It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by subz
But why would the CIA be under pressure from the White House for proving faulty evidence that supported the case for invasion? Do you really think the White House would attack its primary foreign intelligence agency for providing evidence that backed its call to war?
Originally posted by Seekerof
The CIA is under attack/scrutiny/pressure for providing inaccurate intelligence, which was then used by the White House staff of advisors to advise the president in pushing for war.
Leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Cheney worked with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Rumsfeld's then-deputy, Paul D. Wolfowitz, to challenge CIA findings that countered their expectations or that disagreed with information they had received through their own intelligence channels.
Cheney traveled from the White House to CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., a dozen times, most often to discuss Iraq's possible links to nuclear weapons and terrorism. Agency veterans have said that Cheney's visits were more frequent than those of any other president or vice president, including the first president Bush, a former director of the agency.
When Cheney visited the CIA, Iraq was his main focus, particularly in the months before the war. Unlike Libby and others working with the vice president, Cheney was reportedly always polite. But in his quiet way, he was insistent, sometimes asking the same question again and again as if he hoped the answer would change, according to people familiar with his contacts with the CIA.
Cheney's visits perked up agency analysts who often worked anonymously, said one former official. Many reportedly enjoyed the challenge of a smart questioner and appreciated his interest. But Cheney's visits and his clinging to certain views became noticeable and drew expressions of concern, according to the former official.
Originally posted by Astronomer68
Subz don't forget that other agencies within the U.S. as well as other governments were providing intelligence to the administration via the White House, not via the CIA--most notably the Israeli's and the Soviets.
Critics of the war had expressed concerned about visits to the CIA by Vice President Dick Cheney and other officials, but the report said it found no evidence that policymakers asked inappropriate questions of analysts or tried to pressure them into changing their views.
Some GOP lawmakers on the panel successfully blocked Democratic efforts to finish the second part of the report -- how the Bush administration used the information from the intelligence community -- until after the November elections.
Originally posted by Seekerof
CIA was "forced" by Cheney?
Really?
Lets be serious here, k?
Is there anyone within the CIA with a backbone, or better yet, a pair of tennis balls?
Is there anyne within the CIA that could have stood up and said that they could not find such evidences?
Originally posted by Seekerof
Does or did Cheney have the power to fire everyone within the CIA if such evidences were not found?
Originally posted by Seekerof
This garbage reads like the Nuremberg trials, where every Tom, Dick, and Harry is pointing fingers at who is to blame, all the while failing to blame themselves. Point your finger. Look at your hand when you do so. How many fingers are pointing back at you? Three?
Originally posted by Seekerof
The point here is that I am not buying that crap of Cheney bending over the CIA and making them provide faulty evidences for starting a war.
Originally posted by Seekerof
If Cheney had done such, do you not think that the US Senate Intelligence Committee would not have cited such?
Originally posted by Seekerof
And if the CIA was bentover and made to do such, then all those within the CIA lacking those tennis balls need to be canned and canned hard.
Originally posted by Seekerof
There should have been no find the evidences to go to war with Iraq. I mean geez, the previous administration spent 6 of those 8 years bombing Iraq and citing through doumentation that Saddam indeed did have WMDs and programs thereof.
Originally posted by subz
Wow , a report by Republicans found the CIA guilty of the providing faulty intelligence whilst exhonorating their Vice President? I am shocked, nay flabberghasted!
Some GOP lawmakers on the panel successfully blocked Democratic efforts to finish the second part of the report -- how the Bush administration used the information from the intelligence community -- until after the November elections.
Originally posted by Seekerof
They prove the point that I was refutting, your rats-ass unfounded assertion stating that the US Senate Intelligence Committee's 511 page report was "a Republican report."
Some GOP lawmakers on the panel successfully blocked Democratic efforts to finish the second part of the report -- how the Bush administration used the information from the intelligence community -- until after the November elections.
Originally posted by Astronomer68
I'm not trying to refute the memo, I'm just saying we must take such things with a grain of salt.
Criticism of the Memo
Robin Niblett, a member of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, says it would be easy for Americans to misunderstand the reference to intelligence being "fixed around" Iraq policy. " 'Fixed around' in British English means 'bolted on' rather than altered to fit the policy," he says. This view was seconded by the writer Christopher Hitchens. Others have dismissed this criticism, saying the British useage of the term is the same as in the U.S., and that the meaning of "fixed around" in the memo is clear from context. ([48])
It has also been pointed by many observers that in the same exact memo, the mention of the possible use of WMD is discussed:
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
Critics argue, this contradicts the purported “smoking gun” of the issue of WMDs being fabricated.
While the authenticity is generally regarded sound, recent events such as “RatherGate” added additional skepticism on the validity of the memo. Jim Cox, USA Today’s senior assignment editor for foreign news commented: "We could not obtain the memo or a copy of it from a reliable source, There was no explicit confirmation of its authenticity from (Blair's office). And it was disclosed four days before the British elections, raising concerns about the timing."