All Hank, all the time.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Clinton's WAS the first administration to have access to internet communications.

And hopefully the next 9/11 intell is sent immediately, but a report on what the trailers were actually doing is routine isn't it? This original post made the point "Bush lied again!"

Prove it.

And another thing- we thought they were for WMDs- once we had them we see they weren't. Sadaam bluffed the world that he had WMDs- maybe the function of the trailers was to appear as what we thought they were. Has there ever been any other function given?

My take on it is, okay, so Bush says "trailers with bio weapons" the field reporters should go push as much as they can to get their intel report to the WH in order to avoid further embarassment to the president.

my question is not how did the statement get made in teh first place, but why was it repeated for months afterwards? If the field guys failed to push their report, they weren't doign their job. If the WH ignored it, then there's another story.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yes. WE have ample evidence that the government is ill-equipped to channel important information from field agents to top-level decision makers in a timely manner. 9/11 stands as a testament to this precise problem. It is quite clear that Clinton failed to fix this problem, and as a result we continue to have problems to this day.

In short, it's Clinton's fault that Bush continued to make misrepresentations about WMD after the war. Nicely done.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski


When an associate does a memo for you, do you always review it that very day?

You at least review it before the big client meeting.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In short, it's Clinton's fault that Bush continued to make misrepresentations about WMD after the war. Nicely done.

I'm glad we've found some common ground.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It is quite clear that Clinton failed to fix this problem, and as a result we continue to have problems to this day.

Let's see . . . Clinton's last day in office was (give or take a day or two) January 20, 2001, and today is April 12, 2006 . . . [math on a scratch pad] . . . fuck that, what's that website? Ah yes, www.timeanddate.com . . . here we go, let's see, click there, and:

• Duration calculation results
  From and including: Saturday, January 20, 2001
  To, but not including : Wednesday, April 12, 2006
  
  It is 1908 days from the start date to the end date, but not including the end date
  
  Or 5 years, 2 months, 23 days excluding the end date
  

Yup. You're right. It's that redneck hillbilly horndog bastard's fault.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Bob

Yup. You're right. It's that redneck hillbilly horndog bastard's fault.

Ty has my proxy on this one.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Ty has my proxy on this one.

Sigh. I miss Penske.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So given that Iran has gone against the international community and successfully enriched Uranium, I would like to hear from those who favor internationally cooperation above all else, as to what we are supposed to do now?

I thought someone here had linked to James Fallows' new article in The Atlantic about this, but apparently I was wrong, so here it is. Depressing stuff. Two years ago, The Atlantic convened a panel of experts.

• The experts disagreed on some details but were nearly unanimous on one crucial point: what might seem America’s ace in the hole—the ability to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations in a pre-emptive air strike—was a fantasy. When exposed to “What then?” analysis, this plan (or a variant in which the United States looked the other way while Israel did the job) held more dangers than rewards for the United States."

In the intervening two years, it's only gotten worse.

Not a long article, and definitely worth reading. My recollection was that Fallows wrote a much longer piece about this subject for The Atlantic -- I was thinking it was six months ago, but maybe it was soon after they did this exercise.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
In short, it's Clinton's fault that Bush continued to make misrepresentations about WMD after the war. Nicely done.

It all comes down to Gorelick's "wall"

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I thought someone here had linked to James Fallows' new article in The Atlantic about this, but apparently I was wrong, so here it is. Depressing stuff.

That's it. Next meeting, bring your own damn coffee.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
It all comes down to Gorelick's "wall"

Don't forget that Clinton appointed Tenet, and therefore is responsible for everything the CIA has screwed up.

I'm curious, Slave -- what do you think when you read that WaPo article? I'm guessing that Bush didn't know that the trailers had been determined to be non-WMD related when he made his statements, because I suspect that the yes-men around him saw no upside in making sure that information got to his desk.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
That's it. Next meeting, bring your own damn coffee.

Ah, shit. I thought I'd seen it here, and I actually thought you posted it (not that you can search by author), but I didn't look back far enough. I was thinking it would have been posted in response to Club's question.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Gattigap
This places more faith in Israeli omnipotence than I have. I would be comforted to know that the Israelis can take out these sites, but why do you suspect that they can, (other than that they did this to Iraq over 20 years ago)?

Because they're just bad motherfuckers. They've whupped the piss out of the Arabs every single time, outnumbered 4:1.

They just don't come any harder/smarter than those people. But you're right. I don't have empirical evidence - just Israel's strong win/loss record.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Because they're just bad motherfuckers. They've whupped the piss out of the Arabs every single time, outnumbered 4:1.

They just don't come any harder/smarter than those people. But you're right. I don't have empirical evidence - just Israel's strong win/loss record.

Read that Atlantic piece. Maybe their win/loss record indicates that they do a good job of picking their fights?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I thought someone here had linked to James Fallows' new article in The Atlantic about this, but apparently I was wrong, so here it is. Depressing stuff. Two years ago, The Atlantic convened a panel of experts.

• The experts disagreed on some details but were nearly unanimous on one crucial point: what might seem America’s ace in the hole—the ability to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations in a pre-emptive air strike—was a fantasy. When exposed to “What then?” analysis, this plan (or a variant in which the United States looked the other way while Israel did the job) held more dangers than rewards for the United States."

In the intervening two years, it's only gotten worse.

Not a long article, and definitely worth reading. My recollection was that Fallows wrote a much longer piece about this subject for The Atlantic -- I was thinking it was six months ago, but maybe it was soon after they did this exercise.

I remember reading that at the time. So what are we left with? Hoping that they don't use them or give them to others? Regime change?