Elucidator I am the last one who wants to agree with Sam Stone but even my country has secret agents in the middle east.
In fact that is not bizarre at all considering that a) in the frontier with Paraguay and Brazil there is a huge muslim population and an active terrorist cell. b) We suffered two really nasty terrorist attacks in the 90: Israel embassy (1992) and A.M.I.A. building (1994).
Even more the S.I.D.E. (that’s our CIA) is performing rather well. Last year one of their agents fianlly discovered the name of terrorist behind the 94 attack.
The Bush team is using pawning off some grad students work as their super secret slam dunk evidence? Doesn’t that just inspire faith in this war effort. Man if you though Gulf War I was a class act you’re going to love the sequel.
All well and good, but the trouble is “intelligence” tends to be rumors that fit one’s preconceptions. And sources are indeed relevent. If Canadian intelligence reports that Saddam bin Laden is training vampire bats to attack American troops, I would be skeptical. If Mossad makes the same report, I would be very skeptical.
It wouldn’t be much of an argument since I know I don’t have the data, and so far yours cites are an organization chart of Australian security in general and, in the one quoted above, a list of the nations that have intelligence agencies. Big deal.
If these other intelligence agencies are telling their governments the same thing that ours are claimed to, many of those governments are awfully slow to see the same danger in Iraq as GW, Rumsfeld, and now Powell seem to.
And are officials in your government daily appearing of television in an orchestrated public relations campaign beating the drums for an attack on Iraq based on that intelligence?
As elucidator said, intelligence, all data in fact, are interpreted in accord with some a priori assumptions. In the ideal case, if the data don’t support the assumptions the assumptions are changed. In other cases if the assumptions aren’t supported the non-supporting data are thrown away.
Powell’s talk didn’t show US assets in the Middle East. It showed mainly satellite images and intercepted communications, most likely radio communications.
And as far as intelligence sharing goes, we seem to have had to completely reorganized a large piece of our intelligence structure partly because the CIA and the FBI and Naval Intelligence and DIA et al wouldn’t share information. And that is quite interesting because the Bush approach to the perceived problem was typically bureaucratic - reorganize.
We’ve used doctored satellite photos before, and it’s oh so eay to stage and or manipulate radio communications. Independent verfication is required before, I think, anyone can accept any of this stuff presented by Powell as valid. I think eventually a lot of what was presented will be debunked, it’s already being viewed with skepticism.
Well, according to the BBC, Powell’s speech is winning over allies on Iraq.
FWIW, according to Gallup, No Signs of Major Impact From Powell Speech
I agree that if you are already in a war you have to conduct it as if your intelligence information is correct. It is all you have to go on, reconnaisance, spying, photography and the like. That fact that quite a bit of it is in error and you attack the wrong target or even your own or allied forces or miscalculate the strength, either over or under, of an enemy force is the price paid and part of the “fog of war.”
However to go to war solely on the basis of intelligence in seems particularly foolhardy to me. The Bush claim that because our available information shows Hussein to have means to launch aggressive war we have the right to strike first seems reckless in the absence of an overt act. By the same reasoning, Hussein can claim the right to strike first because Bush has announced that he does not have to wait to have the US assaulted before he strikes. In the same fashion North Korea can attack the South on the grounds that US has military force there and intends to use it against the North. And our Congress has put the power to go to war with Iraq at the sole discretion of Bush.
Sez The Times, a good bit of the report HM Govt plagiarized, and which Powell is proudly using as substantiation, was originally from a 1999 report by none other than …
(Some of you better be sitting down for this)
Scott Ritter.
Cue the Moody Blues’ “Isn’t Life Strange” in the background.
Insert comment about ascribing credibility to people based on whether or not they’re telling you what you want to hear, not necessarily what is.
The question it raises isn’t only about how much else of the report is dubious, but about how much else of Powell’s story is as well. We need to be very sure we’re doing the right thing before we do it, ya know?
The facts are that Powell showed a bunch of pictures. All the rest is interpretation that “this is a chemical plant,” “the trucks showed up to take away the stuff because the Iraqis knew the inspectors were coming” and so on and so on.
If you believe Powell it was convincing. But if you believe Powell you probably don’t need convincing since you already believed the Smirk In Chief.
Scott Ritter! Scott “baby-fucking traitor” Ritter? The same Scott Ritter who lies with every breath, who’s name is synonymous with mendacity, lies, and falsehood? Surely not that Scott Ritter. Must be a different Scott Ritter. Yeah. That’s gotta be it. Our Admin would never permit itself to be associated with such lying scum as Scott Ritter. No way.