More political ranting

[lets-retire]

Rewrite history all you want. It seems to happen often when a Republican leader is in the Oval Office. It is only later that history is corrected and the truth comes out.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Rewrite history all you want. It seems to happen often when a Republican leader is in the Oval Office. It is only later that history is corrected and the truth comes out.

This is not really true. First of all, the GOP has no monopoly on lying, deception, hiding facts, etc. Secondly, "history" is not always accurate
either for lots of reasons. Sometimes, it is even rewritten after it is
written to achieve a particular slant. Political correctness is one good
example.

JG

 

[samclem]

I was sucked in by this BS at the time as was most of the country. To be fair to us, even Clinton believed it to be the case. He didn't understand that his bombing of Iraq (widely opposed by the republicans as a distraction from more important semen stained skirts) had completely destroyed Iraqs WMD infrastructure which was shaky at the time and never even started on the road back.

I'm not clear on what you think an NIE is. By definition it is a consensus view of the US intelligence community (IC). Here are the lead paragraphs from the "Key Judgements" of the Oct 2002 NIE:

"We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these Key Judgments.)

We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq’s WMD efforts, owing to Baghdad’s vigorous denial and deception efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq’s WMD programs."

(In retrospect, that last sentence definitely qualifies as an understatement!)

Only the Dept of State expressed an "alternative view." They believed Saddam had a limited program to develop nuclar weapons, but did not assess that the program was "integrated and comprehensive." They did not dissent concerning the CW and BW programs. Everyone agreed (and there is widespread agreement to this day) that Saddam had developed long-range missiles that were in violation of the UN limits. I wonder why he needed these? Perhaps to shoot off during Saddam Day celebrations? Or maybe as CW/BW delivery vehicles? Inquiring minds wanted to know.

You weren't "sucked in"--you were making the same assessment others were making based on what they/you knew. If you talked with people about Iraq's WMD at the time, were you "lieing", or just "mistaken?"

Here's a link to the released portion of the 2002 NIE "Key Findings."
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/nie-iraq-wmd.html#inr-n1

False. Only a few members had access to this info. The vast majority had access to only the public portions. Also, the members who did have access, had only what made it up to the NIE. The were not privy to the earlier discussions that were shut down.

Wrong in several respects. I said "prominent," not "many" There were both Republican and Democtartic members of the SSCI and the HPSCI. When leaders of the intel community testify before them (which is a very frequent occurance) the members can pose any questions they want--and get answers. John Kerry was a member of the SSCI until 2001.

These commitees have access to FAR more than just NIEs. Here's what they routinely receive (excerpted from a CRS report)
From the National Intelligence Community (NIC).
- National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) (20-30 page long reports)
- Intelligence Community Briefs (ICBs): estimative intelligence products that are formatted as six-page, quick-turn-around, analytic papers focusing on particular issues.
- Sense of Community Memos: one-page memoranda that evaluate current or day-to-day events. They are Community-coordinated and approved by the NIC chairman for dissemination.
- Conference Reports: Memoranda-for-the-record of conferences that the NIC sponsors on various topics. In addition to Intelligence Community personnel, participants can include experts from outside the Community.

From the CIA:
- The Senior Executive Intelligence Brief (SEIB): Known for decades as the National Intelligence Daily and viewed by the CIA as one of its flagship products, (44) is a daily publication containing six to eight relatively short articles or briefs covering an array of topics.
- Serial Fliers (SFs): Short and concise memorandum-style products, generally a few pages in length, on a discrete topic of current relevance. SFs generally do not contain summaries, but may contain graphics or maps.
- Intelligence Assessments (IAs): The primary vehicle for in-depth research.
- Strategic Perspective Series (SPSs), like IAs, are based on extensive research, but are focused on a key strategic issue - frequently at the direction of the Directorate of Intelligence leadership.
- Research Projects/Papers (RPs): Tthe primary vehicle used to explore new analytic research areas and to develop the Directorate of Intelligence's corporate knowledge of a given issue.
- Leadership Profiles (LPs): Biographic assessments of foreign leaders.
- Situation Reports: Short reports that comment on current, fast-breaking events. Up to two or three situation reports can be issued daily, if warranted.

Department of Defense.
- Military Intelligence Digest (MID) is produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency and is seen as a military-oriented counterpart to the SEIB.

I am NOT trying to say that it is reasonable that these lawmakers should have performed their own analysis and come to a different conclusion regarding Iraqi WMDs. But, they were aware of the of how the intel community was operating on this very important question. If the legislative branch is not going to accept some measure of responsibility for the failure of the intel community to get this right, then a reasonable person might ask what their function is, and whether their involvement in the process (at the cost of tons of meetings, staff papers produced for them, etc) is serving a useful function.

Now, I am concerned about reports that VP Cheney, together with a group of folks with which he has an ideological kinship, had a role in steering/shading the conclusions of the intel community and in reworking products until they were "suitable." We should all be concerned if/when any administartion cooks the books. For a good case history, look at what LBJ and Nixon did with the very solid assessments they got concerning the Vietnam situation, and the results of failing to see the world as it truly was. Do we need to beware of the same problem re: Iraq? Yes.

 

[eridanus]

Now, I am concerned about reports that VP Cheney, together with a group of folks with which he has an ideological kinship, had a role in steering/shading the conclusions of the intel community and in reworking products until they were "suitable." We should all be concerned if/when any administartion cooks the books. For a good case history, look at what LBJ and Nixon did with the very solid assessments they got concerning the Vietnam situation, and the results of failing to see the world as it truly was. Do we need to beware of the same problem re: Iraq? Yes.

Downing Street Memo:

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

"The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action."


Add in the forged Nigeria "yellow cake" documents, and their reference in a Presidential speech, and it sure looks like someone was fixing the facts "around the policy."

The 10/02 NIE states,

“Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR’s assessment, highly dubious.”

George Tenet writes,

"The background above makes it even more troubling that the 16 words eventually made it into the State of the Union speech. This was a mistake."

Ooops!

(Bold added.)

 

[greg]

Mr. Epstein says he differentiates between facts and ideas. But facts do not appear all by themselves. Every "fact" is selected from millions of possible facts, thru the use of ideas. It is our ideas that give rise to facts.

First come the ideas, e.g., distance or time or temperature or personal status. Next appear the facts, e.g., three inches, 1.2564 light years or seven days, 1.250 nanoseconds or "It's warmer today than yesterday," absolute zero or King Edward I or Chairperson Jones.

Whether our ideas are innate or simple or complex, it is only through them that facts appear.
--William Eichler

This letter to the editor was in the WSJ Wednesday. I find it germaine.

 

[sgeeeee]

Mr. Epstein says he differentiates between facts and ideas. But facts do not appear all by themselves. Every "fact" is selected from millions of possible facts, thru the use of ideas. It is our ideas that give rise to facts.

First come the ideas, e.g., distance or time or temperature or personal status. Next appear the facts, e.g., three inches, 1.2564 light years or seven days, 1.250 nanoseconds or "It's warmer today than yesterday," absolute zero or King Edward I or Chairperson Jones.

Whether our ideas are innate or simple or complex, it is only through them that facts appear.
--William Eichler

This letter to the editor was in the WSJ Wednesday. I find it germaine.

In science and engineering we used to say, "All models are wrong . . . it's just a matter of degree. And all measurements are wrong becuase they all depend on models."

But there can, and often is, a big difference in the degree.

 

[donheff]

I'm not clear on what you think an NIE is. By definition it is a consensus view of the US intelligence community (IC). Here are the lead paragraphs from the "Key Judgements" of the Oct 2002 NIE:

Now, I am concerned about reports that VP Cheney, together with a group of folks with which he has an ideological kinship, had a role in steering/shading the conclusions of the intel community and in reworking products until they were "suitable." We should all be concerned if/when any administartion cooks the books. For a good case history, look at what LBJ and Nixon did with the very solid assessments they got concerning the Vietnam situation, and the results of failing to see the world as it truly was. Do we need to beware of the same problem re: Iraq? Yes.

Good post Samclem. I guess I have to agree that the information available to us reasonably led us to believe that Iraq had serious WMD. What I have read since then about Wolfowicz, Perl, Cheney, Rummy, et. al., brow beating the intelligence community into cherry picking weak intelligence is what irritates the hell out of me. For what it is worth, I never said or believed that Bush lied. I assume he believed what he said. Those around him probably believed it as well - but they knew it was based on flimsy intelligence and took the chance to lead us to war anyway. And none of them is willing to admit a mistake (in any real sense) to this day. How could anyone trust them to lead us going forward.

 

[ladelfina]

donheff.. possibly right in that Bush may have believed what he wanted to believe. He is notoriously "incurious." (I don't give Cheney a pass for a NY minute..). There's a horrible pathos in watching them have to half-swallow their words nowadays. Rumsfeld just recently: "Back off.. relax ... it's complicated."

Funny, a couple minutes earlier for Rumsfeld it wasn't "complicated" at all!:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/26/rumsfeld-benchmarks/ .

QUESTION: Sir, what I don’t understand about the benchmark plan — if we can call it that — is what happens if and when the Iraqi government fails to meet the timelines, projections, whatever you want to call them, for some of the major benchmarks?

I mean, we’ve been told that they’re not given ultimatums, but we’ve also been told by the president in recent days that U.S. patience is not unlimited.

But I don’t understand. There must be consequences or responses built into this plan. Can you address that at all?

RUMSFELD: Well, it’s a political season. And everyone’s trying to make a little mischief out of this, and make — turn it into a political football, and see if we can’t get it on the front page of every newspaper and find a little daylight between what the Iraqis say or someone in the United States says or somebody else in the United States says.

And it is not complicated. I’ve explained it two or three times. The president did an excellent job of explaining it yesterday.

And the situation is this. It is that the United States, in the persons of our ambassador and the Embassy and General Casey and his team, have been, over a period of time, in continuous discussions with the Iraqi government at various levels. And they’ve been discussing the way forward through the rest of this year and next year. That’s a perfectly logical thing for them to do.

[…]

Now, you’re looking for some sort of a guillotine to come falling down if some date isn’t met. That is not what this is about.
This is complicated stuff. It’s difficult. We’re looking out into the future. No one can predict the future with absolute certainty.

So you ought to just back off, take a look at it, relax, understand that it’s complicated, it’s difficult. Honorable people are working on these things together. There isn’t any daylight between them. They’ll be discussing this and discussing that. They may have a change there, a change here. But it’ll get worked out.

Maybe the American people are tired of being talked down to...
.. the advice to "relax" is tone-deaf as always.

An interesting article:

The two faces of Rumsfeld

2000: director of a company which wins $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea
2002: declares North Korea a terrorist state, part of the axis of evil and a target for regime change

http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html

 

[sgeeeee]

. . .What I have read since then about Wolfowicz, Perl, Cheney, Rummy, et. al., brow beating the intelligence community into cherry picking weak intelligence is what irritates the hell out of me. For what it is worth, I never said or believed that Bush lied. I assume he believed what he said. Those around him probably believed it as well - but they knew it was based on flimsy intelligence and took the chance to lead us to war anyway. And none of them is willing to admit a mistake (in any real sense) to this day. How could anyone trust them to lead us going forward.

That's generous of you donheff. But that sounds like a lie to me. If you knowingly create a document that is intentionally deficient of facts and designed to supress the whole truth . . . isn't that a lie? What would your mother have told you about that kind of behavior?

Just because GWB is mentally slow doesn't mean he is incapable of lying. Just because he feels that development of false documents is justified and believes he is right, doesn't make him blameless. He has gotten away with a boatload of terrible decisions with that, "Ah shucks", attitude. Maybe he is truely too stupid to see that his administration has supressed the whole truth at every turn, but I think that is unlikely. I think if it were their children doing it, most parents today would consider the kind of behavior GWB has repeatedly been involved in to be lying. I consider it lying based on your description of the facts.

 

[Zipper]

Face the facts.

The "Crawford Chimp" should have kept his eye on Afghanistan and killed or captured Osama.

Instead, he thought he knew better, and like the "Gulf of Tonkin", trumped up WMD and punched the "tarbaby".

You had the world on your side after 9-11 and you totally f*cked it up with Iraq.

You suckered the UK and Australia.

Your best friends, the Canadians said don't do it. The Europeans and 90% of the world knew WMD was a crock.

EDIT I agree with the 60% of Americans who disapprove of President Bush, but it seems inappropriate to call our President a chimp. Intellectually lazy, ignorant, devious, and unqualified--OK. But apelike and entertaining? I don't think so.

 

[lets-retire]

I can see this argument is the same circular argument that has taken place numerous times on this forum. So to avoid a similar result as the weight loss thread, I am excusing myself from this debate. You continue believing what you want, no matter how wrong it is, and I'll continue to remember the facts as presented and debated in the UN before the war.

 

[youbet]

Face the facts.

The "Crawford Chimp" should have kept his eye on Afghanistan and killed or captured Osama.

Instead, he thought he knew better, and like the "Gulf of Tonkin", trumped up WMD and punched the "tarbaby".

You had the world on your side after 9-11 and you totally f*cked it up with Iraq.

You suckered the UK and Australia.

Your best friends, the Canadians said don't do it. The Europeans and 90% of the world knew WMD was a crock.

maximillion?

 

[sgeeeee]

Face the facts.

The "Crawford Chimp" should have kept his eye on Afghanistan and killed or captured Osama.

Instead, he thought he knew better, and like the "Gulf of Tonkin", trumped up WMD and punched the "tarbaby".

You had the world on your side after 9-11 and you totally f*cked it up with Iraq.

You suckered the UK and Australia.

Your best friends, the Canadians said don't do it. The Europeans and 90% of the world knew WMD was a crock.

Well . . . yeah. That's a nice way to summarize.

 

[dumpster56]

Well . . . yeah. That's a nice way to summarize.

That is why the entire american public needs to vote out the republicans! $hit they never should have re elected the moron, but america will get what it deserves if these idiots re elect these darn losers.

Damn it where is bin laden?! Huh? Republican Hannity Limbaugh lovers, your guy is an Darn failure!

 

[youbet]

That is why the entire american public needs to vote out the republicans! $hit they never should have re elected the moron, but america will get what it deserves if these idiots re elect these darn losers.

Damn it where is bin laden?! Huh? Republican Hannity Limbaugh lovers, your guy is an Darn failure!

You're quite the hawk for a liberal newguy888! Don't you think there's more to be gained by peaceful negotiation?

 

[saluki9]

Alas, many of those tortured or disappeared by our own gov't were/are not "Muslim extremists"--just Muslims in the wrong place at the worng time, with the wrong address, friends, relatives, acquaintences, or even name. This is why we have the American system of justice--so the gov't can't do things like this to human beings. arrrgh!

Sorry, our laws apply only to Americans. If you want hang out, communicate with, support, fund or whatever with Muslim Terrorists I hope you do get tortured.


GWB has a lot to learn from Putin if he wants to seriously fight terrorism.

 

[Martha]

Must be almost election time.

 

[dumpster56]

You know what really is crazy I do not care one bit what we do to a terrorist.

They have lost all human rights when they decided to kill innocent humans for the sake of the islamic jihad.

Sorrry this liberal wants the likes of bin laden killed.

Iraq, wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[unclemick]

Yawn

Yep - I don't even know all the Democrats in Missouri but I'll vote for them anywise.

Heck - if I could figure out how and if he could run from inside the Federal Pen - I'd vote a St Bernard headstone for Edwin - but alas Katrina put ka-bosch on that idea.

As long as they're still breathing and Democrats - I'll vote for 'em.

heh heh heh heh heh - when I get my curmudgeon certificate - I'll vote for none.

 

[astromeria]

Sorry, our laws apply only to Americans. If you want hang out, communicate with, support, fund or whatever with Muslim Terrorists I hope you do get tortured.

This is extremely rude and I hope you modify your statement yourself, saluki--and you're wrong besides. There have been many utterly innocent people released from Guantanamo and other facilities (after months or years--and only after public and Red Cross protest), and our gov't has admitted as much. Not to mention that our torturing puts all Americans at risk--including Americans like my daughter who are trying to improve democracy in a peaceful manner on their own in difficult places.

 

[sgeeeee]

Yawn

Yep - I don't even know all the Democrats in Missouri but I'll vote for them anywise.

Heck - if I could figure out how and if he could run from inside the Federal Pen - I'd vote a St Bernard headstone for Edwin - but alas Katrina put ka-bosch on that idea.

As long as they're still breathing and Democrats - I'll vote for 'em.

heh heh heh heh heh - when I get my curmudgeon certificate - I'll vote for none.

 

[dumpster56]

Yawn

Yep - I don't even know all the Democrats in Missouri but I'll vote for them anywise.

Heck - if I could figure out how and if he could run from inside the Federal Pen - I'd vote a St Bernard headstone for Edwin - but alas Katrina put ka-bosch on that idea.

As long as they're still breathing and Democrats - I'll vote for 'em.

heh heh heh heh heh - when I get my curmudgeon certificate - I'll vote for none.

Do you chase the neighborhood kids away from the front of your house when they are playing football or baseball on the street there??

Man you need some alcohol or a new younger lady.

 

[unclemick]

Yipeee!!

Thanks sqeeee.

heh heh heh heh heh

 

[Craig]

This debate seems to be deteriorating the closer we get to the election.

For those who are so convinced GWB is an idiot, and only Republicans / so-called conservatives lie ... watch a few more years, and you'll see many Democrats as well as Republicans lie whenever it suits them, and personal attacks are simply political tools. e.g. Clinton didn't come out looking too bright either when you really think about it. 'Course, it's easy for all of us to critique Clinton, Bush, etc., since we really never had to walk in their shoes.


For those exercised about water-boarding, I'll tell you this ... it is easy to rant about such interrogation techniques in a vacuum, and from the comfort of your warm, cozy room, and liberal and pseudo-intellectual keyboard. Easy.

However, if you ... YOU ... were in charge of the security of a city, much less a country, and had in your custody a foreign national you believed, honestly believed, had knowledge of a major, upcoming terrorist plot that could kill thousands, what would you do? If that were truly the situation, I wouldn't hesitate on water-boarding for an instant, and I would surely go much further if that is what it took to take down an enemy and save thousands of innocent lives.

Some of you ... a small group of you ... frankly shock me with your naiveté, and I am thankful you were not responsible for U.S. security in the past. You are incredibly optimistic about human behavior, and ignorant of the raw facts of history.

If this so-called war on terror (and no, please ... not the war in Iraq ...) continues to deteriorate, as I believe it will, we'll see attacks here in the U.S. Then the pseudo-intellectuals will tell us it is our fault ... but if and when that happens, the silly debate will change.

But, this is all like BS conversation at a bar isn't it? No sweat. Just BS right now.

 

[Gone4Good]

Not to mention that our torturing puts all Americans at risk--including Americans like my daughter who are trying to improve democracy in a peaceful manner on their own in difficult places.

This argument is a canard in that it assumes our adversaries have reservations about utilizing torture to the fullest extent possible. They don't. In the event you haven't noticed the internet videos of beheadings or read stories about tortured and mutilated bodies dumped in mass graves or booby-trapped and left for rescue workers to find, our adversaries are well versed in using torture. But they don't use it to extract information, or at least not exclusively. They use it as a weapon. They use it to frighten and control. In short, they use it to terrorize. Don't think for a moment that this will change in the slightest even if we limit our interrogations to the "name, rank, and serial number" questions allowed under the Geneva Convention.