Alaska Darin 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] No one has access to ALL information. That's the entire premise of the Sensitive Compartmented Information program. I like the way you're tossing around a few buzzwords to make it sound like you know what you're talking about. The reality of "classification" is where the info is sourced, more so than the information itself. That means that even though the President saw a Top Secret version of something, it most likely means those who saw the SECRET version only missed out on where it was sourced from, not the actual important information. This stuff is so basic even you should understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 There also seems to be this idea, that the White House sent some package to Congress with "Intell" or what ever any wants to call it, and that is all anyone went by. If you don't think that certain Senators and Congressman are wired in, and have their own contacts I have a bridge over the Potomac for sale. Were it me, and I were a Garden Variety member of the opposing party, I'd take whatever was handed to me, and pull my strings to contacts in the ops and intell community to get their take. The Pentagon is 5 minutes by Metro from the Capitol. I would consider it irresponsible for a serious Senator or Congressman not to do so. But, let's just simply make this political argument, regardless of the real world. And hoot and holler and say "Gotcha!" That's important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 There also seems to be this idea, that the White House sent some package to Congress with "Intell" or what ever any wants to call it, and that is all anyone went by. If you don't think that certain Senators and Congressman are wired in, and have their own contacts I have a bridge over the Potomac for sale. Were it me, and I were a Garden Variety member of the opposing party, I'd take whatever was handed to me, and pull my strings to contacts in the ops and intell community to get their take. The Pentagon is 5 minutes by Metro from the Capitol. I would consider it irresponsible for a serious Senator or Congressman not to do so. But, let's just simply make this political argument, regardless of the real world. And hoot and holler and say "Gotcha!" That's important. 511269[/snapback] Bueler? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 There also seems to be this idea, that the White House sent some package to Congress with "Intell" or what ever any wants to call it, and that is all anyone went by. If you don't think that certain Senators and Congressman are wired in, and have their own contacts I have a bridge over the Potomac for sale. Were it me, and I were a Garden Variety member of the opposing party, I'd take whatever was handed to me, and pull my strings to contacts in the ops and intell community to get their take. The Pentagon is 5 minutes by Metro from the Capitol. I would consider it irresponsible for a serious Senator or Congressman not to do so. But, let's just simply make this political argument, regardless of the real world. And hoot and holler and say "Gotcha!" That's important. 511269[/snapback] What you say is sensible. "Gotcha" is much more American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 There also seems to be this idea, that the White House sent some package to Congress with "Intell" or what ever any wants to call it, and that is all anyone went by. If you don't think that certain Senators and Congressman are wired in, and have their own contacts I have a bridge over the Potomac for sale. Were it me, and I were a Garden Variety member of the opposing party, I'd take whatever was handed to me, and pull my strings to contacts in the ops and intell community to get their take. The Pentagon is 5 minutes by Metro from the Capitol. I would consider it irresponsible for a serious Senator or Congressman not to do so. But, let's just simply make this political argument, regardless of the real world. And hoot and holler and say "Gotcha!" That's important. 511269[/snapback] I just don't accept for a second the idea that congressman Bluffnfuss has as much candid information before him as the President of the United States. Previously you suggested that they shouldn't have that much info because they can't be trusted and now you seem to be saying that they had the info anyway or access to it through unofficial channels. If I didn't know better I'd think you were searching through a drawer full of justifications hoping to find something that will fit. We don't know just what they saw and what the President saw or had available but that is why it should be investigated. Our credibility abroad has taken a huge, huge, huge hit over the WMD fiasco. Who in their right mind is going to believe us the next time we cry wolf after this? I for one want to know the details of exactly how we effed this up so badly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 I just don't accept for a second the idea that congressman Bluffnfuss has as much candid information before him as the President of the United States. Previously you suggested that they shouldn't have that much info because they can't be trusted and now you seem to be saying that they had the info anyway or access to it through unofficial channels. If I didn't know better I'd think you were searching through a drawer full of justifications hoping to find something that will fit. We don't know just what they saw and what the President saw or had available but that is why it should be investigated. Our credibility abroad has taken a huge, huge, huge hit over the WMD fiasco. Who in their right mind is going to believe us the next time we cry wolf after this? I for one want to know the details of exactly how we effed this up so badly. 511460[/snapback] A lot of that is already in the Senate report, but, Bush has had a bad couple of weeks, and the Democrats are pouncing. I'm not searching through the drawer, I just don't think I'm explaining myself very well. What I DO know, for a fact, is that in 2002 I helped put together the chemical weapons disposal plan for Iraq, and actually worked with locations and tonnage figures to figure out transportation requirements to get them to what would have been the central demil processing facility. Stuff didn't look trumped up to me, but I'm not Nancy Pelosi or Ted Kennedy - you know, people who actually work with this stuff daily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berg Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 A lot of that is already in the Senate report, but, Bush has had a bad couple of weeks, and the Democrats are pouncing. I'm not searching through the drawer, I just don't think I'm explaining myself very well. What I DO know, for a fact, is that in 2002 I helped put together the chemical weapons disposal plan for Iraq, and actually worked with locations and tonnage figures to figure out transportation requirements to get them to what would have been the central demil processing facility. Stuff didn't look trumped up to me, but I'm not Nancy Pelosi or Ted Kennedy - you know, people who actually work with this stuff daily. 511617[/snapback] Forget it, you can't adequately explain it to someone who hasn't worked in the SCI environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 Forget it, you can't adequately explain it to someone who hasn't worked in the SCI environment. 511771[/snapback] Very true. I just thought I'd try to talk about in general how stuff works. If more people understood that part, maybe there would be less problem, and people might examine things more objectively. I keep forgetting that any understanding gets in the way of opinion. I tried, but in fairness it's not easy to explain, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 Forget it, you can't adequately explain it to someone who hasn't worked in the SCI environment. 511771[/snapback] Or someone who expects a HotPockets® style security briefing BushBad! DING...Gotta go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pope zimli Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 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. 510971[/snapback] And in this case the "obvious reason for keeping access to certain things to the minimum amount" was to dupe the congress into voting for war? The fact is our intelligence sucked before we went into Iraq, and still sucks in Iraq and elsewhere. We spend more money on intelligence to get a shoddy and useless product. The proof is in the pudding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berg Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 Very true. I just thought I'd try to talk about in general how stuff works. If more people understood that part, maybe there would be less problem, and people might examine things more objectively. I keep forgetting that any understanding gets in the way of opinion. I tried, but in fairness it's not easy to explain, is it? 511776[/snapback] No it isn't. But I'm sure given a little time, the new DNI will fix everything... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 I helped put together the chemical weapons disposal plan for Iraq, and actually worked with locations and tonnage figures to figure out transportation requirements to get them to what would have been the central demil processing facility. Stuff didn't look trumped up to me, but I'm not Nancy Pelosi or Ted Kennedy - you know, people who actually work with this stuff daily. 511617[/snapback] No fooling? What kind of chemical stockpiles did you plan for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 No fooling? What kind of chemical stockpiles did you plan for? 511879[/snapback] That part I won't discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 And in this case the "obvious reason for keeping access to certain things to the minimum amount" was to dupe the congress into voting for war? The fact is our intelligence sucked before we went into Iraq, and still sucks in Iraq and elsewhere. We spend more money on intelligence to get a shoddy and useless product. The proof is in the pudding. 511820[/snapback] The obvious reason is that some congressmen leak like a sieve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts