Politics As Usual

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
Anyone got any suggestions on which one? Islam is out. I like pork and shellfish too much to be a jew. I am thinking some sort of white bread protestant one will do. One that lets women be priests/preachers, but no snake charming/speaking in tongues crap. Also, I don't want to have to tithe.

There's a new all-girl band in India called Vindaloo 6 auditioning for new members. You may remember their hit single, "Do You Think I'm Namaste Girl"?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
[And it's a good time too, since we running severely low on funds]

FWIW, I was kind of clueless about the financial picture of LawTalkers because I bookmarked my "User CP" page and thus never saw anything about donations or a need therefor on the main page. Resultingly, I didn't think much about it. I suspect I'm not alone. A "hey, think about donating" post on the FB would probably be miles more effective than a Chicken Little post on the Home page, which I suspect is bypassed by most.

(I have since donated, and I'm not afraid to go all Sally Struthers on anyone's ass.)

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Every intelligence agency in the world thought they were there and they weren't basing the analysis on Chalabi. Where did they go? I have never heard a satisfactory answer to that question.

Club, the first part of your first sentence is true. As to the second part of the sentence, there has been substantial reporting in the past couple months that one of the principal Iraq-WMD sources for all of the "Western" (European, NA, etc.) intelligence agencies was likely the same "defector"put forward by the INC. This guy was busy making the rounds.

As to the last two sentences . . well, who was it who said that the simplest answer is usually the correct answer? Here, the simplest answer would be that, as Zinni and others predicted pre-War, the "intelligence" was mostly wrong, and there were no WMDs in Iraq that posed any kind of strategic threat to the U.S.

I don't see why you insist on another four years, seems kind of arbitrary. Ty -- better remember to ask Club again if Kerry's teams still haven't found any by next June.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
Anyone got any suggestions on which one? Islam is out. I like pork and shellfish too much to be a jew. I am thinking some sort of white bread protestant one will do. One that lets women be priests/preachers, but no snake charming/speaking in tongues crap. Also, I don't want to have to tithe.

Sounds like an Episcopalian to me.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Ty -- better remember to ask Club again if Kerry's teams still haven't found any by next June.

I'll put in my Outlook Calendar with a five-year reminder.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Club, the first part of your first sentence is true. As to the second part of the sentence, there has been substantial reporting in the past couple months that one of the principal Iraq-WMD sources for all of the "Western" (European, NA, etc.) intelligence agencies was likely the same "defector"put forward by the INC. This guy was busy making the rounds.

As to the last two sentences . . well, who was it who said that the simplest answer is usually the correct answer? Here, the simplest answer would be that, as Zinni and others predicted pre-War, the "intelligence" was mostly wrong, and there were no WMDs in Iraq that posed any kind of strategic threat to the U.S.

I don't see why you insist on another four years, seems kind of arbitrary. Ty -- better remember to ask Club again if Kerry's teams still haven't found any by next June.

S_A_M

I urge you all to read this transcript of Cheney's interview:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm

He is very forthcoming, says what he knows and what he doesn't.

I suspect those on the left will think he's lying, or misleading or whatever.

It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials. It involves a senior official, a brigadier general in the Iraqi intelligence service going to the Sudan before bin Laden ever went to Afghanistan to train them in bomb-making, helping teach them how to forge documents. Mr. Zarqawi, who's in Baghdad today, is an al-Qaida associate who took refuge in Baghdad, found sanctuary and safe harbor there before we ever launched into Iraq. There's a Mr. Yasin, who was a World Trade Center bomber in '93, who fled to Iraq after that and we found since when we got into Baghdad, documents showing that he was put on the payroll and given housing by Saddam Hussein after the '93 attack; in other words, provided safe harbor and sanctuary. There's clearly been a relationship.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Absolutely. Look at the Zarqawi case. Here's a man who's Jordanian by birth. He's described as an al-Qaida associate. He ran training camps in Afghanistan back before we went to war in Afghanistan. After we went in and hit his training camp, he fled to Baghdad. Found safe harbor and sanctuary in Baghdad in May of 2002. He arrived with about two dozen other supporters of his, members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which was Zawahiri's organization. He's the number two to bin Laden, which was merged with al-Qaida interchangeably. Egyptian Islamic Jihad, al-Qaida, same-same. They're all now part of one organization. They merged some years ago. So Zarqawi living in Baghdad. We arranged for information to be passed on his presence in Baghdad to the Iraqis through a third-party intelligence service. They did that twice. There's no question but what Saddam Hussein really was there. He was allowed to operate out of Baghdad. He ran the poisons fact ory in northern Iraq out of Baghdad, which became a safe harbor for Ansar al-Islam??? as well as al-Qaida fleeing Afghanistan. There clearly was a relationship there that stretched back over that period of time to at least May of '02, a year before we launched into Iraq. He is the worst offender. He's probably killed more Iraqis than any other man in Iraq today. He is probably the leading terrorist still operating in Iraq today.

but in the fall of '95 and again in the summer of '96, bin Laden met with Iraqi intelligence service representatives at his farm in Sudan. Bin Laden asked for terror training from Iraq. The Iraqi intelligence service responded. It deployed a bomb-making expert, a brigadier general in the Iraqi intelligence

We have never been able to prove that there was a connection there on 9/11. The one thing we have is the Czech intelligence service report saying that Mohammad Atta had met with the senior Iraqi intelligence official at the embassy on April 9th, 2001. That's never been proven. It's never been refuted.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Club, the first part of your first sentence is true. As to the second part of the sentence, there has been substantial reporting in the past couple months that one of the principal Iraq-WMD sources for all of the "Western" (European, NA, etc.) intelligence agencies was likely the same "defector"put forward by the INC. This guy was busy making the rounds.

what about the Israeli's and the Turks? Yes, they had a reason to lie, but would they?

As to the last two sentences . . well, who was it who said that the simplest answer is usually the correct answer? Here, the simplest answer would be that, as Zinni and others predicted pre-War, the "intelligence" was mostly wrong, and there were no WMDs in Iraq that posed any kind of strategic threat to the U.S.

S_A_M

But that doesn't answer the question. Where did they go. They were there at some point, this we know. So where, SAM, where?

[SlaveNoMore]

Atticus Grinch
A "hey, think about donating" post on the FB would probably be miles more effective than a Chicken Little post on the Home page, which I suspect is bypassed by most.

True dat.

But for the record:

1) Since the admin rearrangement, we've been trying to sort out some stuff. A formal pledge drive is in the works, trust me.

2) When prompted, posters in the past have been more than generous. Even some that don't post here (and never have) donated to the cause, feeling some debt to the legacy of the Chef/Plate/GC movement.

3) Chicken little? Por Que?

4) We know who has contributed in the past and - more importantly - who the freeloaders are. I intend to hit them up privately.

(I have since donated, and I'm not afraid to go all Sally Struthers on anyone's ass.)

As much as I hate you, I still love you.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
what about the Israeli's and the Turks? Yes, they had a reason to lie, but would they?

What do you think they told us?

But that doesn't answer the question. Where did they go. They were there at some point, this we know. So where, SAM, where?

What do you think he had? Chemical weapons during the 1980s. What else?

[SlaveNoMore]

Secret_Agent_Man
As to the last two sentences . . well, who was it who said that the simplest answer is usually the correct answer? Here, the simplest answer would be that, as Zinni and others predicted pre-War, the "intelligence" was mostly wrong, and there were no WMDs in Iraq that posed any kind of strategic threat to the U.S.

1) They had them
2) Now they don't

How come no one has stepped forward to open discuss Saddam's procedural destruction of his WMD and dismantling of his production units?

How come we haven't found any papers or files ordering such things?

The circumstantial evidence goes both ways*

* For the sake of humanity, I'd prefer they actually WERE all destroyed and not, rather, in some hidden bunkers in Syria or Iran

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
* For the sake of humanity, I'd prefer they actually WERE all destroyed and not, rather, in some hidden bunkers in Syria or Iran

So lets say he had 'em. The only way he'd give 'em up is in a lost cause situation. We controlled 2/3 of Iraqi airspace for surveillance and we had some diplomatic leverage in searching Iraqi facilities. Now the WMDs are in the lawless badlands of Iran and Syria, where we have no airspace rights and virtually no leverage for inspection. How did the war stop WMDs from falling into the hands of terrorists again?

[SlaveNoMore]

sgtclub
I urge you all to read this transcript of Cheney's interview:

He is very forthcoming, says what he knows and what he doesn't.

From Sullivan

The vice-president's direct attack on the New York Times' portrayal of the 9/11 Commission report was a zinger. On balance, i think Cheney is right. The links between al Qaeda and Saddam may not have amounted to a formal alliance, but they existed all right, as the Commission conceded. The NYT itself reported that "The report said that despite evidence of repeated contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 90's, 'they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.'" But if there were "repeated contacts" between al Qaeda and Iraq, how can it be true that, as the headline put it, that "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie"? Headlines truncate things, of course. But Cheney is dead-on in describing this headline as misleading. Here's Tom Kean, the chairman of the Commision: "What we have found is, were there contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Yes. Some of them were shadowy - but they were there." Here's Lee Hamilton:

• "I must say I have trouble understanding the flack over this. The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that. What we have said is what the governor just said, we don't have any evidence of a cooperative, or a corroborative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and these al Qaeda operatives with regard to the attacks on the United States. So it seems to me the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me."

The NYT had the gall to demand that Bush and Cheney apologize. In fact, it's the NYT that needs to apologize.

ETA
But it's also true, it seems to me, that even if there were no contacts, Saddam was still a clear and present danger after 9/11 precisely because of his record with WMDs and links with terror groups. One recalls that Saddam's official press was one of the few to openly celebrate the 9/11 attacks against the "Great Satan." Bush made the right decision - the only decision a responsible president could have made at the time. What frustrates about Cheney, however, is his inability to concede that the intelligence he used about WMDs was embarrassingly wrong. Here's the exchange with Gloria Borger:

• BORGER: In hindsight, Mr. Vice President, are you disappointed in the quality of the intelligence that you received before launching an attack against Iraq? Vice Pres. CHENEY: I can't say that, Gloria. I think the decision we made was exactly the right one.

He can't say it. The vice-president would have more credibility when he's right if he could also concede when he's been wrong.

[Not Me]

Never mind.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
From Sullivan

The vice-president's direct attack on the New York Times' portrayal of the 9/11 Commission report was a zinger. On balance, i think Cheney is right. The links between al Qaeda and Saddam may not have amounted to a formal alliance, but they existed all right, as the Commission conceded. The NYT itself reported that "The report said that despite evidence of repeated contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 90's, 'they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.'" But if there were "repeated contacts" between al Qaeda and Iraq, how can it be true that, as the headline put it, that "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie"? Headlines truncate things, of course. But Cheney is dead-on in describing this headline as misleading. Here's Tom Kean, the chairman of the Commision: "What we have found is, were there contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Yes. Some of them were shadowy - but they were there." Here's Lee Hamilton:

• "I must say I have trouble understanding the flack over this. The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that. What we have said is what the governor just said, we don't have any evidence of a cooperative, or a corroborative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and these al Qaeda operatives with regard to the attacks on the United States. So it seems to me the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me."

The NYT had the gall to demand that Bush and Cheney apologize. In fact, it's the NYT that needs to apologize.

ETA
But it's also true, it seems to me, that even if there were no contacts, Saddam was still a clear and present danger after 9/11 precisely because of his record with WMDs and links with terror groups. One recalls that Saddam's official press was one of the few to openly celebrate the 9/11 attacks against the "Great Satan." Bush made the right decision - the only decision a responsible president could have made at the time. What frustrates about Cheney, however, is his inability to concede that the intelligence he used about WMDs was embarrassingly wrong. Here's the exchange with Gloria Borger:

• BORGER: In hindsight, Mr. Vice President, are you disappointed in the quality of the intelligence that you received before launching an attack against Iraq? Vice Pres. CHENEY: I can't say that, Gloria. I think the decision we made was exactly the right one.

He can't say it. The vice-president would have more credibility when he's right if he could also concede when he's been wrong.

AQ has proven to be a powerful political force. I'm sure many nations have met with AQ representatives. Our invasion of Iraq seems to have enhanced AQ's prestige and political power to the extent that many governments that had also met with them are now quaking in their sandals (see Saudi Arabia).

Now our forces are overcomitted - even more so than they were in Kosovo - and we have few options with the other governments that have AQ knocking at the palace door. We have military might, but that's only good for military action. The military is not good at, nor is it designed for, nation-building. How many more Iraqs can we handle?

Conceding for the moment that SH's (tenuous) links to AQ justified the war in Iraq (though this was not the admin's very public justification for war), doesn't mean that war in Iraq was the correct decision. It fails to distinguish between can and must. Just because you could fuck paigow doesn't make it a wise decision.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
many governments that had also met with them are now quaking in their sandals (see Saudi Arabia).

Saudi Arabia met with AQ? You have got to be kidding. Saudi Arabia CREATED AQ with their fucking Wahhabi madrassas (sp?). It is just their short-sightedness that the monster that they created to diflect hatred away from the House of Saud is now coming back to bite them on the ass.

Bottom line? All terrorist attacks since the invasion of Iraq have been on soil other than the US. If the invasion of Iraq has done anything, it has kept the terrorists preoccupied with off shore targets and left the streets of America safe for Hello to drive his gas guzzling SUV (which keeps funneling the dough to the terrorists, but I will leave Hello's conscience to deal with that.)