1) its no doubt there was a "failure" of intelligence, but the question is why did the failure occur. Intelligence is not an exact science. If 30% of the intel analysis experts say that Iraq had WMD, and that they were pursuing yellowcake, etc but that's the intel that the government went with, what does that say about the other 70% that it didn't? Who is at fault? btw the 30% number came from an off the cuff remark by mccain a few months back and Rudman (sp, the dem senator) also used the same number a bit ago.
I've heard from a few people in DC and from tons of articles in foreign policy rags on how the US intel community is up in arms over W because he basically stated he wants intel that supports his claims. This is why you are seeing the intel community beat up W. Hell Clark's book was only a small salvo. The Imperial Hubris book is also something that I need to read...and the list just keeps getting longer.
And this is the same thing he is doing to the sciences and gov. funding. Instead of having scientists review the money outlay, he is having christian fundies do the doling. This is why I now know 5 phds who have left the us so they could do their work for a real government. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1449
2) Lord Butler...look at his past record as an independent tribunal. Its not very good. And he's a personal friend of Blair...and the report was based on only certain intel...so while yes, if that's what Blair got then he was sorely mislead by his intel, but I have a hunch there was a lot more going on there.
3) the neocon agenda http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400061946/qid=1095365544/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/002-7941424-7232054
oh and a side, I recently read that the state dept. actually had a game plan for the post war iraq area. W and his cronies THREW THIS AWAY! Look where we are in Iraq now. This was in the new issue of the thick foriegn policy rag.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-09-16 01:28 pm (UTC)1) its no doubt there was a "failure" of intelligence, but the question is why did the failure occur. Intelligence is not an exact science. If 30% of the intel analysis experts say that Iraq had WMD, and that they were pursuing yellowcake, etc but that's the intel that the government went with, what does that say about the other 70% that it didn't? Who is at fault? btw the 30% number came from an off the cuff remark by mccain a few months back and Rudman (sp, the dem senator) also used the same number a bit ago.
I've heard from a few people in DC and from tons of articles in foreign policy rags on how the US intel community is up in arms over W because he basically stated he wants intel that supports his claims. This is why you are seeing the intel community beat up W. Hell Clark's book was only a small salvo. The Imperial Hubris book is also something that I need to read...and the list just keeps getting longer.
And this is the same thing he is doing to the sciences and gov. funding. Instead of having scientists review the money outlay, he is having christian fundies do the doling. This is why I now know 5 phds who have left the us so they could do their work for a real government. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1449
2) Lord Butler...look at his past record as an independent tribunal. Its not very good. And he's a personal friend of Blair...and the report was based on only certain intel...so while yes, if that's what Blair got then he was sorely mislead by his intel, but I have a hunch there was a lot more going on there.
3) the neocon agenda http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400061946/qid=1095365544/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/002-7941424-7232054
oh and a side, I recently read that the state dept. actually had a game plan for the post war iraq area. W and his cronies THREW THIS AWAY! Look where we are in Iraq now. This was in the new issue of the thick foriegn policy rag.