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
Baiting (aka asking) you to answer a question is against the T&C?
You seem content on telling me that I am delusional in thinking the report you originally mentioned isnt a bipartisan report. Yet when I gave you evidence that shows the Republican's swayed the Committee into ommitting key facts you shy away from the whole topic. Nice moves.
That criticism is hogwash and probably why you had to go to Wikipedia to get it.
From seeker's Wiki quote
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
From the Wiki on Chrisopher Hitchens
He is a vociferous critic of what he describes as "fascism with an Islamic face," and is now sometimes described as a "neoconservative" or a "liberal hawk," though his idiosyncratic ideas and positions preclude easy classification.
Originally posted by Astronomer68
Out of curiosity Subz, how do we know Cheney would not take "no" for an answer? If our only source is the CIA, that response would fit in quite nicely with my little conspiracy theory.
Originally posted by Seekerof
Do I not have the choice to respond to what I see worth commenting to, subz?
Originally posted by Seekerof
Erm, no, you are certainly not delusional.
Actually, your quite an intelligent individual and worthy of debate.
Your so-called evidences indicating that the report was swayed was found wanting, thus required no reply against or to it.
You were refutted.
Originally posted by Seekerof
Apparently, your having source issues?
Originally posted by Astronomer68
Not that report Seekerof, the Intelligence committee report he kept referring to.
Originally posted by Seekerof
Yeah, perhaps, but then again, maybe it is all semantics, eh, subz.
You provide what you will, as will I.
According to the the US Senate Intelligence Committee 511 page report that reviewed all of this, including that which you refer to, it was the CIA's prewar estimates of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were overstated and unsupported by intelligence.
CIA: Opppss.
seekerof
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.
The Yes-Man
President Bush sent Porter Goss to the CIA to keep the agency in line. What he’s really doing is wrecking it.
By Robert Dreyfuss
Issue Date: 11.23.05
Print Friendly | Email Article
Exactly as intended, Porter Goss has hit the Central Intelligence Agency like a wrecking ball.
The former Florida congressman, who had an undistinguished career as a CIA operations officer in the 1960s, came to the agency in September 2004 after serving seven years as chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. With his staff in tow -- a collection of Capitol Hill aides nicknamed “the Gosslings” -- Goss bowled into the CIA’s Langley, Virginia, headquarters, scattering senior officials like so many duckpins. In mid-September, Robert Richer, the newly installed deputy director of operations and a former Near East Division chief, quit in disgust. The newspapers duly reported Richer’s departure. But he is only the tip of a Titanic-sized iceberg.
This article, based on more than two-dozen interviews with former intelligence officials from the CIA, the Pentagon, and the State Department, along with ex–Capitol Hill intelligence staffers who worked with Goss, is the first comprehensive account of the CIA’s transition from George Tenet through John McLaughlin, the agency’s respected acting director in mid-2004, to Goss. It reveals that Goss may have put the final nail in the coffin of an agency whose expertise and analytical skills were cavalierly overridden by a White House obsessed with Saddam Hussein. From 2001 on, its covert operatives and analysts were ignored, pressured, and forced to toe the administration’s line; neoconservative ideologues considered those operatives to be virtually part of the enemy camp. Many of those who remain inside the CIA are distraught, convinced that their work is wasted on an administration that doesn’t want to hear the truth. “How do you think they feel?” asked one recently retired CIA officer with three decades of experience. “They’re watching a #ing idiotic policy, run by idiots, unfold right before their eyes!”
Originally posted by Astronomer68
It is abundantly clear however, that President Bush and others in his administration did not knowingly lie to the American people.
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.