Originally Posted by WhawhaWhat
Watch the show I posted about. Also.. bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21786506. This is the news piece that the show is based on. I can't post a link yet so that's the best I can do. Sorry. Here is part of it -
I just finished watching it. Not only is what you typed completely wrong, but the show doesn't even falsely make that claim. The take away from that show should be:
1. Raw intel is composed of a lot of conflicting data of varying degrees of detail and reliability. It's never as easy to sort it out at the time as it is when you have the full benefit of hindsight.
2. Intelligence services are not monolithic creatures. They're made up of a large number of individuals with individual biases and the capacity for internal miscommunication. It's not surprising that at times, what one person within the organization "knows" is not known by another person and vice versa. It's also not surprising that sometimes a person has more confidence in his own opinion than he would if the entire universe of facts were known to him, which is obviously never the case.
3. The show is about a failure of intelligence and lies/fabrications made by intelligence sources, not about the lies of policymakers.
4. There were opinions that turned out to be right and opinions that turned out to be wrong within our intelligence community. It certainly doesn't add up to the idea that CIA and MI6 "knew there were no WMDs and that Iraq was no where close to making one." Some believed that and some didn't. But we can agree on one thing... the intelligence services failed our policy makers, by definition.
“[Cruz] might not be the most fun to have a drink at the bar with, but America needs a designated driver.” - Mica Mosbacher, wife of the late Robert Mosbacher, Secretary of Commerce