Ex-Spies: CIA Workers Outraged

[zimv20]

link

(CBS)_Before the bombs fell on Baghdad, there were analysts inside the American intelligence community who were troubled by the U.S. case for war, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Acosta.

Raymond McGovern, a former CIA analyst and supervisor, says, "Never before in my 40 years of experience in this town has intelligence been used in so cynical and so orchestrated a way."

McGovern is one of several retired intelligence analysts who say they are speaking out for those who can't inside the CIA.

* U.S. intelligence and senior administration officials admit there has been little new evidence about Iraq's weapons program in the five years since U.N. inspectors left Iraq, the New York Times reports.

* White House officials said Friday that President Bush and his national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, did not entirely read the most authoritative prewar assessment of U.S. intelligence on Iraq, missing a State Department claim that an allegation Bush would later use in his State of the Union address was "highly dubious," the Washington Post reports.

* Even as the Bush administration concluded Iraq was reviving its nuclear weapons program, key signs — such as scientific data of weapons work and evidence of research by Iraq's nuclear experts — were missing, several former intelligence officials tell the Associated Press.

(emphasis mine)

[bobindashadows]

Originally posted by zimv20

Come on man, nobody puts stock in what these newspapers say! They're a joke! These three are some of the most blatantly and openly biased against Bush. Not, not just republicans, Bush. These are the newspapers who predicted we wouldn't make it out of Afghanistan, because it was a quagmire, and then the NYT had to print an article on the back pages of World News entitled "Surprise: War Works After All". A comparison for the diehard liberals - they're as reliable as the White House .

As for the beginning stuff - I personally don't know the reliability of CBS, but it seems interesting. I don't know if they're any more liberal than ABC or NBC. God knows they aren't as biased as CNN, though, so there's room to grow.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by bobindashadows

Come on man, nobody puts stock in what these newspapers say! They're a joke! These three are some of the most blatantly and openly biased against Bush.

i can't tell if you're kidding.

[zimv20]

link

The White House, in the run-up to war in Iraq, did not seek CIA approval before charging that Saddam Hussein could launch a biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes, administration officials now say.

The claim, which has since been discredited, was made twice by President Bush, in a September Rose Garden appearance after meeting with lawmakers and in a Saturday radio address the same week. Bush attributed the claim to the British government, but in a "Global Message" issued Sept. 26 and still on the White House Web site, the White House claimed, without attribution, that Iraq "could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given."

[bobindashadows]

Originally posted by zimv20
i can't tell if you're kidding.

Dude... you haven't figured out that the New York Times and Washington Post are biased? They hate conservatives, Bush most of all. I don't know why - Rush Limbaugh says it's because President Bush is certain about what he wants done, and there aren't enough shades of grey. I don't know. For the most part, the only people who don't know the NYT is one of the most liberally biased newspapers in America have only been watching CNN and reading the NYT. It's hard to escape the facts. If you'd like, I can present evidence of their bias, but it's early so I won't volunteer it right now. I already pointed out how they tried to turn public opinion against the war in Afghanistan by relating it to Vietnam, and saying it was going to take years as a quagmire.

[zimv20]

guess you're not kidding.

all of the media has bias, especially on the op/ed pages. for the NYT, you've got both paul krugman and william safire writing op/ed. i don't consider safire liberal.

the post supported the war.

you've highlighted the journalistic sources in the piece i quoted. i'll go back and highlight _their_ sources:

* U.S. intelligence and senior administration officials admit there has been little new evidence about Iraq's weapons program in the five years since U.N. inspectors left Iraq, the New York Times reports.

* White House officials said Friday that President Bush and his national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, did not entirely read the most authoritative prewar assessment of U.S. intelligence on Iraq, missing a State Department claim that an allegation Bush would later use in his State of the Union address was "highly dubious," the Washington Post reports.

* Even as the Bush administration concluded Iraq was reviving its nuclear weapons program, key signs — such as scientific data of weapons work and evidence of research by Iraq's nuclear experts — were missing, several former intelligence officials tell the Associated Press.

those aren't op/ed pieces cited. that's reporting.

[bobindashadows]

Originally posted by zimv20
guess you're not kidding.

all of the media has bias, especially on the op/ed pages. for the NYT, you've got both paul krugman and william safire writing op/ed. i don't consider safire liberal.

the post supported the war.

you've highlighted the journalistic sources in the piece i quoted. i'll go back and highlight _their_ sources:



those aren't op/ed pieces cited. that's reporting.

The Washington Post and New York Times have all been known to hide behind "anonymous White House tipsters" and unnamed officials. Sorry dude - I'm one mind that will never open to the New York Times. Liberal bias is far from reserved to the op/eds, as you have stated.

However, not all media has liberal bias - in my area we have local newspapers who are slightly tilted to the right, one moderate one, and there is the Fox News Channel. While they say they're fair and balanced, they know they have a right bias. But, at least they make an effort to avoid bias and keep things balanced. Sure Bill O' Reilly, the scourge of the universe to liberals, is a Republican and has a right bias. But he does present only the facts in his arguments.

[zimv20]

do you have any opinion of the subject of the reporting? e.g. what if it's true?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by bobindashadows
The Washington Post and New York Times have all been known to hide behind "anonymous White House tipsters" and unnamed officials. Sorry dude - I'm one mind that will never open to the New York Times. Liberal bias is far from reserved to the op/eds, as you have stated.

However, not all media has liberal bias - in my area we have local newspapers who are slightly tilted to the right, one moderate one, and there is the Fox News Channel. While they say they're fair and balanced, they know they have a right bias. But, at least they make an effort to avoid bias and keep things balanced. Sure Bill O' Reilly, the scourge of the universe to liberals, is a Republican and has a right bias. But he does present only the facts in his arguments.

Are you suggesting that only the right-leaning news sources make an effort to be "fair and balanced"? Or that a right-of-center news organization has never quoted "unnamed white house tipsters"?

[mcrain]

Originally posted by bobindashadows
I don't know why - Rush Limbaugh says it's because President Bush is certain about what he wants done, and there aren't enough shades of grey. I don't know.

Dude, that has to be one of the funniest things I've read in a long, long time. You're basis for your assertion that the NY Times and Washington post are biased is the reporting of Rush Limbaugh? Ha, that's rich. Rush is admittedly so biased that he doesn't even report news. He's an "entertainment" program (thus avoiding regulation of political advertising).

So, b/c Rush, an admittedly biased source, says that other sources that at least try to report news are biased, you claim that what they report must therefore be biased, and should not be taken as true, or at a minimum accurate reporting.

[mod. edit - Borderline insult.]

[IJ Reilly]

A friend of mine, a retired member of a federal intelligence agency, told me this weekend about the increasingly angry buzz brewing in the intelligence community over the way the intelligence agencies have been used and abused by the Bush administration. They have to be especially steamed by the administration's efforts to blame the CIA for the President's ill-chosen words. The intelligence agencies are not exactly packed with liberals; but just the same, they are getting pretty furious with this White House and their scapegoating policy.

This is actually happening. What's truly disheartening to me is to find some people trying to fog the issue by making charges of media bias, rather than facing the issues.

[macfan]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
A friend of mine, a retired member of a federal intelligence agency, told me this weekend about the increasingly angry buzz brewing in the intelligence community over the way the intelligence agencies have been used and abused by the Bush administration. They have to be especially steamed by the administration's efforts to blame the CIA for the President's ill-chosen words. The intelligence agencies are not exactly packed with liberals; but just the same, they are getting pretty furious with this White House and their scapegoating policy.

This is actually happening. What's truly disheartening to me is to find some people trying to fog the issue by making charges of media bias, rather than facing the issues.

They may also be mad because other intelligence agencies (DIA? NSA?) are cutting in on their turf.

They should be mad at themselves for failing to stop 9/11. That's what they are paid to do, and they failed miserably at it. Having failed to predict such events as the fall of the Soviet Union and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the CIA should be somewhat more introspective, IMO.

The furor over the Niger-uranium flap is much ado about nothing, or at least about not very much.

mcrain,
There is nothing at all related to political advertising regulation and radio or television talk shows. Rush could claim to be a serious political commentator, and there would be no different regulation of his program.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by macfan
They may also be mad because other intelligence agencies (DIA? NSA?) are cutting in on their turf.

They should be mad at themselves for failing to stop 9/11. That's what they are paid to do, and they failed miserably at it.

Well, most of the planning/training/organisation of the attacks were done inside the US.

It wasn't the CIA that failed; every and any agency (FBI, Customs, INS, DOJ, etc) weren't equipped to interact with one another in such a way as to prevent 9/11.

The sad part is that the Dept. of Homeland Security, which was established to address such shortcomings, isn't effective either.

The Hart Commission told the executive what it needed to do; it didn't; it hasn't; we're still vulnerable.

[IJ Reilly]

Come now, let's not let the facts of the matter get in the way of a nice healthy round of scapegoating, which is always more politically satisfying then taking responsibility, and actually trying to fix problems.

[mactastic]

I wonder who the Poindexter will be this time around.

[macfan]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Well, most of the planning/training/organisation of the attacks were done inside the US.

It wasn't the CIA that failed; every and any agency (FBI, Customs, INS, DOJ, etc) weren't equipped to interact with one another in such a way as to prevent 9/11.

The sad part is that the Dept. of Homeland Security, which was established to address such shortcomings, isn't effective either.

The Hart Commission told the executive what it needed to do; it didn't; it hasn't; we're still vulnerable.

Homeland security has been effective so far. You can check out After by Steven Brill for a take that disputes the claim that homeland security isn't effective.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by macfan
Homeland security has been effective so far. You can check out After by Steven Brill for a take that disputes the claim that homeland security isn't effective.

If homeland security was so good, why were we so concerned about Saddam's ability to hurt us, and why did we need to raise the alert levels so many times over the last year or so? Or is it because homeland security is so good that we don't need to fund the first responders and hospitals, police, firefighters, etc.?

[macfan]

I said it has been effective so far. If your interested in the arguments that it has been successful, read the book.

The lack of any successful attacks on the homeland indicates that it has been effective.

An interesting question about Saddam. Taking Saddam out now removed a threat. Security isn't just defensive. It's also proactive.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by mactastic
why did we need to raise the alert levels so many times over the last year or so?

that was done to keep the public frightened during the run-up to the war. how often has it been adjusted since? not nearly as much.

clearly, the WH has toned it down to imply that invading iraq has cut down on the short-term terrorist threat in the US. it's so transparent it's laughable.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by macfan
I said it has been effective so far. If your interested in the arguments that it has been successful, read the book.

The lack of any successful attacks on the homeland indicates that it has been effective.

An interesting question about Saddam. Taking Saddam out now removed a threat. Security isn't just defensive. It's also proactive.

Proactive, based on solid evidence, would be fine.

Your arguement about the effectiveness of homeland security is fine until there is another attack, which everone agrees is virtually inevitable. The DC snipers are being charged under the terrorist act, I suppose you could say they were successful terrorists that homeland security failed to stop. There was that guy who shot up the ElAl ticket counter at LAX. He wasn't officially labeled a terrorist by the government, but I think he could have been tried as a terrorist if he had lived. The ports are still wide open, airlines are only requiring checked luggage to be screened, some homeless guy camped out in a plane while it was on the tarmac, people have flown thousands of miles with a gun before being caught. I think you are putting way to much faith in homeland security.

[macfan]

...airlines are only requiring checked luggage to be screened...

Huh? What airlines are you flying?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by macfan
Huh? What airlines are you flying?

The goal is to have everything that goes into the belly of an airplane, including mail, screened, but I don't think that goal has been met yet. If that's not accurate then I appoligze, ignore that part of my previous post.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by macfan
Homeland security has been effective so far.

Just as the security net used before the establishment of the Dept. was effective so far as 9/10/01.

[macfan]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Just as the security net used before the establishment of the Dept. was effective so far as 9/10/01.

Nope, it was effective so far as of 2/25/1993.

[mactastic]

Hey, it was effective up till 12/6/41 also, and between 2/27/93 and 9/10/01. It's those few days that change things though. I think your argument that homeland security is hunky-dory is disingenuous. Would you bet your career that another attack on US soil is impossible? I wouldn't.

And as far as luggage goes, I was under the impression that the government had said it was ok to use bag matching as a method of screening for luggage that goes into the cargo area, meaning as long as each bag matches someone on the plane, that counts as screened. I may be wrong here, but I haven't heard of this being rectified yet.