Ex-cia Official Says Bush 'cherry-picked'

Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
2
3
4
5

Ex-cia Official Says Bush 'cherry-picked'; intelligence
Tweet Topic Started: Feb 10 2006, 06:25 PM (1,096 Views)
silverfox	Feb 14 2006, 05:37 PM Post #46
Member Posts: 252 Group: Members Member #227 Joined: December 11, 2005	passinthru Feb 14 2006, 02:50 PM Watergate and deepthroat come to mind. Sometimes the "mechanisms in the government" don't work because the people being dishonest are the same people you must use to voice the disagreement. It seems to me that one who has the best interest of the people at heart would try the internal processes that are designed to allow dissent first before having secret meetings to thwart the President. After all the President was elected by the people to represent them-- not a CIA official who thinks they know best.



passinthru	Feb 14 2006, 06:21 PM Post #47
John - Gainesville, FL Posts: 6,166 Group: Members Member #6 Joined: June 6, 2004	Quote: It seems to me that one who has the best interest of the people at heart would try the internal processes that are designed to allow dissent first... For a second I thought you were talking about the President and his rush to war.
	Faster horses, younger women, older whiskey, more money...


CalRed	Feb 14 2006, 11:55 PM Post #48
Member Posts: 1,087 Group: Members Member #128 Joined: November 30, 2004	"For all his insight, however, Pillar might have underestimated bin Ladin's impact on Islamic terrorism. He argues that bin Ladin is not a unitary and unifying symbol for militant Islam, a view that seems a bit off the mark in a post-11 September world. The author suggests bin Ladin has fallen short of institutionalizing his influence through alliances across national and ethnic lines and his focus on the hated United States. Islamic terror, in Pillar's view, will not end with bin Ladin's death or capture; nor will it necessarily spell the end of al-Qaida." J. Daniel Moore CIA Historyh Staff CIA History
	Something instead of Nothing? "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Alan Sandage


CalRed	Feb 15 2006, 12:05 AM Post #49
Member Posts: 1,087 Group: Members Member #128 Joined: November 30, 2004	"The book is called Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy, and it was originally published in 1999 by the Brookings Institution. A new edition, with an updated introduction, was published on January 1, 2004. Pillar uses the new introduction to accuse the Bush administration of misleading the U.S. public by dishonestly conflating the war in Iraq and the broader war on terror. It is exactly the kind of critique one might expect from an analyst who had long sought to downplay the role of states in terrorism. Terrorism, in Pillar's view, is something to be managed, not something to be fought and certainly not something to be defeated. From this follows Pillar's conclusion that military force is usually a counterproductive in managing terrorism. Reasonable people can agree or disagree with these views, but even as he articulated them in 1999, they are plainly odds with Bush administration policies and the global war on terror. Pillar points to "a series of increasingly deadly vehicle bombs" in the summer of 2003 to criticize President Bush's postwar claim that Iraq was the central front in the war on terror. Pillar writes: Such words may have more of an impact on popular perceptions than the fact that the terrorism in question was not anything the Saddam regime would have done if the United States had not gone to war, but instead something that the terrorists were doing because it had. It is a revealing passage. Pillar confuses his analysis with "facts" and proffers a stunningly categorical claim about Iraqi intentions. How does Paul Pillar know what Saddam Hussein would or would not have done without a U.S. invasion of Iraq? For a conclusion as definitive as the one Pillar offers--a "fact" he calls it--Pillar must have had a lot of confidence in the quality of the intelligence he was seeing. This confidence was misplaced, according to the conclusions of the bipartisan Senate Select Intelligence Committee's report on pre-war intelligence on Iraq, which concluded: The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) did not have a focused human intelligence (HUMINT) collection strategy targeting Iraq's links to terrorism until 2002. The CIA had no [redacted] sources on the ground in Iraq reporting specifically on terrorism. (It is worth pointing out that Iraq's 1993 attempt to assassinate President George H.W. Bush included plans to use vehicle bombs. When Jabir Salim, the Iraqi ambassador to the Czech Republic, defected in December 1998, he told British intelligence that the Iraqi regime had provided $150,000 so that he might recruit and Islamic terrorist to detonate a truck bomb at Radio Free Europe headquarters in Prague.) THE POST ARTICLE also tells us that Pillar accuses the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence to make its case. Others have made similar claims, not entirely without justification. Still, it is an especially odd charge coming from Pillar. In his book, Pillar explores the U.S. missile strikes against the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant near Khartoum, Sudan. The Clinton administration attacked the plant on August 20, 1998, in response to the bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa on August 7, 1998. In one lengthy paragraph, Pillar lays out the evidence: Certain aspects of the security of the plant and public information about it suggested that it was engaged in more sensitive activity than just the production of pharmaceuticals; that a sample of soil collected outside the plant--unlike samples collected at other suspicious sites in Sudan--contained a chemical that is a precursor to the nerve agent VX (there are other conceivable reasons for the chemical to exist, but none that was a plausible explanation for it to be present at this location in Sudan); that there were reasons to believe the al Shifa plant was part of Sudan's larger Military Industrial Corporation, the center of Sudanese work on the development of weapons, including unconventional weapons; that bin Laden contributed financially to this corporation (part of his substantial ties with the Sudanese regime dominated by Hasan al Turabi's National Islamic Front); that there were other, more direct links between bin Laden and the management of the al Shifa plant; and that there were other intelligence reports that bin Laden's organization was attempting to acquire a chemical weapons capability (not to mention bin Laden's public statements suggesting the same thing). Pillar omits several significant facts: the U.S. intelligence community had evidence that suggested the VX precursor (known as EMPTA) was of Iraqi provenance; the U.S. government had intercepted phone calls between administrators of that plant and an Iraqi chemical weapons expert named Emad al Ani; the CIA had intelligence that Iraqis had worked with the Sudanese, and through them bin Laden, to develop chemical weapons at several sites throughout Sudan. Consider: In a January 23, 1999, article in the Washington Post, then-National Security Council counterterrorism director Richard Clarke, no friend of the Bush administration, defended the Clinton administration strikes on al Shifa and said that "intelligence exists linking bin Laden to al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan." In an email he sent on November 4, 1998, to National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and made public by the 9/11 Commission, Clarke concluded that the presence of Iraqi chemical experts in Sudan was "probably a direct result of the Iraq-Al Qaeda agreement," whereby bin Laden promised not to agitate against the Iraqi regime and Saddam Hussein pledged assistance on weapons development. Senior Clinton administration and intelligence officials defend the strikes to this day by citing Iraqi connections to the plant. President Clinton's secretary of Defense, William Cohen, testified before the 9/11 Commission that there were "multiple, reinforcing elements of information ranging from links that the organization that built the facility [al Shifa] had both with bin Laden and with the leadership of the Iraqi chemical weapons program." Said Cohen: "The owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program." Pillar's blowing smoke This guy is just "blowing smoke." He doesn't know what he is talking about according to experts at the CIA. Just another disappointed left wing ex-CIA pseudo-official who hates Bush.
	Something instead of Nothing? "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Alan Sandage


cmoehle	Feb 15 2006, 05:51 AM Post #50
Chris - San Antonio TX Posts: 36,959 Group: Members Member #1 Joined: June 6, 2004	CalRed Feb 15 2006, 12:55 AM "For all his insight, however, Pillar might have underestimated bin Ladin's impact on Islamic terrorism. He argues that bin Ladin is not a unitary and unifying symbol for militant Islam, a view that seems a bit off the mark in a post-11 September world. The author suggests bin Ladin has fallen short of institutionalizing his influence through alliances across national and ethnic lines and his focus on the hated United States. Islamic terror, in Pillar's view, will not end with bin Ladin's death or capture; nor will it necessarily spell the end of al-Qaida." J. Daniel Moore CIA Historyh Staff CIA History If Pillar is off the mark on these things, then so is the Administration. This is standard fair from them. Bush has always maintained it's not about UBL.
	Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater


cmoehle	Feb 15 2006, 06:11 AM Post #51
Chris - San Antonio TX Posts: 36,959 Group: Members Member #1 Joined: June 6, 2004	Re "Pillar's blowing smoke" Since Pillar's agenda is being questioned here, Stephen Hayes ought to be too. If Pillar is too anti-Bush to be trusted in his opinions on policy, then Hayes is simply too pro-Bush to be trusted in his. What we have here are dueling agendas--break out the banjos!!! Nevertheless, Hayes does provide a decent criticism of Pillar, and, ironically, the Bush Administration. Re Pillar, his expertise is intelligence, not policy. But just as Pillar relied on cherry-picked and unreliable intelligence for his conclusions, so too did the Bush Administration. Hayes himself says this conclusion is reasonable and not without justification. In the end, all Hayes is really saying is that conclusion cannot serve as premise to Pillar's accusation the Bush Administration deliberately mislead the American people. I would argue the same. But, Cal, your conclusion, "This guy is just "blowing smoke." He doesn't know what he is talking about according to experts at the CIA. Just another disappointed left wing ex-CIA pseudo-official who hates Bush." is not exactly supported by the Hayes article. Yes, he may be blowing smoke when it comes to policy analysis, but on intelligence matters re terrorism it is recognized he does have a great deal of insight--so stated in your link to experts in "CIA History".
	Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater


justme	Feb 15 2006, 09:15 AM Post #52
Member Posts: 434 Group: Members Member #55 Joined: July 18, 2004	cmoehle Feb 14 2006, 09:55 AM Truth? Without agreeing or disagreeing with that statement, it is a value judgment and thus relative to a set of values or principles, and not absolute as in true or false. I guess we can define what truth is for ever--sort of like quality. However, I am amazed how some supposedly educated people can criticize my posts as some kind of write wing smear campaign while I am are offering a different view point from theirs. That view being--- why doesn't the press offer details on the background of the person who they are promoting? I think it reasonably clear that Pillars has an agenda that should be explained or addressed in the media. Does that make one a right winger? I really question the rationality of that and those who make such a assertion.



cmoehle	Feb 15 2006, 09:25 AM Post #53
Chris - San Antonio TX Posts: 36,959 Group: Members Member #1 Joined: June 6, 2004	justme "I think it reasonably clear that Pillars has an agenda that should be explained or addressed in the media. Does that make one a right winger?" No. Just something of a skeptic. Easy for me to say since I basically agree he has an agenda when it comes to criticising Bush on policy, as does the media that promotes or demotes his views. It should be added Pillar adds just one more point of view. Right wing, like lefty, is just hyperbole.
	Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater


justme	Feb 15 2006, 09:29 AM Post #54
Member Posts: 434 Group: Members Member #55 Joined: July 18, 2004	cmoehle Feb 15 2006, 06:51 AM CalRed Feb 15 2006, 12:55 AM "For all his insight, however, Pillar might have underestimated bin Ladin's impact on Islamic terrorism. He argues that bin Ladin is not a unitary and unifying symbol for militant Islam, a view that seems a bit off the mark in a post-11 September world. The author suggests bin Ladin has fallen short of institutionalizing his influence through alliances across national and ethnic lines and his focus on the hated United States. Islamic terror, in Pillar's view, will not end with bin Ladin's death or capture; nor will it necessarily spell the end of al-Qaida." J. Daniel Moore CIA Historyh Staff CIA History If Pillar is off the mark on these things, then so is the Administration. This is standard fair from them. Bush has always maintained it's not about UBL. There has been an internal war between the President and the CIA since the 9/11 attack-- and even further back in time. It is difficult to determine who has what agenda and/or ax to grind. This all makes fertile ground for wild eyed conspiracy theory's. I think we have no choice but to let the President and the CIA deal with it and duke it out because they are to only ones that can. The media has become nothing more than "useful idiots" for either side. Meanwhile, I support what the President is trying to do in this war on terror-- for lack of any better option.



cmoehle	Feb 15 2006, 12:00 PM Post #55
Chris - San Antonio TX Posts: 36,959 Group: Members Member #1 Joined: June 6, 2004	I remember when I was younder watching Watergate unfold and thinking that will never happen again. Everything is recorded and reported, you'll know when people are making things up or twisting them to their agenda. Was I ever naive! You just can't "determine who has what agenda and/or ax to grind." Just try to make the best sense of it you can in the formulation of opinions you carry to the ballot box. Forums can be good for talking and arguing it out, forcing some clarity, learning a few things. I support our efforts in the Terror War too. I don't see any choice either.
	Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater


bikemanb	Feb 15 2006, 04:21 PM Post #56
Liberal Conservative Posts: 3,259 Group: Members Member #4 Joined: June 6, 2004	I too support the War on Terror, just not the connection with Gulf War II. I would in fact contend that Gulf War II has had a negative impact on the WOT. As to skewing data, in large corporations (and what is Uncle if not a big business), it is more and more common (though this has always has happended) that underlings either under pressure by the layer above or trying to suck up to the boss have often screened data out that doesn't support the pet position of the boss. Did this happen to some degree with Iraq, without a doubt, it is just human nature. The question which we will never know a true answer to, is to what degree was it engineered.
	Bill, Rita and Chloe the Terror Cat For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise. Benjamin Franklin


cascade	Feb 15 2006, 04:55 PM Post #57
Lloyd...Michie,Tennesse Posts: 351 Group: Members Member #45 Joined: July 12, 2004	I just read this on the Drudge Report, thought it might add to the discussion. http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigat...tory?id=1616996
	"[Do not] suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberty [to publish] by any pretenses of politeness, delicacy or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice." --John Adams


cmoehle	Feb 15 2006, 05:12 PM Post #58
Chris - San Antonio TX Posts: 36,959 Group: Members Member #1 Joined: June 6, 2004	Speaking earlier of Stephen Hayes, he's already jumping on that, The New Documents. Hell bent on finding WMD. Even though he hasn't seen them, he first states as fact: "They provide a fascinating look into the ideology of terror...." Then backs down and states as speculation: "The recordings are said to contain numerous references to weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's thwarting of U.N. weapons inspectors." And then surprisingly admits: Quote: A hypothetical: If the tapes are in fact authentic, imagine that they include audio of Saddam Hussein talking about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Does this mean that Iraq actually had these weapons Saddam thought he had? Not necessarily. One of the leading theories about Iraqi WMD holds that Iraqi scientists misled Saddam about his WMD capability. These scientists, according to this theory, lied to their superiors for fear of reprisals if their lack of progress on WMD development was discovered. That Saddam believed he had these proscribed weapons is not proof that he did.
	Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater


justme	Feb 16 2006, 09:09 AM Post #59
Member Posts: 434 Group: Members Member #55 Joined: July 18, 2004	cmoehle Feb 15 2006, 06:12 PM Speaking earlier of Stephen Hayes, he's already jumping on that, The New Documents. Hell bent on finding WMD. Even though he hasn't seen them, he first states as fact: "They provide a fascinating look into the ideology of terror...." Then backs down and states as speculation: "The recordings are said to contain numerous references to weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's thwarting of U.N. weapons inspectors." And then surprisingly admits: Quote: A hypothetical: If the tapes are in fact authentic, imagine that they include audio of Saddam Hussein talking about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Does this mean that Iraq actually had these weapons Saddam thought he had? Not necessarily. One of the leading theories about Iraqi WMD holds that Iraqi scientists misled Saddam about his WMD capability. These scientists, according to this theory, lied to their superiors for fear of reprisals if their lack of progress on WMD development was discovered. That Saddam believed he had these proscribed weapons is not proof that he did. I always felt that with Iraq out of the way we have fewer wacko's to contend with. What would it be like with Syria, Korea, Irag and Iran all capable of WMD's. Know we have Syria (who conceivably has Iraq's stockpiles), Korea that has Nukes, and Iran that will have them shortly. How can any person not support what the President is doing these days-- our lives depend on it. I am not trying to over dramatize, but things are not good these days and for the left to think we can appease these fanatics if ridiculous.



cmoehle	Feb 16 2006, 09:32 AM Post #60
Chris - San Antonio TX Posts: 36,959 Group: Members Member #1 Joined: June 6, 2004	But then you put us in the role of world policeman. Not sure we should take on that role with every crackpot around the world. Do feel we need to focus on Terror War. While I disagree with some of the justifications for invading Iraq, namely active WMD programs and operative terrorist ties, which evidence has not borne out, there are other justifications. The economic ones laid out by the neo cons, the sometimes heard, geographicically strategic argument. I don't think Israel should have nukes.
	Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater

Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3
4
5