The committee report is obviously a political document. I believe that the administration pushed the CIA to produce intelligence, yes, but they complied willingly, because they are unscrupulous. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63623-2004Dec14.html
that’s not how finding the source works.
2 Likes
One step closer asshole trump… one step closer.
Probably dropped from someone on Mueller’s side.
Trump has his lawyer make a “personal remark” that the investigation should be stopped.
In response, this comes out with “No Russians? Bitch please!”
Shadow-puppet ju-jitsu.
3 Likes
Well there’s some common ground for us all.
The Bush administration was infamous for doing a run-around the intelligence community, too. Unlike previous administrations, they wanted “raw” intelligence (that hadn’t been interpreted by anyone), and came to the opposite conclusions than the CIA did. I’ve read a fair bit from people who were in the CIA in those days, and they’re still pissed about how the White House misrepresented the intelligence and that the CIA got blamed for decisions the White House made on its own.
9 Likes
1 Like
Horseshit. The Bush Administration got a high level national intelligence estimate from the CIA making the case for war. The CIA is a heterogeneous organization, and undoubtedly at any time there are dissenting voices within it. But the leadership of the CIA was fully compliant in the effort to produce a war. George Tenet didn’t get the Presidential Medal of Freedom for nothing. https://news.vice.com/article/the-cia-just-declassified-the-document-that-supposedly-justified-the-iraq-invasion
When the Bush administration used the CIA’s reports to build a case for war in Iraq we saw
- Highly qualified statements from the CIA making clear that the evidence wasn’t clear-cut and the conclusions were far from unanimous
- Skepticism from our allies, whose own intelligence agencies had reached different conclusions
- Dissent from within the US intelligence community, including whistleblowers such as Joseph Wilson (which subsequently triggered the Valerie Plame affair)
None of that appears to be the case here. The only reason we have to doubt the claim that Russians were the ones who delivered the DNC’s emails to Wikileaks is that Julian Assange denies it, and he’s hardly the most credible or objective source.
12 Likes
Yeah, this time there is literally no public evidence, just assertion from “handpicked” unnamed analysts. At least last time they were willing to lie boldly with their names at stake.
Have you read, say, this old bit? Intelligence Agency Veterans Challenge The ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence
One of the scandals of the Cheney administration is that raw intelligence was used to build the case for war.
4 Likes
I agree that the CIA is not clear and free of culpability regarding Iraq war intelligence (far from it), but they are not entirely hetero-genius. The Bush administration was so upset that part of the CIA was not falling in line that they actually leaked CIA agent Valerie Plame’s identity… I don’t completely remember the whole affair, but I think that shows there was disagreement within the agency and with the Bush admin.
See my comments above about dissent within the ranks. Notably, Wilson’s concerns were not brought forth by Tenet, he (Wilson, who was not CIA and was tasked by the agency at his wife’s recommendation) reported them independently after the war began and the yellow cake argument had been used by Powell at the UN, with Tenet’s backing.
I think your timeline is slightly off- if I’m understanding the wiki article, Wilson’s trip and report was conducted before the invasion, and his findings were used incorrectly in the lead up. It’s all a confusing mess, but I think the fact is that there was conflicting info within the agency (and others), which suggests that the executive branch chose to ignore contrary info, and may have been helped to ignore it by those superior to Plame. I take your point though that those were relatively low-level dissenters. I too am wary of taking the word of such a dastardly organization in the present hacking case, having been responsible for wars and torture, etc. Even if the current leaks are true, these fuckers need to be reigned in, not celebrated.
2 Likes
Let’s be fair, it rejected all the ones not making that case, then asked for one making that case, and kinda got one, and then they got Colin Powell to say it was true, because basically it was bullshit.
And it turned out to be bullshit. Much like your derail tactic. Comrade.
5 Likes
When Wilson found his findings, in line with the UN findings, suddenly his wife was outed as an intelligence operative (and the cast UN unreliable). Previously undercover, she was suddenly NOT. Valerie Plame.
The revisionism @astazangasta is up to here is shockingly ahistorical. What’s your mission @astazangasta ? What’s the goal for you today, here? You seem to have a narrative to inject, regardless of the topic, past, or evidence. Get it over with.
5 Likes
What revisionism? I haven’t made any statements I think are wrong. Can you be specific? My agenda here is simple: the CIA, at a high level, supported the Bush agenda to go to war. They produced documents shown to Congress and cited at the UN which made the case for war, knowingly suppressing contrary facts. Yes, there was internal dissent. No, this does not mean the CIA was against the war. Tenet helped Bush get his war and was rewarded handsomely.
Also, the CIA has in this same period conducted kidnappings, ran secret torture prisons, and pioneered an extra judicial assassination program which is still ongoing. They are a horrendous, monstrous institution which I do not trust to represent the best interests of this country. I DO trust them to lie us into more conflicts, because that is what they have historically done (again, as an institution, despite individual dissenters, like Wilson, who was (a) not CIA and (b) expressed his opinion as a private citizen).
Finally, please refrain from the “comrade” bullshit. I am not a Russian anything, and you know it. I am a lifelong American and resident of SF. When the events in question occurred, I was vocally opposed to the claims being made and actively involved in organizing against the war. I see the same pattern of bullshit here and am calling it out.
1 Like
I would tend to agree with this especially with such statements from Bush II as presented to Palestinian leaders in 2003 that “I’m driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, ‘George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.’ And I did, and then God would tell me, ‘George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,’ and I did.”
And “now again”, Mr Bush is quoted as telling the two, “I feel God’s words coming to me: ‘Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.’ And by God, I’m gonna do it.”
When you are on a “mission from god” that tends to be a fixating opinion.
5 Likes
With fucking terrifying implications when presented from a position of power. 
1 Like
Umm, do you think we could keep this on current events rather than re-fighting the WMD issue, again?
1 Like
