Veteran's Day Disgrace

A few questions came to mind during the President's speech on Friday--not the least of which was, "What the hell was the President doing making a political speech on Veteran's Day?" It was disgraceful.

I have a few other questions as well...

How disingenuous is it to say that the Senate had access to the same intelligence information?

Um, the answer would be very...

Never mind that the President, after 9/11, revoked all security clearances for almost all of Congress...never mind that.

While I'm pretty sure that Congress had access to the declassified report prepared by the intelligence agencies I'm pretty sure Congress did not have access to the entire NIE nor did they have ability to question the people who put together the report. I don't believe they did.

And while the chiding from the President, that those of us who doubt his veracity are unpatriotic, is right in line with his divisive politics--it's crap. 57% percent of the population believes that President Bush and his administration has been dishonest about the Intel that got us into this war and 53% percent believe we need to stay and finish the job. As the Republicans have been saying all along--this isn't Viet Nam. Very few people are calling for a complete withdrawal of troops or a time table or any of that. So, no one of substance is suggesting that we turn tail and run.

There is nothing unpatriotic about questioning how and why we went to war and the President can yell his crap from the rooftops all he likes, but the American people aren't buying it.

Chris

Michelle Malkin, Stop the ACLU, The Moderate Voice

Definitely read The Moderate Voice--it is pretty much all encompassing...

Comments

[USMC Steve]

I would like to know your source for the information regarding the "president revoking almost every member of congress's clearance"? Most of them don't have one because most of them don't have need to know to justify them having access to classified information.

I shan't even waste any further time trying to debate you on the crap about the war being bogus and we were lied to about why we went there. Those who do, know. Those who were there, know why. Those that were not there, ask those of us who WERE.

Chris and the other Dems out there would piss and moan about anything the other side of the political fence does, no matter how much good comes from it. And that is the truth of the matter.

[Capitalist Infidel]

and Chris wonders why we question liberals patriotism.

Only a rabid military hater could possibly complain that the president defended the men and women in uniform on Veterans day.

[Shari]

DNC talking points?

CHRIS: I'm pretty sure Congress did not have access to the entire NIE nor did they have ability to question the people who put together the report. I don't believe they did.

ME: Well you are wrong.

The lawmakers are partly to blame for their ignorance. Congress was entitled to view the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq before the October 2002 vote. But, as The Washington Post reported last year, no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page executive summary.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101832.html

And the Silverman (sp) report said that the president's daily briefing was actually more alarming, not less.

SCHIEFFER: President Bush accused his critics of rewriting history last week.

Sen. McCAIN: Yeah.

SCHIEFFER: And in--he said in doing so, the criticisms they were making of his war policy was endangering our troops in Iraq. Do you believe it is unpatriotic to criticize the Iraq policy?

Sen. McCAIN: No, I think it's a very legitimate aspect of American life to criticize and to disagree and to debate. But I want to say I think it's a lie to say that the president lied to the American people. I sat on the Robb-Silverman Commission. I saw many, many analysts that came before that committee. I asked every one of them--I said, `Did--were you ever pressured politically or any other way to change your analysis of the situation as you saw?' Every one of them said NO.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_111305.pdf

[Chris]

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/bushrestrictedintel.pdf

here is the order revoking the clearances and you have your head up your ass if you think that playing politics is the appropriate way to thank veterans...really his so called defense of the intel had waited this long--it could have waited another day--

and the military goes and does it's job whenever and wherever they are asked to do it--how we got into this war has very little to do with how well they are doing their job--it isn't the competence of the military I question it is that of the President and his administration

[Chris]

Shari--I can't keep up with you--is McCain a good guy or a bad guy--half the time you guys want him to choke on a chicken bone and go away and yet when he says something you like you march him out as an authority--which is it? I like McCain--always have--but how am I supposed to judge when you think he is credible?

And my point about them not having the ability to question those who put the report together is valid--they didn't have the same opportunity to ask the questions the President and his closest advisors did--and apparently no one thought to ask how old is this stuff? how accurate do we think this is? --gotta take the kid to speech therapy back to argue later

[Shari]

I don't particularly like McCain, but I don't believe I have said anything bad about him. It has nothing to do with believing him or not. I just don't agree with some of his policies. And the reason I quote what he says is because he was on the Robb-Silverman commission. I would think he would have a wee bit of insider knowledge. Wouldn't you?

As far as the questioning, do you know if that's standard procedure? 94 senators didn't even look at the report. What does that say about them? You think they really wanted to ask questions when they didn't even take the time to look at the dang report?

And Rockefeller is on the Senate Intelligence committee and had MORE info than other senators and he certainly made rah-rah statements for the war. What do you think the other senators thought when he did so? And now the a*sshole is saying he's not responsible for how he voted? What planet does this man live on?

[Matt Hurley]

I'm the one who thinks McCain is a useful idiot...and I supported him in 2000...

At any rate, I found the subject matter of the speech to be distasteful for Veteran's Day, but the message itself is important for the American people to hear. For far too long, all we've heard is MoveOn.org and DNC talking points. I was beginning to wonder if the White House was ever going to respond to this crap.

[jestplainol'bill]

Chris, that is not, I say again, a revocation of anything. That is simply a memo from the boss to his subordinates telling them that only certain persons within their depts can release classified material to only certain members of congress.

Far from a "revoke" of something that the President would not have the authority to "revoke" as the two entities (the ex and the cong) are separate and equal branches. He does possess the right to restrict who does the briefings and to whom his subordinates give those briefings.

And, if memory serves, this is something, the briefing of only selected members of cong, regarding classified material and its dispersion that has been in effect or rather was in effect back in the early 90's when I was stationed in DC working with limited (thank goodness-I always hated to fool with that stuff: career enders if one was not careful with the material) classified material.

Hardly the "damning" evidence your somewhat hysterical post would make one think (or in the case of Demodawgs-feel).

As a veteran of 20 years as a Marine Officer, I was not offended by the President's remarks. Since it was a day set aside for me and others of my brotherhood maybe we should be the ones to either be offended or not as the case may be.

[Chris]

For Shari--"But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions."

And Bill--while you did not think the President's speech was inappropriate some veterans did--Colonel Hunt included--and yes your opinion on the matter counts more than mind but I'm still entitled to one :) and I think it was distastefula nd disgraceful that the President chose that day to start his spiel.

[Capitalist Infidel]

Chris

Why is it disgraceful to defend the troops on Veterans day?

[Bombtruck]

Chris, please. Spare us the outrage. What you're really mad about is the President actually deciding to fight back and call the democrats out for being two-faced on the issue of Iraqi WMD intelligence. That's the only complaint here, and dems didn't even try to dispel the notion they ARE lying, because if you bother to do the research on their past positions from the 1990's until now, it becomes obvious that so long as a dem was in the WH they were perfectly ok with Iraq being portrayed as a WMD threat that should be taken out.

If the WH is smart, there will be much more of this to come. Prep yourself; it won't be pretty.

[Bombtruck]

And since you mentioned the Colonel wasn't happy with Bush making the speech on Vet's Day, have you bothered to ask him if he thinks the dems are being two-faced on their past postions on Iraqi intelligence? I'd really like to know that answer.

[USMC Steve]

Well, Chris has once again slipped into LibDim land. Everyone, go to the link she provided after I asked her to prove her bullshit statement about the president allegedly revoking everyone in congress's clearances. If you can read English you will see that all he said here was that briefings concerning classified material will only be done by properly authorized personnel (para i), and he further reiterated that the members who were authorized to receive that information were as identified in para ii of the document.

Not everyone in congress has "NEED TO KNOW". They all receive clearances, but that only means that they can be "read in" on classified matters that may pertain to them. "Need to know" is defined as an individual having to have direct access to the information involved in order to perform his daily functions. Thus, the people on para ii of the document were typically the only members of congress who would have need to know on a daily basis for classified information.

Spin that any way you want, but until you have more experience in special security and security, as well as security clearance matters than me, don't waste my time telling me what I know from 20 years of experience dealing with almost daily.

And work on your comprehension skills kiddo. They are sorely lacking.

And the president is both a veteran and serving commander in chief. If he wants to give a fucking speech on Veterans Day, that is what he can do. He rates that. YOU DON'T, STRAPHANGER.

[USMC Steve]

Shari, Rockefeller lives on the planet UrAnus, the home of the democrats.

[Chris]

Cappy--you're a nut and we love you-but in order for me to answer your question you first have to answer this one, "Do you walk to school or carry a lunch?"

Bombtruck--I will pass your question along--but I will relay to you what he has said to me--he says that the briefings that the intel guys give to the President and his guys is very different from the ones given to the Senate/Congress--that the White House had the ability to ask questions and to learn things the Congress did not and that it should be very easy to find out if what the Democrats are saying is true--whether or not they had sufficient access to the right kind of intelligence-which by that I gather he means a balanced view of all of it--

Let me ask you this...we know that there were dissenting opinions in the intel community about specific aspects of what we thought we'd find there and the state of programs--why at every turn were all the things we chose to believe wrong? Statistically you think we would have at least stumbled across one that was right--why were all of the opinions saying Iraq didn't have this or they didn't do that or wanted to do whatever--how come not one of the dissenting opinions that turned out to be right wasn't heeded by the intel community and the white house

[Shari]

Chris,
Nice try deflecting from my questions raised.

And I'm a little sick of this meme because for the life of me I can't think of ONE good reason why President Bush would want to go to war and KILL & MAIME our military. Now if someone could explain to me Bush's motivation for manipulation, exaggerating, etc. to get us to war...and if I hear oil or revenge I'm going to scream.

What the HELL is his motivation (besides what has been put forth) for killing and maiming our people? Do you think he (or anyone) for that matter takes war lightly? That's exactly the way this sounds.

[Lisa]

Ut oh...look out...Chris is playing the "Colonel Hunt" card...

[Chris]

Um..USMC--if you don't think that Congress didn't have a need to know when they were deciding what the threat was and whether or not we should go to war--you have slipped and now, more than usual, are delusional--I have told you it is the blue pill in the morning and the green one at night--and as for the STRAPHANGER--the President was one on Veteran's day not me--he who used his family's wealth and position to buy his way into the National Guard so he wouldn't have to actually go to Vietnam--he who has sent the National Guard into Afghanistan and Iraq without the training or the things they need with no plan to win the peace--The National Guard back then--you are way off base buddy--

Ok folks yell at each other I am taking my daughter to lunch--back later

[Capitalist Infidel]

Chris can't refute the facts so she attacks, typical liberal looney response

USMC Steve

Chris posted a link from "thinkprogress," that should tell you everything you need to know. Them and "commondreams" think that Howard Dean is too conservative. They're both wacked out conspiritorial websites. Their funding comes from the Communist Wold Workers Party and George Soros.

[Lisa]

Hey USMC....babe... if you're gonna call one of us a name like STRAPHANGER...you can at least tell us what it is, exactly.

[Chris]

Hey Shari--I missed your comment--sorry, while I don't pretend to know the President's mind I do know that he surrounded himself with people who didn't feel like the job got finished in the first Gulf War--Shari--I don't know why he would want to do this, I really don't--but objectively all politics aside--things don't add up here and I think finding the answers to some questions is good for all of us--ok now I am really going to lunch--back later

[Shari]

USMC,
You got that right! I'm ashamed to admit it, but I'm sure y'all won't hold it against me, but Rockefeller is MY senator. I have two on the worst senators in the country. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.......

Check this at same interview:

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The – I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq – that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 45 > § 953 Prev | Next
§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments
Release date: 2005-08-03
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000953----000-.html

Why was this a*swipe spilling the beans in foreign countries?

[Chris]

Hey Cappy--I told you I'll answer your question when you answer mine--they are both questions of the same caliber

[Bombtruck]

Well a couple of things:

It has come out that an independent commission looking at the Iraqi intelligence found no 'manipulation' between what Congress saw and what the White House saw, and if anything the White House DIDN'T get a complete picture as much as Congress did.

Also, I am taking into account past statements on democrats before Bush became president, back when it was fashionable to consider Iraq a WMD threat in democrat circles. Remember, in 1998 many of the democrat legislators who claim the President 'made it all up' were calling on Clinton to REMOVE Saddam Hussein, and it was offical Admin policy for that to happen. But as those admin officals have readily admitted, there wasn't a political will to do anything about Iraq from the top down. The inconsistency here is nowadays those same dems do not acknowledge their previous postions(outside of Carl Levin, and even then I think he just had a 'senior moment' the other day on TV when he admitted he believed the WMD intelligence) and they all claim to a person that Iraq was never a threat at any time and the President lied. Look, I'm sorry, but Levin and Schumer and Kennedy, et al were around during the 90's, they saw this stuff before, so there's no WAY anyone with a lick of sense should let the dems off the hook with their attempt at revisionist history, unless you're just that partisan.

Also, what the hell was this: Jay Rockefeller admitting on Fox yesterday that he had gone to Saudi Arabia and Syria in 2002 and TOLD them the Bush Admin was going after Saddam? WTF? There wasn't anything official on going after Iraq in 2002, and he's going to, of all places, Saddam's allies in Syria and TELLING THEM this? That should lead to all kinds of questions as to what Syria did after they got the head's up from Rockefeller. There should be some serious outrage about this.

[Shari]

Hey Bombtruck,
I just posted the same thing about Rockefeller.