mushroom cloud. There was no credible evidence of nuclear capability in Iraq yet Bush and Rice and Cheney used it to sew fear and advance their goal of a full ground invasion of Iraq.

If they all had the same intel, why is it that only Bush pulled a full ground invasion of a nation that posed no immediate threat?

What was the pressing urgency that required an immediate invasion of an nation that didn't threaten us?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Yzzim
I'm trying to figure out this whole WMD thing in Iraq and why all the Democrats said what they did. Were they going off the information the President was giving them, or were they looking at the same intelligence as he was?

Is there a law saying that the Senate and/or Senate Intelligence Committee has to have the exact same intelligence as the President?

Also, if the problem is with the CIA, why did the KGB and MI6 confirm that Iraq had WMDs?

Don't mean to beat a dead horse but something just isn't making sense.

Maybe everyone was getting their intel from the same place. People with a vested interest in removing Saddam. Expatriates like Chalabi who wanted the top spot in Iraq for themselves and had the ear of people like Feith in the Bush administration.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: BBond
Bush is fond of telling America that Congress has the same intel he has except when the intel shows him to be a flat out liar. Then he tells America that he has intel Congress has never seen.

Exactly. That's what Bush wants the public to think.

In reality, when something bad happens, it's solely Bush's fault. When something good happens...it's more of Congress's doing and even more so, the Democrats in congress

You had to add that caveat about the Democrats in Congress once you realized that it's a Republican Executive branch and Congress so the usual tactic of blaming Congress doesn't wash.

As a democrat, I like to think that even though we don't hold a majority in congress, our congressmen can still pressure moderates to side with us.

That way, anything good that comes out of Washington can still be credited to Democrats.

I've read several of your posts, no offence, but what kind of Demcorat are you? Like a Zell Miller Democrat or something?

How about the moderate kind?

"Liberal" used to refer to someone who was tolerant and open to any ideas, looked at all the different sides of an argument before making a decision, and favoring reform where it was necessary. Nowadays, many of those who call themselves liberals are as closed-minded as the stale ideas we're against.

We're just focused on removint Bush before he completely destroys America.

That's OK though. We can get busy looking at all the sides of an issue while Bush wins it with a 10 second sound bite. They win because they are focused and they stick together on every issue.

I'll try to open my mind a little more, enough to enjoy four more years of Bush, thanks to Demcorats who forget that winning is everything because when you don't win you can't get the side of the issue you finally decide upon implemented.

Win first. Everything else is secondary.