Originally Posted by WhawhaWhat
I guess we get different impressions then. Agree to disagree.
Normally, I'm an agree to disagree guy when someone has been polite and offers it, but I can't do it here. I don't know how you could have been left with such a wildly mistaken impression if you really watched the show. I was surprised at how reasonable it was. I expected some kind of slightly more respectable Loose Change hatchet job, but even though the show cast some mild aspersions at intel distillers and decision makers (e.g. saying that they fooled themselves into accepting intel that met their preconceived notions while ignoring that which didn't and by interviewing only one side of certain "he said / she said" disputes), they were pretty fair when it comes to presenting the story.
Your characterization was a simplistic characterization of a complex situation. While it's true that a few individuals might have believed something that turned out to be both true and contrary to the final intel assessment, it's completely misleading and essentially false to say that the CIA (or MI6) knew that their final assessment was wrong.
At best, you're guilty of the same thing this documentary accuses top level intel officials and senior policy makers of doing (i.e. seeing what you want to see and ignoring that which doesn't fit your preconceived notion).
"[The democrat party] has become a left wing party, that's anti-American, and thatís racist." - David Horowitz