Something has to be done with the CIA

[DealMonkey]

If I were in the shoes of the current administration, I'd be crapping my pants as two of the biggest intel failures in recent U.S. history occurred on my watch. First 9/11 and now the pre-OIF intel. I think the sharks are circling -- they want to see blood in the water. I guess we'll have to wait and see if the administration chums the water with Tenet or whether an investigation is launched. I'm afraid if it's the latter, we'll see more of the same WH tactics that we saw with the 9/11 commission: Delays & obfuscation.

 

[b0mbrman]

I'm amazed that we all talk like we know the deep inner workings of, not just the CIA, but the world's intelligence systems. I've been privy to my fair share of TS and I know I've yet to scratch the surface of the surface...

Anyhow, you'll never catch me trying to sound like an expert

 

[Dman877]

The intelligence both administrations received was similar. Basically the CIA said they couldn't prove Saddam didn't have the weapons the US gave them decades ago. That is FAR from saying they have weapons, we know where they are, and if we don't strike now they will use them against our allies.

 

[UltraQuiet]

2. I mention Ritter because he and his team were the source of most of Clinton's best, direct intel. As much as any one person, Ritter is the first-hand authority on what Iraq did and did not have right up until the 1998 bombings.

Agree completely.

He is also uniquely positioned, at least among public sources, to assess what happened with Iraq's WMDs during and since 1998.

No, he's not. His opinion gets attention because he was a former weapons inspector but he's no more able to assess than anyone else. He gave very clear and concise reports to Congress after his dismissal from the inspection team. His story did not change until a couple of years later when the admin. started making noise about Iraq then he completely reversed what he had told Congress in '98. Why? He didn't have access to the intelligence, the BDA's from the '98 bombings or anything else that would mitigate such a reversal. And I'm sure the release of his book was pure coincidence.

Since people keep suggesting Clinton's intel mitigates Bush's claims, it seems appropriate to include Ritter's views when discussing Clinton-era intelligence.

The inclusion of Ritter's views on Clinton era intelligence is very appropriate and relevant. The inclusion of his views after that is not.

Ritter's views sharply contradict the worst-case scenarios crafted by Cheney and Rumsfeld. Ritter's view are also largely consistent with Blix's findings, both of whom have proved to be pretty accurate since the invasion. In short, Ritter and Blix serve to refute those who claim there was no dissenting views or that Bush did the best we could with the intel we had.

Blix's testimony on what he found in Iraq last year is very relevant, Ritter's views on what has happened since '98 are not relevant.

 

[dahunan]

Political Correctness Neutered our Human Intel.

Just ask Coleen Rowley

 

[robh23]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

2. I mention Ritter because he and his team were the source of most of Clinton's best, direct intel. As much as any one person, Ritter is the first-hand authority on what Iraq did and did not have right up until the 1998 bombings.

Agree completely.

He is also uniquely positioned, at least among public sources, to assess what happened with Iraq's WMDs during and since 1998.

No, he's not. His opinion gets attention because he was a former weapons inspector but he's no more able to assess than anyone else. He gave very clear and concise reports to Congress after his dismissal from the inspection team. His story did not change until a couple of years later when the admin. started making noise about Iraq then he completely reversed what he had told Congress in '98. Why? He didn't have access to the intelligence, the BDA's from the '98 bombings or anything else that would mitigate such a reversal. And I'm sure the release of his book was pure coincidence.

Since people keep suggesting Clinton's intel mitigates Bush's claims, it seems appropriate to include Ritter's views when discussing Clinton-era intelligence.

The inclusion of Ritter's views on Clinton era intelligence is very appropriate and relevant. The inclusion of his views after that is not.

Ritter's views sharply contradict the worst-case scenarios crafted by Cheney and Rumsfeld. Ritter's view are also largely consistent with Blix's findings, both of whom have proved to be pretty accurate since the invasion. In short, Ritter and Blix serve to refute those who claim there was no dissenting views or that Bush did the best we could with the intel we had.

Blix's testimony on what he found in Iraq last year is very relevant, Ritter's views on what has happened since '98 are not relevant.

so dave, how do you think iraq/ wot should be fought?

 

[Dari]

I was talking to a widow who lost her husband in the 9/11 attacks. I suggested that she and the other members of lost relatives lead a campaign to call for the ouster of George Tenet. This native New Yorker has done great disservice to New York and the nation by sleeping on the job while terrorists plotted and eventually carried out catastrophic attacks against our country.

I suggested that they call for his resignition publicly via letters to congressmen, the Bush Administration, and Mr. Tenet after the September 11 commission has done its job.

EDIT: She said she'd take it under advisement.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Dari
I was talking to a widow who lost her husband in the 9/11 attacks. I suggested that she and the other members of lost relatives lead a campaign to call for the ouster of George Tenet. This native New Yorker has done great disservice to New York and the nation by sleeping on the job while terrorists plotted and eventually carried out catastrophic attacks against our country.

I suggested that they call for his resignition publicly via letters to congressmen, the Bush Administration, and Mr. Tenet after the September 11 commission has done its job.

EDIT: She said she'd take it under advisement.

Cookie

 

[robh23]

Originally posted by: Dari
I was talking to a widow who lost her husband in the 9/11 attacks. I suggested that she and the other members of lost relatives lead a campaign to call for the ouster of George Tenet. This native New Yorker has done great disservice to New York and the nation by sleeping on the job while terrorists plotted and eventually carried out catastrophic attacks against our country.

I suggested that they call for his resignition publicly via letters to congressmen, the Bush Administration, and Mr. Tenet after the September 11 commission has done its job.

EDIT: She said she'd take it under advisement.

im not sure its that he was sleeping, mor that he is a buffoon.

 

[robh23]

Originally posted by: Dari
I was talking to a widow who lost her husband in the 9/11 attacks. I suggested that she and the other members of lost relatives lead a campaign to call for the ouster of George Tenet. This native New Yorker has done great disservice to New York and the nation by sleeping on the job while terrorists plotted and eventually carried out catastrophic attacks against our country.

I suggested that they call for his resignition publicly via letters to congressmen, the Bush Administration, and Mr. Tenet after the September 11 commission has done its job.

EDIT: She said she'd take it under advisement.

im not sure its that he was sleeping, mor that he is a buffoon.

 

[tcsenter]

Ritter's views sharply contradict the worst-case scenarios crafted by Cheney and Rumsfeld. Ritter's view are also largely consistent with Blix's findings, both of whom have proved to be pretty accurate since the invasion. In short, Ritter and Blix serve to refute those who claim there was no dissenting views or that Bush did the best we could with the intel we had.

Scott Ritter? Hmmm, why does that name sound familiar? Ritter...Ritter...OHH! Are we discussing the Scott Ritter who authored a book entitled "Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem - Once and For All", in which Ritter argued the Hussein regime was such an intolerably dangerous threat to the Region if not the world that, fail of the diplomatic process to bring about complete Iraqi disarmament and uncontested compliance with UN Resolutions, the United States should immediately go to war with Iraq and depose the Hussein regime?

The Scott Ritter who appeared before a Joint Hearing of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees a week after the conclusion of those 'seven years as chief weapons inspector', during which time he gained "first-hand authority on what Iraq did and did not have right up until the 1998 bombings", and castigated the Clinton Administration for its refusal to force a military confrontation with Iraq over its obstruction of UN weapons inspections, even militarily deposing the Hussein regime if necessary?

THAT Scott Ritter?

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAHAHAH! Oh that's rich!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Ritter's views sharply contradict the worst-case scenarios crafted by Cheney and Rumsfeld. Ritter's view are also largely consistent with Blix's findings, both of whom have proved to be pretty accurate since the invasion. In short, Ritter and Blix serve to refute those who claim there was no dissenting views or that Bush did the best we could with the intel we had.

Scott Ritter? Hmmm, why does that name sound familiar? Ritter...Ritter...OHH! Are we discussing the Scott Ritter who authored a book entitled "Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem - Once and For All", in which Ritter argued the Hussein regime was such an intolerably dangerous threat to the Region if not the world that, fail of the diplomatic process to bring about complete Iraqi disarmament and uncontested compliance with UN Resolutions, the United States should immediately go to war with Iraq and depose the Hussein regime?

The Scott Ritter who appeared before a Joint Hearing of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees a week after the conclusion of those 'seven years as chief weapons inspector', during which time he gained "first-hand authority on what Iraq did and did not have right up until the 1998 bombings", and castigated the Clinton Administration for its refusal to force a military confrontation with Iraq over its obstruction of UN weapons inspections, even militarily deposing the Hussein regime if necessary?

THAT Scott Ritter?

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAHAHAH! Oh that's rich!

Ah, that Scott Ritter that figured he got it wrong the first time, and then went on to get it right, as opposed to those in the administration that did not get it, or more likely did not want to?

Yeah, that Scott Ritter.

Is it not that a man is in error that makes him faulty, but that he insists on remaining that way, like "It was always about regime change" Bush.

 

[tcsenter]

Ah, that Scott Ritter that figured he got it wrong the first time, and then went on to get it right, as opposed to those in the administration that did not get it, or more likely did not want to?

lol! Well that might have a better chance of flying than a lead balloon, if it even slightly resembled Ritter's own excuse for his overnight Jekyll/Hyde transformation. Ritter not only doesn't admit that his story changed, but argues he has been consistent from the beginning!

Roses are Red,
Violets are Blue,
I am schizophrenic,
and I am, too!

-- A Poem by Little Scottie Ritter