• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Faced

Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

He did not say it was they are analyzing intel, he is saying they assess the policy, determine it is misguided (a criticism), directly tell the policymaker it is failing. This is all about direct dealings with current policy, with the responsible policymaker.

But keep digging Jack, the molten core awaits.

No, he said they can have an impulse to do that. But they don't. They analyze intelligence. You will find no statement by Gates that the analysts criticize policy.
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

Wtf. This is what I said: It was our intelligence agencies that pointed out to Bush the failure of his invasion and occupation of Iraq.

And this is what you said: No they did not. Intelligence agencies do not assess the success or failure of policies.

But the fact remains that George Bush was going to go teach these guys a lesson with his tough talk. Standing on the debri with his bull horn, "you'll be hearing from us soon"!!!!! Lol.

What the NIE said was, your little operation in Iraq has failed to crush Al Qaeda and put them on the run as Rummy was saying. It served as a recruiting ground for Islamic extremists. Caused an increase in global terror, made America less safe. Iow, you ****ed up Bush, your Iraq policy is a failure.

:lamo. :lamo

That's unlikely since crushing Al Qaeda was not the aim of the Iraq invasion. The 2006 NIE presented a candid picture. It's what intelligence is supposed to do.
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

there is sometimes a strong impulse on the part of intelligence officers to show that a policy or decision is misguided or wrong, to poke an analytical finger in the policy eye.

Further, the policymaker is often suspicious that when the CIA's analysis suggests his policy is failing or in difficulty, these conclusions are widely circulated by the Agency


You will find no statement by Gates that the analysts criticize policy.
Sure Jack, when a policy is labeled as failing, they are not looking at the policy and making a judgement.
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

U
there is sometimes a strong impulse on the part of intelligence officers to show that a policy or decision is misguided or wrong, to poke an analytical finger in the policy eye.

Further, the policymaker is often suspicious that when the CIA's analysis suggests his policy is failing or in difficulty, these conclusions are widely circulated by the Agency


Sure Jack, when a policy is labeled as failing, they are not looking at the policy and making a judgement.

There is never a statement that a policy is failing. Policies are never labeled. Analysis may indeed suggest failure or success by analyzing intelligence but that is an inference. The analysts never label success or failure of policy.
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

The analysts never label success or failure of policy.

Further, the policymaker is often suspicious that when the CIA's analysis suggests his policy is failing...
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

That's unlikely since crushing Al Qaeda was not the aim of the Iraq invasion. The 2006 NIE presented a candid picture. It's what intelligence is supposed to do.

It wasn't the aim of the invasion, but following us in from A-Stan as they did (see, right there expanding terror) Rummy was keen to tell us they were, what was it, in their last throws or something like that, but of course it was complete horse manure. And today, AQ is bigger than ever. The NIE which pointed out the failure of Bush's Iraq policy remains correct. ;)
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

Further, the policymaker is often suspicious that when the CIA's analysis suggests his policy is failing...

Analysis may suggest policy is failing, but only by an assessment of intelligence, never by a direct discussion of policy.
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

It wasn't the aim of the invasion, but following us in from A-Stan as they did (see, right there expanding terror) Rummy was keen to tell us they were, what was it, in their last throws or something like that, but of course it was complete horse manure. And today, AQ is bigger than ever. The NIE which pointed out the failure of Bush's Iraq policy remains correct. ;)

The NIE was indeed accurate, but was not written as a policy critique.
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

The NIE was indeed accurate, but was not written as a policy critique.

Lol. You're parsing this so thin it's so much hilarity. Call it what you wish, it was critical of Bush's Iraq policy, and accurately so. And we still haven't reached the end of the troubles that his policy has caused us. Of course no worries for him, he's painting florals in his Dallas studio. Not that Obama's policies have been better.
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

Lol. You're parsing this so thin it's so much hilarity. Call it what you wish, it was critical of Bush's Iraq policy, and accurately so. And we still haven't reached the end of the troubles that his policy has caused us. Of course no worries for him, he's painting florals in his Dallas studio. Not that Obama's policies have been better.

No NIE is ever written as a policy critique, your ignorance of the intelligence process notwithstanding. An NIE (or any other analytical product) can (and should, if warranted) point to outcomes not desired by policymakers, but that's just business as usual.
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

Further, the policymaker is often suspicious that when the CIA's analysis suggests his policy is failing...

"The policymaker is often suspicious . . . ," yes. Note nothing is said there about analysts setting out to critique policy. I'm calling a halt to this because all that's being accomplished is you embarrassing yourself. While that's enjoyable in a small way, I like to hold myself to a higher standard. Either you really don't understand the issue or you're determined not to admit you understand. Either way, I've done all I can usefully do here. Feel free to reference Gates -- he has it right and my position merely echoes his.
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but you're still not getting it. My point is precisely that made by Gates. Analysts can be well aware that their intelligence assessments will "poke an analytical finger in the policy eye" but they analyze intelligence, not policy. You can quote Gates all you want; his point is my point.Analysts never discuss the policy. They discuss the intelligence. If that intelligence points to success or failure of a particular policy that is outside the analysts' concern.You again fail to grasp Gates' point. Intelligence analysis may indeed suggest a policy is failing but the analysis will never address the policy. The analysis will address the intelligence picture. The policy maker draws conclusions that may or may not make him suspicious.No, he said they can have an impulse to do that. But they don't. They analyze intelligence. You will find no statement by Gates that the analysts criticize policy.There is never a statement that a policy is failing. Policies are never labeled. Analysis may indeed suggest failure or success by analyzing intelligence but that is an inference. The analysts never label success or failure of policy.Analysis may suggest policy is failing, but only by an assessment of intelligence, never by a direct discussion of policy.

word_magnets.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom