1
   

"The American people were manipulated..."

 
 
Reply Fri 30 May, 2003 03:06 pm
Quote:
May 30, 2003
New York Times

Save Our Spooks
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

EXCERPTS

On Day 71 of the Hunt for Iraqi W.M.D., yesterday, once again nothing turned up.

Maybe we'll do better on Day 72. But we might have better luck searching for something just as alarming: the growing evidence that the administration grossly manipulated intelligence about those weapons of mass destruction in the runup to the Iraq war. [...]



"The Al Qaeda connection and nuclear weapons issue were the only two ways that you could link Iraq to an imminent security threat to the U.S.," notes Greg Thielmann, who retired in September after 25 years in the State Department, the last four in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. "And the administration was grossly distorting the intelligence on both things."

The outrage among the intelligence professionals is so widespread that they have formed a group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, that wrote to President Bush this month to protest what it called "a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions."

"While there have been occasions in the past when intelligence has been deliberately warped for political purposes," the letter said, "never before has such warping been used in such a systematic way to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorize launching a war." [...]

Intelligence analysts often speak of "humint" for human intelligence (spies) and "sigint" for signals intelligence (wiretaps). They refer contemptuously to recent work as "rumint," or rumor intelligence.

"I've never heard this level of alarm before," said Larry Johnson, who used to work in the C.I.A. and State Department. "It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt."

Some say that top Pentagon officials cast about for the most sensational nuggets about Iraq and used them to bludgeon Colin Powell and seduce President Bush. The director of central intelligence, George Tenet, has been generally liked and respected within the agency ranks, but in the last year, particularly in the intelligence directorate, people say that he has kowtowed to Donald Rumsfeld and compromised the integrity of his own organization.

"We never felt that there was any leadership in the C.I.A. to qualify or put into context the information available," one veteran said. "Rather there was a tendency to feed the most alarming tidbits to the president. Often it's the most ill-considered information that goes to the president.

"So instead of giving the president the most considered, carefully examined information available, basically you give him the garbage. And then in a few days when it's clear that maybe it wasn't right, well then, you feed him some more hot garbage." [...]


Is Bush the victim... or the perp?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,471 • Replies: 45
No top replies

 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 May, 2003 04:04 pm
How about neither? My pet theory is that this cabal has known from the get-go that they wanted the presidency in order to control, and they needed a name they could sell who would not foul up their plans. George Bush senior seems to be a person most people feel neutral about - but few dislike him. So here's junior, ready to be primed, painted, rehearsed, trotted out, with the kind of ego and intelligence to think he's his own man. They still don't allow him presidential press conferences. Everything and everybody is carefully rehearsed, and then they bring him out. Which partly explains the news coverage, too. I think they don't dare send him to places like France, Germany, England (and he hasn't really appeared there) or many other places in the world, where there are experienced, cultured, knowledgeable old hands. So he is shipped off - rarely - to some other places. Or they come here, where everything can be tightly controlled.

That's how I read that article. Seems to be dawning on more and more that they don't have a president. However, the diabolical thing about all this is that when he falls, he falls. It's been set so he can take the blame for everything.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 May, 2003 04:12 pm
Interesting ideas here, Tartarin and mamajuana. Here's my take on the situation, sort of a psychosocial view:

While I tend not to give W the benefit of the doubt, it's always seemed as though Cheney and Rumsfeld really call the shots.

W is like the kid brother, allowed to believe he's just as important as the big guys. They let him feel this way so they can achieve their real goals. And the kid brother just likes the feeling that he's important--that the big guys really are his friends.

I'm not sure how Karl Rove fits into this schema, since he's clearly important, too. He's more the operations guy, the one who does the dirty work to make sure things keep on running smoothly.

It's all very corrupt--and not a little spooky...
0 Replies
 
LibertyD
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 May, 2003 04:40 pm
I agree with mamajuana -- I think that W was put into place for appearances, only. If you've read the paper by PNAC called "Rebuilding America's Defenses -- Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" (published in Sept. 2000) then you know that the war with Iraq was planned far before the elections. The guys in PNAC (including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle) just needed to get a guy in office who would put forth their views on the "Pax Americana" and so they did find that man in W. He is guilty both by association and by ignorance. I would call him neither the victim nor the perp -- rather, he's the puppet.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 May, 2003 05:59 pm
One thing I've noticed lately -- more and more "leaks" about how Rumsfeld is the loose cannon on deck, a real problem... Hard to control...
0 Replies
 
LibertyD
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 May, 2003 06:11 pm
I think he's always had that reputation. It seems like he's getting scared and trying to keep up the patriotic-ass-kicking-American ferver as he can see that it's plainly dying down. As the leaks surface and more and more government officials come out against the administration and the war (and the possibility of future wars led by the Bushies), and as the lies are becoming more clear, he seems to think that if he keeps talking tough and making like a cowboy, it will all work out just like they've wanted it to since the first Gulf War. Hopefully his behavior will help to expose even more of the deceit and force a regime change right here in the US.
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 May, 2003 10:02 pm
The PNAC is a road map, the plan. And the names on it are the same names operating today. I think the site still carries the letter to Clinton, written by Cheney and Rumsfeld, in which they want him to address their opinions about Iraq and what to do in one of his major speeched. He didn't. Digging into the site, what I found was not much mention of the name Bush. When he was questioned, after the Iran-Contra affair, about his part in it, he claimed he was out of the loop. I didn't believe him then, but I've changed my mind somewhat. These guys are all Reagan people, and Reagan made no secret of the fact that Bush was not part of that crowd.

So lately I've begun to think that maybe these Reagan people are getting at Bush senior by using his son. Don't hear much about the senior Bush. And Jeb was the favored son (until he lost his first bid).

Gets tangled.
0 Replies
 
LibertyD
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 May, 2003 10:30 pm
Yeah, I've noticed that too. From what I understand, the guys involved with PNAC actually came up with the plan directly after Gulf War I and it was rejected by Bush Sr. So you're probably right about them using Junior to get to Poppy -- he wasn't a supporter then, and there have been stories in the past year or so implying that he privately doesn't support them now.

That letter to Clinton is still located on the site:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2003 06:45 am
Robert Zoellick's name on that letter to Clinton brings back memories. He was responsible for sneaking into the Nafta agreement some seriously bad law which does Nafta-wide what Michael Powell is doing in the FCC as we write: making it possible for the global corporation to override all local concerns -- including (in Nafta) local law. I suspect when we will find a similar legal twist in the as yet unpublished "rule change" Powell plans to ram through -- in spite of Congress -- day after tomorrow.

We could do a lot if we'd just slightly shift our focus from Bush (particularly if he is a puppet) to what his minions are doing, quietly and without getting much attention.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2003 10:59 am
Bush is not the 'victim.' He, after all, picked his own administration. c.i.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2003 11:40 am
Agree, CI. I see signs that others are being set up to take the fall for him, though. How do we stop that?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2003 11:48 am
Haven't figured out a solution for that one! Me thinks that's impossible in this atmosphere where Americans generally think GWBushie's doing a good job. c.i.
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2003 12:54 pm
Well, CI, did he pick his administration or did they pick him? I seem to recall in the very beginning there were signs of joy that Uncle Dick and Uncle Don were right there to guide him. And I can't see George's hand on the administration picks. Almost everyone in power came from the Reagan admin, including Condi Rice and Andrew Card. And I think Powell was quite deliberately picked for reasons other than his great statesman like abilities.

And Rove came out of the Atwater camp, which had done all those great PR and advertising campaigns for Reagan and then Bush. While it's natural for presidents to choose those they know, in this case the admin does appear top heavy with those who have their own agendas. Lest this appear as though I am apologizing for george, I do see this admin as Machiavellian. Why shouldn't the American public applaud him? They applaud a lot of stupid tv shows, they buy heavily the self-improvement and how-to-get-rich books, and they have been so heavily conditioned by glitzy tv advertising that it's hard for them, so as long as he doesn't really offend them, why change? Which, I gues, is exactly what the cabal is working on.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2003 01:18 pm
Excellent, Mamajuana. I'm into complicity, as you know, and I think they are all fully complicit.

Came across a comment I wrote 12/30/87 when Bush1 was about to take over from Reagan: "Oh goody! First Wonder Bread and now Pepperidge Farm Thin Slice with palm oil."

How would you characterize Bush2, breadwise?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2003 01:27 pm
I have the bad habit of blaming the top dog for many ills in our society. I'm not about to give a 'pass' to Bush Jr. - whether he was set up or he was responsible. If he's that vulnerable, it just goes to show stupid people can also gain positions of prominence. c.i.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2003 01:45 pm
We all puzzle about the Teflon administrations. The Teflon is there thanks to those whom the FCC is supposed to regulate, and it's going to get even worse day after tomorrow. Why aren't we a) getting much more serious in our dealings with Congress, and b) demanding that a non-governmental, bi-partisan citizens' panel oversee the FCC? Certainly the present system is deeply corrupt -- yea, venal. I certainly don't give W a pass -- nor do I give a pass to those who continue to support/tolerate the buying and selling of American leadership.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2003 03:31 pm
Most Americans don't think it's a big deal because this administration's justification for going to war with Iraq was the proliferation of WMD's, and now can't locate them. You can't find solutions when the majority will accept what our government does - right or wrong. c.i.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2003 03:40 pm
ci

I truly do not think the majority of Americans do.

You may be putting too much credence in the polls -- which often ask questions in a way that creates a false impression of the true feelings of the people.

I know many, many people -- Dems, Republicans, Independents, Conservatives, liberals, iconoclasts -- and I can tell you from the evidence I see -- an overwhelming majority of Americans seem to think this administration is extremely sleezy. But "patriotism" seems to drive many to want to back the guy FOR NOW.

We'll see what happens in the next election.

Keep in mind that Bush's numbers are not as high as his father's at this point after his war -- and you know what happened to him.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2003 03:46 pm
Thank god you put quotes around that word patriotism, Frank, or I'da had yer guts fer garters! Yes, the tide seems to have made a significant turn away from Bush in my very Republican area BUT it doesn't turn towards the Dems. Someone suggested McCain running as a Dem. But I don't think that would do it. McCain running against Bush? In a free election (unlikely), a romp.
0 Replies
 
LibertyD
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2003 03:47 pm
I agree that W shouldn't be seen as some sort of innocent or let off the hook, but I agree with Mamajuana that he seems to have been picked rather than the other way around. And I'd even be willing to bet that not only will others end up taking the fall for him, but he also will end up taking the fall for the Reaganites in his administration. Assuming, that is, that the truth about them comes out and is not passed off as silliness or paranoia or un-American. There's got to be a lot of deep seeded drama going on behind the scenes in that crew, and I doubt very seriously that those who have made it through the 80's and 90's unscathed are going to pay for any of it.

George W. as bread...hmmmmm...potato bread maybe?


Here is a site, if any are interested, that allows you to fax or e-mail your state senators and congressmen about key issues from their site, which simply makes it easy. You can either use their form letter or write your own -- whichever you choose.

http://www.truemajority.com/

I'm not sure how well our representatives will listen, but I figure it's worth a try. The FCC issue, by the way, is one which is addressed on that site.
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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » "The American people were manipulated..."
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/07/2024 at 10:16:53