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 (219147)	2/18/2007 2:55:53 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I think you'll find that LB hasn't banned her. At least as of right now when this post clears. I just checked. She has banned/put me on ignore or I'd tell her that myself. Most interesting series of posts tonight, Nadine. Appreciate seeing them! I too, and troubled by the CIA and the hatred of GWB.... Your statement below, certainly seems to be true.... It's clear that was and is a very deep ideological divide between how most of the Bush administration view foreign policy and how the CIA view it. Problem is, none of us really know how many people are working for the CIA, nor what their background is. It's truly a disgrace for the CIA to have been so wrong about so many things....and no one from the CIA, nor from either the House or the Senate, explained why they have been so wrong. I've wondered if Porter Goss is writing a book....Hopefully, the answer is yes. I know Tenet's book is supposed to come out in March. It would seem that there are many middle tier bureaucrats who are only protecting their turf and retirement benefits, and not actually doing the job they should be doing. The top people come and go, which gives power to the people in the middle to think they own the "Company" so to speak.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (219147)	2/18/2007 10:45:51 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 281500

Just to reiterate and correct KLP's mistaken inference, or whatever it was, as I said already I was told not to post on PFP; I was not banned. Lindy knows I won't post if he asks me not to, so I won't. A telling can be as good as a ban if we are respctful adults about things Not everyone needs to be banned to get the message they aren't welcome. Just so you know. I will read your post and get back to you on it. Thanks for spending the time. Since we agree on the 90% we'll discuss the 10.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (219147)	2/18/2007 10:53:34 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to 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.