What now?

[Dionysos]

This question is posed mainly for xiannaix as I know he's generally conservative and probably thought about this already. I'm already aware of how Ryan & the more liberal consituency on here feels.

Now that even Dubya is conceding there are no WMD in Iraq - as I watched him say on CNN today - what next? This would be the final straw imo that shoots down the last bit of credibility he has, his die-hard supporters notwithstanding. At what point can we trust him to be armed with the correct information, doesn't this raise his burden of proof even higher for the next action? Does this shake your faith in his abilities, assuming you still had any?

As a secondary issue, why aren't more people screaming at the news agencies for their abject failure to find these flaws and present them to the population? Isn't that their job(at least in theory), to find the truth? These questions could be posed at the Senate Intelligence Committee for only figuring this all out after the fact.

Can somebody explain to me why - or if - I should trust any of these groups to give me valid information anymore?

[Funkenstein]

In ultimate rhetorical sense, I answer your question with a question:

Who do you trust implicitly for your information? Man is man, no matter who or where he is and is always open to personal interpretation. I shouldn't draw the comparison, but I will.

The Bible and all its many forms. All believed and accepted as the truth, just in various formats. The way that it is dispensated is what causes the confusion and clashes.

I glean info primarily from the web and mostly from the BBC when it comes to the world arena. I'm tired of the runaround that we get here in the States and feel that the BBC cuts to the core pretty well.

Not to mention you hear what has happened around the world BEFORE it airs here.

Sorry I led it around in a circle. That was the closest I could provide to insight. Hope it helps.

Last note.

Question everything. If it was all cookies and punch, would the world be in the state that it is now? Inquiring minds always keep people on their toes.

[Dionysos]

I appreciate the message you're trying to convey, but I should mention that none of the news agencies do I take as the end all be all of truth. It does seem to me that they're increasingly flippant to even trying to find the truth though. I try to do my own research on issues, but my time is limited so I eventually have to rely on some other entity to give a (relatively) unbiased accounting of the facts of a situation. The prospects of finding another such organization seem to be quite slim. Maybe I'm looking through rose-colored glasses, but I would like someone with the integrity of Walter Cronkite or Woodward & Bernstein to give me my news instead of Limbaugh, O'Reilly, or Michael Moore.

I digress though.

Originally posted by Dionysos
This question is posed mainly for xiannaix as I know he's generally conservative and probably thought about this already. I'm already aware of how Ryan & the more liberal consituency on here feels.

Now that even Dubya is conceding there are no WMD in Iraq - as I watched him say on CNN today - what next? This would be the final straw imo that shoots down the last bit of credibility he has, his die-hard supporters notwithstanding. At what point can we trust him to be armed with the correct information, doesn't this raise his burden of proof even higher for the next action? Does this shake your faith in his abilities, assuming you still had any?

Do recall that during the debate to go into Iraq, the intelligence upon which GW relied was available to Congress.

No one was debating the "if" question - anywhere - Dems, Reps, Brits even the French agreed that WMD existed.

Lastly, the intelligence committee report issued and signed by (I believe 8) Democrats (including Rockefeller who now seems to say he signed on to a doc he now disagrees with) found that GW relied on CIA and that GW didn't influence CIA to come up with the results they came up with. Also, Rockefeller made a very passionate plea TO GO TO WAR in October 2002 - - he said to wait for more intelligence would be to put too many Americans at risk. He relied on the same info as GW. So, if GW's credibility is tarnished for this reliance - so too is the credibility of the Congress. However, it's no defense to say - "he did it too." But, its absurd for people to accuse GW of lying when they had and relied on the same info and agreed on how to address it.

- now - the intelligence failures - it would seem to me that the atrophy of resouerces of all kinds (human, dollars, contacts etc etc) that occurred follwing the end of the cold war played a far greater role than influence. Recall the Clinton administration,rightly, advocated regime change starting in 1998 (I think it was 1998).

But, the WMD... I do believe they exist. Can't argue that we haven't found them. And, to stave off an argument that doesn't matter to me... I think WMD was a sales pitch, and a bad one, but I still think going in was the right thing to do - and I've talked at length about that elsewhere.

So - as to credibility - we need to overhaul the intellignece agencies. I think the Senate report will make recommendations suggesting that.

Originally posted by Dionysos
As a secondary issue, why aren't more people screaming at the news agencies for their abject failure to find these flaws and present them to the population? Isn't that their job(at least in theory), to find the truth? These questions could be posed at the Senate Intelligence Committee for only figuring this all out after the fact.

Do you really trust the news agencies (I assume your referring to CNN and the like) to bring you good and reliable information? Or just sensational information? Short answer - we expect very little from them.

Originally posted by Dionysos
Can somebody explain to me why - or if - I should trust any of these groups to give me valid information anymore?

Currently there is great reason to be troubled and concerned with these very issues.

[Dionysos]

I agree that the intelligence agencies need to be cleaned out and overhauled. At the same time, doesn't the Bush administration - and ultimately Bush himself - bear final responsibility for the actions of those beneath him? If a football team goes out and assaults a group of women, they get arrested and go to jail...but the head coach gets canned too.

(It's an imperfect analogy, but you get the idea)

I guess the main themes here are questioning responsibility, honesty, and effectiveness, and how to regain my faith in any of those 3 with this administration, the intel community, and the media.

[Element4040]

One of the things I noticed is almost every single News agency started playing nice with the current administration once it was determined that we were going to war. Perhaps they were to gung-ho on not pissing off the adminstration in order to make sure they got their embedded reporters in the field?

Originally posted by Dionysos
I agree that the intelligence agencies need to be cleaned out and overhauled. At the same time, doesn't the Bush administration - and ultimately Bush himself - bear final responsibility for the actions of those beneath him? If a football team goes out and assaults a group of women, they get arrested and go to jail...but the head coach gets canned too.

(It's an imperfect analogy, but you get the idea)

I guess the main themes here are questioning responsibility, honesty, and effectiveness, and how to regain my faith in any of those 3 with this administration, the intel community, and the media.

GW- One can argue that GW misplaced his reliance. I'd reject that argument though. If you can't rely on the DCI for your intelligence - on whom may you rely? I understand your analogy and it does hold that GW should take some heat. And he has - lots of it. However, "what now?" indeed. Shall I vote for Kerry to issue my protest that GW relied on bad information as a sales pitch to do something I thought he should do for other reasons?

Intel - Tenent has said, some long time ago now, that CIA needed lots of work to bring it back into shape. It will be a long process I suspect and I do share your scepticism.

The news - I think most media sources are a lost cause. I do not think there are any "always" reliable writers - although some are often reliable.... that's the most complimentary I can be.

Originally posted by Dionysos
I agree that the intelligence agencies need to be cleaned out and overhauled. At the same time, doesn't the Bush administration - and ultimately Bush himself - bear final responsibility for the actions of those beneath him? If a football team goes out and assaults a group of women, they get arrested and go to jail...but the head coach gets canned too.

(It's an imperfect analogy, but you get the idea)

I guess the main themes here are questioning responsibility, honesty, and effectiveness, and how to regain my faith in any of those 3 with this administration, the intel community, and the media.

This is something that we might actually agree on... With Bush or the Bushes being in power for so long (just because Jr. or Sr. isn't president doesn't mean they still aren't running shit) there is no telling how corrupt the media and the governmental correspondence that surrounds him operates. The only way to regain the main themes is to take it back...DIY...or find another alternative...but sooner or later the ones giving the information will change---It will be up to us to find better and more reputable sources...

and to my man rufuspfunk

rufuspfunk ---In ultimate rhetorical sense, I answer your question with a question:

my parents do that shit to me all the time...it has made me stronger and capable

[Adam D]

News media is made up of businesses, that are like all other businesses, simply differing in the means in which they generate profit.

At that point, you shouldn't trust them beyond the degree in which you would trust any other profit-motivated company.



It's better to locate the facts yourself and come to your own conclusion, anyway.