Iraq Intelligence Amendment

Not sure why there is a fight over this. Well, other than Kennedy is the source.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) worked yesterday to attach to the fiscal 2006 intelligence authorization bill an amendment that would require portions of Presidential Daily Briefs (PDBs) from Jan. 20, 2000, to March 19, 2003, that referred to Iraq to be submitted to the appropriate congressional committees by the CIA Director Porter J. Goss.

Portions, even the vast majority of the brief should be available. I fail to see any reason why the appropriate committees shouldn't have identical access to the information. The only argument I can think of relates directly to politics. By giving the intelligence reports to congress gives them direct access to activities that have obvious political consequences. Not to mention that the congress has the same ability to retain intelligence as a sieve has of retaining water.

Kennedy yesterday described as "plain wrong" the statements by Bush and Cheney that Congress "had the same intelligence about Saddam's development of weapons of mass destruction as they did."

His amendment would give the Senate intelligence committee access to relevant PDBs as it conducts its "phase two" inquiry into prewar intelligence. That controversial probe will focus in part on how administration officials used intelligence in public speeches and testimony.

I'd like a different question asked here. Did any of the politicians that are denying having access to the intelligence actually seek any further information beyond what was provided to them? Not asking for the information isn't the same as not having access to that information. I find it very disturbing that I can't find any evidence of anyone in the MSM has asked the loudest voices this question.

I ran a google news search on the topic and came up with only one article from OpinionJournal on the topic. Do these politicians wish us to believe that they didn't use due diligence in getting correct information, when they were obviously in a politically divisive situation? They obviously didn't like Bush and wanted his failure to start ASAP. Especially when he got a great lift from his actions at the time of 9/11.

Here are some great quotes that are lined out in the article:

Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:

Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.

Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Adviser, who chimed in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:

He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.

And

Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this score. A few months after Mr. Clinton and his people made the statements I have just quoted, a group of Democratic senators, including such liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President "to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs."

Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

Pelosi's voice, being especially shrill, should be held responsible for this statement. She being on the Intelligence committee had every access to the information that Bush used. She can make no claims that she didn't. Unless she's willing to state that she just didn't bother looking at the data. Or is she trying to say she trusted the information from the President's analysis? I don't believe that for one minute.

Sen. Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Mr. Bush's benefit what he had told Mr. Clinton some years earlier:

Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agreed as well:

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

Hillary has been fairly quiet on the topic from what I can see. I actually find that fascinating, but strategically pretty astute. But then there is Rockefeller, another Intelligence committee, and again the same access to information as the President. But Rockefeller has stated that he shouldn't be held responsible for his Iraq vote, because the information he was given was intentionally flawed. Personally, I would think that he should be seen as negligent for performing the work that his constituents voted him in to office to perform.

Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 2002:

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force--if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.

Perhaps most startling of all, given the rhetoric that they would later employ against Mr. Bush after the invasion of Iraq, are statements made by Sens. Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, also in 2002:

Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Byrd: "The last U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."

Well, you get the picture. I'd love to see this list answer the question I ask above on access requests for intelligence data. I bet that is a question that won't get a straight answer.