Tom Kunich is always right

From:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...5E2703,00.html

US spies were 'dead wrong' on Iraq
April 02, 2005

US spy agencies were "dead wrong" in their assessment of Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction, an independent presidential commission report has
found.

The 600-page report also warns that the US remains vulnerable because
"disturbingly little" is known about the nuclear programs of its most
dangerous adversaries.

"While the intelligence services of many other nations also thought
that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, in the end it was the US
that put its credibility on the line, making this one of the most
public -- and most damaging -- intelligence failures in recent American
history," the report found.

The report is the latest recognition of the intelligence failures among
Western allies ahead of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but like Australia's
former intelligence chief Philip Flood's report into the failures of
Australia's intelligence agencies, the US's WMD commission clears the
Bush administration of heavying agencies to produce intelligence to
justify the Iraq invasion.

"After a thorough review, the commission found no indication that the
intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction," the report said.

"What the intelligence professionals told (President George W. Bush)
about Saddam Hussein's programs was what they believed. They were
simply wrong."

But it hinted the administration's strong rhetoric on Iraq and its
weapons in the lead-up to the war could have had a self-fulfilling
effect in the mind of the agencies' operatives, noting: "It is hard to
deny the conclusion that intelligence analysts worked in an environment
that did not encourage scepticism about the conventional wisdom."

That issue and just how the Bush administration used the bogus
intelligence to support its invasion was not explored further in the
report -- an omission that drew criticism from Democrats.

Democrat Senate leader Harry Reid said the report was "notable for the
ground it covers and the ground it does not". "While the report appears
to be a serious review of the deficiencies of US intelligence agencies,
it apparently fails to review an equally important aspect of our
national security policymaking process -- how policymakers use the
intelligence.

"I believe it is essential that we hold both the intelligence agencies
and senior policymakers accountable for their actions."

He added that a Senate intelligence committee had committed to
investigate whether Bush administration officials misused intelligence
and "the failure of the report issued today to examine this important
issue only serves to increase the need for the chairman to keep that
commitment".

The report's authors said the possibility that intelligence analysts
were pressured by policymakers to change their judgments about Iraq's
nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs was "closely
examined". "The analysts who worked Iraqi weapons issues universally
agreed that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or
alter any of their analytical judgments."

The commission, which conducted its year-long investigation in secrecy,
recommended sweeping changes for the US's disparate intelligence
agencies, including strengthening the powers of the newly created
Director of National Intelligence to pull agencies, including the CIA,
the Pentagon and even the FBI, under its yoke.

The recommendations are likely to meet fierce resistance from the
agencies, which the commission, chaired by retired judge Laurence
Silberman, a Republican, and former Democratic senator Charles Robb of
Virginia, recognised "is a closed world, and many insiders admitted to
us that it has an almost perfect record of resisting external
recommendations".

The report found that, in the lead-up to war, the agencies "collected
precious little intelligence for the analysts to analyse, and much of
what they did collect was either worthless or misleading".

It contains 74 recommendations for improving US intelligence and, in a
press conference yesterday, Mr Bush, flanked by Mr Silberman and Mr
Robb, said he had directed Homeland Secretary adviser Fran Townsend to
review the commission's findings.

"To win the war on terror, we will correct what needs to be fixed, and
build on what the commission calls solid intelligence successes," Mr
Bush said.For full report: www.wmd.gov

In article .com,
"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote:

From:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...727901%255E270
3,00.html

(snipper)

"To win the war on terror, we will correct what needs to be fixed, and
build on what the commission calls solid intelligence successes," Mr
Bush said.For full report: www.wmd.gov


http://www.ericumansky.com/2005/03/the_most_import.html

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard Kveck wrote:
In article .com,
"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote:

From:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...727901%255E270
3,00.html

(snipper)

"To win the war on terror, we will correct what needs to be fixed,
and
build on what the commission calls solid intelligence successes,"
Mr
Bush said.For full report: www.wmd.gov


http://www.ericumansky.com/2005/03/the_most_import.html

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Yep, but the intel was still ****. The best bit I've seen on this goes
into the idea that the intel wasn't intentionally cooked, but there was
so much pressure from the Whitehouse to produce a specific result that,
of course, it happened. The product being produced has been **** since
the Church Commission and Carter's hatred for collecting HUMINT and his
gutting of that part of our capabilities which is what's really killing
us right now. If Ted Kenneady had any integrity he'd stand up and take
the blame for this. He's spent 30 years doing everything he could to
gut the intelligence community. Bush Sr. gets a bow for being a really
lousy CIA director, then screwing the NSA over when he took became
president. ****load of blame to go around, and noone that I'd trust to
even beging to fix the mess. The system is flat out broken and has been
for a long time. So is the Pentagon, that just hasn't hit the mainstrem
headlines yet but it's coming.
Bill C

either they were dead wrong, or someone was lying to build a case for
attacking Iraq.

Either one sucks. At least we can profit from the nation being sold on
"dead wrong". That way we can bet on increased spending through
defense/intelligence contractors. I'm gonna bet my 2005 ROTH
contribution on CSC.

gym.gravity wrote:
either they were dead wrong, or someone was lying to build a case for
attacking Iraq.

Either one sucks. At least we can profit from the nation being sold
on
"dead wrong". That way we can bet on increased spending through
defense/intelligence contractors. I'm gonna bet my 2005 ROTH
contribution on CSC.

It's already happening and headed right off the scale, even compared to
previous Pentagon spending sprees. As usual 2/3 of the **** is useless
or they had to slash the specs to get it accepted too.
There was a New York Times article that cited Pentagon figures of, I
think, $73 billion, projected over the next few years. I can't find the
article now but it was in the last week or so. They pointed out that
most of the technology and systems being purchased were either based on
untested, or even technology in the first stages of r&d. Given the
Pentagon's track record of understatimg costs by a factor of 2 or 3,
they were betting the actual cost, just for what's on the board now
would be $200-$300 billion.
If that isn't obscene, nothing is. Especially considering most of the
latest and greatest **** like the Osprey flat out doesn't work, and the
Apache helicopter has a combat readiness of around 35% when they
attempt to use them for combat operations.
Rumsfeld is busy engineering and creating the biggest disaster in US
military history. We're already seeing it with the recruiting figures,
lack of basic equipment and training. Then we have training flights,
range time, exercises etc. being cancelled due to lack of funding,
because those budgets have been siphoned off to pay for combat
operations, and to keep all of their new pet purchasing on track.
Unfortunately a lot of the people being paid to supply stuff are
woefully inadequate at best, but have good connections so they get to
keep exclusive contracts to produce things like armor for humvees.
Unfortunately they don't even have close to the production capability
to give us what we need, and anyway Rummy really doesn't give a ****
how many grunts die as long as he and his buddies can keep looting the
treasury. All of you people who have been watching Cheney have been
watching the wrong guy. Not saying I trust Cheney, but Rummy is
stealing a whole hell of a lot more.
Bill C

Bill C wrote:
gym.gravity wrote:
either they were dead wrong, or someone was lying to build a case
for
attacking Iraq.

Either one sucks. At least we can profit from the nation being
sold
on
"dead wrong". That way we can bet on increased spending through
defense/intelligence contractors. I'm gonna bet my 2005 ROTH
contribution on CSC.

It's already happening and headed right off the scale, even compared
to
previous Pentagon spending sprees. As usual 2/3 of the **** is
useless
or they had to slash the specs to get it accepted too.
There was a New York Times article that cited Pentagon figures of, I
think, $73 billion, projected over the next few years. I can't find
the
article now but it was in the last week or so. They pointed out that
most of the technology and systems being purchased were either based
on
untested, or even technology in the first stages of r&d. Given the
Pentagon's track record of understatimg costs by a factor of 2 or 3,
they were betting the actual cost, just for what's on the board now
would be $200-$300 billion.
If that isn't obscene, nothing is. Especially considering most of
the
latest and greatest **** like the Osprey flat out doesn't work, and
the
Apache helicopter has a combat readiness of around 35% when they
attempt to use them for combat operations.
Rumsfeld is busy engineering and creating the biggest disaster in US
military history. We're already seeing it with the recruiting
figures,
lack of basic equipment and training. Then we have training flights,
range time, exercises etc. being cancelled due to lack of funding,
because those budgets have been siphoned off to pay for combat
operations, and to keep all of their new pet purchasing on track.
Unfortunately a lot of the people being paid to supply stuff are
woefully inadequate at best, but have good connections so they get to
keep exclusive contracts to produce things like armor for humvees.
Unfortunately they don't even have close to the production capability
to give us what we need, and anyway Rummy really doesn't give a ****
how many grunts die as long as he and his buddies can keep looting
the
treasury. All of you people who have been watching Cheney have been
watching the wrong guy. Not saying I trust Cheney, but Rummy is
stealing a whole hell of a lot more.
Bill C

Just wanted to add, before we get started on the Times, that there are
plenty of other sources with a totally different take than the Times
reporting the same stuff.
Bill C

In article .com,
"Bill C" wrote:

All of you people who have been watching Cheney have been
watching the wrong guy. Not saying I trust Cheney, but Rummy is
stealing a whole hell of a lot more.
Bill C

What makes you think they aren't working together?

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard Kveck wrote:
In article .com,
"Bill C" wrote:

All of you people who have been watching Cheney have been
watching the wrong guy. Not saying I trust Cheney, but Rummy is
stealing a whole hell of a lot more.
Bill C

What makes you think they aren't working together?

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Wouldn't surprise me at all Howard. The only things coming out of this
Pentagon that wouls shock me are honesty, good decisions, and good
planning. Here are a few high spots lately:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H217122DA
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z537232DA
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X147412DA
And for another interesting site:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/index.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...ker-report.htm
Lots that isn't from the Times. Very little of this information is
making it to the mainstream press, but professional military and
security types are amazed at what they are seeing for the most part.
Really isn't a surprise from the guy who brought us Gerry Ford's
military. To be fair to Carter he inherited a totally screwed up
military from the top down.
Bill C