how ? can you give some examples?
Can pressure be applied to a spy agency to "Find" something anything at all that will add fuel to an agenda?
2007-11-13 06:08:24 · 15 answers · asked by ron j 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Of course. Why do you think we are in Iraq. Bush and Cheney wrote the book on this subject, they are the masters.
2007-11-13 06:13:57 · answer #1 · answered by lcmcpa 7 · 9⤊ 5⤋
Bush created the illusion of Al Queda and Saddam being in bed together.... using this method. The same thing is happening today, with Iran.
Bush will allow reports of Iran weapons found inside Iraqi borders to the media, as if it is significant. However, they never stress the fact that all of the weapons found so far are small arms and improvised explosives.... nothing that links the government of Iran with direct support of insurgents.
For example... If you walked around Iran, you would probably find American, Russian, and Iraqi weapons as well. These small arms are being toted accross the border by autonomous rebel insurgents. Point being..... they haven't found anything more sophisticated than small arms cache's, that would point to Iranian government involvement....but they use the intel as if it is a stipulated fact, that the Iranian government is sponsoring the insurgency. There is no basis for this claim as of yet, but the potential to sway public opion using the intel is valueable in the event that we do decide to invade Iran.
Cherrypicking....
2007-11-13 06:21:46 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Our government has a long history of doing that. Look at what our government has done in the past to countries like Chile, Iran, Guatemala, Iraq, and many other places. Take Iran now for example. It has been revealed that when soldiers capture an Iraqi insurgent the soldier is under pressure to find anything he can about the insurgent's ties to Iran. If they can't find anything that will tie him to Iran, information cherry picked, then the insurgent is branded useless. Even if under extreme treatments and the insurgents give testimony that the soldiers find interesting, even though questionable, they will still accept it and throw it in with the rest of intelligence and propagandas being whipped up to justify another war with Iran.
2007-11-13 06:17:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Yes.
The things you mention are exactly what Bush did in the lead-up to the war on Iraq.
The Bush administration used bogus "evidence" to "prove" Saddam Hussein had WMDs. As soon as the towers fell on 9/11, Bush pressured his staff to pin it on Hussein (which they kept trying to tell him wasn't the case).
He insisted they find a connection, and used the words of liars, and more bogus evidence to make that case.
2007-11-13 07:05:19 · answer #4 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
all and sundry cherry selections and brings up history as an excuse. They previous tempts us, the present confuses us, and the destiny frightens us. to those ends, all of us do what we ought to to administration. The "vast photograph" is only too vast to confirm. except you decrease down the tree, this is cherry choosing.
2016-10-16 09:27:08 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course. And then it can be interpreted any number of ways to fit a different agenda.
It used to happen all the time with the Russians during the cold war.
2007-11-13 06:14:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Of course.
Google "Curveball" the CIA informant who gave most of the intel data regarding Saddam's non-existant nuclear and WMD programs.
Turns out German intel had already interviewed Curveball and classified him as and I quote: "unreliable and an alcoholic."
However, that didn't stop Darth Cheney and Ahmad Chalabi (Iraqi National Congress and convicted criminal in Jordan) from handing Curveball to the CIA for questioning.
From Curveball came most of the bullsh!t Colin Powell told to the UN about Saddam/Iraq/WMDs in Feb. 03. Which is why Germany refused to back the US in the invasion.
2007-11-13 06:18:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
Sure democrats prove that one.
They accepted that saddam had WMDs than turn on dime and say that he didn't and Bush lie.
2007-11-13 06:46:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hillary's board of advisers, husband, image consultants, pollsters, marketeers and planted questions are all examples of the artificial intelligence that she exhibits in public.
The last debate proved that she flounders when called upon to think for herself.
2007-11-13 06:23:40 · answer #9 · answered by wider scope 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Intel about Iraq buying 'cake' from Niger, which was used by this administration as justification for war.
2007-11-13 06:21:51 · answer #10 · answered by BrushPicks 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
We see it in action everyday of our lives.
2007-11-13 06:16:08 · answer #11 · answered by gone 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋