RI Bills Fan Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 An Interesting Article about who knew what when. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 An Interesting Article about who knew what when. 510890[/snapback] Something I don't know the answer to, is what level of information are these Senators cleared to? There are a lot of different levels of access, and special access programs. Not pro or con towards the article, but there are things out there that would scare me to death if they were in the hands of a Senator or Congressman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Something I don't know the answer to, is what level of information are these Senators cleared to? There are a lot of different levels of access, and special access programs. Not pro or con towards the article, but there are things out there that would scare me to death if they were in the hands of a Senator or Congressman. 510922[/snapback] I have always wondered this too. I bet for the House, Intel is distilled to generalities. I bet the Senate Intell. Com. gets a little more info than the average Freshman Rep. from Bath, NY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 I have always wondered this too. I bet for the House, Intel is distilled to generalities. I bet the Senate Intell. Com. gets a little more info than the average Freshman Rep. from Bath, NY. 510933[/snapback] Be interesting to find out. From what I've seen, there's an average of about 30% more material in a TS-SCI SAP version of something than there is in the more generic "Secret" versions probably given to Congress at large. Even if certain members are basically cleared to receive a certain level of material, they still have to be evaluated for "need to know" and "read in" to certain programs. There are obvious reasons for keeping access to certain things to the minimum amount of people required to do whatever. Also, certain information released to one or two people is in effect, politically useless - as they can't share any of it as reasons for any of their ideas or arguments for or against anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 23, 2005 Author Share Posted November 23, 2005 So BiB you're admitting what we already knew, that the WH claims that Congress had the same intel that the POTUS did before the war votes is disengenuous at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 So BiB you're admitting what we already knew, that the WH claims that Congress had the same intel that the POTUS did before the war votes is disengenuous at best. 510978[/snapback] No, I'm not saying that at all. I was commenting on the level of access everyone might have. I have no idea what they might have seen. I'm certain that there are full time Staffers over there that have higher levels of access than the politicians. For all I know, there's things out there that the President hasn't seen. WTF knows? All the way across the board, I don't think anyone actually knows exactly who saw what when. There were and are a lot of moving pieces, and some of them are contrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 23, 2005 Author Share Posted November 23, 2005 No, I'm not saying that at all. I was commenting on the level of access everyone might have. I have no idea what they might have seen. I'm certain that there are full time Staffers over there that have higher levels of access than the politicians. For all I know, there's things out there that the President hasn't seen. WTF knows? All the way across the board, I don't think anyone actually knows exactly who saw what when. There were and are a lot of moving pieces, and some of them are contrary. 511003[/snapback] So let me get this straight. We both know that the hgher the level of clearance the more detailed the info provided to the individual becomes, right? The POTUS should have acces to all info, Right? Freshman Congressman Wingnut from Smurfsville, Alaska may only have a confidential clearance, or a basic secret, or possibly only a NoForn, Right? And you're gonna try to put forth the poition that they both saw the same intel or that Congressman Wingnut may have seen something relevant that POTUS never saw, Right? And I'm supposed to take your opinions seriously, Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 So let me get this straight. We both know that the hgher the level of clearance the more detailed the info provided to the individual becomes, right? The POTUS should have acces to all info, Right? Freshman Congressman Wingnut from Smurfsville, Alaska may only have a confidential clearance, or a basic secret, or possibly only a NoForn, Right? And you're gonna try to put forth the poition that they both saw the same intel or that Congressman Wingnut may have seen something relevant that POTUS never saw, Right? And I'm supposed to take your opinions seriously, Right? 511034[/snapback] Haven't you figured this out yet, they all had the same intel which was different. Where's the trust, the president said so..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 So let me get this straight. We both know that the hgher the level of clearance the more detailed the info provided to the individual becomes, right? The POTUS should have acces to all info, Right? Freshman Congressman Wingnut from Smurfsville, Alaska may only have a confidential clearance, or a basic secret, or possibly only a NoForn, Right? And you're gonna try to put forth the poition that they both saw the same intel or that Congressman Wingnut may have seen something relevant that POTUS never saw, Right? And I'm supposed to take your opinions seriously, Right? 511034[/snapback] Whatever. I'm not going to argue with you. I personally think it's entirely possible that that many people in Congress saw different versions of basically the same things, some more sanitized than others. Sanitized does NOT equal deception. The basic information is there, the how and where the information came from is what is often closely guarded, to protect sources. I don't know any of the facts. I DO know that this stuff is never "cut and dried". What exactly does "Congress" mean? Everyone? Or, certain members with the appropriate postions? Also take into account that there is a darn good chance that plenty of "Congress" had no idea WTF they were looking at, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Whatever. I'm not going to argue with you. I personally think it's entirely possible that that many people in Congress saw different versions of basically the same things, some more sanitized than others. Sanitized does NOT equal deception. The basic information is there, the how and where the information came from is what is often closely guarded, to protect sources. I don't know any of the facts. I DO know that this stuff is never "cut and dried". What exactly does "Congress" mean? Everyone? Or, certain members with the appropriate postions? Also take into account that there is a darn good chance that plenty of "Congress" had no idea WTF they were looking at, anyway. 511044[/snapback] I don't think we know for certain that all members of Congress can read, let alone personally read anything that comes to their office. What they knew and what they should of known, and what they had access to but didn't read may all be different sets. BTW sometimes I watch C-span just to see how Maxine Waters is coming with that afghan she is knitting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 I don't think we know for certain that all members of Congress can read, let alone personally read anything that comes to their office. What they knew and what they should of known, and what they had access to but didn't read may all be different sets. BTW sometimes I watch C-span just to see how Maxine Waters is coming with that afghan she is knitting. 511050[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Something I don't know the answer to, is what level of information are these Senators cleared to? There are a lot of different levels of access, and special access programs. Not pro or con towards the article, but there are things out there that would scare me to death if they were in the hands of a Senator or Congressman. 510922[/snapback] I share that concern but that would not really effect the point that Senators and Congressman did not in fact have the same intelligence as the President as the administration has repeatedly claimed. The problem is that how can you give the power to declare war to them and then deny them all the information they need upon which to base their decision? The idea that you can't allow them to see everything because they can't be trusted creates the opportunity to mislead them by spoon feeding them cherry picked intel. I think this is a weakness of democracies that you have to accept or just not have a democracy. You have to give them the information, all of it, within reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Whatever. I'm not going to argue with you. I personally think it's entirely possible that that many people in Congress saw different versions of basically the same things, some more sanitized than others. Sanitized does NOT equal deception. The basic information is there, the how and where the information came from is what is often closely guarded, to protect sources. I don't know any of the facts. I DO know that this stuff is never "cut and dried". What exactly does "Congress" mean? Everyone? Or, certain members with the appropriate postions? Also take into account that there is a darn good chance that plenty of "Congress" had no idea WTF they were looking at, anyway.511044[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 My whole point is that this isn't as cut and dried, IMO, as people would have us believe. Very few things in ANY business actually are. I wasn't being snippy about a lack of understanding. There seems to be some issue over certain people not being given access to certain types of raw data, and working papers. Does anyone have any idea of how much confusion that would cause? If people who spend careers trying to digest this stuff often get conflicted, what makes Senator X an expert? PS, once again, I'm not saying for or against, I'm simply trying to point out that this is a complicated process. Democrats will see what they want, Republicans will see what they want. Neither and both of which could be true or not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 23, 2005 Author Share Posted November 23, 2005 Whatever. I'm not going to argue with you. I personally think it's entirely possible that that many people in Congress saw different versions of basically the same things, some more sanitized than others. Sanitized does NOT equal deception. The basic information is there, the how and where the information came from is what is often closely guarded, to protect sources. I don't know any of the facts. I DO know that this stuff is never "cut and dried". What exactly does "Congress" mean? Everyone? Or, certain members with the appropriate postions? Also take into account that there is a darn good chance that plenty of "Congress" had no idea WTF they were looking at, anyway. 511044[/snapback] So now we've gone from "Congress had the same intel and agreed with us", to "Congress had the intel they were cleared to have, but it was enough, and they agreed with us," to "Congres had something, except they were too stupid to understand what it was, but they agreed with us anyway." Did I miss anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 So now we've gone from "Congress had the same intel and agreed with us", to "Congress had the intel they were cleared to have, but it was enough, and they agreed with us," to "Congres had something, except they were too stupid to understand what it was, but they agreed with us anyway." Did I miss anything? 511095[/snapback] Yeah, the fact that you're being a prick. Pick whatever. They are all probably right, to one degree or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 " Did I miss anything? 511095[/snapback] Yes, your brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 23, 2005 Author Share Posted November 23, 2005 Yeah, the fact that you're being a prick. 511108[/snapback] Yep! But I'm also right. So that makes me a Rightous Prick! (who can't spell fer shiiiitttee) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Yep! But I'm also right. So that makes me a Rightous Prick! (who can't spell fer shiiiitttee) 511130[/snapback] The Righteous Pricks - #1 in 1977 - You've lost that Flacid Feeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Yep! But I'm also right. So that makes me a Rightous Prick! (who can't spell fer shiiiitttee) 511130[/snapback] Better to be a righteous prick than an ordinary prick. What you're not getting, is that I'm right too. Like I said, any time one treads into these kinds of areas, everyone with a stake can take the exact same thing and make their argument. I'm simply trying to be practical about all of it, in my opinions. I'm definitely not a "party hack", anyone who reads my crap and drivel should be aware of that. My opinions are mine, not the Bush administration's, the Republican nor the Democratic parties. I do get to see some of the stuff that goes on, and sometimes shake my head as to how it gets presented. No small wonder everyone is confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts