Bush Document on War Data Is Held Back

[cal04]

The White House and the Central Intelligence Agency have refused to give the Senate Intelligence Committee a one-page summary of prewar intelligence in Iraq prepared for President Bush that contains few of the qualifiers and none of the dissents spelled out in longer intelligence reviews, according to Congressional officials.

Senate Democrats claim that the document could help clear up exactly what intelligence agencies told Mr. Bush about Iraq's illicit weapons. The administration and the C.I.A. say the White House is protected by executive privilege, and Republicans on the committee dismissed the Democrats' argument that the summary was significant.

The review, prepared for President Bush in October 2002, summarized the findings of a classified, 90-page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq's illicit weapons. Congressional officials said that notes taken by Senate staffers who were permitted to review the document show that it eliminated references to dissent within the government about the National Intelligence Estimate's conclusions.

"In determining what the president was told about the contents of the N.I.E. dealing with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, qualifiers and all, there is nothing clearer than this single page," Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said in a 10-page "additional view" that was published as an addendum to the Senate report.

A separate white paper summarizing the National Intelligence Estimate was made public in October 2002. The Senate report criticized the white paper as having "misrepresented'' what the Senate committee described as a "more carefully worded assessment" in the classified intelligence estimate. For example, the white paper excluded information found in the National Intelligence Estimate, like the names of intelligence agencies that had dissented from some of the findings, most importantly on Iraq's nuclear weapons program. That approach, the Senate committee said, "provided readers with an incomplete picture of the nature and extent of the debate within the intelligence community regarding these issues."

Among the specific dissents excluded from the public white paper on Iraq's weapons was the view of the State Department's intelligence branch, spelled out in the classified version of the document, that Iraq's importation of aluminum tubes could not be conclusively tied to a continuing nuclear weapons program, as other intelligence agencies asserted. Also left out of the white paper was the view of Air Force intelligence that pilotless aerial vehicles being built by Iraq, seen by other intelligence agencies as designed to deliver chemical or biological weapons, were not suited for that purpose.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/14/politics/14inte.html?hp

[PurityOfEssence]

1. It's not significant, and we'll defend its secrecy to the death!

At some point the sheer hilarity of it all should hit a tipping point with the public.

[doctorbombeigh]

2. Tipping point?

Oh. Is that why I fell over? Sheesh. Figures it would be the Administration of Swine knocking me down.

[justgamma]

3. Maybe if Shrub would read

more that 1 freaking page, he'd know what's going on in the world.

[struggle4progress]

4. He really can't read very well. eom

[HysteryDiagnosis]

5. Who has illicit weapons? Who uses them?

The review, prepared for President Bush in October 2002, summarized the findings of a classified, 90-page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq's illicit weapons. Congressional officials said that notes taken by Senate staffers who were permitted to review the document show that it eliminated references to dissent within the government about the National Intelligence Estimate's conclusions.<<

We do.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1102147.stm
>>The European Union is to discuss launching an investigation into the use of depleted uranium weapons in the Balkans after soldiers from up to nine Nato countries reported developing cancer.

On Friday, the United Nations said it found radioactive contamination at sites in Kosovo where Nato aircraft fired weapons containing depleted uranium (DU) in 1998.<<

http://www.nukewatch.com/du/20030930bthm.html
>>There are two ways to determine if the use of a particular weapon in military operations is illegal. The easiest way is if the weapon is used in violation of a treaty that forbids its use and the State using it is a party to that treaty. If there is no treaty on a specific weapon, then one must determine if the use of that weapon would violate existing rules and principles of binding humanitarian (armed conflict) law. Under these rules (the "weapons test") - derived from The Hague Conventions, the Geneva Conventions, and all other sources of military law - a weapon may be banned if: <<

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Depleted_uranium_061503.htm
>>NEW YORK -- The widespread use of depleted uranium weapons by U.S. and British forces in Iraq could pose serious health and environmental risks to troops and residents, nuclear and medical experts warned Saturday.<<

[shraby]

6. They should find out who removed

the qualifying statements in the report and then charge the person/persons with tampering with a government document.

[Snazzy]

7. New headline:Bush and C.I.A. Won't Release Paper on Prewar Intelligence nt

[DeepModem Mom]

8. kick

[Moderator]

9. kick

[DubyaSux]

10. I don't understand....

We're all wrapped up in these reports that mean very little when compared to what Bush knew without them:

1. Scott Ritter was crucified for stating what we know to be true now. He was there to physically see.
2. Saddam's son-in-laws defected and repeated to the world the same thing Scott Ritter was saying. They were there to physically see and in charge of some defunct programs. They defected. Why would they try to make Saddam look BETTER?
3. Joe Wilson could not find anything to the uranium/Niger story. He was there to physically see.
4. Hans Blix and all those "boots on the ground" (something the administration still claims never existed when talking about flawed intelligence) turned up nothing. They were there and followed up on every scrap of a lead they could find.

When Bush asks, "Is this all you got?", Powell claims the evidence is bullshit, pre-9/11 assertions from both Powell and Rice were that containment was working, but hard intelligence (from the above examples) indicates what we know to be true now, it was negligent to follow any type of intelligence report regardless of what it said.

[central scrutinizer]

11. ONE goddam page!!!

That is fucking ridiculous. Fearless leader is so busy that he has to have 90 pages summarized into one fucking page!!! One page is less than 500 words and almost 900 American soldiers have died as a result. Even if it isn't released, this is a damning revelation that shows how little these assholes value the lives of our soldiers.