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: Ilaine who wrote (139727)	7/10/2004 2:12:02 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

Agreed, And it speaks to a broader issue: The "use" of "intelligence" for political purposes under a policy of "pre-emptive war". When the basis for war is "intelligence, then the National Security Advisor and the President need to take the time to do things like read the National Intelligence Estimate and to ask a lot more questions about the "intelligence" that forms the basis for their decision to go to war. The worst case scenario is where BS is fed into the system and is then inflated and hyped at the highest political levels and used for selling a war and for making decisions about going to war -- this is just plain dangerous for the United States of America, and it seems that is exactly what happened.

To: Ilaine who wrote (139727)	7/10/2004 8:43:46 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I think you're right, but what puzzles me is the fact that the intelligence failures appear to have been world wide, shared by European intelligence agencies and the Russians, long before Bush even became president, long before 9/11 Everybody assumed, collectively and individually, that Saddam was not nuts, there was a reason for his furtive behavior. This assumption turned out to be incorrect, or mostly incorrect (pending full disclosure of what really happened to the stuff)