Had a bit of an argument with my boss today

[Mythsaje]

He said that Bush blasting the Dems for their comments on the war is one of the few things he agrees with him on...that they're trying to play it both ways--voting for the war then and using a "weak excuse" of not getting the same intelligence the President had. He simply doesn't believe that they didn't have access to the same intelligence he did.

Any rebuttals?

[wookie294]

1. Yeah, like 535 members of Congress are walking around w/ state secrets

Does anybody really think the executive branch would feel "great" knowing 535 people in Washington have access to the same intel as Bush?

[Bozita]

2. Pres controls the intel agencies -- Congress got FILTERED info

Bush created the filters.

[niyad]

3. remind him that the repukes have control of the white house, the senate

and the house--so just WHO is responsible? ask him why it is that the repukes cannot take responsibility for ANY of their lies, deceptions and gross stupidities and blunders, since THEY are the ones in power?

[rsmith6621]

4. Ya....here is one....

Ask him tyo name three things that bush has done right since stealing the office....

Then watch him squirm and blame Clinton.

[Mythsaje]

6. He's not a repug...

Actually he's fairly Progressive about a lot of things...he tends to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, for the most part. I see him as a pretty good example of where a lot of Americans are--completely disenchanted with ALL the politicans in D.C. and elsewhere.

[babylonsister]

5. If you didn't see Hardball today, this transcript

is well worth reading. Kerry laid it out and mentioned specifics of what Congress was told vs. actual info the admin had and failed to disclose.

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1190

Here's a snippet:

KERRY: Well, I’ll give you a number of examples: In the State of the Union message, the president of the United States used information about nuclear materials and Saddam Hussein trying to get them from Africa. Three times the White House had been told by the CIA, in writing and verbally, that is not accurate, don’t use that intelligence. They used it. They didn’t tell Congress it wasn’t accurate.

Likewise when they announced to people that they had the delivery ability for weapons, biological and chemical weapons, within — I think it was — 45 minutes, if I recall, but less than an hour. That was not shared by members of the intelligence community, and it was not shared with Congress that the intelligence community disagreed.

When they said that there were poisonous gas and bomb-making training given by Iraqis to al Qaeda, that was not accurate. It was discounted by the Defense Intelligence Agency. They never told us about the discount.

There were a whole series of occasions where they took evidence, took the best light of the evidence only, kept the worst or alternatives from Congress, and fed the American people with the imperative for war.

[Mythsaje]

8. Thank you...

This is definitely the sort of thing I was looking for...

[sandnsea]

7. oodles and oodles

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/

[MissB]

9. Don't discuss politics or religion with your boss.

Or your co-workers.

[Mythsaje]

11. And why not?

We discuss these sorts of things all the time.

[MissB]

14. It is an old adage.

Makes for a better work environment.

[Mythsaje]

15. It can, I'm sure...

depending on the circumstances. I can say that it doesn't cause any trouble around our workplace.

[Hello_Kitty]

10. I've had some success comparing it to a bad marriage

Let's say you meet what you think is the guy or gal of your dreams. He/she seems nice, tells you everything you want to hear, and you are convinced that you can't live without this person. Your family and friends think this is a great person as well. Your prospective spouse's family also extols the virtues of your betrothed.

Soon after the honeymoon, or maybe later than that, you realize that you have married a sick, pathological liar. Everything you believed about this person was wrong. He/she turns out to be an abusive drunkard who ruins your life and credit. You and your family and friends got bad intelligence. Your inlaws knew what kind of character he/she possessed but were hoping against hope that the marriage would work out anyway. Maybe they thought you'd be a good influence on this person or that he/she would "settle down" with a good spouse.

So you begin divorce proceedings, understandably so to most of the people who know what you went through in your marriage. However, your spouse's family accuses you of being a quitter, of not taking your marriage vows seriously. Sickness and Health. Til death do you part and all that, you know. They then add insult to injury by claiming that you should have known what type of person you were marrying.

I mean, after all, didn't you and your inlaws know the same person? Or did you?

Seems hokey but I've actually succeeded somewhat with this line of reasoning a couple of times. Guess it's because so many people have been in failed marriages and relationships.

[Lex]

12. CNN's "fact check" tonight said that the Dems did NOT have the same intel.

Period.

If CNN even admits it, maybe your boss will believe it?

[Mythsaje]

13. Possible...

I'll mention it.

[skipos]

16. Do you have a link to the transcript by chance? nt

[Lex]

18. Why yes I do. From "The Situation Room" this afternoon:

DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, as you say, the president and his aides have been on the offensive in recent days against critics of their use of pre-war -- of intelligence. But there may be some problems with some of what they are saying.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ENSOR (voice-over): The president and his aides have counter- attacked against critics with two major arguments. The key one, Congress and the administration had access to the same intelligence.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Leaders in my administration and members of the United States Congress from both political parties looked at the same intelligence on Iraq, and reached the same conclusion. Saddam Hussein was a threat.

ENSOR: In a general sense, that is true. U.S. intelligence believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and said so in a National Intelligence Estimate Congress had access to before the war.

But it is not accurate to say Congress and the administration looked at all the same intelligence. The White House had access to far more than lawmakers did. Presidential daily briefs on intelligence are never given to Congress.

Some intelligence available to the White House but not to Congress gave reason to doubt some of the president's blunt pre-war assertions, for example that Iraq had helped al Qaeda on weapons.

BUSH: We have learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb making, in poisons and deadly gasses.

ENSOR: The president said that in October 2002. Yet eight months earlier, the Defense Intelligence Agency questioned the reliability of the captured al Qaeda operative who was the source of that assertion, in a document delivered to the White House. It was recently declassified at the insistence of Democratic Senator Carl Levin.

Speaking of Ibn Al-Shaykh al-Libi, the DIA said, quote: "It is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers."

Pentagon spokesman called the release of the DIA document, quote, "irresponsible" and "out of context."

The next major argument from the White House, independent reviews have already determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence before the war. STEPHEN HADLEY, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: They were looked at by the Silberman-Robb Commission, they were looked at by the Senate Intelligence community -- Committee. Both of them concluded that there was no manipulation of intelligence.

ENSOR: But in fact, no commission or committee has yet spoken on whether the White House misrepresented pre-war intelligence. The Senate Intelligence Committee, under pressure from Democrats, is working on it. The orders to the Silberman Commission from the White House specifically left it out.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/17/sitroom.03.html

[skipos]

20. Thanks! nt

[VPStoltz]

17. Maybe this will teach the Dems in congress to vote for what they

know is right THE FIRST TIME! I really think a lot of them voted for the war because * was considered popular and they knew what shit they would have to take if they voted against it. I wish for once the Dems would just stand up to the Repug insanity.

[Tactical Progressive]

19. It wasn't just the distorted intelligence

full of every lie and half-truth they could work in.

It was also that Bush lied about wanting the authority to attack Iraq only after all other means had been exhausted. He was planning on attacking all along, from when he first took office, even before 9/11. We know that from people who left his administration.

He not only lied about the intelligence, he lied about his intentions.

Alot of Dems voted against giving Bush the authority, and the ones who did go along did so with speeches on the Senate floor about how that authority was contingent on exhausting every other avenue to avoid a conflict.

[chalky]

21. Does your boss own the company? If not, ask him

if he knows everything about your company that the VP or CEO knows.