[quote=“imyourbiggestfan”]And the reason why I disagree with you is that there was no total picture. Just a massive lump of conflicting intel. Its always going to be this way. And the guys in power are their to read and distil this on our behalf, subject, i might add, to the oversight of Kerry and the rest of the intel committee.
The data needed selective reading to make any sense. Any conclusion drawn from the data - whether to conclude for action or against it requires some kind of selective reading to back it up.
Unless, of course, you simply throw your hands up in the air, and say:“I don’t know. Its not clear.”
But then, you might as well ditch intel altogether. Because intel will always be unclear due to the huge amounts of misinformation you will be fed along with the good stuff.[/quote]
But you seem to assume that this problem - lumpy, unformed intelligence or data that must be transformed into information - is a new one.
Not only is that assumption a false one, but it gets to the real problem with intel used to justify war on Iraq.
The US has a system whereby raw intelligence is transformed into information. Bush dismantled that process to a large degree. How? By choosing to selectively dismiss input from the CIA and/or State, he took the US’s process apart.
He also chose to establish a new Department of Defense organ, the Office of Special Plans, designed largely to justify the conclusions reached by skirting the old way. The OSP didn’t collect any new data, since that’s illegal under US law, but instead it was designed to get raw data (e.g., from the INC) before it underwent the old vetting process used by CIA and State or to get repackaged, existing data (e.g., Niger yellowcake claims) to Bush’s ear (i.e., the OSP acted as a stovepipe, distributing cherry-picked bits of intel - some of which were rejected outright under CIA or State vetting procedures - straight to Bush’s ear; this intel was stripped of old vetting, e.g., Niger yellowcake, or it never underwent any additional or new vetting).
It’s very difficult for me to conclude that “Bush did the best with the information he ‘was given’” when the effect of Bush’s actions was to rig the ‘was given’ part. Of course, that’s the object of the big Congressional investigation that’s been delayed until after the election.
True, but the truth is actually worse than mere lying on Bush’s part, imo. That is, his administration introduced bias into the US’s intelligence-vetting process, he acted on the biased output, and he was completely, 100% wrong: not only was the threat from Iraq not imminent, but there were no WMD in Iraq at all.
And Bush must be held accountable for his decisions and the actions he took.
