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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (196913)	2/18/2007 4:33:38 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793738

What can "What is most remarkable about prewar U.S. intelligence on Iraq ...is that it played so small a role in one of the most important U.S. policy decisions in recent decades" mean, except that the prewar U.S. intelligence (read: CIA analysis) on Iraq was supposed to drive U.S. policy? Now if that isn't policy prescriptive, what is it? I think in the article he's just trying to dispel the commonly held view that all the intelligence on pre-war Iraq was wrong. When pointed out with the argument "You lied about WMDs in Iraq!" the standard administration response is "No, we based that conclusion on our intelligence, and came to the same conclusion that everyone else did, that there were WMDs in Iraq." This author seems to be making the point (not specifically about WMDs) that the administration disregarded loads of intelligence in the decision to go to war and disregarded loads of intelligence in failing to plan for the aftermath of the war. The author appears to think that was a crazy decision making process, but he doesn't say the White House must obey the intelligence. I find this to be one of the main problems with the Bush administration at the moment - the loss of trust of the electorate. We as an electorate figure the President has access to more information than we do, and also spends more time than we do figuring out what to do based on that information and American interests. However, when he says "Iranians are contributing to Iraqi efforts to kill Americans in Iraq", I don't believe him. If the proof which has been presented (some Iranian made weapons) is all the proof, its not conclusive. Is that all that we got that supports this pretty serious claim? If Iranians are supporting Iraqis that are trying to kill Americans, then we should consider killing those Iranians. But there should be much more solid proof of Iranian involvement than what we have seen.