Subject:
|
Re: Revisionists...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:58:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
142 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2996752.stm
> "
> But the Republican majority in the US Congress has rejected calls for a formal
> investigation, arguing that any such inquiry could harm the intelligence
> agencies.
> "
Why is it that every president has to have an inquiry launched by his opposition
party, and his party objects vehemently? Clinton does something Republicans
don’t like, they launch an investigation and Democrats scream that it is too
expensive, unnecessary, etc. Now Bush rubs the Dem’s the wrong way and the GOP
is screaming the same thing, a little consistency on both sides would be nice.
> Yeah, and my response to this absurd idea has been posted earlier.
>
> Those that do not learn from the lessons of history are doomed.... doomed I
> tells ya!!!
>
> Unfortunately, this time it could doom us all.
I can see Dave walking the streets right now with a long beard and a placard
reading “The end is near” :)
I did want to use this post though to launch a question that has been swimming
around my brain lately. This war is the first war that the United States ever
fought solely on the basis of intelligence. Now the inquiries are into the
validity and accuracy of that intelligence. Hypothetically let’s imagine that
the CIA fed Bush bad data, and he in turn launched an unjustified war. Where
does the buck stop? Naturally I would have to say right in the oval office, but
if this were proven out what type of ramifications would it have on
intelligence? If this were the case there should be a wholesale firing of many
of the top brass in the CIA, and would that make us more or less safe from
terrorism?
Please take off your Bush hating hats for just a second and acknowledge that
Clinton acted on the same intelligence in 1998, the primary difference between
the two actions was Bush’s resolve. The final question here is who is
responsible for the oversight of our intelligence gathering organizations? In a
corporation if the CFO cooks the books, doesn’t the CEO bear the ultimate
burden?
I agree that there should be a full investigation needs to be launched, and care
needs to be given to the sensitivity of classified information. I, however, will
with hold my judgment until the final report is penned. Ultimately the question
that needs to be answered is if people are going to die, based on intelligence
reports how do we ensure that those reports are 100% accurate?
Scott C.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Revisionists...
|
| (...) There's an infinity of difference between lying about Oval Office Oral and the creation of a war and lying about the basis of that war. Frankly, I think it's sickening that you can't see a difference. On the one hand, a manipulative woman got (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Revisionists...
|
| (URL) senior US senator says he has evidence that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) deliberately withheld crucial information from the UN arms inspectors deployed to Iraq. The claim comes as Congress prepares to open inquiries into whether the (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
