Monday, November 07, 2005

The CIA, WMD and responsiblity - where does the buck stop?

Some colleagues here are work are trying to defend the Bush administrations use of 'error filled' intelligence in the lead up to war. They argue that since the intelligence has been shown to be bad, you really can't blame Bush and Co. for going to war.
Yes I can... Here's my reasoning:
It took the IAEA less than 30 min to discredit the UK Report on Niger Uranium. The simply fact is that the signatories to the document weren't even officials in Niger at the time...

From the Senate report on intelligence failures: "That said, it is hard to deny the conclusion that intelligence analysts worked in an environment that did not encourage scepticism about the conventional wisdom."

The president is captain of the ship -- he is responsible for what goes on in his administration. It is pretty well established that they were looking for reasons to go to war -- not for an objective rendering of the situation.

Again, I point you to the Project for a New American Century's web site: Cheney, Rummy, Wolfy, et al. TOLD US THEY WANTED TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ back in the '90s. 9/11 gave them the excuse and they used everything they could to convince us war with Iraq was a necessity.

When you look for reasons to go to war, you find them...  Is that the type of leadership people want? Starting with a preconceived end-state and looking for the evidence to support it while ignoring contrary evidence?

Bush is either president and responsible for his decisions or he is incompetent for not aggressively asking for all sides of the story... including dissenting opinions on WMD.


Intellectual Insurgent said...

The powers-that-be wanted to invade Iraq to take control of the oil. It worked. All this he said, she said baloney about why we went to Iraq is a distraction from the fact that the entire world is being privatized in the name of democracy and we Americans are paying our tax dollars to fund the dirty work.

Noam Chomsky once remarked that government is the shadow of big business. It has never been as apt as with the Bush Administration. The shadow is eclipsing the world.

Adrianne said...

I feel I can be objective living in Canada, when 9/11 occured.
A year after 9/11, it was apparent to me and many Canadians that, G.W was repeating history, and was using tatics that this world has seen before. 9/11 gave them the opportunity to play up on our insecurities, and manipulate our minds. In many ways 9/11 worked to their advantages, because without the false threat of terrorism, this nation would not have been so comfortable going into war. I really hate to say it, but there is definitley a link to Bush, and a certain leader of Germany in the 1940s. Perhaps the clearest link between the two men lies in their use of emotionally induced propganda to brainwash the citisen's consciousness an image of themselves as protectors of their subjects from threats to national survival both inside and outside the fatherland.
Notice whenever he speaks he divides us, and the world by using words like "good" vs. "evil".
It is interesting how Bush always mentions how terroists and Saddam "hate" freedom, and that's why America was attacked. Well Canada is a very free, very social, very progressive nation, and we have never been attacked, or even threatened by terrorists.

The more I study Germany in the early 1900s, the more similarities I see to them, and us. And it scares me.

"The efficiency of the truly national leader consists primarily in preventing the division of the attention of the people, and always in concentrating it on a single enemy." Hitler said that, in Mein Kampf.

And I recognize this post is completely off topic & completely offensive, so if you want to delete it that's okay. But I am exhausted with this mental manipulation of this administration that uses evil and tries to pass it off as "peace".

bombsoverbaghdad said...

I've totally stopped arguing the merits of the Iraq war with people. If someone still believes in President Bush, chances are they always will.

I think the Administration basically selected some intelligence, altered other intelligence and withheld still more. (That is a crime by the way when you're doing it to Congress.)

The problem was that the sissy Democrats and the media never challenged them on it.

With regard to their motivation for the war, oil was first, and second was the securing of Israel from its most potent adversary in the Middle East.

Reign of Reason said...


You are the smart one... You cannot win an argument with someone who uses illogic to defend their point:

"After 9/11 we had to attack Iraq", etc.

If people don't accept the truth there is little you can do to convince them.

I'm tired of pounding my head against that wall.