Here's an artical on how the Bush team uses inteligence to manipulate
the public on the Iraq war.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18830850/site/newsweek/page/3/

Hi, Fanatic

Good to see you posting more here.

Tons of books are now out on how the Bushies not only twisted
intelligence but out and out invented it.

David Isikoff's book is one (I woinder if he is related to your Michale
Isikoff). Tom Ricks, Woodward etc are all providing more and more
information of the grand deception carried out by Cheney and Bush and
the neocons.

It is a shameful period in our country's life. To say nothing of the
immense harm that hass been done to others in our country's name.



Oceans

Actually it is probably a good thing they exaggerate and embellish from
time to time, because the other side of the political spectrum simply
ignores the truth and lies altogether on a daily basis. How about a
little fair and balanced here. Besides that, somebody needs to look out
for some of the conservative positions and see that they are not
completely destroyed by political correctness gone wild.

Note: I walk a strange line politically. Not following the Republican
party line. Mostly I do not think many people with influence are
thinking much about what is good for the country. Those who are thinking
and have influence are doing it in some professional fashion and mostly
have special interests in mind.

Very few people have the long term perspective and influence and
selfless interest in the process.

As for the article you mentioned, Zarqawi was not the reason the US went
to war with Iraq. To suggest so is absurd. Intelligence comes from many
sources. The President had a lot available. The Congress and Senate did
as well. Republican and Democrats both made judgments related to the war
and decided it was a good idea to go to war. Now everyone on the left
side of the aisle wants to blame it on the right side of the aisle, a
horrible way to behave.
Has nobody considered the media's culpability here? You would think
that the only thing the congress and senate had to consider was the same
dribble we get from the media. Because the media said that there were
weapons of mass destruction, then congress believed it. That is
deplorable and a sign that somebody is asleep at the wheel. Trusting the
media, which is commercial at best and biased at worst, for your
political guidance when deciding to go to war it pretty lame.
What I am saying here is that everybody seems to be saying that Bush
was lying because the media reported this and then later the media
reported that. But Bush was handed information and congress was handed
information. They both had a responsibility to read it, not just to
listen to the media.

The U.S. political landscape has come down to choosing which side you
want to enslave you, the fascists or the socialists. Rudy Giuliani may
make a great president if you don't mind the eight o'clock curfew. The
Reno years at the Justice Department were scary as hell. Civil rights,
constitutional rights, they're all slipping away, Clinton, Bush, same
coin, different sides.

Yeah, Bush/Cheney had an agenda. Saddam is dead and that makes it all
worthwhile for Dubya. Sure they lied, they're politicians and that's
what politicians do, Republican or Democrat.

Keys

Lies upon Lies are being uncovered everyday.

When asked did the cia have prisons stashed away in obscure countries in
order to torture prisoners. They said_______?(insert answer)

When asked did they have anything to do with leaking Valerie Plame, wife
of retired career diplomat Joseph Wilson's idendity as a cia informant
to the press. They said_______?

When asked did they unlawfully obain wiretaps. They said_______?

When asked did they falsefy intelligence of WMD in Iraq. They
said_________?

When asked are eyes in this country still closed. The answer is_____?

Imkeys,
Astute response. I concur.

Fanta,
This is one reason I am naturally suspicious when someone's words are
highly critical of only one side and refuse to see anything of the
other.

This is ignorance or maliciousness, or stupidity. Has to be one of them.
Where do you imagine yourself to be?

A couple of quick notes, Philosopher.

1. When Congress did hold hearings on the Bush run-up to invading Iraq,
adminsitration officials lied to Congress on what was going on and one
what the evidence was. For example, the officials (from DoD, CIA, etc.)
said that Iraq had WMD, had participated int he attack on Sep 11, had an
active nuclear weapons program, etc. So it was impossible for Congress,
which relies of those who brief it on what is going to tell the truth
(which is why they have closed door- and classified briefings). The
Congress has no independent intelligence capability. They do have a fine
analysis office (the Congressional Research Service), but this office is
dependent on the raw informationthey are given by the Executive branch
-- the Bush people.

Having said that, it seems clear to me that anyone with judgment or any
knowledge of the Middle East should have challenged the run-up: it
didn't hold water internally. But I think the panic and fear that seized
the American people after 9/11 and which was encouraged by the
administration and the neocons cerated such an atmosphere that it was
difficult for everyone, including Congress, to seriously challenge the
neocon statements.

2. You are right about Zarqawi: he came to prominence AFTER the US
invasion, and as a leader of a group fighting the US occupation. He is
often associated with al-Qaida, and called his group several things
including 'Al-Qaida in Iraq', but his relations with al-Qaida were at
best stormy. Al-Qaida's leadership broke with Zarqawi when he started
fomenting Sunni-Shi'i strife, publically rebuking him.



Oceans

Oceans,

You said "the officials (from DoD, CIA, etc.) said that Iraq had WMD,
had participated in the attack on Sep 11, had an active nuclear weapons
program, etc. So it was impossible for Congress, which relies of those
who brief it on what is going to tell the truth (which is why they have
closed door- and classified briefings)"

I agree but at the same time aren't those the same people who briefed
the President? If this is the case, why do so many people feel that
Bush is the only one culpable and not the Congress? It's a given the
intell was bad but there's a big difference between bad intell and out
and out lies. If this is indeed a case of manipulation of intell for a
personal agenda on the President's part than I would have thought
someone would have proved it and initiated action against him by now. On
the other hand, I have heard allegations of manipulation of data on the
part of some key players within the intell community but nothing
concrete.

Maybe I'm missing something but it appears as though there's a lot of
finger pointing in all directions with no real attempts at preventing or
correcting the problem.

See you later. Jerry

So you won't think it possible that the president got a different
briefing and then told the officials how to brief congress in order to
achieve what he wanted?

Invisible, that's a good question

It's not that I won't think that, it's that I don't think it. Is it
possible? Perhaps but is it probable or factual? I haven't seen
anything to prove that. I'm not prepared to convict a man of that type
of crime without proof.

Besides, if it had happened it would more than likely have come out by
now and contrary to what some may believe, I don't believe the President
is dumb and certainly not dumb enough to be a willing participant to a
lie of that magnitude.

I also don't believe those people briefing the president would have
changed thier briefings at his request nor would others present during
those briefings have allowed it to happen. Most notable of these being
former Sec State Powell.

I do believe it was possible for someone to influence the interpretation
of raw data several levels below the president but even if that had
happened and there were real concerns about the manipulation of raw
data, there would have been a huge outcry from the intell world. I just
feel we are looking more at errors than a great fraud. Perhaps I'm
wrong and I guess time will tell.

I'm only curious because I have the feeling that somebody wanted that
war badly, and I'm wondering who it was.
So in a way I'm sort of trying to eliminate possibilities.

Jerry, you are raising some very important questions. I'll try and
answer, to the extent that I know the answers...

I am drawing here on the several accounts and studies that have been
published in the last couple of years. I can post a list of them if
anyone wants.

Problems with the accurate flow of intel, associated with the Iraq
run-up.

1. The Bush administration was and is laced with senior neocon folks. (I
posted a list of them earlier today in one of these threads.) These are
the people who invented 'evidence' and sold it to whoever would listen:
the public, the media, Congress, etc. All of this is documented.

2. Within the intelligence community, the reality of what was going on
regarding Iraq, Sept 11, Israel, etc. seems to have been accurately
known by the analysts, who wrote often excellent findings and summaries
on all this.

3. There was a major effort on the part of the neocons to influence the
official findings of the intel community. They were sometimes able to do
this (especially when Hadley, Libby, Rumsfeld and Cheney came down on
them). Tenet was not up to the job of protecting his analysts and seeing
to it that the best intel actually got put before the president and
congress. Sometimes he did his job, at other times he bent, and at other
times he caved in.

4. Intel briefings for the president were first presented to the NSC
(Rice and Hadley) and Cheney (and to Libby). These all made sure that
the briefings were changed if they did not reflect the neocon line, so
that in the end the president only heard the neocon line.

5. Separately, we know that Cheney and to some extent Rice played to
Bush's personal insecurities and stiffened him when it came to 'fighting
them'. Rumsfeld wanted to make a big splash after 9/11, and was pretty
much ready to lash out at anyone, it didn't much matter. For instance,
he decided that attacking Afghanistan was 'not enough.'

So all the key people around Bush were pushing the neocon line or the
'bash the evil ones' line. Powell was the only senior person saying that
those lines were nonsense, and so Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice isolated
Powell, with the help of the neocons at the State Department, most
notably John Bolton.

6. Bush's isolation was, and is, so great that even his father cannot
get through. His father has been demonized by the neocons as the guy who
failed to complete the job in Iraq, and so relations between the two
bushes are extremely strained. They do not talk politics any more, at
Barbara Bush's insistence, so as not to ruin their family vacations.

7. There can be no doubt that by temperament Bush has major flaws that
played into this: he is a fairly ignorant person and not a curious one.
He surrounds himself with people who will make him feel good about
himself. He is a recovering alcoholic (who may have fallen off the wagon
recently) and drug user, and has a frail ego.

The President has learned to deliver lines in public that makes him
appear strong, determined, unwavering, etc. and views this as being
Presidential. The problem is that it also makes him easy to manipulate,
and, I believe, this is what has happened.

8. Slowly, Washington is fighting back against the dominance of the
neocons. Peter Pace has been fired, as well as his Number Two. Patraeus
has been put in to Iraq, though nothing cannot be done to 'win' -- if it
ever could. The 'war coordinator' has essentially said that we have
lost. Congress, Democrats and Republicans are now rebelling, slowly!
against the White House.

9. It is all over for the neocons and for the US occupation of Iraq. But
the neocons are still in power, and they still have Bush as their
mouthpiece, and Cheney, with David Wurmser now doing the neocon dirty
work in Cheney's office is still in there stiffening Bush's sense of
himself.

Gates is doing his best and as an excellent bureaucratic in-fighter is
gradually returning the DoD to some semblance of sanity and
accountability.

Elliott Abrams, perhaps the darkest figure in the neocon ranks, is
Bush's advisor on the Middle East, and recently Rice appointed another,

Eliott Cohen, to be her Middle East advisor. So while 'everyone' now
realizes the neocon vision was toxic and harmful to the US, the reality
is that there is still a struggle going in Washington for control of US
foreign policy.

But this is better than 3-6 years ago, when it was totally dominated by
the neocons and their critics in disarray. In the same way that
supporters of Israel call critics of Israel anti-Semitic, so the neocons
branded the critics of the global view unpatriotic.



Oceans

Invisible,

Well, you may be right that someone wanted that war badly. I feel the
same way but I'm coming from a different perspective than you.

From my perspective, I went to the desert for the first Gulf War and
every year thereafter for 3 - 6 months at a time in support of Northern
& Southern Watch. It was frustrating to say the least to go over there
and play a part in trying to get Saddam to comply with UNSCR's. I, like
many, was tired of playing with Saddam and wanted it to end. Several
times we threatened and in fact mobilized to go after him and each time
he would allow inspectors back into the country only to thwart them
after we stood down our forces. I thought, like many did, the push
before the war and his compliance with inspectors was simply more of the
same.

Throw in the 9/11 attacks and the erronious ties of AQ to Saddam, the
bad intel on WMD's and WMD programs and it doesn't take much to see why
people (including our leadership) would want this war and the end of
Saddam. I'm not saying it was right but it is at least understandable.

In retrospect, we would have been much better off continuing the
enforcement of the no fly zones and maintaining a policy of containment
but hind sight is much easier than the heat of the moment.

Jerry, a couple more notes re. your last post.

A. Powell was isolated and omitted deliberately from the briefings that
were arranged for Bush through Rice, Rumsfeld and Cheney's offices.
Tenet briefed the Pres and a small group of senior officials including
Powell each morning, but this is on the raw intelligence that came in
overnight, and served as an early warning for everyone on what the
latest flashpoint were.

The briefings that I talked about in my last post are those that
addressed policy issues and were prepared as decision-support documents
for Bush. It is from these briefings that Powell was excluded. Rice was
in earlier days a 'mentee' of Powell's, but she cut him loose when the
neocons came to dominate the White House and moved against Powell and
the State department. It caused a deep rupture in what had been a fairly
close friendship, and left a lot of people disgusted with Rice
personally.

B. You are right: very little is being to 'fix' the situation
structurally. In part this is because Bush and the neocons are viewed as
an aberration in US history. Generally, it is felt that the way intel
has been handled has been pretty good, though not perfect, of course.
The thinking is that when a President comes into power who with his team
(however it comes about) who is bent on taking the US to extreme
positions and is willing to exploit the natural trust of the American
people in their president to carry out actions that are against the
interests of the US -- the thinking is that there is little that can be
done to stop him. So people are hunkered down, stalling the President's
greatest blunders to the extent they can, and counting down to the
moment he leaves office, and those left behind have to undertake the
massive job of rebuilding the US and undoing the harm that the Bush
people have done.

It is my hope that they will be held accountable, but the country is so
exhausted dealing with their actions that they may be given a free pass.

Whew!

Oceans

Yes Jerry, my thinking is more in the line of money.
The money that was behind Bush in his election campaign, where it came
from and how it now comes back to haunt him.

Morning, Andrea!

Jerry is running my ass off.... I'm a sucker for good questions, I know!

Oceans

Good evening, because that's what it is here.


I hope my nagging questions in between don't disturb your flow

Oceans,

Thanks for your replies, I would like to see those reports or a link to
them if you have them handy. You can e-mail if you like.

It's not surprising that even members of the Republican party are
abandoning their relationships with the Pres. They are simply
practicing self preservation for their political careers.

I am having trouble understanding why these manipulations of Tenet's
intell briefings have not come to greater light. Seems if he or his
analysts had witnessed a falsification of the facts, they would have had
an obligation to report same. Or better yet, sell the story to someone.
It seems the dems would be scrambling to find proof of this and would
have published it if it were available.

There's also another thing that bugs me about this. If one believes
what you say is true then it almost (and I want to emphasize almost)
means that one must believe in the government's culpability and at least
prior knowledge if not the orchestration of the 911 attacks since they
were the event that preceeded the GWOT. I'm simply not prepared to make
that connection. Of course, it could be argued that the attacks were
simply an opportunity after the fact but it just doesn't seem to fit.


Well, gotta run. It's feed bag time but I'll be back.

Oceans, Exercise is good for you, keep running...

Invisible, I can see how you might have come to that conclusion.
Personally, I know next to nothing about contributions received but your
idea makes as much sense as mine does.

Andrea, not at all, and they aren't nagging -- they enrich the issues we
are trying to understand. I was hoping that I was responding to some of
them in my postings on Jerry's queries.

This really is a situation where more brains are better tahn one, and
with you in Ireland and Jerry in Malta, andothers elsewhere, it helps
bring different perspectives to the discussion, to say nothing about our
different histories and areas of interest.

I just refuse to send flowers to Jerry.



Oceans