Why do you say EVERYONE was misinformed and then a “failure of the intell community”
Do you believe that all intell should be ABSOLUTELY correct ALL the time, or is it a bit difficult to accomplish that?

Do you think that we are the only ones that can do “disinformation” do you think our adversaries could/would? If they could, then is it possible that….they (our intell folks) gathered info that was perceived to be correct. Do you think that all the budget cuts under the last administration, hampered any intell gathering?

 

Our intelligence was based on someone elses intelligence,that seems to have poor intelligence to start with.We were assuming a lot of things that doesn't seem to be a big of a threat as we first thought.We had the chance to do something about all this in the first gulf war,when we had lots of support.It seems Saddam "had" wmd,but not on the scale we were led to believe.If Iraq wasn't an oilrich nation,we wouldn't even be having this discussion.I think we rushed into this war too quickly.If we attack every country with wmd,there will be no end to these types of conflicts.We started this war on "what if" outlook.That makes for some dangerous policy towards countries with wmd.

 

Many Americans are conditioned to accepting statements as fact, regardless of validity, as long as the source is someone they respect such as a minister, brokerage trader, CPA, etc. When people start trusting politicians, either party, literally with their lives, it becomes difficult for them to examine the motives behind political statements and actions as they dislike being considered 'wrong'.

Most of the founding fathers were emphatic about Americans questioning every statement, action and policy of any politician because they were intimately aware of the power bestowed on our elected representatives by the very structure of our government.

This power is very apparent with the WMD issue as it was used to drag us into Iraq, with no other rationale given. Now that the president, most of his cabinet and supporting politicans have refocused the public into believing Saddam was a baddy and we needed to rid Iraq of him for moralistic values, the WMD rationale is no longer required. Still, we have voters that, in spite of the cabinet, inspectors from the US and UN, Iraqi leading military figures and Iraqi scientists/technologists saying there were no WMD, believe there are WMD. Back to dislike of being wrong.

As a political issue, WMD currently has little value for either party. Going back to the well for another $50 billion+ for Iraq in an election year with an Iraqi Civil War heating up will harm Bush more than WMD.

 

I think it's possible to get "disinformation" or just plain get the information wrong. I do think you should be more careful if you go to war over it. If the intelligence community was so "hampered" as you say by the Clinton administration, we should stop relying on their advice for future actions. Bad information is worse than no information.

 

Why do yo say we went to war over it, because you were told that is why!

 

Yes. Until some covert, top secret, classified information surfaces that explains things differently, all I can go by is what I'm told by my government. I know the reasons have changed a few times to help substantiate the effort, but in the beginning, WMD's were the reason.

 

Are the radio talk shows the ones who spread this misinformation? I suggest you look at the CIA budget for the past 59 years, a simple graph on the CIA website, and respectfully ask where you got the idea their budget was cut under any administration since 1985:

http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/ciabud.htm

It's a well established fact that most intelligence used by the current administration to rationalize the invasion/occupation of Iraq was formulated by the White House Intelligence staff from Iraqi expats and dissadents, most who had not been in Iraq itself for years and had plans to be part of the new Iraqi government, which they are. NSA contributed satelite images, millions of them, which were interpreted by White House intelligence. CIA's role was primarily verifying white house press releases for conflicting information, where they dropped the ball on the yellow pancake hoax.

 

There is no doubt they had WMD, they have used them without regard in the recent past. They found the labs. They made the stuff. It is now accross the border I'm sure. I have no doubt Saddam was/is not in touch with reality inside or outside the borders of Iraq.
Maybe they should check under the crop circles. Maybe if you look under every rock in the region, you'll find the WMD.
Maybe he was sitting on them in his opossum hole.

**Dont bother readin any farther.....ignorant sensless rampage babble coming up.
Maybe they were flown of by black helicopters into the muslum version of area 51.
Maybe Santa Claus took em to the north pole.
Yes, thats it, invade the north pole for WMD. Just wait till they find out the penguins are really at the south pole.
That'll be a billion dollar investment. Searching for a reason penguins are in the antartic. Yes, and send a trillion dollars of polar bears to the antartic to hunt WMD hiding geese. Wait till they find out geese are really at the north pole. Cause the penguins had nothing to do with it.
Thats it. NO MORE COFFEE FOR ME THANKS, bring on the decaf.

Okay, I think I have to get off my illogical soap box. Thanks, it was silly and useless. I warned you not to read any farther.

 

What scares me is that a politician in power might read it and like the idea. Cheney likes staged hunts.

 

That has to be a record for the most "smileys" used in one post!!!

 

You seem to have knowledge as to the budget, do you know how it is broken up internally. Like how much to sigint, humint, or any of the other areas?
I am having way to much fun with this, all I am writing is questions, can you imagine what would happen if I made statements.
Take life a little easy, and not so personal, this is fun, we are all learning

 

I think it has more to do with what the budget was used for. The money was all directed at ELINT and not HUMINT. ELINT has its place but it's easy to misread. No substitute for boots on the ground.

 

I thought the statement was that the intelligence budget had been cut by a prior administration. Guess I'd better get my eyes checked.

 

It was, and your point is still valid. How the agencies choose to spend their money plays into competency issues. We trust them to be experts on gathering intelligence. How they choose to gather it is up to them.

 

You might want to research you statement....... administrations can and will dictate what they may or may not use.