Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
"The Senate report said there was no evidence that ``administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.''
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...Byo7c&refer=us
You have some good theories, but where's your cite please
|
If I were taking a deposition, and a witness gave me that answer, I could have a lot of fun pushing the witness on the different qualifications. "Analysts." So officials talked to their supervisors, but not to the analysts. "Change" Not "modify," but "change," huh? And so on. As I say, if you think that sentence captures what was going on in Washington two years ago, you were living on Mars and getting your news from a FOX feed or something. Actually, even that isn't right, because it was the conservative media like FOX that was on the CIA's case for not getting with the war program. I posted a link to a piece in the WaPo by Jim Hoagland, noted pal of the neo-cons, in 2002 in which he attacked the CIA for failing to see how much of a threat Hussein was. Two years later, he's writing pieces blaming the CIA for leading the President astray. To ignore that the administration didn't do anything to pressure the CIA, you'd have to close your eyes and cover your ears to what was going on before the war.
