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 4)

 - 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
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is it now okay to characterize people as foaming at the mouth? Can I say that G2 is braying spittle like a sycophant shill for the Bush administration? Or just the braying spittle part? Just wondering.

KE

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 
"Thanks for proving my point. I never said anything about partisan views; I said pre-conceived notions."

You're absolutely right. IN fact, I notice4d that after I typed it, but left it in. Honesty's better than 'winning'.

But you lose much of your victory here:

"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."

by making the same faux pas I did: you assume motivations I haven't expressed. I DO like what the tiny bit of leak says, and I have offered benign examples of what might be the motivation of the leakers, but I did so only to provide a counter-hypothesis for those accusing the leakers of having a pro-Dem/anti-Bush agenda and I also considered other options.

Such was my intent with these two statements:

'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.'

and

'...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?'

Is it just me or does it seem like folks around here are awful, how shall I say, 'pounce-y' today?

"In other words, this leak hurts Bush so its OK by you. Got it. "

Amusing. I'm reminded of a child sticking its fingers in their ears, sticking out their tongue, closing their eyes.

Whatever you say, G2. Gotta be true 'cuz you said it.

"How is it the nature of terrorism? Terrorist tactics like this have been successful before, why the change?"

Over the long haul terrorism is a poor strategy. After awhile, it alienates those whom it claims to serve and wishes to enlist. You can stick your fingers back in your ears now, and tell me that I'm only saying this because I don't want to give Bush credit.

"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?"

You break it, you bought it. Keep the damn bull outta the goldurned china shop, wouldn't be this mess. Don't start nuttin', won't BE nuttin'. (Kenmeer crushes cockroaches under foot.)

"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.'

we did just that on another thread just a few days ago. But you can do it for yourself, if it concerns you. Or you can stand there weaggling your ear-fingers and holler hyplerbole. 's a free country.

"a) 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'?

b) 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."

I did say that "It may be". I think it also may be that you suffer paranoia.

"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."

That has become one of my fave Ornery cliches: 'Can you cite me a single instance where I...?'

Major reason, minor inducement, whatever. I offered no scale. I just said it was a consistent element in pro-Iraq war justifications and explications.

And, duh, it was basically about national defense. Saying, 'Yee-ha! I;m channeling the Ghost of Genghis KHan and we're gonna conquer the world!' doesn't play very well in the USA. National defense and making the world safe for democracy are our preferred war cries.

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

I don;t really dislike yours. I just find it dreadfully dull, and predictably so.

"a) Bush may have been wrong with regard to invading Iraq, but it is utterly unlikely that his administration invaded Iraq without a cogent reason.

b) That sounds vague. Can you crystallize it?"

Allow me: 'I'm sure they must have had a persuasive reason at the time.'

"Can I say that G2 is braying spittle like a sycophant shill for the Bush administration? Or just the braying spittle part? Just wondering."

I'd stick to foaming at the mouth.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How many people died per year before the US invasion? Has the number gone up or down?
Every estimate I've seen, from every source, indicates that the number has gone up.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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?
I can't speak for the left, but I don't think a government without leaks is necessarily the best way to protect the citizens against government excess. The Plame leak was personal and vindictive, and for all we know may have actually hurt the mission the government punished her husband for publicising negatively.

This leak is informational. It lets us know what our leaders aren't telling us, but know and have known since April, if not longer. People on the right tend to complain about tyranny of our very own chosen form of government (e.g., taxes, federal spending), so I'm actually surprised at how defensive you all seem to be.

Be honest, don't you have a right to know what our own defense establishment thinks of our progress in this war on terror? Was anyone or anything hurt by the exposure? Or do you only want to know what the people you elected choose to tell you?

[ September 26, 2006, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: DaveS ]

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 
"Be honest, don't you have a right to know what our own defense establishment thinks of our progress in this war on terror? Was anyone or anything hurt by the exposure? Or do you only want to know what the people you elected choose to tell you?"

HGe can't hear you. He's busy ear-waxing his fingers.

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 
"Be honest, don't you have a right to know what our own defense establishment thinks of our progress in this war on terror? Was anyone or anything hurt by the exposure? Or do you only want to know what the people you elected choose to tell you?"

I'd say that we do - to a point. Technically you could argue our war effort is hurt by this exposure, as it feeds terrorist mentality that they are winning. I'm not sure whether I think this was a *bad* leak, though, or something to be avoided in the future.


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

I don't see why, ken is usually pretty funny, and if a sarcastic comment he makes is questioned, he usually does his statement justice (or justifies his opinion, if those are different things.)

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  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 TommySama:
"Be honest, don't you have a right to know what our own defense establishment thinks of our progress in this war on terror? Was anyone or anything hurt by the exposure? Or do you only want to know what the people you elected choose to tell you?"

I'd say that we do - to a point. Technically you could argue our war effort is hurt by this exposure, as it feeds terrorist mentality that they are winning. I'm not sure whether I think this was a *bad* leak, though, or something to be avoided in the future.


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

I don't see why, ken is usually pretty funny, and if a sarcastic comment he makes is questioned, he usually does his statement justice (or justifies his opinion, if those are different things.)

Technically it would help the terrorists by making them think they are winning? I guess you favor a state that doesn't allow criticism or acknowledgement of failures because it 'aids the enemy.' If anything it hurts the enemy because it lets us know that right NOW the enemy IS winning and that should force us to chance strategies so that the enemy will be countered more effectively.

[ September 26, 2006, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: Liberal ]

Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  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:

Is it now okay to characterize people as foaming at the mouth? Can I say that G2 is braying spittle like a sycophant shill for the Bush administration? Or just the braying spittle part? Just wondering.

Woe dude, chill (I know it's an out-dated term but I'm old, give me a break). It's tough to complain about someone characterizing your posts as "foaming at the mouth" when your next post illustrates just that. It's kind of like the Muslims who protested against the Pope by tearing up churches and killing a nun. "WE'RE NOT VIOLENT AND EVIL AND TO PROVE IT WE'RE GOING TO EMBARK ON WANTON DESTRUCTION AND KILL AN INNOCENT WOMAN WHO HAS GIVEN HER LIFE TO HELPING THE POOR!!!"

Besides, I think the Plame thread where you spent basically all of your time firing the h-word (hypocrite) scatter-gun style at anyone who dared to disagree with you pretty much matches the dictionary definition of "foaming at the mouth."

One other thing, I don't know why characterizing your posts on that thread as "foaming at the mouth" should offend you so. We all foam at the mouth at one time or another.

Maybe kenmeer is right and everyone is just 'pounce-y' today. [Exploding]

Posts: 238 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Technically it would help the terrorists by making them think they are winning? I guess you favor a state that doesn't allow criticism or acknowledgement of failures because it 'aids the enemy.' If anything it hurts the enemy because it lets us know that right NOW the enemy IS winning and that should force us to chance strategies so that the enemy will be countered more effectively."

I guess if you had read my post you might have realized that I questioned that assumption immediately. I don't "support" either opinion because I haven't thought it through, I just pointed out the obvious reply to his statement, without sounding to much like an ass.

Which is exactly what you sound like when you put words into my mouth about how I feel - especially when it directly contradicts what I said.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

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

quote:
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(My emphasis.)

Ignoring the frequent other refferences to Iraqi coopoeration in the report, even your chosen quote shows that in Hans Blixs view, just weeks before the invasion, Iraqi cooperation was "active, even proactive" and involved "numerous initiatives" to resolve longstanding issues. Further on he wrote:

quote:
How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months.
As we now know Iraq was already disarmed, this is verification Blix is talking about. So in Blix's view, in a matter of months he would be able to verify that Iraq was WMD free.

Even this understates the level of Iraqi compliance. From the beginning Blix reported a "prompt access/open doors policy that has been pursued so far by Iraq vis-à-vis the inspectors" with regard to the inspection process. His repeated emphasis was that more than this compliance with process was needed for him to verify Iraq as being WMD free. Much of Iraq's initial failure to cooperate in substance came down to their not providing manifests of WMD's we now know they did not possess.

In the mean time, El Baradei reported that:

quote:
I should note that in the past three weeks, possibly as a result of ever-increasing pressure by the international community, Iraq has been forthcoming in its cooperation, particularly with regard to the conduct of private interviews and in making available evidence that could contribute to the resolution of matters of IAEA concern. I do hope that Iraq will continue to expand the scope and accelerate the pace of its cooperation.
In summary, at the time that war was declared, Iraq was fully cooperating with the inspection regime according to the inspectors. It had no nuclear weapons or ability to make them, according to the inspectors. There was no evidence in Iraq that it still possessed biological or chemical weapons, according to the inspectors. It was currently destroying its rockets capable of flying more than 150 km without a payload, according to the inspectors. And it would be possible to verify that it was WMD free in months, according to the inspectors.

IMO, it was that last that ensured the US went immediately to war rather than risk the inspection process further shredding its tattered excuse for war - the non-existant WMDs.

http://www.unmovic.org/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.elbaradei/

[ September 26, 2006, 11:38 PM: Message edited by: Tom Curtis ]

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

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

quote:
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."
And having worked with the security council to get Iraq to finally cooperate fully with weapons inspections, and with a promise of a WMD free Iraq in months by continuing the diplomatic process, Bush unilaterally went to war.

This cannot be emphasised enough. Bush had a clear program to get his purported end, a WMD free Iraq in months by continuing the diplomacy with a threat of war for future non-compliance. Insteand he went to war without UN support for non-compliance that had ended a month before the war started. Clearly, the WMD was a pretext, not a reason for war.

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 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 
"Ignoring the frequent other refferences to Iraqi coopoeration in the report, even your chosen quote shows that in Hans Blixs view, just weeks before the invasion, Iraqi cooperation was "active, even proactive" and involved "numerous initiatives" to resolve longstanding issues."

While I completely agree with TC's assessment here, and watched this process unfold in real time on C-Span, Saddam had played his cards to cagey for too long for Bush not to be able to compellingly denounce to the satisfaction of enough Americans to sell the war.

"Bush had a clear program to get his purported end, a WMD free Iraq in months by continuing the diplomacy with a threat of war for future non-compliance. Insteand he went to war without UN support for non-compliance that had ended a month before the war started. Clearly, the WMD was a pretext, not a reason for war."

There is no denying the first two of TC's 3 sentences above. They are simply facts. The conclusion of the 3rd statement is moot but those are the facts. Saddam really pissed Bush off by bowing to his trumpeted will, I think. He wpould have much preferred the Saddam we hear of recently, defying courtroom judges and being thrown out for noncompliance [Wink]

And yeah, Clever Hans had the straight dope, and was proved right by history.

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 
"without sounding to much like an ass"

I'm waiting for a Tickle-Me Elmo with a pull-string in his right forefinger.

"Ha-ha! Ha-ha! Pull my finger! Ha-ha! Make me sound like an ass! Ha-ha!"

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 
"While I completely agree with TC's assessment here, and watched this process unfold in real time on C-Span, Saddam had played his cards to cagey for too long for Bush not to be able to compellingly denounce to the satisfaction of enough Americans to sell the war."

Wow. I been posting too much. That is one messed up sentence.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2:

quote:
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?
A lie of ommission? Has the Bush administration been commiting a "lie of ommission" by not noting in the last five months that the war in Iraq has increased the number and geographical extent of Jihadists? Because by doing so they shaped the structure of the NYT's article following the leak. The NYT like all newspapers prints that news, and features the administration has been emphasising for five months are not news. What the administration has known, but not told us - that is news.

quote:
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?
I think what you intend to say is that there have not been any successfull terrorist attacks against the US outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. Beyond that, I had already noted that it was quite consistent with what we then knew of the reports conclusions that the Continental US was safer from terrorism, even though terrorists were more prevelant around the world.
Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 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 said:
quote:
Wow. I been posting too much.
Yes.
Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Roac
Member
Member # 3031

 - posted      Profile for Roac   Email Roac   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ok, I'm a little confused: How is it considered a "leak" if the administration released the information?
Posts: 9 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Those of you claiming this leak is OK when you worked yourself into a tizzy over Armitage leaking to Novak are treading on very thin ice here. Making the determination of "good" leak vs. "bad" leak based on political motivations is what leads genuinely good people to very bad decisions. KnightEnder and kenmeer livermaile are obviously upset about being caught with their pants down on this one and I am sorry to have been the one to point it out and upset them so. I was not too worked up about the Plame leak nor am I worked up about the leak of the NIE. I just point out the hypocrisy of your positions; leaks the support your politcs good, leaks that damage your politics bad. I understand, really I do. [Wink]

quote:
The Plame leak was personal and vindictive ...
I have yet to see anyone give a motive for Armitage leaking Plame other than an accidental disclosure. What personal vendetta did Armitage have for Plame and Wilson?

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Curtis:
A lie of ommission? Has the Bush administration been commiting a "lie of ommission" by not noting in the last five months that the war in Iraq has increased the number and geographical extent of Jihadists? Because by doing so they shaped the structure of the NYT's article following the leak. The NYT like all newspapers prints that news, and features the administration has been emphasising for five months are not news. What the administration has known, but not told us - that is news.

Reporting only the pieces of the leaked report that support their desired conclusions is a lie of ommission. You can try to redirect off to another topic to avoid that but it is what it is. From the NYT piece, you don't know what the administration has known, only what the NYT wanted you to know. With the release of the NIE we may finally know what the administration knows but it won't be because the NYT reported it.
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Curtis:
I think what you intend to say is that there have not been any successfull terrorist attacks against the US outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. Beyond that, I had already noted that it was quite consistent with what we then knew of the reports conclusions that the Continental US was safer from terrorism, even though terrorists were more prevelant around the world.

You're changing the definition of a terrorist attack. Attacking innocent civilians is a terrorist attack. Attacking US troops in a war zone is not a terrorist attack (at least I don't think so). Maybe you should define what you think is a terrorist attack so we're not talking about different things.

[ September 27, 2006, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: G2 ]

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:

by making the same faux pas I did: you assume motivations I haven't expressed. I DO like what the tiny bit of leak says...

Hmmm. I guess I don't understand. I don't know that I assumed anything, more like I deduced your motivations. You admit that you like what the leak reports and practically everything you've written supports the idea that the leakers have nothing but good motives. The one line that you wrote that allows for the opposite: "...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?" reads to me like sarcasm. Whenever someone intentionally introduces grammatical errors into their prose, I see sarcasm. Even as I reflect more on the line above, I'm still quite sure you were being sarcastic, were you not? So when everything one says supports one side of an argument, is it not easy to deduce said person's motivations? Perhaps you could explain more.

quote:

Over the long haul terrorism is a poor strategy. After awhile, it alienates those whom it claims to serve and wishes to enlist.

While this is true in the abstract, no one knows what will occur in the real world. From the line above, it appears that you are in favor of largely sitting back and allowing terrorism to burn itself out. However, who can say what social structures would be broken down while we're waiting for this "burn-out" to occur. It's quite possible, maybe even probable, that western society could be so broken down that it could be ripe for takeover by some tyrannical regime that rises either internally or externally.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Over the long haul terrorism is a poor strategy. After awhile, it alienates those whom it claims to serve and wishes to enlist.
I missed that ... how long is "the long haul"? This strategy has been in place for several decades now and appears to be just as strong or stronger ever year.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So let's look at some of the things coming out of the now declassified report:
quote:
Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq "jihad"; (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims - all of which jihadists exploit.
I don't see much, if anything, that can be done about 1 and 3. Islam has a long history of hostility to the West as well as one of Islamic imperialism from time immemorial. Thee Koran-inspired war on infidels has been going long before there was a United States and any "pervasive anti-US sentiment." 4 is not much easier to fix either.

Another unreported conclusion:
quote:
United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa'ida and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qa'ida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization. We also assess that the global jihadist movement-which includes al- Qa'ida, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells-is spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts.

. Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.

. If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.

. Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit. Over time, such progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting the vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al-Qa'ida, could erode support for the jihadists.

We went to war against the Jihadists. They are fighting back, and increasing recruiting. If we keep fighting them successfully, this support will decline. Sounds like the smart thing to do would be to keep the pressure on them.
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:

Ignoring the frequent other refferences to Iraqi coopoeration in the report, even your chosen quote shows that in Hans Blixs view, just weeks before the invasion, Iraqi cooperation was "active, even proactive" and involved "numerous initiatives" to resolve longstanding issues.

Actually, I ignored nothing. I listened to his report on the news when it was first given and re-read it before I made the post that you are responding to. Yes, Blix spoke about improved Iraqi cooperation. However, you are ignoring the fact that after each of the previous UN resolutions were passed, Iraqi cooperation improved, for a time. However, in each case, the government became less cooperative as time passed. I'm glad Blix was optimistic about longstanding issues being resolved. However, I know that as I listened to Blix give his report, I thought, "Saddam is up to his usual tricks." After more than a decade of foot dragging and obstruction, it was a very rational thing to believe.
quote:

Bush had a clear program to get his purported end, a WMD free Iraq in months by continuing the diplomacy with a threat of war for future non-compliance. Insteand he went to war without UN support for non-compliance that had ended a month before the war started.

Maybe, maybe not. True, we've found only very small quantities of proscribed munitions in Iraq but who knows if Saddam had moved those weapons into Syria in the hopes that he would be able to remain in power and retrieve them after the inspections or possible invasion had taken place? I'm sure you'll scoff but no matter your bluster, you just don't know for sure. Saddam had about five months between the passage of resolution 1441 and the US invasion, plenty of time to move weapons around.
quote:

Clearly, the WMD was a pretext, not a reason for war.

Don't you just love it when someone states an opinion and acts like it proves something?
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Maybe, maybe not. True, we've found only very small quantities of proscribed munitions in Iraq but who knows if Saddam had moved those weapons into Syria in the hopes that he would be able to remain in power and retrieve them after the inspections or possible invasion had taken place?
There were no WMD, but if there were, this argument implicitly means that we achieved the exact opposite of our intended objective. The few "proscribed munitions" that were found were obsolete and buried. Claiming that Iraq violated the UN stipulations because of them would be like claiming that finding unexploded WWII Nazi ordnance buried somewhere in Germany means that they are violating the terms of their surrender.
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:

There were no WMD, but if there were, this argument implicitly means that we achieved the exact opposite of our intended objective.

Yes, you are correct that if weapons were moved to Syria, then one of our objectives (destroying WMDs so that they could not be supplied to terrorists) definitely was not achieved. However, if weapons were moved it wasn't because we invaded Iraq; it was becase we waited too long to invade.
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 
"kenmeer livermaile are obviously upset about being caught with their pants down on this one"

G2, you gotts stop smokin' that **** if it does that to you.

We all have opinions, based more or less on fact. There's no good reason to intrude outright fantasy into the mix.

"Hmmm. I guess I don't understand. I don't know that I assumed anything, more like I deduced your motivations. You admit that you like what the leak reports and practically everything you've written supports the idea that the leakers have nothing but good motives.


And in virtually everyone of those comments, you'll find that they're stated as hypotheticals posed against statements by others suggesting that, due to the timing and tenor of the leak, it was the work of anti-Bus/pro-Dem persons.

Me, I don't know. Yes, I did enjoy the leak's impact, but none of us know as yet who the leakers
are. I will gladly admit that it's LIKELY that the leakers are anit-Bush/pro-Dem, and that this doesn't bother me a wit. I'll also gladly admit that I assumed the worst of motives regarding the Plame leak, and expect that Libby's further testimony will support this notion.

But I haven't been proseytising on this thread for or against any given set of motives on the leaker's part. Some reasons:

a) the final impact of this leak has yet to be seen. It may be a trap set for Dem propagandists, who dearly love falling ito such traps. IN the '04 election, when certain Repubs tripped over their own cockasses by impuging the patriotism and martial valor of fellas like Cleland and Kerry, a leading Dem (Pelosi?) took the advantage this offered and turned it into an effective strategy for the Republicans. Rather than leaving her riposte at denouncing belittlements of war-disabled veteran Max Cleland and noting that Kerry'd served, she had to add that Kerry had a couple of medals. BIngo. The Swift Boat Vet campaign would've had little traction attacking Kerry as merely a veteran; that's bad form. But because Kerry's colleagues tried to glory in Kerry's medals, the Swifts had a target, and the rest was history.

b) I talk to enough staunch Republicans who nonetheless believe this war is a shambles to have reason to believe that a desire to curtail this war is not limited to partisan loyalties. The leak 's perceived impact was to discredit the Iraqi war, not the republican party. It's not an expose of a Republican cabal of senators or Pentagon officials shoveling pork through their pockets (as in the case of the Boeing tanker debacle that McCain exposed regarding Rumsfeld and associates). It's a critique of a war that kills american soldiers and foreign citizens, whose graves are not marked Dem or Repub.

+++

"The one line that you wrote that allows for the opposite: "...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?" reads to me like sarcasm. Whenever someone intentionally introduces grammatical errors into their prose, I see sarcasm. Even as I reflect more on the line above, I'm still quite sure you were being sarcastic, were you not?"

No. I was being playful, yes, but without an agenda. One never knows, do one, is a line made popular in the 30s by Fats Waller, who was a hugely popular pianist/singer/songwriter who was prtty much the kig of movie theater music videos. He was kind of the Great Godfather of today's hip-hop bling vids: girls, parties, flashy attire. ONe never knows, do one, is not meant to disparage the topic abouyt which one never knows; it is a playful acknowledgement of the unpredictability of life.

Honestly, I swear on a stack of stacks, I have no interest in promoting a benign reputation for the leakers. I DO like that the leak hammered Bush, at least in the first dust-up. In the early passages of this thread, I replied to TC's conjecture that the timing of its release suggested that the leak was probably politically motivated, byt saying: "Ah. Timing is everything." My bias is in favor of what the leak was perceived as saying, not in favor of whomever might wish to benmefit from that leak. In fact, we wuz talking on another thread last night, TommySam and I, about how neither party offered a choice we felt answered the current dilemma.

I think it's wise to read ALL of my posts on a topic before attempting to psychoanalyze my motives (unless one is running on sheer power of imagination, as in the case with G2).

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


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
However, if weapons were moved it wasn't because we invaded Iraq; it was becase we waited too long to invade.
Again, we're discussing a past-tense hypothetical with no real evidence that any such thing happened. But, let me ask you why he would have moved them if he knew were going to invade? First, he could have used them against us; second, he was going to get pounded anyway, so what good would it do to move them? More hypothetical explanations are clearly needed.

Moving along with your notion, however, you say that he moved the weapons because we told the world we were going to invade, but it just took too long for us to do it. That presumes that the "delay" caused by the US going to the UN gave him the window to move them. But, he knew for more than a year what was going to happen, because we were negotiating with Turkey and Saudi Arabia for access to their territory and bulking up elsewhere in the region during that time. The "delay" of getting UN support for the invasion therefore made little or no difference, especially since Blix was in Iraq looking for weapons the whole time we were pleading with the UN, and he didn't find them.

However long it would take to move the weapons out of Iraq, it probably takes longer for the US to prepare an invasion force. In other words, he could have moved them out of the country no matter how quickly we mobilized. If they were there at all, they definitely were moved before we went to the UN.

Assuming he had them, which he didn't. Which he and many emigres and refuges from his regime had told us beforehand. Which we knew or should have. The Administration logic isn't circular, it's an Escher mobius strip.

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 
"Again, we're discussing a past-tense hypothetical with no real evidence that any such thing happened. But, let me ask you why he would have moved them if he knew were going to invade? First, he could have used them against us; second, he was going to get pounded anyway, so what good would it do to move them? More hypothetical explanations are clearly needed."

I think this is a plausible notion. Saddam seems as likely to have preferred a glorious defeat than being dragged into court and becomin a pitiful old fart getting thrown ou of court.

The first major indication that Clever Hans was right and Bush was wrong that the invasion provided was when no WMDs were used against our invading forces.

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:

I will gladly admit that it's LIKELY that the leakers are anit-Bush/pro-Dem, and that this doesn't bother me a wit.

Careful there brother. You are leaving yourself open to charges of "HYPOCRITE," which everyone knows is the trump card which cannot be overcome by any means known to debatedom. [Wink]

Ok, on the serious side, I think I understand what you're saying. I apologize for ascribing motives to you which you didn't hold.

One final niggle (isn't that the term you used?):
quote:
The leak 's perceived impact was to discredit the Iraqi war, not the republican party.[QUOTE]
Once again, I never said anything about political parties. In fact, my entire thought process was centered on the war. I believed that those who thought well of the leakers were those who were against the war and thought that I made that clear when I used the term, "preconceived notions."

[QUOTE]
Again, we're discussing a past-tense hypothetical with no real evidence that any such thing happened. But, let me ask you why he would have moved them if he knew were going to invade? First, he could have used them against us; second, he was going to get pounded anyway, so what good would it do to move them? More hypothetical explanations are clearly needed.

Well... He could've moved them because he didn't think that we would actually invade. Hell, he got away with dragging his feet for over a decade. Why wouldn't he believe that he would continue to get away with it? However, you are correct. Batting around hypotheticals will get us nowhere. Thus, I officially withdraw the hypothetical; the jury will please wipe from their memories any trace of said hypothetical.
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 
"Careful there brother. You are leaving yourself open to charges of "HYPOCRITE," which everyone knows is the trump card which cannot be overcome by any means known to debatedom."

The infamous hypocrisy charges were based on the concept of outing a secret identity as related to possible charges of treason.

IF... it can be shown that the leak compromised national security, then let the prosecutions begin.

(I stand with my man KE on this. I see his initial point in the infamous hypocrisy thread stand unrefuted.)

[ September 27, 2006, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

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 
"He could've moved them because he didn't think that we would actually invade. "

Very true. As for:

"Why wouldn't he believe that he would continue to get away with it?"

Because he was invaded by us before. Hypothetically squeaking (like blind bats hunting gnats), it's a plausible consideration but, as you've also observed, one never knows, do one? [Wink]

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:

I stand with my man KE on this. I see his initial point in the infamous hypocrisy thread stand unrefuted.

Fair enough. I, of course, disagree but that's what keeps this site interesting.
quote:

Because he was invaded by us before. Hypothetically squeaking (like blind bats hunting gnats), it's a plausible consideration but, as you've also observed, one never knows, do one?

Very true.
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 kenmeer livermaile:
"kenmeer livermaile are obviously upset about being caught with their pants down on this one"

G2, you gotts stop smokin' that **** if it does that to you.

I think it's wise to read ALL of my posts on a topic before attempting to psychoanalyze my motives (unless one is running on sheer power of imagination, as in the case with G2).

I'm not sure what you think I'm imagining. You think the leak that damages Bush is OK but one that damages his opponents is not. Did I imagine that? You posted it just above in this very thread. In case you forgot, you said, "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."

So if I say, "The nature of the Armitage/Plame leak was, if anything, to give the American people a heads-up about the motivations of opponents of certain administration policies."; it works exactly the same when I phrase it with your logic for good/bad leaks.

Then you say, " I DO like that the leak hammered Bush ...". Obviously you have strong partisan motivation to like a leak that hurts Bush as well as dislike ones that help him. I don't have a problem with your attitude torward good/bad leaks and I'm not sure why you do. There's no need to hide it, everyone else already sees it.

[ September 27, 2006, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

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 
"kenmeer livermaile (is) obviously upset about being caught with their pants down on this one"

The thing is, oh G2 dude, that everybody here *knows* I've got a package. Got me a bias hanging between my legs. I've stated it quite obviously, even clarified it in minutiae with meworkingman. At no time have I had to drop my pants to prove to everyone that what everyone already knew was true: I have a bias.

Would you like me to show you mine? So you can catch me with my pants down? No, I don't want to see yours.

"The nature of the Armitage/Plame leak was, if anything, to give the American people a heads-up about the motivations of opponents of certain administration policies."; it works exactly the same when I phrase it with your logic for good/bad leaks."

Are you saying that the reason White House officials leaked Plame's name to the press was to reveal that Plame was on the committee that suggested Wilson go to Niger? Or...?

One outs a CIA agent so that the American people can know that her husband the ambassador might be carrying water for the party not currently holding the White House? So that the American people won't be duped by his testimony (which appears to be correct anyway)?

Or am I missing something here?

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


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're totally missing something.
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 
Will you share it with us then?
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 
"Hypothetically squeaking (like blind bats hunting gnats)"

lol. Those 7 words deserve applause.


G2

The Plame leak WAS bad, if it turns out our leaders ordered it done to get back at him. If it was an accident, it isn't bad.

If this report was cherry picked to make the Iraq war look bad, that's bad. If the quotes that accurately describe it were used, no biggy.


Instead of accusing them of hypocrosy, actually argue why you think this was a BAD leak. These leaks could have been released just to show us the war isn't doing what we thought it would, and possibly pressuring our leaders to change it so it starts to.

In the meantime, whenever the full NIE report is released, it can be judged whether this was an accurate portrayal of it; and then, not bad. Or vice versa.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TommySama:
The Plame leak WAS bad, if it turns out our leaders ordered it done to get back at him. If it was an accident, it isn't bad.

The entire story is out on Plame - it was leaked by Armitage to Novak and Woodward. Armitage claims it was accidental and Fitzgerald, after over 2 years of investigation, has found no evidence of consipracy or criminal activity. It was just some guy running his mouth, no big deal
quote:
Originally posted by TommySama:

If this report was cherry picked to make the Iraq war look bad, that's bad. If the quotes that accurately describe it were used, no biggy.

The NYT obviously cherry picked their quotes. Now that more of the report has been released, that much is transparently obvious.

quote:
Originally posted by TommySama:

Instead of accusing them of hypocrosy, actually argue why you think this was a BAD leak. These leaks could have been released just to show us the war isn't doing what we thought it would, and possibly pressuring our leaders to change it so it starts to.

I'm not saying it was a bad leak, just that it was politically motivated and designed to support anti-war politicians. I don't care about the leak as long as the report is fairly and accurately reported. It's these other guys that think this leak is good while the Plame one was bad. And I don't think it would necesarily be hypocritical to take that position. Machiavellian but not hyocritical. It's only hypocritical if you're classifying the leaks as good/bad based on some kind of moral foundation. Politics is a blood sport, if they want their side to win at any cost then they will have lots of company.
quote:
Originally posted by TommySama:

In the meantime, whenever the full NIE report is released, it can be judged whether this was an accurate portrayal of it; and then, not bad. Or vice versa.

well, it been released. Based on Kennedy's squealing over this, I think it's safe to conclude that the NIE report does more to support the Bush administration rather than harm it.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

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

quote:
Actually, I ignored nothing. I listened to his report on the news when it was first given and re-read it before I made the post that you are responding to. Yes, Blix spoke about improved Iraqi cooperation. However, you are ignoring the fact that after each of the previous UN resolutions were passed, Iraqi cooperation improved, for a time. However, in each case, the government became less cooperative as time passed. I'm glad Blix was optimistic about longstanding issues being resolved. However, I know that as I listened to Blix give his report, I thought, "Saddam is up to his usual tricks." After more than a decade of foot dragging and obstruction, it was a very rational thing to believe.
It may have been a rational thing to believe, but it was irrelevant. UNIMOVIC was getting substantial cooperation and was getting enough cooperation, in the opinion of Blix, to complete its task. Given that, sustaining the pressure to cooperate would have been a cheaper way to certify Iraq had no WMDs than was invasion. Cheaper in money, and much cheaper in lives.

And regardless of your opinion on that strategy, the fact remains that the US invaded Iraq when UNIMOVIC and the IAEA were getting full cooperation from Iraq. To suggest that the invaded because of a lack of cooperation from prior months is specious.

quote:
Maybe, maybe not. True, we've found only very small quantities of proscribed munitions in Iraq but who knows if Saddam had moved those weapons into Syria in the hopes that he would be able to remain in power and retrieve them after the inspections or possible invasion had taken place? I'm sure you'll scoff but no matter your bluster, you just don't know for sure. Saddam had about five months between the passage of resolution 1441 and the US invasion, plenty of time to move weapons around.
You suggest I might try bluster after you suggest the WMDs were shifted to Syria. What is that if not bluster? You have, and can point to no evidence suggesting it as a possibility. The only reason to suggest it is to avoid admiting error in claims that Hussein had WMDs in 2002/3. Even then, it remains the case that Hussein had no means of manufacture WMDs so that any WMDs he had would have been old and degraded beyond usability.

quote:
Don't you just love it when someone states an opinion and acts like it proves something?
No, what I enjoy is the way that a conclusion (and very clearly a conclusion) is treated as though it was presented as evidence. If you don't like the conclussion, find evidence against it. But please come up with something better than Iraq might have shifted WMDs that they might have still had to Syria. The shere desperateness of that speculation shows you are unwilling to think clearly through these issues.
Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Based on Kennedy's squealing over this, I think it's safe to conclude that the NIE report does more to support the Bush administration rather than harm it.
I assume you've read the excerpt and are speaking from knowledge. What in the report most encourages you? I read the following and felt the opposite:
quote:
We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities are are likely to do so for the duration of the timefram of this Estimate.


[ September 27, 2006, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: DaveS ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2:

quote:
Reporting only the pieces of the leaked report that support their desired conclusions is a lie of ommission. You can try to redirect off to another topic to avoid that but it is what it is. From the NYT piece, you don't know what the administration has known, only what the NYT wanted you to know. With the release of the NIE we may finally know what the administration knows but it won't be because the NYT reported it.
I take it from this that you have no problem with the administration cherry picking the information it releases for political purposes, but have a serious problem with the press filling in the blanks. If not, why have you not been accusing Bush of lying by ommission by not reporting that the intelligence he was recieving showed an increased spread of terrorist cells as a result of the Iraq war?
Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  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