Politics: A new beginning

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Boy you have been away for a while. During your absence, I was outed... Dick something-or-other (Paigow's first crush) drew this pic of me a little while back --

aren't you the one who complains about the big image thing? no offense but jeeze, we aren't used to that over here

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I am, however, beginning to deeply relish the prospect of Senator H. Clinton (D. - N.Y.) ramming a huge pole up the Republicans' asses in 2008.

Please let it not come to this.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST -- YOU ARE A LIKE A KAZOO -- SAME TIRESOME NOTE OVER AND OVER AGAIN!!

You first posted an article disputing the Feith memo, which pointed to numerous pieces of evidence of inter-system connection. As you put it, "The article pretty convincingly dissects the Feith memorandum as a political piece which ignores key evidence, and also explains why -- despite seeing everything cited by Feith, the CIA and British intelligence remain convinced that there was probably no real link between al Qaeda and the Hussein government."

I took that to be your point. Tell me if I got that wrong.

As your discussion progressed, you had to reply to a mention of the many points not dealt with in your proferred article by saying that, of course, there were contacts, how could there NOT have been contacts, after all, they had common enemies and operated in common localities. (Hmm. Common enemies. Oh, yeah, the French.) I thought your theme had, at that point, been abandoned, and your direction changed. From "probably no real link" to "well, just THOSE links, and we don't think those links count for much", struck me as being similar to much of what I have been seeing in the way of disolving rhetoric here and elsewhere.

At that spot in the dialogue, you were operating in the realm of the hindsighted, and your main point in bringing up the original article (I assumed that you had a point, and, given your history, while I had to do a little extrapolation to determine what that point might be, I am mostly comfortable with my determination) seemed to be subsumed in your new point, that of, "if I can see it now, why couldn't he see it before?"

You now say "They (your comments) were not directed towards the 2004 elections. They never criticized Bush, nor were they intended to criticize the administration for suggesting a link pre-War."

See, that's the line that I can't buy. Why would you bring up an article purporting to trash the Feith memo unless you wanted to show a lack of any link between SH and AQ? That was the entire point of the Feith memo, and the memo to which you linked was themed specifically to refute that point.

(P.S. You can just call me Bilmore. JFC is so formal for this forum . . .)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Why would you bring up an article purporting to trash the Feith memo unless you wanted to show a lack of any link between SH and AQ?

Because he was responding to posts by sgtclub suggesting that the Feith memo vindicated the Administration.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Because he was responding to posts by sgtclub suggesting that the Feith memo vindicated the Administration.

Right. But Club's point was there were ties. And the editorial doesn't say there weren't contacts, just that the contacts that were, weren't surprising (?) weren't bad (?), I dunno, somehow the contacts that every one agrees happened shouldn't be seen as evidence of contacts. I'm not as smart as the rest of you guys. I could use some help. How can there be acceptable contacts with OBL to explore potential "friendship?"

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
How can there be acceptable contacts with OBL to explore potential "friendship?"

Read this piece, by David Ignatius, who is not a lefty.

The claim that Hussein's intelligence service had contacts with al Qaeda isn't new, and by itself it doesn't prove much. In the murky world of espionage, operatives are constantly checking out potential friends and adversaries; it would be surprising, in fact, if the Iraqis and Osama bin Laden's men hadn't met.

Like Feith, sgtclub is happy to seize on any shred of evidence that will support the Administration. As Ignatius says, "Advocates for U.S. policy in Iraq should understand that it weakens their credibility, rather than strengthening it, when they seem to be cooking intelligence to serve President Bush's political interests."

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
aren't you the one who complains about the big image thing? no offense but jeeze, we aren't used to that over here

That was not a result of my picture (nice, wasn't it?). It was a result of bilmore's computation of 1/378. Thanks for playing. Carry on.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Read this piece, by David Ignatius, who is not a lefty.



Like Feith, sgtclub is happy to seize on any shred of evidence that will support the Administration. As Ignatius says, "Advocates for U.S. policy in Iraq should understand that it weakens their credibility, rather than strengthening it, when they seem to be cooking intelligence to serve President Bush's political interests."

And you are so eager to believe there weren't because, if there were, you would have to admit that GWB was right and you and all your leacherous lefty friends were wrong - you whole belief structure would crumble right before our eyes.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Read this piece, by David Ignatius, who is not a lefty.



Like Feith, sgtclub is happy to seize on any shred of evidence that will support the Administration. As Ignatius says, "Advocates for U.S. policy in Iraq should understand that it weakens their credibility, rather than strengthening it, when they seem to be cooking intelligence to serve President Bush's political interests."

Actually, to avoid any charges of boot-strapping, I should point out that the Ignatius piece is the very article that I linked to in my original post on the matter. But iI think that point is well-taken.

Anyway -- Hank -- the issue isn't whether Iraq's contacts with OBL in the mid-1990's were "acceptable" -- the issue (in my mind ) was whether or not Iraq had an ongoing cooperative relationship with al Qaeda as of, say 2000 onward, in which Iraq providec the group with significant, material support in pursuit of its war against the U.S. If so, whether or not it specifically involved the 9/11 attacks, I'd think that was a good and legitimate reason for war. So far, the answer appears to be "No" -- and the CIA, Brits, etc. seem to agree.

We are not, however, in the business of killing every person or unseating every government that ever had any contact with al Qaeda.

The Administration, as I recall, discussed the issue more in terms of potential future threat of cooperation between Iraq and the terrorists (i.e. passing WMD) -- and used the evidence of past cooperation as evidence of future danger. Again, I don't think that, as I recall its arguments, the Administration oversold this aspect of it -- except for the apparent near-complete absence of WMD in Iraq, which I'm sure surprised the administration just as it surprised me. I am bothered by what I see as a bunch of post-hoc efforts to juice up the case for war to help make up for the absence of WMD.

Sometimes you folks get me so exercised that I need to step back and remind myself (and perhaps some others) that: (a) I supported going to war with Iraq (although I was contemporaneously critical of the diplomacy that lead up to it); but (b) my support was premised on (i) my belief that Iraq had WMD and upon (ii) my belief that it is a good thing to overthrow murderous tyrants; and (c) my lack of support for the Bush administration has almost nothing to do with the Iraq conflict itself, although I was particularly unimpressed with the first three months of the "post-war" administration of Iraq.

Given that (b)(i) seems to have been incorrect -- we need to look as see whether the costs/benefits are acceptable for an invasion which now seems supportable only in view of (b)(ii) -- which can be greatly affected by the events in the ongoing administration of Iraq -- and we do need to examine whether the govt. was pulling the wool over folks' eyes (or was reckless with the information) regarding WMD.

Finally Bilmore, while I tend to view Bush as a basically honest man with whom I _very_ often disagree -- I am not so taken with or sure of VP Cheney, and/or the character of a number of the "true believers" in the administration. (This is not even considering the UnderSecretary of Defense who says he saw a demon in the sky over Mogadishu, Somalia, but who knew that the U.S. would triumph because Christ is Lord while Mohammed is just an idol.)

S_A_M

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And you are so eager to believe there weren't because, if there were, you would have to admit that GWB was right and you and all your leacherous lefty friends were wrong - you whole belief structure would crumble right before our eyes.

It's "lecherous" and I am appalled to see you have gone so far right as to use some sexual morality crap as an insult. Besides, lascivious (synonym of lecherous) is a great word.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And you are so eager to believe there weren't because, if there were, you would have to admit that GWB was right and you and all your leacherous lefty friends were wrong - you whole belief structure would crumble right before our eyes.

Do you know what "lecherous" means?

I was very much on the fence about the war for a long time leading up to it. A lot of people whom I respect were for it.

Be that as it may, come on. We now all know that Bush and Co. made decisions and said things to the country (and the world) that they did not know to be true. If you're making the case for them, it's that they were playing a hunch, and betting that once they took the country over, they would find facts supporting them. The sort of frantic, rear-guard efforts to find something, anything to support the Administration (those aren't trailers for artillery spotting balloons, those are mobile bio-weapons production facilities . . . never mind, they're trailers) confirm this.

As best as I can tell -- though you guys aren't trying hard to articulate a defense -- the best one can say about the many statements of Bush et al. that have since been shown to be patently lacking in empirical support -- oh hell, let's just say they were false -- is that they thought they were doing the right thing, and convinced themselves of this out of the best of intentions even though the intelligence wasn't there. In other words, they weren't lying, they were reckless. And yet you're not concerned that our foreign policy is in the hands of reckless fuck-ups.

This is like Vietnam all over again, and I'm talking more about what's happening and is going to happen in this country. (Although the headlines this morning about the number of Iraqis we killed yesterday are eerily parallel.) Spin and press management only take you so far.

originally posted by S_A_M
Actually, to avoid any charges of boot-strapping, I should point out that the Ignatius piece is the very article that I linked to in my original post on the matter. But iI think that point is well-taken.

Oops. Sorry -- I tried to check that, but must have misread the dates.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Like Feith, sgtclub is happy to seize on any shred of evidence that will support the Administration. As Ignatius says, "Advocates for U.S. policy in Iraq should understand that it weakens their credibility, rather than strengthening it, when they seem to be cooking intelligence to serve President Bush's political interests."

in response....see post 1935 reproduced here for your convienence;



the good kind of al queda contacts Post #1935


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
summarizes an editorial in the WP to contradict Club's well reasoned summary of alQueda-Iraq ties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



From the Editorial, this admission, that on its own shows Club wins the argument:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The claim that Hussein's intelligence service had contacts with al Qaeda isn't new, and by itself it doesn't prove much. In the murky world of espionage, operatives are constantly checking out potential friends and adversaries; it would be surprising, in fact, if the Iraqis and Osama bin Laden's men hadn't met. CIA Director George Tenet summarized these feelers in an October 2002 letter to the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He noted that contacts between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda dated back to the early 1990s and had included discussions about giving al Qaeda operatives sanctuary in Iraq or helping them acquire chemical weapons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Sorry, but after 9/11 I want other countries to understand that its not cool "checking out" al queda as a "potential friend." You know, the whole "pick a side" thing. Sure its "COWBOY", but prudent also. Double " not cool" points for "checking out" al queda if you're also "checking out" WMD manufacture. I'm sure most people on this board agree.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a reason why the CIA and British intelligence remained dubious about any serious Iraq-al Qaeda operational link, even though they knew about covert contacts between the two. That's because they had an unusually well-placed source in Iraq who told them before the war that in the late 1990s, Saddam Hussein had indeed considered such an operational relationship with bin Laden -- and then decided against it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How many boxes of reports do the various intelligence agencies generate a month? The left wanted Bush to pull out a report about airplanes from clinton times from one of those boxes- and change airport security, ignore reports that Iraq had WMD, and then not worry about al queda-Iraq because in some other report some guy sadi don't worry.

Help me, has Saddam changed his mind ever? do you think if he otherwise felt the equation had shifted he might want to "check out" Osama again? LIBERAL, PLEASE!


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates for U.S. policy in Iraq should understand that it weakens their credibility, rather than strengthening it, when they seem to be cooking intelligence to serve President Bush's political interests.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No. advocates for your side have to understand that when a country is found "checking out" an organization that has the destruction of the US as its main goals, then the country is on the bad side of an equation. When you start explaining your "benign al queda contacts" theory to voters next fall you'll see who is found lacking in credibiltiy*.

*except for Neighborhood meetings in caostal Calif., Boston, and G'town townhouses.

"Biff, did you read that scathing Wa. Po. analysis of how the ties between Osama and Iraq were really quite normal given Iraq's stance? good stuff that! another Cordial?"


__________________
I assume that was an early draft. Do you have anything more polished?


Last edited by Hank Chinaski on 11-30-2003 at 12:13 PM

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
. . . and you and all your leacherous lefty friends . . .

Careful, club, I'm sure you don't really want to start a partisan "lech-off". There are planty of those in the GOP as well, and you KNOW that GWB was tapping more than just the kegs back in hsi drug- and drink-addled 1970s.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I was very much on the fence about the war for a long time leading up to it. A lot of people whom I respect were for it.

H. C. blushing

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(This is not even considering the UnderSecretary of Defense who says he saw a demon in the sky over Mogadishu, Somalia, but who knew that the U.S. would triumph because Christ is Lord while Mohammed is just an idol.)

I'm no expert on this one, but isn't this belief a necessary component of adherence to any religion? If you accept a religion, doesn't that mean you do so to the exclusion of all others? Or, can you say "I'm a devout Moslem/Jew/Christian/Whatever, but you guys may have a point"?