1
   

Evidence is inconsequential.

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jan, 2008 01:32 pm
Ramafuchs wrote:
Finn
Kindly excuse me for my intrussion to get some clarification from you
and accept my thanks and regards in advance.
Is CIA (an organization approved by the elected law makers) without inhibition or with intelligence?
My view is this.
CIA is anything to do other than decency, democracy.
I will be the last person to clean the kitchen or toilet in CIA's unspecified, unidentified mystic, myopic headquarters.
Rama fuchs



All the more reason for not wanting the CIA or any other intelligence service to attempt to make or intentionally influence the policy decisions of elected officials --- which was my point.

It doesn't matter whether their conclusions favor one's personal opinion on policy, their role is simply to provide information to the elected makers of policy.

BTW - Since we know the CIA is spying on everyone, you've at least made it clear about your willingness to supply janitorial services to them, and you can now feel confident that they have taken you off their list of individuals to recruit for that purpose.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Feb, 2008 01:17 am
jasonrest wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I don't know how anyone who saw how wrong the Intelligence Community was about WMDs in Iraq (and howled bloody murder about it) can now be so sure that they have it right about Iran.


How was the intelligence community wrong about WMD's in Iraq?
They said no.
Bush said yes. Thousands dead.

Now, again the community is saying no, and again,
Bush is saying yes.

Valerie Plame Wilson herself has admitted she was scared for our troops when they entered Iraq, that Hussein may use WMD. This is the same person that claimed later, or her husband claimed or implied that Bush made it up. And this Valerie's supposed expertise was WMD as an employee of the CIA, the same CIA that advised Bush.

Check your history and quit listening to spinners.
0 Replies
 
jasonrest
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Feb, 2008 03:53 am
Admittedly,
the collective response from the intelligence community was in fact, that Hussein was "continuing" his program and he's a very bad man etc.
However, did the 2002 NIE state explicitly that there were WMD's?
Furthermore, there were attempts by officials in this same community to thwart that very same claim.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2008 08:31 pm
jasonrest wrote:
Admittedly,
the collective response from the intelligence community was in fact, that Hussein was "continuing" his program and he's a very bad man etc.
However, did the 2002 NIE state explicitly that there were WMD's?
Furthermore, there were attempts by officials in this same community to thwart that very same claim.


Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction
We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these Key Judgments.)
We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq's WMD efforts, owing to Baghdad's vigorous denial and deception efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD programs.

Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

2002 NIE

There are always dissenting opinions.

Hindsight is 20/20 jasonrest. Unfortunately it's not available at the time the decision is made.
0 Replies
 
jasonrest
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2008 08:54 pm
20/20 indeed.
Mr. Bush's intent was clear "to him" from the beginning, before there was a 9/11, and before the 2002 NIE report. The report's neutral yet accusatory nature, with use of words like "probably" only played into his hands, in my opinion.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2008 09:37 pm
jasonrest wrote:
20/20 indeed.
Mr. Bush's intent was clear "to him" from the beginning, before there was a 9/11, and before the 2002 NIE report. The report's neutral yet accusatory nature, with use of words like "probably" only played into his hands, in my opinion.


Be sure to hold onto your opinion in the face of the facts.
0 Replies
 
jasonrest
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2008 10:47 pm
you do the same.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/21/2024 at 04:08:58