How could our Intel be that bad??

Charlie P · 10-07-2004, 06:20 AM

It seems we were really wrong as was most of the major intel agency's around the world. How could it have been so bad. Was it because we listened to people like Chiraba(sp).

Iraq had no stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and its nuclear program had decayed before last year's U.S.-led invasion, the chief U.S. weapons inspector said on Wednesday, in findings contrary to prewar assertions of the Bush administration.

President Bush had cited a growing threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as one of the main reasons for overthrowing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Despite the new findings and a growing Iraqi insurgency, Bush told a campaign rally on Wednesday the war was justified.

"I still do not expect that militarily significant WMD stocks are cached in Iraq," Charles Duelfer, the CIA special adviser who led the hunt for unconventional weapons, said in testimony to the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee

Here's a link to the full story
http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/318194|top|10-06-2004::20:06|reuters.html

virginiaJim · 10-07-2004, 06:35 AM

The democrats have been doing everything in their power for the last 25 years to gut the CIA. Thats why it was that bad. Everyone knows it. Even Kerry led the charge in the 80's and 90's to cut spending for the CIA and reduce human assests (spys) because they feel its Un-American to take part in the type of activity that is requried to keep good Intel.

Charlie P · 10-07-2004, 06:49 AM

Well seeing as there have been Republican Presidents in office for most of those 25 years how is it all the Dems fault.

virginiaJim · 10-07-2004, 06:54 AM

Yes it is. Republicans have been soft and you show me one Republican that has put up or passed the changes in the CIA vs the Democrats that have.

Can you name any Republicans that have? I can name a few democrats that have if you like.

virginiaJim · 10-07-2004, 06:57 AM

http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/cia-...democrats.html

virginiaJim · 10-07-2004, 07:00 AM

it started with Carter and his role in reducing our CIA assets. Once Reagan became president both sides of the house became democrat controled as a form of check by the american people, totaly normal as it happed in 94 when Clinton became president. Durning the 90's not much was done because we as americans became soft with the way things were in the world and mis read the end of the cold war as the end of the need for a strong CIA. The changes to the CIA that led up to 9/11 are changes made by democrats.

Charlie P · 10-07-2004, 07:13 AM

You have some good points.

oldelkhunter · 10-07-2004, 07:35 AM

Fact of the matter is Bush was supplied info about WMD's by none other then the CIA and who was the boss there and who appointed him? George Tenent and William Jefferson Clinton

Charlie P · 10-07-2004, 07:37 AM

Couldn't Bush have replaced Tenat when he took office? Didn't Bush also say he was doing a great job as director. If I'm running a company and I take over and leave an incompatent in a key position is it the previous CEO's fault?

virginiaJim · 10-07-2004, 07:54 AM

He might have been in the process of that but 9/11 happend a few months into the term. Kinda changed things. Im sure in hind sight Bush wished he had different people in place, but he worked with what was left him. To roll back the changes the democrats had made to the CIA is going to take years. It will have to start with the new batch of people they are pulling into the system after 9/11. Got to wait for the old timmers to retire for the most part till the way they do business changes. Thats DC. Its the slowest place in the world for change.