............^^^^^^
Based on what you followed that with, the best you can say is
"maybe" here.
Well, I kind of agree with you, except it is reasonable that some
truckloads of stuff were sent to Syria. However, those truckloads
were probably (maybe?) not anything interesting.
I met some people from a 3 lettered agency of the US government. There
was inteligence in the title but none was detected in what they were
doing. This was before 1995.
Remember the CIA was still saying the Soviet economy was just perking
right along right up to the day the wheels fell off. This was well before
1995 and any downsizing. Based on the latest results, I'd be inclined to
down size them to zero and buy a good dart board. How an orginization can
have so many smart people involved and perform so stupidly is one of the
major questions of our time.
I agree with your analysis of the CIA situation, except the downsizing
and laying off of the greybeards (well, maybe not greybeards, but the
probably most experienced HUMINT types) in the 1995 timeframe was
inexcusable.
The big question (whether or not you and I agree on everything or anything):
HOW IN THE HELL HAS THE CIA BEEN SO DAMNED WRONG, and APPEARED SO
INCOMPETENT????
The weakness of the intelligence community makes the specific choice
of the president to be relatively less important (OR MAYBE NOT?) Perhaps,
in todays' situation, we should want a president who is likely to make
alot of 'noise' against our enemies, but very unlikely to do anything
about it?
With the Iraq situation (before the liberation), it is likely that if
the CIA was 99% correct (instead of 10% correct), then GWB had made
the correct decisions WRT the liberation. (I AM NOT EXCUSING BUSH FOR
HIS OWN MISTAKES.) However, continued inaction was also not effective
(the ongoing likely increases in dealings between Saddam and AlQueda and
the Putin allegations about Saddam's intent to cause damage to the US.)
Trying to figure out the ideal personality for the president (in the
short term) seems daunting. We definitely don't want a French ass-kisser
(because of France's ongoing support of corruption, very much against
the interests of the US.) We definitely don't want someone who is likely
to blindly trust the CIA/NSA/etc, but someone who is able to do the analysis
themselves.
Given the FACT that the CIA is now known to be very unreliable, and
even with input from the British MI6, the results are sometimes INCORRECT,
and it is even POSSIBLE that Putins' claim that Saddam was going to be
more activist against the US is incorrect, then I am hoping that GWB
will NOT trust the CIA as much as it appears that he did. Even the fact
that GWB had kept Tenet in place tends to indicate that Bush did trust
the CIA and the current intelligence community too strongly.
Even though Condi is incredibly intelligent, Cheney is incredibly intelligent
and a good strategic thinker, and Colin is very temperant and wise, the
fact that the the CIA/MI6 intelligence was incorrect seemed to catch
them unaware.
I wish that we had another year to evaluate GWB/Condi/Cheney/Colin team,
so that we can see if they act wisely after the proof of CIA incompetency.
I am not convinced that Kerry could act in a needed aggressive fashion,
given the weakness of the intelligence input (until the intelligence
community is reconstituted.) He would likely be too unlikely to necessarily
express American power, while without further data, it is possible that Bush
(and team) would be TOO LIKELY to express American power. (Purely my
impression.)
In a very basic sense, Bush's team has the intellectual capability and
experience at the high levels of active military and pentagon
management. (Not talking about killing the enemy in face to face situations,
but at the strategy level.)
On the other hand, Kerry's team seems to be fairly biased away from that
area of expertise (I mean the highest levels over long periods), and that
would be MUCH LESS of a problem if the intelligence agencies were trustworthy.
We had recently experienced the smallest amount of a worst-case senerio
(successful attack against the US in the US itself), and with a weak
intelligence community, the anti-military mentality of Kerry would be
worrisome. However, the behavior of the Bush team needs to be proven,
considering their use of American military in a situation where it MIGHT
NOT have been appropriate (but appeared to be approprate given the intelligence
data.)
So, even though my opinion is mixed up, it really should be. We really
have no ideal choices for the president and one choice is only slightly
less dangerous against the US than the other.
I believe that the correct choice (pure opinion) is the choice that is
LEAST LIKELY to appease the demi-imperialist French and their attempted
domination of the EU. I believe that it is fallacious to assume that
irritating the French is necessarily doing the wrong thing. More often
than not, the French have acted on the side of illegal business dealings
and the support of a tyrannical dictator rather than the side of their
so-called friend: the US.
For real (research) information about the French behavior, refer to
www.stratfor.com, and look up "The Chirac-Hussein Connection"
dated Feb 18,2003. This is somewhat off-topic, but only to help
show that 'bias' towards the French position is NOT somehow more
'internationalized', but is more appeasing the French business and
strategic interests (and misbehavior.)
All in all, I am not advocating Bush, but only claiming that of the
2.5 major candidates, there are no ideal choices. Only to make a choice
who will TRY to do the right thing for the US, instead of appeasing
the EU, Bush might be the only choice.
John
