Michael Moore To Be On O'Reilly Factor Tonight...

[MarkRyan]

Again, Moore made the point that this is the same CIA that didn't warn us about 9/11, that was clearly inept, and has been in need of massive restructuring since the end of the Cold War. Plus, it wasn't 'nearly every other national intelligence agency' it was MI6 and the FGB, who get nearly all their intel in that region from Mossad, the Israeli secret service. Now, I have nothing against the nation of Israel but if you think they weren't biased toward the overthrow of Saddam, you're delusional.

So you're saying that the CIA, FGB, and MI6 are useless? Then I guess we shouldn't do shit.

Aww fuck, you guys missed 9/11--I don't believe this shit about Iraq and won't do anything.

Yeah right.

[StriderKyo]

That's something you'd have to ask the CIA.

Except their intelligence was based on nothing. They had no agents in Iraq. They had no sattelite photos of any weapons labs, no legitimate confirmation of weapons, nothing. They had Chalabi and some low ranking Iraqi officer he paid off, and even the US millitary has said that if they had investigated Chalabi further, they wouldn't have taken his testimony at face value. If their case was actually that strong, they wouldn't have had to offer false evidence to the UN.

They believed--as did nearly every other national intelligence agency--that Saddam already had the weapons, and that he was likely to give them to terrorists.

If any national intelligence agency believed that, they would have ratified it in the UN as they did action against Saddam in '91. Instead, they sent an inspector who found nothing and were presented with made up evidence by the Bush administration. I can tell you my own government and others said quite clearly at the time they didn't believe he had stockpiles of weapons, and ten years of international containment strategy against Saddam tells you that the international community quite clearly believed he wasn't about to make any funny moves.

[Diff-chan]

g0zen, the CIA didnt cobble together info and say, "look what can happen" regarding 9/11, did it? But the info was there, that much is obvious.

Now, if the CIA did cobble together info and say, "look at what we know about Saddam", then the Federal Government had two choices:

01. Do nothing, on the grounds that the CIA was inept.
02. Take pre-emptive action.

Okay, so let's go back 2.5 years, after 9/11. We have this info. We had info for 9/11 and didnt act on it. Do we not act on it again? And risk getting attacked? Or do we take a risk and pre-empt any possible attacks?

In my world, it seems that the government made the right decision with the info they had. Of course, hindsight is 20/20, and if the CIA was proven even more inept... well then we just need to work more diligently to reform it.

ten years of international containment strategy against Saddam tells you that the international community quite clearly believed he wasn't about to make any funny moves.

... ten years, while America was blamed for the deaths of a million Iraqi babies and while Saddam was bilking the international community for billions of dollars. Hmm...

[Melf]

That's something you'd have to ask the CIA. They believed--as did nearly every other national intelligence agency--that Saddam already had the weapons, and that he was likely to give them to terrorists.

What I don't understand is this: Everyone agrees the CIA fucked up 9/11. They agree that the CIA was a mess that couldn't find it's way out of a wet paper bag. They agreed that the intelligence was "flawed." Yet this is the same CIA that Bush believed blindly that WMDs were a "slam dunk?" After the huge fuckup that was 9/11, he should have canned Tennet immediately, investigated, and restructured. Instead, he defended the man left and right. Then, he got "duped" into invading Iraq by his good friend Tennet and ended up blaming Russian and British intelligence.

So then, using O'Reilly's logic, who's the bigger fuck up: Tennet or Bush?

[MarkRyan]

Obviously they were wrong, we know that now. Bush didn't have hindsight when he had to make the decision, he only had the intel from the CIA, Russia, England, and Germany.

Did the Canadian intelligence predict 9/11?

[Mman]

Did they tell us Iraq had WMD?

All of this is ignoring the fact that there was no sound strategy going into Iraq either. Bush also fucked up once we were in Iraq.

[MarkRyan]

So then, using O'Reilly's logic, who's the bigger fuck up: Tennet or Bush?

Read what diffusionx wrote.

If you're suggesting that Bush ignore all intelligence because the CIA fucked up 9/11 I think you're crazy. But I do agree that the CIA is in desperate need of repair.

[StriderKyo]

Obviously they were wrong, we know that now. Bush didn't have hindsight when he had to make the decision, he only had the intel from the CIA, Russia, England, and Germany.

It doesn't require hindsight, it requires the brains and perspective to interpret intelligence. There was no there there.

Did the Canadian intelligence predict 9/11?

Did anyone? (Other than Richard Clarke, I mean). The inability to predict the future isn't valid pretext for invasion. That's not my opinion, that's international law. And it's why the UN wouldn't support the war.

[MarkRyan]

Did anyone? (Other than Richard Clarke, I mean). The inability to predict the future isn't valid pretext for invasion. That's not my opinion, that's international law. And it's why the UN wouldn't support the war.

I forget if you were or weren't one of the people that made the deduction that since the CIA didn't predict 9/11 that their intelligence on Iraq should be ignored. If neither Canada nor France could predict 9/11, should their intelligence that's against the war be thrown out too?

[Melf]

What I'm saying is that it's basically ok to say that the CIA was a total mess and got blind sided by 9/11 but that it's also acceptable to say that Bush had every right to believe them about WMDs in Iraq. The two make no sense together.

Look at it this way: Say a man catches his wife cheating on him. He's totally caught by surprised and destroyed. He discovers his best friend had seen the guy coming over but never bothered to put two and two together or even comment about it. He also finds out that his neighbors know the guy and know he's suspected of banging wives in the area. They told the best friend but he just sat on the info. Do you think the husband should trust any observations his best friend makes from now on? Would you take stock tips from the guy? I would get a new best friend and pay more attention to what goes on at home.