PDA

View Full Version : Bush won't release Paper on Pre-war Intelligence


suedanim
07-14-2004, 03:59 PM
The Bush admin and his co-conspirators have not come clean and provided to the intelligence committee everything needed. I don't see how a final report can have been done. The Republicans on that committee ought to be censored for helping the White House cover up the truth from the public.

Sounds to me like the CIA got its instructions on what to present from gw and co. and they gave it to him as ordered.... leave out dissent.

How can there be a final, definitive report from that committee when all the evidence has not been provided to them? What a sham.

Bush and C.I.A. Won't Release Paper on Prewar Intelligence (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/14/politics/14inte.html//url)

By DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: July 14, 2004

ASHINGTON, July 13 - The White House and the Central Intelligence Agency have refused to give the Senate Intelligence Committee a one-page summary of prewar intelligence in Iraq prepared for President Bush that contains few of the qualifiers and none of the dissents spelled out in longer intelligence reviews, according to Congressional officials.

Senate Democrats claim that the document could help clear up exactly what intelligence agencies told Mr. Bush about Iraq's illicit weapons. The administration and the C.I.A. say the White House is protected by executive privilege, and Republicans on the committee dismissed the Democrats' argument that the summary was significant.

The review, prepared for President Bush in October 2002, summarized the findings of a classified, 90-page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq's illicit weapons. Congressional officials said that notes taken by Senate staffers who were permitted to review the document show that it eliminated references to dissent within the government about the National Intelligence Estimate's conclusions.

"In determining what the president was told about the contents of the N.I.E. dealing with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, qualifiers and all, there is nothing clearer than this single page," Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said in a 10-page "additional view" that was published as an addendum to the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on Friday.

A separate white paper summarizing the National Intelligence Estimate was made public in October 2002. The Senate report criticized the white paper as having "misrepresented'' what the Senate committee described as a "more carefully worded assessment" in the classified intelligence estimate. For example, the white paper excluded information found in the National Intelligence Estimate, like the names of intelligence agencies that had dissented from some of the findings, most importantly on Iraq's nuclear weapons program. That approach, the Senate committee said, "provided readers with an incomplete picture of the nature and extent of the debate within the intelligence community regarding these issues."

Among the specific dissents excluded from the public white paper on Iraq's weapons was the view of the State Department's intelligence branch, spelled out in the classified version of the document, that Iraq's importation of aluminum tubes could not be conclusively tied to a continuing nuclear weapons program, as other intelligence agencies asserted. Also left out of the white paper was the view of Air Force intelligence that pilotless aerial vehicles being built by Iraq, seen by other intelligence agencies as designed to deliver chemical or biological weapons, were not suited for that purpose.

The fact that there were significant differences between the white paper and the classified versions of the intelligence estimate on Iraq's weapons first became apparent last summer, when the Bush administration made public more of the classified document.

The full National Intelligence Estimate asserted that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons and was reconstituting its nuclear program, but included some caveats and summarized dissents made by the State Department's intelligence branch, among other agencies.

At a background briefing on Friday that coincided with the release of the Senate report, a Senate Republican official noted that intelligence agencies routinely prepared such abbreviated summaries of National Intelligence Estimates for presidents, and that those summaries were routinely covered by the doctrine of executive privilege.

Mr. Bush and his advisers had full access to the classified 90-page intelligence estimate, "Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction," which provided a more detailed and qualified account of the intelligence agencies' views, the Senate Republican official noted.

The main body of the 511-page report that was approved unanimously by the Senate Intelligence Committee made no mention of the summary sent to Mr. Bush. In interviews, Democratic officials said that Republicans on the panel, which meets in closed session, had blocked their efforts to formally request the document from the White House. They also said that Democrats on the panel had tried and failed to persuade Republicans to include in the committee report a description of the one-page summary as having been an inadequate reflection of the full intelligence estimate.

The document is still classified, according to Congressional officials, who declined to discuss it in detail. But in his written "additional view," included as an appendix to the Senate report, Senator Durbin said there was "no reason" that the summary prepared for Mr. Bush "should not be declassified in its entirety and publicly released."

Republican Congressional officials have said there is nothing unusual about the preparation of the one-page summary for Mr. Bush. They say they accept as legitimate the C.I.A.'s refusal to share the document with the intelligence committee, on the ground that documents prepared by the agency explicitly for a president should remain privileged.

Along with members of Congress and other top administration officials, Mr. Bush and his advisers were also provided with the full, classified version of the intelligence estimate, and Republican Congressional officials say it would be misleading to focus on the abbreviated version contained in the one-page summary.

John E. McLaughlin, the acting director of central intelligence, said last week that he believed that the C.I.A. should have included more caveats in the 2002 intelligence estimate, particularly in a section that summarized its key judgments. On Tuesday, a senior intelligence official said of the presidential summary: "We expect people to read beyond one page.''

A one-page President's Summary is routinely prepared as part of any National Intelligence Estimate, according to intelligence officials. Like the National Intelligence Estimate, the summary is produced by the staff of the National Intelligence Council, which reports to the director of central intelligence.

A President's Summary is written explicitly for the president, and is reviewed and endorsed by the chiefs of the 15 American intelligence agencies, who form what is known as the National Foreign Intelligence Board.
The one-page summary is not the only document that the White House refused to share with the Senate Intelligence Committee, according to Congressional officials. Copies of the President's Daily Brief that the committee had sought were also denied to the panel, even though the White House did allow another investigative body, the president's commission on the Sept. 11 attacks, to review those highly classified documents.
A White House official suggested Tuesday that Democrats, having joined Republicans in issuing a unanimous report that did not address the question of the one-page summary, were now, by focusing attention on it, "seeking to rewrite the conclusions." The official said the White House believed that the document should not be made public because it was covered by the doctrine of executive privilege.

In his written statement, Senator Durbin said the C.I.A. had told the intelligence committee that 80 copies of the one-page summary had been distributed to the White House, a fact he called an indication that the document had not been prepared exclusively for the president. He said the summary "contains no intelligence beyond that contained" in the broader intelligence estimate, which was provided to members of Congress and to the committee, "and does not set forth policy advice that should be considered privileged."

A Senate Democratic official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that three members of the intelligence committee staff were permitted by the National Security Council to review the one-page Presidential Summary and to take notes on its contents. But, the official said, the staff members were not permitted to take possession of the document or to publicly describe its contents in detail.

thaanatos
07-14-2004, 06:29 PM
so how is not giving them the 'summary' when they got the whole report it summarized, 'witholding information'?

suedanim
07-15-2004, 12:17 AM
It would show the data and opinions of intelligence agencies within the US that was edited out, if that data was contrary to the more inflammatory intelligence presented.

The summary is to condense the whole into a shorter read for the President's benefit. That summary excluded critical information. Its important because it was created to justify the mindset and determination of the Bush administration.

thaanatos
07-15-2004, 12:37 AM
yawn

07-15-2004, 12:41 AM
exactly Thaan!

I rather they release the info on the kennedy assassination!!

ninjalooter1701
07-15-2004, 06:52 PM
They don't have to release the info, but then, why should someone truthful have something to hide? Isn't that what the Wingers say about the Patriot Act?

thaanatos
07-16-2004, 12:17 PM
I know this is complex, Ninnie, but they have released all the data....what is being complained about now is that they have not released a document which contains only part of the data which has already been released....next they will want the wastebasket that used to contain the first three drafts, including spelling errors

suedanim
07-16-2004, 02:16 PM
that they have not released a document which contains only part of the data which has already been released....

But, why did that one paper for the President, 80 copies made for the White House, though... exclude all dissenting op's and data?

This is not like requiring the blue dress for DNA sampling. :eyes I'm sure you had no objections to that whole affair and the attack on the Presidency then. All for a good cause, eh? That man had sex in the Oval Office.. OH-MY-GOD! Must nail him.. must prove he lied under oath about it.. even if it costs millions of dollars, must bring him down.

You people seem to really have very tiny minds that cannot grasp the magnitude of what gw has done, while at the same time can amplfy a man's sex life and a lie he told about it. GW BUSH has murdered thousands of people.. ours and theirs. Without any justification at all and with calculated deliberation he and his PEOPLE contrived the circumstances for invasion, even created the PAPERWORK... that proves it.

Now his weak ass, stomping off the stage mad at questions about his ties to Enron and Lay, will not come clean about any of his criminal shit. Stop playing around. He played hide and seek on pre-9/11 intelligence and doing the same thing on Iraq. What DOES it take for some of ya'll to see he and Cheney are crooks? And they can remain crooks and fuck the nation cause of people who support them, like YOU and those awful people in Congress! You and they are enablers!

Get it... he and Cheney are THUGS, organized crime.... and they put their gang in places of power along with them to run the USA. Point Blank....

Ya'll are so simple-minded that all they have to do is use a few key phrases.. Chistian double-speak, code words and phrases to HOOK ya'll in.. You must go into some altered state of consciousness. "oh yeah, we're on God's side" Thats what you say to yourself. I KNOW IT! But, you're not .... God doesn't murder thousands of people.

ninjalooter1701
07-16-2004, 02:45 PM
I know this is complex, Ninnie, but they have released all the data....what is being complained about now is that they have not released a document which contains only part of the data which has already been released....next they will want the wastebasket that used to contain the first three drafts, including spelling errors
I know this is complex, Thannatass, but men who have nothing to hide need not have secrets.

thaanatos
07-16-2004, 02:47 PM
Chistian double-speak, code words and phrases to HOOK ya'll in.. You must go into some altered state of consciousness. "oh yeah, we're on God's side"
more and more I see that this is what its all about.....he's a fucking Christian and we can't let him get away with that!.....well, bull-fucking-shit!....every crapping thing that has been investigated showed that he did nothing improper.....he was presented evidence and he made a logical conclusion based on that evidence......the full evidence (including dissents) presented was determined by unanimous decision of a bi-partisan commission to be sufficient to support his decision, yet the idiots on the left want to see a piece of paper that did not include the dissents.....for what fucking purppose!?.....because they didn't get their way the first time......

Bush should be investigated because Clinton was investigated.....bullshit, Clinton was investigated because it was alledged he did something illegal.....surprise, they found he DID do something illegal......Bush has been investigated because it was alledged he did something irrational....surprise, they found he DID NOT do something irrational....I sorry you did not get what you wanted, get over it.....

and Lay and Enron.....I am tired of that shit.....rich people and corporations make political contributions.....they make those contributions to people who they expect would make decisions that would benefit their business....that hasn't changed in 200 years.....the only criticism that I have ever heard that is valid is that Bush recieved contributions.....did Lay 'buy' anything from Bush? Did Bush do anything illegal to bail Enron out? Did he even do anything legal to bail Enron out?

I am glad that I have a 'tiny mind'.....that means there isn't room for all the shit you have crammed into yours, shit that is not only irrational, but hypocritical......imaginative? yes....truthful? NO!

thaanatos
07-16-2004, 02:49 PM
but men who have nothing to hide need not have secrets.
borne out by the fact that 100% of the information has already been released, investigated, and unanimously approved by a bipartisan commission......therefore, no secrets......

ninjalooter1701
07-16-2004, 04:56 PM
but men who have nothing to hide need not have secrets.
borne out by the fact that 100% of the information has already been released, investigated, and unanimously approved by a bipartisan commission......therefore, no secrets......
Here's the news flash to your low IQ:

We want the summary so we can see if Bush was fed the wrong information (as in, was information omitted or not), or if he acted improperly on the right information.

You see, there are the "facts" then there is the "truth," then there is "What Bush Saw." If those aren't all the same, we want to know. I know it's hard for you to consider, but then, I'm sure that if a few hundred more people explain it to you, you might actually understand it.

thaanatos
07-16-2004, 05:58 PM
We want the summary so we can see if Bush was fed the wrong information (as in, was information omitted or not), or if he acted improperly on the right information.
the bipartisan committee has already unanimously decided that he acted properly upon the wrong information...so both your options have already been negated.....

ninjalooter1701
07-16-2004, 06:31 PM
We want the summary so we can see if Bush was fed the wrong information (as in, was information omitted or not), or if he acted improperly on the right information.
the bipartisan committee has already unanimously decided that he acted properly upon the wrong information...so both your options have already been negated.....
Then, there's nothing to hide.

thaanatos
07-16-2004, 07:38 PM
Then, there's nothing to hide.
agreed, and nothing has been hidden.....

ninjalooter1701
07-16-2004, 07:42 PM
Thus explains the lack of release of data.
Bush is acting like Saddam, as if he has something to hide. Why not just go with full disclosure, much like Bush demanded of Saddam. It's as if Bush, like Saddam, has something to hide.

07-16-2004, 08:00 PM
Thann I have learned its just easier to walk away from them once in a while and not feed them.

I suggest you try it in this case.

thaanatos
07-16-2004, 08:08 PM
Thus explains the lack of release of data.
no, ninny, it explains to you that the data has all been released....

ninjalooter1701
07-16-2004, 08:19 PM
Thus explains the lack of release of data.
no, ninny, it explains to you that the data has all been released....
Data is not "the summary," the summary is partial. Sorry if that escapes your feeble intellect.

thaanatos
07-16-2004, 09:05 PM
Data is not "the summary," the summary is partial
agreed....the data is the data....and it has been released in full....the summary is only part of what has been fully released....

Jayne B
07-17-2004, 04:59 AM
I wonder if the summary they won't release had a title as inflammatory as the one on that Presidential Daily Briefing they wouldn't release... the one Condi Rice finally told the 9/11 Commission after much pressure? It might be something like "The best case for invading Iraq after we ignore all the disclaimers about weak sources and lying informers."

thaanatos
07-17-2004, 11:44 AM
no Jayne....the title was 101 ways to make Youropeans think I am a threat to world peace.....

Fredfredson
07-17-2004, 06:15 PM
Well, at least the title was accurate then. :/

F
:pooter

suedanim
07-17-2004, 06:26 PM
....the summary is only part of what has been fully released....

ONLY? If that's true.. THANAATOS... then why won't they release it to the committee? Simple. Give the damn thing up if its ONLY a part of what has been fully released.

Look.. get real.. that summary excluded all information and opinions given to the CIA and military that negated or contradicted the intelligence Bushco... wanted.. They knew what they wanted. I am sure they asked for it to be written JUST that way. Providing the document means, explaining WHY the information was excluded. And they don't want to go there.

Get HONEST, than..