Tedious I know, but honour bound. From Karen Kwiatkowski via Juan Cole
Since there have been no takers yet to this ‘OP’, I’ll just ask the question that is most burning on my own mind: Whats the debate?
-XT
[devil’s advocate]Here’s why you’re wrong. They obviously believed it, that’s why they reported it. It doesn’t matter that they believed it without evidence, they believed it & they didn’t speak up against it. I mean, it’s their job to provide intelligence, & if they could prove the negative, that Saddam’s WMD’s were all gone, it was their responsibility to stand up for that.
Now, there’s a wrinkle to all that. They serve at the pleasure of the President. So, if the President wants them to believe something, well, they believe it, or at least be good soldiers & follow the party line, or they lose their jobs. As the Right repeatedly tell us, we do not live in a democracy, & for those in public service, they most assuredly do not. Military personnel do not have freedom of speech; they follow orders, period. And intelligence officers are the same.
So, ultimately, they had no choice. But it just couldn’t be avoided. Our system only allows freedom of thought for the One at the Top & those with no power. You may protest that this is the flaw of the absolutist imperial systems which democratic revolutions were supposed to overcome. But history has shown us that any system that can be called a system must behave in this way. Since mutiny is unacceptable, these mistakes are the price we pay for not descending into anarchy.[/devil’s advocate]
I would pack up my desk.
I must admit, I fully believe your scenario. “I want to invade Iraq; justify it. If your intelligence does not justify what I want to do, I don’t want to hear it.”
http://www.truthdig.com/interview/item/20070227_pentagon_whistleblower_on_the_coming_war_with_iran/
This is her take. The civilians took over the experts got shoved aside. They knew better it just was not on message.
Excellent point. It’s comforting to see no-one has the conviction to argue that the statements the administration made were anything other than deliberate and considered deceit. As Ms K testified.
How long will it be though, before we again see someone on the board again post about “every intelligence agency in the world believed” or “faulty intelligence”? I’m sure a search of these terms would produce numerous recent hits. Why anyone would wish to suggest that the false case for war had any iota of integrity, or normal human error rather than sheer malice, well that’s another debate.
Certainly…its nearly as annoying and false as when folks claim that, to paraphrase “Everyone KNEW that Saddam really didn’t have WMD…”.
Whats the debate again? Were you just fishing for some conservatives or something?
-XT
Something about tedium, I think.
I’ve never seen that claim made, paraphrase or not, never.
Then you haven’t been paying attention is all I can say…I’ve seen plenty of hyperbolic claims made on both sides. Such as the one you listed here. By and large such a claim is only made for effect…exaggerated effect. Oh sure, I’m sure there are some true believer types who think is such absolutes (on both sides), but most people I think seem to understand that the truth is somewhere in the middle of all the spam.
Regardless, were you fishing or did you want to discuss something? It doesn’t seem that your fishing expedition for rabid conservates has paid off. Wrong board for that.
-XT
Cite?
What? Are you suggesting the claims I listed here are in any way whatsoever hyperbolic? They are near as I can tell actual quotes of statements people have made routinely, even on this very board. As I say, I’m glad no-one has the conviction to back such statements up.
I dispute that such claims are made for effect exaggerated or not. It looks to me more like an attempt to portray the claims we all heard as, mistakes or errors such as people commonly make rather than what they were: Tightly disciplined, message control.
Which is true is open to debate, and it’s only a little surprising no-one wishes to argue the opposite proposition upfront.
Ditto. Never heard or read as much. Most people (outside the US it would appear) had enough common sense to realize that even if Saddam’s Iraq had some kind of WMD, it was cert6ainly NO threat to the mighty US of A. After all, by whatever dubious means he could deliver these WMDs Stateside (other than the 45 minute panic-attack infused by loyal asswipe Blair with no foundation) almost everyone with two brain-cells to rub together knew that Iraq would become a glass parking lot within minutes if that dramatic scenario held a scintilla of truth.
Nothing to gain everything to lose. Saddam may have been many things – most of them disgusting – but living and ruling a country the way he did, there wasn’t ONE single reason he’d be so dumb as to launch a head-on attack to the USA.
Might as well believe in Santa if you believe that pile of crap.
Deleted double-post. Don’t blame moi. Take it up with the SDMB new server.
BTW, to delve a little more unto the topic, the whole build-up to the invasion is akin to the current hype on Iran being yet another “potential threat” to the US.
I mean, what with his infamous West Point speech delivered prior to 9/11, attempting to justify “preemptive” attacks (more like preventive) and changing the US’s standing policy for foreign engagement no country in the world is safe from the US’s wrath. What’s next? Venezuela poses a “grave and gathering danger” to your nation because they’ve bought a couple of ships/old planes and some rifles from Spain and China respectively?
Ain’t enough of these to go around: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Well…frankly I’ve never heard or read anyone say that every intelligence agency in the world believed X either. At least not when they weren’t obviously exaggerating or being hyperbolic. So…maybe a good place to start would be to see some cites backing up the OP stating that EVERY intelligence agency in the world believed something. Because only a fool would say something like that…given the wide range of intelligence agencies throughout the world.
As for asking me for a cite…well, I might dig about. I know I’ve seen words to this effect by a few of the more fervent dopers. Hell Red…I wouldn’t be surprised if you had said something in the spirit of that, if not exactly, yourself at one time or another.
That said…I wasn’t making a serious claim however there, just trying to point out that rhetoric on both sides can be pretty stupid. In a general sense however there are certainly a lot of folks who think that the US was alone in believing that Iraq had WMD…or that this was entirely made up.
-XT
Here’s a start:
Quick board search: Departed member manhattan
Well…there is a good reason not to vote for John McCain, ehe?
As to your other quote…that seems more reasonable to me. Manhattan is definitely using a lot of qualifiers in there, and its clear that he doesn’t REALLY mean every intelligence agency in the world. Not with things like:
“Well, because everyone had more or less the same intelligence.”
“And based on it, pretty much everyone who mattered came to the same conclusion Bush did regarding Iraq’s weapons programs under Hussein.”
My emphasis.
-XT
Where is the part in the OP that says anything about other nations’ intelligence services? Am I missing something?