Redstate

Isn't the contention that the intelligence given to the House and Senate was not, in fact, the whole picture?

I don't know of anyone (reputable) making that contention. The House and Senate Intelligence Committee's each received the same intelligence as the President. They had unrestricted access to the people who prepared the intelligence.

Nor has anyone presented the supposed "bad" intelligence as given to Congress and contrasted it to the "real" intelligence which Bush supposdely had.

This is a myth, a fantasy, and its disturbing to find that a commenter on this site seems to think it credible. Where am I, DU?

"I don't know of anyone (reputable) making that contention. The House and Senate Intelligence Committee's each received the same intelligence as the President. They had unrestricted access to the people who prepared the intelligence."

I guess it depends on how you define "reputable." For instance the Congressional Research Service concluded the president had access to more intelligence than either house of congress in response to a request to evaluate the matter by Sen. Feinstein:

http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm

They list out those intellignece forums and papers that congress has access to and those to which they are routinely unable to read.

what information was in the unseen reports that Congress didn't see or are you just assuming that more reports = more information.

There is a difference.

And as we know in the run-up to the war less than 10 members of Congress actually read what was available this sounds pretty bogus.

I can't say whether the additional reports contained anything of significant value. I have no personal knowledge of them. All I am saying is that the contention that the president and congress saw the exact same intelligence is in fact disputed by a reputable source.

If you can't say that there was different intel in the documents then your premise is fatally flawed and reputable source has suddenly been reduced to Jay Rockefeller levels of hackery.

Seems to me that the people who have seen both varieties of the intel agree that Congress and the Executive saw the same and the only people who say there was different intel are those who have an axe to grind AND can't prove it.

Since I never said the difference in intelligence was significant I fail to see how my premise is fatally flawed.

Jon Sander made a claim that turned out to be false (that no one reputable claimed that the president and congress saw different intelligence), I provided evidence that it was false. However there is a more substantive issue which neither he nor I addressed.

Seems to me that you are setting the bar pretty low when you call acknowledged liars reputable people (saying Congress did not receive the same intel absent proof seems to be to not be the act of a reputable preson).

Either that or your premise is flawed.

Pretty simple.

I'm not sure how them giving a list of intelligence that congress does not recieve that the president does makes them "acknowledged liars". In fact for them to be acknowledged as lying wouldn't they have to have said "yes we lied"? Isn't that the meaning of "acknowledged"?

It does not contend that Congress was not provided access to all available intelligence.

It does note that what Congress (and the president) receives is "finished product". Some have tried to suggest that the intelligence services may have been pressured into providing "correct answers" by the WH. The Senate Inteligence Committee looked into this a couple of years ago and found that nobody was coerced into "spinning" their reports. This is all a matter of public record.

I repeat, nobody reputable has to my knowledge claimed that there were two sets of books being kept by the Bush Administration. If you know of somebody who has said that, and if they have any evidence, feel free to link to it.

By evidence I mean actual documents which the president saw which contradicted the ones which Congress was looking at.

I have to disagree with your conclusion, the report pretty clearly says there is intelligence that doesn't get shared with congress. They have a list of four types of intelligence that fall into that category and they explain, well let me quote them:

"As a result, the President, and a small number of presidentially-designated Cabinet-level officials, including the Vice President (3) - in contrast to Members of Congress (4) - have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods. They, unlike Members of Congress, also have the authority to more extensively task the Intelligence Community, and its extensive cadre of analysts, for follow-up information. As a result, the President and his most senior advisors arguably are better positioned to assess the quality of the Community's intelligence more accurately than is Congress. (5)"

That paragraph is pretty self explanatory really. Again what it does not claim is that it would have made any difference had Congress had access to all the things the President has
access to, and it also explains why there is some degree of difference based upon their respective roles in intelligence. Still you said no one claimed they didn't see the same intelligence- here's counter evidence.

Still you said no one claimed they didn't see the same intelligence- here's counter evidence.

Your link does not say that the WH and Congress saw different intelligence. It says that the WH has "access" to a greater variety of intelligence.

What you need to do here is to say "Bush saw document X on 05/08/02 based on which he should have known that, when Rockefeller claimed that that Saddam was a threat, he was incorrect. Yet he allowed him to do so."

To date, to my knowledge, nobody has made that claim and offered up document X as an example. Nobody in intelligence, when questioned by Congress, has said "Sure, I knew Saddam had no nukes. That was in my report to the President."

Just as an experiment, what evidence would or could convince you that there never was a document X, and that Congress did in fact see the same intelligence as Bush?

"Your link does not say that the WH and Congress saw different intelligence. It says that the WH has "access" to a greater variety of intelligence."

How is it possible for the president to have seen a wider variety of intelligence and yet for congress and the president to have seen the same intelligence? Those would seem to be mutually exclusive logical statements. Either the intelligence congress saw is a subset of the intelligence the president saw or it is not.

"What you need to do here is to say "Bush saw document X on 05/08/02 based on which he should have known that, when Rockefeller claimed that that Saddam was a threat, he was incorrect. Yet he allowed him to do so.""

You are moving the goal posts here. Your claim originally was that they saw the same intelligence now you are requiring that the difference in intel be significant. But that was not your original statement.

"Just as an experiment, what evidence would or could convince you that there never was a document X, and that Congress did in fact see the same intelligence as Bush?"

I'm not sure I understand, you want to prove a negative? Unless the CRS report was found to be incorrect then it is pretty well established that there was indeed intelligence the President saw that Congress did not. What is not established is whether that made any difference (i.e. was the discrepency significant).

just a few posts ago you denied saying this.

Unless the CRS report was found to be incorrect then it is pretty well established that there was indeed intelligence the President saw that Congress did not.

Treat us with a little respect, okay. Or at least read your own posts since we are forced to.

Your link does not say that the president saw a wider range of intelligence. It says that he had access to it, if he wished. That is, he could have seen a wider range of intelligence. he may in fact have done so. But saying that he had the opportunity to do so is not the same as saying that he did.

Your claim originally was that they saw the same intelligence now you are requiring that the difference in intel be significant.

That is still my claim, and I'm still waiting for you to point me to the intelligence which Bush saw and Congress did not. If you can't, just say so.

Of course, since the Democrats contention IS that not only was there a difference, but that that difference WAS significant, it would be nice if you could show that also. But walk before you run.

Unless the CRS report was found to be incorrect then it is pretty well established that there was indeed intelligence the President saw that Congress did in fact see the same intelligence as Bush?"

The CRS report does not say that the President saw intelligence which Congress did not.

I'm not sure I understand, you want to prove a negative?

No. I do not want you to prove a negative. I want you to prove a positive. Your contention is that there exists some document(s) which Bush was aware of and which, had Congress known of it, what have stayed them from voting for the AUMF. I'm asking you to either prove it, or to at least offer up some slim shred of evidence that there is anything at all to the theory. Is that too much to ask?

"Your link does not say that the president saw a wider range of intelligence. It says that he had access to it, if he wished. That is, he could have seen a wider range of intelligence. he may in fact have done so. But saying that he had the opportunity to do so is not the same as saying that he did."

The point is that a difference in access suggests the possibility of a difference in what was actually seen. You are right that the difference in what intelligence was actually consumed by either branch is the fundamental issue, however answering that would seem to require a rather substantial investigation.

"That is still my claim, and I'm still waiting for you to point me to the intelligence which Bush saw and Congress did not."

The PDB for one unless we want to hypothesize that the president does not actually read the Presidential Daily Briefing.

"The CRS report does not say that the President saw intelligence which Congress did not."

I think you are straining the difference between "access" and "saw" to the semantic breaking point.

" Your contention is that there exists some document(s) which Bush was aware of and which, had Congress known of it, what have stayed them from voting for the AUMF."

I never made such a contention. I have made the contention (and supported it) that there exists intelligence that the President recieves that Congress does not. I made this contention precisely in opposition to your statement that there is not intelligence that the President recieves that the Congress does not. I have repeatedly pointed out that I cannot say whether congress having access to that info would have made any difference to their position on Iraq.

You are right that the difference in what intelligence was actually consumed by either branch is the fundamental issue, however answering that would seem to require a rather substantial investigation.

Lets cut to the chase. You want an open-ended investigation which would trawl through all WH documents looking for something, anything, to pin on Bush. In the absence of any indication of wrong doing, what would be the basis for such an investigation?

Failing the basis, can you even offer a flimsy excuse?

Your entire "argument", for lack of a better word, is that it is possible, in theory, that Bush may have seen something which may have contradicted the intelligence viewed by Congress. And that therefore there needs to be a "substantial investigation" in order to prove or disprove your unsupported theory. You have no evidence for this theory. You want an investigation in the hope that you might find evidence, if not of this alleged wrongdoing then of something else.

Lets carry this idea a little further. I've long suspected that Sen Rockefeller is a secret agent working for Al Queda. Admittedly I have no proof, or any evidence at all. But that absence of evidence simply demonstrates the neccessity for a "substantial investigation". Lets look at all his correspondence going back over the last ten years. If he is innocent, what does he have to hide?

Just how far are you willing to take your "guilty until proven innocent" nonsense?

Thanks for reminding me of what thugs the Democrats are.

"Lets cut to the chase. You want an open-ended investigation which would trawl through all WH documents looking for something, anything, to pin on Bush. In the absence of any indication of wrong doing, what would be the basis for such an investigation?"

I'd really appreciate you not telling me what I think. I'll extend the same curtesy.

"Your entire "argument", for lack of a better word, is that it is possible, in theory, that Bush may have seen something which may have contradicted the intelligence viewed by Congress."

No, once again you have misrepresented it. My entire argument is has been and will be that there is support for the idea that the President gets to see different intelligence than Congress. I have not ANYWHERE said that the difference is in fact significant or that it is unwarranted. In fact I pointed out that the CRS explains exactly why there is a difference.

There is a difference in the intelligence that the two branches have access to. That's the sum total of my position. If you want to disagree with my position that's fine but don;t make up arguments for me, I'm perfectly capable of deciding for myself what I will and won't argue for.

You are right that the difference in what intelligence was actually consumed by either branch is the fundamental issue, however answering that would seem to require a rather substantial investigation.

If you are not suggesting that a substantial investigation is required in order to determine what differences, if any, existed between what the President saw and what the Congress saw, then I trust that you can at least see where an observer may have gotten such an idea.

There is a difference in the intelligence that the two branches have access to. That's the sum total of my position.

I'll accept that, but note that it is a change from your earlier position, "that the president and congress saw the exact same intelligence is in fact disputed by a reputable source."

"I'll accept that, but note that it is a change from your earlier position, "that the president and congress saw the exact same intelligence is in fact disputed by a reputable source.""

I still think that you are putting far too much emphasis on the difference between "access" and "saw" but I think this is as close as we are going to get in agreement.

You have "access" to all kinds of information on the internet. It does not follow that you ever "saw" any of it.

I hope that clears things up for you.

But we aren't talking about information that is floating out in some enormous repository where you have to go find it. The PDB, for example, is delivered to the President every day. Of course we can't asy whether he actually reads it but it is a pretty safe assumption.

but it makes a great BushLied^tm sound bite.

From what I have reviewed, all intelligence available to the President was available to Congress. While different security clearances clearly limit who can see it, both sides of the aisle had an opportunity via committee.

Certainly, I could be wrong. Accordingly, if someone points out a specific piece of intelligence and proves that only the President was permitted to see it, I will yield.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"

I'm not sure anyone outside of the POTUS can prove information was withheld simply because it is hard to prove the existence of something you never in fact learned about. But that being said the Presidential Daily Brief is a summation of intelligence matters that is not released to congress (or indeed to anyone outside of the executive). From the CRS link above is this description under the heading of "Congressional Access to Intelligence Information Not Routinely Provided in Four Areas"):

"certain written intelligence products tailored to the specific needs of the President and other high-level executive branch policymakers. Included in the last category is the President's Daily Brief (PDB), a written intelligence product which is briefed daily to the President, and which consists of six to eight relatively short articles or briefs covering a broad array of topics. (22) The PDB emphasizes current intelligence (23) and is viewed as highly sensitive, in part, because it can contain intelligence source and operational information. Its dissemination is thus limited to the President and a small number of presidentially-designated senior administration policymakers. (24)"

it is quite easy to prove information was withheld. Simply talk to the intelligence analysts and ask them what they provided.

Even that is not neccessary. An analyst who had provided Bush with data indicating that what the WH was saying was ll wrong could simply leak to the press, like everyone else in Washington does.

it is hard to prove the existence of something you never in fact learned about.

It is much, much harder to prove the nonexistence of something which does not exist, which is seemingly what you expect the WH to do with regard to your hypothetical smoking-gun documents.

"it is quite easy to prove information was withheld. Simply talk to the intelligence analysts and ask them what they provided."

Assuming you mean congress calling intelligence analysts into closed sessions to give testimony then yes that makes sense to me.

"It is much, much harder to prove the nonexistence of something which does not exist, which is seemingly what you expect the WH to do with regard to your hypothetical smoking-gun documents."

What is it that is non-existent? Everyone knows the PDB exists. It is not routinely shared with congress. There's no reason that it needs to be automatically shared with congress. But claims of the two branches having equal access to intelligence is a disputed matter.

Have a look at the "REPORT ON THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS ON IRAQ", available here.

Look at Section IX.

Chairman Roberts:

I am concerned by the number of anonymous officials that have been speaking to the press alleging that they were pressured by Administration officials to skew their analysis, a most serious charge and allegation that must be cleared up. I can tell you the Committee has yet to hear from any intelligence official expressing such concerns. If any officials believe, however, that they have been pressured to alter their assessment, they have an obligation and I encourage them to contact the Committee for confidential discussions.

Chairman Roberts asked,

Did any of you ever feel pressure or influence to make your judgment in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate or any other intelligence product conform to the policies of this or previous Administrations? The second part of that is, has any analyst come to you or expressed to you that he or she felt pressure to alter any assessment of intelligence? And finally, if you did feel pressure or were informed that someone else felt pressure, were any intelligence assessments changed as a result of that pressure?

In addition to these calls, throughout the Committee's review, Committee staff asked whether any analysts had been pressured to change their analysis or assessments and about how they had developed their assessments. Committee staff also made efforts to contact individuals mentioned in press articles or who, through other means, had come to the Committee's attention as possibly having information about analysts who had been pressured.

Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

..claims of the two branches having equal access to intelligence is a disputed matter.

I think you are using "disputed" in a rather lax fashion. There are various insinuations being made, which seem to be a pretext for launching an open-ended fishing expedition into WH decision making. I still have not seen a single concrete accusation made which can be refuted.

I'm sure you think it would be great if every email and memo exchanged in the WH could be dragged out for inspection. Unless you can offer at least a credible hint of wrong doing to justify it, I have to say you are engaged in a witch hunt.

"We think that mean old Bush kept something from us" does not cut it.

be asked.

What specific intelligence available to the President was not available to Congress. Rhetorically, NONE.

There is no proof because it does not exist.

You can talk all day about intelligence reports from analysts. But select members of Congress have the same access. However, they failed to go that route because it was not necessary.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"

You have never been around a 3 year old have you?

"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"

"What specific intelligence available to the President was not available to Congress. Rhetorically, NONE."

If you read the CRS report you'll find that that simply isn't true. There is in fact intelligence that the president is privy to that congress is not. They give a nice list of it in the report I linked.

You can certainly argue that that intelligence is not particularly important or significant if you like but denying it exists entirely is simply not tenable.

"Congress got the same intelligence as the President" is entering Known Fact territory here (believed despite evidence to the contrary).

why don't you quote directly from Mr Cumming's document?

What information did the President receive which Congress did not? Saying "the PDB" is meaningless unless you can show that it contained additional information which was kept from Congress.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

Was the Clinton administration also slipping false information to Congress and keeping the real stuff to themselves?

"why don't you quote directly from Mr Cumming's document?"

Which document is "Mr. Cumming's"? Is that the "REPORT ON THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS ON IRAQ" you linked to above?

"What information did the President receive which Congress did not? Saying "the PDB" is meaningless unless you can show that it contained additional information which was kept from Congress."

I am not trying to establish that any specific information was kept from congress because I don't know that any was and I don't think such a matter can be reasonably settled by internet posters. Furthermore since that wasn;t the initial contention I feel no need to meet that burden of evidence. If you are willing to agree that the President has access to different intelligence than Congress then I think we're at the end of what we can reasonably demonstate.

"Was the Clinton administration also slipping false information to Congress and keeping the real stuff to themselves?"

First off I have not claimed once that Bush was "slipping false information to Congress and keeping the real stuff to themselves". If you want to ask me if Clinton also had access to intelligence that Congress did not then the answer is almost certainly yes (based on the reasonable assumption that the trends and policies noted by the CRS most certainly predate the Bush administration).

He is the sole author of the article you linked to and keep mentioning, but seemingly did not read and never quote. The CRS article.

I am not trying to establish that any specific information was kept from congress because I don't know that any was and I don't think such a matter can be reasonably settled by internet posters. Furthermore since that wasn;t the initial contention I feel no need to meet that burden of evidence.

On the contrary. Have a look back at comment #6.

Isn't the contention that the intelligence given to the House and Senate was not, in fact, the whole picture? ... Do the documents address what intelligence was shared with Congress, how it got there, etc., if anything was held back that weakened the case for war, etc.

That was the initial contention which I responded too. I responded in #7 "The House and Senate Intelligence Committee's each received the same intelligence as the President. They had unrestricted access to the people who prepared the intelligence."

Show me that this is false or go away. The CRS report which you keep bringing up but have not read does not contradict me.

"He is the sole author of the article you linked to and keep mentioning, but seemingly did not read and never quote. The CRS article."

I did read it although I did not take note of the specific author of the report. Your claim I never quote from it is false. See here for example:
http://www.redstate.com/stories/featured_stories/what_should_we_make_of_...

I quote a significant portion of their conclusions.

or here:
http://www.redstate.com/stories/featured_stories/what_should_we_make_of_...

where I again quote them at length. SO why do you claim I haven't read them and haven't quoted them?

"On the contrary. Have a look back at comment #6."

While that was the original post (by someone else I should point out) that started the thread I first posted in my actual response was specifically to you when you said "The House and Senate Intelligence Committee's each received the same intelligence as the President."

"The CRS report which you keep bringing up but have not read does not contradict me."

I can't imagine how you get that when they explicitly say:

"As a result, the President, and a small number of presidentially-designated Cabinet-level officials, including the Vice President (3) - in contrast to Members of Congress (4) - have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods. They, unlike Members of Congress, also have the authority to more extensively task the Intelligence Community, and its extensive cadre of analysts, for follow-up information. As a result, the President and his most senior advisors arguably are better positioned to assess the quality of the Community's intelligence more accurately than is Congress. (5)"

How do you read that paragraph from the CRS and conclude that it does not contradict your statement that "The House and Senate Intelligence Committee's each received the same intelligence as the President."

By knowing the distinction between "Congress" and "the House and Senate Intelligence Committee's".

the House and Senate commitees are made up of Congress members.

Really, get out. If this is the level of knowledge you bring to the subject then you have no business being in this discussion.

Thanks for wasting my time.

Look, you wanted to make a big deal of the difference between Congress and the Intelligence Committees. There certainly are differences but since the latter is a subset of the former anything that applies to all of congress automatically applies to the committees. Yes, I think you already know this but if you make an argumnet predicated on there being a fundamental difference between the two then I kind of have to go back to basics to refute it now don't I?

The question then is why if you knew that the Committees are in fact made up of Congressmen, you chose to make an argument as if they were not? Much as why, when you had read (and replied to) several posts of mine quoting the CRS report, you then chose to say I had never quoted them?

The Congressmen who sit on the intelligence committee's have access to much information which others do not.

For example, they have access to the identity of sources and names of covert operatives, as well as the means in which intel was acquired. Patrick Leahy leaked information about how the US acquired certain data back when he was chairman of the committee, resulting in the death of one spy. Look it up. There are other instances of members of the SSCI doing similar things. You assertion that the the members of the SSCI have the same access to data as other members of Congress is based on your misreading of that one CRS document.

They also have the power to call members of the intelligence agencies before them to testify about their activities. This is done constantly, as in the report I linked to above.

If your entire knowledge of intelligence matters is based on your reading of that one document, and it appears it is, then I strongly suggest that you try to broaden your horizon.

Good day.

"The Congressmen who sit on the intelligence committee's have access to much information which others do not."

True, but that is rather beside the point which is whether they have as myuch access as the president, which it would appear they do not. See the quoted text below here:

http://www.redstate.com/stories/featured_stories/what_should_we_make_of_...

The president can and has denied them intelligence materials, obviously he cannot deny them access to things he himself is unaware of.

"You assertion that the the members of the SSCI have the same access to data as other members of Congress is based on your misreading of that one CRS document."

I have not asserted that they have the same access. I have said that rules and observations that apply to all congress apply to them as well (as they are a subset of congress). There is a pretty big difference there. The CRS conclusions I quoted before are with regards to all of congress furthermore there is the additional quote that specifically deals with the Intelligence committees and once again clearly indicates a difference in what the President gets and what Congress gets (even those on the intel committee).

So far I haven't seen you make any real effort to dispute these findings.

"If your entire knowledge of intelligence matters is based on your reading of that one document, and it appears it is, then I strongly suggest that you try to broaden your horizon."

I have very little personal knowledge of intelligence matters which is precisely why I find the CRS quite valuable. As a nonpartisan research organization it's findings are generally very well researched and explained. Might I ask what your Intelligence background is that you so casually dismiss their findings?

again from the CRS report I "haven't read":

"The President's position also affords him the authority - which, at certain times, has been aggressively asserted (1) - to restrict the flow of intelligence information to Congress and its two intelligence committees, which are charged with providing legislative oversight of the Intelligence Community. (2)"

Fact; the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Congressional Intelligence Committee have virtually the same security level clearance as the President. Therefore, they can actually demand access to the most sensitive information anytime they so wish.

However, there are differences in the manner, time and procedures in which the President and the Intelligence Committees get their information from the Intelligence Community. This is entirely due to the differences in function between the two branches.

The CIA, DIA, NSA, NRO, etc. may get their funding from Congress, but they take their orders from the Executive and so they have to make more regular reports to the President than they will to the Congress.

Remember that while Congressmen can go on recess and turn off the phone, the President is always on duty to sign off on their activities and get the results in order to react to them as expeditiously as is necessary.

So the simple fact that the President has more opportunities to access the Intelligence Community and often gets information before members of Congress is not evidence that the President recieves different information from that provided to Congress.

Congress does not get the Presidential Daily Briefing precisely because it is the Presidential Daily Briefing. The President likewise does not get the Congressional Weekly Briefing.

That does not that the information contained within these briefings is any way different.

Capiche?

"the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Congressional Intelligence Committee have virtually the same security level clearance as the President. Therefore, they can actually demand access to the most sensitive information anytime they so wish."

Well this would seem to be disputing the CRS's take on the matter. That's fine maybe you can provide some support to back up this claim. Barring solid support though I personally am going to give the CRS the benefit of the doubt.

"So the simple fact that the President has more opportunities to access the Intelligence Community and often gets information before members of Congress is not evidence that the President recieves different information from that provided to Congress."

However if you read the CRS report they detail the differences in intelligence not only in terms of who gets what when but also who doesn't get what (i.e. Congress). I completely agree and understand that the two branches operate differently as far as consumption of intelligence, I've made the exact same point at least twice in this thread. And I think it's entirely reasonable for them to be involved differently. But at the end of the day the statement "Congress had the exact same intelligence the President had" is false.

"That does not that the information contained within these briefings is any way different."

The CRS suggests that it is, specifically they make mention that the Presidential briefings generally include detail as to how given intelligence was acquired which is precisely where it MAY BE that Congress missed out on some important details (like X was brought to us by Chalabi). Sorry to stress the point but I am not saying this did happen. It MAY have happened. I can't prove it nor am I trying to. Nor can we rule it out. The evidence supports that it COULD have happened due to the differences in access to intelligence NOT that it did happen.

Wakarimaska?

should be "Wakarimasuka?"

It seems as if you're deliberately doing your best to obfuscate whether or not you're talking about the Congress as a whole or the Congressional Intelligence Committees in particular i.e. the HPCI and the SSCI. Note that when I write Congress here, I am referring specifically to that subset of the entire Congress tasked with the oversight of Intelligence matters.

Who are you referring to when you say "Congress"?

... the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Congressional Intelligence Committee have virtually the same security level clearance as the President. Therefore, they can actually demand access to the most sensitive information anytime they so wish.

Well this would seem to be disputing the CRS's take on the matter. That's fine maybe you can provide some support to back up this claim. Barring solid support though I personally am going to give the CRS the benefit of the doubt.

Fine. Let's read the footnotes of that paper. Cummings cited an episode (Footnote 1) in October 2001 to support his assertion that the President can "restrict the flow of intelligence information to Congress and its two Intelligence Committees."

Reportedly "furious" about what he apparently believed to be unauthorized disclosures of classified information by Congress, President Bush on Oct. 5, 2001, ordered that the provision of classified information and sensitive law enforcement information be restricted to the Republican and Democratic leaders of both the Senate and House, and to the chairmen and ranking members of the two congressional intelligence committees. Until the President issued his order, and in keeping with prior practice, all Members of the intelligence committees had access to most such information.

Let's see. The President restricted the flow of information (and rescinded this restriction some days later) to just the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Intelligence Committees, excluding the other members. Note, for your information, that this was standard practice since long before Bush was first elected for the most sensitive of Intelligence operations, hence my emphasis on "most" above. In support, I cite the CRS report again - Footnote 14;

With regard to an "experience-based" system and providing the congressional intelligence committees with operational intelligence, the executive branch generally limits the provision of such information to the Committees's Chairmen and Ranking Members. This despite there being in law only one provision - Section 503 of the 1947 National Security Act as amended - permitting the Executive to do so, and only the limited cases pertaining to the notification of covert action activity.

In addition, let me cite the section (c)(2) of the National Security Act of 1947 that Mr. Cummings is referring to here;

if the President determines that it is essential to limit access to the finding to meet extraordinary circumstances affecting vital interests of the United States, the finding may be reported to the Chairmen and Ranking Minority members of the Congressional Intelligence Committees, the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, and such other member or members of the Congressional leadership as may be included by the President.

In other words, my statement that the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Congressional Intelligence Committees have the same level of security clearance as the President of the United States still stands uncontradicted (and is, in fact, supported) by the CRS report you place so much stock in.

Now, I'm sure you're going to claim next that even if in this instance, the President did not bar information from the Chairmen and Ranking Members, this proves that the President can do so at his discretion - not that you, to your credit, claim he has done so.

But that would be false. That is because Sec. 501 [50 U.S.C. 413] of the National Security Act of 1947 compels the President to provide Intelligence information to the Congressional Intelligence Committees or, at his discretion, as set in section (c)(2), the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Intelligence Committees and other members of the Congressional leadership. He simply cannot decide not to provide them with information, or to prevent them from directly receiving information from the Intelligence Community. I cite the National Security Act of 1947 itself:

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.

...

(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.

In other words, er ... CRSwatch, if the Congress (or, to be more exact, the appropriate members of Congress) did/does not have the exact same Intelligence information as the President of the United States, that would be prima facie evidence of the Executive Branch, maybe even the President himself, breaking the law.

So, if you do indeed believe that; "the statement Congress had the exact same intelligence the President had is false" then it logically follows that you believe the President blatantly broke the law.

Do you?

Hints: avoid anything with 'Social' or 'People's' in the title, avoid anything that uses the phrase 'depleted uranium' or 'Likudnik' in the dust jacket and if you do anything else, do this: avoid anything that brags about the author being in the media.

Hope that helps!

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Damn! Using your help, Amazon returned zero books that apply. :)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.