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






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

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

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

This is snips.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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......

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

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!

why dont righties ever want to talk about this?


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

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.

what do you think it will be

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

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.

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

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

Depth perception.













Have a nice day.

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.

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.

Good one.

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


Mac

Oh, we already have the rightie response to this:

http://edschultz.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=9269

"Yeah? Yeah? Well...look what this Iraqi general says. See? SEE?! This proves Bush wasn't lying."

and still no rightie responds in the thread.

i really want to know what it would take to make these people curious?

-=-=-=-=-=-

Parsnips hunting.
Must not be the season of the witch.

I'll go on a rant if I talk about this issue.
My feelings are close to hate for Dick Cheney.
Dick Cheney is a very bad man. {{{shudder}}}


I don't like Dick Bush...but I don't know how much he really knew...he is kind of retarded. Dick Rummy is an old snake who use to be smarter. I really don't like Dick Rove...and Dick Libby is already gone.

Dick Delay is another monster..from other issues...but I think he is now seen as poison...so he is gone too.

it amazes me. i ask that anyone who says they aren't curious say what it would take to make them curious. it makes me think that the person who voted no simply isn't willing to ever doubt bush.

I know. I think they are retarded too.