Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq
Intelligence 'Misused' to Justify War, He Says
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 10, 2006; Page A01
The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Paul R. Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, acknowledges the U.S. intelligence agencies' mistakes in concluding that Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction. But he said those misjudgments did not drive the administration's decision to invade.
"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar wrote in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs. Instead, he asserted, the administration "went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq." . . .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902418.html
Is that the whole case?...Somebody's assumption?...I'm pretty sure if you looked hard enough, you'll find some more that agree with him...aps said:He cherry-picked intelligence? I am shocked! :shock:
Pillar must be some Bush hater who is trying to discredit the president. Just ignore this 28-year employee of the CIA. He's got an agenda. :lol:
cnredd said:Why would you expect so much of any government action or discussion?...
cnredd said:Is that the whole case?...Somebody's assumption?...I'm pretty sure if you looked hard enough, you'll find some more that agree with him...
Let me ask you a question...
Does the Supreme Court always rule unanimously?...No it does not...When someone writes, "The Supreme Court ruled a certain way on something", It really means "The MAJORITY OF JUSTICES ruled a certain way on something."...Most of the time there is at least one justice dissenting...
Now that's just 9 people who are educated in making rulings and final statements...
How many is that multiplied when talking about an Administration and/or government officials?...Are you expecting unanimous decisions and unanimous thinking when it comes to every issue?...
Of COURSE you're going to find someone that doesn't agree with something, or makes accusations based on whatever he/she may think...I don't think you could find one issue in the world today where EVERY person agrees on something...
Why would you expect so much of any government action or discussion?...
I don't know the numbers, but what if GWB went up to 50 generals and asked if we should go to Iraq and got a response of 40-10?...Using those 10 as the reason we shouldn't is not only weak, but it negates the votes of the majority!...
Finding exceptions to the rule does not disqualify the rule itself...
aps said:Hi cnredd. Wha's up?
GarzaUK said:I tell you what is up with him. No matter how much evidence is thrown against cnredd administration that they misled the public and congress, he won't listen. But to be fair he is not the only one with his fingers in his ears singing "la la la."
At first I found it funny, but now it has become alarming. :shock:
And no matter how much evidence is shown that Elvis is still alive I won't listen to them either...GarzaUK said:I tell you what is up with him. No matter how much evidence is thrown against cnredd administration that they misled the public and congress, he won't listen. But to be fair he is not the only one with his fingers in his ears singing "la la la."
At first I found it funny, but now it has become alarming. :shock:
That's alright, Redd. We're taking that into account, and modifying our opinions of you accordingly. :mrgreen:cnredd said:And no matter how much evidence is shown that Elvis is still alive I won't listen to them either...
Although I give the Elvis believers more credibility...:shrug:
Any "records" set are based purely on the times...Befuddled_Stoner said:That's alright, Redd. We're taking that into account, and modifying our opinions of you accordingly. :mrgreen:
I know its hard to give credence to those nutjob wackos who support such outlandish nonsense, but when so many become disaffected and start to declaim the duplicity they encountered on the job.....well, it makes ya wonder. Did any previous presidencies hemorrhage dissidents this badly, or are we setting records here?
aquapub said:The multitude of urgent and valid reasons Bush cited for us needing to end the 12-year diplomacy charade and take out Saddam have been posted on this cite over and over again.
Yes, among them was WMD.
Yes, we DID watch him use them (hence, demonstrating that he would use them and that he did have them).
Yes, we did watch Saddam proudly and openly sponsor suicide bombers.
And no, just because Saddam got rid of his WMD over the months we debated (publicly and openly) about invading doesn't mean he never had them.
You guys really need a new shtick. Undermining every single common sense measure taken to protect this country while claiming to be patriotic and to care about the troops is getting boring.
The problem with this attitude is that enough people die and the Government capitulates to terrorism...Which would be the end of the Constitution anyway...aps said:Thank you for those republican talking points. Want to talk about getting a new shtick. Look in the mirror. Frankly, I wouldn't care if I died from a terroritst attack, as long as all my constitutional rights and freedoms were respected at the time. I mean that--seriously. I'm glad that the constitution means jack s*** to you.
Hoot said:I would expect a president to allow the inspectors to finish their jobs, since they only asked for 3-6 more months, to verify if there are WMD in Iraq.
GySgt said:Like I always say, there is always a bigger picture and those that choose to mire themselves in mundane details usually miss it.
Hoot said:Mundane details? I'm sorry, Sarge, but marching our soldiers into war is hardly a mundane detail. Allowing the inspectors to finish their job, even if it means waiting till the heat of Summer, is hardly a mundane detail if the wait helps save even one soldier's life.
GySgt said:Even if that would have taken us towards the beginning of summer in the desert? Even though it would have meant that our troops would have had to walk around in MOPP gear in 120 degree weather suffering heat stroke? I got news for you....we were attacking no matter what. We don't move that much gear and manpower to a location just to say "never mind." If we didn't do it then, we would have just had to do it later. Saddam had to go. There was a lot to consider besides your position in safe and comfortable America. Like I always say, there is always a bigger picture and those that choose to mire themselves in mundane details usually miss it.
On this side of the pond, we have a piece of paper that says the President, with the consent of Congress, is the one with the authority to make that decision...GarzaUK said:Couldn't you have waited until the fall at least, I mean thats just six months from March.
cnredd said:On this side of the pond, we have a piece of paper that says the President, with the consent of Congress, is the one with the authority to make that decision...
He made it in March...after Congress gave their consent in October...so you're requesting a FURTHER delay of six months...
Funny how everyone cries "rush to war" when he waited 5 months already...
That would be correct if WMD was the ONLY reason we went to war...It was not...GarzaUK said:To give the weapons inspectors 5-6 months that they needed and to give the american army extra to to prepare, plus to actually make up a post-war strategy that the Bush administration ignored would have been the logical choice. But then again the weapons inspectors would have proven that there were no WMD's and avert Bush's little war.
Strike two...Currently...Right now...AS WE SPEAK...The WMDs that WERE REPORTED by Iraq in October, 2002's report to the UN AND the WMDs that were seen by the Inspectors in 1998 have not been found...GarzaUK said:But then again, that's the point of this thread, the WMD's were NOT a factor of this war. Which means that Bush did lie to Congress and the American people when he made all those speeches of WMD's.
You can make up any reasons you'd like...And if you want to believe Elvis is still alive, go right ahead...GarzaUK said:The war was just to get Saddam out of power and the oil out of Iraq. Of course things didn't go what the neo-cons thought would happend while they drank coffee in their thinktank bases.
9/11 gave America the golden chance to take out whomever they didn't like. :2wave:
aps said:Thank you for those republican talking points. Want to talk about getting a new shtick. Look in the mirror. Frankly, I wouldn't care if I died from a terroritst attack, as long as all my constitutional rights and freedoms were respected at the time. I mean that--seriously. I'm glad that the constitution means jack s*** to you.
aps said:Thank you for those republican talking points. Want to talk about getting a new shtick. Look in the mirror. Frankly, I wouldn't care if I died from a terroritst attack, as long as all my constitutional rights and freedoms were respected at the time. I mean that--seriously. I'm glad that the constitution means jack s*** to you.
aquapub said::rofl
So you mean to tell me that if a gun was being pointed at your head and someone gave you the choice between dying and letting your phone calls from Al Queda be listened to, you would chose death?
These kind of phony, adolescent assertions are precisely why nobody takes Democrats seriously on national security anymore; they are why Karl Rove continues to mock Democrats as pre-9/11 boobs.
I am perfectly fine with you calling my points "Republican talking points" because while you are playing politics and posturing with labels, you AREN'T refuting my points-and that does not go unnoticed here.
BTW, if you guys are so bothered by Republicans repeatedly mentioning the same facts that disprove your habitual lying about Iraq, perhaps you should start telling different lies so we can present different facts to prove you wrong with.
I am also perfectly fine with you putting your head on Osama's chopping block, because that will be one less hysterical liberal phony getting in the way of national security for frivolous, BS purposes.
And last but not least, what makes your overdramatic pledge of allegiance to civil liberties so laughable is the fact that the "rights" you are espousing don't even exist. The right to privacy, for instance, is a Constitutional fiction. If Democrats would stop taking hallucinogens before reading the Constitution we could all be spared this erroneous drivel about trampling the Bill of Rights.
GarzaUK said:Couldn't you have waited until the fall at least, I mean thats just six months from March.
aquapub said:The right to privacy, for instance, is a Constitutional fiction.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?