"The committee did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities," it said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=1&u=/nm/20040709/pl_nm/iraq_intelligence_dc

Oh no, it can't be! This committee must be all NEO-CON, Bushie, Haliburton conspirators.........



-- Modified on 7/9/2004 3:04:17 PM

No-- but I think a board half made up of GOPers can't be that damning.  I was amazed at how far they went, with half their number usually in lock step with the admin!

I think a non-partisan bunch might have said more-  but I don't KNOW.

Yes, Billkile, I've seen the light now.

It's been the CIA all along. Yes, they were the ones responsible for dragging George W. & Co. into the Iraqi mess with their misbegotten intelligence assessments.

FLASH - this just in. It was the CIA that was responsible for outing one of their own deep-cover agents, Valerie Plame. No way did Karl Rove or Scooter Libby have anything to do with compromising CIA operatives.

EXTRA FLASH - It was really the CIA that was responsible for destroying George W.'s military records that covered his "Alabama" tour of duty. Damn, they're everywhere!

EXTRA, EXTRA FLASH - Osama Bin Ladin has just been found hiding out in Langley Headquaters (gee, and I though Bin Ladin was vacationing in ISI headquarters in Islamabad). George W. has announced that he will, once again, suit up and lead the attack. Just one more mission to accomplish - this time, it will be to take out both CIA and Osama.

Ah the wonders of "checks and balances". Next best thing to a non-partisian report....

Actually, it reminds a lot of the Hutton report blaming the BBC for Blair's 'exaggerations'. I didn't put any credence in that set-up report either.

Nor has anyone else.

-- Modified on 7/9/2004 4:40:18 PM

putting on blinders to anything that did not fit with their foregone conclusions was SOP.

I think they call it a "cold war mentality".

LOL.

The great thing about being on the left is that we don't have to go lock-step with Democrats, especially when they're going over a cliff.

If you check the "General Discussion" Board over the dates leading up to the Iraqi war, you'll note that a number of those on the left, including myself, were passionately arguing against our intervention. Many Democrats in Congress were erroneously supporting George W. then, yet many of them regret it now. They were just horn-swaggled.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but I doubt there is anyone left in the George W. administration who thinks of Iraq as a 'good war'.

And if you, Billkile, still think that the Iraqi war was a fine idea, then I would submit that it is you with the blinders on.

The people in the intelligence community are just like any other "step-child" relationship when it comes to the administration. If you believed that providing a somewhat bleak picture of Iraq and WMD would allow you to be seen as smart and "stand up" then why wouldn't you be indirectly influenced on the opinions you render? If repeated queries as to the connection between Irag and Al Queada is considered less then coercive, influential or pressure then the latest report is credible. Given that the shoe had yet to drop by all who repeatedly asked the questions in increasingly frustrated tones, why wouldn't any intelligent career person start to figure out which side the bread is being buttered on and cough up the right report? Do you need evidence that numbers were being taken on those that denied the obvious when it's normal in any administrative situation to gain favor through projecting a situation in a certain light? It goes against human nature to presume that people would fight against the tide if they care enough about keeping their job and the income their family needs. Thank God Richard Clark didn't see it that way. Of course I guess his repeated claims were discounted since he was only up at the top of the intelligence community.

Talk about your blinders....a report by a committee head chaired by partisans is more credible then the head dude that resigns under duress. If this had been a Clinton administration, you would be crying as if he had held babies hostage to get his way. Unfortunately in government it takes way less then that to start whitewashing a black hole.

It's about taking responsibility when you are in charge.  It's part of being a real leader.

But considering the poor evidence the administration sold the public on before the invasion, I don't know how the CIA was responsible.  The evidence released since hasn't looked any better.

Now, at least it has been agreed, Iraq was just an oops!  Thousands of people dead, a country turned upside down, and an unstable state right smack in the middle of a strategically and economically essential region, all a misjudgment!

Never mind the substantial collateral damage done.  

/Zin

-- Modified on 7/11/2004 3:04:31 AM

It takes guts to admit when you were wrong.

The war was the right thing to do with the information available at the time.  And even if it was incorrect, freeing 25 million people from a brutal dictator is still a noble accomplishment.

The problem with those of you on the far Left is that you were screaming because we launched a preemptive war based upon a worldwide consensus of Saddam's WMDs.  Had we not done so, you would have been screaming for Bush's head on a silver platter for failing to act on that consensus (kinda like you have over 9/11).

My dear old granddad used to joke around "Heads, I win; tails, you lose."  You far Lefties should recognize the difference between a joke and a political philosophy.

So, no, we weren't wrong.  Wrong about WMDs?  Sure, and we were in good (and bad) unanimous company.  Wrong about a preemptive war?  Not at all.  Good things were still accomplished (to-wit, 25 million people removed from tyranny).

think that a majority of the American people are on the "far Left"?

Just answer the question.

brutal dictators?

Even the greatest empire builder of all time, the Romans, established lines beyond which their imperium would expand no further. For example, Hadrian built his famous wall in Northern England, separating civilized Britannia from the unruly Scots.

The concept of George W. & Co. rushing off to preemptively strike the brutal dictator "du jour" whenever he feels like it, is more than enough reason to vote him out of office.

That is, of course, if George W. & Co. allow us to vote (see link).

Subsequently, he has shown me his true colors in other areas, such as pandering to the religious right on the issue of Gay Marriage, as well, but as of the middle of Bush's term, when we had made an initially successful foray into Afghanistan after 9/11, I was a supporter of what he'd done.  He only lost me when he proved that he was, in fact a warmonger.

The Iraq war was an act of criminal malfeasance by the Bush Administration, both in the fabricated justification of the war, and the complete lack of competent planning for the post-war Iraq.

... I have a bridge coming up for sale in Boston.  I can get you a very good deal.

The real question:  what was the quid pro quid for having the Director of the CIA fall on his sword for all this?

How boring!

I hope you've not forgotten our bet.

RLTW

and of course US will free all the oppressed people cause that is NobleBush(tm)'s concern.

Further, Americans are now asked in polls to speak with 20-20 hindsight.

With months of pounding by the so-called "mainstream" media, it's no wonder polls have shifted.

If you'll recall, polls in the immediate aftermath of Anita Hill showed a vast majority believing Clarence Thomas.  However, with months of media pounding, they shifted.

But there's no liberal bias in the media.(!?)

But this was a war based upon (faulty) intelligence about a dictator still in possession of WMDs, who had unarguably had them and used them at one point, and against a dictator whose regime had contacts with terrorist organizations, and supported terrorism against Israel (payments to families of homicide bombers), in a nation in an area of vital national interest to the United States.

Many considerations still factor in, but no one is suggesting that we should declare a jihad against dictators.  Only those with WMD programs, hostile intentions against the United States, and those giving aid and comfort to terrorists.  Better there now, than here later.

And your comparison with Rome is, of course, faulty, since we are not building an empire.

someone who believes the rantings of Michael Moore.

And frankly, in order of priority, my disgust for war takes precedence over the rest.  I can certainly accept it when the war is justified by our national defense, such as our invasion of Afghanistan to root out Al Qaida.  

However, when the war is offensive, and based on economic and political self-interest, and justified with lies, such as the Iraq war was, or the Vietnam war was, it becomes the fundamental decision factor in my voting.

And Americans who have the courage to oppose these ruinous wars, even at the expense of being accused of being traitors by the powers that be (ex: Jane Fonda and Michael Moore), gain my admiration, despite whatever other personal imperfections that they may also have.

Strangely enough, I don't feel reassured by your post.

Does this mean the next time that George W. receives 'faulty' information about WMD in another sovereign state, he'll feel justified once again to preemptively invade? Frankly, I'd just as soon he not been in a position to make that mistake again. Oh, I forgot, our leader doesn't do 'mistakes'.

BTW, I didn't say we were building an effective empire, but we are building one nonetheless. My understanding is that we are now constructing 14 permanent armed forces bases in Iraq, along with the largest U.S. embassy in the Middle East (or in the World-not sure which it is). That, and the need to secure the 2nd largest proven oil reserve, suggests to me that we're indeed empire building.