Lest We Forget!

earllogjam

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
4,917
Media
0
Likes
179
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
I've never been so confident about the assertion that all the intelligence agencies of the US and its allies were totally mistaken about Saddam and his capabilities. That's a bit of a stretch to believe. Ask yourself: Who makes such an claim and whose interest does it serve? And how can such a claim be verified?

How does the unwashed public really know what various US and foreign intelligence agencies internally concluded about the threat Saddam actually posed? Are intelligence agencies in the habit of generously making public all their findings and conclusions (and thus risk revealing their sources)? I think not.

Remember: the CIA and similar agencies in the US work for the executive. They do what he tells them to. All we know is what information the Bush administration chose to make public to build support for invasion.


Are you thinking that the CIA and M5 fabricated evidence at the request of the President to make an excuse for a war deliberately? That certainly would be criminal. But I would wonder what would Bush gain by this? I think he is more naive than evil myself and that the invasion was more a mistake than a plan.

Personally, I suspect the real answer lies in incompetence, both the CIA and Bush and his advisors. They were overly eager and desperate to avenge 911 and made their decision to invade on ambivalent, unverifiable or conflicting information from the CIA. And the concurring faulty information from M5 tipped Bush's and Blair's decision towards invasion. There WAS other information from other counties that was ignored or not shared.

Germany and France were the two counties refused to invade and who claimed that there was inconclusive evidence regarding WMD's but we were led to believe by our media that they only said this to avoid political suicide and unrest in their own counties each having a very large Muslim population.

I suppose we will never be privy to what truly went down at the CIA but I think if we found out we'd all be aghast at what a wasteful, incompetent, ineffectual organization it has become.
 

Rikter8

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Posts
4,353
Media
1
Likes
125
Points
283
Location
Ann Arbor (Michigan, United States)
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male

She was lied to just like everyone else.
EVERYONE was fed Mis-information.
Those of us that knew what kind of trouble and shit the US was headed for could do nothing but sit back and watch it all happen.

What the US needs to do, is step up to the plate, and Arrest those in office, inprison them, and throw away the key.
Impeachment is too easy. They need to pay for their crimes.

If Lil Ol Bill can get Impeached for a little Nooky, Shrub should be impeached for sending Thousands of troops to their deaths, and placing the country in a near irreversable financial state.

And Where the FUCK is Cheney??!
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Are you thinking that the CIA and M5 fabricated evidence at the request of the President to make an excuse for a war deliberately? That certainly would be criminal.

It would indeed be criminal to utterly fabricate evidence although that doesn't mean it can't ever happen. That said, its not criminal to use flimsy or incomplete evidence as the basis for decision making. I've seen it happen a number of times in my career. Nor is it criminal to selectively disregard what intelligence doesn't please the decision makers. Its also not criminal to release for public consumption only that intelligence which supports what the decision makers want published. This has happened a number of times to many nations.

Know that the intelligence business is not just an objective fact gathering endeavor cleanly carried out by disinterested professionals. Turf wars, political influence, jealousy, cronyism, secretiveness, personality clashes, and yes, incompetence, among intelligence agency managers all influence what information gets included in official intelligence reports and what doesn't. This is true of all large organizations. Any or every sociological factor might come into play in the preparation of official reports.

With all that in mind its not hard to imagine administration officials and political appointees beholden to GWB making sure that only the "right" intelligence ever reached GWB's desk prior to the war. And its not hard to believe that dimwitted GWB never wanted to seriously question the validity of the information or the confidence that intelligence professionals (ie non political appointees) had in the quality of that information. He already knew what he wanted to do and now he had his rationale.

So, GWB or his advisors didn't need to fabricate evidence. They only needed to gather and exaggerate what intel was favorable to their intentions while ignoring or quashing any info to the contrary.

I can remember Colin Powell making the adminstration's case for war before the UN assembly in late 2002. Even he looked a bit doubtful about the quality of all the intel that was being presented to the audience.

Germany and France were the two counties refused to invade and who claimed that there was inconclusive evidence regarding WMD's but we were led to believe by our media that they only said this to avoid political suicide and unrest in their own counties each having a very large Muslim population.

Convenient, wasn't that.

I suppose we will never be privy to what truly went down at the CIA but I think if we found out we'd all be aghast at what a wasteful, incompetent, ineffectual organization it has become.

Again, I think it too convenient to write off the Iraq episode as incompetence. That's just too pat an explanation for me. I think it was less incompetence than it was political influence from the Bush administration, enabled by careerism, unprofessionalism and spinelessness among senior managers at the intelligence agencies who failed to stand up and say the truth.
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
162
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
This story came to light following the publishing of former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill's book, The Price of Loyalty. He spoke to CBS about it:

And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations:
&#8220;From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,&#8221; says O&#8217;Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

&#8220;From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,&#8221; says Suskind. &#8220;Day one, these things were laid and sealed.&#8221;

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying &#8216;Go find me a way to do this,&#8217;" says O&#8217;Neill. &#8220;For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.&#8221;

And that came up at this first meeting, says O&#8217;Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. &#8220;There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, &#8216;Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,&#8217;" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

&#8220;It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions,&#8221; says Suskind. &#8220;On oil in Iraq.&#8221; -CBSnews.com
Where did that come from?

A memo written to President Bill Clinton dated January 26, 1998:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dear Mr. President:[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein&#8217;s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The policy of &#8220;containment&#8221; of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq&#8217;s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam&#8217;s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world&#8217;s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Sincerely,[/FONT]
Guess who attached their names to that memo? Just a guess?
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
162
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Elliott Abrams who, under Dubya, became Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy

Richard L. Armitage who, under Dubya, became Deputy Secretary of State

William J. Bennett Secretary of Education and Drug Czar for G.H.W. Bush

Jeffrey Bergner Lobbyist for China and PNAC member.

John Bolton who, under Dubya, became US Representative to the UN.

Paula Dobriansky who, under Dubya, became the Under-Secretary of State for Democracy & Global Affairs.

Francis Fukuyama former PNAC member

Robert Kagan co-founder of the PNAC

Zalmay Khalilzad who, under Dubya, became US Ambassador to the UN.

William Kristol co-founder of the PNAC

Richard Perle
Assistant Secretary of Defense under Reagan, Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee under Dubya.

Peter W. Rodman who, under Dubya, was Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs.

Donald Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense under Ford and Dubya.

William Schneider, Jr.
Under-Secretary of State under Reagan. Appointed by the US Senate to the Commission on the Future of the US Aerospace Industry (still serving). Appointed by Rumsfeld to the Defense Science Board (still serving).

Vin Weber Former member of the House, managing partner of Clark & Weinstock, a beltway lobbyist firm. Chairman of the National Endowment for Democracy, a private NGO which discretely distributes your money given to it by congress. Top Republican strategist.

Paul Wolfowitz US Deputy Secretary of Defense under Dubya, then President of the World Bank.

R. James Woolsey Director of Central Intelligence and of the CIA under Clinton

Robert B. Zoellick US Deputy Secretary of State and US Trade Representative under Dubya. Then became a managing director of Goldman Sachs' International Advisors department, and is now Currently President of the World Bank.



So just what is PNAC? It's the Project for the New American Century. It's the premier neoconservative think thank. What do they believe? They state themselves quite plainly on their home page:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Project for the New American Century[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Project for the New American Century[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world. [/FONT]
Read their, Statement of Principles:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]&#8226; we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]&#8226; we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]&#8226; we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]&#8226; we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A few signatories to that document one might glance twice at:

Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Dan Quayle
I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby
Steve Forbes

[/FONT]


Wow. Really? That puts an interesting spin on things.

By whom if I may ask? Our military?
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
162
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
What is not contained in that statement is PNAC's 90 page memo, Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century, which outlines the necessity for, "... some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor," to catalyse American public opinion into supporting PNAC's, Pax Americana (PNAC's term, not mine).

PNAC's funding is rather interesting. One of their minor financial sources was the John M. Olin Foundation, which in turn, is financed by the Olin family who made their money in petrochemicals and munitions. The foundation dissolved itself in 2005.

Today, primary funding comes from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. The Bradleys of Milwaukee made their money in radio and electronics manufacturing however, in 2005, the business was sold to Rockwell International, a major defense contractor.

Initial funding of PNAC came from the Sarah Scaife Foundation. Sarah Scaife was a member of the Pittsburgh Mellon family which has extensive banking, industrial, and oil holdings. At one point the foundation's largest holdings were in Gulf Oil Co.

All these foundations tend to fund each other to some degree, some money earmarked through several other foundations to legally launder it. The foundations, in turn, create these think tanks and NGOs to influence American foreign and domestic policies. It's an old story though these days it's very sophisticated with many of these foundations spending millions to influence governments from local to federal to international.

Now you know.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
Personally, I suspect the real answer lies in incompetence, both the CIA and Bush and his advisors. They were overly eager and desperate to avenge 911 and made their decision to invade on ambivalent, unverifiable or conflicting information from the CIA. And the concurring faulty information from M5 tipped Bush's and Blair's decision towards invasion. There WAS other information from other counties that was ignored or not shared.

I think there's a lot of truth there.
Western intelligence agencies didn't have much of a handle on what was really going on in Iraq. What they believed they knew was frequently false.
Then, the PNAC folks badly wanted an invasion, for reasons that seemed to them idealistic.
So there was a predisposition to invade, false information at hand, and then all the hysteria following 9/11 made wild possibilities that would normally have simply percolated in a few febrile foreheads, seem reasonable, part of a proactive defense strategy.
I've always been struck that even Bill Clinton says he was convinced by intelligence reports suggesting Iraq possessed several forms of WMDs.
Surely he wasn't actively seeking such an opinion.
I believe that Bush and his cohorts said a lot of false things, but they believed a great many of them, at least at the beginning.
A real pattern of outright lying came only late in the process.
(Wasn't Cheney still connecting Iraq with WMDs long after most of the administration had led that canard die?)
But I'm very tired, and I'm a Canadian, and I don't suppose I should put my disengaged opinions too prominently on this table.
 

D_Ed69s girl

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/member.gif" wi
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Posts
256
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
101
Okay people How long have you lived and not known the goverment to lie about something. Give me a break read your history books people, how the hell do you think we got into vietnam and korea wars. All based on goverment lies saying it is necessary. We all buy into it and then later get pissed because thousands of our boys are being killed for goverment gains. It is called they way of politics. War brings in dollars to big business and that is how official get into office by lining big business pocket books.

You want to make a difference VOTE for the person who you feel well represent you best in washington DC. The rest lies in how honest that person is.
 

Elmer Gantry

LPSG Legend
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Posts
47,213
Media
53
Likes
258,673
Points
518
Location
Australia
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Thanks for this thread JustAsking, I have been reading up on this subject and it literally makes me ill to think of the lives lost (American and Iraqi alike) all because of some screwed and poorly executed agenda.

Iraq's Prime Minister said he will need American troops for at least another 10 years. The awful part is that no matter who gets into the White House this year, they will probably be committed to this campaign in Iraq. Like it or not.

And all of this because someone lied and now no one will fess up to who exactly was leading the lie.

It wasn't screwed up or poorly executed. It came off exactly as it's architects intended.

Keep the Russkies, Indians and Chinese out of the Gulf. A new iron curtain now extnds from the Baltic to the Southern Ocean.

Maintain massive military presence in Gulf.

Subjugate local population with fear and loathing.

Install puppet govt to do as they're told.

Mission accomplished.:biggrin1:
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
This is just another America bashing thread from a bunch of Eurofags.

Actually, we were fed the same crap by Tony Blair and his top people. So I suspect a conspiracy right the way through. Intelligence information was deliberately misused and rewritten to beef up the case for war.

Tony Blair eventually resigned from office to give his successor enough time for people to forget all this before our next election. Had he stayed, the Iraq scandal would not have gone away.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
This is just another America bashing thread from a bunch of Eurofags.

Hey, guy ... get my address right.:cool:

Actually, we were fed the same crap by Tony Blair and his top people. So I suspect a conspiracy right the way through. Intelligence information was deliberately misused and rewritten to beef up the case for war.

Do you think they really didn't think there was a case for war?
Or did they think, since we're going to war, the population should be as pumped up as possible?
So a case they may have thought was 80 percent sure, would be presented as 98 percent sure?
I think they were sure they would find weapons of mass destruction, and you have to remember that troops were equipped and trained to deal with possible chemical and biological assaults.
Maybe I just need an infusion of cynicism, I don't know.
I think the idea of pre-emptive war itself was immoral.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
And if you think Pelosi and congress are going to do anything to Bush or Cheney once they leave office.....
Bwahahah! Right!

BTW, I'm wondering how many times one has to deliberately falsify sworn statements to The Congress before it is actually considered to be criminal...
 

D_Sir Fitzwilly Wankheimer III

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Posts
788
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
161
A new study shows:

"President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses." read more....



Let me guess: read more in the New York Times Right?

Better than getting my ass blown up anyday. Lest we forget that.
 

earllogjam

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
4,917
Media
0
Likes
179
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
Now you know.

Wow, Thanks Jason for that very reavealing post. I never realized that this was brewing for so long. I did suspect that Bush Sr. left office without finishing his plan to kill Saddam however but never knew of this group of rather influential people in W's staff.

We naivey think we are voting just for a President, his ideals, his experience, his policies without considering who he's going to bring in and surround himself with to run the country. We forget that these people actually run the exective branch.

If you look at many high ranking people Bush has brought in from Carl Rove, Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Meier, and Condoleeza Rice although they are extremely loyal to W, they all are rather green and ineffective in what they were hired to do and the consequences have been catastrophic for his presidency. All the smart and capable ones like Colin Powell have resigned and likewise for many competent staff who were forced to work under Bush appointees in the various executive branch departments. All loosing faith in working for an incompetent boss.
 

earllogjam

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
4,917
Media
0
Likes
179
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
Again, I think it too convenient to write off the Iraq episode as incompetence. That's just too pat an explanation for me. I think it was less incompetence than it was political influence from the Bush administration, enabled by careerism, unprofessionalism and spinelessness among senior managers at the intelligence agencies who failed to stand up and say the truth.

It is interesting that no one lost his job at the CIA for this costly blunder. No one there was pegged with any blame nor was accountable for their "faulty" information. It leads me to think that it was the interpretation of that information by the Bush folks which is where the blame lies.

The only punishment I remember Bush Adminstrationn doing to the CIA was outing Valerie Plame because her husband called W on his lie.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
It is interesting that no one lost his job at the CIA for this costly blunder. No one there was pegged with any blame nor was accountable for their "faulty" information. It leads me to think that it was the interpretation of that information by the Bush folks which is where the blame lies.

The only punishment I remember Bush Adminstrationn doing to the CIA was outing Valerie Plame because her husband called W on his lie.

Geo. Tenet?