Went down the driveway this morning, picked up the LA Times, and was greeted by this headline:<\/p>\n
CIA Chief Saw No Imminent Threat in Iraq<\/b> Interesting. I read the speech and saw something completely different; a fairly nuanced, complex explanation of what it means to do intelligence work<\/a>, and, and a fairly plausible explanation of what was found and the difficulties in interpreting what was found.<\/p>\n What did you<\/u> see?<\/p>\n Update:<\/b> It just gets better. And if a past soiree’s Man in The Hat<\/a> wonders why I – and others – are inclined to see many of his colleagues as fools, here’s your explanation. Inside, on Page A6…. I can’t find it online, but the L.A. Times has a list of ‘What They Said Before the War’. They, of course, being Bush, Cheney, and Powell. As opposed to Clinton<\/a>, Gore<\/a>, Panetta<\/a>, Albright, Chirac, and Schroeder. <\/p>\n This took me six minutes<\/u> to find using Google. Now I have to go work, so no more time to spend Googling, but do you think the reporters for a freaking national wannabe paper of record<\/b> could do that much work?<\/p>\n What absolutely infuriates me about the selective reporting in today’s LA Times isn’t that it dings Bush (I’m certainly not committed to supporting him) but that it deliberately and falsely shapes the national debate.<\/p>\n Newspapers and mass media have a professional obligation, if they exist to do anything except sell furniture, cars, and bad department-store clothes, to try and present as wide a view of the facts as they reasonably can. And they don’t. As I said earlier, if the Man in The Hat<\/a> wonders why I – and others – increasingly think his colleagues are fools more often than not, here’s your explanation.<\/p>\n
\nTenet says his agency overestimated Hussein’s illicit weapons and relied upon ‘fabricated’ information from an ‘unreliable’ source.<\/a> (registration required, use ‘laexaminer’\/’laexaminer’)<\/p>\n