Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This line of reasoning may have worked before the Senate Report and 9/11 report, but it is just hot air now.

edited to say: You appear to live in this curious bimodal world in which if Wilson lied, then the President is telling the truth, and if Congress found fault with the CIA, then the President must have been absolved of having done anything wrong. Surreal.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Right -- because his military did so poorly in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I was referring to his use of military power. And saying that is like saying that the Yankees are great because they beat an SF little leaque team.

We consider it a war all right, but we think the President should have approached it as a war, not a political campaign. That means leveling with people about the reasons instead of trying to snow them. That means not using foreign policy for political advantage. That means making the war effort bipartisan. That means asking everyone to share the burden.

If the President didn't want to be accused of lying, he could have tried telling the truth.

Again, this line of reasoning may have worked before the reports came out. It is dead now.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When Kerry is elected President, I hope you're willing to put aside the personal attacks for a little while in the spirit of national unity. Or maybe that only cuts one way.

The fact that he is a waffler is not a personal attack, but I will support his foreign policy, much like I supported Clinton's policies in Eastern Europe.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
edited to say: You appear to live in this curious bimodal world in which if Wilson lied, then the President is telling the truth, and if Congress found fault with the CIA, then the President must have been absolved of having done anything wrong. Surreal.

The report found that the Administration did not pressure the CIA/intelligence community to reach a desired result. So it has now been established that (1) the 16 words were not a lie (2) no pressure was put on intelligence, and (3) this was an intelligence failure, rather than a lie. What are you insinuating that he did wrong (other than any disagreement you may have with policy)?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I was referring to his use of military power. And saying that is like saying that the Yankees are great because they beat an SF little leaque team.

Ten pounds of shit in a five pound bag. Are you beating up on Clinton again for failing to invade Afghanistan after the embassies were bombed? Whatever.

Again, this line of reasoning may have worked before the reports came out. It is dead now.

Yeah, those reports sure are an absolute vindication of everything the President has done for the last several years.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The fact that he is a waffler is not a personal attack....

This is the stupidest thing you have posted yet today, and that's saying something.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Ten pounds of shit in a five pound bag. Are you beating up on Clinton again for failing to invade Afghanistan after the embassies were bombed? Whatever.

I'm referring to his discomfort with the use of military power.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is the stupidest thing you have posted yet today, and that's saying something.

I love this. This is the latest and greatest DEM spin. Anything that could possible cause doubt on someone's leadership abilities or policies is now a personal attack. The fact that a candidate has taken inconsistent positions, routinely, is fair game.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The report found that the Administration did not pressure the CIA/intelligence community to reach a desired result.

Cite, please.

So it has now been established that (1) the 16 words were not a lie

If by "not a lie" you mean that it was literally correct that the British were telling us they had some source -- unknown to us -- that led them to believe the Iraqis were trying to buy uranium, that is true. If you think it was appropriate for the President to use the State of the Union to try to scare people about Iraq's nuclear program when his own intelligence people disagreed with the substance, simply on the basis of hearsay from another country, then let's just agree to disagree.

(2) no pressure was put on intelligence,

Bullfuckingshit. If you believe this you were on Mars two years ago.

and (3) this was an intelligence failure, rather than a lie.

Again with your strange bimodal world. I take it you never see dusk -- it's day, and then it's night, right?

What are you insinuating that he did wrong (other than any disagreement you may have with policy)?

Where do you want me to start? Should we stick to Iraq? I think it's clear, far beyond dispute, that the President and people around him decided to go to war with Iraq without regard to what the intelligence community was saying. The intel was used to sell the war. I think the President's motives were pure (but pure what?), but profoundly misguided. While others around him were hot on the idea of draining the swamp, etc., I think the President was uncomfortable with the difficulties of the containment policy and had no patience for it. I think he saw Hussein as an enemy, and 9/11 prompted him to want to act against our enemies. Having decided to go to war, he was not apt to reconsider, and so what the intelligence community then told him was irrelevant to policy formation. He convinced himself that he was doing the greater good, and that justified all sorts of other things. Like overstating the case for war.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Cite, please.



If by "not a lie" you mean that it was literally correct that the British were telling us they had some source -- unknown to us -- that led them to believe the Iraqis were trying to buy uranium, that is true. If you think it was appropriate for the President to use the State of the Union to try to scare people about Iraq's nuclear program when his own intelligence people disagreed with the substance, simply on the basis of hearsay from another country, then let's just agree to disagree.



Bullfuckingshit. If you believe this you were on Mars two years ago.



Again with your strange bimodal world. I take it you never see dusk -- it's day, and then it's night, right?



Where do you want me to start? Should we stick to Iraq? I think it's clear, far beyond dispute, that the President and people around him decided to go to war with Iraq without regard to what the intelligence community was saying. The intel was used to sell the war. I think the President's motives were pure (but pure what?), but profoundly misguided. While others around him were hot on the idea of draining the swamp, etc., I think the President was uncomfortable with the difficulties of the containment policy and had no patience for it. I think he saw Hussein as an enemy, and 9/11 prompted him to want to act against our enemies. Having decided to go to war, he was not apt to reconsider, and so what the intelligence community then told him was irrelevant to policy formation. He convinced himself that he was doing the greater good, and that justified all sorts of other things. Like overstating the case for war.

"The Senate report said there was no evidence that ``administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.''

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...Byo7c&refer=us

You have some good theories, but where's your cite please

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I love this. This is the latest and greatest DEM spin. Anything that could possible cause doubt on someone's leadership abilities or policies is now a personal attack. The fact that a candidate has taken inconsistent positions, routinely, is fair game.

If I call you a moron, I'm not saying that the things that you post are moronic, I'm saying that you, club, are a moron. That's a personal attack. If, on the other hand, I say that the things you post (or the work you do, etc.) is moronic, it's not so much an attack on you. When you attack Kerry as a waffler, you are not "causing doubt" about his "policies," and you are not attacking his "positions." You are saying that what he says in these positions is unimportant, and that what is important is his personal characteristic of waffling.

In other words, what you said was just dumb.

Personal attacks are fair game in an election. Not ipso facto, but we're electing leaders, not platforms. I think there is an element of truth in the Kerry/waffler thing, but I also think it's way overstated, much like the Gore/liar thing. Whether or not it's true, it is certainly a personal attack.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...be_2&printer=1

Didn't Clinton's advisor, or someone else in his admin, get busted for taking a classified computer (that is a computer with classified information) home?

Oh, and www.jibjab.com . . . click on "this lland". I apologize if it's a repost. I blame my shitty friends who fail to forward emails like this, leaving me to hear about it on the Today show.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
"The Senate report said there was no evidence that ``administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.''

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...Byo7c&refer=us

You have some good theories, but where's your cite please

If I were taking a deposition, and a witness gave me that answer, I could have a lot of fun pushing the witness on the different qualifications. "Analysts." So officials talked to their supervisors, but not to the analysts. "Change" Not "modify," but "change," huh? And so on. As I say, if you think that sentence captures what was going on in Washington two years ago, you were living on Mars and getting your news from a FOX feed or something. Actually, even that isn't right, because it was the conservative media like FOX that was on the CIA's case for not getting with the war program. I posted a link to a piece in the WaPo by Jim Hoagland, noted pal of the neo-cons, in 2002 in which he attacked the CIA for failing to see how much of a threat Hussein was. Two years later, he's writing pieces blaming the CIA for leading the President astray. To ignore that the administration didn't do anything to pressure the CIA, you'd have to close your eyes and cover your ears to what was going on before the war.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Hoagland on October 20, 2002:

• Imagine that Saddam Hussein has been offering terrorist training and other lethal support to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda for years. You can't imagine that? Sign up over there. You can be a Middle East analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency.
  
  Or at least you could have been until recently. As President Bush's determination to overthrow the Iraqi dictator has become evident to all, a cultural change has come over the world's most expensive intelligence agency: Some analysts out at Langley are now willing to evaluate incriminating evidence against the Iraqis and call it just that.
  
  ...it is no surprise that Bush has until now relied little on the Langley agency for his information on Iraq. There is simply no way to reconcile what the CIA has said on the record and in leaks with the positions Bush has taken on Iraq.

Oops. Nor is this an outlier. Here's another Hoagland column from October, 2002:

• A sea change has occurred in official Washington since the president decided last summer that he would soon have to be ready to go to war against Iraq. Public attempts by officials to bury or explain away menacing information about Iraq have largely dried up or gone underground, although the CIA fights a rear-guard action. Now information and intelligence are marshaled to make the case, rather than deflect it.
  
  This is, broadly speaking, political use of information -- no more and no less so than was the previous phase of denial and obfuscation. Bush mobilized facts on Monday to mobilize the nation for a challenge that is no less dangerous for being "largely familiar," as the New York Times labeled Bush's arguments in Tuesday editions.

Oops.

Hoagland in 2004:

• The truth in Machiavellian terms is worse: Bush and Blair accepted and actually believed the flawed intelligence that their spy bosses and senior aides provided, and then inflated it in their public speeches. Credulity, not chicanery, would be the plea, your honor.

Two years ago, Bush was out in front, and the CIA was struggling to keep with him. Now we need to all pretend that Bush's error was "accepting" what the CIA told him and "inflating" it in his public speeches. "Inflating." Right.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Didn't Clinton's advisor, or someone else in his admin, get busted for taking a classified computer (that is a computer with classified information) home?

Yes. Chinese-American Wen Ho Lee was accused of spying for the Chinese at Los Alamos National Laboratory. He spent nine months in solitary confinement awaiting trial, and he ultimately plea bargained to putting classified information on a insecure computer.

I'm not sure if Clinton even knew who Lee was prior to his prosecution.

I believe that the security issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory have not been resolved.