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 : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas M. who wrote (3428)	7/9/2004 11:00:50 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35834

Nothing would be in the report unless the panel was in unanimous agreement. And what you posted was not in the body of the report. Now for a more complete account to bring a little reality to your false, deceptive, distorted & misleading assertion of what is in the report & what is, at best, other information not deemed suitable for the report..... What you failed to report was your so called <font color=blue>"money shot of the 500-page report"<font color=black>, was unworthy of the panel's use in the actual report itself. The text you posted was also presented out of context as I shall show later. <font size=4> In a back section of the report, after Appendix A, Appendix B, the Glossary & the Acronyms & Abbreviations section; specifically, on page 456, is your passage in a segment titled,<font color=blue>"Additional Views"<font color=black><font size=3>, where your so called "money shot" is located. <font size=4> In reality, it is simply the "opinion" of a CIA Ombudsman who had his POV (which is based on a scant few observations) included under "Additional Views" at the very back of the report. You did not present this "opinion" in proper context. <font size=3><font color=blue> "The CIA Ombudsman interviewed about two dozen analysts and managers in preparation of the CIA's June 2002 document entitled, <font size=4>"Iraq and Al Qaeda: Interpreting a Murky Relationship."<font size=3> It was in the scope note of this document that the CIA stated its approach as being "purposefully aggressive" in seeking to draw connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The CIA Ombudsman told the Committee that <font size=4>he felt<font size=3> the hammering by the Bush Administration on Iraq intelligence was harder than he had previously witnessed in his 32-year career with the agency. <font size=4>Several analyists he spoke with mentioned pressure and gave the sense they felt<font size=3> the constant questions and pressure to reexamine issues were unreasonable. In his interview with the committee, <font size=3>Director Tenet confirmed that some agency officials raised with him personally the matter of the repetitive tasking and the pressure it created during this time period. The Director's council to those who raised the issue was to "relieve the pressure" by refusing to respond to repeated questions where no additional information existed."<font size=3> <font color=black> intelligence.senate.gov Funny how your so called "money shot" seems so smarmy & intentionally misleading when it is accurately & factually presented, doesn't it Thomas?