CIA at War with Bush?

[PeachMonkey]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak27.html

I'm not sure what kind of pithy comment to make about Robert Novak -- I was going to go with "He should know about the CIA", given that he outed an active covert agent and all.

Novak's spin to this article is that the CIA is becoming a "dangeous critic" of the President, but it's interesting that the CIA is apparently campaigining to prove that they warned the President against war in Iraq *years ago*

So much for the whole theory that Dubya was simply "misinformed".

 

[loki09789]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak27.html

I'm not sure what kind of pithy comment to make about Robert Novak -- I was going to go with "He should know about the CIA", given that he outed an active covert agent and all.

Novak's spin to this article is that the CIA is becoming a "dangeous critic" of the President, but it's interesting that the CIA is apparently campaigining to prove that they warned the President against war in Iraq *years ago*

So much for the whole theory that Dubya was simply "misinformed".

And there is no chance that the motive is a CYA kind of thing. I think the finger pointing was done when the 9/11 commission presented their results. They spread the blame as fairly as they could (without stepping on so many toes that they, individually would never work again) including POTUS and other big wigs.

What reforms since then have been put in place to reduce the risk of further holes from happening should really be the current concern.

 

[PeachMonkey]

And there is no chance that the motive is a CYA kind of thing. I think the finger pointing was done when the 9/11 commission presented their results. They spread the blame as fairly as they could (without stepping on so many toes that they, individually would never work again) including POTUS and other big wigs.

Actually, the 9/11 commission was investigating *9/11*, not the war on Iraq. And evidence has existed for some time showing that the CIA did not agree with the plans to invade Iraq.

And as for spreading the blame *fairly*, I think fairness should be focused on the truth, not helping smooth things over. Have you actually read the 9/11 Commission's report?

But, since we're talking about Iraq, let's get back to the subject. I suggest you read Congressman Henry Waxman's report on the matter from March of this year:

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

If you're disinclined to believe Waxman himself due to partisan reasons, surely his specific references will be more useful to you.

What reforms since then have been put in place to reduce the risk of further holes from happening should really be the current concern.

I absolutely agree. Removing the administration that lied, exaggerated, and manipulated in order to launch an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, an invasion that has exacerbated world-wide tensions between Moslems and non-Moslems, and lead to over a thousand American deaths and countless Iraqi deaths, should be our number one concern.

 

[loki09789]

Actually, the 9/11 commission was investigating *9/11*, not the war on Iraq. And evidence has existed for some time showing that the CIA did not agree with the plans to invade Iraq.

And as for spreading the blame *fairly*, I think fairness should be focused on the truth, not helping smooth things over. Have you actually read the 9/11 Commission's report?

But, since we're talking about Iraq, let's get back to the subject. I suggest you read Congressman Henry Waxman's report on the matter from March of this year:

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

If you're disinclined to believe Waxman himself due to partisan reasons, surely his specific references will be more useful to you.



I absolutely agree. Removing the administration that lied, exaggerated, and manipulated in order to launch an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, an invasion that has exacerbated world-wide tensions between Moslems and non-Moslems, and lead to over a thousand American deaths and countless Iraqi deaths, should be our number one concern.

I believe that the report was used referencially as criticism for the Iraq campaign, and that was my point. Not that the 9/11 commission addressed Iraq in any meaningful way.

It isn't a matter of partisan anything if I choose to read everything that gets public with a grain of salt. Someone always stands to gain or get cut down when it finally 'leaks' to the media and that motive of either boosting yourself/group or cutting down yourself/group leads to 'advertising speak' level of honesty while presenting your side of the issue.

If the CIA stands by as an agency and lets comments that they 'didn't warn the president' go without some response (which in typical CIA fashion will be about evidence, observable reports...but may omit things that undermine what they have compiled to plea their case) they loose 'kutos' in the world of interagency rivalries and status, which can lead to financial decisions that they loose out on as well....

I saw this while in the service as well. Interservice rivalries at the higher levels were as much about justifying your existence for being as they were about any real value or ideal.

If there is such an issue with the current POTUS/Administration, impeach him/charge them/fire them if you have that power. If you are just the average citizen like the rest of us, vote IN your choice (which is a reform mentallity) instead of OUT the guy you don't like (which targets the person and not the issues - and don't give me this 'the man is the issue in this case' crap because it isn't. If it was a 'man' issue, how did he get elected at all into any public office? The level of corruption/powermongering that is expressed would have been weeded out long ago).

 

[PeachMonkey]

I believe that the report was used referencially as criticism for the Iraq campaign, and that was my point. Not that the 9/11 commission addressed Iraq in any meaningful way.

Ah, okay.

It isn't a matter of partisan anything if I choose to read everything that gets public with a grain of salt.

Sorry for the confusion, I was actually referring to *Waxman's* partisan behavior. And I agree, reading with a grain of salt is critical, as long as you actually look at the stuff.

And as for the CIA using only the documentation that suits it, I'm not at all surprised -- remember, this is the agency that has been involved in crimes against Americans, and humanity, since it was inaugurated. However, on this issue, the CIA is providing documentation, and the Bush Administration seems able only to operate in hearsay and propaganda.

If there is such an issue with the current POTUS/Administration, impeach him/charge them/fire them if you have that power. If you are just the average citizen like the rest of us, vote IN your choice (which is a reform mentallity) instead of OUT the guy you don't like (which targets the person and not the issues - and don't give me this 'the man is the issue in this case' crap because it isn't. If it was a 'man' issue, how did he get elected at all into any public office? The level of corruption/powermongering that is expressed would have been weeded out long ago).

What about human history and politics has convinced you that the corrupt and powermongering get weeded out before they reach high stature?

It's always ideal to vote in your choice and pursue genuine reform in that way; my choices always tend to get slapped down at the primary level, if not before (where's Dennis Kucinich when you need him?)

I think, however, that there are times when an officeholder has performed acts and committed crimes so heinous that they need to be *removed*. Since it's unlikely that Dubya and his staff will be impeached, I'll wield my vote, thank you very much. And continue to point out the facts as long as there's a chance that one more person will realize just how much damage this crew has done to the country and world that I love.

Yes, it's possible that the alternatives to Bush *could* be so much worse that you can't afford to remove him. Since the other major candidate doesn't happen to be worse, I'll hold my nose and support him all the way.