The problem with revealing US intel on Iraq

[lord of the mark]

This from Slate

"More serious are intercepts from telephone conversations, which Bush suggested in his State of the Union message that we possess. Information from them could be revealing enough to prompt Iraq's leaders to shut down certain phone lines?and possibly kill people whose lines were tapped.

There is a precedent here. In the late 1970s, an anti-detente CIA analyst leaked to the columnist Jack Anderson some transcripts of phone conversations from Leonid Brezhnev's car, suggesting (or so the analyst thought) that Soviet delegates to the SALT II arms control talks were manipulating the treaty to allow them to keep building certain types of ICBMs that the American negotiators thought would be banned. After Anderson published the leak, the tap on the car disappeared?as did the Soviet mechanic whom the CIA had hired to install it."

Wonder how many people pressing for the US to reveal evidence will accept responsibity for those who die as a result?????

[DarthVeda]

If any 'smoking gun' information is released, it unfortunately won't be public because of this sort of problem.

[Dinner]

They'll reveal the info because so many people have demanded they do so. Yes, agents will die because of it and there will now be fewer people who want to work with U.S. intelligence bacause of it.

[Kramerman]

Hopefully it wont come to that, accepting deaths and all.

I wonder why those staunchly apposed to war are just so convinced Bush is lying about this evidence. I mean it is definately a possibilty, but I'm more than willing to keep an open mind considering the situation, the background, and the obvious consequences if such evidence is revealed prematurely... besides, if he is lying, then come the end of the war, and nothing is found (very unlikely in my opinion), comes the end of Bush's career . And Im sure he knows this... he aint just a dumb 'merican, as much as many here would like to think.

Kman

[Dinner]

A large number of them just hate Bush and would cut off their own noses to spite him.

[Spiffor]

I'd love the US intelligence not to reveal intelligence to the public, but to the inspectors. If the US has so much information already, I suppose it should help speed up the inspection process.
Plus, if the inspectors come with the proof the US already has, all the diplomatic waltz would stop, and the war would begin, much to the profit of Bush.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I'd love the US intelligence not to reveal intelligence to the public, but to the inspectors. If the US has so much information already, I suppose it should help speed up the inspection process.
Plus, if the inspectors come with the proof the US already has, all the diplomatic waltz would stop, and the war would begin, much to the profit of Bush.

Perhaps the information that intellegence possesses is not that type of information, as far as being exact locations of stuff (which is no doubt changing everyday anyway). There are a million different types of damning evidence, it doesnt have to be something that could help the inspectors, else for the reasons you said, Bush would most certainly jump on the chance to tell the inspectors. Telling the inspectors what actual intel we have however may not be helpful in anyway, it could even be a liability, depending on the type of intel.... gah im tired... i dunno if anything i said made any sense...

Kman

[chequita guevara]

If you had a friend who constantly lied to you, would you continue to give him the benefit of the doubt? Well, that's what you chicken-hawks are asking us to do. The US has a history of lying to the world and especially the American people. Until proven otherwise, the US government is untrustworthy.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If you had a friend who constantly lied to you, would you continue to give him the benefit of the doubt? Well, that's what you chicken-hawks are asking us to do. The US has a history of lying to the world and especially the American people. Until proven otherwise, the US government is untrustworthy.

true enough. but it will be Bush's downfall, mind you, if he invades and it is revealed their was never any evidence, for the very reason you speak of, lack of credibility.

People speak of conspiracy theories and elaboarte plans of the US to plant WoMD and stuff, to try and cover this up and cover their ass, but that is all too far-fetched for me. I dont see how anything like that under the surely scrutinous eye of world media and governments after an invaions occurs could ever be successful without discovery... like I've said before, Bush isnt stupid. Again, he would be ruined if he tried this and failed.

Time will tell, i suppose.

Kman

[Spiffor]

Bush will do this, but most probably away from cameras. Other countries would have just too much interests not speaking about it, they'll be stunningly silent if they know how the US army planted WMDs.
You can be sure Bush / Blair will say "I told you so" when the war is over. They need legitimation for the next war after all.

[chequita guevara]

The American people will support Bush after the war no matter what. They may not wish to go to war, but once war begins the country will be behind him 80%. After the war is over, it won't matter if he lied or there are no weapons of mass destruction.

The main reason, I think, that people are demanding Bush reveal the evidence is because they feel that Iraq should be disarmed peacefully, and that Bush is trying to thwart this so that he has an excuse to go to war.

I do think Iraq has WoMD and that they aren't complying. I don't care. Iraq has been deterred successfully for twelve years, it can go on indefinately. Iraq is no threat to the US nor to its neighbors anymore. This whole dog and pony show about inspections is just a shell game to get people to take their focus off the real issue, which is the US solidifying it's hegemony.

Even if you're totally pro-American, think on this. No empire has ever survived. No empire ever falls gracefully. If you love America, why are you trying to condemn her future to one of war, hatred, and collapse?

[DinoDoc]

Does this mean that you are for continuing the sanction regime che?

[chequita guevara]

Smart sanctions only.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Smart sanctions only.

I'm of the opinion that term is an example of doublespeak but I'm open to you telling me how that would be better than the status quo.

[chequita guevara]

Sanctions that simply target Iraq's capacity to make weapons of war. Everything else is fine. Let the economy recover, let Iraq sell all the oil it can, etc. Perhaps have the UN take over all of Iraq's P.O.E.s.