Intelligence Credibility

[radfringe]

Tenet stood up yesterday and defended the pre-Iraq Intelligence...

He didn't quite fall on his sword again in defending the pre-Iraq Intelligence, but he also didn't dispell the notion of bush* Inc. manipulating and cherry picking (or should that be cherry-bomb picking) through that intelligence.

This still leaves us with a question of intelligence credibility. Since 9-11 we have been subjected to many terror alerts and warnings - mostly based on non-specific, undefined "chatter" that appears within a week of bush*'s poll numbers taking a hit. ( see: Terror Polls )

Bush* blamed 9-11 on intelligence failures, Bush blamed the now infamous Niger-Iraq-Yellow Cake statement on British intelligence failures, Tony Blair is now saying that his 45-minute attack readiness statement was a misunderstanding, and Bush* is wailing that he too was a victim of faulty intelligence.

We must ask how credible is the intelligence? Is the intelligence correct or is it being cherry-picked? Terror alerts/warnings are based on this intelligence -- we depend on these alerts/warnings as a country and as individual Americans. Given the recent revelations that the intelligence may be just plain wrong or manipulated for poltical reasons -- can we TRUST future warnings or are we just hearing someone crying "WOLF WOLF WOLF"?

When Ridge or other bush* officials stand before you and yell "THE TERRORIST ARE COMING THE TERRORISTS ARE COMING" - are you going to run out and buy plastic sheeting and duct tape -- or are you going to wonder just how reliable is this warning when it's based on information coming from the intelligence community that has "failed" so miserably in the past?

The issue is TRUST - can you TRUST bush* Inc.?

[radfringe]

1. kick

[G_j]

2. and these are the same people

who say they need to be able to snoop into the lives of every American while they keep all that they do shrouded in iron clad secrecy and obstruct investigations.

[bryant69]

3. That's part of the problem

I mean I didn't need all of this stuff to happen--the moment President Bush took office I was pretty sure I didn't trust him. while my suspicions have been confirmed, they existed before any of these other stories.

In the same way some of those who trust President Bush, well that trust let's them believe his side of the story over the truth. They assume both sides are telling what they want to for political reasons (which all things considered isn't an unreasonable thought). It's tricky.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com