Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: New WMD evidence may be surfacing...  (Read 2900 times)

The ZAPINATOR

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6380
    • MSN Messenger - N/A
    • AOL Instant Messenger - N/A
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - N/A
    • View Profile
    • N/A
edit
« Reply #20 on: July 23, 2004, 02:42:31 PM »
edit

buster

  • Guest
Re: New WMD evidence may be surfacing...
« Reply #21 on: July 23, 2004, 02:48:59 PM »
ZAP, I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but the committee explicitly agreed not to examine this issue. Even if some evidence of the sort of pressure I'm alluding to jumped out at them, they would not have pursued it for the purposes of assembling this particular report. The report was about the intelligence produced by the CIA. Big giant period.

You'd think that if there was clear evidence about that, it would have jumped right out at the committee whether they were looking for it or not.  Maybe not.  But I certainly don't think it could have been overlooked if it existed, whether or not they were looking for it.  And since the basic idea was to get to the bottom of the intelligence failures, that's a fundamental tenet of the intelligence failures if it was occurring.  I'm sure you wouldn't disagree with that statement. 

On the other hand, I do understand what you're saying, and I actually thought about it as soon as I read it... he doesn't say it didn't happen, just that there was no evidence of it having happened, and you don't find evidence unless you're looking.  Point taken.  But I think that because of the scope, looking into the CIA and intelligence community to figure out why these intelligence failures were occurring, I have to conclude that something as over-the-top as pressure to find a justification for already-beating war drums would have been painfully obvious, and is something the committee would have definitely highlighted.  Remember, the big surprise to people on the left in all this has been that both presidents got off so easy.  That wouldn't have been the case if there was clear and convincing evidence that they were trying pressure the CIA to twist the facts so they could make a case for a war they already had their hearts set on fighting.

ZAP

buster

  • Guest
Re: New WMD evidence may be surfacing...
« Reply #22 on: July 23, 2004, 02:53:18 PM »
I'm not even trying to make a partisan point here. All I'm saying (well, maybe not all, but my general point) is that we should be very careful when we discuss the conclusions of these reports to understand their purpose and the manner and context in which they were assembled.

ZAP, I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but the committee explicitly agreed not to examine this issue. Even if some evidence of the sort of pressure I'm alluding to jumped out at them, they would not have pursued it for the purposes of assembling this particular report. The report was about the intelligence produced by the CIA. Big giant period.

You'd think that if there was clear evidence about that, it would have jumped right out at the committee whether they were looking for it or not.  Maybe not.  But I certainly don't think it could have been overlooked if it existed, whether or not they were looking for it.  And since the basic idea was to get to the bottom of the intelligence failures, that's a fundamental tenet of the intelligence failures if it was occurring.  I'm sure you wouldn't disagree with that statement. 

On the other hand, I do understand what you're saying, and I actually thought about it as soon as I read it... he doesn't say it didn't happen, just that there was no evidence of it having happened, and you don't find evidence unless you're looking.  Point taken.  But I think that because of the scope, looking into the CIA and intelligence community to figure out why these intelligence failures were occurring, I have to conclude that something as over-the-top as pressure to find a justification for already-beating war drums would have been painfully obvious, and is something the committee would have definitely highlighted.  Remember, the big surprise to people on the left in all this has been that both presidents got off so easy.  That wouldn't have been the case if there was clear and convincing evidence that they were trying pressure the CIA to twist the facts so they could make a case for a war they already had their hearts set on fighting.

ZAP

The ZAPINATOR

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6380
    • MSN Messenger - N/A
    • AOL Instant Messenger - N/A
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - N/A
    • View Profile
    • N/A
edit
« Reply #23 on: July 23, 2004, 03:03:27 PM »
edit

buster

  • Guest
Re: New WMD evidence may be surfacing...
« Reply #24 on: July 23, 2004, 03:51:20 PM »
In that case we can't rely on the committee to give us any information about this issue, period.  It doesn't make any sense to me why they'd agree to skip this issue altogether... I find that counter-intuitive.  And especially if evidence of this sort jumped out at them, it would be almost criminal to ignore it.  

From what I have read, both sides wanted to conduct the inquiry, but the Republicans didn't want to explore the administration side of the issue because they were concerned about the potential negative impact on the Bush campaign (or partisanship in general, if you want to be generous). The two sides agreed to compromise by splitting the inquiry into discrete parts. I don't agree with that decision, but I recognize the logic behind it and I don't see any reason to question their conclusions regarding the issues they actually examined (i.e CIA intelligence-gathering).

I still have no reason not to think Bush isn't being hunted by partisans, just like Clinton was hunted by partisans.

But do you have reason to think that Bush is being hunted by partisans in the way that Clinton was?

I've heard a lot of hearsay, but again, you have to consider the sources, which have been without exception on the left.

Many of the sources have been anonymous intelligence analysts. Such sources should obviously be taken with a grain of salt, but I don't think you can say that the sources "have been without exception on the left."

Feel free to give the administration the benefit of the doubt. That's a perfectly valid perspective. But don't assume that a commission which was not designed to examine their actions has any legitimate ability to judge those actions one way or the other.

neverends

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
Re: New WMD evidence may be surfacing...
« Reply #25 on: July 23, 2004, 07:56:14 PM »
Till then, I'll continue my optimism, and keep assuming the president was trying to act in America's best interest, whether or not mistakes were made.

ZAP  

Bush is a Christian Zionist and believes it is his personal responsibility to bring about the destruction of the earth; stay optimistic!

***notice no comma splice***

it's coming...