Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (219147)	2/18/2007 10:53:34 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) of 281500

Ok Let's start with this: "In paragraph one, Pillar basically says that the White House must always obey the analysis of the intelligence community. In paragraph two and three, he says that the analysis of the intelligence community should not be "policy prescriptive"." When you say In paragraph one I assume you are talking about this paragraph- right?: "If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication, it was to avoid war -- or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath. What is most remarkable about prewar U.S. intelligence on Iraq is not that it got things wrong and thereby misled policymakers; it is that it played so small a role in one of the most important U.S. policy decisions in recent decades." I just want to make sure I am responding to the right thought. ......... Edit- I see Elroy actually said exactly what I thought. I couldn't believe you were talking about the paragraph beginning with "if"- but you were3. OK, I agree completely with Elroy. I don't think the paragraph is saying what you think it is saying. It reads so differently to me that I thought maybe you'd gotten your paragraphs confused. I think what the paragraph is saying is that the author thinks the evidence was so conflicting, or insubstantial as a pretext for war that the author thinks it was amazing this evidence was disregarded. He isn't saying anyone must "always" obey anything- that isn't even the implication. It's a very specific implication akin to "When 2 plus 2 equals 4, this administration came up with 7". In light of the fact that much of this evidence has been shown to be true- that the basis for the invasion was false, and that the period of "reconstruction" is much longer and messier and costlier than anticipated, I'm not sure how you get around the fact that the evidence was disregarded or misused to our country's detriment.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next