« answering questions before they are asked | Main | 18 Tir News »

News Flash

But the committee absolved the Bush administration of charges that it put pressure on analysts to reach pre-set conclusions. The bipartisan committee said it found no evidence that administration officials pressured agencies to change their judgments on Iraq weapons programs. "The committee did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities," it said. It specifically cleared Vice President Dick Cheney, a leading advocate of the war, of charges that he tried to bend the evidence to fit his agenda. "The committee found no evidence that the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments," the report said.
Also, some very interesting observations on the Nigeria* uranium claims. Now, the question is, what do we do about our intelligence system? Do we tear the whole thing down and start again or is it fixable as is? Update: As usual, the folks at DU respond with "it's lie" or "it's a coverup" and the same old tired cliches.
*edited, obviously. I need a proofreader.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference News Flash:

I'm still wondering if Michael Moore is waiting for the 'final report'.... until that day, though, here is a welcome confirmation of what we've been noting all along: The bipartisan committee said it found no evidence that administration officials pres... [Read More]

» Leapin' Lizards! from Your Daily Prescott
Member that whole crazy uranium from Niger thing? Come on, you member... Bush is a liar cuz he said something about uranium, blah, blah... ( love how we lacth on to words and phrases that the media throws out and... [Read More]

» Wrong info from One Fine Jay
I'm watching the FOX News coverage of the Senate Intelligence Committee report released today: "Before the war, the U.S. intelligence community told the president, as well as the Congress and the public, that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemi... [Read More]


I am glad they were fair and balanced and looked only at the facts. Too many people on the left seem to want to hook Bush for everything under the sun and on this one he is innocent as proven.

I believe the Kerry campaign's de facto proposed solution is "elect a guy who won't do anything with intelligence reports anyway, so it doesn't matter what they say."

Tear it down and start over. Fire everyone above field agent/analyst rank. The place is too corrupt (and by that I mean lazy, not criminal) to accomplish jack until that's done.

And while you're doing that, put it back under military control. What we REALLY need CIA for is to help us win wars. It's not civilian, it's military. And in the military, intel types who screw up like this get canned.

Ummm, wasn't it Niger, not Nigeria?

The weak spot in the CIA is that it's Civil Service and we can't fire anybody. Makes it impossible to clean house.

I have been battling the delusionals on and off for a while now in various forums.

It's like talking to cattle.

They just look at you with that blank stare and keep on chewing.

"I believe the Kerry campaign's de facto proposed solution is "elect a guy who won't do anything with intelligence reports anyway, so it doesn't matter what they say."

Yeah, that Dem ticket sure doesn't give a damn about fighting terror:

In the summer of 2001, when much of the Republican and Democratic policy community was obsessed with missile defense, Edwards urged more attention to terrorism. The North Carolina senator had such limited luck pitching an OpEd article on terrorism to major newspapers that the piece, warning of poor cooperation among federal and local law enforcement, ended up in the weekly Littleton Observer, circulation 2,230 -- four weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Re our intel systems. We can't gut them, but we do need to cut off the head and graft a new one on. Military control? I see some problems with that. Which branch would control it, for one. While there may be some tightly run military organizations, overall the Pentagon is a bigger beauracratic nightmare than even the CIA. Combining the two might exceed the critical mass of Administratium.


I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country." --John Edwards, "CNN Late Edition," Feb. 24, 2002

You mean that Edwards?

Oops, credit where credit is due, above quote found at Best of the Web Today from the WSJ.


Edwards believed the same bad intel that Bush did, but you make it sound like a knock.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Gee, the right was saying before the Iraq invasion that the CIA wasn't looking hard enough for evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the war. Hell, even Stephen C. Pellettiere (who was in the CIA) wrote that the CIA's report said that the Irans gassed the Kurds. Not Saddam Hussein. Yet, Bush keeps saying it was Saddam.

Tell me this, Michelle. What has Bush delivered on. Seriosly. The economy. The interest rate went up 25% and he hasn't created one net up. Osama. It seems he's interested in him since it's an election year.

The intelligence came from the now defunct Office of Special Plans run by Douglas Feith. Which came from Ahmed Chalabi. The Bush administration were suckered by a con man like Chalabi. If the right wants to point a finger than that's who they should be pointing it at.

By the way, your link to Glen Reynolds is bogus. The Niger crap has been disproven. The British government is doing the same thing like the Hutton Report. Lot of good that did Blair. He won't do another term. Hutton was also the lawyer who represented soldier involved in Black Sunday which spilled into all the shit going on in Ireland today.

Answer me this. Why won't Glenn Reynolds explain why he links to Misha. After all, Misha is a bigot and has been known to issue online death threats.

It was all the CIA's fault, they gave Bush bad advice.

How come Bush never takes responsibility for anything? It's always someone else's fault. Whatever happened to "The Buck Stops Here"?

Oh wait-- that was Truman. He wasn't a Republican.


hey, read conclusions 92 to 100 in the report and see if one can seriously say Uncle Saddy is not part of the enemy in the war on terror.

The thing that blows my mind is that the CIA info wasn't twisted enough for the White House, they had to put the OSP together to distort the intelligence even further. Yeah, the CIA is broken, but the presidency is a heap of rubble.

Michele, can you clue me in on what value there is in linking to Instapundit and DU on this? On his best day Glenn's head is still twice as far up his a** as Michael Moore's is up his, and the DU is just bad science fiction.

How about Dick Cheney taking over at CIA? If anyone’s tough enough to do what needs done he is, then Vice President Rice could take on HRC in 2008, and stand a damned good chance of winning.

Jonzino: If the DU is bad science fiction then why does the official John Kerry site still link to it?

michele -- is that a rhetorical question, or do you really want to know why the gigolo and the trial lawyer still link to DU on their website? I suspect taht it is because they are nuts enough to believe what is on DU, which is sufficient grounds for refusing to vote for them.

I see Sullivan is spinning like a brain damaged chimpanzee on crack.

Making up "facts" on the fly and supporting them with dead links.

And you're still whimpering about Misha issueing alleged "death threats"?


Nice try at derailing the thread.

Now go scuttle back under your rock, little troll.

Jonzino: If the DU is bad science fiction then why does the official John Kerry site still link to it?

Good one, Michelle. You have a point there.

I see Sullivan is spinning like a brain damaged chimpanzee on crack.

That's a pretty funny quote.

On a lighter note. I do agree with Michelle that the John Kerry and John Edwards touchy-feely is... well, weird.

Flash movie: Kerry + Edwards: Let's get it on.


Ah Truman! The man who is the reason there are still American troops stationed in Korea.

Stephen C. Pellettiere viewpoint has been around for at least 12 years. It has been thoroughly debunked many times over. Puhleez...

Oh, did you hear? Wilson is a complete liar. This according to WaPo



Does your dislike of all things Democrat know no bounds. Could you at least give Truman credit for bringing WWII to a swift end? Regarding Korea, I don't think the US was in the mood for going to war with China & the Soviet Union.

Next you'll be praising Joe McCarthy.

Geez, Gumby, are you profiling me?

On another thread on this site I expressed my admiration of JF Kennedy, indeed pointing out that the modern Democrat Party has abandonded the liberalism of JFK.

I have a great deal of admiration for FDR for pursuing WWII even as America Firsters, led by Charles Lindbergh, charged that FDR was in a conspiracy with Brits and Jews to drag America into an unnecessary European war (hmmm....sounds strangely familiar, eh?)

Also, I give credit to Truman for making the correct decision in dropping the atom bomb on Japan and bringing the war in the Pacific to a rapid close. But I also give "credit" to Truman for changing foreign policy in Korea to one of "containment" in lieu of victory (and in deference to the UN.) Hence, American troops are still there, and all the other "police actions" that have happened subsequently.

Joe McCarthy was an ass, interested in little else besides Joe McCarthy. But please don't make him into some sort of Marvel Comic villain. Indeed, the infamous "blacklist" in Hollywood cannot even be "credited" to him. The Congress had every right to hold investigation and hearings dealing with hostile foreign influence in America...what it should not have done, is hold these highly prejudicial hearings in public, turning a serious subject into a circus (hmmm...sounds familiar, too, eh?) and, ironically, helping the cause of those it sought to rout because it made almost anyone with any misgivings about communism not talk about it least they be tarred with the "McCarthy" brush.

Now, a question for you. Can you name one contemporary liberal position that is also NOT a leftist one?

Michele, I thought that thread you shut down was good. I hope you don't mind me responding briefly to Darleen.

Darleen, this guy Dennis Prager is spot on about us liberals. (BTW, I'm a liberal, not a leftist. Threre's a huge difference.)

He said At the heart of liberalism is the naive belief that people are basically good.

Exactly! (Well, I would have left out the word "naive".)

And yes, we strive to be "child-like". We try to maintain the sense of wonder and enthusiasm that children are born with.

And we have an internal moral compass. I know the difference between right from wrong. I try to do what's right because I want to be good, not because I'm afraid of being punished or frowned upon by others.


You don't have children, do you?

People are not born "good." Goodness is a LEARNED virtue. Hang out in a kindergarten room sometime.

People are not basically good. Nor are they basically evil. Not every German citizen was a Nazi, or even sympathetic with Nazi policies of extermination. But they found it much easier to "go along" with a monsterous evil (which is why Righteous Gentiles are a minority. Being "good" is many times a CHOICE of great courage).

And it is very child-like that you don't grasp that.


Yes, I have a 16 year old daughter. Didn't you say you have a daughter who played in a band with some Marines? Anyway, my daughter plays flute in the high school band.

Yes, we have to teach children how to be good, just as we have to teach them how to play musical instruments, how to read, etc. My point is that, for the most part, they want to be good. But we have to help them learn how to be good people.

Darleen, I admit that I haven't read much of the Bible, but this is one of my favorite quotes (I hope I don't regret this)

Matthew 18:1-5 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" He called a child, whom he put among them, and said, "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever becomes humble like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me."

I'm just trying to illustrate my point in a positive way, I'm not using this qoute to attack you.

I'm happy to hear you say that people aren't basically evil. There are many people who think they are, and that's a very pessimistic world view.

Great, so bush isn't a liar he's just inept. I'd rather have a liar.


I don't believe that passage from Matthew was about Jesus exhorting us to become children in all manner of our being. Thought the New Testament, Jesus taught through parable and allegory and much of it was directed to the unspoken meaning of the question.

All societies, to a greater or lesser extent, hold children blameless for their behavior..making reasonable allowance for mistakes borne of naïveté, until such time instruction on right/wrong becomes conscious knowlege and a child moves from a world of innocence into responsible adulthood. In Judaism, the bar mitzvah/bat mitzvah is a ritualized ceremony marking not just the completion of a course of religious study, but an end to childhood and a community recognition of the responsbilities of adulthood (the 13 y/o boy announces before the assembled friends and family "today I am a man.") It is unfortunate that too much of American society wish to delay that transition and to avoid the responsibilities of adulthood. Indeed, you have more adults emulating teen culture than reverse. Even the term "teen culture" was unknown 60-70 years ago. This is not a good thing.

BTW Riesz

Congrats to your daughter and best of luck with band.

I have four daughters and have been a band mom for more years than I care to think about. All my girls learned at least on instrument starting in 3rd grade. Oldest Jennifer plays flute, piccolo, piano and acoustic guitar (recent), Erin plays alto sax, Heather plays clarinet & piano (was drum major of middle school band & high school band) and youngest, Siobhan (turned 17 last week) plays flute and tenor sax and is Drum Major this year. Add my acoustic guitar and my husband's bass guitar and trumpet and we almost have our own band.

"Now, a question for you. Can you name one contemporary liberal position that is also NOT a leftist one?"


It seems like you're trying to equate liberal = leftist = communist and ultimately liberal = communist. Or at least you're using "leftist" as a pejorative. Does this mean: conservative = right wing = nazi?

I support gay marriage and I think the trains should run on time. What does that make me?

(way off topic - I think favorite bible quote would make a great thread. My choice: Numbers 29 Verse 13.)

Thanks Gumby for proving my point. Contemporary liberalism is almost indistinguishable from leftism. THAT is one major reason why so many classical liberals say they didn't leave the movement, it left them.

JFK was a liberal, but no leftist.

Darleen: It is unfortunate that too much of American society wish to delay that transition and to avoid the responsibilities of adulthood. Indeed, you have more adults emulating teen culture than reverse.

Part of this rings true to me. I've long thought it odd the way popular songs avoid any mention of family. They're always about falling in love or breaking up, but rarely about a stable relationship, and never about kids or parents. (By contrast, many country songs are about parents and kids.) And we still keep listening to these songs well into adulthood. I think of our generation (the "Boomers") as the generation that never grew up.

As far as avoiding the responsibilities of adulthood, I think people nowadays often avoid the responsibility of staying committed to their marriage, trying to keep the family together. This ties in with songs about people always meeting someone new and falling in love.

If these are the responsibilities you're talking about then I agree. But I don't think you're right to blame this on liberals. I mean, conservatives get divorced too, and I believe at about the same rate as liberals.

Also, liberals want to legalize gay marriage to encourage gay couples to stay together and raise families. I think conservatives are on the wrong side of this one.