| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
04 Feb 2004 06:43:11 AM |
| Object: |
OT: How did we get it so wrong? |
How did we get it so wrong?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1140422,00.html
With inquiries under way on both sides of the Atlantic, the failure of
western intelligence over Iraq is coming under intense scrutiny. Yes,
the spies got it wrong, admits former CIA analyst Kenneth Pollack, but
the politicians also moulded the evidence to fit the case for war
Wednesday February 4, 2004
The Guardian
Let's start with one truth: last March, when the US and its coalition
partners invaded Iraq, the American public and much of the rest of the
world believed that after Saddam's regime sank, a vast flotsam of
weapons of mass destruction would bob to the surface. That, of course,
has not been the case. Many people are now asking very reasonable
questions about why they were misled.
Democrats have typically accused the Bush administration of
exaggerating the threat posed by Iraq in order to justify an
unnecessary war. Republicans have typically claimed that the fault lay
with the CIA and the rest of the US intelligence community, which they
say overestimated the threat from Iraq. Both sides appear to be at
least partly right. The intelligence community did overestimate the
scope and progress of Iraq's WMD programmes, although not to the
extent that many people believe. The administration stretched those
estimates to make a case not only for going to war but for doing so at
once, rather than taking the time to build support for military
action.
Kenneth Pollack
http://news.google.com/news?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=+%22Kenneth+Pollack%22&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=+%22Kenneth+Pollack%22&sa=N&tab=nw
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=+%22Kenneth+Pollack%22&sa=N&tab=wd&cat=gwd%2FTop
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=Kenneth%20Pollack&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: How did we get it so wrong? |
04 Feb 2004 02:32:06 PM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote
Yes, the spies got it wrong, admits former CIA
analyst Kenneth Pollack, but the politicians also
moulded the evidence to fit the case for war
What the *****?!?!
Is this 1984? What?
The CIA *Did* *Not* get it wrong. Period. No question
about it. For a solid year we read (and some even posted)
article after article detailing the administrations invention
of "intelligence" data, and even turning to five-to-ten year
old "Intelligence" when the CIA couldn't find *Any*
evidence of WMDs in Iraq.
There were even some reports of dissatisfaction/rebellion
in the ranks of the CIA, as the administration routinely
ignored their findings in favor of "alternative" sources,
which just happened to support all the administration's
claims regarding WMDs.
Some even claimed that the CIA was often forced to change
their reports, in order to include the dubious "findings" of
the administrations highly paid "informants" in Iraq.
What's more, the administration has already blamed the CIA
once for this, and they got caught lying! They pretended it
was the CIA's fault that Bush's charges centered on "Nigerian
Yellow Cake" got into the state of the union address, when
in fact the CIA disproved that claim almost exactly one year
earlier.
Wake the ***** up, people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: How did we get it so wrong? |
04 Feb 2004 05:57:39 PM |
|
|
And so upon Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:32:06 -0500 didst JTEM speak thusly:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote
Yes, the spies got it wrong, admits former CIA
analyst Kenneth Pollack, but the politicians also
moulded the evidence to fit the case for war
What the *****?!?!
Is this 1984? What?
The CIA *Did* *Not* get it wrong. Period. No question
about it. For a solid year we read (and some even posted)
article after article detailing the administrations invention
of "intelligence" data, and even turning to five-to-ten year
old "Intelligence" when the CIA couldn't find *Any*
evidence of WMDs in Iraq.
There were even some reports of dissatisfaction/rebellion
in the ranks of the CIA, as the administration routinely
ignored their findings in favor of "alternative" sources,
which just happened to support all the administration's
claims regarding WMDs.
Some even claimed that the CIA was often forced to change
their reports, in order to include the dubious "findings" of
the administrations highly paid "informants" in Iraq.
What's more, the administration has already blamed the CIA
once for this, and they got caught lying! They pretended it
was the CIA's fault that Bush's charges centered on "Nigerian
Yellow Cake" got into the state of the union address, when
in fact the CIA disproved that claim almost exactly one year
earlier.
And Richard Pearle (aka "The Prince of Darkness") is still pissed and
wants the CIA "reformed."
In fact, that may be what the White House is *aiming for. Blame the CIA,
push through "reforms" that will ensure they'll not contradict neo-con
policies in the future.
(Though the CIA did get many things wrong. They missed that inspections
were working, that the Hussein regime was falling apart, and that the
"weapons programs" that existed were scams being pulled on an insane
dictator. Not that had they come back with all that information it would
have stopped the neo-cons of course. But the CIA really *did fumble in not
knowing just *how impotent and weak Iraq had become.)
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: How did we get it so wrong? |
04 Feb 2004 07:44:39 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote
But the CIA really *did fumble in not knowing just
*how impotent and weak Iraq had become.)
Really? I can't pull that out of any of the stories I read
leading up to the war. Their main point seemed to be
that the war would result in the protracted terror
campaign that we have been witnessing, not that Saddam
would be difficult to topple.
The fact that Saddam had lost control over significant
parts of his country had not escaped the CIA. In fact, it
was a major area of concern because of the Iranian-backed
militants who did have actual ties to Al Qaida. Getting rid
of Saddam meant getting rid of the only secular Arab
government that was actually battling Islamic militants.
Saddam, however, was not about to be over thrown from
an internal threat. No chance. He would have remained
firmly in control of Iraq indefinitely. The only thing keeping
Saddam from gaining the upper hand against the Islamic
militants was the U.S. imposed northern no-fly zone.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Goodness Godless" |
|
| Title: Re: How did we get it so wrong? |
04 Feb 2004 07:08:47 PM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:18510aff.0402040443.56a54f07@posting.google.com...
How did we get it so wrong?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1140422,00.html
With inquiries under way on both sides of the Atlantic, the failure of
western intelligence over Iraq is coming under intense scrutiny. Yes,
the spies got it wrong, admits former CIA analyst Kenneth Pollack, but
the politicians also moulded the evidence to fit the case for war
Wednesday February 4, 2004
The Guardian
Let's start with one truth: last March, when the US and its coalition
partners invaded Iraq, the American public and much of the rest of the
world believed that after Saddam's regime sank, a vast flotsam of
weapons of mass destruction would bob to the surface. That, of course,
has not been the case. Many people are now asking very reasonable
questions about why they were misled.
Democrats have typically accused the Bush administration of
exaggerating the threat posed by Iraq in order to justify an
unnecessary war. Republicans have typically claimed that the fault lay
with the CIA and the rest of the US intelligence community, which they
say overestimated the threat from Iraq. Both sides appear to be at
least partly right. The intelligence community did overestimate the
scope and progress of Iraq's WMD programmes, although not to the
extent that many people believe. The administration stretched those
estimates to make a case not only for going to war but for doing so at
once, rather than taking the time to build support for military
action.
Kenneth Pollack
CIA, MI6, KGB ?
This is their job. You pay these people to provide lies and disinformation.
They do the bidding of their 'govners', and 'carry the can' as well.
They are after all, just civil servants. No Hollywood Heroes.
--
Goodness Godless
My Nation is Planet Earth because my
Passport is my Education - anon.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
