A simple question?

[kentuck]

or two...?

Since everyone says that the Bush Administration got "bad intelligence" before the invasion of Iraq, what changed that should make us believe them now??

Even with the plea bargain of a former CIA Director (David Betrayeus), what has changed with the Intelligence Departments that would make them more credible today?

[Nite Owl]

1. Hey, you aren't supposed

to put 2+2 together and get 4. Everyone knows it's 3.

Your supposed to believe it is better now.

[annabanana]

2. They got the "intelligence" they asked for.

And Boulton worked especially hard for.

[madamesilverspurs]

3. They didn't "get" bad intelligence.

If memory serves, it went kinda like this:

1. Shrubdick manufactures “intelligence”.
2. Shrubdick gives the fake intel to intelligence orgs.
3. Shrubdick plants the fake intel in cooperative publication.
4. Shrubdick compels intelligence orgs to “present” the fake intel.
5. Shrubdick points to published report containing fake intel to demonstrate that it’s “well known”.
6. Shrubdick later laments the “faulty intel”, but conveniently fails to acknowledge authorship.
7. Shrubdick and kin lied then and they lie now.

[kentuck]

4. Good one!

[brush]

5. Not "bad intelligence" but "ginned up intelligence"

That was the term the British used back then to describe the cherry picked bits of so called intelligence — yellow cake from Africa, aluminum tubes allegedly for nukes, portable nukes on rail cars — that Cheney/Bush hoisted up prominently to the media (Judith Miller) then foisted on the public because it was the above-the-fold story in the NYT to justify the invasion of Iraq.

George Tenant, CIA Director at the time also used the term "slam dunk."