Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Report from all 16 intel. agencies concludes Iraq War has made US less safe (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Report from all 16 intel. agencies concludes Iraq War has made US less safe
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Weighing all the evidence, Bush invaded Iraq because he wanted to.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I'm stupid: what's OC? I too want to ROFLMAO. Help?"

OC = Ghetto slang for 'outta control'

Yo G! I'm the OCinest motha f*cka on tha court!

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am SO out of hip with post 1990 pop culture.

It bores me, for one thing. For another thing, I;ve looked back more than forward. I relate more to Count Basie in a grainy B&W 'soundie' than MTV.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And I found myself more in common with The Great Gatsby than any person my age I've ever met.

Except, unfortunately, I'm not a young, attractive millionaire booze baron. I'm just young and attractive [Smile]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
kenmeer livermaile -

That's right. Bush invaded Iraq on a whim.

I can accept that people blame Bush for intelligence failures. I can accept that some wanted to gain a larger international consensus prior to invading. These arguments, while debatable, have some backing in reality. Your comment, however, is simply asinine.

With regard to international consensus – I do not think that the United States should be restrained by the international community in any manner but the 'invisible hand of international opinion'. Regulatory agencies like the United Nations are a joke and will continue to be a joke. One cannot make a United Nations that is all of the following: inclusive, powerful, representative, and not a shield for petty dictators. It's sad, but that's life.

World government will come through the gradual induction of like-minded member nations into a representative multi-national governing structure, and nothing less.

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not a whim, but also not because Hussein wasn't following UN requirements, and not because the UN was a joke. There are a lot of very smart people who haven't yet figured out exactly why he needed to do it. The smorgasbord of choices includes Hussein was a bad man, to acquire oil, to establish democracy, to prevent terrorism by foreign countries in the US, as a catalyst toward ME regional stability, to create a hardcore US Arab ally to allow us to extend political influence in the region, to establish a military presence to protect access to oil, and perhaps something to do with oil.

The reason very smart people haven't figured it out is that the planning was done so incompetently that it is hard to believe it was done with those goals in mind, and because none of those potential reasons seem plausibly achievable, retrospectively.

So, people have invented other reasons that may seem illogical or altogether irrational, but perhaps are no less strange than Bush thinking his stated reasons made sense. These include personal revenge, a Christian Crusade, as an excuse to institute global network of intelligence mechanisms, to spread cultural and economic "Americanism", to give his favorite charities (i.e., large multinational corporations) new markets to organize and control, or perhaps something to do with oil.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe I just missed it but where is the outrage over yet another leak from intelligence agencies? KnightEnder was foaming at the mouth over Valerie Plame leaks but is silent here? Why no outrage from anyone on the left over this leak?

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Curtis:
1) The NYT reported a leak of some of the conclusions of the report, and interviewed "more than a dozen people" who had either participated in preparing the report or who had read the report. Granted the NYT could be just flat out lying, but those of us who don't base their beliefs on convenient fantasies have a fair idea of some of the conclusions of the report.

You're right, they reported "some" of the conclusions. Which ones did they report? Did they report that U.S.-led efforts have "seriously damaged Al Qaida leadership and disrupted its operations."? Did the NYT report, ""A large body of reporting indicates that people identifying themselves as jihadists is increasing...however, they are largely decentralized, lack a coherent strategy and are becoming more diffuse."? How about the conclusion that, ""Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves to have failed, we judge that fewer will carry on the fight."? Did you see that in the NYT article? Why did the NYT report all those other leaked conclusions of the report and not the ones I list above?

I would say the NYT did commit a lie of ommission here. They bascially have taken selected quotes from the NIE to build a political case against the war. With the report still classified, how can you have any idea much less a fair one of the overall conclusions of this report? Are you so sure you aren't basing your beliefs on a 'convenient fantasy' given the unreported conclusions?

The report also suggests that terrorist's strategies are failing: "There is evidence that violent tactics are backfiring...their greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution (shar'a law) is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims." Again, overlooked by the NYT.

Isn't it also interesting that this leak occurred in time to have an impact on the November election season? Awfully convenient for the Democrats isn't it? Maybe it is just a coincidence that it happened now and only the parts critical of the Iraq war were reported. But leaks detrimental to the Bush administration have come from the intelligence community quite often over the last few years and at convenient times for opponents of the administration. Once is an accident, twice a coincidence, three times is a pattern. we're well past three times here.

What does it mean does when they say that the Iraq war has worsened the "terrorism threat"? Before the Iraq war, the United States suffered a series of terrorist attacks: the first WTC bombing in 1993, the bombing and destruction of two American embassies in East Africa in 1998, the terrorist attack on the USS Cole in 2000, and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Since the Iraq war started, there have not been any successful terrorist attacks against the United States. How exactly is the threat any worse?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Isn't it also interesting that this leak occurred in time to have an impact on the November election season?
This is September. I think late October would be the time to watch both parties and the MSM pull a "sweeps" move. I rather call their exposing this giving you and me information we should have, regardless of the timing.
quote:
How exactly is the threat any worse?
This is not the same as asking why haven't there been further attacks in the US, which even Administration and Congressional figures wonder aloud. How the threat is worse is presumably discussed in the report. I don't know about you, but it makes me want to know what it says.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
meworkingman
Member
Member # 1473

 - posted      Profile for meworkingman   Email meworkingman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

It is hard to understand how you could get this so wrong. While Iraq had been non-compliant for a long time before the invasion, at the time of the invasion, Iraq was fully cooperating with the inspectors, according to the inspectors.

Hmmm. Perhaps it's hard to understand because I don't have it so wrong. Let's look at what Hans Blix actually reported to the UN.
quote:

It is obvious that while the numerous initiatives which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some longstanding, open disarmament issues can be seen as active or even proactive, these initiatives three to four months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute immediate cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance.

This report was given after the UN unanimously adopted resolution 1441, which after 12 years of Iraqi violations of numerous UN resolutions, gave Iraq one last chance to completely and unconditionally abide by those resolutions. The key word in all of these resolutions is unconditional. Even though the regime was being more cooperative than they had been previously, they still were not cooperating unconditionally. Beside the fact that 1441 was supposed to give Iraq a final ultimatum, it was even more important that Iraq cooperate unconditionally at this time because no inspectors had been in Iraq since 1998, potentially giving them plenty of time to rebuild weapons that had earlier claimed to have been destroyed.

So to me, it's quite simple. Hussein had over a decade to comply with UN resolutions that he brought upon himself. He chose not to.

Posts: 238 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by meworkingman:
quote:

It is hard to understand how you could get this so wrong. While Iraq had been non-compliant for a long time before the invasion, at the time of the invasion, Iraq was fully cooperating with the inspectors, according to the inspectors.

Hmmm. Perhaps it's hard to understand because I don't have it so wrong. Let's look at what Hans Blix actually reported to the UN.
quote:

It is obvious that while the numerous initiatives which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some longstanding, open disarmament issues can be seen as active or even proactive, these initiatives three to four months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute immediate cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance.

This report was given after the UN unanimously adopted resolution 1441, which after 12 years of Iraqi violations of numerous UN resolutions, gave Iraq one last chance to completely and unconditionally abide by those resolutions. The key word in all of these resolutions is unconditional. Even though the regime was being more cooperative than they had been previously, they still were not cooperating unconditionally. Beside the fact that 1441 was supposed to give Iraq a final ultimatum, it was even more important that Iraq cooperate unconditionally at this time because no inspectors had been in Iraq since 1998, potentially giving them plenty of time to rebuild weapons that had earlier claimed to have been destroyed.

So to me, it's quite simple. Hussein had over a decade to comply with UN resolutions that he brought upon himself. He chose not to.

Then maybe Bush should have told the American people that we were going to war over a UN resolution instead of lying about intelligence that he was told was iffy and which he chose to say was absolute. I bet that would have gone over great with many of his constituents who don't even like the UN or think it should exist. [Roll Eyes]

Face it, Bush campaigned in 2000 as a 'conservative' who repeatedly said things like "I don't think its our job to be the world's policeman" and then did completely the opposite, even before 9-11.

[ September 26, 2006, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: Liberal ]

Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The smorgasbord of choices
Too late for me to edit that post. I left off the most obvious reason, WMD. People shake their heads about that one, since there weren't any and we probably knew that (or could have deduced it) ahead of time. More than any other reason, the scale of the WMD misjudgment and the extraordinary scale of the consequences of going into Iraq for that reason makes people look under rocks for other justifications.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
meworkingman
Member
Member # 1473

 - posted      Profile for meworkingman   Email meworkingman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Your mama sure dresses you funny. Oh, you put those on yourself? Oh... nice. Very nice. Love the bow tie.

No, I almost never wear a tie. The darn things always make me feel like I'm being strangled. That's not to say that I don't dress funny; I'm sure I probably do. [Eek!]

quote:

Yes, I know that's rude of me. Normally, I bite my tongue more than not.

C'mon. Do you really bite your tongue that often? Don't get me wrong. When I'm being snarky, I expect snarkiness in return. We're all big boys (and girls) here and should have thick enough skins to withstand online attacks. Keep up the rudeness (and humor). I'm all for it.

quote:
This is a not. The obvious self-contradiction in your statement just seems so... well, anyway, LOVE the propellor beanie. Makes that groovy "Bzzzzzt" sound.
Did you like that? It took a lot of work to get that sound out of it. [Big Grin]

As a semi-serious aside, could you explain what you perceive as the obvious self-contradiction? I try to always think clearly and logically but often fail. It can be helpful if others can clearly point to the occassions where I've failed.

Posts: 238 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From Liberal:

quote:
Then maybe Bush should have told the American people that we were going to war over a UN resolution instead of lying about intelligence that he was told was iffy and which he chose to say was absolute.
Constantly repeating something doesn't make it true.


From DaveS:
quote:
Too late for me to edit that post. I left off the most obvious reason, WMD. People shake their heads about that one, since there weren't any and we probably knew that (or could have deduced it) ahead of time. More than any other reason, the scale of the WMD misjudgment and the extraordinary scale of the consequences of going into Iraq for that reason makes people look under rocks for other justifications.
Great list though, thanks!

[ September 26, 2006, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DaveS:
quote:
Isn't it also interesting that this leak occurred in time to have an impact on the November election season?
This is September. I think late October would be the time to watch both parties and the MSM pull a "sweeps" move. I rather call their exposing this giving you and me information we should have, regardless of the timing.
I don't know about timing like that - would a late October shot make more impact or one with a few weeks lead time to bounce around the blogs and media outlets and gather momentum? Releasing now lets everyone with antiwar positions incorporate this report into their campaigns and pound the message home over several weeks. No doubt we will see some kind of "October suprise" but I think this is an opening salvo to build up to them.


quote:
Originally posted by DaveS:
quote:
How exactly is the threat any worse?
This is not the same as asking why haven't there been further attacks in the US, which even Administration and Congressional figures wonder aloud. How the threat is worse is presumably discussed in the report. I don't know about you, but it makes me want to know what it says.
Yeah, presumably it is ... interesting that the NYT and/or the leakers from the inelligence agencies have left that part out. I would say that an increased threat should lead to at least one attack unless the truth is that the Bush administration has become so effective at preventing attacks in a more threatening environment that terrorists have been incapable of attacking. How about that spin?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
meworkingman
Member
Member # 1473

 - posted      Profile for meworkingman   Email meworkingman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Then maybe Bush should have told the American people that we were going to war over a UN resolution instead of lying about intelligence that he was told was iffy and which he chose to say was absolute.

I think the alleged "lying" has been dealt with exhaustively on other threads.

However, I'm wondering if you're old enough to actually remember the events that preceeded our invasion of Iraq. I don't mean that to sound snarky; I'm really wondering. In 2002, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution. This resolution listed the following justifications for military action against Iraq (among others):
  • Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors
  • Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"
The Resolution required President Bush's diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions."

quote:
I bet that would have gone over great with many of his constituents who don't even like the UN or think it should exist.

Actually, a great deal of Bush's actions haven't gone over very well with his constituents.
quote:

Face it, Bush campaigned in 2000 as a 'conservative' who repeatedly said things like "I don't think its our job to be the world's policeman" and then did completely the opposite, even before 9-11.

I'm glad you placed "conservative" in quotes. We've known for some time that he's no conservative (the level of federal spending alone should prove that point). However, could you please refresh my memory on what the administration did vis-a-vis being the world's policeman before 9/11? In fact, didn't Clinton just assert that Bush did nothing before 9/11? Of course, I can't blame anyone for not believing something Billy-boy says. [Eek!]
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The old 'Bush lied' back'n'forth. He mostly phrased his claims about Saddam in terms that would cover his ass in later assessments, but he slipped a few times and told some plain fibs. His sales satff: Rumsefeld, Cheney, Powell, Rice, did the same thing.

The truth was less important than getting their war on, is the conclusion I reach after all the nits have been picked.

Next: Orneryans disinter and dissect the way vague concept of 'global policemen'. Check your local broadcast listngs.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I would say that an increased threat should lead to at least one attack unless the truth is that the Bush administration has become so effective at preventing attacks in a more threatening environment that terrorists have been incapable of attacking. How about that spin?
Spin? One man's spin is another's cogent explanation. I will guess that you view Clinton's explanation that he did everything he responsibly could is actually spin, and Bush's spin that the reason that Iraq is such bad shape is because what we're doing is hard is actually an explanation.

Is it possible that the reason there hasn't been another successful attack in the US is that they haven't really tried? If you think that's spin, will it morph into an explanation if an attack happens?

[Edited for reasons that only a neurotic English Major would understand.]

[ September 26, 2006, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: DaveS ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
meworkingman
Member
Member # 1473

 - posted      Profile for meworkingman   Email meworkingman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Spin? One man's spin is another's cogent explanation.

Good point.

quote:

Is it possible that the reason there hasn't been another successful attack in the US is that they haven't really tried?

Yes it's possible. However, if their numbers are exploding and their hatred is increasing because of the Iraq war, it wouldn't seem to make much sense that they haven't tried. Perhaps they are waiting for the Bush administration to be replaced because they believe the new administration will allow them to get away with their dastardly deeds. How's that for spin/explanation? [Wink]
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DaveS:
Spin? One man's spin is another's cogent explanation. I will guess that you view Clinton's explanation that he did everything he responsibly could is actually spin, and Bush's spin that the reason that Iraq is such bad shape is because what we're doing is hard is actually an explanation.

By including "he responsibly could" you move this to the realm of opinion so its pointless to discuss that. Did Clinton do everything he could? No.

Did Clinton do everything he believed "he responsibly could"? Maybe, I'm sure that he believes he did but to try to link his opinion of what he did to the failures to address all the terrorist attacks from the 90's is a nonsequiter.

As for Bush's spin, first I have to accept your assertion that Iraq is in 'such bad 'shape'. I'm not prepared to accept that. Sure its not perfect and mistakes have been made but another province was handed over to Iraqi control last week and progress is being made.

I do happen to believe that nation building is very hard to do. The other times we did it, Japan and Germany, took many years (decades even?). To try to characterize this as spin is historical amnesia.

quote:
Originally posted by DaveS:

Is it possible that the reason there hasn't been another successful attack in the US is that they haven't really tried? If you think that's spin, will it morph into an explanation if an attack happens?

If I recall correctly, several attacks have been thwarted recently and terrorist cells have been broken up on US soil. I can't believe they haven't tried - the public relations coup of even a small attack would be an enormous public relations victory for the terrorists. I am certain there will be another attack on US soil at some point, the odds are the terrorists will get lucky sooner or later. That one hasn't happened already is suprising.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"That's right. Bush invaded Iraq on a whim."

Well, if you say so. I think it was more than a whim, myself. But ultimately, he's the decider, however asinine those decisions may be.

"Regulatory agencies like the United Nations are a joke and will continue to be a joke."

It intrigues me that the pro-Bush/Iraq War camp regularly trash the UN but hold up Saddam's violations of UN resolutions in their arguments. Seeing as how we as a nation are very selective -- whimsicial, even -- in deciding which UN resolutions we will honor, it's like fighting trash with trash.

"There are a lot of very smart people who haven't yet figured out exactly why he needed to do it."

Deep in an underground laboratory, the nation's finest minds ponder and churn: why'd he do it? why'd he do it? Is it something to do with oil?

"Maybe I just missed it but where is the outrage over yet another leak from intelligence agencies?"

So far, no one's secret identity has been revealed? Leaks are almost a daily occurrence, it seems. The onus of risk is mostly on the leakers. It's when risk is also placed on those about whom info has been leaked, that a higher level of outrage occurs.

So far, the nature of this leak is, if anything, to give the American people a heads-up about risks they may be facing because of certain administration policies.

"The report also suggests that terrorist's strategies are failing: "There is evidence that violent tactics are backfiring...their greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution (shar'a law) is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims." Again, overlooked by the NYT."

That is in the nature of terrorism, not in the nature of our response to same. If anything, this observation recommends a foreign policy vis a vis terrorism that is at least a little more laissez-faire than unilaterally and preemptively invading a sovereign nation, UN resolutions pro or con be damned.

"Since the Iraq war started, there have not been any successful terrorist attacks against the United States. How exactly is the threat any worse?"

We at Ornery generally understand the difference between likelihood and outcome. Many of us also figure that increased intelligence and cooperation and other security measures not necessarily dependent on invading and occupying Iraq (the benefit of which in terms of preventing attacks on American soil has yet to be convincingly articulated to, roughly, at least half of us) might have more to do with the absence of successful attacks since 911 than the fact that, oh, for example, 40k persons a year are dying violently in Iraq despite the ouster of Saddam and his regime.

"So to me, it's quite simple. Hussein had over a decade to comply with UN resolutions that he brought upon himself. He chose not to."

This I agree with. Not as a rationale for the invasion, but simply describing the fact that Saddam had been playing fast'n'loose for some time. Of course, the major parties involved in Iraqi's dynamics since the early 80s, including good old USA, were also playing fast'n'loose. But we're the reigning superpower and Saddam is a pissant. We win, he loses.

"C'mon. Do you really bite your tongue that often?"

I know: I generally dish it up, don't I? But I mostly keep the cayenne out. If I didn' bite my tongue as I do, the ratio of understanding per my posts would rise drammatically. People have a hard time reading when their eyes are watering from pepper spray.

"Except, unfortunately, I'm not a young, attractive millionaire booze baron. I'm just young and attractive"

I got one of those mirrors too. Enhanced Reflectors, they're called.

"As a semi-serious aside, could you explain what you perceive as the obvious self-contradiction? I try to always think clearly and logically but often fail. It can be helpful if others can clearly point to the occassions where I've failed."

O gawd, you just LOVE making me bite my tongue. Bleed, baby, bleed, eh? I thought I'd laid it out in a fairly accessible manner, but I see I shall have to connect the dots. OK. You said:

"Bzzzzzt. Another logical fallacy (straw man). The admin never claimed that deposing Saddam Hussein would reduce international terrorism. The reason given for deposing Saddam was made very clear: after 9/11 a dangerous regime that had a history of supporting terrorism could not be allowed to stand if it was not willing to prove that it didn't possess weapons that the world had ordered it to destroy."

If removing Saddam because he represented a) a dangerous regime that b) supported terrorism that c) was known to have possessed WMDs and might still harbor them, is not action intended and attempting to reduce international terrorism, then what on earth is it? Just spinning your beanie prop for the hell of it, I note that if persons defending Bush's invasion of Iraq (whatever their reasons of from whatever perspective they have) can't figure out that the underyling essence and over-arching rubric of Bush's rationale for invading Iraq was the need to address international terrorism, then... (kenmeer's eyes roll back in his head, as he experiences another epilepsy of divine communion with the Roll-Eyed Wonder of it all).

Whether you're actually a bright person or not, you've definitely earned yourself a Stupid Sticker for that one, meworkingman. Stop it awreddy: you're scaring me. [Wink]

"I don't know about timing like that - would a late October shot make more impact or one with a few weeks lead time to bounce around the blogs and media outlets and gather momentum? Releasing now lets everyone with antiwar positions incorporate this report into their campaigns and pound the message home over several weeks. No doubt we will see some kind of "October suprise" but I think this is an opening salvo to build up to them."

One can only hope [Wink] , but I note here that a leaker doesn't necessarily have full impunity regarding timing. There may be circumstances only in which a leaker can 'get away with it', a window of leakage opportunity that may close within a few weeks for various bureaucratic reasons. One would think that later rather than sooner would be safer, because presumably the longer a report exists the more people will have seen it, but it may be that the apparatus of confidentiality might work diffeently, especially in a situation where 16 agencies' findings are being collatively analysed for a summary to be brought forth. In such a case, as the summary proceeds, it might be that less and less people have the ability to report with accuracy on what the report's final conclusion will say.

It may be that the purpose of this leak was to prevent offending passages from being white-washed before its release, and that the only time to effectively do so was while a) the report was still in the hands of a collective many and b) before the report was given the 'final cut'?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"[Edited for reasons that only a neurotic English Major would understand.]"

I understand. There goes your theory [Wink]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ahhhhh, crap.

It will suck to be a Democrat after Bush declassifies the leaked report. You know it is going to say something like, "though more individuals identify themselves as jihadists, their ability to organize and wage war on the US has been seriously impeded." And, "If jihadists are seen as having lost in Iraq, they will lose credibility and support."

But when the NYT and others get cherry picked items leaked and report the whole story, they will experience some [FootInMouth] .

Now you can all blame this as a trick by Carl Rove to make Democrats look bad.

Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When it comes to subjective impressions of leaked data, cherry-picked or otherwise, one man's shoe is another man's pecker.

(Moral: maybe it looks bad to you but it feels good to others.)

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The president said the media accounts of the leak was meant to "create confusion in the minds of the American people" and suggested that the report had been leaked for political purposes."

I'm SO confused, man.

Select portions and cherry pickins. Anybody got some whipped cream? Or at least some K-Y Jelly?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
meworkingman
Member
Member # 1473

 - posted      Profile for meworkingman   Email meworkingman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

If removing Saddam because he represented a) a dangerous regime that b) supported terrorism that c) was known to have possessed WMDs and might still harbor them, is not action intended and attempting to reduce international terrorism, then what on earth is it? Just spinning your beanie prop for the hell of it, I note that if persons defending Bush's invasion of Iraq (whatever their reasons of from whatever perspective they have) can't figure out that the underyling essence and over-arching rubric of Bush's rationale for invading Iraq was the need to address international terrorism, then... (kenmeer's eyes roll back in his head, as he experiences another epilepsy of divine communion with the Roll-Eyed Wonder of it all).

Thanks for the explanation, I'll ignore that nasty tongue-blood that bathes my monitor but please grab a band-aid [Wink] . Luckily (for me I guess), what we have is a misunderstanding of what I posted. Obviously I wasn't clear enough (or maybe you intentionally misclarified what I wrote, I don't know [Big Grin] ).

Allow me to explain. As I understand it, the report allegedly says that the terrorist threat has increased since we invaded Iraq because the number of radical Islamists has grown. So what I meant to say is that the president never promised that invading Iraq would reduce the number of potential terrorists in the world, rather the goal was to assure that those terrorists would not be able to obtain weapons from Iraq. Perhaps my explanation will address your perceptions of contradictions on my part, perhaps not. However, I think my line of thinking was logically consistent.
quote:

Whether you're actually a bright person or not, you've definitely earned yourself a Stupid Sticker for that one, meworkingman. Stop it awreddy: you're scaring me.

Maybe I mean to scare you, didja ever think of that? [Razz]

Note: I tried to come up with a clever retort to your "Stupid Sticker" but failed. Maybe I'm not that bright. [DOH]

Posts: 238 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
meworkingman
Member
Member # 1473

 - posted      Profile for meworkingman   Email meworkingman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

It may be that the purpose of this leak was to prevent offending passages from being white-washed before its release, and that the only time to effectively do so was while a) the report was still in the hands of a collective many and b) before the report was given the 'final cut'?

Isn't it interesting that when some leak jibes with our preconceived notions, the leakers must be as pure as the driven snow but if it goes against our side, the leaker is evil incarnate. Lucky for you, I'm not KE or I'd be screaming about your "hypocrisy" and you'd have to don ear plugs to gain some relief. [Cool]

Edited: Oops, forgot the required smiley. [DOH]

[ September 26, 2006, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: meworkingman ]

Posts: 238 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"So what I meant to say is that the president never promised that invading Iraq would reduce the number of potential terrorists in the world, rather the goal was to assure that those terrorists would not be able to obtain weapons from Iraq. Perhaps my explanation will address your perceptions of contradictions on my part, perhaps not. However, I think my line of thinking was logically consistent"

See what a little clarification will do?

While I might still niggle some of the finer points of the above, it no longer portrays you marching boldly ino your rectum like John Phillip Sousa holding a dildo inbstead of a marching baton.

As for the niggles, I'll let Bush handle them:

"The best way to protect America is to defeat these killers overseas so we do not have to face them here at home," Bush said. "We're not going to let lies and propaganda by the enemy dictate how we win this war."

This statement, in response to yesterday's intelligence report leak mentioning that the war on Iraq had increased support for Islamic terrorism in general, links justifications for the war in Iraq to more than WMDs that have proven to be unavailable to terrorists (although they got a humonga buncha conventional explosives and munitions from our carefully orchestrated plans ofr a peaceful occupation of Iraq).

One final niggle: most folks would think that terrorists WITH WMDs would be a significant increase in terrorism compared to terrorists without WMDs, but that's just most folks, not the good boys and girls who planned and sold the war itself.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Isn't it interesting that when some leak jibes with our preconceived notions, the leakers must be as pure as the driven snow but if it goes against our side, the leaker is evil incarnate. Lucky for you, I'm not KE or I'd be screaming about your "hypocrisy" and you'd have to don ear plugs to gain some relief."

Well, I said it 'may be'. I wasn't the one saying there was partisan political motivation behind this. And if it were Gore who'd led us into Iraq in the same fashion that Bush had, I'd welcome this report every bit as much.

I like to think that many republicans also decry the war in Iraq and wouldn't let their partisan loyalties interfere with them doing what I think is the right thing.

But then, you may say that I'm a dreamer...

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
...on the other hand, this may be worse than a calculated partisan ploy. It could even be an act of genuine sabotage by terrorist sympathisers. One never knows, do one?

I DO know that it doesn't "confuse my mind" as Bush said.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know he meant everyone else not on Ornery.
Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
meworkingman
Member
Member # 1473

 - posted      Profile for meworkingman   Email meworkingman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

One final niggle: most folks would think that terrorists WITH WMDs would be a significant increase in terrorism compared to terrorists without WMDs, but that's just most folks, not the good boys and girls who planned and sold the war itself.

[Confused]
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sfallmann
Member
Member # 2148

 - posted      Profile for sfallmann   Email sfallmann   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Liberal:
quote:
Originally posted by meworkingman:
quote:

It is hard to understand how you could get this so wrong. While Iraq had been non-compliant for a long time before the invasion, at the time of the invasion, Iraq was fully cooperating with the inspectors, according to the inspectors.

Hmmm. Perhaps it's hard to understand because I don't have it so wrong. Let's look at what Hans Blix actually reported to the UN.
quote:

It is obvious that while the numerous initiatives which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some longstanding, open disarmament issues can be seen as active or even proactive, these initiatives three to four months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute immediate cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance.

This report was given after the UN unanimously adopted resolution 1441, which after 12 years of Iraqi violations of numerous UN resolutions, gave Iraq one last chance to completely and unconditionally abide by those resolutions. The key word in all of these resolutions is unconditional. Even though the regime was being more cooperative than they had been previously, they still were not cooperating unconditionally. Beside the fact that 1441 was supposed to give Iraq a final ultimatum, it was even more important that Iraq cooperate unconditionally at this time because no inspectors had been in Iraq since 1998, potentially giving them plenty of time to rebuild weapons that had earlier claimed to have been destroyed.

So to me, it's quite simple. Hussein had over a decade to comply with UN resolutions that he brought upon himself. He chose not to.

Then maybe Bush should have told the American people that we were going to war over a UN resolution instead of lying about intelligence that he was told was iffy and which he chose to say was absolute. I bet that would have gone over great with many of his constituents who don't even like the UN or think it should exist. [Roll Eyes]

Face it, Bush campaigned in 2000 as a 'conservative' who repeatedly said things like "I don't think its our job to be the world's policeman" and then did completely the opposite, even before 9-11.

What was done before 9-11 that was "world-policing"? Please don't drop a comment like that without giving an example. A source would be good, but an example would be a good place to start.

I'd get into the lie and UN resolution nonsense, but I really don't think it will get anywhere. At this point, you either believe he lied and gave no other reason for war besides WMDs or you believe that the intelligence was bad and knew of the other reasons we went to war. It's one of those topics where everyone has a set opinion and your not going to change any minds.

Posts: 396 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Meworkingman:

Terrorists with WMD hypothetically have far more bang for the buck than terrorists merely with dynamite or crashing jetliners. A dirty bomb or effective bioweapons aboard a 911 jetliner, for example, could have raised the cumulative death toll considerably.

Since keeping WMDs out of terrorist hands was deemed a priority in the war on terror (sufficient to warrant being the initial chief selling point for said war), and since terrorists with WMD are deemed a greater threat than those without (ask any Hollywood scriptwriter), the effect is that invading Iraq was justified as a way of decreasing terrorism via decreasing the effects thereof: keep WMDs out opf terrorist hands.

Just a niggle, mind you, but the devil is in the details.

"...but that's just most folks, not the good boys and girls who planned and sold the war itself' was just me being facetious and, unfortunately, vague. I've posted too much the past few days; I'm losing my rhetorical grip. Y'all carry on. I'm-a lay low a bit.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Humorous asides: the main thing I recall about Bush pre-911 is 'vampire appliances'.

You can't make **** like that up, I tell you.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:


"Maybe I just missed it but where is the outrage over yet another leak from intelligence agencies?"

So far, no one's secret identity has been revealed? Leaks are almost a daily occurrence, it seems. The onus of risk is mostly on the leakers. It's when risk is also placed on those about whom info has been leaked, that a higher level of outrage occurs.

So far, the nature of this leak is, if anything, to give the American people a heads-up about risks they may be facing because of certain administration policies.

In other words, this leak hurts Bush so its OK by you. Got it. [Roll Eyes]
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:

"The report also suggests that terrorist's strategies are failing: "There is evidence that violent tactics are backfiring...their greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution (shar'a law) is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims." Again, overlooked by the NYT."

That is in the nature of terrorism, not in the nature of our response to same. If anything, this observation recommends a foreign policy vis a vis terrorism that is at least a little more laissez-faire than unilaterally and preemptively invading a sovereign nation, UN resolutions pro or con be damned.

How is it the nature of terrorism? Terrorist tactics like this have been successful before, why the change?
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:

"Since the Iraq war started, there have not been any successful terrorist attacks against the United States. How exactly is the threat any worse?"

We at Ornery generally understand the difference between likelihood and outcome. Many of us also figure that increased intelligence and cooperation and other security measures not necessarily dependent on invading and occupying Iraq (the benefit of which in terms of preventing attacks on American soil has yet to be convincingly articulated to, roughly, at least half of us) might have more to do with the absence of successful attacks since 911 than the fact that, oh, for example, 40k persons a year are dying violently in Iraq despite the ouster of Saddam and his regime.

You may understand the difference but it appears you ignore it when its to your benefit. Whatever you "figure" is nothing more than a WAG, you have little if anything to base that on but if it is true then we should be giving the Bush administration considerable credit for the measures that have prevented the attacks. If 40K are dying violent deaths a year in Iraq, is that due to US attacks or terrorist attacks? If it's terrorist attacks, why do you hold the US responsible for them?

How many people died per year before the US invasion? Has the number gone up or down? Numbers out of context like that are pointless, makes for good hyperbole though.

quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:

It may be that the purpose of this leak was to prevent offending passages from being white-washed before its release, and that the only time to effectively do so was while a) the report was still in the hands of a collective many and b) before the report was given the 'final cut'?

So if the entire report is released and doesn't paint the picture you want then its been "white-washed" and is a lie. Very clever way to position it - you get your views supoprted no matter what the entire report contains.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
meworkingman
Member
Member # 1473

 - posted      Profile for meworkingman   Email meworkingman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Well, I said it 'may be'. I wasn't the one saying there was partisan political motivation behind this. And if it were Gore who'd led us into Iraq in the same fashion that Bush had, I'd welcome this report every bit as much.

Thanks for proving my point. I never said anything about partisan views; I said pre-conceived notions. You don't agree with the war in Iraq so you believe that the leakers had the best of intentions while those that support the war see a craven political hacks hiding in the shadows.

Of course, as more information about this particular report spills out, the more it appears that the current leakers tend more to the craven political hacks side than towards the pure wind-driven snow side. And of course it looks like we have just another case of the NYT pushing the left's agenda. Business as usual. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

Posts: 238 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
kenmeer livermaile said:
quote:

It intrigues me that the pro-Bush/Iraq War camp regularly trash the UN but hold up Saddam's violations of UN resolutions in their arguments. Seeing as how we as a nation are very selective -- whimsicial, even -- in deciding which UN resolutions we will honor, it's like fighting trash with trash.

Can you cite a single instance in which I have claimed that the major reason we should have invaded Iraq was a United Nations resolution? I have always claimed that national defense was the primary reason.

I agree that there was not a true threat in Iraq (to either the region or the United States). However, the fact remains that there was a good deal of intelligence pointing to a true threat, as well as a good deal of strategic interest in the region. Regardless of the reason for entering Iraq, if we are successful, Iraq could act as the impetus for change in the Middle East. Bush may have been wrong with regard to invading Iraq, but it is utterly unlikely that his administration invaded Iraq without a cogent reason.

On a side note, I really dislike your posting style.

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe it's me, but the 4 pages of the secret report (out of over 30) that Bush decided to release make it sound like things have gotten worse, not better. I'm curious to see how others interpret this.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Bush may have been wrong with regard to invading Iraq, but it is utterly unlikely that his administration invaded Iraq without a cogent reason.
That sounds vague. Can you crystallize it?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is foaming at the mouth!

Very different circumstance. Surely you can see that? Leaking a report that is going to be made public versus leaking an American agents idenity in order to punish her husband for disagreeing with the Administration? Come on. I think the leakers should be caught and punished. And I've said so on other leaks as well, but if you can't see the difference it's because you're looking through GOP glasses.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1