Saturday, May 28, 2005
Great headlines of our time
Analysts Linked to Intelligence Failures on Iraq Rewarded
Well, well, chalk one up to The Department of No Shit, Sherlock. Heck, everybody else involved in fixing the intelligence and facts around the policy got a reward: Condi, Stephen Hadley, Rummy... Tenet even got a Medal of [cough] Freedom!
So a couple of humble analysts help cook the books, they should get a little blood money too, shouldn't they? It only seems fair.
But now I've read the whole story, and, people, let's be reasonable here: Bush wanted a war, and these guys helped him make the case for it by telling Him what he wanted to hear. Was that so wrong? In what way could doing the Lord's work be construed as "a gross failure"? What could be wrong with working toward der Fuhrer?
NOTE I do like alert reader webslinger's formulation... Call 'em dildoes 'cause we got fucked (in this case, the reference being to those aluminum tubes..)
Well, well, chalk one up to The Department of No Shit, Sherlock. Heck, everybody else involved in fixing the intelligence and facts around the policy got a reward: Condi, Stephen Hadley, Rummy... Tenet even got a Medal of [cough] Freedom!
So a couple of humble analysts help cook the books, they should get a little blood money too, shouldn't they? It only seems fair.
Two Army analysts whose work has been connected to a major intelligence shortcoming on Iraq have received awards for job performance over the last few years, according to officials.
The two civilian analysts work at the Army's National Ground Intelligence Center - one of three U.S. agencies criticized by the presidential commission that probed U.S. intelligence on Iraq.
The Pentagon, in a written statement, told The Washington Post the awards for the analysts were to recognize their overall contributions on the job over the course of each of the past three years, and that "supervisors were encouraged to reward individuals on the basis of their annual contributions."
The analysts are former military men who are experts on foreign and U.S. weaponry.
Their work has been cited as part of a key intelligence failure on Iraq - the claim that aluminum tubes sought by the Baghdad government were most likely meant for a nuclear weapons program rather than for rockets.
The commission deemed their agency's assessment of the aluminum tubes as a "gross failure." The agency was "completely wrong," the panel said, when it judged in September 2002 that the tubes Iraq was purchasing were "highly unlikely" to be used for rocket motor cases because of their "material and tolerances."
(via AP)
But now I've read the whole story, and, people, let's be reasonable here: Bush wanted a war, and these guys helped him make the case for it by telling Him what he wanted to hear. Was that so wrong? In what way could doing the Lord's work be construed as "a gross failure"? What could be wrong with working toward der Fuhrer?
NOTE I do like alert reader webslinger's formulation... Call 'em dildoes 'cause we got fucked (in this case, the reference being to those aluminum tubes..)
