If the intelligence was cooked in iraq isn't this the same intelligence that pres. clinton used?

Answer 1

is the phrase military intelligence oxymoronic

Answer 2

It didnt work that way.

Clinton's (and Bush's) biggest problem in the Middle East is the lack of human intelligence sources in those countries (what we used to call HUMINT), Since few people in those repressed countries felt they could trust America (some of this distrust could stem from George Bush Sr scewing over Iraqi rebels against Hussein in the First Gulf War. Since then, its been extremely difficult to recruit legitimate intelligence sources.

Clinton got the actual, factual intelligence, and made foreign policy decisions based on them, Ill not debate whether they were correct decisions or not, that wasn't your question. As Clinton was leaving the Oval Office, he told Bush and Bush's cabinet what to watch out for.
Bush and company came to the Oval Office with one goal: To secure Middle East Oil (except for Saudi Arabia) for his Texas Oil buddies. They immediately began drawing up invasion plans and scenarios and directed Intelligence forces to get intel which would make the American People demand we invade Iraq. When that info wasn't forthcoming, or what little intel which DID support an Iraqi invasion was so illegitimate and fabricated, no other country took it seriously at all. When professional members of the established intelligence community told Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld Saddam was NOT trying to buy enriched urnaium from NIgeria, the cabinet ignored it and started up a new Intelligence service, whose sole purpose was to re-insert this bogus information into the "intel stream".

This is not the way you conduct foreign policy. You act on credible intelligence, not tell intelligence gatherers what you want to hear.

Answer 3

No as Bush put his people in at the CIA first and according to some of his former advisors he would trhow fits demanding links to Iraq as before he was elected he wanted a war with Iraq

Answer 4

Yeah, Yeah,Yeah, it's all Clinton's fault. Lets try something a little different, like having the Commander in Chief take responsibility for his decisions. He just reminded us again this past Friday that he's "the decider". Being the sole decider carries the burden of also being responsible for your failures as well as your victories

Answer 5

Probably. How will we ever know? Such things must be kept secret, for all the obvious reasons of advantage to an enemy. So let's wait until enough time has passed for any advantage to the enemy to have faded, and then discuss it, OK?

Answer 6

no, because the administration replaced much of it. wooooow, my name is call me ishmael is sooo stupid. he thinks the intelligence is the same everywhere. he thinks russians used american intelligence. then he says the cia used the intelligence. the cia IS THE INTELLIGENCE.

Answer 7

It really was not "cooked" it was just wrong, alot was based on what Sadam was saying

Plus of course there were labs founds, scientiests that were working on the programs, and evidence things were taken out of the county, but what the heck

Answer 8

Clinton was smart enough to figure out what was real and what was B.S.

Answer 9

seeing how it's was proven that bush was looking for a reason when there wasn't one. I would say no. and you need to stop watching fox news.

Answer 10

Such is the hypocracy of partisan politics.