The Republican Pushback

[Berzerker]

Drake

No, it's not. Members of Congress had access to the full spectrum of the intelligence gathered, just like the President.

Congress is a consumer of intel, not the producer. The executive branch is the producer of intel. Congress gets summaries from the executive, summaries that dont include exculpitory evidence.

The only difference is that members of Congress got the intelligence in the form of the National Intelligence Estimate, instead of the President's Daily Brief. The Robb-Silberman Commission (the one McCain served on) said that there was no significant difference between the information contained in the NIE given to Congress and the PDB given to the President.

I saw McCain talking about this "commission" and how he asked every analyst if they were pressured and they said no, then McCain went on Hardball and Chris told him how one of the bigwigs at the CIA said he had never seen a WH press the CIA as much as the Bushies.

The CIA was skeptical about the Niger claim. So what did Bush do? He cited British intel and ignored the CIA.

[Dinner]

In fact Bush's poll numbers fell another 3 points this week to 34%.

[KrazyHorse]

34%?

Wow.

I'm speechless.

What a lesson in Caveat Emptor. I wonder why it took 5 years for the average American to realise that he's an incompetent buffoon...

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Berzerker

The CIA was skeptical about the Niger claim. So what did Bush do? He cited British intel and ignored the CIA.

And then outted someone's wife as a CIA agent as revenge.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin
In fact Bush's poll numbers fell another 3 points this week to 34%.

Well then, I think we can easily pass judgement on the efficacy of this "attack of the imbeciles", or is it "revenge of the intellectually bankrupt"?

But I guess Drake will continue to gush about this fallback- I mean, "pushback"....

[MrFun]

Originally posted by GePap


But I guess Drake will continue to gush about this fallback- I mean, "pushback"....

Oh, but remember, Drake is an independent.

[Ted Striker]

Nixon had all time lows at 24%

Truman I think was at 22% in 1950? Anyone know why? Mister Fun?

[MichaeltheGreat]

It was '52.

Something to do with a long drawn out war that didn't seem to have any particular point and any particular end to it, I think.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
It was '52.

Something to do with a long drawn out war that didn't seem to have any particular point and any particular end to it, I think.

At least they were dragging that war out for a fairly good reason though (the real sticking point was whether or not to force all POWs from NKorea and China to go back there if they didn't want to, a very big deal since a lot of NKorean POWs had been press-ganged in the south...)

[Drake Tungsten]

Iraq is an incompetently executed FUBAR, and it will never become a stable, complacent, pro-western democracy. As long as we continue to take the heat, the Iraqi factions will spend their time maneuvering for power over each other to prepare for the inevitable day when we realize we're really not going to invade the middle of the Arab world and outlast every fundamentalist and nationalist Arab asswipe there.

Do you really think the Iraqi government is able to stand on its own right now? I'm all for pulling out once the Iraqi government has the means to control the insurgency themselves, but I think it's pretty idiotic to pull out before that time. Do you really want Zarqawi and his Islamist buddies to be able to carve out a semi-independent fief in the Sunni areas of Iraq?

Do you think these intel agencies operate in a vacuum, blind to the mindset and inclinations of those up the chain of command?

Nobody needs to exert political pressure - if you didn't view the world through the "Saddam is the incarnation of all evil" turd-colored glasses, you weren't part of the intel community for long.

Call it a cultural failing of the intel organizations if you want, but that's something that comes from the top down, no matter who is in office.

Obviously the prevailing view of Saddam as the root of all evil affected the intelligence that the intel agencies produced. Saddam had been public enemy number one since the time of Bush 1 though, so I don't really see why the current president should take all the blame for an intelligence failure that began long before he even got into the Oval Office.

For the record, I don't think Bush was fooled by the intelligence community any more than the members of Congress were fooled by Bush. They all got what they expected.

Whether Bush lied three years ago shouldn't be an issue at all. The real issue is the continual, on-going ****up and the insistence that everything is going just fine and no changes need to be made.

I agree with you completely. We should be trying to determine the best course of action in the present, not having some bull**** argument about whether or not people should be held responsible for a vote they now regret.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Berzerker

You dont value the opinions of veterans over people who avoided war on military tactics?

By any measure this debate is about strategy, not tactics.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Do you think these intel agencies operate in a vacuum, blind to the mindset and inclinations of those up the chain of command?

Nobody needs to exert political pressure - if you didn't view the world through the "Saddam is the incarnation of all evil" turd-colored glasses, you weren't part of the intel community for long.

Call it a cultural failing of the intel organizations if you want, but that's something that comes from the top down, no matter who is in office.

Whether Bush lied three years ago shouldn't be an issue at all. The real issue is the continual, on-going ****up and the insistence that everything is going just fine and no changes need to be made.

I don't recall Clinton having a particular hard on for Iraq until after he came into office, which suggests to me that he was influenced by the intel rather than the other way around. Bush certainly did have a hard on for Iraq, and perhaps that did influence some of the intel (or moreso the analysis) but I don't think that the influence at the top of the administration can turn the world (as perceived by the intelligence community) upside down without suffering death from a thousand leaks.