"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
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 12, 2005; A01

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of
the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw
the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that
independent commissions have determined that the administration did not
misrepresent the intelligence.

Neither assertion is wholly accurate.

...

But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence
information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration
to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though
concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts
to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the
administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, briefing reporters Thursday,
countered "the notion that somehow this administration manipulated the
intelligence." He said that "those people who have looked at that issue,
some committees on the Hill in Congress, and also the Silberman-Robb
Commission, have concluded it did not happen."

But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into
whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and
dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's
commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on
March 31, 2005: "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the
use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that
was not part of our inquiry."

Bush, in Pennsylvania yesterday, was more precise, but he still implied
that it had been proved that the administration did not manipulate
intelligence, saying that those who suggest the administration
"manipulated the intelligence" are "fully aware that a bipartisan Senate
investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the
intelligence community's judgments."

In the same speech, Bush asserted that "more than 100 Democrats in the
House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to
support removing Saddam Hussein from power." Giving a preview of Bush's
speech, Hadley had said that "we all looked at the same intelligence."

****But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the
President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence
Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat
from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the
use of force in that country.****

In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not
included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be
used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information
had not been cleared for release. For example, the NIE view that Hussein
would not use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or
turn them over to terrorists unless backed into a corner was cleared for
public use only a day before the Senate vote.

Harry, the last paragraph says it all, "Saddam won't use the WMD unless
backed into a corner" That statement assumes quite strongly that he HAS
WMD!!!!! Further, history shows us that anyone who opposes him is a target
for WMD (Kurds, Iranians) or assassination (Bush I) so it means that he
fears our retaliation if he uses them against us. If you remember, our
troops, the Israelis and Kuwaitis were issued gas masks and there were air
raid sirens going on and people putting mask on during the nightly news
during the ramp up to the war. So we were expecting him to use some form of
gas attack.

NOT true (subject of this message)

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
"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
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 12, 2005; A01

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics
of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that
Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the
war, and that independent commissions have determined that the
administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.

Neither assertion is wholly accurate.

...

But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence
information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration
to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though
concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence
analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine
whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, briefing reporters
Thursday, countered "the notion that somehow this administration
manipulated the intelligence." He said that "those people who have
looked at that issue, some committees on the Hill in Congress, and also
the Silberman-Robb Commission, have concluded it did not happen."

But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into
whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and
dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's
commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report
on March 31, 2005: "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with
the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that
that was not part of our inquiry."

Bush, in Pennsylvania yesterday, was more precise, but he still implied
that it had been proved that the administration did not manipulate
intelligence, saying that those who suggest the administration
"manipulated the intelligence" are "fully aware that a bipartisan Senate
investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the
intelligence community's judgments."

In the same speech, Bush asserted that "more than 100 Democrats in the
House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to
support removing Saddam Hussein from power." Giving a preview of Bush's
speech, Hadley had said that "we all looked at the same intelligence."

****But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the
President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence
Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat
from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize
the use of force in that country.****

In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not
included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not
be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified
information had not been cleared for release. For example, the NIE view
that Hussein would not use weapons of mass destruction against the
United States or turn them over to terrorists unless backed into a
corner was cleared for public use only a day before the Senate vote.

Harry, the last paragraph says it all, "Saddam won't use the WMD unless
backed into a corner" That statement assumes quite strongly that he HAS
WMD!!!!! Further, history shows us that anyone who opposes him is a
target for WMD (Kurds, Iranians) or assassination (Bush I) so it means
that he fears our retaliation if he uses them against us. If you
remember, our troops, the Israelis and Kuwaitis were issued gas masks and
there were air raid sirens going on and people putting mask on during the
nightly news during the ramp up to the war. So we were expecting him to
use some form of gas attack.

NOT true (subject of this message)


There have been more revelations about the intel the Bush Administration
did not share with Democratic members of Congress. This is another news
story that is going to dog Bush, who is now in the People's Republic of
China to see how many more American jobs he can give away. Or whatever he
is doing over there.

I'd like to see that as I'm under the impression that the President can't
keep Intel from congress, the CIA can reclassify info as eyes only and make
the case that even congress can't see the info but the President can't keep
congress from seeing the Intel (they are co-equal branches of government. )
As I understand the issue, the intelligence committee then only allows two
members (or fewer members can see the Intel) of the committee to see the
Intel.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
"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
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 12, 2005; A01

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics
of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that
Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the
war, and that independent commissions have determined that the
administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.

Neither assertion is wholly accurate.

...

But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence
information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the
administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by
officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure
intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized
to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those
conclusions.

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, briefing reporters
Thursday, countered "the notion that somehow this administration
manipulated the intelligence." He said that "those people who have
looked at that issue, some committees on the Hill in Congress, and
also the Silberman-Robb Commission, have concluded it did not happen."

But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry
into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting
caveats and dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman,
chairman of Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in
releasing his report on March 31, 2005: "Our executive order did not
direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and
all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry."

Bush, in Pennsylvania yesterday, was more precise, but he still
implied that it had been proved that the administration did not
manipulate intelligence, saying that those who suggest the
administration "manipulated the intelligence" are "fully aware that a
bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political
pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments."

In the same speech, Bush asserted that "more than 100 Democrats in the
House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted
to support removing Saddam Hussein from power." Giving a preview of
Bush's speech, Hadley had said that "we all looked at the same
intelligence."

****But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as
the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National
Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views
about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the
vote to authorize the use of force in that country.****

In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not
included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could
not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified
information had not been cleared for release. For example, the NIE
view that Hussein would not use weapons of mass destruction against
the United States or turn them over to terrorists unless backed into a
corner was cleared for public use only a day before the Senate vote.

Harry, the last paragraph says it all, "Saddam won't use the WMD unless
backed into a corner" That statement assumes quite strongly that he
HAS WMD!!!!! Further, history shows us that anyone who opposes him is
a target for WMD (Kurds, Iranians) or assassination (Bush I) so it
means that he fears our retaliation if he uses them against us. If you
remember, our troops, the Israelis and Kuwaitis were issued gas masks
and there were air raid sirens going on and people putting mask on
during the nightly news during the ramp up to the war. So we were
expecting him to use some form of gas attack.

NOT true (subject of this message)

There have been more revelations about the intel the Bush Administration
did not share with Democratic members of Congress. This is another news
story that is going to dog Bush, who is now in the People's Republic of
China to see how many more American jobs he can give away. Or whatever
he is doing over there.

I'd like to see that as I'm under the impression that the President can't
keep Intel from congress, the CIA can reclassify info as eyes only and
make the case that even congress can't see the info but the President
can't keep congress from seeing the Intel (they are co-equal branches of
government. ) As I understand the issue, the intelligence committee then
only allows two members (or fewer members can see the Intel) of the
committee to see the Intel.

The major legit news outlets have been carrying this story for more than a
week. I don't read the Wash Times or watch Faux News, so I have no idea
what the Bush Apology Outlets are saying about this.

Yes Harry I've been hearing about the Democrat Senators saying that they
were not allowed to see some documents that they know about but can't say
what's in them because they don't know about them. Makes sense doesn't it.

There were red flags in the Intel questioning the accuracy of the
information but they were ignored by EVERYONE because we all assumed that he
had WMD, why else would he not allow inspectors, why when there were
inspectors there did we intercept communications from Iraqis to Iraqis
mentioning where the inspectors were going and "Is that site cleaned up
yet". These red flags and dissenting opinions were there for everyone to
read but they were given no weight by EVERYONE. Now Democrats are saying
that they didn't see the dissenting opinions and the select committee is
saying that they were there for the senators to read.

Did you know that Iraq had enough yellow cake for 1.5 nuclear weapons. He
just needed to enrich it (purify using aluminum tubes and a centrifuge).
The resulting bomb would be massive (like our first "big boy") . TO get
weapons grade that can make SMALL nuclear weapons requires a breeder reactor
or advanced (cyclotron sometimes called gas diffusion) enriching. Just
before 9/11 he and others were trying to get under the table access to more
yellow cake.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 06:12:01 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:


There have been more revelations about the intel the Bush Administration
did not share with Democratic members of Congress. This is another news
story that is going to dog Bush, who is now in the People's Republic of
China to see how many more American jobs he can give away. Or whatever
he is doing over there.

Your use of the term 'news story' says it all.

--
John H.

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

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 06:30:39 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:


I'd like to see that as I'm under the impression that the President can't
keep Intel from congress, the CIA can reclassify info as eyes only and
make the case that even congress can't see the info but the President
can't keep congress from seeing the Intel (they are co-equal branches of
government. ) As I understand the issue, the intelligence committee then
only allows two members (or fewer members can see the Intel) of the
committee to see the Intel.

http://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/lawmaker/toc.htm

"thunder" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 06:30:39 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:


I'd like to see that as I'm under the impression that the President can't
keep Intel from congress, the CIA can reclassify info as eyes only and
make the case that even congress can't see the info but the President
can't keep congress from seeing the Intel (they are co-equal branches of
government. ) As I understand the issue, the intelligence committee then
only allows two members (or fewer members can see the Intel) of the
committee to see the Intel.

http://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/lawmaker/toc.htm

From the above link: "Intelligence agencies also make no effort to screen the publications provided for content; if the publications are on the list to go to the committees, they go. At present, these publications include current intelligence, notably the National Intelligence Daily (NID) and DIA's Military Intelligence Digest (MID), as well as estimative intelligence, including all NIEs. In 1995 approximately 5,000 such publications were delivered to each of the intelligence committees."

1) they are not screened for content
2) The President is not in the loop as to what gets sent to congress
3) Congress has the same access the president has

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 08:37:15 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 06:12:01 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:


There have been more revelations about the intel the Bush Administration
did not share with Democratic members of Congress. This is another news
story that is going to dog Bush, who is now in the People's Republic of
China to see how many more American jobs he can give away. Or whatever
he is doing over there.

Your use of the term 'news story' says it all.



Yes, John, that's what they are called.

Especially when they're just 'stories'.

--
John H.

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

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 09:21:25 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:


http://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/lawmaker/toc.htm

From the above link: "Intelligence agencies also make no effort to
screen the publications provided for content; if the publications are on
the list to go to the committees, they go. At present, these
publications include current intelligence, notably the National
Intelligence Daily (NID) and DIA's Military Intelligence Digest (MID),
as well as estimative intelligence, including all NIEs. In 1995
approximately 5,000 such publications were delivered to each of the
intelligence committees."

1) they are not screened for content
2) The President is not in the loop as to what gets sent to congress 3)

The link wasn't to be argumentative. It was to be enlightening. ;-) Do
note, however, not all intelligence comes from the CIA. There are other
sources. I'm sure you have read about the Office of Special Plans whose
purpose was to bypass the CIA. That intel wasn't shared with Congress and
that was the main funnel for Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress' faulty
intelligence. Neither were the Dept. of Energy's assessment of those
infamous aluminum tubes.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 09:21:25 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:


http://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/lawmaker/toc.htm

From the above link: "Intelligence agencies also make no effort to
screen the publications provided for content; if the publications are on
the list to go to the committees, they go. At present, these
publications include current intelligence, notably the National
Intelligence Daily (NID) and DIA's Military Intelligence Digest (MID),
as well as estimative intelligence, including all NIEs. In 1995
approximately 5,000 such publications were delivered to each of the
intelligence committees."

1) they are not screened for content
2) The President is not in the loop as to what gets sent to congress 3)

The link wasn't to be argumentative. It was to be enlightening. ;-)

Thanks, grin and I wasn't argueing with you.

Do
note, however, not all intelligence comes from the CIA. There are other
sources. I'm sure you have read about the Office of Special Plans whose
purpose was to bypass the CIA.

The department of Defence has access to many of the same info channels the
CIA has but needed a military slant on info for planning. The CIA and the
military have different prioritys. The department of commerce also has a
different slant and I wouldn't be supprised if they had their own
specialists using CIA info for business planning.

That intel wasn't shared with Congress and
that was the main funnel for Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress' faulty
intelligence. Neither were the Dept. of Energy's assessment of those
infamous aluminum tubes.


http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact

Seems to indicate that Chalibi info came thru the regular intelligence
channels but the Office of special plans (part of the Department of War
which accesses info from intelligence agencies) came to the conclusion from
that and more info that Iraq had WMD.

As to the conclusions gleamed by the Office of Special plans, there was a
comment about the Chalabi info in a brief from someone at the CIA that
questioned it's accuracy. That's the type of document that some in congress
claim they hadn't received (but they did).

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:42:32 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:



Seems to indicate that Chalibi info came thru the regular intelligence
channels but the Office of special plans (part of the Department of War
which accesses info from intelligence agencies) came to the conclusion
from that and more info that Iraq had WMD.

As to the conclusions gleamed by the Office of Special plans, there was a
comment about the Chalabi info in a brief from someone at the CIA that
questioned it's accuracy. That's the type of document that some in
congress claim they hadn't received (but they did).

It's a little like putting a cart, before the horse.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact