George Tenet is Resigning from the CIA

[Cypherdude1]

I completely disagree with your premise that the President selectively interpreted faulty intelligence. His decision to invade Iraq was based on sound scientific evidence. Someone gave him an aspirin labeled: "Iraq WMD" and he made his decision to go.

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
CIA intelligence was not the main reason we went into Iraq.
The Bush Administrations free-form interpretation of the facts
as obtained and presented by the CIA were the reason.

The facts were changed to support a pre-determined agenda.
You can check with the Resident Iranian Spy - Chalabi, for confirmation.

 

[Cypherdude1]

The stock market is going into the crapper over Tenet's resignation. All I see is red.

 

[chrisms]

I hope they'd all resign.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Klixxer
If you say you KNOW something and later on it proves you were wrong, well, then you didn't know it, now did you? Let me tell you that i was a surprised as you regarding the lack of WMD's, but i never said i knew not only that they were there, but even where they were. The lie is obvious. Saddam was a scumbag, but from what is known, he had no WMD's at the time of invasion, i'll just go with the fact and you can continue to believe whatever you like.

There's a difference between being wrong and lying. Isn't there? I mean, I'm not sure, but the last time I didn't get a 100% on a test I wasn't indicted on purgery charges.

And, as I've repeatedly said, whether or not they actually find WMD is irrelevent. A man with the resources of a nation like Iraq at his finger tips could have created tons of the stuff in a matter of weeks. It was his non-100%-compliance and decade of deception that made it necessary to remove him from power. If a guy is on parol and fails to show up for a meeting his his parol officer they take him down...they don't assume since he hasn't done anything that he won't.

Not if you portray something as absolute truth like the GW admin did, then when you are wrong you did lie.

Your analogy sucks, did you start a war that ended 10000+ lifes because you claimed to know what you really didn't? For your other analogy, would you have bombed a neighbourhood because the guy who didn't show up for his parole was believed to be in there with a few guys monitoring his every move?

A man with SH's resources couldn't do sh!t if you are to believe anyone other than Cheney, what has been found was no capacity to do anything what so ever, and at the time of the invasion there were inspectors in Iraq who hadn't finished their mission there. If you seriously believe SH was a threat to anyone at all at the time of the invasion then you don't read much, he was the leader of a country constantly being monitored, he had inspectors from the UN inspecting every site the intelligence warned about.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Klixxer
If you say you KNOW something and later on it proves you were wrong, well, then you didn't know it, now did you? Let me tell you that i was a surprised as you regarding the lack of WMD's, but i never said i knew not only that they were there, but even where they were. The lie is obvious. Saddam was a scumbag, but from what is known, he had no WMD's at the time of invasion, i'll just go with the fact and you can continue to believe whatever you like.

There's a difference between being wrong and lying. Isn't there? I mean, I'm not sure, but the last time I didn't get a 100% on a test I wasn't indicted on purgery charges.

And, as I've repeatedly said, whether or not they actually find WMD is irrelevent. A man with the resources of a nation like Iraq at his finger tips could have created tons of the stuff in a matter of weeks. It was his non-100%-compliance and decade of deception that made it necessary to remove him from power. If a guy is on parol and fails to show up for a meeting his his parol officer they take him down...they don't assume since he hasn't done anything that he won't.

can the world afford countries going to war on faulty intel and then come up with the excuse "oops guess we were wrong after all" and then all is well?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Klixxer
If you say you KNOW something and later on it proves you were wrong, well, then you didn't know it, now did you? Let me tell you that i was a surprised as you regarding the lack of WMD's, but i never said i knew not only that they were there, but even where they were. The lie is obvious. Saddam was a scumbag, but from what is known, he had no WMD's at the time of invasion, i'll just go with the fact and you can continue to believe whatever you like.

There's a difference between being wrong and lying. Isn't there? I mean, I'm not sure, but the last time I didn't get a 100% on a test I wasn't indicted on purgery charges.

And, as I've repeatedly said, whether or not they actually find WMD is irrelevent. A man with the resources of a nation like Iraq at his finger tips could have created tons of the stuff in a matter of weeks. It was his non-100%-compliance and decade of deception that made it necessary to remove him from power. If a guy is on parol and fails to show up for a meeting his his parol officer they take him down...they don't assume since he hasn't done anything that he won't.

And the inspectors were not willing to give a final statement on iraq's compliance untill after 2 months. If their decision would have been that Iraq was not in compliance then ok, it should go to the security council. Options of war should have been given from them US and UK and they should have shown that Iraq was indeed not in compliance and it would have been easy to convince members there that something like this should not be tolerated.

But no... Ofcorse waiting 2 months was too long and after all Bush had declared the UN irrelevant because they wanted to go by the procedure. And now the UN is relevant because thats the only shred of reason you guys have left because the wmd issue is obviosly out of the window.

 

[arsbanned]

bu bye you SOB. May he rot in Hell.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Klixxer
If you say you KNOW something and later on it proves you were wrong, well, then you didn't know it, now did you? Let me tell you that i was a surprised as you regarding the lack of WMD's, but i never said i knew not only that they were there, but even where they were. The lie is obvious. Saddam was a scumbag, but from what is known, he had no WMD's at the time of invasion, i'll just go with the fact and you can continue to believe whatever you like.

There's a difference between being wrong and lying. Isn't there? I mean, I'm not sure, but the last time I didn't get a 100% on a test I wasn't indicted on purgery charges.

And, as I've repeatedly said, whether or not they actually find WMD is irrelevent. A man with the resources of a nation like Iraq at his finger tips could have created tons of the stuff in a matter of weeks. It was his non-100%-compliance and decade of deception that made it necessary to remove him from power. If a guy is on parol and fails to show up for a meeting his his parol officer they take him down...they don't assume since he hasn't done anything that he won't.

That I believe is exactly as Bush & Co. saw it. It doesn't matter what they say. It doesn't matter what they do. They need to get Saddam, and if they have to craft intel into something they need, it's justified. If they have to ignore reports that seriously contradicts doctrine, that's fine. If they need to overtly lie, it's for the greater good. If they have to make connections between Saddam and terrorism then give weak protestations that Saddam hadnt anything to do with 9/11, terrific. Spun right, people will latch onto the first and ignore the second, just as you have. If people don't go along with the program their spouses can be outed if they are CIA agents. If they have set up a system of deniability, cool! Hey, we got shown to be talking out our ass? Great! Lets make it about freedom and democracy.

Anything is justifiable, because we had to get Saddam.

I am no safer than before this war. None of us are, but there sure are a lot more dead people than there was before this adventure.

 

[Dari]

This is great news. It shows what good people can do when a little pressure is applied. Tenet, hired by Clinton, was a huge embarressement for US intelligence.