Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
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.
|
If Condi Rice doesn't have better information than what is released to the public, she needs to go. But you are changing the subject (again). Kay's criticism of Rice was about her performance before the war. So he and she were on the same (damage-control) page after the war. By that point, it was a CYA exercise.
By all accounts, Condi Rice got her job because she's comfortable with Bush, and by all accounts she has been outmanoeuvred at every turn by Cheney and the neo-cons. It's unclear to me how much she can be blamed for this, since her weakness boils down to the problem of working for a president who is unsure of what he is doing and with a vice president who has the opposite problem.
Threaded Mode