"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
For years I have been maintaining that the Bush Administration did NOT let
members of Congress see the same intel it had during its buildup to the
war against Iraq.

Now comes an article in the Washington Post that validates my posit:

Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument

By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus

Pincus!?! The second person that Wilson talked to about his mission to
Niger!? The person who, right alongside Kristof, helped run a CIA covert op
intended to destabilize the Bush presidency?

LOL! You should have some credible sources there, Krause...

Don't waste my time posting articles written by Walter Pincus or Nicholas
Kristof. They'll be lucky to escape perjury charges by the time the Libby
trial is over. That is, if the CIA even allows the trial to take place.
More than likely, the CIA will clamp a classified lid on documents and
people who are relevant to Libby's defense...and Libby will walk.



Regardless, the Democratic Vice Chairman of the intel committee saw
everything that Bush saw. Perhaps not every member saw the intel, but the
vice chairman certainly did. And if you remember correctly, that vice
chairman voted "yea" to give the President authority to use force in Iraq.

NOYB wrote:


Regardless, the Democratic Vice Chairman of the intel committee saw
everything that Bush saw. Perhaps not every member saw the intel, but the
vice chairman certainly did. And if you remember correctly, that vice
chairman voted "yea" to give the President authority to use force in Iraq.

It's interesting to watch this talking point slowly become more
factual.

About 60 days ago, the Hannity/Limbaugh mantra was "All the
congresspeople were reading the same intelligence reports as the POTUS,
and they voted to go to war!"

Fact is, Bush dispersed that intelligence just like some folks cut 'n
paste to the NG.
Anything that supported his position was well circulated, anything that
cast doubt on the existence of WMD was suppressed or ignored.

On 12 Nov 2005 09:50:25 -0800, wrote:


NOYB wrote:


Regardless, the Democratic Vice Chairman of the intel committee saw
everything that Bush saw. Perhaps not every member saw the intel, but the
vice chairman certainly did. And if you remember correctly, that vice
chairman voted "yea" to give the President authority to use force in Iraq.

It's interesting to watch this talking point slowly become more
factual.

About 60 days ago, the Hannity/Limbaugh mantra was "All the
congresspeople were reading the same intelligence reports as the POTUS,
and they voted to go to war!"

Fact is, Bush dispersed that intelligence just like some folks cut 'n
paste to the NG.
Anything that supported his position was well circulated, anything that
cast doubt on the existence of WMD was suppressed or ignored.

You were there?

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:


Regardless, the Democratic Vice Chairman of the intel committee saw
everything that Bush saw. Perhaps not every member saw the intel, but
the
vice chairman certainly did. And if you remember correctly, that vice
chairman voted "yea" to give the President authority to use force in
Iraq.

It's interesting to watch this talking point slowly become more
factual.

About 60 days ago, the Hannity/Limbaugh mantra was "All the
congresspeople were reading the same intelligence reports as the POTUS,
and they voted to go to war!"

Fact is, Bush dispersed that intelligence just like some folks cut 'n
paste to the NG.
Anything that supported his position was well circulated, anything that
cast doubt on the existence of WMD was suppressed or ignored.

Our government, in order to protect the people allow Senators equal access
to intelligence. Because there were too many leaks in congress of sensitive
materials a select committee was appointed made up of selected senators who
have full and uncensored access to intelligence, the same as the president.
The only advantage the president has is his own advisors who brief him
(interpret the intelligence) in a more timely fashion (daily). So to say
that the President had access to intelligence that congress didn't is a
lie!!!! All politicians lie but it seems democrats do it blatantly,
insulting our intelligence, our memory of events, our common sense..... The
only truly correct statement would be that there is too much information to
keep track of and the president may, because of his advisors gleaning the
information, have had a better handle on the accuracy of the intelligence.

If the democrats question this issue they only have to reexamine the
intelligence and see if that thesis has any support. So far, the first
committee on intelligence has said that theory doesn't hold water.

NOT true (subject of this thread)

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
NOYB wrote:

Regardless, the Democratic Vice Chairman of the intel committee saw
everything that Bush saw. Perhaps not every member saw the intel, but
the
vice chairman certainly did. And if you remember correctly, that vice
chairman voted "yea" to give the President authority to use force in
Iraq.
It's interesting to watch this talking point slowly become more
factual.

About 60 days ago, the Hannity/Limbaugh mantra was "All the
congresspeople were reading the same intelligence reports as the POTUS,
and they voted to go to war!"

Fact is, Bush dispersed that intelligence just like some folks cut 'n
paste to the NG.
Anything that supported his position was well circulated, anything that
cast doubt on the existence of WMD was suppressed or ignored.

Our government, in order to protect the people allow Senators equal
access to intelligence. Because there were too many leaks in congress of
sensitive materials a select committee was appointed made up of selected
senators who have full and uncensored access to intelligence, the same as
the president. The only advantage the president has is his own advisors
who brief him (interpret the intelligence) in a more timely fashion
(daily). So to say that the President had access to intelligence that
congress didn't is a lie!!!! All politicians lie but it seems democrats
do it blatantly, insulting our intelligence, our memory of events, our
common sense..... The only truly correct statement would be that there is
too much information to keep track of and the president may, because of
his advisors gleaning the information, have had a better handle on the
accuracy of the intelligence.

If the democrats question this issue they only have to reexamine the
intelligence and see if that thesis has any support. So far, the first
committee on intelligence has said that theory doesn't hold water.

NOT true (subject of this thread)


This is a handy rationalization, Jeff. When all is said and done, the fact
remains there was intel Democratic congressmen did not see, and what they
did see was "shaped" by the Bush Administration to support its
conclusions.

Any intel they did not see was a result of them not taking the time to go
thru the intel that was available NOT because it was hidden.
(we are talking about democratic senators on the intel select committiee)
Intel does NOT go thru the presidents office!!!!!!!!!!!!! It can NOT be
shaped by the President!!!!!!! The people who write the intel can be
pressured by the white house or congress for that matter to "shape" the
intel but the intelligence select comittiee investigation found no evidence
of that!!!!!!

I appreciate that you are trying to tank Bush but I resent your resorting to
distortions of fact, facts we all know, as that insults my intelligence. If
you want to distort facts and lie at least try to be inventive.

I appreciate the fact that you are working a bit to help your boy Bush.
But don't fret. America and the world will benefit from Bush's eroding
support. The man is too damned stupid and too damned dangerous to be
POTUS, and if the failing polls restrain his ambition, we'll all be better
off.

We as a country do not benefit from these type of lies. Discussions of the
merits of the issues and suggestions (even sarcastic) on a better course of
action are welcome and are a proper (healthy and productive) discourse.

--
I'm proud of my country, but appalled by my government.