Comments on: Useful Idiots

Useful Idiots

owillis — Fri, 30 May 2003 21:36:19 -0800

U.S. Insiders Say Iraq Intel Deliberately Skewed "Vince Cannistraro, a former chief of Central Intelligence Agency counterterrorist operations, said he knew of serving intelligence officers who blame the Pentagon for playing up "fraudulent" intelligence, "a lot of it sourced from the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmad Chalabi." The marines are looking, but they can't find a damn thing. So... were Bush and company played by the INC, or were the American people played by Team Bush?

By: balinx

balinx — Fri, 30 May 2003 21:52:18 -0800

By 'cherry picked' intel they mean they selectively chose intel data and highlighted it if it would bolster their case. The idea is that you can cherry pick intel to reach almost any desired intel outcome. I don't think the article well describes their intended use of the phrase 'cherry picked', - which as I understand it normally means something slightly different... atleast where I've heard it more often used, which is in relation to sports.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Fri, 30 May 2003 21:57:36 -0800

See also Save Our Spooks by Nicholas Kristoff in today's New York Times. Intelligence analysts often speak of "humint" for human intelligence (spies) and "sigint" for signals intelligence (wiretaps). They refer contemptuously to recent work as "rumint," or rumor intelligence. "I've never heard this level of alarm before," said Larry Johnson, who used to work in the C.I.A. and State Department. "It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt." I am less inclined to give him a pass on this, myself.

By: Argyle

Argyle — Fri, 30 May 2003 21:58:22 -0800

were Bush and company played by the INC Yes were the American people played by Team Bush Yes

By: homunculus

homunculus — Fri, 30 May 2003 22:11:22 -0800

Here's a related WarFi thread.

By: specialk420

specialk420 — Fri, 30 May 2003 22:18:51 -0800

how about chalabi's "sock puppet"? and this quote is just plain astonishing: "But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them" - and unfortunately for the world clear evidence of what is very very wrong with the man in charge of the white house.

By: Hildago

Hildago — Fri, 30 May 2003 22:26:11 -0800

That Team Bush, always trying to steal Pikachu.

By: madamjujujive

madamjujujive — Fri, 30 May 2003 22:30:40 -0800

The Waldorf transcipts reveal that both Straw and Powell had misgivings about the evidence. Mr Powell told the foreign secretary he hoped the facts, when they came out, would not "explode in their faces". ...... What are called the "Waldorf transcripts" are being circulated in Nato diplomatic circles. It is not being revealed how the transcripts came to be made; however, they appear to have been leaked by diplomats who supported the war against Iraq even when the evidence about Saddam Hussein's programme of weapons of mass destruction was fuzzy, and who now believe they were lied to.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Fri, 30 May 2003 22:35:31 -0800

That Team Bush, always trying to steal Pikachu.

By: kliuless

kliuless — Fri, 30 May 2003 22:59:54 -0800

i like the newshour coverage with a good discussion by brooke shields tonite!

DAVID BROOKS: The weapons of mass destruction is a serious issue. They found, as President Bush has said, these two weapons labs, they're beginning to get testimony from the Iraqi scientists. Nonetheless, it is a serious problem in Europe, a serious problem for the credibility of the administration. To me, it does not de-legitimize the war. The war will be legitimized, (a) by the ending of the death camps, by the liberation of the Iraqi people and by what we can potentially build to create some sort of decent set of governments in the Middle East. But it will damage U.S. credibility the next time the administration goes abroad. MARK SHIELDS: The case for the war was made by president of the United States and secretary of state, Colin Powell, and it rested upon weapons of mass destruction. It did not rest upon democracy in Iraq. And I think what Paul Wolfowitz said in the piece in Vanity Fair, saying that this was essentially a bureaucratic decision because that was the one point where all could agree, ignores the fact that this was the central argument made.

with the FT also getting in on the act :D

The intelligence failures in Iraq raise many questions, not least why Saddam Hussein was so unforthcoming to UN inspectors, if he had little left to hide. But there is one overwhelming caution for the Bush administration. If it ever wants to put its doctrine of pre-emptive war into practice again, it will need to come up with far more convincing proof of threats than it showed in Iraq.

also btw, drudge is "reporting" (or blogging, i guess!) that colin powell was "apprehensive" about their evidence of iraq's WMD, but apparently he's now taking the "never in doubt" approach. meanwhile, wolfowitz's statements in vanity fair are now claimed by the pentagon to be a fabrication...

By: kliuless

kliuless — Fri, 30 May 2003 23:18:36 -0800

...and, in the back of my head, i'm thinking, you woulda thunk they'd have manufactured something by now. so like the fact that they haven't is kinda encouraging in a way :D also btw, in other OT news, U.N. Approves French-Led Peacekeepers for Congo :D uruguayans, help is on the way!

By: damn yankee

damn yankee — Fri, 30 May 2003 23:26:05 -0800

Intelligence analysts often speak of "humint" for human intelligence (spies) and "sigint" for signals intelligence (wiretaps). They refer contemptuously to recent work as "rumint," or rumor intelligence. IANA spook, but it's my understanding that sigint is more than just wiretaps. Which is really neither here nor there in terms of this discussion, but it does make me wonder if the NYT has truly underinformed reporters (yeah, yeah, save the Blair jokes) or if this falls under the category of deliberate misinformation (or less than complete information) for the sake of "national security" -- ie, that whole strange unspoken partnership between Big Media and the government when it comes to reporting sensitive issues. (I'm not saying I believe this happens, though I'm inclined to believe it does -- I'm just wondering if this is a case of it.) Second, I think it could be argued that, to a certain degree, humint is rumint.

By: hairyeyeball

hairyeyeball — Sat, 31 May 2003 00:21:52 -0800

Truthfilter. ;-)

By: newlydead

newlydead — Sat, 31 May 2003 06:00:53 -0800

Tony Blair, "Have a little patience." Good catch phrase for U.S. Foreign Policy toward Iraq, especially if you put the emphasis on the right word.

By: The Jesse Helms

The Jesse Helms — Sat, 31 May 2003 06:29:53 -0800

To me, it does not de-legitimize the war. The war will be legitimized, (a) by the ending of the death camps, by the liberation of the Iraqi people and by what we can potentially build to create some sort of decent set of governments in the Middle East. Nevermind the dying masses in the Congo. Never mind the slaughters in Burma.
meanwhile, wolfowitz's statements in vanity fair are now claimed by the pentagon to be a fabrication... It's so easy to believe the Pentagon. By the way, did they ever find that 1 trillion dollars that came up missing?

By: larry_darrell

larry_darrell — Sat, 31 May 2003 06:36:35 -0800

In the mid 1990s, the CIA underwent what we called an "agent scrub." That meant that we let go of approximately 60% of our human sources, perhaps more, which seriously damaged the CIA. When I was in charge of the Caucuses in Central Asia, for example, we had no human sources. That also was in the mid to late 1990s. intelligence ?

By: banished

banished — Sat, 31 May 2003 07:38:33 -0800

If Wolfowitz was right, why did we pull our troops out of Saudia Arabia? This is precisely what Bin Laden has always wanted, and was the primary reason 9/11 happened. When I saw on the news that our troops were being pulled from there I was left at the TV yelling and screaming because no one was explaining why. Are our government leaders negotiating with terrorists because they know terrorism can never be stopped and by giving Bin Laden what he wants we could go off, fight Iraq so that we would have an excuse to later pull our troops from Saudia Arabia and make Bin Laden happy? Were we just trying to get out to appease all Muslims? Is this why Bin Laden has not been caught? What is the deal here? Why did we pull out?

By: MzB

MzB — Sat, 31 May 2003 09:03:42 -0800

from Hildago's second link: "Wolfowitz also was quoted in the article as saying that a "huge" reason for going to war would be to enable the United States to withdraw American forces from Saudi Arabia." banished : If Wolfowitz was right, why did we pull our troops out of Saudia Arabia? As you can see, people started using ex-post reasoning, so anything is now possible. related - Murphy's laws: The six steps of program management are: 1. wild enthusiasm 2. disenchantment 3. total confusion 4. search for the guilty 5. punishment of the innocent 6. promotion of the non-participants.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sat, 31 May 2003 10:20:18 -0800

Never mind the slaughters in Burma. John Ashcroft agrees.

By: inpHilltr8r

inpHilltr8r — Sat, 31 May 2003 18:43:22 -0800

Why did we pull out? Why were you there?

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sun, 01 Jun 2003 17:19:51 -0800

And speaking of Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi has been arrested again.

By: prentiz

prentiz — Mon, 02 Jun 2003 07:15:22 -0800

OT: When I first read the title I thought this was referring to a cunning CIA plan to equip the Iraqis with dodgy Pentiums...