So, how do we interpret this? With an administration that has a history of “oopsies!” in the Intelligence department that somehow magically work out for their purposes, how many times can they “make mistakes” that only get pointed out after the fact by the opposition, or after disastrous policy reveals it to be false? How many “get out of jail free” cards does the admin get by trotting out Mr. Powell as a body shield to admit another “oopsie!”? How many more political lives does Mr. Powell have to sacrifice at the altar of the Bush Admin?
Or is this truly a CIA mistake? How sloppy have our intel agencies become, and how can we correct this?
I’m having trouble finding the name, but didn’t the Bush administaration filter all the intel through newly-created office or department for “special projects”? That might explain how the errors conveniently conformed to their political goals.
That’s a problem with intel in every government; the consumers of the intel will always believe more readily the stuff they want to believe. In worse cases, like under Stalin, the agents themselves had to tweak their data before reported it, for fear of their lives.
Somehow, Powell seems to have placed the blame for supposed errors squarely on the shoulders of the CIA, rather than on the group that actually wrote the report. That spin makes me quite skeptical of his claim that it was all an innocent mistake.
Well, at the very least, it seems that TTIC is a miserable failure of an agency. At worst… they are criminals inventing and manipulating facts to meet political ends. The fact that trails are being covered…
I feel sorry for Mr. Powell. I respected him a great deal until this admin. :-/
I’d be more inclined to forgive if the administration hadn’t outed one of its own operatives in a situation that looked a LOT like they were trying to nail the person for political purposes.
That did nothing to convince me that the administration was interested in truth. Mostly, it convinced me that the administration wants obedience, and has no problem with endangering your life if doing so will get what it wants.
I wonder why. I share your impression of Powell, or at least I did before his performance before the UN. But perhaps we’re just pushovers for the quality of gravitas, a certain air of serious and intelligent competence. He has had an entirely competent career, but can you really point to anything spectacular that he has accomplished?
What I’m getting at is not so much that Powell may be a screw-up, even smart guys screw up. But I’m wondering what sets off that almost instinctive reaction, why you and I almost instinctively respect a guy that, really, we don’t know that much about. I do know that Powell was involved in the investigation into My Lai, with results that are open to interpretation.
As for the issue of menacity and/or stupidity, I could see cutting some slack, just on the basic human capacity to skew results without intention. But that’s as far as that can go, they can be more or less innocent of guile in the first instance of actually collecting and numbering the data.
But they just had to know that this was going to get the fine-tooth comb treatment! They just had to! So to roll out the trumpet fanfare and announce what a peachy-keen job they are doing on terror without being absitively posolutely 100% sure…well, we’ve seen this before, have we not? The learning curve, it would appear, does not curve.
Powell Doctrine was pretty good. He’s a dove, but a military man, which is respectable. He’s pretty humble and doens’t have aspirations for the top. He’s starded charities for children. Everything he said pre-Bush was sound and agreed to by both parties. I liked him when I was a Republican, and that carried over when I jumped the fence. He does have that “likeable” quality you mention. PLus, he’s one of the only members of the Bush Admin that has demonstrated any brains about foreign affairs, and is probably one of the few putting the PNAC drive on the skids (remember, he is a dove and doesn’t like military intervention unless necessary)
The sense I get is that they ignore him most of the time. They seem to have thrown the Powell Doctrine into the trash, and use his well-liked reputation and demeanor to deliver bad news to the press, who doesn’t want to target him personally.
Based on all of that, I would really like to see him say, “this is enough” and step down… or at least, on the inside, be conflicted with what he is doing. But unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case, and I’m losing faith in him.
It is rare to see a well-liked person in government, and I think that is what most people are holding on to.
After all of their past mistakes? I’d be damned sure that there wasn’t one error in that thing before releasing it. It is just embarassing. Who is in charge of oversight there? Aren’t there dozens of people from different organizations reading it?
I think what information has filtered down to us indicates that mendacity is a defining characteristic of the current administration. I think they make lots of mistakes; and then they lie like dogs to cover them up. Why the either/or condition? Rather, it appears they are both mendacious and maladroit.
Why? Powell gave a presentation to the UN on Saddam weapons based on intelligence from the same sources as are mentioned in Squink’s post. That information turned out to be, ahem, exaggerated. Why should he allow his organization to put out information from those sources again without double checking it?
There are a lot of people to feel sorry for but Powell isn’t one of them. His furture is assured. He will leave State and become the CEO of some consulting think tank to DOD, or president of a university and be fawned on from there on out.
Now why was I expecting a different topic from the title?
Q: A Lie, or a Mistake: Trusting the Bush Administration A: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 73(*) times, shame on me.
(* = Rough estimate derived from skimming The Lies of George W. Bush and counting the number of lies headlined therein)
As for the OP, I’m disappointed to say that the admission that the original, upbeat, “Go vote Bush because he’s beating the terrorists!” result turns out to have been wrong didn’t surprise me one whit. Seems like the only way to get the truth from this crew is to wait for the tell-all book from Yet Another Disgruntled Former Administration Member.
The Powell Doctrine holds that if you are going to get into a war you should try to overwhelm your enemy with force and have a clear plan. With all due respect to Gen. Powell, this is not exactly an original or brilliant idea. The fact that he gets all kinds of credit for coming up with an “idea” that has been held as common sense for thousands of years is really quite silly. Just because Bush & Rumsfeld are dumbasses doesn’t mean Powell is Einstein.
That would be a political blow to Bush that would make Richard Clarke’s testimony before the 9/11 Commission look like a stubbed toe. I would love to see the GOP spin machine suddenly grind its gears in an effort to smear Powell.
Alas, it will never happen. The word is that Powell is stepping down after this term whether Bush is reelected or not. He’s a company man; he won’t throw a spanner in the works by quitting early.
I guess that means he thinks that the interests of the “company” are more important than the interests of the United States or he thinks that the two are congruent.
In my view that makes him either a charlatan or damned foolish.
I would nominate Casper Weinberger. I always though of him as the perfect hit man. He seemed to me to be completely amoral. Whatever the boss wanted done, he did.