Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (100785)	6/8/2003 11:00:48 PM
From: NickSE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It wasn't overplayed if people were smart and saw through the smoke. The war is about crushing Islamo-facist goverments, it's about showing the Arab world, you attack the US and dance in the streets, we walk into the heart of your world and destroy your government. That's the main reason we fought, not WMDs and not oil. I'll admit the "WMD now!" angle was overplayed...

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (100785)	6/8/2003 11:19:58 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Haven't you noticed that the intelligence orgs are run by politicians, who are extremely accountable to Congress, who funds them, which means to public opinion? They can and do cover their butts with the best of them. The people who run the intelligence orgs aren't the ones complaining. They're keeping their upper lips stiff and standing by their man, which is what they are supposed to do. The people complaining are lower in the ranks, and they are saying that the statements made at the top did not reflect the information they sent on. That's a very unusual thing: intel workers at that level are supposed to keep their mouths shut and let the boss do the talking. Just as so many people who argued that we couldn't attack Saddam because then he would use chemical weapons on our troops have completely forgotten their arguments. There were many people on both sides who allowed themselves to be deceived on the WMD issue. I'm glad to say I wasn't one of them: I believed all along that Saddam's WMD capacity was being systematically exaggerated, and said so on numerous occasions. Declarations that other people also made invalid arguments are not a terribly adequate explanation for the inadequacy of one's own arguments. I'll admit the "WMD now!" angle was overplayed; some arguments usually get overplayed in any political controversy. Will you admit that it was probably "overplayed" because it was the the argument most likely to rally domestic support behind the war? Just as the "where are the WMDs?" argument is now getting overplayed into "Bush lied!" instead of the more reasoned question, does our intelligence stink? was it politicized? The issue, it seems to me, is that it increasingly seems that intelligence was deliberately cherrypicked, above the level where intelligence is normally gathered and interpreted, to support a politically convenient conclusion.