In other words, a CIA agent who got fired by Porter Goss for being incompetent.
Remind me, was it the CIA back in 2003 that said that Iraq had WMDs?
Posted on 02/09/2006 9:40:43 PM PST by conservative in nyc
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."
"It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized," Pillar wrote.
--Snip--
In his article, Pillar said he believes that the "politicization" of intelligence on Iraq occurred "subtly" and in many forms, but almost never resulted from a policymaker directly asking an analyst to reshape his or her results. "Such attempts are rare," he writes, "and when they do occur . . . are almost always unsuccessful."
Instead, he describes a process in which the White House helped frame intelligence results by repeatedly posing questions aimed at bolstering its arguments about Iraq.
--Snip--
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The Liberals all seem to be coming out of the woodwork today to attempt to get the administration.
"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war,"
LOL. If they wrote "there's no WMDs" Bush would have went to war? What about the UN sanctions?
"former CIA official"
Typical WaPo source.
By the way Mr. Pincus...what did you know about Valarie Plame?
"Paul R. Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005"
Oh, I don't know Pauly, when you have 20+ world leaders telling you that Camel-toe Hussein has weapons, sometimes one tends to believe it. I guess thousands of kurds rotten in the sun doesn't mean much these days. Get a job. I heard the real estate business is still hot.
"Instead, he describes a process in which the White House helped frame intelligence results by repeatedly posing questions aimed at bolstering its arguments about Iraq."
"Bush: Let's get this straight, are you sure?
Tenet: Yes. It's a slam dunk."
Tricky Bush admin. questions. Nevertheless "Pillar" will be heralded as a fair and unbiased interpreter of events.
...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.
--
So the weapons/nerve gases used to kill Kurds ,, were of no import, nor pesky reports that truckloads of materials were scooted off to Syria and who knows where from there.
The CIA was funded as a black budget op for years, and now, it appears has operated as a "intel" 'black hole' as well into which observation and reasoning skills has been sucked as well.
It makes ya wonder what still lies buried in the desert as well, yet undetected or not yet revealed.
Better don't come to my real estate market. I will destroy him. Just kidding, but I would.
1. It seemed clear to any observer with a brain that yes, indeed, the Bush administration had already decided upon war as being appropriate. The problem being...? They're not allowed to have that opinion?
2. "Cherry-picking" is really another word for "trying to convince". Yes, it's probably fair to say that the Bush administration emphasized the Reasons Why We Think We Should and did not spend a whole lot of time listing Reasons Why You Should Disagree With Us. Meanwhile, other people made other kinds of arguments with the opposite emphases. Bush's view carried the day and his opponents lost. That's called "democracy". Again, the problem...? When trying to convince people in a public forum, are you required to dwell upon arguments against your point of view? Or is that just if you're a Republican?
Bush administration had already decided upon war as being appropriate.
...and we haven't had another attack on our soil;
...and we have destroyed a boatload of terrorist;
...and disneyworld, walmart supercenters, and college football games continue unabated. But man, when you read some of the attempts, its been close, and lucky. Like that dumb*ss Reid trying to light his shoe bomb. Holy cow. Talk about divine intervention.
Here's your intro to the MSM's new golden boy to bash Bush with. Look for him on all of the suspect TV programs soon.
Is this guy featured at all in any of the investigative reports that refute his claims, or did he keep critical information from those investigators in order to get a book deal?
For 3 years the MSM has been feeding us the LIE that we ONLY went to war because of WMD. Cherry picking the reasons laid out in the House and Senate Resolution and bypassing 12 years of UN Resolutions as though they didn't exist [how many times have you heard WE RUSHED TO WAR] and COMPLETELY ignoring the MOST SIGNIFICANT reason IMHO and that is IRAQ violated the ARTICLES of SURRENDER incessantly and a RESUMPTION of HOSTILITIES was mandatory and [after TOO much delay] finally, carried out.
This FACT [and many others] is ignored by the MSM who want everyone to believe our attack on Iraq was unprovoked, unecessary and unilateral.
A few days without trumped-up BS'ing against President Bush gets them ansy. They can't let the public feel good for this administration if they can help it....
Somehow I smell a Clinton/Sandy-in-your-pants Burgler connection (even the Reno/Gorelick in"Justice Dept.) Could he have been put in place for just such a scenario in order to RAT out Bush?
In other words, a CIA agent who got fired by Porter Goss for being incompetent.
Remind me, was it the CIA back in 2003 that said that Iraq had WMDs?
And that kid in Oklahoma City who blew up outside the stadium.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.