I'm dancing as fast as I can...
 

Bush sucks it up

I'm betting that this will really get to the bottom of all this nastiness, whattya think? Have they already figured out who's gonna take the fall - or is this just gonna burn out into a whole lotta nothin'?

There is also a comission about the inteligence failures that lead to 9/11.
Now the intelligence failure that lead to the war in Iraq...
All those intelligence failures make me wonder...is the Bush administration really that unintelligent...or are they just playing stupid ?

Aurel

Military Intelligence is a contradiction in terms. There is no intelligence in the military...they don't want any in there...simply no intelliegent people would charge up a hill against machineguns. Get it?

Tabs..That is a generality....As a former member of the Coast Guard, I worked with many brave and intelligent people. And, if this turns out to be bad information to the CIA, then the intelligence did not come from the military, they were ordered to act on this bad information.

I am NOT defending Mr. Bush, or the decision to invade Iraq. However, I will point out to all that hindsight is always 20-20. If, in this case, as alleged, the scientists were telling the leadership they were xx months from a nuclear device, and someone in that leadership "passed on the info" while the scientists were building up Swiss bank accounts rather than actually working on said project, then the intelligence was based upon sources thought to be accurate. Happens all the time. WWII is filled with deceptive information being believed by all sides. Blechly Park comes to mind. Part of international intrigue. No informational source should be completely trusted. The Russians say it well.."Trust...then Verify"

Purry...I hope the weather up there improves soon. You have far too much time on your hands....Gotta get out and drive more!!

<G>

What is very clear is that Bush knows this `intelligence failure` can backfire badly on him. This is why he is authorizing this investigation before someone else does it for him. Like that, he has control of who is in the commission, and also hopes to makes it last long enough so that the results come out after the elections. To me, there was no wrong intelligence, but fabricated evidence to make happen an ideological preemtive strike concept that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz came up with a long time ago.

Aurel

In my editorial cartoon mind, I see Bush as a circus juggler. He's spinning plates on sticks, swinging hoops around his wrists and ankles, and has four or five pins in mid-air. He has to keep all this going perfectly for nine months.

His only other option is a fireworks display; the audience will be so captivated by that, they'll likely not see him dropping a plate or two.

Hell, M. Lukovich probably has it going to press tomorrow....

Ed

Here's the silly thing:
Some people are hard on the intel community for not picking out the attack on the WTC in advance because, out of the millions of pieces of intel data that the intel organizations receive, 2 or 3 suggested that perhaps there might be rumors of an attack on the WTC sometime in the future.

The same people are hard on the Bush administration (and by association, the intel community) for going into Iraq on a hunt for WMDs, though the evidence in support of WMDs was far stronger than the evidence for the WTC attack, which the intel community was chastised for not calling.

So make up your minds, people? Will you believe whatever the media tells you to, or will you think for yourselves? <sigh> (Frustrated)


Dan

Well, I`d say it does not matter how strong the evidence was or was not: there was deadly and costly failure in both cases. That gives me enough information to make up my mind, as far as I am concerned...
And beyond that, since Bush has advisers who are ideologically driven, it does not matter what the intelligence says: they do not listen or look at facts. If intelligence really mattered, George Tenet would have been fired a long time ago...;)

Aurel