Pre-9/11 and Pre-Iraq War "Intelligence Failures"
I hate hate HATE articles like this.
Why is it so hard for the people who write these pieces to acknowledge that:
1) incompetence is the perfect cover-story
2) these "intelligence failures" and "embarrassments" typically lead to a desired geopolitical outcome
3) "intelligence failures" are not incompatible with 9/11 being an inside job.
Probably because the people who write these pieces are propagandists.
I say MORE ultimate truths, LESS CIA bullshit.
Why is it so hard for the people who write these pieces to acknowledge that:
1) incompetence is the perfect cover-story
2) these "intelligence failures" and "embarrassments" typically lead to a desired geopolitical outcome
3) "intelligence failures" are not incompatible with 9/11 being an inside job.
Probably because the people who write these pieces are propagandists.
I say MORE ultimate truths, LESS CIA bullshit.
posted by spooked at 7:58 AM
3 Comments:
Nawaf Alhazmi - !!
On Aug. 23, 2001, the Mossad, Israel's intelligence service, gave the names of 19 men who they suspected would be involved in a terrorist attack to the CIA. Alhazmi's name was among them.
Two and a half weeks later -- five months after the traffic stop in Oklahoma -- on Sept. 11, 2001, Alhazmi got on AA No. 77, the one that was flown into the Pentagon.
ha ha!
how did this alleged AA77 manage to allegedly impact the pentagon at ground level and at high speed yet the portion of the pentagon that was allegedly impacted did not even fall over until a good 25 minutes later?
pentagon strike
as if!
and how did this alleged AA77 manage to blow up this section of the pentagon without leaving any authentic debris?
as if.
An Inconvenient Truth about Iraq
Things are getting better there. So much better that even the NY Times and Newsweek have to admit it. Grudgingly, but still. That’s got to hurt.
The quagmire seems to be drying up. It’s still too early to be sure this trend will progress. But the Iraqi forces have become more effective in dealing with problems. The factions that were supposed to be engaged in a civil war, according to the left, are uniting to fight Al Qaeda.
The Iraqis are tired of war, just as the Germans were at the end of WWII. They had the same kind of insurgent problems when the war ended there, but they got sorted out.
In the end, most people want to live in peace. The idea that Middle Easterners want to live in a state of perpetual war and conflict is a racist notion. The problems in the region have more to do with tribalism than anything. Competing versions of Islam and radicals trying to seize power are several other major factors. This happens when a power vacuum happens, as in the fall of Saddam. Iraq has hug oil reserves. Naturally, different factions would like to own that.
But when those factions got the message that we’re not leaving despite what the pres and lefties want, they realized their insurgency was a failure. And Iraqis got tired of seeing friends and family dying or being maimed by the insurgent’s bombs.
The US made several mistakes when they went into Iraq. They’ve had to learn this the hard way. But the actual level of casualties on the US side is at record lows. Further, another terrorist sponsor state was taken out of the picture. Now there are only two left. If you include Libya, that more than 60% out of the picture. All in a relatively short amount of time.
Afghanistan and Iraq are still not entirely stable. There is also the fear of Pakistan falling apart. But we’re a long way from where we were six years ago. I’d say that’s a positive accomplishment.
UPDATE: Now this is really painful if you’re on the left. If teh Bush Doctrine is a big success, which just might happen, a lot of people are going to look really, really stupid. No wonder they’re so pissed off.
Gosh, there's a great deal of helpful data in this post!
Post a Comment
<< Home