General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDo you trust the "intelligence" from the CIA?
Bush and Cheney and supporters all said they were given "faulty intelligence" by the CIA.
If that was incorrect, we now know that the CIA was silent during the entire war in Iraq.
Even after Bush left and David Petraeus took over, the agency still had serious problems.
Also, one of their own lied before a Congressional hearing about NSA snooping.
Why should anyone trust the intelligence agencies? There is no proof that they work for the safety of the American people.
They were "faulty" with their intelligence during the Bush years and there is no evidence that their intelligence is still not "faulty".
Republicans running for President say they are ready to put "boots on the ground" again in Iraq and Syria. Do they believe the CIA? Red flags should be waving all around us...
Rex
(65,616 posts)How can you tell if someone in the CIA is lying? Their mouth is open.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)in detail. Basically, Cheney set up shop on the 6th floor and asked for ALL the intelligence on Iraq, even the intelligence that had been debunked by the CIA.
It was mostly faulty intelligence, but Cheney knew it was faulty from the beginning.
I do criticize the CIA director at the time for not speaking up.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)What does that say about her willingness to nonetheless get up in the Senate and advocate for passage of the IWR?
Clinton did not read the 90-page, classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, according to "Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton."
For members of Congress to read the report, they had to go to a secure location on Capitol Hill. The Washington Post reported in 2004 that no more than six senators and a handful of House members were logged as reading the document.
The Clinton biography, written by New York Times reporters Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr., summarizes the intelligence estimate, which combined reports of U.S. intelligence agencies about Iraq. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/28/clinton.iraq/index.html
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Fine young men and women die without doing the due diligence of reading the report?
Sadly, a question she will never answer, and thus my support she will never receive.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)That there was no science behind it, but that they attempted (successfully in some cases) to use it as evidence in support of their prosecutions.
If they do this, then why wouldn't ever other government agency?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)to even consider trusting what they say.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)how much of that "intel" was what DicKKK just pulled out of his ass and shoved down the throats of the CIA people?
"The intelligence is being fitted to the policy" is how I believe the Downing Street Memo put it.
Warpy
(111,222 posts)Uh, no....
kentuck
(111,069 posts)and the rise of ISIS, and on and on and on....
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)What does that really mean?
Who do you trust? Why?
kentuck
(111,069 posts)You may trust the person and not trust their "intelligence".
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)I take most everything and everyone with a great deal of skepticism.
Response to kentuck (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.