DID Bush lie????

...then as I see it one of two things had to have happened:

1. Bush lied when he said Congress saw everything he saw.

2. Bush was telling the truth when he said Congress saw everything he saw, but broke the law by letting them see it since they don't have the proper security clearance.

I don't have an answer to your last question. The "he did it for his daddy" argument falls a little flat mainly because his daddy advised him against invading.

I also don't know what percentage of the intel Bush saw was also seen by Tony Blair, etal.

if those documents wren't 'classified'

Somewhere along the line Blair had the same intel....I don't know if the sources were the same.

TONI

....that the President doesn't inform Congress, rather the intelligence committees of those two bodies, and those members supposedly do have the proper clearances.

The article is no more than assertions, as to the actions of the President, not fact. The mere fact that he has the authority to do certain things, does not mean that he exercised that authority. And political rable rousing certainly doesn't make it fact.

There is a saying about riding a dead horse, and Josh, I'm surprised and disappointed in this thread.

The President briefs certain committee chairmen, who then discuss the matters with the rest of the members of their committees (without specifically revealing the classified info), who then take it to Congress as a whole.

All this means that Joe Average Congressman did NOT see the exact same intel that Bush saw.

I'm sorry you're disappointed. I think it's a pretty important matter, certainly more important than lying about a BJ.

without proof of fact either.

>>>>All this means that Joe Average Congressman did NOT see the exact same intel that Bush saw.>>>>

It could very well be that what the intel heads of Congress saw was exactly the same as what Bush saw and relayed that information to the rest of Congress. I doubt seriously that the intel heads of Congress would have rewritten just to please Bush.

TONI

because he KNOWS that every member of Congress did not see ALL the info.

NO ONE however has made any such claim. Congress did have the exact same info although they did not receive the exact same reports. If (and only if) someone is willing to totally disregard the actual info passed along can they say that Congress did not see the same reports because that much is correct. They did however have access to the same INFORMATION although in many instances they did not even avail themselves of it (Reid and Schumer have both admitted that they NEVER BOTHERED READING the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) prepared for both them and the President in 2002 prior to their supportive vote).

In language the "far left 'progressives'" might understand, if you are viewing this post in a browser with graphics turned off you are NOT receiving the same identical page (substitute report for page there) although you are receiving the same information relevant to the post--extraneous info relevant to advertising is not seen but it has nothing to do with the content of the information in the post.

because Kerry, as a potential president, WAS GIVEN EXACTLY the same info and even in some of the same briefings.

Kerry chose NOT to bother himself with much of it but then maybe you have forgotten how he campaigned rather than attending security briefings he was invited to and expected to attend.

... they looked at the same intel he did. What's so difficult for you to understand? Or did he lie because they didn't look at the intel??

... but READ the statements made ON THE SENATE FLOOR during the debate on the Iraq Resolution in Oct. 2002. You will note that the Senators make the same -- some considerably MORE implicating of Saddam -- assertions regarding WMD and related security threats referencing the SAME NIE that was available to ALL of them. Now they claim Bush lied and misled them which is POPPYCOCK. Damned right THAT is important, but you are too focused on your hatred for the President to see the obvious

Information contained in them is disseminated at many different levels. At some levels certain information is unavailable (such as on the floor of Congress to all members) while at higher levels is is all available (such as the leaders of the various committees who generally have the same clearance as the President and generally also the same "need to know") and at other levels such as the intermediate level of the general members of the committee itself.

Intelligence that would NOT compromise National Security would be available to the general membership of Congress but intel that would or could compromise security is much more closely guarded and with all the "leaks" it is easy to see why.

Anyone the least bit familiar with security clearances and document classification already understands that but the problem is that most do not and are led down some rather imaginative paths by a media with an agenda.

The report is purely SPECULATIVE and their inability to cite any specifics should be considered rather informative by itself.

... he probably has ACCESS to more of the raw intelligence data than members of Congress. But forgetting your hatred for Bush for a moment, why on earth would we want ANY President to be spending his time going through such raw intel data and analyzing it himself? That's why we don't just have CIA agents, we have analysts that go through the stuff, decide what is credible, not or questionable, etc. It is THEIR job, not the President's, to assemble the National Intelligence Estimate. THAT SAME DOCUMENT was made available to the the Senators -- where's your ire that few even BOTHERED to read it, but took to the Senate floor to pontificate about what it said!??

I would note that the person you voted for in the last election DIDN'T read the NIE or show up for most (if not all) of the intelligence briefings. He got his own, he said. One wonders by whom (Clarke, Wilson and Berger??).

Who saw what? They all had the opportunity to see the same NIE. Too many Senators didn't see it, so I guess Bush lied? (grin). OTOH, just because he has access to more raw data doesn't mean he saw it or even had the responsibility to see it. I hate to bring up Clinton, but at least Bush had DAILY briefings with his CIA head. Clinton met with Woolsey but twice, and at most twice a week with Tenet but not individually. So don't go off on Bush not being curious enough intellectually.

But there are many levels of security clearances, with the President, Vice President and only a handful of other people at the very top level. That means that Joe Congressman cannot possibly have looked at the exact same intel that the President looked at if any of it was at the highest classification level.

... we aren't talking about "Joe Congressman", we're talking about some on the committee that have the clearances and are briefed even more fully than the remainder of Congress.

You are really reaching for some reason Josh. Must be a bad day for the Democrats what with the election in Iraq and all the good news on the economy and all. Must get that off the front pages at all cost huh?

by those others who DID see it. Are you suggesting that those that saw it doctored it in order to make Bush happy and reported what they knew was false intel then to the rest?

What ARE you actually saying here, Josh? Either everybody saw the same or those who COULD see more classified saw the same and then changed it from the original or nobody really saw anything because they admittedly didn't bother to read what they had.

You're going in circles......

TONI

with the President, Vice President and only a handful of other people at the very top level."

A popular misconception without basis in fact.

I, due to reasons unmentioned, still retain my own TOP SECRET clearance which is as high as they go. That is all the President has and every congressman also as soon as their security investigation is completed. I and most others ARE NOT privy to everything the president or even members of Congress are (but there are members of Congress who are not privy to information that I am). Everything is tied to "need to know" and "Joe Congressman" has less need to know about certain subjects than other Congressmen (such as Jill Congressman) who have the same security clearance but, because of being on some specific committee, do have the magic NEED TO KNOW.

Want to try to tell us what clearance you think is higher than TOP SECRET? (To save yourself embarassment, before you mention ULTRA please research what ULTRA was.)

that those 'several' looked at the intel reports (the same ones Bush saw) and voted to go to Iraq anyhow? If not, which ones of those several voted yea and which ones voted nay? WHO are these 'several'?

TONI

the intel made available was lacking any mention of the supremely qualified, relevent, and dissenting opinions from within the government.

Dan

differ.

Dan

only differ when one avoids reading or referring to the document's originators and thus speaking from avoidable ignorance--yes, you could avoid it.

The left is trying deperately to manufacture an issue since there are no facts on which to raise an issue.