Quote:
Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Late '03? So you're saying that after the end of major combat, when the ISG was proclaiming confidence about finding WMDs while it went about doing what it was appointed to do (that is, find WMDs), this somehow undermines his credibility for criticizing the NSC's prewar actions? That's pretty tenuous. I myself think you'd be better off going with the "disgruntled former employee" songbook.
I also think that, rather than complaining about her reliance on the "wrong info", his bitching is about her inability to manage the different pipelines of information well enough, seeing as how the Office of Special Plands and the Office of the VP were running their own data mining operations. But I guess we'll all have a better idea of the facts behind these charges when the WMD inquiry wraps up in 2009.
|
Maybe I said it unclearly. Back in late 2003, he wrote a significant report that, on the surface, did a lot towards building the impression of lots of weapons and facilities. If you read the report very carefully, you could discern that he was qualifying everything in that regard - but the surface, apparent reading was, SH had weapons. I thought it ironic that, after writing that cheerleader's report for Rice, he complains that Rice was getting, and accepting, bad info. I'm not saying he's not correct now - I'm not thrilled at all with the state of our intelligence, and Rice would seem to have some large responsibility for that - simply that he had a significant hand in exactly what he complains of.
Threaded Mode