I believe the Senate "Intelligence" report IS ACTUALLY BACKFIRING ON PUGS

[LittleApple81]

I got that feeling from several news programs today.

The NewsHour:
videos here: IF YOU HAVE TIME WATCH THEM. ESPECIALLY BROOKS AND SHIELDS!!!!!

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/video/index.html#

they had senators Roberts (my senator, boohooo) and Rockefeller. Lehrer asked the questions. He did not let Roberts get away with much and seemed to give credence to Rockefeller. Rockefeller interjected when Roberts wanted to dominate the discussion.

Brooks and Shields: Shields, as always flattened Brooks.

Shields: going to war was the President's decision. Not the other republicans and democrats in the Senate.
The report was divided to try to hide the second part (senator Snow said maybe before the election we will see the second part? Levin said: don't hold your breath).
Brooks sounds so silly... he cannot hide Bush's ineptitude.

TWEETY went on a rant against the president and said we lost all credibility... AND HE WAS TWEETYING LIKE CRAZY. The woman from the New York Post (yuk) tried to minimize it and he didn't let her. WATCH IT IF YOU CAN.

FOX NEWS: amazing...they had a bimbette and "colmes" in Hannity & "colmes". They had Stansfield Turner (former CIA director).
The bimbette tried to accuse the democrats from previous administrations (surprise, surprise) of "gutting the CIA by not allowing it to work with shady characters." Turner wiped the floor with her. It was not the dems but the Congress, and they only asked the CIA to vet the shady characters with Washington before using them which is a perfectly reasonable request.
And he said that even from the "cut up" report that was shown today it is clear that the Administration pressed the CIA to get the information they wanted.

Those were the only "news" I was able to check... but it does not seem very encouraging for them.

[xray s]

1. If the Dem's have any 'nads they will leak the rest of the report

They can justify this by telling the American people this information is too important to allow the Bush administration to hide it until the election is over (besides, it is probably on microfilm, and you all know what THAT means)

[NMDemDist2]

2. I listened to the acting Director of the CIA's news conference

he in effect said "If they would have read the whole report, instead of the "Executive Summary" they would have known some of the data was controversial. He also said they would never again put out a report with such "assertions" on the summary page again


Thought is was very interesting that "every intelligence agency in the world believed the same information for years" what caused the Bushits' to need to GO TO WAR NOW!!!!!

The impression I got was that report really didn't have any new or compelling intelligence in it, it just had a harder lined cover page

[randr]

3. No matter which way they spin it

only one idiot was in charge!

[merh]

4. I heard that the report states that the CIA failings stem as far

back to Nixon. Nixon, Carter, Raygun, Poppy, Clinton & chimp all were working with the same CIA operations and failings. That the agency didn't hire enough translators or infiltrate questionable organizations, all the info we have been told for quite some time.

I found it so interesting that the report states that the CIA was screwed up under Poppy, Mr. CIA himself. I would like to try to read it, but 400 pages of government goobly gock - I don't know if my stomach could take it.

[faithnotgreed]

5. fwiw, email of thanks sent to chris matthews. pass it on

[PROGRESSIVE1]

8. What did he say?

[kentuck]

6. And it should...

if the media would do its job...?

[ItsThePeopleStupid]

7. Lehrer is an excellent questioner.

But I got a slightly different impression. I am so angry that everyone seems to have forgotten about Chalabi's liars (mentioned once maybe) and especially the OSP. You can maybe blame the CIA for what they didn't know, and buckling to pressure, and what the definition of pressure is, but they weren't the worst by a long shot. That honor goes to the Bushies and the OSP.

I mean, the worst they can come up with is, the CIA shouldn't have footnoted their caveats??? (someone on Lehrer said that)

[ParisFrance]

9. Scapegoat CIA

I have a problem with the intelligence failure. How could not only the CIA , but other intelligence agencies come up with the same false information. Were all of them up to a premptive war? Collectivly? I hope Americans don't except bad intelligence rationale for going to war. Having said that, other things don't add up. President Bush coerced Richard Clark to find a reason for going to war. If the CIA was absolutely sure they had WMDS don't you think they would have known about them for a some time and Bush wouldn't have needed to pressure Clark. Looks as if they just made them up. All these nations collaborating a premptive war seems the like the far fetched answer, but bad intelligence coming from each country is the easy one, knowing they could get off the hook.

[ItsThePeopleStupid]

10. good point about Clarke.

I know that Chalabi and his gang were giving bad intelligence, not just to the US, but to several other European countries.

I don't think WMDs were enough reason for most Americans to want to go to war. The polling back then showed that most Americans wanted the UN to restart inspections. That is when we started hearing about how incompetent the UN was (even though El Baradai was the one that discovered that the Niger documents were forged).