April 27, 2008

The Oxymoron: Administration Intelligence Issues

Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post writes on the suspicious nature and timing of the latest disclosures concerning Syria's and North Korea's collusion in 'creating nuclear weapons' in Syria:

President Bush has built up a prodigious track record of selectively disclosing intelligence findings that serve his political agenda. And some of the most important of those findings, of course, turned out to be completely false.

The latest disclosure from the White House's intelligence apparatus -- that Syria secretly built a nuclear reactor with North Korean help -- is in many ways a blockbuster. But at the same time, its highly suspicious timing raises doubts about the motivation behind its announcement.

And even if everything the administration says is true, there are many elements of the emerging story that deserve scrutiny.

David E. Sanger writes in the New York Times: "[A]fter a full day of briefing members of Congress, two senior intelligence officials acknowledged that the evidence had left them with no more than 'low confidence' that Syria was preparing to build a nuclear weapon.

"[E]ven some senior officials of the administration acknowledge that they are likely to leave Mr. Bush's successor with a North Korea with roughly 10 nuclear weapons or fuel for weapons, up from the one or two weapons it had when Mr. Bush took office in 2001." [This although Bush's stated goal has been to relieve the tensions in Asia and around the world by getting N. Korea to dismantle its weapon program.]

Meanwhile, "Several members of Congress complained yesterday that the administration was too slow to share the intelligence and warned that it undermined future cooperation with the White House. . . ."

Click here for the complete text and related links.
^^^
I don't know about you but I know I have heard the bobble heads on the MSM [the few who even mentioned the interesting nature of the timing of these announcements] speculate about everything from 'getting the spies who had discovered the information out of harm's way' to parroting Cheney's assertion that such a delay 'helped with the negotiations with North Korea regarding dismantling of its nuclear weapons.' However, as Froomkin points out--the exact opposite of Cheney's assertion actually seems to be the case.

So, take a look at this interesting [to say the least] article. What do you think? What the MSM said? Or another ratchet-up-to-war while the MSM complies with silence?

Given its track record, why do they keep giving this administration a pass?

6 comments:

Distributorcap said...

there is NOTHIGN bush does that shouldnt be suspect -- and this is a prime example. somehow they will link it to iran -- you know they will

two crows said...

hi, d-cap---
oh yes they will.
I can just hear Bush shouting in the rose garden, 'bomb, bomb Iran! bomb, bomb Iran!'

an average patriot said...

I wrote about this the other day. You know damn well it's a lie. The timing is perfect. Bush's time is running short and he has to attack Syria and Iran this fall. Admiral Mullins and General Odierno are left in charge while Betrayus is here preparing for the attack from the Gulf!

Snave said...

I agree with all of you.

I would look for an attack on Iran (and possibly Syria too, from the sound of things) once our elections have been held. I think we will see more crap like this Syria-N. Korea story and more Iran b.s between now and November, to try and get people scared into voting GOP and to try and boost McCain into the White House. If it's a Dem who gets elected instead, the next president will get stuck with the mess anyway whatever their party. That is, unless attacks on Iran (and maybe Syria too) are claimed by the administration to constitute a "national emergency", in which case who ever becomes the president-elect might instead end up being the president-in-waiting beyond 1/20/09.

That's too gloomy. Maybe I need to go outside, get some fresh air and sunshine, take some vitamins... !

But however you look at the myriad wayw in which Bush and the Republican party have dragged our nation down over the past 30 or so years (outside of that eight years of the moderate Clinton, which was kind of like a little blip on the radar, really, given that he had to fight a Republican Congress), I think it sucks, big-time.

two crows said...

hi, AAC --
your comment had gotten past me without my noticing-- sorry.

I hope you're wrong and they don't have time or a miracle occurs and Congress grows a spine -- but, I'll bet you're right.

two crows said...

hey, Snave --
I do sometimes wonder about the sanity of ANYONE but especially of dems who aspire to the white house given how the rethugs and their lapdog press treat em the whole time they're in it.
[note Clinton's tenure there -- for SIX years it was one scandal after another till they found one they could make stick -- although they had no right-or-reason to attack him at that level anyway.

just how did a blow-job affect the security of the nation? or the economy? or jobs? or education? etc. etc. etc.

on the other hand, the constant attacks DID distract the man -- making it almost impossible for him to govern.
it's amazing he got as much done as he did. and that was part of the point, anyway.

that and an exoneration of and revenge for Nixon and Reagan.

now, they plan to stick the next pres with 3 wars so they can blame the dems for em 4 years from now.
and, as short as people's memories are, it might even work!