Records Show Senators who OK'd war didn't read key report

[DealMonkey]

This has been a cornerstone of the typical pro-war nutjob: that Congress reviewed the exact same intel as the White House before they voted to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq. Previous threads have shown that the White House can and does selectively share intel with Congress, but now this news comes out.

Well, well, well, yet another feeble excuse shot down.

Records: Senators who OK'd war didn't read key report

? Hillary Clinton, John McCain and most others in Congress didn't read document
? Newspaper: Six senators, a few House members logged as reading report
? Most in Congress were briefed several times, read summary of report
? Report was wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new biography of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has once again raised the issue of whether members of Congress read a key intelligence report before the 2002 vote to authorize war in Iraq.

Clinton did not read the 90-page, classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, according to "Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton."

For members of Congress to read the report, they had to go to a secure location on Capitol Hill. The Washington Post reported in 2004 that no more than six senators and a handful of House members were logged as reading the document.

The Clinton biography, written by New York Times reporters Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr., summarizes the intelligence estimate, which combined reports of U.S. intelligence agencies about Iraq.

Clinton, a New York Democrat, was briefed on the intelligence report multiple times, a spokesperson told CNN.

Clinton is one of six presidential candidates who were in the Senate in October 2002 who voted for the resolution to authorize the invasion of Iraq.

Candidate and then-Sen. John Edwards "read and was briefed on the intelligence" while sitting on the Senate Intelligence Committee, a spokesman said. Edwards has called his vote for the 2002 resolution a mistake. Another Democratic candidate, Sen. Joseph Biden, said he read the report.

A spokesman for presidential candidate Sen. Christopher Dodd said the Connecticut Democrat did not read the document, either.

Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain of Arizona also voted in favor of the resolution without reading the report.

A spokesman for McCain told CNN his boss was briefed on the document "numerous times, and read the executive summary."

Other candidates were not available for comment Monday.

Misleading report

The National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the United States had "compelling evidence" that Iraq was restarting its efforts to develop a nuclear bomb and had concealed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons from U.N. inspectors after the cease-fire that ended the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

That was wrong, but that wasn't established until after a U.S. -led army toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003.

The intelligence report did contain passages that raised questions about the weapons conclusions, said John McLaughlin, then deputy director of the CIA.

"I think if someone read the entire report, they would walk away thinking the intelligence community generally thinks he has weapons of mass destruction, but there are quite a bit of differences," he said.

McLaughlin, now a CNN contributor, said dissenting views by the State Department, Department of Energy and the Air Force made up about 10 to 12 pages of the report -- but critics say those dissents were not highlighted.

Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he held a closed session at which members could read the report along with top CIA officials. (Watch Sen. Biden say he couldn't vote against funding the war and put troops in greater jeopardy Video)

Biden told CNN that he read the dissents in the report and he "spoke to the ones who dissented."

Biden ended up voting for the resolution, but argued that he was casting a vote "to avoid a war."

"It was a vote to give the authority to the president to avoid war by keeping the pressure on Saddam Hussein," the Delaware Democrat said Monday.

He said Bush initially told Congress he would allow inspectors to certify whether Iraq had dismantled its weapons programs.

"The president misused the power we gave him under that resolution," said Biden.

Bush said war was necessary because Iraq was deceiving weapons inspectors and had demonstrated its unwillingness to disarm.

A U.S.-led survey later concluded that Iraq had attempted to conceal some weapons-related research from the United Nations, but had abandoned its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in the 1990s.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

This has been a cornerstone of the typical pro-war nutjob: that Congress reviewed the exact same intel as the White House before they voted to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq. Previous threads have shown that the White House can and does selectively share intel with Congress, but now this news comes out.

Your kidding right? If anything it means all of those who signed it without reading it HAVE NO BUSINESS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

So, your saying that signing something you didn't read doesn't make you worse than a "pro-war nutjob" If anything it makes you a "lazy ass nutjob" which is FAR FAR WORSE.

Frankly, it makes the pro-war people seem better now.

 

[Dashel]

"I think if someone read the entire report, they would walk away thinking the intelligence community generally thinks he has weapons of mass destruction, but there are quite a bit of differences," he said."

 

[Genx87]

Biography eh?

Democrats voted for the war, repeat after me, Democrats voted for the war and continue to do so till this day.

They are big grown ups and can defend themselves. Dont need minions running around trying to polish a turd for them.

Even if this claim is true, to honestly believe it would have radically changed the vote is amusing. Biden saw the report and still voted yes. He is one of the biggest blowbags in that party.

 

[LegendKiller]

This isn't a surprise. Congress and the American people were duped. Everybody should go pick up the book "Collusion" and read the first part, it's very enlightening to see just how desperate the CIA and Bush was to pin 9/11, WMD, and terrorism in general on Iraq.

Nigeria was a complete fabrication by a known liar, swindler, scam artist, and convict. The only reason why the Iraqi ambassador visited Nigeria was because Nigeria told them they wouldn't accept any more toxic waste from Iraq, who had used Nigeria as a dumping ground for decades. The Iraqi Ambassador was there to beg Nigeria to keep accepting Iraqi trash, not to negotiate Yellowcake sales. The French knew this, the Italians knew this, the Germans knew this, and they all told the CIA, who just went ahead and filtered all of the nay-sayers out, came to their own conclusion (with Bureaucratic appointee (aka Bush crony) rubber-stamp). All of this information was known by late 2002.

Of course, when Bush made his SOTU address in Jan 2003, he represented Nigeria as a "slam dunk" proof positive of a WMD program. Combine that with the aluminum tubes for a "centrifuge" (Missile bodies according to every worldwide intelligence agency and CIA dissenters, who were again dismissed by cronies), you had a complete fabrication of war.


When will people finally get it in their heads that they were LIED to, mislead, and hoodwinked?????

 

[DealMonkey]

It's pretty clear what happened. Team Bush was pounding the drums of war. Post-9/11 hysteria was gripping the country and Congress was not immune. None of the dissenting views from the full NIE made it into the executive summary, because the White House knew most of Congress wouldn't bother reading it in full. Indeed, no one from Congress read the entire report except 6 senators and a handful of reps from the house. The White House selectively shared intel and/or only shared it with the intelligence committee and not Congress in full. The GOP controlled both houses of Congress and simply did whatever the president wanted. Bam - you've got yourself an authorization for war.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's pretty clear what happened. Team Bush was pounding the drums of war. Post-9/11 hysteria was gripping the country and Congress was not immune. None of the dissenting views from the full NIE made it into the executive summary, because the White House knew most of Congress wouldn't bother reading it in full. Indeed, no one from Congress read the entire report except 6 senators and a handful of reps from the house. The White House selectively shared intel and/or only shared it with the intelligence committee and not Congress in full. The GOP controlled both houses of Congress and simply did whatever the president wanted. .

Those poor poor senators, lets all shed a tear for their incompetence.

Bam - you've got yourself an authorization for war

Except the obvious problem with your perfect theory is democrats overwhelmingly voted for the authorization as well. This wasnt a GOP congress jamming it down our throats, Dems happily jumped on the bandwagon as well.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's pretty clear what happened. Team Bush was pounding the drums of war. Post-9/11 hysteria was gripping the country and Congress was not immune. None of the dissenting views from the full NIE made it into the executive summary, because the White House knew most of Congress wouldn't bother reading it in full. Indeed, no one from Congress read the entire report except 6 senators and a handful of reps from the house. The White House selectively shared intel and/or only shared it with the intelligence committee and not Congress in full. The GOP controlled both houses of Congress and simply did whatever the president wanted. .

Those poor poor senators, lets all shed a tear for their incompetence.

Bam - you've got yourself an authorization for war

Except the obvious problem with your perfect theory is democrats overwhelmingly voted for the authorization as well. This wasnt a GOP congress jamming it down our throats, Dems happily jumped on the bandwagon as well.

Did you read my post above? How hard is it to understand that Congress wasn't given the full story? Republican, Democrat, all of them were mislead.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's pretty clear what happened. Team Bush was pounding the drums of war. Post-9/11 hysteria was gripping the country and Congress was not immune. None of the dissenting views from the full NIE made it into the executive summary, because the White House knew most of Congress wouldn't bother reading it in full. Indeed, no one from Congress read the entire report except 6 senators and a handful of reps from the house. The White House selectively shared intel and/or only shared it with the intelligence committee and not Congress in full. The GOP controlled both houses of Congress and simply did whatever the president wanted. Bam - you've got yourself an authorization for war.

The leaders of certain committees would get the full report with classifeii info included.
The rest of Congress gets a sanitized version w/out classified info (due to the inability of congress to maintain control of classified info).

It the information is provided to them and they choose not to review it; who is at fault?

Not the WH that provided the info.

Ignorance of the facts when available (hand fed) does not excuse incompetence.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

This has been a cornerstone of the typical pro-war nutjob: that Congress reviewed the exact same intel as the White House before they voted to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq. Previous threads have shown that the White House can and does selectively share intel with Congress, but now this news comes out.

Your kidding right? If anything it means all of those who signed it without reading it HAVE NO BUSINESS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

So, your saying that signing something you didn't read doesn't make you worse than a "pro-war nutjob" If anything it makes you a "lazy ass nutjob" which is FAR FAR WORSE.

Frankly, it makes the pro-war people seem better now.

Nonsense (as usual, coming from you).

There are too many "90-page" reports being issued every day to make it possible to read everything. That's why members of congress have staffers. Getting briefed on reports is SOP.

I'll bet Dubya is far, far, far less well informed.

 

[DealMonkey]

21 Democratic Senators, 1 Republican and 1 Independent voted against it. That's about 25% of the Senate. It's pretty clear how this was a GOP-led effort. In the House, it was a 296 yay vs 133 nay vote. About 1/3 of the House voted against it and nearly ALL of them were Democrats. So much for your "slam dunk." Pffft.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Shivetya

This has been a cornerstone of the typical pro-war nutjob: that Congress reviewed the exact same intel as the White House before they voted to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq. Previous threads have shown that the White House can and does selectively share intel with Congress, but now this news comes out.

Your kidding right? If anything it means all of those who signed it without reading it HAVE NO BUSINESS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

So, your saying that signing something you didn't read doesn't make you worse than a "pro-war nutjob" If anything it makes you a "lazy ass nutjob" which is FAR FAR WORSE.

Frankly, it makes the pro-war people seem better now.

Nonsense (as usual, coming from you).

There are too many "90-page" reports being issued every day to make it possible to read everything. That's why members of congress have staffers. Getting briefed on reports is SOP.

I'll bet Dubya is far, far, far less well informed.

Your reply is even dumber than most of your tripe, but what should I expect?

So, in your ignorant world, its okay to sign off on WARS without knowing the FACTS?

Is that CLEAR?

Oh, its okay, a STAFFER can decide. Tell me, who was VOTED into office to make the DECISIONS?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Except the obvious problem with your perfect theory is democrats overwhelmingly voted for the authorization as well. This wasnt a GOP congress jamming it down our throats, Dems happily jumped on the bandwagon as well.

Another grossly misinformed fanboy.

To me, if 80+% had voted for the resolution, THAT would be overwhelming. The actual totals aren't even close. In fact, a strong majority of Democrats in the House voted AGAINST the resolution.

Iraq Resolution

Congress:

Democrats: 81 for, 126 against
Republicans: 215 for, 6 against

Senate:

Democrats: 29 for, 23 against
Republicans: 48 for, 0 against

Care to issue a retraction?

 

[DealMonkey]

Remember, they weren't signing off on a war, they were merely delegating their war powers to Bush. Who of course, couldn't wait 3 months for the inspectors to finish their job before launching his adventure in Iraq. Oh, and summer was coming too, don't forget.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

This has been a cornerstone of the typical pro-war nutjob

As evidenced by the radical righties responding in here still attacking Democrats even though it was their heroes that were and are still duping America this is still their cornerstone.

They are very sad cases and should certainly not call themselves Americans.

 

[ScottMac]

Somehow, I'm not sure the OP understands how the system works.

It goes like this:

First, there isn't a person in Congress that could possible read all of the information presented for their review; there isn't enough hours in the day. SO, they all have staff review the information, especially the "less important" and stuff that may be hot later on.

In this case, the information was certainly reviewed and recommendations were made by the staffers, and those that choose to have "not seen" the information have their truthfull statement that they never saw the documents.

IMHO, it still boils down to the fact that they are responsible for what they vote for; damn the excuses and accept what they did ... and move along. If they want to apologize, fine ... but don't try to BS out of it with so many lame-ass excuses. They are at the top of that particular tree, they need to accept the negative as well as the positive.

FWIW

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Shivetya

This has been a cornerstone of the typical pro-war nutjob: that Congress reviewed the exact same intel as the White House before they voted to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq. Previous threads have shown that the White House can and does selectively share intel with Congress, but now this news comes out.

Your kidding right? If anything it means all of those who signed it without reading it HAVE NO BUSINESS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

So, your saying that signing something you didn't read doesn't make you worse than a "pro-war nutjob" If anything it makes you a "lazy ass nutjob" which is FAR FAR WORSE.

Frankly, it makes the pro-war people seem better now.

Nonsense (as usual, coming from you).

There are too many "90-page" reports being issued every day to make it possible to read everything. That's why members of congress have staffers. Getting briefed on reports is SOP.

I'll bet Dubya is far, far, far less well informed.

Your reply is even dumber than most of your tripe, but what should I expect?

So, in your ignorant world, its okay to sign off on WARS without knowing the FACTS?

Is that CLEAR?

Oh, its okay, a STAFFER can decide. Tell me, who was VOTED into office to make the DECISIONS?

Since when is getting briefed on the contents of reports not knowing the facts?

And since when is being briefed on reports equivalent to letting staffers make decisions?

Not to mention that Congressional Republicans use the same approach as Democrats. Not to mention that the President's job would be impossible without multiple briefings every single day.

Naturally, however, you restrict your (totally baseless) criticisms to Democrats. You are an unprincipled, ultra-biased tool.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Remember, they weren't signing off on a war, they were merely delegating their war powers to Bush. Who of course, couldn't wait 3 months for the inspectors to finish their job before launching his adventure in Iraq. Oh, and summer was coming too, don't forget.

ofcorse lets not forget that bit, congress only gave Bush the authority, the decision was up to Bush

after all he had all the solid privy info that congress didnt have... right

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Shivetya

This has been a cornerstone of the typical pro-war nutjob: that Congress reviewed the exact same intel as the White House before they voted to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq. Previous threads have shown that the White House can and does selectively share intel with Congress, but now this news comes out.

Your kidding right? If anything it means all of those who signed it without reading it HAVE NO BUSINESS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

So, your saying that signing something you didn't read doesn't make you worse than a "pro-war nutjob" If anything it makes you a "lazy ass nutjob" which is FAR FAR WORSE.

Frankly, it makes the pro-war people seem better now.

Nonsense (as usual, coming from you).

There are too many "90-page" reports being issued every day to make it possible to read everything. That's why members of congress have staffers. Getting briefed on reports is SOP.

I'll bet Dubya is far, far, far less well informed.

Your reply is even dumber than most of your tripe, but what should I expect?

So, in your ignorant world, its okay to sign off on WARS without knowing the FACTS?

Is that CLEAR?

Oh, its okay, a STAFFER can decide. Tell me, who was VOTED into office to make the DECISIONS?

Since when is getting briefed on the contents of reports not knowing the facts?

And since when is being briefed on reports equivalent to letting staffers make decisions?

Not to mention that Congressional Republicans use the same approach as Democrats. Not to mention that the President's job would be impossible without multiple briefings every single day.

Naturally, however, you restrict your (totally baseless) criticisms to Democrats. You are an unprincipled, ultra-biased tool.

Listen up, If slow typing were possible to help the dimwits I would find a way.

Why are you making up excuses for elected officials signing off on WAR? Getting "briefed" is okay, like if your buying a PARK. This was a prelude to WAR.

Naturally, however, you restrict your (totally baseless) criticisms to Democrats. You are an unprincipled, ultra-biased tool.

Obviously your blind, goes great with ignorant and stupid. Where in my message did I single out Democrats, go ahead and find it. Come on? Don't hurt yourself.

Well did you find the comment in this thread where I singled out Democrats? Huh?

Well, after all, your enlightened response was based on what I wrote eh? Oh, I get it, you WERE BRIEFED on it. Yeah, thats it, thats the ticket of idiot-ville, population YOU.

ITS AN EFFING WAR.... THEY DAMN WELL SHOULD HAVE READ IT BEFORE SIGNING OFF


and people wonder why this country is doomed, its idiots like you who DON'T READ and DON'T HOLD THEMSELVES OR OTHERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.

 

[ProfJohn]

I can?t believe that people are making excuses for the people who didn?t read the report.
How many times is congress asked to vote for authorizing the use of force in this manner?
The fact that these people didn?t read the report says nothing about the administration, but it says a lot about the people who didn?t read it.

I would also guess that even after reading the report the votes would have been no different.

FYI based on the way most government reports seem to be written I would guess you could read this one in a couple of hours. Go read parts of the 9-11 report, they are very quick reads.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Genx87
Except the obvious problem with your perfect theory is democrats overwhelmingly voted for the authorization as well. This wasn't a GOP congress jamming it down our throats, Dems happily jumped on the bandwagon as well.

Another grossly misinformed fanboy.

To me, if 80+% had voted for the resolution, THAT would be overwhelming. The actual totals aren't even close. In fact, a strong majority of Democrats in the House voted AGAINST the resolution.

Iraq Resolution

Congress:

Democrats: 81 for, 126 against
Republicans: 215 for, 6 against

Senate:

Democrats: 29 for, 23 against
Republicans: 48 for, 0 against

Care to issue a retraction?

Please understand that Congress is both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Also, the House is made up of politicians that are more jumpy because they are accountable immediately (to the party and somewhat the voters) vs the Senate which are more cautious and deliberate in their decisions. Hot heads on both sides in both chambers do exist, but more so in the lower chamber.

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Remember, they weren't signing off on a war, they were merely delegating their war powers to Bush. Who of course, couldn't wait 3 months for the inspectors to finish their job before launching his adventure in Iraq. Oh, and summer was coming too, don't forget.

Remember that the inspectors were only being allowed to do the job when Iraq felt threatened.

As soon as the stick was replaced by the carrot, the inspectors were being hampered or kicked out.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Remember, they weren't signing off on a war, they were merely delegating their war powers to Bush. Who of course, couldn't wait 3 months for the inspectors to finish their job before launching his adventure in Iraq. Oh, and summer was coming too, don't forget.

Remember that the inspectors were only being allowed to do the job when Iraq felt threatened.

As soon as the stick was replaced by the carrot, the inspectors were being hampered or kicked out.

erm, just before the war started the inspectors were praising the iraqis for allowing them easier access than ever before, then a day before the war started the inspectors had to leave for obvios reasons. But it is true that the threat of force did make inspections alot easier, but its also true that the US showed that regardless of what you do after a threat of war is never enough. So no wonder everyone wants a nuke these days.

and would it have hurt if the inspectors had been allowed a little more time to give their final report like everyone was waiting for?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Genx87
Except the obvious problem with your perfect theory is democrats overwhelmingly voted for the authorization as well. This wasnt a GOP congress jamming it down our throats, Dems happily jumped on the bandwagon as well.

Another grossly misinformed fanboy.

To me, if 80+% had voted for the resolution, THAT would be overwhelming. The actual totals aren't even close. In fact, a strong majority of Democrats in the House voted AGAINST the resolution.

Iraq Resolution

Congress:

Democrats: 81 for, 126 against
Republicans: 215 for, 6 against

Senate:

Democrats: 29 for, 23 against
Republicans: 48 for, 0 against

Care to issue a retraction?

Please understand that Congress is both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Sorry for my carelessness. I should have used "House" instead of "Congress" is listing the totals for the House of Representatives.

But my point stands: That Democrats actually STRONGLY voted AGAINST the authorization in the House and their support for authorization (55.7%) in the Senate was not remotely "overwhelming" by any rational definition of the word. Gen87's post was thus grossly inaccurate.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's pretty clear what happened. Team Bush was pounding the drums of war. Post-9/11 hysteria was gripping the country and Congress was not immune. None of the dissenting views from the full NIE made it into the executive summary, because the White House knew most of Congress wouldn't bother reading it in full. Indeed, no one from Congress read the entire report except 6 senators and a handful of reps from the house. The White House selectively shared intel and/or only shared it with the intelligence committee and not Congress in full. The GOP controlled both houses of Congress and simply did whatever the president wanted. .

Those poor poor senators, lets all shed a tear for their incompetence.

Bam - you've got yourself an authorization for war

Except the obvious problem with your perfect theory is democrats overwhelmingly voted for the authorization as well. This wasnt a GOP congress jamming it down our throats, Dems happily jumped on the bandwagon as well.

Did you read my post above? How hard is it to understand that Congress wasn't given the full story? Republican, Democrat, all of them were mislead.

You really believe that? You do realize this accusation is from a biography right? And lets not forget in the article Biden, a leading democrat read the report and still voted for the war. If that guy wasnt swayed you are really stretching your imagination to believe the rest would.

 

[Moonbeam]

In my opinion the there were two types of folk who voted to authorize Bush to use force, Republicans who gain office by creating and fostering a notion of fear in the population that these kind elected officials will save them from, and those who are too cowardly to stand up and tell the people they are being intentionally frightened, played for votes by their fear, and generally being raped by corporations and the military industrial complex, particularly, as a result. In short, the war was authorized because Americans are morons and you either actively milk them or play along to save your skin. You are the reason we are f@cked. Until you do something about your own pathological need for security over a commitment and love of truth, you will have to suffer the effects of that pathology. You can do nothing in this world except as you see that you can only change yourself. All this blame of externals is there to protect you from seeing how much you hate and despise who you are.

"I am the coward that caused this war. There is no other thing at fault. I am everything I despise in politicians. I vote only for people who represent me. I am what the world is because the world is a reflection of me. I am completely upside down and backward in my thinking. I hate me. But because I can't bear the pain of this realization, because I am a coward, I will blame you instead." You are the reason my life is screwed, not me."

You asshole, Moonbeam.