Can I lend a small tidbit of insider information on intelligence?

I%26#039;m no intelligence expert even tho that was my MOS for 6 years.

One thing I do know with certainty is that sources of intelligence are nearly *always* checked out before passing it off as %26quot;good%26quot;.

When you%26#039;re trying to justify a war and full scale invasion, I have to believe (w/o actually being there) you check your sources first.

And then the next step would have been to scour Iraq for WMD%26#039;s by our terribly sophisticated satellites. (you%26#039;d be AMAZED at how powerful spy satellites are)

They neither checked out the source, nor did they come up with any pics to back up the intelligence.

That just doesn%26#039;t happen.

We scrubbed our sources with steel wool to make sure we weren%26#039;t sending in a Force Recon team with faulty intel, much less if there was going to be a war because of it.

I can%26#039;t stress enough how unlikely those series of events are.

Can I lend a small tidbit of insider information on intelligence?apply for a loan

Just proves to me what an idiot George Tenet really was. I think the biggest blunder of George Bush is not firing him right after 9/11.

Can I lend a small tidbit of insider information on intelligence? loan

Yes.|||we already know iraq had wmds... it is a fact ppl. no they didn%26#039;t have nukes. because if they did israel would have already wiped them off the map for us. but weapons of mass destruction are defined as weapons with the capability to cause massive destruction! just like their name states.

regardless of the wmds, we had every justification to go into iraq. their sovereign was a brutal muderer and committed large scale acts of genocide. british intel supported ours. and just because the governments are saying oops doesn%26#039;t mean that there weren%26#039;t wmds. they are not going to leak certain intel regardless of the consequences involved in keeping it quiet.

we are at war, drop your pickett signs folks, and wave a flag. if you hate bush that%26#039;s fine, but he is not over there fighting for us. our troops are. bright young men and women who did not ask for war, but went where we asked them to go. don%26#039;t forget that when we went into this it had a 98% approval rating, and bush did say that this was not a war of half measures and that it would be a long drawn out war. this was all explained in the beginning. and he did not declare war, congress did.|||[quote]Can I lend a small tidbit of insider information on intelligence?[/quote]

Obviously not.

[quote]I%26#039;m no intelligence expert even tho that was my MOS for 6 years.[/quote]

Intelligence expert is not an MOS. And depending on what MOS you actually had your experience for a single enlistment is dubious at best.

?[quote]One thing I do know with certainty is that sources of intelligence are nearly *always* checked out before passing it off as %26quot;good%26quot;. [/quote]

When you%26#039;re trying to justify a war and full scale invasion, I have to believe (w/o actually being there) you check your sources first.[/quote]

The veracity of sources is an issue that is overcome by multi-sourcing. As an intelligence veteran of 6 years you should know that. For those that do not multi sourcing involves using at least 3 different sources to confirm a hypothesis. In this case the hypothesis was %26quot;Saddam Hussein has WMD%26quot;. To confirm this we used imagery Intelligence (satellite photos shown to the UN for example), signals intelligence (telephone and radio intercepts where conversations concerned about WMD), and human intelligence (interviews with people who claimed the WMD programs existed). ??[quote]And then the next step would have been to scour Iraq for WMD%26#039;s by our terribly sophisticated satellites. (you%26#039;d be AMAZED at how powerful spy satellites are)[/quote]

Actually imagery as I indicated would be part of the previous step. And I would not be amazed, put in perspective, the US built the Hubble Telescope a satellite the size of a grey-hound bus that can see billions of miles away from our planet and takes such pretty pictures. To imagine what would happen if a satellite similar to that was turned back at Earth to take pictures is not a stretch. ??[quote]They neither checked out the source, nor did they come up with any pics to back up the intelligence.[/quote]

Your hypothesis. Weak and easily refuted. Google Halabja, or the Iran-Iraq War. Better yet google OIF Mustard Gas and read the stories about IEDs that contain sarin gas or mustard agent that US Soldiers are being injured by. There is no doubt pre-war or post-war that Saddam had WMDs.??[quote]That just doesn%26#039;t happen.[/quote]

It didn%26#039;t you are just regurgitating talking points from a debunked anti-war campaign.

??[quote]We scrubbed our sources with steel wool to make sure we weren%26#039;t sending in a Force Recon team with faulty intel, much less if there was going to be a war because of it. [/quote]

We did not go to war because of faulty intel. To believe your hypothesis one would have to accept that the UN Security council, All NATO Nations, China, Russia were either all in on the conspiracy to get Saddam Hussein on bogus WMD evidence, or that the US is so crafty, smart and capable that it fooled those countries and organizations for 10 years that he had the weapons, and the intelligence apparatus for each of the countries failed to follow its doctrine and took our word for it. No your hypothesis makes no sense, has been disproved, and yet you would insist the only explanation is a conspiracy by the US to fool the world.

?[quote]I can%26#039;t stress enough how unlikely those series of events are.[/quote]

Not only is it unlikely, your suggestion that it didn%26#039;t happen, or that it happened and someone presented false findings is wrong. Since you are an intelligence veteran, I suggest you follow your own advice, and check your sources.

The true question is not whether Saddam had WMDs, but rather where did they go to prior to the US led invasion, and who has the now?