Faulty Intel? Not Exactly.
You will hear over and over from those on the Right that it was the intelligence, rather than the Bush Administration, that got in wrong pertaining to the Iraq war.
While there is PLENTY of evidence to suggest the intelligence community was ignored by the administration, the “liberal media” has failed to pick up most of these points, and generally covers the “invasion of Iraq” story as if the CIA is to blame, rather than the active members of PFNAC in Bush’s cabinet. Boy, that liberal media sure takes a while to do it’s job, doesn’t it?
Finally today, a story is breaking from news outlets, details a piece in the journal Foreign Affairs regarding Paul R. Pillar’s criticism of the Administration’s handling of intelligence. Pillar was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia for the past 6 years.
With that said, I’m curious to see when the swift-boating by the Right of Mr. Pillar begins. Several choices are on the table for the Bush administration.
1). Pillar was fired by the administration (he was not, he retired after 28 years at the CIA) and therefore holds a grudge.
2). Pillar hired an illegal alien from Mexico as a maid back in 1974…and rumor has it that she was photographed at a gay night club in Tijuana.
3). Pillar’s daughter dated a black man when she was only 15, and has been rumored to have had an abortion 3 years later.
4). Pillar never really “worked” for the CIA – he had a desk job, right next to Valerie Plame.
5). Pillar was jealous of the medal of freedom awarded to Tenet, and is just doing this to get back at the Bush administration.
While there is PLENTY of evidence to suggest the intelligence community was ignored by the administration, the “liberal media” has failed to pick up most of these points, and generally covers the “invasion of Iraq” story as if the CIA is to blame, rather than the active members of PFNAC in Bush’s cabinet. Boy, that liberal media sure takes a while to do it’s job, doesn’t it?
Finally today, a story is breaking from news outlets, details a piece in the journal Foreign Affairs regarding Paul R. Pillar’s criticism of the Administration’s handling of intelligence. Pillar was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia for the past 6 years.
"In the wake of the Iraq war, it has become clear that official intelligence analysis was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made," Pillar wrote.
Although the Clinton administration and other countries' governments also believed that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was amassing weapons of mass destruction, they supported sanctions and weapons inspections as means to contain the threat, he said.
The Bush administration "used intelligence not to inform decision-making, but to justify a decision already made," Pillar wrote. "It went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq."
It is…the first time that such a senior intelligence officer has so directly and publicly condemned the administration's handling of intelligence… (read on here)
With that said, I’m curious to see when the swift-boating by the Right of Mr. Pillar begins. Several choices are on the table for the Bush administration.
1). Pillar was fired by the administration (he was not, he retired after 28 years at the CIA) and therefore holds a grudge.
2). Pillar hired an illegal alien from Mexico as a maid back in 1974…and rumor has it that she was photographed at a gay night club in Tijuana.
3). Pillar’s daughter dated a black man when she was only 15, and has been rumored to have had an abortion 3 years later.
4). Pillar never really “worked” for the CIA – he had a desk job, right next to Valerie Plame.
5). Pillar was jealous of the medal of freedom awarded to Tenet, and is just doing this to get back at the Bush administration.
posted by Jeremy at 1:34 PM
2 Comments:
My Favorite quote from this article....
Pillar said much of the intelligence on Iraq proved to have been correct.
Anon – considering both the U.N Weapons inspectors and the IAEA said they were not finding a nuclear program, chemical weapons or biological weapons, and considering they had debunked the uranium from Niger story, and considering most of the other nations who had intelligence on this matter said Saddam was contained with inspections, I would have to say that a lot of the intelligence, while not 100% correct, gave a very strong argument against war and continuing the inspections. That's why so many people feel they were cherry picked.
Did you know the intelligence coming in just before the war even cast doubt upon Powell’s UN speech? A lot of the intelligence we got was from the inspectors and IAEA themselves. I think that’s what Pillar is saying here.
Just suppose for a moment we did listen to France, Russia, Germany, and most of the world community, and continued with inspections. We would have found no WMD’s, we would have found that the United States/Britain’s stance on the matter was incorrect, and we could have avoided a 200 billion dollar war and 2,300+ American lives.
Have you viewed the timeline or articles leading up to the war? I really think it will change your mind about the intelligence, and what was actually being said.
I think sometimes it’s difficult to talk to you about this stuff because you make it sound like the fact I’m criticizing how my country went to war means that I’m supporting Saddam Hussein, or the enemy in general. It is very difficult to talk facts and policy after you’ve accused me of either doing that, or siding with terrorists.
You know how much I am against religious fanaticism of any kind…why would I support Muslim extremists? Human and Civil Rights are what motivate me politically – why would I support a dictator who tortured his people?
Are you not ok with Americans questioning their government, especially in something as crucially significant as war? I’m not trying to be “difficult” in terms of my view of the administration, and the proof in that is I support the war in Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban…again, because I hate fundamentalists!
I mean, when I say that the inspections were working and Saddam was contained – as Colin Powell, and other members of Bush’s cabinet have said – why would that mean I am defending Saddam? If anything I’m defending American and British policy before 2003?
If I say that Bush is lying, and al-Zawahiri says Bush is lying, does that mean I support al-Zawahiri? I mean, if Kim Jung Il says America has a weight problem, does that mean the Surgeon General is on the side of North Korea?
You seem reasonable enough. Why do you make these wild connections?
Post a Comment
<< Home