Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Bad Prewar Intelligence

[North King]

Both are good points.

 

[ainwood]

Well, my view is that the blame-game is pretty-much irrelevent. If people get genuine satisfaction out of a big 'I told you so', then that's pretty churlish.

On the positive, I am glad that the system allows for these issues to be fully investigated, and I hope that some good comes out of it in terms of mores checks and balances. I believe that Bush was probably lead to his conclusions, however I also think that he was not that unhappy to be lead in this way.

I still wait to see how the middle-eastern situation evolves in the next few years.

 

[amadeus]

Having a weapons program does not make them an immediate threat.

Isn't the whole doctrine of preemption supposed to be removed potential threats, and not immediate ones?

At the time of the attack, Iraq's GDP would not have placed it in the top 25 on the fortune 500 list. They were poor, did not have much will or motivation, and were a general mess.

Saddam's state-heavy economy, corruption, and overall mismanagement can account for most of Iraq's suffering. They're the only strong oil economy in the Middle East with a per capita GDP under $5,000. Even Lebanon, a state that's been in anarchy and civil conflict for many years and has no oil, has a per capita income three times greater than the average Iraqi. Other than Saddam, there's no reason that the Iraqi economy would be as rotten as it was.

This is not the CIA's fault, even if it is a bloated bureaucratic nightmare. It is the fault of the administration, and the misrepresentation they put forth, and continue to put forth. Intelligence inaccuracies are just part of the business. The CIA did not lie, they had nothing to gain by lying.

Since you have absoloved the CIA and placed the blame directly on the sitting administration, does this then justify me attacking the Clinton administration for what they did or did not do based on perhaps faulty intelligence?

 

[amadeus]

Well, my view is that the blame-game is pretty-much irrelevent. If people get genuine satisfaction out of a big 'I told you so', then that's pretty churlish.

It's also wasting time and money that should be used to repair the problems, not harp on them.

 

[Sanaz]

Well, my view is that the blame-game is pretty-much irrelevent. If people get genuine satisfaction out of a big 'I told you so', then that's pretty churlish.

I've never been called "churlish", I had to look it up in the dictionary : "marked by a lack of civility or graciousness". Of course the investigations should continue, but it was high level officials, academics, and military personnel saying it was the wrong time for an attack. It has cost billions of dollars, too many lives, has caused the loss of goodwill of the world community, and has increased the threat of terror worldwide. There are incompetent creeps running the most powerful country on the planet, and in charge of the most powerful military in the history of the world. This is a lot more than "I told you so".

 

[amadeus]

Again, I ask, if the Bush administration is at fault, does this mean that if Kerry is elected, the CIA will be able to provide either actual intelligence, or will Kerry simply just ignore (and undermine) the CIA like Clinton did?

 

[ainwood]

churlish

\Churl"ish\, a. 1. Like a churl; rude; cross-grained; ungracious; surly; illiberal; niggardly. ``Churlish benefits.'' --Ld. Burleigh.

That was more what I meant: People taking more interest in the fact that they were right and someone else was wrong than they are in the actual underlying issue.

What I am trying to say is that now that this report is out, I hope that it is the catalyst for people to try and work out how to prevent these sorts of things in the future, and repair some of the damage (political) that has been done. What I sincerely hope doesn't happen is for people to simply say 'it was the CIA's fault' use them as the scape-goat and pretend that with a new director in the CIA, everything is going to be alright.

 

[Sanaz]

Isn't the whole doctrine of preemption supposed to be removed potential threats, and not immediate ones?

The "whole doctrine of preemption" is disgusting. Who cares what it's purpose is?

Saddam's state-heavy economy, corruption, and overall mismanagement can account for most of Iraq's suffering. They're the only strong oil economy in the Middle East with a per capita GDP under $5,000. Even Lebanon, a state that's been in anarchy and civil conflict for many years and has no oil, has a per capita income three times greater than the average Iraqi. Other than Saddam, there's no reason that the Iraqi economy would be as rotten as it was.

Not relevant. Obviously he was a lunatic, and should have been removed. My family is Iranian. Do you think I like the guy??? The only point is, they were not an immediate threat. They didn't have the resources.

Since you have absoloved the CIA and placed the blame directly on the sitting administration, does this then justify me attacking the Clinton administration for what they did or did not do based on perhaps faulty intelligence?

I have not absolved the CIA, that would be stupid. And attacking the Clinton administration is fair game, of course. The intelligence organizations have been a mess for a long time. Reform was needed long ago. The current situation is not the fault of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, or Bush specifically, it is systemic. Lack of funding until there is a crisis, etc. I doubt there would ever have been any reform if the US wasn't attacked directly, and that's too bad. But this case in Iraq goes far beyond "bad intelligence" causing a "bad decision". Trusting the intelligence too much was careless, because there was no way they were getting accurate information in that region. Think about it, how would they? It's not like the locals love the US, or even if some do, others would obviously lie to cause problems. And Johnny American couldn't exactly hang aroung Baghdad checking out potential weapons sites. This is common sense. The richest country on the planet should be able to figure it out.

 

[Sanaz]

Again, I ask, if the Bush administration is at fault, does this mean that if Kerry is elected, the CIA will be able to provide either actual intelligence, or will Kerry simply just ignore (and undermine) the CIA like Clinton did?

Maybe, it's hard to know. I can't imagine how the US will gather useful and reliable middle eastern intelligence, unless the Israelis gather it for them. The important thing is, knowing what to trust, and how much to trust it. That is the administration's job, not only the CIA's job. Both are to blame, not one or the other.

What I sincerely hope doesn't happen is for people to simply say 'it was the CIA's fault' use them as the scape-goat and pretend that with a new director in the CIA, everything is going to be alright.

Ah, I flipped around what you were saying when I read it. I agree with this.

 

[amadeus]

That is the administration's job, not only the CIA's job. Both are to blame, not one or the other.

Don't forget Congress.

 

[Sanaz]

Don't forget Congress.

Absolutely. There was a lot of misinterpreted information, and that is to be expected. People in high political office should have the reasonng capability to figure out what to believe and what not to believe.

Here's the part that interests me:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/10/senate.intelligence/index.html

Conservatives on the panel successfully blocked Democratic efforts to finish the second part of the report -- how the administration used the information from the intelligence community -- until after the November elections.

I'm not sure of the details and reasons for why this would be delayed, but the report is incomplete without this information. It looks like a PR job, to separate the blame on the CIA from the blame on the administration and on Congress. It may not be, but it looks that way. There needs to be QA bult into the system - the CIA needs to provide and interpret information, and those taking action need to verify it as much as possible before taking action. Otherwise, the head of the CIA would also be president. There needs to be a separate, two-step process. Or else the president and the administration look like either liars or fools, and neither is better than the other.

 

[FriendlyFire]

The "Joe Wilson" investgation is drawing to a close
The 9/11 commission is also nearing completetion

Then there are investigations in Halliberton, Non existant WMDs, Abu Griab Abuses and so on.
it seems strange to me that the Bush administartion is seeming to reject the findings and conclusion of these investigations. Thats why its seen as having "no-accountability" on top of this it has fought against such inquires, Its has stone-walled , dragged its feet and block these probes.
On top there's a seemlying endless amount of critisim and anger from retired government officals. This often from there own ranks. case point: Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke. Who have come out basicly saying the same message that this administartion dosnt listern, thinks it has all the answers, and what people often call, "backbiting".

"Your governement has failured you"

it pretty much summ's it up.

----

Is this administartion listerning now ? I would hope so but it has been an exteremly expensive and costly lesson.