October 8, 2002
Indeed, it appears that growing numbers of “military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats” who “work in a number of different agencies” and “have long experience in the Middle East and South Asia” are beside themselves:
These officials charge that administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses — including distorting his links to the al-Qaida terrorist network — have overstated the amount of international support for attacking Iraq and have downplayed the potential repercussions of a new war in the Middle East.(Via TalkLeft.) [02:06 PM]They charge that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House’s argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary.
“Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books,” said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
A dozen other officials echoed his views in interviews.
No one who was interviewed disagreed. […]
" . . . to cook the intelligence books . . ."
I hope these working-level wonks think to keep log books, and to preserve memos from higher-ups. Those could come in really handy someday. To cover their own butts at least. To help purge the neocons if we're lucky.
"Cook the intelligence books?" I guess all that Harken and Halliburton experience is germane to the war talk after all.
This does not surprise me in the least. Pressure on the intelligence community to supply the "right" answers is hardly unprecedented, and the current administration has a history of wanting to stay "on message" and suppress any internal dissent. Don't confuse them with facts, their minds are made up.
Hey, we were warned that we were getting the first MBA/CEO president, and that he was staffing pup with former CEO's.
Of course, that was back when such statements were considered to be praise, not warnings :)
Whatever one thinks of war on Iraq(I'm currently undecided myself), I don't think there can be any question that the Bush administration's efforts in the last couple of months have demonstrated (yet again) their very tenuous relationship with, you know, that whole "truth" thing.
In unrelated news, the next person to use the words "Clintonian" or "Clintonesque" in my presence will receive a swift kick to the groin.
Hard-Hitting Moderator: Teresa Nielsen Hayden.
Comments on The Dilbert administration::