What can reasonably be expected from the CIA?

[Carl Spackler]

WARNING!! ALERT!! CONTAINS GRAPHIC NEWT GINGRICH OBSERVATIONS!!

Ok, you've been warned. A few minutes ago I saw Newt on FNS pose a pretty good question: If Saddam himself was convinced he had the weapons, and the top, highly compartmentalized, military commanders each thought that the other divisions had WMD, then even the highest levels of human intelligence gathering (he used the example of Saddam's mistress, or even a turned General) would have only affirmed the suspicion that Iraq indeed still possessed WMD.

It got me thinking about what level of intelligence reliabiltiy we can reasonably expect from countries like Iraq, North Korea, Syria, etc., even with a reinvigorated CIA. Was this just a unique "perfect storm" of intelligence blindness or was there a way we should have known?

[Abe Linkman]

1. Newt's good at brainwashing

n/t

[Alpharetta]

2. We can expect the CIA to take the blame

At the top, Mr. Tenet LOVES to take the blame for White House failures. He is very good at that.

I imagine there is a morale problem in the rest of the organization.

Tenet lets CIA take blame for the yellowcake lie.
Tenet lets CIA agent get uncovered by the White house.
Tenet lets CIA take blame for WMD intelligence.
Tenet lets CIA take blame for post-war projections of peace and prosperity in Iraq.

[Mari333]

5. One cant imagine the size of Mr Tenets bunghole right now

after allowing himself to be bent over and take it so many times.
I would like to think the CIA would give us an Ellsberg to expose the place the Buck needs to Stop
right in the laps of the *bUshRegime .

[DrBB]

3. I don't get it

Scott Ritter was saying that the estimates were exaggerated--that they weren't going to find any substantial WMDs in operating condition--BEFORE THE WAR. And both Colin Powell and Condi said Iraq had been disarmed and defanged back in Feb. 2002, before they got the word from, well, somewhere to change their story. The DIA warned that the administration's estimates were exaggerated, too. And if you go here you can read a whole laundry list of other warnings and indications by the intelligence community of the same kind.

So I don't see the problem. We had plenty of ACCURATE intelligence about this--accurate enough, at least, to have raised doubts about going to war in any willing to listen.

And you don't need ANY of that evidence to see that key figures in the admin were basing their decision on an a priori decision to go to war, NOT on any intelligence they received. Namely, even with Kay's report and statements in hand, Cheney is STILL going around saying the weapons are there--even repeating things about the trucks, the aluminum tubes etc that have long been thoroughly debunked.

So this crap about it all being the fault of faulty intelligence is pure smoke blowing. It's not a question of the intelligence, it's a question of how the intelligence was used, and what intelligence was ignored, and why.

[aquart]

4. Please.

Iraq is surrounded by nations not genuinely friendly to it. Not one of them felt threatened.

You're being distracted by a disinformation campaign carefully designed to render Bush innocent of any wrong doing.

Yet we ALREADY KNOW that Bush was interested in going to war with Iraq DURING HIS FIRST WEEK IN OFFICE. That Cheney ACTIVELY INTERFERED WITH THE CIA to get the intelligence cooked his way. That they rejected EVERY SINGLE INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING THAT TOLD THEM THERE WERE NO WMD IN IRAQ.

Buy a clue. BushCo. consciously and deliberately lied us into war.

It's treason.

[proud patriot]

6. CYA just like everyone else in power

I'm hopeful that the CIA's CYA , overcomes bushco's CYA.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

7. BushCo* will do EVERYTHING in their power to NOT fire Tenet, cuz.....

Tenet only has to say "OSP Office of Special Plans"...bush* CAN NOT NOT lay blame on CIA...Tenet will squeal like a stuck pig and chimpo can't risk it...but not to worry bush will appoint another "blue ribbon panel" to investigate intel failures....just like he did for 911 investigation....move along

[donsu]

8. in the past I never thought of CIA agents being wimpy

and I can't understand why they are being wimpy now.

could it be that more then half of the CIA is for the bushgang or is something else going on.

[ThomWV]

9. Nonsense

Look, intelligence doesn't come from having spys at the level of General, it comes from having spys in the factories and processing facilities. Our failure of intelligence, which is of itself a lie, did not come from believing what Sadam's top aids believed, if anything it would have originated from misinterpreting much more mundane information from the bottom. And all of that ignores the spys in the sky.

Remember the missles that Sadam was supposed to have had? Well that sort of intelligence can't be hidden from the satellites. Remember the nuclear issue, same thing. Such systems and the complex required to build or house them simply can not be hidden from the sky view, at least in their construction if nothing else.

These are not cases of if you don't see it you have to assume it exists either. In these cases, the building of even the simplest complexes required to house or build such systems simply can not be hidden.

Let me finish by asking this. If you had to name the three areas of the world that were receiving the heaviest survelance throughout the 90's and up until the day we invaded which would they be?

Thom

[mike1963]

10. Oh, yeah that makes sense. Saddam really thought he had them, but

he told the U.N. he didn't, figuring they would assume he was lying and conclude that he actually did.

Is that one of those unknown unknowns?
:eyes:

[Kazak]

14. ROFLMAO!!!

Oh, that was a good one.

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. This is why pre-emptive war

is not a good idea. Especially one where all your reasons are based on cherry picking the Intel.

[DrZhivago]

12. I think the CIA will play along

and take blame, maybe not so publicly because the public will demand someone's head to roll but a simple "my bad" will somehow leak out.
The show must go on!

[moondust]

13. They should have known.

They've been collecting intelligence on Iraq for years and years. So have the British, French, Russians, etc. No doubt it only intensified after Gulf War I aided by some spies amongst the U.N. inspection teams. Places like Iraq and Afghanistan are fish bowls to the massive U.S. intelligence community, having little intelligence traffic to sift through in the first place plus their security methods would likely be primitive compared to those of, say, the former Soviet Union. If they didn't know then they didn't pay attention to the raw data or the lack thereof--for years.

[Q]

15. Clinton was blamed for every 'intelligence failure'...

...during his terms. RWingers blamed him for 'bombing an aspirin factory' as if he went over there and dropped the bombs himself.

- Why is it that the buck stopped with Clinton and now no one looks towards the Bush* WH to demand ANY KIND of responsibility?

- Keep letting Bush* off the hook and you'll excuse him right back into the WH.

[9215]

16. IMO Clinton was deliberately fed false intelligence

by the anti-Clinton "Christians in Action" elements of the CIA who wanted him to fuck up.

[9215]

17. I thought the Office of Special Plans was suppose to

rectify the CIA's shortcomings? :eyes: