Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by verybdog, Jul 11, 2004.
Guess who should also take the blame?
British Intelligence, MI6? Clinton?
How come Bush is not on your list?
nicephoras: mark this in your scorecard as a ridiculous post
Oh you meant Bush should be on the list. Boy I didn’t see that one coming!
I agree Bush should share some of the blame. I think it's time to realize that the CIA failed everyone and everyone, including Bush, let it fail. I'm not sure what can be done about that. The normal course of events when there is some sort of government failure, is after cooler heads are really to prevail some dedicated reporter does an investigation and writes a book. Then historians do their thing and eventually the truth becomes accepted.
That doesn't happen with the CIA. It's too hard to do a thorough investigation because all the facts never come out and the conclusions can always be manipulated by which facts do come out.
It's really a failing of democracy. Politicians are reactive because voters are reactive. It would be nice if the CIA had someway to be self-correcting. I've read books on the CIA where it's claimed that the dispassionate professional attitude of the CIA ended with Eisenhower. Since then the CIA has tried to compete with the other bureaucracies for the presidents ear. Now that doesn't mean that the CIA falsified intelligence. What it means is that they manipulate their own opinion while working the bureaucratic angles to get face time, get their own view accepted and get funding. It's natural for a bureaucracy to claim "Give me $3Billion and I will give you a satellite system that will tell you everything you need to know." The then battle becomes over funding and bureaucratic careers are made on the ability to get funding. Once they get the funding they have to claim that they have the promised capability and certainty.
There is the same problem in the military (give me $3Billion and I'll give you a weapon that will do X) but since it's more open, the problems are more readily solved.
One book I read said that since the CIA and others are trying to manipulate opinion then it's the fault of the decision makers for reacting to the bureaucracies in the way they do. ("They want to be lied to!") That's ridiculous to me as people have a responsibility to be clear in their facts even if that might jeopardize their funding.
Congressional oversight isn’t the answer as superficial critics won’t do the in-depth investigation necessary to form a good opinion. Then again maybe congress needs to create something like a Congressional Intelligence Office with full investigative authority. One can say that it would cause too many leaks but I think we can see that getting bad intelligence is even worse than having a few leaks.
I don't think you're accurately portraying what happened. In REAL TIME, the story all over the papers was how the Bushies were trying to push the CIA to come up with a stronger case against Saddam. I don't understand how the CIA gets more blame for bowing to pressure than the Bushies get for exerting that pressure.
Amnesia is not a strategy.
The CIA had the same position before and during Bush's administration. As it's been pointed out 1000x1000 times on this board, Clinton, Albright, Berger, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Edwards, Kerry, Blair, Putin, Chirac, etc., etc. all had the same opinion. All. A L L.
It was not "the neocons pressuring the CIA", as much as you might like it to be. It probably was bureaucratic hubris. The CIA had the same opinion well before, just before, during and after the Iraq war. It was a failing of the intelligence services. They all indicated a degree of certainty, i.e. slam dunk, that they just didn't have.
Now I don't mind reactive, flip-flopping politicians. They will dutifully follow the electorate. The problem is when their electorate wants to be misinformed, like you do.
What's ironic about your statement here is, by the time the war started *I* didn't think they had WMDs. Lots of bigsoccer posters didn't. Because by that time, the international media (nobody in the US, obviously) had examined the evidence and debunked it.
I don't have a statement, just a question...how did that happen? How did so many news geeks get it right, but so many gvt. types get it wrong? This whole WMD intel debacle is going to unfold over the next 10 years or more, and it's gonna be one of the great stories of modern history.
Because you reflexively disagree with Bush and had to justify your disagreement. Since GWB said the reason to invade Iraq was because they were hiding WMDs, you could not help but claim they did not. That's not independent thinking. It's slavery to the other tribe's thinking.
Go back and read your posts before the war started.
It should be the opposite. Because dave didn't see any evidence that Iraq has WMDs, so he disagreed with Bush's invasion decision, and did it consistently.
Nothing is more indepedent than that, imo.
On the other hand, operatives like McCraken sticks to the gun no matter what the fact and the truth are, displaying the true behavior of "slave tribal thinking."
Well crap, that's all that matters.
Q. "Mr. President, how could you have the gall to go to war in Iraq when "lots" of posters on bigsoccer, are you familiar with that website?
A. Of course. I read it every day. I especially like all the fire Jeffries threads in the Dallas Scorch forums
Q. How could you go to war when "lots" of the brightest young left-leaning political minds in the country decided, that, in deed, there were no WMD's?
A. Oh, crap. You're right. Let me call Dick up...
I was skeptical of the pre-war WMD claims as well. Mostly I was skeptical because we were having such a hard time getting other nations on board. I figured if the evidence was so compelling we had to invade and we had to do it right away, that more countries would have supported it. They weren't so I doubted. Also, somewhere I heard that a bunch of the evidence that Colin Powell gave the UN was a decade old. That didn't give me much of a comfort level, either.
But don't try to claim that everyone who was against the war in Iraq was that way because they were reflexively anti-Bush. I supported Afghanistan wholeheartedly.
Its a favorite past time of the right wing around here.
No, because of the reporting about such "facts" as the tubes, and the mobile weapons lab, and the Iraqi drones, etc etc etc.
It was all lies.
It's pretty amazing that you're criticizing me for being right. What about yourself? Since your side was wrong, what does that say about you? Fine, I'm a premature anti-fascist. But you're the fascist (if I may take the analogy to its logical conclusion.)
That's not the point. The point is that millions of American citizens didn't think Saddam had WMDs. It's very weird that the POTUS' defenders are arguing that it's not his fault because everyone thought he had them.
Not everyone. I didn't. Many here didn't. Scott Ritter didn't.
Now, I'm talking, say, Feb 2003, not Oct 2002.
It might have to do with the Reeps having a majority in virtually all of federal government....Why blame your guy (Bush and co.) when it is so close to election time, and the repercussion could reach your own seat in congress?
Blame it on the CIA people instead, since they have no reelection to seek, even if those who are possibly carry an equal amount of guilt....
So did I....It's a shame Bush did not take on Afghanistan in a more comprehensive manner...Kabul is not nearly all of Afghanistan, and even as the capital, is not nearly as secure as it should be.....
If only all of this could come out within 72 hours.
Back to the thread topic:
George Tenent should take most of the blame. Its amazing that he got to retire and was lauded by Bush. This guy should be in Gitmo, IMO. Worst CIA Director. Ever.
And yes, I know that Clinto appointed the guy. So, once again big demerits to Cigar Guy.
Also, the US Congress fell down like they were struck down with polio.
The media proved to be a bunch of lazy asses, more concerned with going embedded and showing off their high-tech gizmos.
These folks should all be sharing time with a drugged, drunken and ornery James Brown - and be bitch slapped from here to Georgia.
However, who was the guy in charge? No, not Cheney.
Bush. Let me repeat. Bush. That's where the buck should stop, and that's who should take the blame. We don't get to vote on jackals like Tenant. Too bad. But we do get to vote for commander-in-chief.
No, no. The buck never stops in this administration, certainly not anywhere Dumbya, he isn't doesn't know anything. Both sides agree on that.
Oh, BTW, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5412317/site/newsweek , Newsweek is saying the bipartisan congressional report has the Neocons pressuring for a reason to invade and Bushco. lieing their asses off prior to Invasion. Well knock me over with a feather.
That's some good readin'.