ISIS Intelligence Cooked?

#7
#7
FLVOL69 said:
In b4 LG says it's all political. 😜
Click to expand...


I don't know if it is or it isn't.

I wholeheartedly stand by the notion that the intelligence provided to the decisionmakers should not be whitewashed. We saw the consequences of that in 2003.

At the same time, as the quoted general says, its an art not a science and the intermediaries are charged with reconciling all of these different reports into something coherent for the president (and others).

If every time we find ourselves confronted with a challenge, those within the intelligence gathering framework think they can bypass the intermediaries by claiming they are politicizing the intelligence, a la Iraq in 2003, it is going to create a real problem for every president we ever have because it will turn every one of the steps in the process into a political position of sorts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#8
#8
lawgator1 said:
I don't know if it is or it isn't.

I wholeheartedly stand by the notion that the intelligence provided to the decisionmakers should not be whitewashed. We saw the consequences of that in 2003.

At the same time, as the quoted general says, its an art not a science and the intermediaries are charged with reconciling all of these different reports into something coherent for the president (and others).

If every time we find ourselves confronted with a challenge, those within the intelligence gathering framework think they can bypass the intermediaries by claiming they are politicizing the intelligence, a la Iraq in 2003, it is going to create a real problem for every president we ever have because it will turn every one of the steps in the process into a political position of sorts.
Click to expand...

So predictable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#10
#10
lawgator1 said:
I don't know if it is or it isn't.

I wholeheartedly stand by the notion that the intelligence provided to the decisionmakers should not be whitewashed. We saw the consequences of that in 2003.

At the same time, as the quoted general says, its an art not a science and the intermediaries are charged with reconciling all of these different reports into something coherent for the president (and others).

If every time we find ourselves confronted with a challenge, those within the intelligence gathering framework think they can bypass the intermediaries by claiming they are politicizing the intelligence, a la Iraq in 2003, it is going to create a real problem for every president we ever have because it will turn every one of the steps in the process into a political position of sorts.
Click to expand...

and I'm certain you said the same thing about the intelligence used to justify entering Iraq right? After all, this is an art not a science.
 
#12
#12
volinbham said:
So predictable.
Click to expand...

theFallGuy said:
and I'm certain you said the same thing about the intelligence used to justify entering Iraq right? After all, this is an art not a science.
Click to expand...


I don't think you guys understand what I am saying.

I 100 % agree that intelligence should not be politicized to fit a preexisting narrative. I did not know that it was in 2003. We know now that it was and we are seeing the consequences.

If it turns out that the intermediaries are watering down to fit a narrative, then they ought to be removed from those positions so that correct and accurate information is conveyed up the chain of command.

We have to be careful, however to not let the reverse happen, i.e. people with a political agenda at the bottom of the chain force a false picture of what is going on by accusing their higher ups of altering their reports to fit a narrative.

Then all we are left with is finger pointing, with the lower rung guys claiming their perception of the facts is being manipulated, and the higher ups claiming that the lower rung guys are meddling because of their own politics.

Such claims are not new. Just have to count on the main people involved to make an honest assessment of what is going on, and not misdirect from the real inquiry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#13
#13
lawgator1 said:
I don't think you guys understand what I am saying.

I 100 % agree that intelligence should not be politicized to fit a preexisting narrative. I did not know that it was in 2003. We know now that it was and we are seeing the consequences.

If it turns out that the intermediaries are watering down to fit a narrative, then they ought to be removed from those positions so that correct and accurate information is conveyed up the chain of command.

We have to be careful, however to not let the reverse happen, i.e. people with a political agenda at the bottom of the chain force a false picture of what is going on by accusing their higher ups of altering their reports to fit a narrative.

Then all we are left with is finger pointing, with the lower rung guys claiming their perception of the facts is being manipulated, and the higher ups claiming that the lower rung guys are meddling because of their own politics.

Such claims are not new. Just have to count on the main people involved to make an honest assessment of what is going on, and not misdirect from the real inquiry.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what you are saying - you are suggesting in this case that the 50 that complained may some political agenda and we have to be careful not give in to that.

Of course there is nothing to suggest the 50 that did complain (more that didn't?) are politically motivated but lets go ahead and throw that accusation out there to discredit them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#15
#15
volinbham said:
I know exactly what you are saying - you are suggesting in this case that the 50 that complained may some political agenda and we have to be careful not give in to that.

Of course there is nothing to suggest the 50 that did complain (more that didn't?) are politically motivated but lets go ahead and throw that accusation out there to discredit them.
Click to expand...


No, no no no. You are being dismissive of my larger point by claiming partisanship.

I am saying that, regardless of who is in power, regardless of which party has the WH, regardless of all the petty agendas of every government wonk from the bottom to the top, we have to be careful not to allow politics to infiltrate the presentation of intelligence, and any recommendations that go with it, from anyone. Be they R or D, in the party in power or outside of it.

Such information is vital to national security and ought to be culled, processed, and delivered, free of political influence.

Period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#16
#16
lawgator1 said:
No, no no no. You are being dismissive of my larger point by claiming partisanship.

I am saying that, regardless of who is in power, regardless of which party has the WH, regardless of all the petty agendas of every government wonk from the bottom to the top, we have to be careful not to allow politics to infiltrate the presentation of intelligence, and any recommendations that go with it, from anyone. Be they R or D, in the party in power or outside of it.

Such information is vital to national security and ought to be culled, processed, and delivered, free of political influence.

Period.
Click to expand...

No one disagrees that it should be free from political influence. No one. Period. It is a non-point.

This investigation is under way because there is sufficient evidence to believe political influence was involved at the top of the chain, not at the analyst level.

You make no comment on that but instead say we have to be careful that the analysts may have a political agenda and are just complaining.

I give you credit at least for not suggesting they are racists too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#17
#17
volinbham said:
No one disagrees that it should be free from political influence. No one. Period. It is a non-point.

This investigation is under way because there is sufficient evidence to believe political influence was involved at the top of the chain, not at the analyst level.

You make no comment on that but instead say we have to be careful that the analysts may have a political agenda and are just complaining.

I give you credit at least for not suggesting they are racists too.
Click to expand...


Ah, so you infer from the fact of the complaint that Obama is directing them to give him faulty intelligence. I should have realized what you were claiming from the start. My bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#18
#18
lawgator1 said:
Ah, so you infer from the fact of the complaint that Obama is directing them to give him faulty intelligence. I should have realized what you were claiming from the start. My bad.
Click to expand...

Nope - never said anything about Obama. I made no such claim or inference. In fact I've made no claims whatsoever.

A reference to the "top" is the top of Centcom; just as the allegations suggest.
 
#24
#24
Well somebody had better do something to get some fightin' goin' on. This is unacceptable.

Signed,
Dick
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    24.1 KB · Views: 0
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#25
#25
It would be really dumb to fudge the intelligence reports regarding a pseudo-war.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top