Politics: A new beginning

[Not Me]

Ugh. They have ruined that show.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
If Clark wins, there are already quite a few ex-generals lined up to testify, to the press, about why he got booted out of there, why he lacks the moral character to be CIC, and why he has skated in the press so far. It won't be pretty at all. Dems would be well served by avoiding this slug altogether.

Bilmore, I read a lengthy article on Clark in one of your favorite mags a week or two ago (the New Yorker*), which had an interesting viewpoint on this.

TNY's research and observations re: Clark in his military service from others in the military was:

-- An acknolwedged "brilliant" tactician and analyst; but
-- Lacks the intangible common touch with the men he commands;
-- Has unswerving conviction about his perspective, to the degree that it gets in the way of hearing different viewpoints. As one military person put it, the debate over Kosovo policy became a test over the brilliance of Clark's ideas, which became tiresome to many in the Administration;
-- And, to some extent, there's a culture in the military that believes a Rhodes Scholar just doesn't make a good warrior.

The article also spends a good bit of time rehashing Kosovo. Early on (at least as measured by US involvement), Clark was convinced from earlier interactions with the guy that if the West threatened Milosovic, then Slobo would back down. He and Albright dragged a distracted Clinton administration down that road.

Problem was, Clark was wrong in his estimation. Slobo didn't stop the genocide. But at this point, NATO and the US were in pretty deep, and their credibility was on the line, so they had to move forward with the air campaign.

At this point, Clark was convinced that (notwithstanding, and perhaps as a counter to, Clinton's baffling assurance that no ground troops would be involved) NATO had to at least *threaten* a ground invasion in order to get Slobo to stop.

Though obviously they never did send ground troops, Clark put together and submitted a war plan that, to hear military sources tell it, was awful (something about sending the troops in through mountainous Albania where they'd be exposed, etc etc). Clark's people emphasize that there were external reasons for structuring the plan they way he did, and that more importantly it needed to project a threat, not necessarily get forces moving immediately. Regardless this appears to be one of the events that eliminated the patience of the Clinton administration and led to Clark's ouster.

I'm oversimplifying the contents of the article (which, sadly, is not online), but I came away with the impression that in some respects it's really odd for Clark to be basing his campaign on his leadership in Kosovo. Even though the results were impressive, his apparent conduct through the war highlighted his weaknesses as a potential CIC.

Gattigap

*I can't remember who the author was -- don't think it was Hersh.

[sgtclub]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/999347.asp

Based on this picuture alone, I am concluding that MSNBC does not want Dean to be the nominee.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
[These were written before the WaPo article, but the WaPo article only focuses on one of the 40 or so pieces of evidence cited in the memo.

Look -- the point of the article wasn't their note that the so-called "al Qaeda training camp" started in Northern Iraq in 1999 waw undoubtedly in territory controlled by either the Kurds or Iran (i.e. Ansar al Islam). That was a f-ing sideshow.

Also -- the article did not try to go "point-by-Point" to refute 40+ pieces of "evidence" -- it expressly noted that some contacts surely happened, and that anyone skilled in or knowledgeable about intelligence would have expected some such contacts. The groups operate in the same regions and had many of the same enemies, etc.

The principal point of the article was the human intelligence from a high-level source inside the Iraqi security services pre-war (confirmed in other post-war interviews) that Hussein/Iraq actively considered but rejected a proffer of close alliance from al Qaeda several years ago -- no wish to grasp that hot iron.

This intelligence was apparently believed by the British and the CIA. I would suggest that Feith finds this "unconvincing" only because he, as a Bush administration political appointee, wishes it to be so. Hell -- even Bush doen't claim such a link anymore.

Heck -- if you're going to perform fellatio on British intelligence for the 'uranium in Africa" claim, how can you simply dismiss their apparent agreement with the CIA that there simply isn't good evidence of a substantive link between al Qaeda and Iraq and cooperation in al Qaeda's anti-U.S. activities?

After all, club, the question is that of analysis and interpretation -- as well as using best judgment to determine what may have actually happened. Again, i suggest that you see a meaningful "link" just because you wish it to be so -- and you think that Doug Feith knows better than the folks who do it for a living.

S_A_M

[edited to moderate my rhetoric]

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by sgtclub

Based on this picuture alone, I am concluding that MSNBC does not want Dean to be the nominee.

That is truly a great picture.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The groups operate in the same regions and had many of the same enemies, etc.

So, you make this statement in a post whose purpose is to minimize intelligence that suggests links?

Bush was wrong to suggest a link because he should have been able to winnow out the "normal" links of terror-intensive entities and figure out that there were really no important ones?

Government by hindsight. Good plan. Are you a Dean guy, or a Kerry guy?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub

Based on this picuture alone, I am concluding that MSNBC does not want Dean to be the nominee.

It needs a caption.

"Yeah? YEAH!!? Come up HERE and wave that damn Confederate flag, you pukin' little MORON!!"

or

"I don't NEED to talk about the economy. I'm just ANGRY!!"

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Look -- the point of the article wasn't their note that the so-called "al Qaeda training camp" started in Northern Iraq in 1999 waw undoubtedly in territory controlled by either the Kurds or Iran (i.e. Ansar al Islam). That was a f-ing sideshow.

Also -- the article did not try to go "point-by-Point" to refute 40+ pieces of "evidence" -- it expressly noted that some contacts surely happened, and that anyone skilled in or knowledgeable about intelligence would have expected some such contacts. The groups operate in the same regions and had many of the same enemies, etc.

The principal point of the article was the human intelligence from a high-level source inside the Iraqi security services pre-war (confirmed in other post-war interviews) that Hussein/Iraq actively considered but rejected a proffer of close alliance from al Qaeda several years ago -- no wish to grasp that hot iron.

This intelligence was apparently believed by the British and the CIA. I would suggest that Feith finds this "unconvincing" only because he, as a Bush administration political appointee, wishes it to be so. Hell -- even Bush doen't claim such a link anymore.

Heck -- if you're going to perform fellatio on British intelligence for the 'uranium in Africa" claim, how can you simply dismiss their apparent agreement with the CIA that there simply isn't good evidence of a substantive link between al Qaeda and Iraq and cooperation in al Qaeda's anti-U.S. activities?

After all, club, the question is that of analysis and interpretation -- as well as using best judgment to determine what may have actually happened. Again, i suggest that you see a meaningful "link" just because you wish it to be so -- and you think that Doug Feith knows better than the folks who do it for a living.

S_A_M

[edited to moderate my rhetoric]

And my point is that you and the writer are willing to dismiss the 40 or so stated points based on the testimony of one "high level" source. There may be a myriad of reasons why the administration is not pushing this (my personal guess is that they are gun shy after the Africa debacle).

You are right that this is a matter of interpretation. Implicitly then, I take it that neither you nor anyone else is questioning that the 40 events took place. Before I am willing to dismiss this as unsubstantial, I would need to read an analysis as to why the 40 points do not show what they purport. Where is that analysis? Surely it would be in someone's interest to do the research. The silence is deafening.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
*I can't remember who the author was -- don't think it was Hersh.

It wasn't Hersh. I don't know the guy's name, but he apparently tends to write articles in mainstream/lefty periodicals (e.g, TNR) containing dirt from GOP circles. An example of the way the article was written to trash Clark is in the way decisions that were pushed by Albright -- who was, after all, the Secretary of State -- are attributed more to him than to her, as if he had some sort of sway over White House policy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Government by hindsight. Good plan. Are you a Dean guy, or a Kerry guy?

We could be talking about government by foresight only if the Bush people actually had evidence before the war consistent with their rhetoric.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
edit: last post with head dress

Liar.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Liar.

Democrat, huh?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
Democrat, huh?

it's a specie of Ty's "bush lied" allegation. When I first wrote that a post was the last before I moved away from my head dress avatar, I believed that to be true. Unfortunately, to ensure proper functioning of the Board, i was required to make additional postings before I could change my avatar. for the record, when I said the one post was the last, I believed the statement true. I am thus not a liar.
As I believe everyone on the Board agrees, the liberals here function with some other definition of liar than that which I understand.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
As I believe everyone on the Board agrees, the liberals here function with some other definition of liar than that which I understand.

When you say that, you are mainly correct.

Note, this is not a substantive post, it is merely correcting/updating your use of "everyone agrees."

Happy Post-Thanksgiving!!

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Unfortunately, to ensure proper functioning of the Board, i was required to make additional postings before I could change my avatar.

Liar.