ex-CIA : intel misused to justify war Options

[Cigolon]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6020902418.html

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.

here, wait for it.....
ok:

"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.

[sunshine superma...]

One pundits take on this. I highlighted the valued portions:

This morning's Washington Post features a front-page, above-the-fold story by Walter Pincus about Paul Pillar, the former high-ranking CIA official who has written an article claiming that the Bush administration "cherry-picked" intelligence information on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war. Writing about Paul Pillar on a blog started by John Hinderaker makes me feel like an Anthony Powell character. Paul and John were both college roommates of mine, though at different times. In fact, both were almost like brothers -- Paul the brilliant but steady big brother; John the precocious younger one.

There was no one at Dartmouth -- not John, not any professor -- for whom I had more respect than Paul. In addition to being a fabulous student and a loyal friend, Paul was the straightest arrow I knew. After he joined the CIA, he told me about taking its lie detector test. He had answered "no" to every question, even the ones the CIA figured everyone would have to answer "yes" to or be caught lying. The only question that gave Paul pause, he said, was whether he had ever associated with someone who advocated the overthrow of the U.S. government. He wasn't sure whether I had. Nonetheless, Paul asked me to write a recommendation for him in connection with a position he was seeking in the military reserve (if memory serves). I wrote a glowing one that stressed his patriotism.

I haven't read Paul's piece about the Iraq intelligence issue. However, the Post's account doesn't make it sound very persuasive. Paul apparently agrees that the CIA's intelligence was flawed -- which I take to mean that the CIA concluded that Iraq had WMD -- but argues that the intelligence isn't what led to war. This assertion suggests one of two things -- either that we would have gone to war had the intelligence been ambiguous or that the intelligence was not ambiguous because the administration was desperate to go to war.

The remainder of the Post story indicates that Paul is making the latter assertion, arguing that the administration applied "subtle" pressure by constantly asking for information in a politicized environment. This claim (which is different from the charge of "cherry picking" that Pincus leads with) sounds weak on its face. It's difficult to believe that the CIA would provide false or misleading information just because it was often asked for its assessment (Paul acknowledges that no one asked the CIA to reshape results). Moreover, Paul says there were repeated questions about a possible link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. As far as I know, the CIA never endorsed such a connection. If subtle pressure didn't lead to such an endorsement, why would it have led to a faulty conclusion on the WMD issue?

I look forward to reading Paul's article, but for now I credit the finding of the bipartisan Silberman-Robb commission that the administration did not pressure analysts with respect to their intelligence findings.
Posted by Paul at 08:26 AM | Permalink

[Kenny]

You can always tell a troll when they don't post a link to the right wing swill they are pushing.

This is snips.

[Cigolon]

i like when people dont bother to read the link before they bother to respond with a 'debunking'. here you go snips. let me quote a little more.

n 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.

The Bush administration, Pillar wrote, "repeatedly called on the intelligence community to uncover more material that would contribute to the case for war," including information on the "supposed connection" between Hussein and al Qaeda, which analysts had discounted. "Feeding the administration's voracious appetite for material on the Saddam-al Qaeda link consumed an enormous amount of time and attention."

The result of the requests, and public statements by the president, Vice President Cheney and others, led analysts and managers to conclude the United States was heading for war well before the March 2003 invasion, Pillar asserted

btw, got a link to that wonderful editorical there snips, or is it just more steam.

but thanks none the less, as usual your weak arguments have actually helped to strengthen and shed the righty spin on the issue

[Cigolon]

we need to make this issue hot. i want to hear ed talk about it, i want to hear him tear into this. this is a huge story and we shouldn't let it not be the biggest thing to come out in a long time.

how much more will it take righties- before you are curious.

[jlee562]

Heh, great minds think alike, I just started a thread on this too. Here's a link to the full preview of the article:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faes...ar-in-iraq.html

And as I mention in the other thread, Foreign Affairs is one of the most reliable, oft cited, and regarded academic journals in the field of International Relations.

[megadave2002]

i like when people dont bother to read the link before they bother to respond with a 'debunking'. here you go snips. let me quote a little more.
btw, got a link to that wonderful editorical there snips, or is it just more steam.

but thanks none the less, as usual your weak arguments have actually helped to strengthen and shed the righty spin on the issue
[right][snapback]134627[/snapback][/right]

It's from powerline.com He put the same article on a thread I started on the same topic, he left off the link in that thread too.

Must be pretty ashamed of the source to not document it and let others go read it.

[Cigolon]

oh. and thats the best powerline could do with this one? i mean, i expect atleast B quality spin from them, this hardly counted as anything but a pile of dung. it was terrible and illogical. it made it sound like they didn't even read or research it. but thats becomming my increasingly solidified opiinon of most righties.


in case someone needed a picture to know what the administration did.

[rainwater]

You can always tell a troll when they don't post a link to the right wing swill they are pushing.

This is snips.
[right][snapback]134626[/snapback][/right]

I agree. cant believe the mod hasnt dumped his ass yet.
Oh but he's being sooooo polite. yeah.
I can hear a SUCKING SOUND......

[Cigolon]

come on. no one else has anything to say? the biggest story for our party- and nothing?

[Hussein_Jester]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but if Bush knowingly presented intelligence that supported his case when calling for war against Saddam, and knowingly suppressed the intel that did not....

HE LIED!

[Cigolon]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but if Bush knowingly presented intelligence that supported his case when calling for war against Saddam, and knowingly suppressed the intel that did not....

HE LIED!
[right][snapback]135011[/snapback][/right]

why dont righties ever want to talk about this?


HOW MUCH ARE YOU WILLING TO BELIEVE BEFORE YOU ARE CURIOUS?

[megadave2002]

why dont righties ever want to talk about this?
HOW MUCH ARE YOU WILLING TO BELIEVE BEFORE YOU ARE CURIOUS?
[right][snapback]135075[/snapback][/right]

The trolls have not gotten their talking points on this yet.
Maybe after they watch Bill O'Reilly tonight the 'George Bush Brown-Noser Choir' can sing us a hymn from the book of Rove.

[Cigolon]

The trolls have not gotten their talking points on this yet.
Maybe after they watch Bill O'Reilly tonight the 'George Bush Brown-Noser Choir' can sing us a hymn from the book of Rove.
[right][snapback]135081[/snapback][/right]

what do you think it will be

"he's anti-american" or "he's just a partisan democrat hack who hates bush"

[megadave2002]

I'm thinking it will be "He is an animal-human hybrid, hate america first, liberal that eats kitten fetuses, is gay and has an illegitimate black baby."

Almost forgot "His wife is a CIA agent".

That is the full 'discredit' sampler platter right there.

[aleman]

what do you think it will be

"he's anti-american" or "he's just a partisan democrat hack who hates bush"
[right][snapback]135093[/snapback][/right]

I'm going with "Just another shill hawking a book for profit."

[Dr Morbius]

The trolls have not gotten their talking points on this yet.
Maybe after they watch Bill O'Reilly tonight the 'George Bush Brown-Noser Choir' can sing us a hymn from the book of Rove.

Do you know the difference between a brown-noser and an ass-kisser?

Depth perception.













Have a nice day.

[aleman]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6020902418.html
here, wait for it.....
ok:
[right][snapback]134618[/snapback][/right]

There is a God, and he is finally allowing the pendulum to start its long trek back to the center, where I hope it doesn't stop. It needs to swing pretty far to the left in order for us to begin cleaning up the mess that this cabal has made. The timing for this couldn't have been better, coming along on the same day as some of the famous Bush/Abramoff pictures were leaked.

[megadave2002]

Do you know the difference between a brown-noser and an ass-kisser?

Depth perception.
Have a nice day.
[right][snapback]135115[/snapback][/right]

That is great, that made my side hurt

I think to get brown on your nose you would have to be aiming for a different area of the crotch.

[Mac McFadden]

Dr Morbius  Yesterday, 08:53 PM Post #17 
Do you know the difference between a brown-noser and an ass-kisser?
Depth perception.

Good one.

(But I got the Parsy for "sunshine". )


Mac