from Eolbo’s first link:
Of course. Fine. From now on we’ll just have the State Dept. assess weapons capability and the CIA can assume the tea-drinking and hobnobbing with African dignitaries.
Surprising that nobody thought of it before.
Tee, Eolbo, Scylla, Zoe,
Do you think that the American electorate will cares?
But if everything coming from the CIA is crap, what’s the use of the CIA at all?
Not suggesting that that’s actually the case, because even the CIA stuff was full of disclaimers and maybes that the admisistration simply chose to ignore.
I wish people would care but I think in general people prefer a comfortable ignorance over the unsettling reality that we are told any old crap to justify a war.
The American electorate on average doesn’t seem to care, because it is conveniently bundled up in the assertive convolutions of a media machine of impressive proportions (and, more generally, the electorate is also handicapped by the traditionally inadequate US news media). It’s amazing how propaganda morphs into truth after it is broadcast often enough and through the adequate channels.
I have to hand it to Bush – his propaganda machine is second to none I know of. I thought the whole thing would begin to crumble after the Centcom farce, which was a low moment in the history of journalism, but it seems that very little can scratch the paint of the la-la land Bush has packed his nation in.
Over in the UK, where Blair used similar tactics to those of Bush in order to spread alarmism and develop a sense of urgency regarding Iraq, a row has ensued over BBC reports suggesting that the proceedings may have not been entirely honest or straightforward. It’s worth repeating that much of this is not new material, and many on these boards were decrying a high number of suspicious events even as they were unfolding before, during, and just after the war. Here is the latest BBC article on the Blair dossier row:
The British media machine exhibits somewhat less sophistication and cohesion than the American one, but then again the Brits have the BBC to contend with on their home soil. In a recent program, “Correspondent” I believe it was, the BBC systematically identified and stripped back the messages from the coalition’s carefully controlled “news” information, revealing the underlying propaganda without spinning. Well worth watching.
I’ve always thought the best thing for the average Americans’ information (and for politicians’ accountability!) would be to carry BBC World broadcasts over the entire territory, and thus raise the bar of independent news quality and depth – and hang the competiton with local outfits, I imagine the “Fox factor” will ensure viewers will still watch what they want, but at least they will have a choice. To my knowledge the only time you can catch the BBC on TV in the states is on PBS for half an hour a day, (unless you have a satellite set-up?). Increased availability could do wonders for actually informing people.
Thats all well and good, but a whole lot of folks just don’t watch the news. or read the news. or listen to anything other than short clips in-between songs and/or tv shows.
I like the BBC world report, but its not for everyone.
Sadly, FOX still looks a lot prettier to some, and its exciting too!
or something.
as a whole I don’t know. For a lot of people, “it was a mistake” will suffice, and be forgiven, and it’s likely true although disturbing. The people for whom it won’t suffice will be the people predisposed to disliking the current administration anyway, and it won’t be forgiven, because it’s surely symptomatic of an evil, lying administration and a new one will fix everything. ( :rolleyes: ) Each entrenched side likes to paint the other as dumb, misinformed, or worse, and I doubt each by themselves could carry an election so you’re dealing with the “uncommitteds” in the middle. And I’m one of them. I think this one issue of the forgery is certainly symptomatic of a problem, but I also think that it was right and necessary for the US to be concerned about Saddam reconstituting his nukes program (among other things.) This one false piece of evidence isn’t doing enough for me to combat the overall picture of SH painted by the other evidence that various states and state agencies put forth.
I’ll just go ahead and vote “no.” No, they won’t care too much about this.
Really? I’d like to see a CIA disclaimer.
I very much doubt everything coming from the CIA is crap. I have some good friends in the Agency, obviously not clandestine (although I may have those as well, who knows…) and have had nothing but respect for their analytical abilities such as I know them.
The issue, I rather think, arises at the level of transmission and acceptance. It rather appears that certain factions in the Administration went shopping for the intel that they wanted for a pre-set policy.
Good work Desmo my boy, good work.
What was right and necessary was for the US to have a rational policy driven by actual data and events, not an ideologically driven fantasy skewed into misconceptions and frankly supported by whole cloth invention.
Speaking as an uninformed member of the rabble, I’d like to say that I don’t care right now. Saddam has had to go since '92, anyhow. But I can’t wait for the election and I can’t wait to watch the hash the Dems stir up about it. Long as they don’t mess up the results of the war, Bush is gonna get what he done dug up. Wasn’t the right way to go about it, but seems like it was a thing that needed doing. Now it’s done, we better fix it right.
Speaking as an informed member of the hoi polloi, I’d like to point out that nobody rolls out a campaign in summer.
I don’t think it’s being ignored, as such, so much as they’re saving their rounds for when it’s a bit closer to election time or something more important comes on the table. Like the economy getting better. Or worse.
No Desmostylus, that’s a news report on the existence of a disclaimer, which is obviously in dispute. Some people get pitted for not recognizing those subtle differences.
It’s believable though. Here’s a CIA report regarding Iraq reconstituting its nuclear program (scroll down to Iraq):
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/jan_jun2002.html
I see a couple of things that could be called disclaimers regarding certain facts but no “maybes”, lots of actual data, and no apparent inventions. It’s not even necessary to prove he was purchasing uranium to say he was restarting his nuclear program.
The White House admits they used information which was false:
::sigh:: So, there you have it: It has been proven the CIA and a bunch of other people in the government knew it was false but you have to prove the president himself was informed. In summary: they take the public for idiots.