[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Stupendousman=Karl Rove? Tell me something I didn't know...

While I'm pretty sure Rove has better things to do than to post on MacNN, thanks for acknowledging my genius!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

When the Clinton admin put the 'wall' up to keep the various Intelligence gathering entities from sharing information, or being able to quickly connect the dots, the US didn't have reliable information. Clinton claimed WMD's back in 1998 as a reason to bomb those buildings. Bush said the same thing, but the libs only claim Bush Lied, not mentioning Clinton.

In the final days before the US and it's allies went into Iraq MANY satellite photos showedcaravans of trucks going into Syria. At one point they caught 3 18-wheelers full of counterfeit US currency! This made the news all over. They also observed over 70 trucks in one day, closely guarded by smaller vehicles heading into Syria, but the final destination was obscured by a large sandstorm. They HAVE shown those photos on various news channels and the Military Channel.

While Freshman Congressman Joe Smith might not get all the briefings the President does, all the high ranking defense committee members do. Remember, the executive branch is just one branch. The legislative branch has just as much right to get info as the President, in order to make decisions. They are given "closed door" access to CIA and other intelligence briefings the same as the President.

There was nothing "secret" that was withheld from Congress which would have made them act differently. Everyone was convinced that the evidence strongly pointed to WMD, and for a reason. Not only in the US, but the intelligence from other countries said the same. Everyone was on the same page, and it wasn't because someone was lying to them - unless that "someone" was Hussein.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Umm, you don't get it. Congress CANNOT know as much intel as the President due to security restrictions. It's not like Congressional leaders can summon the DCI to the Capitol for a briefing as detailed as the President's. Certainly, Congress can, and does, summon the DCI before Congress to testify before important issues--sometimes even behind closed doors when even the most basic information to be discussed is not classified for non-secure dissemination--but Congress can ONLY receive as much intel information as is authorized by statute and by exemptions to statute authorized by the President.

As for being led badly, Congress can only make decisions on the information they are given. So yes, they were led badly but not by any willful action on their part.

This is all well and good except for the fact that Bill Clinton (with access to all the privileged information you're citing while sitting President ) not only made Saddam's removal a policy agenda of his own, but was wholly in favor of regime change in Iraq under Bush. His wife (former first lady, you'd have to think also privy to much of the same intel) also supported regime change in Iraq. Desire to uproot Iraq was not a Bush/9-11 anomaly. It was a relatively long-standing policy agenda based on the exact same reasoning used to invade in 2003.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is all well and good except for the fact that Bill Clinton (with access to all the privileged information you're citing while sitting President ) not only made Saddam's removal a policy agenda of his own, but was wholly in favor of regime change in Iraq under Bush. His wife (former first lady, you'd have to think also privy to much of the same intel) also supported regime change in Iraq. Desire to uproot Iraq was not a Bush/9-11 anomaly. It was a relatively long-standing policy agenda based on the exact same reasoning used to invade in 2003.

Umm, I'm not sure why you replied the way you did to my post. What I have been discussing with Shaddim has nothing to do with a comparison of policies towards Iraq between the Clinton and Bush presidencies but rather Shaddim's support for wildly inaccurate assertions made by stupendousman regarding the level of access to intelligence briefings by the President and the Congress.

You'll need to take your Clinton-did-it-too arguments to another post where someone actually argued for or against that point (namely, whether or not Clinton advocated the same policy approach to Iraq as Bush). Because, right now your post is less than irrelevant--it is utterly meaningless--in the context of the points I have raised with Shaddim regarding stupendousman's claims. I suggest you withdraw your reply to my post and use it to reply to some other poster who actually talks about a comparison between Clinton and Bush.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

While Freshman Congressman Joe Smith might not get all the briefings the President does, all the high ranking defense committee members do.

No. They. Do. Not. You are correct that the high ranking committee members get more access to intelligence information than regular members of Congress but by law they DO NOT and CANNOT get the same level of access as the President to intelligence briefings.*

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Remember, the executive branch is just one branch. The legislative branch has just as much right to get info as the President, in order to make decisions. They are given "closed door" access to CIA and other intelligence briefings the same as the President.

Correct. The legislative branch has as much right to intelligence information as the executive branch but it DOES NOT have as much right to the same level of access to intelligence information as the executive branch.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

was nothing "secret" that was withheld from Congress which would have made them act differently.

That is very much open to debate as the Congress, and even the members of the Congressional intelligence committees, DID NOT and COULD NOT obtain access to the same level of intelligence information as the President. In other words, Congress could have access to some intelligence information to help them make decisions but they could not have access to the same information that helped the President make his decisions.



*I am off to a St. Patrick's Day parade but when I return I will look for and post the legislation that outlines who has access to what intelligence information.

[stupendousman]

So exactly what information did Bush have that President Clinton, Senator Clinton, and the rest of the people who supported the war did not.

Precisely please.

ps. If your reply starts to quote Joe Wilson, I'll know you aren't really being serious.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

No. They. Do. Not. You are correct that the high ranking committee members get more access to intelligence information than regular members of Congress but by law they DO NOT and CANNOT get the same level of access as the President to intelligence briefings.*

I'm not sure if this been superseded by newer legislation.
National Security Act of 1947 (UNCLASSIFIED)

TITLE V - ACCOUNTABILITY FOR INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

GENERAL CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT PROVISIONS

SEC. 501. [50 U.S.C. 413] (a)(1) The President shall ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity as required by this title.

(2) Nothing in this title shall be construed as requiring the approval of the congressional intelligence committees as a condition precedent to the initiation of any significant anticipated intelligence activity.

(b) The President shall ensure that any illegal intelligence activity is reported promptly to the congressional intelligence committees, as well as any corrective action that has been taken or is planned in connection with such illegal activity.

(c) The President and the congressional intelligence committees shall each establish such procedures as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this title.

(d) The House of Representatives and the Senate shall each establish, by rule or resolution of such House, procedures to protect from unauthorized disclosure all classified information, and all information relating to intelligence sources and methods, that is furnished to the congressional intelligence committees or to Members of Congress under this title. Such procedures shall be established in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence. In accordance with such procedures, each of the congressional intelligence committees shall promptly call to the attention of its respective House, or to any appropriate committee or committees of its respective House, any matter relating to intelligence activities requiring the attention of such House or such committee or committees.

(e) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authority to withhold information from the congressional intelligence 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.

(f) As used in this section, the term "intelligence activities" includes covert actions as defined in section 503(e), and includes financial intelligence activities.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

My "fetish" is with the principles of sound, logically based debate. That is all. And in this thread this evening you have been making surprisingly illogical posts with no basis in logic or facts. (I say surprisingly because I expect these types of ridiculous, illogical assertions from stupendousman but not from you.) All I am wondering is if you are going to renounce or retract the assertions you made regarding equivalency of access to intelligence information that I have shown to be false from both a practical and legal standpoint. Are you going to retract those assertions?

And I am NOT ignoring any of the other assertions you have made regarding access to other sources of information outside of the intelligence realm--If you had bothered to ask me what I thought of those assertions you would have found out I agree with you in the main. But, we can't really move forward to discuss seriously these other assertions you have made while these wildly inaccurate claims of yours regarding equivalency of access to intelligence information are still out there. You can't ask us to take seriously your other assertions in this debate when you so vociferously support assertions shown to be logically false and factually incorrect. That's like me arguing the moon is made of green cheese followed by arguments that water is comprised of hydrogen and oxygen. The believability of my latter statements would be, and should be, called into question by my support for the unbelievable, illogical assertions I made previously.

In order to be taken seriously in a debate, you need to be consistently correct with both your facts and your logic. And you have not been arguing that way this evening.

I've not been debating, I've been making statements of fact. To claim that they didn't have access to ample resources to make an informed decision is laughable. To believe that they play by any rules in the acquisition of such information is absurd. Their only concern with regards to the law is how best it can serve them. Anything can be bought or bullied from someone else, if you don't believe that then you're being quite naive. Using ignorance as an excuse is very disappointing.

Question: Do you think a person like Ted Kennedy would have hesitated to do anything if it would have furthered his political career? How about (the late) Jesse Helms? Robert Byrd? I even include my own senators, and I voted for both of them. Most lifetime politicians are some of worst people imaginable, I know because I've spent a decent amount of time around them. I'd almost rather hang out with La Cosa Nostra.

[- - e r i k - -]