• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

10 Pro-War Fallacies Debunked

argexpat said:
Like I said, if you've got evidence, then present it.

Jeez! I can't believe you're too lazy to click on the link! One click and they are all there!

A more complete reading of that same report that you cited also provides the following...

The President's otherwise exclusive control over national intelligence, however, is tempered by a statutory obligation to keep Congress, through its two congressional intelligence committees, "fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities..." [emphasis added] (7) Current law also prevents the executive branch from withholding intelligence information from the committees on the grounds that providing the information to the congressional intelligence committees would constitute the unauthorized disclosure of classified information or information relating to intelligence sources and methods. (8)

In 2004, Congress further strengthened its claim to access to national intelligence when in approving legislation reforming the intelligence community it directed that the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) provide the legislative branch access to national intelligence. (9) Previously, the head of the Intelligence Community was legally charged with providing the legislative branch national intelligence, but only "where appropriate." (10) Congress never defined, either in statute, report language or during debate, what it considered to be "appropriate," essentially leaving the executive branch free to adopt its own interpretation of congressional intent in this instance. The impact of the newly enacted, and unqualified directive, is dependent, as is generally the case, upon how aggressively Congress asserts it statutory prerogative.

So you haven't proven anything.
 
oldreliable67 said:
Jeez! I can't believe you're too lazy to click on the link! One click and they are all there!

Dude, if "they are all there" then cut and paste them. Talk about lazy! Either that or just concede the point already.

oldreliable67 said:
A more complete reading of that same report that you cited also provides the following...So you haven't proven anything.

The report clearly states that the President has far more access to intelligence than does Congress, and then goes on to list in detail all the different kinds of intel Congress isn't privy to, so unless Bush gave Congress every single bit of intel that he saw, which we know he did not, then Congress did not "see the same intelligence" that Bush saw.

The sections you quote merely state that the president is obligated to keep Congress informed of all intelligence activities, but not the intelligence itself. And as we now know, thanks to the revelations of his illegally spying on Americans, Bush is not so good with following the law.
 
Back
Top Bottom