Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Darned Good Intelligence" - Warning: This thread may make you freak out

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 » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 12:26 PM
Original message
"Darned Good Intelligence" - Warning: This thread may make you freak out
Bush's hand-picked crew of whitewashers has put out a report blaming the entire Iraq debacle on the intelligence community. The report is a farce, a fraud, evidence that the White House has managed to win its little war with CIA by sticking Goss in there and silencing whistleblowers by way of Plame-like intimidation. The corporate news media, of course, has helped.

My immediate thought: If the intelligence was so bad, so wrong, why are we still there?

Beyond that, let's remember a few things here.

Bush: U.S. had 'darn good intelligence' on Iraq

'When I gave the speech, the line was relevant'

From Dana Bash
CNN Washington Bureau
Tuesday, July 15, 2003

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Monday he had "darn good intelligence" on Iraq despite his disputed State of the Union claim that Baghdad sought to purchase uranium from Africa.

The rest.

The report skipped that. It also failed to mention The Office of Special Plans, the Chalabi-affiliated group that circumvented and intimidated the intelligence community to deliver skewed Iraq threat data to the public.

It also failed to mention Colin Powell's catastrophically embarrassing UN appearance in February 2003, when he stood before that world body and used a report plagiarized from a grad student essay to prove the existence of WMD in Iraq.

Likewise, no mention is made of the page on the White House website which still claims that Hussein had 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons (which equals 1,000,000 lbs.) of sarin, mustard and VX, along with nearly 30,000 munitions to deliver the stuf, mobile biological weapons labs and uranium from Niger for use in their robust nuclear weapons program. All this data comes from Bush's remarks in the 2003 State of the Union address. If the intelligence was so bad, why is this page still on the White House servers?

And then there was this:

"How the United States should react if Iraq acquired WMD. The first line of defense...should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence--if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration."

- Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
January/February 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs
2/1/2000

"We are greatly concerned about any possible linkup between terrorists and regimes that have or seek weapons of mass destruction...In the case of Saddam Hussein, we've got a dictator who is clearly pursuing and already possesses some of these weapons. A regime that hates America and everything we stand for must never be permitted to threaten America with weapons of mass destruction."

- Dick Cheney, Vice President
Detroit, Fund-Raiser
6/20/2002

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

- Dick Cheney, Vice President
Speech to VFW National Convention
8/26/2002

"There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest."

- Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From Press
9/6/2002

"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

- Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
CNN Late Edition
9/8/2002

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

- George W. Bush, President
Speech to UN General Assembly
9/12/2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

- George W. Bush, President
Radio Address
10/5/2002

"The Iraqi regime...possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

- George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

"And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons."

- George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

"After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon."

- George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

- George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

"Iraq, despite UN sanctions, maintains an aggressive program to rebuild the infrastructure for its nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile programs. In each instance, Iraq's procurement agents are actively working to obtain both weapons-specific and dual-use materials and technologies critical to their rebuilding and expansion efforts, using front companies and whatever illicit means are at hand."

- John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
Speech to the Hudson Institute
11/1/2002

"We estimate that once Iraq acquires fissile material -- whether from a foreign source or by securing the materials to build an indigenous fissile material capability -- it could fabricate a nuclear weapon within one year. It has rebuilt its civilian chemical infrastructure and renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, and VX. It actively maintains all key aspects of its offensive BW program."

- John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
Speech to the Hudson Institute
11/1/2002

"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists...The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction."

- Dick Cheney, Vice President
Denver, Address To Air National Guard
12/1/2002

"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world."

- Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
12/2/2002

Much more:

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/3/31/122152/4...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. I didn't know this one:
"How the United States should react if Iraq acquired WMD. The first line of defense...should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence--if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration."

- Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
January/February 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs
2/1/2000

So we're delivering democracy to them at all costs, yet in 2000 our present secretary of state threatened to turn the entire country into glass. I knew she was evil to the bone, but I didn't realize she was also stupid to the bone.

Turning Iraq to glass based on this defective intelligence would have resulted in world war III, and you can be sure that Europe, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa, South America, South Asia, East Asia and Canada would not have been neutral nor on our side.

And this monster is now the secretary of state. It is the end times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
35. Shouldn't that be 2001?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. It very well could have been 2000
Foreign Affairs is one of those stodgy old journals of critical opinion that only "the right people" read--specifically, decision-makers at very high levels of government.

Okay, every high-school debater reads it too.

Condi is part of the group that writes for this boring-ass book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. Bitterly, no suprise. Maybe this will PO some more ex-CIA enough
to step forward with the truth even with the stepped-up intimidation. They'd probably not survive if they started telling about what really happened on 9/11, but we can hope. As for Iraq, all too many people will take this POS report and close the circular logic by saying, with the eager encouragement of the Poodle Press, "See, this report PROVES Bush told the truth all along!"

And of course, the cartel also wants ammunition to justify the "hollowing out" (Hersh's prhase) of the CIA and emplacement of its own toadies.

Yes, a very "useful" report. Be angry, ex-CIA professionals, be VERY angry.

Recommended
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. Yep
Edited on Thu Mar-31-05 12:49 PM by FreedomAngel82
I also remember reading last November or early December that the Bush administration was going through the CIA and firing people unless they were "yes" men/women. Anybody who didn't like what was going on and wouldn't work with them had to leave. Go figure. Now we know why Bush pumped up his whole intelligence quotes so they could always go back and blame them. It makes sense. But the person who brought up the point of why we're still in Iraq does make good points and why we stayed but they'll just claim it's because we've already been there and blah blah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orwell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. It Doesn't Matter
"...all too many people will take this POS report and close the circular logic by saying, with the eager encouragement of the Poodle Press, "See, this report PROVES Bush told the truth all along!"


It doesn't matter what the lapdogs think of Bush. He can't run again.

They will need to find another Taliborn again snake oil salesman to peddle their policies of death and carnage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. It DOES matter. The credibility of his administration will pass
to the next neocon candidate, whom Bush will be prodded to endorse with great enthusiasm as a man (sorry, Condi...NOT) almost worthy to follow in his George Washington-like footsteps.

There is no shortage of snake-oil salesmen. It's the credibility of the whole pack and the policies that is in question. This report is intended to shore that up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
3. Why does the US public and media have no frikking MEMORY???
Edited on Thu Mar-31-05 12:35 PM by BlueEyedSon
Will, you're smart.... help me out here!

:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. This is why
http://www.ericblumrich.com/news.html

Plus all Schiavo all the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Done Donating Member (680 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. What a great video
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #8
19. That's Mike Malloy's voice, btw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. I thought so
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
17. They're constantly being distracted, misdirected & manipulated.
Meanwhile, we have a leadership that has gotten away with fraud, murder, robbery (funnelling public wealth into the hands of a few).

It's just so freakin' disgusting.

I am bitter, very bitter about all this. This country deserves so much better than these evil, manipulative, arrogant jerks. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FloridaPat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
5. 90% of the people world wide and 30% of we Americans knew Iraq had no WMD.
We knew Bush was lying. All the signs were there that it was a set up. There was only one group misleading everyone, and they weren't in Iraq. And after the mass of physical ailments that the Gulf War 1 vets suffered, to start another war was irresponsible. And the fact that everyone who wanted to go to war had no military experience - that should have tipped off quite a few people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. Even if Saddam DID have WMDs, invading (unilaterally) was a bad option.
The inspections were working (better than we knew!) but could have been modified to be what Scott Ritter called "coercive inspections."

If the inspection process continued with resistance from Iraq, would our allies have been more likely to form a true coalition?

If there were WMDs, what risk was that to our troops?

etc, etc.

It all made no logical sense at the time REGARDLESS of the intel.

Unless of course you assume that they KNEW there no WMDs, then everything fits.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jokinomx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #5
29. I concure...
I was very vocal before the invasion that we were being lied to. My Family uses a website at MyFamily.com to touch base with each other. We have great discussions there among different the belief systems in my Family. I posted several articles trying to show this war was a very bad idea. There were plenty of top end thinkers, ambassidors and former Generals telling * that this was not a good way to go.

But the dissenting view was told they were un-patriotic and thrown out with the trash. Now we're up to our neck in blood and the rest of the world is disgusted with our government and its policies.

Smoke and mirrors is the norm from this administration....I am just afraid of what they have up their sleeves for this term.


Have you noticed since the election is over... you haven't seen quite as many "Red" alerts from Homeland Security. MMmmm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
6. No mention of OSP? No mention of Chalabi? Jesus.
They're completely shameless. What I wouldn't give to be able to fast-forward the next four years, 'til a Democrat's in the WH and the REAL investigations have begun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radwriter0555 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
7. Yes, that phrase reverberated for me too, hence my posting
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joanski01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
9. I watched that live news conference
this morning. After bush* gave his prepared speech, he turned and walked out, leaving Chuck Robb and Silberman to answer questions. As soon as David Gregory got through grilling those too, I sure realized that it was a farce.

The intelligence agencies were all wrong because they tried so hard to come up with the intelligence that the bushies wanted, but they couldn't.

Silberman and Robb kept saying that their mandate to investigate did not include policy or USE of the intelligence.

What a waste of a year studying this crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
11. These people...
lie when the truth would fit better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
13. Sham travesty farce fake false whitewash cover-up lies and propaganda
There are never enough words.

Screaming to the Who "won't get fooled again" seemed like the only reasonable reaction this morning.

Screaming is all that's left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KlatooBNikto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
15. Klatoo's Maxim: Intelligence needs intelligent people to interpret it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
16. Lied to get their damned war on
Lied to cover why they did it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
18. Anyone who has read Karen Kwiatkowski's stuff at Salon knows...
That the intelligence was cooked by the Defense Intel people that the Bushes inserted into DOD to subvert and thwart the CIA.

These people are just unbelievably corrupt, dishonest, and shameless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joanski01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Richard Perle was on C-Span the
other morning, when a caller questioned him about the OSP and their intelligence. Perle said that the OSP did NOT have any intelligence. I said to myself, yeah, that's right, all of their intelligence was bogus.

Later, Perle said what an intelligent man Chalabi was and they were good friends. He said Chalabi was independently wealthy and did not have to go over and get involved in Iraq. Perle also said he was sure that Chalabi will have a position in the new government.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. Grrrrrr...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #22
28. He's just one of the gang, you know?
That Ahmed Chalabi guy, who swore we'd be ushered into Baghdad on a carpet of rose petals, and then sold us out to Iran, or did he?

After awhile the trail of deception is enough to make one's head spin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
21. bless your heart
THANK YOU.

:applause:

BTW, is that report online anywhere?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
23. What about the MEMO"S????
Bin Laden to attack the united states??? What good is intel if you don't READ IT????? And Condi and Bush were told 52 times, but theis is the fault of the INTEL Community?????
I suppose they should have read it to them!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
24. Here is the full text of the intelligence panel's letter to Bush
It's scary, when you think about what their recommendations really mean. It's an open ticket for Bush to do absolutely his worst with politicizing and controlling intelligence to support his partisan agenda. Negroponte on the loose. Nightmare.

After reading it, I've decided to quote it in its entireity here. It's for Bush to read, so it's not all that long anyway. And please, the next time you hear someone saying how wonderful John McCain is, add his signature on this evil document to the list of counter-facts.

--------------------------
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7346310
Letter to Bush from the intelligence panel
U.S. knows disturbingly little about adversaries' weapons

Updated: 9:24 a.m. ET March 31, 2005

President George W. Bushs commission on weapons of mass destruction issued its 618-page report Thursday. Below is the three-page introductory letter submitted by the panel to the president.
------------------------------
Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction
Washington, DC 20503

Co-Chairmen:
The Honorable Laurence H. Silberman
The Honorable Charles S. Robb

Mr. President:

With this letter, we transmit the report of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. Our unanimous report is based on a lengthy investigation, during which we interviewed hundreds of experts from inside and outside the Intelligence Community and reviewed thousands of documents. Our report offers 74 recommendations for improving the U.S. Intelligence Community (all but a handful of which we believe can be implemented without statutory change). But among these recommendations a few points merit special emphasis.

We conclude that the Intelligence Community was dead wrong in almost all of its pre-war judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This was a major intelligence failure. Its principal causes were the Intelligence Community's inability to collect good information about Iraq's WMD programs, serious errors in analyzing what information it could gather, and a failure to make clear just how much of its analysis was based on assumptions, rather than good evidence. On a matter of this importance, we simply cannot afford failures of this magnitude.

After a thorough review, the Commission found no indication that the Intelligence Community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. What the intelligence professionals told you about Saddam Hussein's programs was what they believed. They were simply wrong.

As you asked, we looked as well beyond Iraq in our review of the Intelligence Community's capabilities. We conducted case studies of our intelligence agencies' recent performance assessing the risk of WMD in Libya and Afghanistan, and our current capabilities with respect to several of the world's most dangerous state and non-state proliferation threats. Out of this more comprehensive review, we report both bad news and good news. The bad news is that we still know disturbingly little about the weapons programs and even less about the intentions of many of our most dangerous adversaries. The good news is that we have had some solid intelligence successes-thanks largely to innovative and multi-agency collection techniques.

Our review has convinced us that the best hope for preventing future failures is dramatic change. We need an Intelligence Community that is truly integrated, far more imaginative and willing to run risks, open to a new generation of Americans, and receptive to new technologies.

We have summarized our principal recommendations for the entire Intelligence Community in the Overview of the report. Here, we focus on recommendations that we believe only you can effect if you choose to implement them:

Give the DNI powers--and backing-to match his responsibilities.
In your public statement accompanying the announcement of Ambassador Negroponte's nomination as Director of National Intelligence (DNI), you have already moved in this direction. The new intelligence law makes the DNI responsible for integrating the 15 independent members of the Intelligence Community. But it gives him powers that are only relatively broader than before. The DNI cannot make this work unless he takes his legal authorities over budget, programs, personnel, and priorities to the limit. It won't be easy to provide this leadership to the intelligence components of the Defense Department, or to the CIA. They are some of the government's most headstrong agencies. Sooner or later, they will try to run around---or over-the DNI. Then, only your determined backing will convince them that we cannot return to the old ways.

Bring the FBI all the way into the Intelligence Community.
The FBI is one of the proudest and most independent agencies in the United States Government. It is on its way to becoming an effective intelligence agency, but it will never arrive if it insists on using only its own map. We recommend that you order an organizational reform of the Bureau that pulls all of its intelligence capabilities into one place and subjects them to the coordinating authority of the DNI-the same authority that the DNI exercises over Defense Department intelligence agencies. Under this recommendation, the counterterrorism and counterintelligence resources of the Bureau would become a single National Security Service inside the FBI. It would of course still be subject to the Attorney General's oversight and to current legal rules. The intelligence reform act almost accomplishes this task, but at crucial points it retreats into ambiguity. Without leadership from the DNI, the FBI is likely to continue escaping effective integration into the Intelligence Community.

Demand more of the Intelligence Community.
The Intelligence Community needs to be pushed. It will not do its best unless it is pressed by policymakers-sometimes to the point of discomfort. Analysts must be pressed to explain how much they don't know; the collection agencies must be pressed to explain why they don't have better information on key topics. While policymakers must be prepared to credit intelligence that doesn't fit their preferences, no important intelligence assessment should be accepted without sharp questioning that forces the community to explain exactly how it came to that assessment and what alternatives might also be true. This is not "politicization"; it is a necessary part of the intelligence process. And in the end, it is the key to getting the best fi-om an Intelligence Community that, at its best, knows how to do astonishing things.

Rethink the President's Daily Brief
The daily intelligence briefings given to you before the Iraq war were flawed. Through attention-grabbing headlines and repetition of questionable data, these briefings overstated the case that Iraq was rebuilding its WMD programs. There are many other aspects of the daily brief that deserve to be reconsidered as well, but we are reluctant to make categorical recommendations on a process that in the end must meet your needs, not our theories. On one point, however, we want to be specific: while the DNI must be ultimately responsible for the content of your daily briefing, we do not believe that the DNI ought to prepare, deliver, or even attend every briefing. For if the DNI is consumed by current intelligence, the long-term needs of the Intelligence Community will suffer.

There is no more important intelligence mission than understanding the worst weapons that our enemies possess, and how they intend to use them against us. These are their deepest secrets, and unlocking them must be our highest priority. So far, despite some successes, our Intelligence Community has not been agile and innovative enough to provide the information that the nation needs. Other commissions and observers have said the same. We should not wait for another commission or another Administration to force widespread change in the Intelligence Community.

Very respectfully,

Laurence H. Silberman
Co-Chairman

Charles S. Robb
Co-Chairman

Richard C. Levin
John McCain
Henry S. Rowen
Walter B. Slocombe
William 0. Studeman
Patricia M. Wald
Charles M. Vest
Lloyd Cutler (Of Counsel)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
camitche Donating Member (134 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
26. What did we expect?
Bush and co. weren't going to come out and say, "Whoops, our bad. We used intelligence that wasn't great, spun it to sound great, and threw in a few lies in order to push for the Iraq war. What can we say? Seemed like a good way to secure our oil interests. Can you blame us?"

We know that's the truth, but come on. No politician ever owns up to mistakes. Dems or Repugs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
30. In all the coming nashing of teeth, do not expect to hear anything
about the WH's special dept set aside to cherry pick the intelligence. Don't expect to hear anything about Dick Cheney going to the CIA and directing them on what to investigate and what to find. Don't expect to hear anything about the CIA briefings that the WH simlpy did not want to be. Its all the intelligence agency's fault.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. Think about it for a moment...
ALL THESE "after the fact" reports are irrelevant.

TODAY, right now as I sit in front of my computer...

Children are DYING in Iraq from injuries, poison and malnutrition.
Doors are being kicked in and innocent civilians terrorized.
Americans are conducting and condoning TORTURE. EVEN AFTER HAVING BEEN BUSTED FOR IT. The "rules" don't apply to you as they seem not to apply to your "*figurehead."

Your OWN KIDS are returning to you with MASSIVE INJURIES that your *dauphin addresses by CUTTING OFF THEIR FUNDING. FUCK 'EM!!! May they die homeless in the streets!!!

And we across the big pond watch, astounded, at the collective wailing
and gnashing of teeth over a woman's corpse.

SICK, SICK, SICK!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Discord Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
31. My fear
is that this report will propel Patriot Act like changes in the intelligence agencies, but within the agencies, so they wouldn't have to worry about renewing the PA every so often.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
32. the Roberts Committee: Convenient end to 9/11 investigation
http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2005...

Convenient end to 9/11 investigation, ALAN R. KRAG, Warner - Letter

March 21. 2005 8:00AM


In 2004 the Senate Intelligence Committee investigated the credibility of the intelligence leading to the administration's decision to invade Iraq. The finding was that all the intelligence was wrong. The committee was to continue working to determine if the administration influenced the intelligence reports or misused or misconstrued the information it had.

National Public Radio reported on March 10 that the House committee that was investigating the same issue was quietly stopped. The Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, Sen. Roberts, a Republican, announced the same day that he was stopping the Senate investigation because "we already know that the information was wrong and that the administration says that they believed it to be true. . . . We shouldn't worry about the past. We should concentrate on the future."

Really?

Use this argument with the people who died in the Twin Towers. Tell it to the families of the 1,500-plus who have died in Iraq.

I believe "the powers" already have an idea that the administration misused intelligence. If the whole story were told, the outrage would bring down the presidency. Since the first Senate Intelligence Committee report, the administration has been spinning the story to say the end justifies the means: "We may have lied about the reasons for going into Iraq, but look how we've helped the Iraqis. We have Saddam Hussein in prison. Look how we are stabilizing the oil supply out of the Middle East."

..more..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dean_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
33. Gentlemen, Iraq had WMD's.


Would you believe....he harbored terrorists?


Would you believe....he gassed his own people?


Would you believe....we're spreading Democracy to the Middle East?


Did I miss one?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cats Against Frist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
36. That calls for one response, and one response, only:
"You didn't hear it, you didn't see it!
You won't say nothin' to no one,
Ever in your life.
You never heard it.
How absurd it all seems, without any proof!"

-- From the Rock Opera, "Tommy"


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
37. You present it well.
These people have no shame. I'm not sure either how, or why .... but it still stuns me when I look at what they have done, and what they continue to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tuvor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
38. Wanna see some news items from well before bush's war?
Edited on Thu Mar-31-05 08:16 PM by tuvor

(Tom Toles, February 2004)

Why the CIA thinks Bush is wrong
The president says the US has to act now against Iraq. The trouble is, his own security services don't agree.
13 October 2002
http://www.sundayherald.com/28384

CIA in blow to Bush attack plans
The letter also comes at a time when the CIA is competing with the more hawkish Pentagon, which is also supplying the White House with intelligence on the Iraqi threat.
October 10, 2002
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,808970,00.h...

White House 'exaggerating Iraqi threat'
Bush's televised address attacked by US intelligence
October 9, 2002
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,807286,00.h...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
40. Sadly, the American people, like their president , have no curiosity.
The truth is so frightening and so obvious no one wants to admit it.

This is what the pretzeldent had to say about the intel community just today:

~snip~ The men and women of our intelligence community work hard. And the sacrifices they have made have helped protect America, and our nation is grateful for their hard work. The work they're doing is critical. We need to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on the weapons of mass murder they would like to use against our citizens. ~snip~

Do these words sound like they should be from a man who just got a report that said the intel was 'DEAD WRONG'?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost4words Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
41. I may be wrong but didn't he say Darn Good Intelligent, ?
using the wrong tense? I am sure I heard it and thought that stupid fuc* cant even speak proper english!
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 Fri Aug 01st 2014, 02:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) 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