Expert pressured to distort evidence on WMD

…It’s the NYTimes…you may have to register, but it’s free.

Now perhaps the floodgates will open and we will see just exactly how the Bush warmongers played with the intel to make it fit their scheme.

From the same source…

Move along…

That’s not the point. The fact is they tried. Perhaps others weren’t so strong. Perhaps others did cave in. The fact is there were no WMD at all. No clear and present danger. You think maybe Bush and his warmongers just invented the intel?

That’s called lying.

But the Bush admin would never do that…would they?

Who tried? The article doesn’t say.

Or, perhaps he simply felt a little pressue at work, just like thousands of other people every day, and dealt with it, just like thousands of other people every day.

By the way, you did notice that this pressure concerned Cuba and not Iraq, right?

Two people actually identified by name and the rest anonymous sources. Oh Please,and the NYT to boot.

You did notice who said that didn’t you?

The administration.

Actually, it says both. :smack:

The news story was about the Iraq stuff and th eCuba stuff was provided as background for Mr. Westermann’s history with Mr. Bolton.
I read this story this morning and decided [lukewarm]“eh.”[/lukewarm]


See Reeder,… you can’t actually PROVE anything can you?

WHO in his right mind would believe the utterly ABSURD idea that politicans would in ANY way, spin intelligence reports to push their agenda.
Extraodinary claims need extaordinary evidence.
So a few guys say “we felt pressured”. BIG DEAL!

Until you give me a video tape recording of GWB speaking to the camera saying “I CONFESS WE USED INTELLIGENCE DATA IN A MALICIOUSLY DECEIVING WAY TO FURTHER MY GOAL OF WORLD DOMINATION”, you might as well shut up and enjoy FOX NEWS

Wait a minute here…you are expecting me to prove Bush is a warmonger?

Sorry…that’s not what I post to do. I post news articles showing the abuse of power by this administration so that you, the American voter, can make an informed decision in the election of 2004.

But then you bootlicking types have already decided. No amount of evidence can persuade you. So please do me a favor. Don’t read any more of my posts. Don’t respond if you do happen to read. Which of course you will.

Is it my sarcasm meter or my Irony meter that’s malfunctioning?

Damn…I’ve been whooshed.

Good idea. Only people who agree with Reeder should post to his threads in the future. Now, that’s what I call a Great Debate.

And I typed all that. With one finger even.

So here is what you have. The Times claims that according to an anonymous source, one intelligence analyst claimed he felt pressure to tailor reports, but apparently whatever pressure he felt wasn’t actually strong enough to make him change his reports, and he wasn’t punished for not doing so.

There are plenty of things I don’t like about the war and the way the Administration handled it (particualrly with regard to intelligence in fact), but don’t open the floodgates too far just yet.


You can’t have run out of stuff to whine about already, have you, Reeder?

This is far and away the weakest OP you’ve yet written.

By the way, when you quote something, try to quote the relevant parts as well instead of just parsing it in the hopes that nobody will really read it.

I post the link so everyone will read it wingnut.

For that matter, Airman, your distaste for Reeder is a matter of record here, and one you need not trouble yourself to assert. He has made no claims beyond those stated, which I take to mean nothing more than that: another testimony to the effect that the administration has, on more than one occassion, made efforts to solicit the cooperation of intelligence professionals towards predetermined ends. He doesn’t even claim it is news, which, of course, it isn’t.

As would any man who’s loyalty was honestly given, and then abused, you have every right to be angry. But not at Reeder, at least, not in this instance. Reeder may well be exaggerating in his prosecutorial zeal, but, to best evidence to date, he is exaggerating the truth. And that is, I submit, a crucial difference.

Come on elucidator give wingnut a break… He loves to hate me. I reckon it makes his life complete.

But I don’t feel I exaggerate. I just post what I find.

I don’t read it that way. The statement:

…….suggests to me that hasn’t voiced any specific complaints regarding Iraq. Reuters seems to agree:

I think we’ll just have to wait and see on this one.