Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Intelligence Fuckups, and Condi

2»

Posts

  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Doc wrote: »
    There was no intel "fuckup." The Administration knew what the intel said and they decided to ignore it.
    Well, there's evidence that administration officials made attempts, however effectively, to pressure intel agents to give certain kinds of reports. That's an intel fuckup. Because it's hard for the outside world to call the administration on its bullshit if they're feeding everyone intel they done cooked.

  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2008
    Hoz wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    There was no intel "fuckup." The Administration knew what the intel said and they decided to ignore it.
    Well, there's evidence that administration officials made attempts, however effectively, to pressure intel agents. That's an intel fuckup. Because it's hard for the outside world to call the administration on its bullshit if they're feeding everyone intel they done cooked.

    Not really. "Fuckup" suggests that the Administration made a mistake. In a certain sense, they didn't. They did exactly what they wanted to do.

  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Lykouragh wrote: »
    That is a NY times article which seems to affirm the conclusion that Bush did not allow subcommittees in either the Senate or the House access to the intelligence data, which apparently stated firmly that there were no WMDs in Iraq.

    it's not that, it's that rumsfeld and others didn't like the analysis they were getting, so they used the analysis they did like (or wanted to hear). again, congress still got the information that the administration was using.

    Really? You got that from the article?
    They did not decide to have a war and had access only to the sanitized intelligence fed to them by the administration.

    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Doc wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    There was no intel "fuckup." The Administration knew what the intel said and they decided to ignore it.
    Well, there's evidence that administration officials made attempts, however effectively, to pressure intel agents. That's an intel fuckup. Because it's hard for the outside world to call the administration on its bullshit if they're feeding everyone intel they done cooked.

    Not really. "Fuckup" suggests that the Administration made a mistake. They didn't.
    But the intel agents did fuck up by enabling the desires of the administration. They were in a hard spot, it was probably do what the administration wanted or resign, but I'd still call that a fuckup on their part.

  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2008
    Hoz wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    There was no intel "fuckup." The Administration knew what the intel said and they decided to ignore it.
    Well, there's evidence that administration officials made attempts, however effectively, to pressure intel agents. That's an intel fuckup. Because it's hard for the outside world to call the administration on its bullshit if they're feeding everyone intel they done cooked.

    Not really. "Fuckup" suggests that the Administration made a mistake. They didn't.
    But the intel agents did fuck up by enabling the desires of the administration. They were in a hard spot, it was probably do what the administration wanted or resign, but I'd still call that a fuckup on their part.

    It wasn't a mistake, though. They knew what they were doing. Calling it a "fuckup" is far to dismissive for me - it suggests mere incompetence rather than a hell-bent crusade to invade Iraq regardless of the facts of the matter.

  • ElkiElki GOBS OF PUKE!!! YES!!!!!!!Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2008
    The weapons' alleged existence was a big selling point, but not very important in the determination to go to war.

    And what I read about Condi in the Rise of the Vulcans didn't leave me terribly impressed.

  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    I can't believe I'm in a discussion about the parsing of 'fuckup'.

  • JebuJebu Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Doc wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    There was no intel "fuckup." The Administration knew what the intel said and they decided to ignore it.
    Well, there's evidence that administration officials made attempts, however effectively, to pressure intel agents. That's an intel fuckup. Because it's hard for the outside world to call the administration on its bullshit if they're feeding everyone intel they done cooked.

    Not really. "Fuckup" suggests that the Administration made a mistake. They didn't.
    But the intel agents did fuck up by enabling the desires of the administration. They were in a hard spot, it was probably do what the administration wanted or resign, but I'd still call that a fuckup on their part.

    It wasn't a mistake, though. They knew what they were doing. Calling it a "fuckup" is far to dismissive for me - it suggests mere incompetence rather than a hell-bent crusade to invade Iraq regardless of the facts of the matter.

    Can't there be both? :P

  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2008
    Hoz wrote: »
    I can't believe I'm in a discussion about the parsing of 'fuckup'.

    I'm just suggesting that it's a more dismissive term than I'm comfortable with.

  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Doc wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    I can't believe I'm in a discussion about the parsing of 'fuckup'.

    I'm just suggesting that it's a more dismissive term than I'm comfortable with.
    I will submit to that.

    It's a willful fuckup.

  • LykouraghLykouragh Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Perhaps something even on the order of "evil clusterfuck with intent" is appropriate.

    I really do wonder what the Bush administration was thinking when we invaded Iraq. I mean, hindsight is 20/20, but the war has in no way gained us any advantage even from the perspective of a Machiavelli who cares nothing about the lives of our troops and Iraqi civilians.

  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    A lot of people in the administration are sated though. They just wanted to invade Iraq, that's all.

    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • HarrierHarrier Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Lykouragh wrote: »
    Perhaps something even on the order of "evil clusterfuck with intent" is appropriate.

    I really do wonder what the Bush administration was thinking when we invaded Iraq. I mean, hindsight is 20/20, but the war has in no way gained us any advantage even from the perspective of a Machiavelli who cares nothing about the lives of our troops and Iraqi civilians.
    Man, that just reminds me of the part from The Prince that illustrates one of Bush's bigger mistakes: disbanding the Iraqi Army and leaving it at that.

    Machiavelli would advocate killing them all. If you are to lower your opponent, you must lower him beyond all hope of recovery.

    I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
  • JebuJebu Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Harrier wrote: »
    Lykouragh wrote: »
    Perhaps something even on the order of "evil clusterfuck with intent" is appropriate.

    I really do wonder what the Bush administration was thinking when we invaded Iraq. I mean, hindsight is 20/20, but the war has in no way gained us any advantage even from the perspective of a Machiavelli who cares nothing about the lives of our troops and Iraqi civilians.
    Man, that just reminds me of the part from The Prince that illustrates one of Bush's bigger mistakes: disbanding the Iraqi Army and leaving it at that.

    Machiavelli would advocate killing them all. If you are to lower your opponent, you must lower him beyond all hope of recovery.

    That was pretty much the point where I said to myself, "This is fucked." It made absolutely no sense to disband the army, especially without doing anything to get them some form of employment and without having any other sort of stabilizing force in the country to keep the peace. It was like we were trying to create an insurgency.

    If I ever met Paul Bremer in person I'd ask why in the hell he thought that was a good idea. Then I'd punch him in the mouth before he could give some bullshit answer.

  • LykouraghLykouragh Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    So I've been researching this over the past couple of days, and watching some documentaries (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/ that one is very good).

    As far as I can tell, there was no intelligence fuckup. The CIA told Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld that there were no WMD in Iraq, that Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq, and that Bin Laden was in Afghanistan. They were not only ignored, but suppressed.

2»
Sign In or Register to comment.