Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

All 435 House Members Can See Iraq Intelligence (WH not informed or consulted)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 09:47 AM
Original message
All 435 House Members Can See Iraq Intelligence (WH not informed or consulted)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2692.html

All 435 House Members Can See Iraq Intelligence -- and Talk on Iraq Next Week

To the surprise of the Bush administration, the House Intelligence Committee voted unanimously Wednesday night to allow all 435 House members to see the classified version of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq sent to the White House last week. The report is classified in part because it contains information about sources and methods used in intelligence-gathering.

The document will provide fuel for a House debate, scheduled to begin Tuesday, on a resolution of disapproval of President Bush’s plan to boost U.S. troop strength in Iraq. Remarkably, each House member will be given five minutes to speak. The decision to provide such broad access to the microphones is based on the fact that each member got the chance to speak before the Iraq war began, according to House leadership aides.

In announcing the vote to allow all members access to the classified portion of the NIE, the committee said those examining it “will be required to review the document in the Committee's secure offices in the Capitol and sign a secrecy oath.” The members will not be allowed to leave with notes, congressional sources said.

The White House was not informed or consulted about the decision. Such access for members is rare but not unprecedented. The document had been made available to members of several committees with jurisdiction over the intelligence community, but other lawmakers would have needed to request permission to read it. The committee had received written requests from one Republican and one Democrat, plus some other informal inquires, and decided it would be better to allow blanket access instead of voting on each request, congressional sources said.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
1. OH CRAP! There is a Muslim in there!!!
and TWO BUDDHISTS!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
2. Now that ought to wake these silly fools up.
"The White House was not informed or consulted about the decision."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. welcome to a Dem congress!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #2
14. That was my favorite part, "The White House was not informed or consulted..."
Quite a shot across the bow, after Junior decreed in 2001 that he need consult with or advise only 9 members of Congress of any activities that he decided to have classified - and made sure these 9 members could not discuss the information with any other single person, under threat of prosecution for having divulged classified information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #14
26. Yup. Mine, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #2
15. SNAP!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
3. K&R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woodsprite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
5. Now THIS is a Friday news line I like! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
6. Well the Republicans made the Clinton impeachment stuff available.
So it's not like there aren't precedents for this.

It's considered rude, but... so? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. on the Internet
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
7. Will they need to have debate closed to the public?
If they are going to be allowed to review the document(s) so they can properly debate on it. I would think it would be reasonble to close debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taoschick Donating Member (391 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #7
34. I imagine
There will be closed debate since the report remains classified and the members who view it will be required to sign a secrecy oath. I'm not sure how it can be properly debated in front of the full house if everyone doesn't view the classified portions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
8. Well, Bush and his gang have a history of misusing & misinterpreting intelligence
Let's see what responsible, intelligent adults can do!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #8
27. Hold on. You're speaking about the entire House?
And still saying "responsible, intelligent"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. No, just the ones electing to use responsibility and intelligence...
And we know which ones HAVEN'T been responsible or intelligent ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
9. is this the info
that shows the pentagon politically cherry-picked the info provided to *moron before the invasion of Iraq?

there is a news story with that tease out there i've heard once today, but didn't see it here ... yet.

dp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. this for the NIE - national intel estimate, a collection of analysis
of 16 intel agencies. Their conclusions paint a very dimal picture for the coming year ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. the clip i'm hearing is on cbs radio news
on Jones radio / steph miller during the 1/2 hour news.

i think it's referring to the Feith story, one bit was a quote from Levin about it being 'devasting news'. The first time i heard it said something about the 'slant the Pentagon used to find info politically matching' what wh was looking for' etc.

all paraphrased above, just what i'm hearing. It's changed some at the most recent story broadcast.

thanks
dp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
25. The Office of Special Plans (OSP) was created by Rumsfeld to help create a case to invade Iraq.
The Office of Special Plans (OSP) was created by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld to help create a case to invade Iraq.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Office_of_Special_Plans
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #25
31. i checked here first
Edited on Fri Feb-09-07 11:55 PM by dweller
has this story sprouted leggings? what? Rummy lied us into war? :sarcasm:

again, the original story i heard was about a 'political slant given to the info' that was being revealed now, and Congress was now given privy info concerning... but the radio clip changed upon the hour, and i went to work, and couldn't follow it further.

i'll look about on DU, the greatest, the Latest. Then go back to monitoring the radio broadcasts.

sigh, as some have said, this is the best of times, the good old days. Tomorrow, who knows?
dp

edit: here it is, i think.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x163813
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
12. Wow! A Government of Laws?
Proof of my claim that they can try, but they can't wipe out American standards of democracy in less than 5 generations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
13. This is the first time I've heard that information was not suppressed.
I hope they get it all out before Rove finds a way to seal the dike.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
16. What surprised Bush was the Unanimous Vote!
Not a majority, not partisan lines, but UNANIMOUS. I'm betting Boehner's ass is smarting pretty hard about now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Miss Chybil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
18. Let's see how many of them actually go read it. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Felinity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
19. K&R
The more that comes out in the open, the better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
20. YES!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lugnut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
21. Very good...
And unanimous to boot. Nobody can say they didn't know what they were voting for when it comes to a vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
22. that's my great congresswoman at work, i assume
jan schakowsky is on the house intellegence committee. she is also doing this-


SCHAKOWSKY INTRODUCES LEGISLATION TO SHED LIGHT ON PRIVATE WAR INDUSTRY

BILL WOULD END VEIL OF SECRECY OVER CONTRACTORS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN

WASHINGTON, DC--U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, a member of the Select Committee on House Intelligence, will today introduce legislation that would expose the extent to which the federal government is relying on private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan to carry out quasi-military functions. The Washington Post reported that approximately 100,000 private contractors, about 25,000 of which are security contractors, are operating in Iraq alone. No exact number has been reported by the Defense Department.

“For too long, the Bush Administration has relied on guns-for-hire to carry out inherently governmental functions,” said Schakowsky. “Contractors have operated under a veil of secrecy, without a public debate about the nature and scope of their operations. We still do not have evidence that they are reporting to military commanders in charge of the regions where they are deployed. This legislation will shed light on the war business, so that Congress and the American people can determine when and where the outsourcing of our security to private firms is warranted.”

The Iraq and Afghanistan Contractor Sunshine Act would require the Department of Defense (DoD), Department of State (DoS), Department of Interior (DoI), and the US Agency for International Development (USAID) to provide Congress with copies and descriptions of work performed in Iraq and Afghanistan that are part of contracts and task orders in excess of $5 million.

The bill also has a reporting requirement that would require those agencies to report to Congress:
# The number of contractors and subcontractors (at any tier) that are employed in Iraq and Afghanistan;
# The total costs of those contracts;
# The total number of dead and wounded contractors;
# Any host country, international, and U.S. laws that have been broken by contractors; and
# The disciplinary actions that have been taken against contractors by the U.S. government, their employers or a host nation.

A December 2006 GAO report revealed that “DOD continues to have limited visibility over contractors because information on the number of contractors at deployed locations or the services they provide is not aggregated by any organization within DOD or its components.” The Houston Chronicle reported in January that as many as 770 contractors have died, and another 7,761 have been injured in Iraq alone since the war began. The Department of Defense has not reported casualty statistics for contractors operating in Iraq.

“After billions of taxpayer dollars spent, hundreds of causalities, and dozens of reports of waste, fraud, and abuse, the time has come for accountability and transparency over security contractors,” added Schakowsky. “Our troops deserve a discussion of whether civilians who are deployed at their sides should be allowed higher wages and looser protocols.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
countmyvote4real Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #22
32. It's about time. I'm going to ask my congresswoman to co-sponsor.
You have a great district if your congresswoman is any reflection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
23. I love the smell of oversight in the morning!
I'm actually impressed the vote was unanimous.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. Amazing what can be voted when DeLay isn't blackmailing reps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hawkowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
24. The jig is up!
The only antidote for corruption is the light of day! Oh I bet the entire Bushco just crapped their collective pants in anticipation of the things that are going to come to light.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
30. Excellent!
K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 12:25 AM
Response to Original message
33. . . .
:kick:

dp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
halobeam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
35. Another kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC