Guys, lay off the attacks on Vitamin. Apply some tact and discretion within the scope of your dialogue. Let's not lose an important voice on this board.
b,121 Let's not lose an important voice on this board.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121I've never understood why you guys sweat him like this. b,121b,121Because he is or was a working journalist? If you didn't get itb,121that he was just running the GOP party line all these years, hisb,121big F on the Sarah Palin test should have finally drove the point home.
b,121big F on the Sarah Palin test should have finally drove the point home.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Seriously. She's like the litmus test for political disingenuous-ness. b,121b,121Luck: E*i is big boy. He can defend himself and frankly, he's not even getting rained on that hard by this board's standards. I think the latter is a reflection of the general level of esteem he's had with the board though I fear he's lost a good deal of that cred since his return.
b,121Are you suggesting that the pre-Iraq war intelligence was deeply flawed, rather than creatively edited?
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121It's not a suggestion, it's a fact.
b,121
b,121What must be remembered is that the belief saddam was developing WMD was the consensus view of the world intelligence community.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121Must we do this again?
b,121
b,1211) Most countries thought that Iraq had WMD, the U.S. however was the ONLY country that believed Iraq was a threat. The British said the WMD intelligence was weak.
b,121
b,1212) The CIA did have flawed intelligence. In fact they had their heads up their asses when it came to WMD. They not only said that Iraq had WMD, but claimed that it was bigger than before the Gulf War.
b,121
b,1213) When the U.N. inspectors went back to Iraq in late 2002 they went to EVERY WMD/Nuke sight listed in the U.S.'s White Paper and found nothing. The U.S. claimed Iraq was hiding it. How exactly can a country hide a program that is said to be larger than before the Gulf War that relied upon over a dozen large factories? They said it was becuse of 7 WMD trailers, and never said how they could hide centrifgues, et.al. that would make up a nuke program.
b,121
b,1214) The Administration also took the worst case scenarios and dropped the cavets and repeated those such as Iraq could get a bomb within a year.
b,121
b,1215) When it came to Iraq and Al Qaeda there was never a major intel report that said Iraq and Al Qaeda had anything but occasional meetings back in the 90s that led to nothing. Yet, the White House said they were connected over and over. This led to wild exaggerations of even intelligence that was disproven such as Mohammad Atta, one of te 9/11 hijackers, meeting with Iraqi intelligence before 9/11.
b,121
b,121When 9/11 happened there were large numbers within the administration that were talking about taking out Saddam. This was shared by Bush and Cheney. After Afghanistan was done then, the White House turned to what they knew, IRAQ, rather than what they didn't, terrorism and Al Qaeda, because remember, bin Laden was still around. That's why we went into Iraq. It was basically unfinished business, that the White House talked themselves, the Congress, and the public into believing was part of the war on terror when it wasn't.
b,121
b,121Dah dah!
b,121
b,121And this is so relevant to the financial crisis that we are now facing and what is going on in Iraq right now.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121A good first step in crafting a convincing rebuttal is ensuring that all your points are relevant to the argument in question. It is not a sufficient step, but it is a necessary one. If you notice a good portion of your list had precisely nothing to do with whether it was the consensus view of the world intelligence agencies that saddam was developing WMD, and the ones that do tend to confirm that point rather than undermine it.b,121b,121Think about my advice and try again. And remember, dolo believes in you.
b,121Both sides are playing a guilt by association.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121Ayres, Rezko, Wright et al are not merely associates of Obama. They're not people who happened to shop at the same grocery store or whose kids played for the same softball team. These are men who Obama chose to forge close personal and working relationships with and then lied about the nature of those relationships when they caught public attention
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121what are you basing your knowledge of these 'close personal and working relationships' on again? is it because ayers legally signed off on obama's membership which subjectively could be read as a contradiction of a single sentence in a ny times article that otherwise suggests their relationship was extremely tenuous at best? the sign of a true blood brother
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121As i've already explained to you, Ayres was in the position to 'legally sign off' Obama's appointment to board chair BECAUSE AYRES FOUNDED THE BOARD. And whether you believe the dubious proposition that ayres had no interest in who chaired the board he founded is irrelevant. If he had picked obama's name out of a hat it wouldn't change the fact that Ayres and Obama worked closely together for several years on the board after that.
wow nice revelationb,121b,121heres a funny story - i know someone who was on a (bipartisan) board w/ ayers - everyone thought he was kind of a douche on the board - he showed up early on, liked to hi-five the black kids in the hallways at the school to show he was down, then dipped for most of the year, returning only at the end when the board made its final decisions. everyone (bipartisan) thought he was kind of a shallow doucheb,121b,121guess what? being on a board w/ someone can mean a lot of things. you seem pretty unfamiliar w/ how these things work
b,121heres a funny story - i know someone who was on a (bipartisan) board w/ ayers - everyone thought he was kind of a douche on the board - he showed up early on, liked to hi-five the black kids in the hallways at the school to show he was down, then dipped for most of the year, returning only at the end when the board made its final decisions. everyone (bipartisan) thought he was kind of a shallow douche
b,121
b,121guess what? being on a board w/ someone can mean a lot of things.
you seem pretty unfamiliar w/ how these things work/b1 b,121b,121h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121b,121"wow nice revelation"
yeah i was taking vitamin seriously that maybe 15 out of 16 agencies were all "lol u rong" about the state dept's disagreements, but he never actually sourced this information and nothing in the report that i could find mentions this 'factoid.' b,121b,121it does seem, though, from what ive read (sources+direct quotes in previous posts) that none of the intelligence agencies had evidence that iraq had sought fissile materials from other countries, and the case for that was based on UK intelligence that was later discredited.b,121b,121ive seen no evidence that the u.s. intelligence consensus was that saddam sought fissile materials, and in order to make the case that iraq could attack 'within the year' as GWB claimed - essentially, the main reason we rushed into war ostensibly - this would have to be the case, because intelligence estimates did agree it would take around 5 years for iraq to develop its own fissile materials.b,121b,121in conclusion, i would maintain that as soon as GWB relied on this suspect piece of british intelligence it qualifies as distorting/pressuring intelligence to arrive at conclusions he had already planned to arrive at
Deej,b,121b,121You're fighting a losing battle. When it came to WMD, the U.S. intelligence agencies were in fantasy land. They were going on assumptions and worst case scenarios of what Iraq would do without any hard evidence to back it up. By about 2002 they had decided that not only had Iraq restarted its WMD program, but that it was actually larger than before the 1st Gulf War. This was basically because CURVEBALL told them Iraq had 7 mobile WMD labs. Still, the White HOuse did use the worst cases and left out the cavets, but overall, just repeated the bullshit the U.S. intelligence agencies were telling them. b,121b,121The much better argument is on the use of Iraq-Al Qaeda ties. There, all the U.S. intelligence agencies said that while the two talked in the 1990s nothing came of it. Here the White House also stuck to stories that had been disproven such as 9/11 hijack leader Mohammad Atta meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague before the attack. There the White HOuse used implications and exaggerations to prove its point and also the findings of the Counterterrorism group set up in the Pentagon that leaked their report to the neocon Weekly Standard. b,121b,121Finally, Vitnam is right that the decision to call Iraq an immediate danger was a political one, and that was because there were a whole bunch within the administration that wanted to get rid of Saddam, so after 9/11, it gave them the excuse and motivation to do it. It fit in with their world view much easier than continue to hunt Osama bin Laden or go after terrorists after Afghanistan was finished.b,121b,121Around late 2002 Bush had decided to go to war. Hence the ignoring of the U.N. weapons inpspectors that went to every sight listed in the U.S. White Paper about Iraq's weapons programs and found absolutely nothing. b,121b,121Finally, the problem with Joe Wilson is that most of his story was based upon assumptions rather than what actually happened. For example, after he came back from Niger he assumed that his report of finding nothing would be passed up to superiors, especially Cheney because that's who initiated the inquiry, but in fact, his report was just kept in house in the CIA.
The case of Iraq having a nuke within a year was a worst case scenario without the cavets. The intell community was split on whether Iraq had bought aluminum tubes for centrifuges or not, and also on the Niger yellow case story. They did believe the nuke program was up and running however, based upon a whole bunch of spurious evidence, such as an Iraqi newspaper clipping with Saddam meeting some scientists, and the fact that a building which had been used for the nuke program that had been blown up in the 90s was rebuilt. Anyways, the major cavet that the White House left out of the nuke claim was that Iraq could only get a nuke within a year if it could build centrifuges, create the uranium they needed, or just buy the uranium, and get foreign assistance because they didn't have the expertise to do all this themselves. That was left out.
b,121 Let's not lose an important voice on this board.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121I've never understood why you guys sweat him like this.
b,121
b,121Because he is or was a working journalist? If you didn't get it
b,121that he was just running the GOP party line all these years, his
b,121big F on the Sarah Palin test should have finally drove the point home.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Well, I reserve my right to totally disagree with his points, but I'm talking about elevating the presentation of our content. Additionally, I consider dissenting views to be a staple of any healthy community.
b,121 Let's not lose an important voice on this board.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121I've never understood why you guys sweat him like this.
b,121
b,121Because he is or was a working journalist? If you didn't get it
b,121that he was just running the GOP party line all these years, his
b,121big F on the Sarah Palin test should have finally drove the point home.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121Well, I reserve my right to totally disagree with his points, but I'm talking about elevating the presentation of our content. Additionally, I consider dissenting views to be a staple of any healthy community.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121I'm with Luck. b,121b,121V uses facts, reason and an honest passion for beliefs to make his case. b,121b,121To Deej: Don't get to frustrated. I clearly spelled out for him - before the Iraq invasion - that the claims of administration were demonstrably wrong. He will always adhere to small set of facts proving that THE CONSENSUS OF THE WORLD'S INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY BELIEVED IRAQ HAD WMD. Nothing else matters to him. b,121b,121Some people have suggested that he used to be more intellectually honest. I don't think he has changed. It is just very hard for someone who is supporting McCain to make an argument for Palin. He tried his best, but like Palin, his defense was a joke. b,121b,121The new Dolo (who I think is Saba) is trying to be more coherent and less offensive. He is an idiot and should be ignored.
b,121 Let's not lose an important voice on this board.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121I've never understood why you guys sweat him like this.
b,121
b,121Because he is or was a working journalist? If you didn't get it
b,121that he was just running the GOP party line all these years, his
b,121big F on the Sarah Palin test should have finally drove the point home.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121Well, I reserve my right to totally disagree with his points, but I'm talking about elevating the presentation of our content. Additionally, I consider dissenting views to be a staple of any healthy community.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121I'm with Luck.
b,121
b,121V uses facts, reason and an honest passion for beliefs to make his case.
b,121
b,121Some people have suggested that he used to be more intellectually honest. I don't think he has changed. It is just very hard for someone who is supporting McCain to make an argument for Palin. He tried his best, but like Palin, his defense was a joke.
b,121b,121h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121I totally disagree with this line of thinking... I understand V is the resident conservative and uses facts, blah, blah, blah....b,121b,121But, if he's dropping some bullshit, "TALKING POINT IN A CAN," about Palin's foreign policy, 'experience,' he deserves to get called out on that. He's clearly a smart dude, but of late, smarts and facts have had little part in his arguments. b,121b,121And, frankly, if getting called on that is going to drive him away? Jeesh, even his favorite hockey mom has bigger balls than that.b,121b,121At this point, I just ignore Dolo; unfortunately, I've also started ignoring Vitamin, and frankly, that is his fault for bringing NOTHING substantive to these arguments.b,121b,121b,121b,121
b,121You're fighting a losing battle. When it came to WMD, the U.S. intelligence agencies were in fantasy land.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121is that not what ive been arguing?
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121No, they were in fantasy land claiming that Iraq not only had WMD, but that it's programs were all up and running, and that they were larger than before the 1st Gulf war. They also said that the nuclear program was up and running as well and that the Baghdad was activelly trying to buy materials illegally. b,121b,121There was never evidence that the intelligence analysts were pressured to exaggerate or re-do intel on Iraq's WMD because they were already way WAYYY out there in their reporting. (More like heads up their asses)b,121b,121Everything that Powell said in his U.N. speech for example came from spending days at CIA headquarters and going through report after report. Almost everything that the White House wanted to include in the report, Powell dropped.b,121b,121The part you are correct on is that what the White House said about Al Qaeda and Iraq did not match what the intelligence agencies were saying.
I would add Motown that the second phase report from Rockefeller's committee found the intel agencies did agree that Saddam was knowingly allowing AQ cells to set up shop in his country. That is important because in 2002 USAID regional administrator Laurence Foley was killed in Amman, Jordan by operatives working for Zarqawi. So while you are correct that Richard Clarke in particular did not think much of a connection going back to the 1990s between Saddam and Iraq (whereas Cheney, Wolfowitz and and Feith clearly did), both sides agreed that after Afghanistan, AQ operatives were escaping to Iraq and establishing a safe haven. I am including here the editorial I wrote on this at the time. b,121b,121b,121 Printer-Friendly Versionb,121b,121The Senate's Intelligenceb,121Editorial of The New York Sun | June 9, 2008b,121a href="http://www.nysun.com/editorials/the-senates-intelligence/79553/" target="_blank"1http://www.nysun.com/editorials/the-senates-intelligence/79553/b,121"Our evidence suggests that Baghdad is strengthening a relationship with al-Qaeda that dates back to the mid-1990s, when senior Iraqi intelligence officers established contact with the network in several countries."b,121b,121"We have some evidence that Iraqi Intelligence has been in contact with elements in the northeastern area. And the al-Qaeda operatives there are in regular contact with other operatives located in Baghdad. The Iraqi government has also received information from other sources alerting it to the presence of al-Qaeda operatives in Baghdad."b,121b,121"We have hard evidence that al-Qaeda is operating in several locations in Iraq with the knowledge and acquiescence of Saddam's regime."b,121b,121***b,121b,121Guess who wrote that? If you have been following the Democratic Party's narrative on Iraq, you might guess Ahmad Chalabi, Douglas Feith, Vice President Cheney or some neoconservatives hell bent on twisting intelligence to overstate the connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. But those words are from Carl Ford, assistant state secretary for intelligence and research, whose bureau was singled out for praise after the war for its dissenting assessment of Iraq's nuclear program.b,121b,121The quotes are taken from Mr. Ford's memo to Secretary Powell before Mr. Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. They were reprinted in last week's declassified report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on pre-Iraq war intelligence. That report was widely offered as a confirmation of the Democratic party's narrative that Mr. Bush played fast and loose with the intelligence in the run up to the Iraq war. Quoth Senator Rockefeller: "Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."b,121b,121Well not exactly. On many key judgments before the war, the report itself found that statements on Iraq's biological weapons capacity, its nuclear and chemical weapons programs, the president and his cabinet secretaries generally followed the intelligence assessments of the spy services. On some issues there was disagreement. When Mr. Cheney said in September 2002 that he did not know if Al Qaeda and Iraq cooperated on the September 11, 2001, attacks, the CIA and FBI believed at that point there was no connection.b,121b,121Also, most intelligence agencies did not think the Iraqi dictator would share unconventional weapons with terrorists. President Bush believed the nation could not take the risk that they could. But on the question of meaningful links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, something the anti-war movement believes never existed, the evidence suggests a more nuanced picture than Mr. Rockefeller has portrayed. This is where Mr. Ford's January 31, 2003, memo comes into play.b,121b,121Mr. Ford's memo came on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom. His words demolish a talking point for Democrats who still say Al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq until the coalition of the willing invaded. Mr. Ford wrote that the former emir of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab Zarqawi "has had a good relationship with Iraqi intelligence officials." He added that intelligence on Qaeda "revealed the presence of safe house facilities in the city as well as the clear intent to remain in Baghdad. Also, foreign NGO workers outside of Iraq who are believed to provide support to al-Qaeda have also expressed their intent to set up shop in Baghdad."b,121b,121We would not be surprised if some of the administration's critics were to say that Mr. Ford's memo is itself evidence of political pressure on career bureaucrats. But the Democrats have relied on Mr. Ford before, for his testimony against John Bolton. In any event, if the supposed political pressure was impossible to withstand, how to explain the fact that Mr. Ford and his shop dissented from the national intelligence estimate on Iraq's nuclear program, which played a much bigger role in the Bush administration's case for war?b,121b,121Also the committee looked at only the finished intelligence products but not the daily spot analyses the intelligence community produces for senior administration officials. Mr. Rockefeller decided to exclude a handwritten note from the CIA's terrorism analyst of the Mr. Bush's 2002 speech in Cincinnati on the eve of the Congressional vote authorizing the war saying the paragraphs about Iraq and terrorism were "all-Okay." Wrote Senators Bond, Chambliss, Hatch, and Burr in an addendum to the report: "Apparently the majority did not think this was something the public needed to know since they denied our request to include it and did not allow a vote on the amendment offered to fix this shortcoming."b,121b,121These are inconvenient facts for Democrats that decided some time in 2004 that they could wash their hands of the war for Iraq by claiming they were duped by the president and his conservative backers. It turns out that even their own investigation mocks their claim.
b,121 Let's not lose an important voice on this board.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121I've never understood why you guys sweat him like this.
b,121
b,121Because he is or was a working journalist? If you didn't get it
b,121that he was just running the GOP party line all these years, his
b,121big F on the Sarah Palin test should have finally drove the point home.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121Well, I reserve my right to totally disagree with his points, but I'm talking about elevating the presentation of our content. Additionally, I consider dissenting views to be a staple of any healthy community.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121I'm with Luck.
b,121
b,121V uses facts, reason and an honest passion for beliefs to make his case.
b,121
b,121To Deej: Don't get to frustrated. I clearly spelled out for him - before the Iraq invasion - that the claims of administration were demonstrably wrong. He will always adhere to small set of facts proving that THE CONSENSUS OF THE WORLD'S INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY BELIEVED IRAQ HAD WMD. Nothing else matters to him.
b,121
b,121Some people have suggested that he used to be more intellectually honest. I don't think he has changed. It is just very hard for someone who is supporting McCain to make an argument for Palin. He tried his best, but like Palin, his defense was a joke.
b,121
b,121The new Dolo (who I think is Saba) is trying to be more coherent and less offensive. He is an idiot and should be ignored.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Thanks Laserwolf. The point about the consensus of intelligence is important because many politicians have said the administration lied about pre-war intelligence. If you wish to argue about Bush's judgment, then that is fair game. How's Oregon these days. Rainy, financially depressed?
font class="post"1b,121b,121Rainy, financially depressed.b,121b,121Actually I do not see signs of financial depression in Portland yet. b,121b,121Washington Mutual is still building a new branch with a Whole Foods Market attached and condos above, just down the street from me. b,121b,121The housing market is stagnant, which is a big change, but happens all the time. b,121b,121I've been to the hip shopping districts passing out fliers for the Night Owl Record Show. Stores are packed and cash registers are ringing. b,121b,121Are you back in Calvert Neighborhood?
b,121Jackson warns that he isn't an Obama confidant or adviser, "just a supporter." But he adds that Obama has been "a neighbor or, better still, a member of the family."
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Is it customary to announce a desire to castrate members of one's family in mixed company?
b,121That was a trainwreck (on Frum's part.) He tried to sabotage her and she handled herself really well.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Really? I thought she embarrassed herself. No intelligence person, could possibly believe that some nutbar at a rally with thousands of people is a reflection on McCain's campaign or the conservative movement. I realize that this is a popular opinion these days on the New York Times op-ed page, but it's ridiculous. Should we judge Democratic leaders by the comment section at Daily Kos or the Huffington Post or when Jane Hamsher puts up a picture of Joe Lieberman in black face on firedoglake? Should the Obama campaign be summarized by the poster of Che Guevera at the regional campaign office? And this line of attack is coming in the same breath of democrats defending Obama's association with an ex leader of the weather underground? So serving on a charitable board with Ayers does not reflect on Obama, but a random nutjob at a rally tells you what you need to know about McCain. Balderdash.
b,121That was a trainwreck (on Frum's part.) He tried to sabotage her and she handled herself really well.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121I don't think it was that bad. Dude has a smarmy demeanor, so he has a disadvantage against Maddow.b,121b,121If one were to read the transcript, though, and compare the substance of the exchange, I don't really think this guy got served so much.
Comments