So use your junior moderatorial powers to whack yourself with a wet noodle:
If you want to pontificate on the “full” story, you have to be willing to look at the full story. Hell, what with Condi and Bush not reading the NIE, you could argue that certain congressmen could have accessed more complete intelligence information than the administration itself, if only they’d done their job.
As I understand it, they (the few Democrats on the particular committees) had access to the NIE, and perhaps they could see other reports. But I am not at all sure that all the information Bush had was available via such reports. Are you? For example, were the concerns about the nature and veracity of the informants we were using available in reports at that time?
All things being equal, I don’t think that the rest of the Democrats could say to their constituents, “I voted against this, despite everything you heard from the President and the Republicans about the dire threats to your life, because Bob Graham said there were doubts.”
I don’t know. I know Bob Graham said that he voted against it.
I’m not absolving the Democrats, who should have been far less credulous, and far more courageous to stand up against what they probably feared would be another successful smear campaign by Bush and Rove, who had already proven quite capable at that effort. I knew there were enough doubts about what Bush was selling in 2002 that I wouldn’t have voted for it, but I visited the SDMB on a regular basis.
Of course, one must be ready to fight for the truth, or at least for what one believes in. The Democrats of the past decade have not been ready to do that. Something seems to be changing on that score lately, despite the sage advice from so many of our rightward bretheren here at the Dope, who have been very concerned that Democrats expressing opposition will alienate the public so much further than they are.
Here’s a bit more specific information regarding some of the points I’m getting at, from the Washington Post, bolding mine:
So, not everything was even available in the NIE, and the NIE was only made available to some members a few days before the vote. One might think the timing of these releases was specifically orchestrated to allow someone to claim “Well, you had access to the information before the vote.” That person would have to be quite cynical or simply familiar with the methods of modern Republicans.
Not appropriate in this Forum.
Cool off.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
Sorry Tom. John was still out of line with his comments. If he’s got issues with me he should take it to the pit.
John: You’re asking several excellent questions, spread out over several posts. I’ll try to provide a few answers:
No. Congress has historically never been afforded access to Presidential Daily Briefs or the SIOP (our game plan for nuclear war). Covert operations are generally briefed to members of the intelligence committees, but in certain circumstances, only the Chairman, Ranking Member, and the four leaders in Congress (Speaker, Minority Leader, etc) may be briefed on particularly sensitive activities.
In fact, as I believe was previously stated, during the runup to the war, the Administration had not prepared a National Intelligence Estimate for many years. The Senate Intelligence Committee requested that the CIA prepare an NIE, which was not completed untill days before the vote for war, because of the fragmentary nature of the intelligence that had so far been presented to the committee.
Of course, whether the Administration actually provided ALL the intelligence on Iraq that it had to the intelligence committees in this instance is a question known only to a handful of people in Washington, all of whom are sworn to secrecy.
Only twice. The exact dates escape me at the moment, but around the time of the Suez Canal crisis, Congress voted to authorize the use of force to protect the Middle East from Communist aggression. A few years later, Congress voted to authorize the use of force to defend Taiwan from Chinese invasion. Both laws are still technically on the books, interestingly enough.
You had a few more questions that I wished to address, but dammit, I can’t find them now.
I’m sorry you interpreted my post as taking issue with you. I don’t.
You offered a tu quoque argument that I wasn’t interested in addressing. This thread is about the Democrats. We have plenty of threads about Bush and the Republicans, and I’ll post my main comments about them in those threads. I hope that clears things up.
Yes, one might think that. Or, one might have just voted “no” in the first place. That’s what I would’ve done.
That still would leave the problem of security clearances, and Bush’s memo regarding them. It bery strongly looks like the doubting or dissenting CIA opinions and disclaimers were ignored in all the president’s speeches, briefins and reports, and when they are not completely expunges, were still “highly classified”. So, those with the “clearance” to look at the “conveniently secret” stuff would not be allowed to discuss it with anyone else.
Still, what happened, and what the results and many many documents and all the cites from threads now and in the past show is, the Democrats and the extreme Republicans were sold a bill of goods.
You can’t separate a deliberately misleading campaign for war from any Democrat/WMD argument. They are intertwined. The president and vice president said a lot of things, and Democrats believed them.
That was supposed to be LESS EXTREME Republicans.
Again, you can’t discuss one without including the other.
Do you have a cite for this? Not that I don’t believe you but you sound like you know what you are talking about here and someone is FINALLY answering this question definitively…without cites to a news paper where you have to tease out the answer. I’m slogging through a bunch of dry web pages right now trying to find the answer to this, but I’m getting conflicting stories. From what I can tell the Senate Intelligence Committee can request an NIE anytime and the CIA (or whatever other agency) is bound to produce one for them. Not all the information is available to everyone on the committee, but from what I can gleen all the information can be requested by SOME of the committee. Anyway, if you have a definitive cite for all this stuff I’ll be eternally grateful.
If anyone is interested this is what I’m currently digging through…it discusses the NIE in general and the one the President requested just before the war specifically (though I have another cite that actually has the NIE if anyone wants it).
-XT
Wow! You do? I thought it was classified.
Well no. I obviously have the unclass version (there is a link to it on the page I linked too), heavily whited out. Sorry…didn’t mean to imply I had the full thing.
Give it a decade or so…I noticed that there are now some previously classified NIE’s from the Soviet era available online.
-XT
Does this remind anyone else of Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy? That is, both the city’s plans to demolish Arthur’s house (which had been on public display for six months, in a locked filing cabinet in a bathroom with no lights in the basement of the local planning office) and the Vogon’s plans to demolish Earth to make way for a hyperspace express route (which had been on display for fifty years at the local planning office on Alpha Centauri)?
It’s just me? Oh, OK. Sorry about that. Right then, carry on…
Sorry you took it as a tu quoque. It was intended as an informational post on how seriously the NIE was treated at the time; a bit of historical perspective that many have likely forgotten.
If I’d wanted to tu quoque things up, I’d have stuck something in there about that somehow exonerating the dems. I didn’t; as you say, there’s plenty of blame to go around.
I would have unmeasurable respect for any Representative or Senator, either Dem or Pub, who would come out and say something like:
“I made a mistake. I was caught up in the fear and haste of 9/11, and the politics of war that was thick and heavy in Washington in October of 2002. I was not fully comfortable with my “yes” vote, but I bowed to the political pressure and voted “yes” anyway. I’ve learned an important lesson from that experience, and I think most of this nation has as well. I’m not going to blame anyone else for my vote. I take full responsibility, and I was wrong.”
I know that’s a lot to ask of a politician. I don’t expect to hear it from any of them, and that’s a shame.
John Edwards has done exactly that. Those of you who now consider your votes against him and Kerry a mistake might have a chance to correct it in 2008, ya know.
Rep. Ken Lucas, of the GOP heartland in metro Cincinnati, says so, too.
Sen. Lincoln Chafee may not count, but only because he voted against it at the time, too.
I don’t have time to come up with more, but if you don’t know of any, it’s arguably your own fault. If you don’t think it’s even possible, that’s *inarguably * your own fault.
True, but I’m talking about why Congresspersons might have voted the way they did, which requires looking at what they should have been able to see in October 2002.
jshore - think you would have posted the same thing four months earlier? I think the timing issue is important - there wasn’t an opportunity to unvote in February of 2003, and people’s perceptions of Bush’s honesty were changing rapidly during that time as new evidence piled up.
When you make the wrong vote to give war powers to the President of the United States because he freakin’ lied to you, why should you not blame him??
If someone swindles me out of money, I’m going to blame myself for being a sucker, but he’s the one who commited the crime, not me. It’s clear that we assign greater responsibility to the swindler rather than the swindlee (if that’s a word) - so why should the same rule not apply here?
Good question. I might have to search the archive some more to see what I said back around October 2002! (I looked a little last night and the problem is that I don’t think I said very much at all on the boards around that time.) But, as I noted in that post, I was basing my distrust of the Bush Administration on the previous lies and deception in domestic policy…most of which I believe had occurred prior to October 2002, so I would like to think I thought about the same thing back in October 2002. (I also admit that a watershed moment for me came in February or March 2003 [when was it exactly…before or after Feb 17?] when bin Laden came out with a statement that we all could read about Iraq and Colin Powell referred to it as evidence of a bin Laden - Hussein connection. That to me was about as close as Powell could come to raising a red flag and saying, “Warning: I drank the Kool Aid and you can’t trust a word I or anyone else in the administration say anymore.” Whenever I began to think that maybe the Administration really did have rock-solid evidence, I reminded myself of what they seemed to believe constituted evidence with something I could check myself!)
Anyway, I can understand from the point-of-view of a Congressperson how it would be pretty tough to cast a vote that could be interpretted (without too much stretch) as saying, “I trust Saddam Hussein more than I trust President Bush” even while wishing that they had had enough gumption to do it anyway.