"We went to war for reasons of ideology and polity and we were counting on the fact that once we'd won the war we'd discover weapons of mass destruction within minutes. Sorry.
We're sorry also that we had to paint the UN inspectors as incompetents and that we discounted the first-hand intelligence they gave us, and that we didn't give them time to do their job properly - it's just that we really, really wanted to go to war. Sorry. Sorry about that."
Just after a thread was started about passing the buck!
This is too much . . . Perle and Wollfowitz wrote the book (Pax Americana Doctrine) that layed out the plans for the Iraq invasion . . . they pushed it at all costs . . . Wollfowitz even admitted to playing up the WMD aspect in order to build a better case to the American Public . . .
Oh but let me guess . .. dismiss all this with a "bush basher" epithet . . .
its a Vaudeville act . . . a bunch of schlemiels tripping over themselves!
I just wonder what the heads of the CIA and DIA are going to say in response. I doubt they are willing to fall on their respective swords for Pearle...will they do it for Bush?
The irony is that Perle et al. were criticizing the intelligence people for not making strong enough statements about Saddam's WMD. It was Perle that believed there were more than what the CIA was saying. Now he wants them to resign? It just makes no sense.
It makes PERFECT sense to me actually. It's the process of getting rid of those who passed out the "faulty"(allegedly) intel while looking good(read strong homeland security--the natives love these 3 words) in the process.
Remove heads of "bad" intel---->look good in doing so..."tightening up intel", "strenghthening and improving homeland security"---->appoint more ideologically like-minded directors.
Isn't Perle the one referred to as the Prince of Darkness?
Any discussion about Iraq intel is only relevant insofar as the focus is squarely on the Office of Special Plans, the Office of the VP and the AEI folks like Perle. While major reform is needed in national intelligence, the changes that need to be made are not obvious to people without knowledge of how it all works and how the various agencies are run.
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
"Passing the buck" argument aside, does anyone think that after an intelligence calamity like this that Tenet should actually remain at his post?
Bush. Why do you think he's still there?
As John Young of cryptome.org recently posted on one of the intel lists:
Quote:
Bear in mind that Tenet's career has not been in intelligence but in staffing for notable persons, that is, seeing that his employer's career is advanced. This subservient skill has been exhibited in service to Clinton and Bush.
Tenet's suppression of independent thinking makes him appealing to employers, especially those who are sensitive to rank and lack themselves an independet mind and prefer consensus action. Call this the bureaucratic mentality, or corporate, or family, or church. In any case, it is not the thinking of dissent or rocking the boat or going out on a limb.
To be sure, not many intelligence officers deviate from comfortable thinking of the crowd, and certainly not heads of intelligence agencies, nearly all of whom rose to the top by way of obsequiousness toward those who needed protection from their competitors.
Nothing strange about this: intelligence affairs are seldom different from the affairs of the culture which allows intelligence to be an inherent component.
The issue is how much intelligence should deviate from reassuring that all is well despite threats, and rattle the cage of a culture, or worse, become so negligent (spiteful and resentful about mistreatment) that a successful attack can occur, as with 9-11 and precursor failures.
Tenet has proven to be adept at pleasing his employers, hardly unique in government, and a failure at leadership, hardly unique among senior government officials. Firing him is a no-brainer, though that is a favorite method of exculpating others complicit in a national disaster.
What is peculiar about 9-11 is that not a single official has been punished for failing to prevent the attack. An amazing diffusion of accountability has taken place, of which the invasion of Iraq is a part. Instead of being punished, the US national security enterprise, governement and business and punditry, has become wealthier and larger, led by the same people in place on 9-11.
It is to be wondered who has most benefited from 9-11. Intelligence certainly has not, on the contrary it has gained a new life just when it seemed on its way to being a reasonable and subservient part of US culture after 50 years of secret criminal abuse with little accountability to the public, but wholly in thrall to its immediate superiors.
Forget independent thinking and courageous dissent, not at the top, not anywhere in the intel bureaucracy. Fire Tenet and there are many eager replacements for overly protected positions for peddling the drug of secrecy.
Oh, and to add to one of those points, discussions of intel on Iraq also need to focus on the administration's abuse and contortion of the factual information it had.
"I think, of course, heads should roll," he said. "When you discover that you have an organization that doesn't get it right time after time, you change the organization, including the people.
"I'd start with the head head," Perle said when asked which heads should roll at the CIA. Perle said the DIA " is in at least as bad shape as CIA (and) needs new management."
Pot, meet kettle.
Sounds like exactly the case many Democrats are making.
When you discover that you have an Administration that doesn't get it right time after time...
Comments
"We went to war for reasons of ideology and polity and we were counting on the fact that once we'd won the war we'd discover weapons of mass destruction within minutes. Sorry.
We're sorry also that we had to paint the UN inspectors as incompetents and that we discounted the first-hand intelligence they gave us, and that we didn't give them time to do their job properly - it's just that we really, really wanted to go to war. Sorry. Sorry about that."
Just after a thread was started about passing the buck!
This is too much . . . Perle and Wollfowitz wrote the book (Pax Americana Doctrine) that layed out the plans for the Iraq invasion . . . they pushed it at all costs . . . Wollfowitz even admitted to playing up the WMD aspect in order to build a better case to the American Public . . .
Oh but let me guess . .. dismiss all this with a "bush basher" epithet . . .
its a Vaudeville act . . . a bunch of schlemiels tripping over themselves!
Remove heads of "bad" intel---->look good in doing so..."tightening up intel", "strenghthening and improving homeland security"---->appoint more ideologically like-minded directors.
Isn't Perle the one referred to as the Prince of Darkness?
Originally posted by rageous
"Passing the buck" argument aside, does anyone think that after an intelligence calamity like this that Tenet should actually remain at his post?
Bush. Why do you think he's still there?
As John Young of cryptome.org recently posted on one of the intel lists:
Bear in mind that Tenet's career has not been in intelligence but in staffing for notable persons, that is, seeing that his employer's career is advanced. This subservient skill has been exhibited in service to Clinton and Bush.
Tenet's suppression of independent thinking makes him appealing to employers, especially those who are sensitive to rank and lack themselves an independet mind and prefer consensus action. Call this the bureaucratic mentality, or corporate, or family, or church. In any case, it is not the thinking of dissent or rocking the boat or going out on a limb.
To be sure, not many intelligence officers deviate from comfortable thinking of the crowd, and certainly not heads of intelligence agencies, nearly all of whom rose to the top by way of obsequiousness toward those who needed protection from their competitors.
Nothing strange about this: intelligence affairs are seldom different from the affairs of the culture which allows intelligence to be an inherent component.
The issue is how much intelligence should deviate from reassuring that all is well despite threats, and rattle the cage of a culture, or worse, become so negligent (spiteful and resentful about mistreatment) that a successful attack can occur, as with 9-11 and precursor failures.
Tenet has proven to be adept at pleasing his employers, hardly unique in government, and a failure at leadership, hardly unique among senior government officials. Firing him is a no-brainer, though that is a favorite method of exculpating others complicit in a national disaster.
What is peculiar about 9-11 is that not a single official has been punished for failing to prevent the attack. An amazing diffusion of accountability has taken place, of which the invasion of Iraq is a part. Instead of being punished, the US national security enterprise, governement and business and punditry, has become wealthier and larger, led by the same people in place on 9-11.
It is to be wondered who has most benefited from 9-11. Intelligence certainly has not, on the contrary it has gained a new life just when it seemed on its way to being a reasonable and subservient part of US culture after 50 years of secret criminal abuse with little accountability to the public, but wholly in thrall to its immediate superiors.
Forget independent thinking and courageous dissent, not at the top, not anywhere in the intel bureaucracy. Fire Tenet and there are many eager replacements for overly protected positions for peddling the drug of secrecy.
Originally posted by giant
Bush. Why do you think he's still there?
Obviously. I meant anyone participating in this thread...
Originally posted by rageous
Obviously. I meant anyone participating in this thread...
There's still time to catch the points I made.
"I think, of course, heads should roll," he said. "When you discover that you have an organization that doesn't get it right time after time, you change the organization, including the people.
"I'd start with the head head," Perle said when asked which heads should roll at the CIA. Perle said the DIA " is in at least as bad shape as CIA (and) needs new management."
Pot, meet kettle.
Sounds like exactly the case many Democrats are making.
When you discover that you have an Administration that doesn't get it right time after time...
This guy is a joke. Prince of the NEOCONS.
Originally posted by rageous
"Passing the buck" argument aside, does anyone think that after an intelligence calamity like this that Tenet should actually remain at his post?
In all honesty, what calamity?