Video from GOP.com

Democrats: Dishonest on Iraq

They were fed the same lies pre war. But hey, it is the republican way to fight truth with more lies.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121501813.html


Report: Bush Had More Prewar Intelligence Than Congress

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 16, 2005; A23



A congressional report made public yesterday concluded that President Bush and his inner circle had access to more intelligence and reviewed more sensitive material than what was shared with Congress when it gave Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq.

Democrats said the 14-page report contradicts Bush's contention that lawmakers saw all the evidence before U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, stating that the president and a small number of advisers "have access to a far greater volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information."

The report does not cite examples of intelligence Bush reviewed that differed from what Congress saw. If such information is available, the report's authors do not have access to it. The Bush administration has routinely denied Congress access to documents, saying it would have a chilling effect on deliberations. The report, however, concludes that the Bush administration has been more restrictive than its predecessors in sharing intelligence with Congress.

The White House disputed both charges, noting that Congress often works directly with U.S. intelligence agencies and is privy to an enormous amount of classified information. "In 2004 alone, intelligence agencies provided over 1,000 personal briefings and more than 4,000 intelligence products to the Congress," an administration official said.

The report, done by the Congressional Research Service at the request of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), comes amid allegations by Democrats that administration officials exaggerated Iraq's weapons capabilities and terrorism ties and then resisted inquiries into the intelligence failures.

Bush has fiercely rejected those claims. "Some of the most irresponsible comments -- about manipulating intelligence -- have come from politicians who saw the same intelligence I saw and then voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein," he said this week.

Feinstein, who is on the Senate intelligence committee, disagreed. "The report demonstrates that Congress routinely is denied access to intelligence sources, intelligence collection and analysis," she said. The intelligence panel met yesterday to discuss the second phase of its investigation into the administration's handling of prewar assertions. In July 2004, the committee issued the first phase of its bipartisan report, which found the U.S. intelligence community had assembled a flawed and exaggerated assessment of Iraq's weapons capabilities.

The second phase, which examines the White House's role, was agreed to in February 2004 but remains incomplete. Last month, Democrats forced the Senate into a rare closed-door session to extract a promise from Republicans to speed up the inquiry. At the time, committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said the report was nearing completion. But yesterday, committee aides said it is unlikely the report will be done before spring.

Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), a former member of the panel, said the report should not be rushed. But he urged the White House to release more documents to support its claims. "The only way to be is certain is to look at what they saw and what we saw side by side," he said.

Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

The Democrats were fed lies from .... in the 90s? Doesn't really make sense.

No. I'm talking just before the build up for the war. Between comments from the 90's and the war a lot can and did change.

Comments seemed similar to me in both decades.

WMD

Did you know we sent 30 different US citizens of Iraq descent, into Iraq before the war, to ask thier relatives that worked on Saddams Weapons program (before the gulf war), if Saddam was rebuilding said program. All 30 of these 'spies' returned with the information that He was not and that he had not been trying to restarted it. The CIA thought these people were being lied to by thier relatives. This info was available to George before we went in but he decided to cover it up. Is this not really the lie we should be concerned with?

The guy should be impeached plain and simply. It won't do us any good now though, unlesss liberals regain control of the house. They might be able to do something about a lot of Tax Reconcilliation Acts in the process too, force "gridlock", and a lot of other fun stuff. We need to focus on a plan to get the hell the out of there, and brainstorm some ideas for how we are going to clean up the mess in a few years. I would elleborate on the 90's thing, but I don't feel like digging up Research for it I know exactly were to look to.

Then most of Congress who agreed with him at the time should be tried as well. Don't say that most of Congress was "brainwashed" because they are then not doing their job. I think it was a good thing to remove Saddam from power considering the millions of people he has killed. Is that a threat? You bet ya! To stay in Iraq though...i'm not for that.

I think Bush is failing in Iraq to such an extent that removing Saddam will not seem like it was worth it in the eyes of an Iraqi citizen.

The above info, provided by the CIA, never made it to Congress. so Congress was not at fault. Bush not showing all the evidence makes him the guilty one.
I agree that Saddam may have been a threat in the future, but really what was he doing to warrant our invasion? Don't get me wrong, total ass
hole he is, but the facts we used to go in were doctored.