They say they don't. And between their word and that of an administration that has been repeatedly shown to be deceptive if not mendacious... well. I know who I believe.
On 11/16/05, Kevin Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The Senate intelligence committee has access to same intelligence that the > President does. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 11:46 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: [politics] just look at the headlines > > ya, they believed nobody let alone the President of the United States > would > lie about something this important. More fool they. > They did NOT have access to the same information. The statement that they > did, while straight out of the GOP talking points, is untrue. In what > universe would all of the members of Congress have the same access to > classified information as the president? Get real. > They did not have access to the daily report. They were given a summary > from which all doubt and conflicting opinon had been excised. Don't get me > wrong, when they write the history books I do not think they wll be dealt > with kindly for their cowardice in not questioning or their complicity in > what I believe to have been a very great wrong. > But that is not my point. > I was marveling at the number of ways and venues in which this > administration is now being called deceitful, and truthfully as best as I > can see. > > Dana > On 11/16/05, Kevin Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > "So it was silly when Bush asserted last week that critics who complain > of > > being misled by distorted administration intelligence on Iraq were > > rewriting > > history." > > > > This is what pisses me off. Everyone in the Senate who voted to > authorize > > this war had access to same intelligence the President had. I don't > blame > > him for saying that. It only takes our friend Google to unearth any > number > > > > of comments from those Democrats now condemning Bush about how dangerous > > Saddam was and how he needed to be dealt with. How he had and was > > producing > > WMD's. How military action was the best way to handle it. Seriously, > when > > these guys say how wrong it was, I just laugh as I read their past > > statements about Iraq. It's a joke and anyone with half a brain should > be > > able to see that. > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 11:24 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: [politics] just look at the headlines > > > > [image: OPINION] > > > > Thursday, November 17, 2005 > > > > President Bush excels at creating fiction > > > > By MARIANNE MEANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > SYNDICATED COLUMNIST > > > > WASHINGTON -- A large part of every president's portfolio is the freedom > > to > > rewrite history. The White House does it all the time to dress up policy > > decisions and make the president look wiser. > > > > I heard President Johnson expound at length that he alone championed > > development of the space program when in truth it was a collaborative > > effort > > in Congress. His mentor, Georgia Sen. Richard Russell, snorted: "Lyndon, > I > > knew you wanted to be president just so you could rewrite history." > > > > Johnson, who later would be driven from office by the Vietnam War > > "credibility gap," made no response. > > > > President Bush is more adept than most of his predecessors. Nowadays > such > > muddying of the facts is so common it is called spin. During the 2004 > > campaign, most of the president's statements on Iraq were a whole lot of > > meringue and not much pie. > > > > So it was silly when Bush asserted last week that critics who complain > of > > being misled by distorted administration intelligence on Iraq were > > rewriting > > history. > > > > Bush contends Congress had "the same" intelligence he had, and that when > > he > > held office President Clinton had the same data, too. Yet Congress had > > only > > some of the same intelligence, and only that provided by the > > administration. > > > > The president did not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as his > > Daily Brief. Congress only got summaries that did not include the > > skepticism > > expressed about some of the information. And it was all classified and > not > > cleared for public release. > > > > Intelligence agencies around the world did believe Saddam Hussein had > > weapons of mass destruction and Democratic lawmakers were as alarmed > about > > the threat as Republicans. But the degree of the threat, in particular > the > > risk of that nuclear "mushroom cloud" administration officials kept > > describing, was very much in dispute. > > > > Before the 9/11-induced hysteria over WMD, Clinton indeed saw the basic > > presidential warnings. But his conclusion was very different. He felt > > inspections and economic pressures were containing Saddam's ambitions, > > which > > turned out to be true. > > > > Clinton bombed some Iraqi trouble spots, but would not consider sending > in > > ground troops. > > > > Bush also said official investigations had proved there was "no evidence > > of > > political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments." > > > > Not so fast, please. > > > > The Senate probe was confined to searching for direct evidence of > > pressure, > > discounting the constant but low-visibility nagging of Vice President > Dick > > Cheney and others to get reports rewritten the way they wanted. It > stopped > > > > before examining how the information was used, or abused. > > > > Frustrated Democratic senators recently forced the Senate into a rare > > closed-door session to pressure GOP Intelligence Committee chairman Pat > > Roberts to launch another probe, to compare what administration > officials > > said with what was known. > > > > There is a long list of discrepancies between what we now know and the > > justifications offered by Bush and company for a war they had already > > decided to wage. This is finally seeping out to the voters, who are > > responding by calling Bush's bluff -- he's down to a record-low 37 > percent > > approval. > > > > His attempt to fight back by smearing critics as unpatriotic is in > itself > > unpatriotic. We still have free speech. The push for war came from him, > > not > > Congress. His critics were hoodwinked but they didn't give the invasion > > orders. > > > > To further debase his counterattack, he threw in another pitch for a > > constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the flag. This is an > > embarrassing attempt to hold on to right-wing conservatives, whom the > > polls > > say are the only supporters he has left. > > > > Wrapping himself in the flag is an offensive, crude gimmick that signals > > political desperation. If Congress is fooled by that meaningless > > distraction, its members are dumber than we think. And we think they are > > pretty dumb. > > > > Bush complained that Democrats who voted -- on the basis of his > assurances > > -- to authorize the use of force in Iraq are now "speaking politics." > > Something he never does, of course. He called the critics > "irresponsible." > > > > Bush is so busy rewriting the story of how the United States blundered > > into > > a war we cannot win he's up to at least three volumes of fiction, with > > more > > to come. But Bush is not Winston Churchill, who was candid about his > > interest in preserving his own reputation. > > > > How can anyone believe Bush? His spokeswoman, Nicole Wallace, called > > Senate > > Minority Leader Harry Reid "a liar" for saying that the administration > had > > > > no strategy for victory in Iraq. Pretty strong stuff. The trouble is, on > > the > > subject of Iraq we know the biggest liar occupies the White House. > > http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/248557_means17.html > > > > -- > > The most common elements are hydrogen and stupidity - Harlan Ellison > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:182758 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
