Quote:
Originally posted by Webby
theKing:
Reckon you probably used the right term there!
We got a billion dollar intell agency that works on "assumptions"...
I could get one of them together for under a $1m and if you wanted something three shades better and more reliable... let's call it $100million.
We don't need "assumptions" or "analysts" to state some facts - facts come from "feet on the ground". It saves office space :-)
King.. you seriously think that the intell service is that bad that it talks so much shit?? I don't really think so 
|
The assumption was primarily based upon reports provide by the original UN Inspectors...so maybe the UN is the one that holds the ultimate blame for providing incorrect reports...based upon their interpretation of information they collected between '91-'98.
This is not the first intel failure and not the first failure of policy makers to correctly interpret intel that was provided to them...and unfortunately will not be the last. Perceived facts come from feet on the ground (we have not had enough feet on the ground for many years as Congress is the one that allocates the budget) and those "perceived facts" are combined with other collection sources and then the combination is analyzed by the intel analyists. Bad intel is more common than it is uncommon...and anyone that has spent a long period of time in combat arms in the military is all to aware of this phenom.