Politics As Usual

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
If Bob Bartley is any example, it means I'm finally going to get a hit in the death pool

When does Ron Jeremy get his Medal of Freedom? I need a break here.

[sgtclub]

From Chris Matthews interview with Jim Woolsey

MATTHEWS: OK.

The hottest issue today I think in the country is not whether there‘s WMD in that country or they were, because we‘re past that. We‘re in the war. We‘re in that country. The connection between al Qaeda and Iraq before the war, that‘s still a measure of dispute there. That‘s the dispute, isn‘t it, whether there was a connection between international terrorism in Iraq or not before we went to war with Iraq?

WOOLSEY: I think there‘s a reasonable argument as to whether or not there was control. I doubt that there really was control by Iraq over al Qaeda or sponsorship.

But connections, there were plenty. Tenet said twice on the record that there was training by the Iraqis of al Qaeda in conventional explosives.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: In the north.

WOOLSEY: Not just in the north.

In conventional explosives, gases and poisons.

MATTHEWS: Right.

WOOLSEY: And he said there were, there was help with false documentation of sort of rest and recreation.

MATTHEWS: Right.

WOOLSEY: [B]Going back a decade in these connections.

So connections are different than control. And a lot of people who deny that there was control by Iraq, I think, are probably right. But connections, talking, sharing information here and there, some training, that went on for a decade.

(CROSSTALK)

WOOLSEY: And there shouldn‘t be a dispute about that.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Fair enough, but why if you've been smeared do you use this photo?

Because it's a good photo. If you've been smeared, why not use it?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
From Chris Matthews interview with Jim Woolsey

Also interesting that Woolsey's former law firm, with whom he has practiced on and off since 1973, is also longtime registered lobbyist for the INC. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Far be it from the INC to overstate the case for anything.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
From Chris Matthews interview with Jim Woolsey

Read my post from yesterday, read that transcript again, and see if you can spot where Woolsey is exagerating the Iraq/Al Qaeda link in exactly the same way that Tenet was. Do you not have a bullshit detector, or do you just want there to be a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda so badly that you don't care? Al Qaeda is a bunch of Islamists. Iraq was secular and Arab nationalist -- what Al Qaeda is trying to defeat. This doesn't preclude cooperation between them -- think the Ribbentrop Pact between the USSR and Germany at the start of WWII -- but it means that invading Iraq to take out Al Qaeda is a little like invading Nazi Germany to take out global communism.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
...that invading Iraq to take out Al Qaeda is a little like invading Nazi Germany to take out global communism.

It took a while (from FDR to Reagan), but that worked too.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Fair enough, but why if you've been smeared do you use this photo?

Um...maybe as an appropriate response to the media's outrageous posting of this HS one?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Read my post from yesterday, read that transcript again, and see if you can spot where Woolsey is exagerating the Iraq/Al Qaeda link in exactly the same way that Tenet was. Do you not have a bullshit detector, or do you just want there to be a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda so badly that you don't care? Al Qaeda is a bunch of Islamists. Iraq was secular and Arab nationalist -- what Al Qaeda is trying to defeat. This doesn't preclude cooperation between them -- think the Ribbentrop Pact between the USSR and Germany at the start of WWII -- but it means that invading Iraq to take out Al Qaeda is a little like invading Nazi Germany to take out global communism.

Call me naive, but I trust the opinion of 2 former CIA directors appointed by a president of the party not currently in power, more than I trust some jackoff from the New Republic.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Call me naive, but I trust the opinion of 2 former CIA directors appointed by a president of the party not currently in power, more than I trust some jackoff from the New Republic.

You're naive.

There's no doubt Woolsey is a true believer. Tenet is different. He's as smooth as Woolsey is difficult, and Woolsey was a disaster as DCI -- picking fights with Congress and irritating Clinton -- Tenet was the opposite, getting along with anyone. It's pretty clear from a number of sources, including those in the TNR article, that the "opinion" of the CIA is that the links between Iraq and AQ were weak. That "opinion" was documented. Then, under immense pressure from the White House, Tenet supplied another "opinion." If you opt to ignore where that "opinion" came from, and just look at the bottom line, you're naive.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're naive.

There's no doubt Woolsey is a true believer. Tenet is different. He's as smooth as Woolsey is difficult, and Woolsey was a disaster as DCI -- picking fights with Congress and irritating Clinton -- Tenet was the opposite, getting along with anyone. It's pretty clear from a number of sources, including those in the TNR article, that the "opinion" of the CIA is that the links between Iraq and AQ were weak. That "opinion" was documented. Then, under immense pressure from the White House, Tenet supplied another "opinion." If you opt to ignore where that "opinion" came from, and just look at the bottom line, you're naive.

Right, because it doesn't comport with your conspiracy theory view of the world. How come when I post articles providing some (albeit not conclusive) evidence of a link from, e.g., NRO, you are quick to dismiss it, but you adhere whole heartedly to the articles that are consistent with your world view?

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Call me naive, but I trust the opinion of 2 former CIA directors appointed by a president of the party not currently in power, more than I trust some jackoff from the New Republic.

Is it enough for you to infer that there is a connection if there is no evidence of top-level control* over those connections? Because it seems to me that we have given a pass to a much clearer set of links with the Saudi government based on our belief that the ruling family had no control over those connections. Oh, and also based on the fact that SA sells us a lot of oil, which in my view shouldn't color our judgments of those culpable for 9/11 (and those who aided and abetted those culpable for 9/11). Assuming this is a way we're justifying the Iraq project, that is.

I can't remember if I posted this in response to your earlier post about this connction, so excuse me if I'm being repetitive.

Also, I see your point about the "appointed by the other party" bit, but you may want to think about the amount of ass-covering that's sprinkled into these guys' statements as well.

* I say this not to imply that Saddam was in the dark about this, but because your earlier article based a lot of its conclusion that the fedayeen guy was actually an Iraqi intel agent based upon some pretty flimsy stuff (the "panic" of the Iraqis when he was detained, the sophistication of his evasive answers that indicated counteintel training).

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Um...maybe as an appropriate response to the media's outrageous posting of this HS one?

Perhaps, but in a story that both sides will deny whether true or not, why would you want a picture that would cause people to say "Yeah, Kerry would hit that in a minute" as opposed to "no way Kerry would hit on that awkward child"?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Is it enough for you to infer that there is a connection if there is no evidence of top-level control* over those connections? Because it seems to me that we have given a pass to a much clearer set of links with the Saudi government based on our belief that the ruling family had no control over those connections. Oh, and also based on the fact that SA sells us a lot of oil, which in my view shouldn't color our judgments of those culpable for 9/11 (and those who aided and abetted those culpable for 9/11). Assuming this is a way we're justifying the Iraq project, that is.

I can't remember if I posted this in response to your earlier post about this connction, so excuse me if I'm being repetitive.

Also, I see your point about the "appointed by the other party" bit, but you may want to think about the amount of ass-covering that's sprinkled into these guys' statements as well.

* I say this not to imply that Saddam was in the dark about this, but because your earlier article based a lot of its conclusion that the fedayeen guy was actually an Iraqi intel agent based upon some pretty flimsy stuff (the "panic" of the Iraqis when he was detained, the sophistication of his evasive answers that indicated counteintel training).

I am not convinced yet one way or another, but my gut tells me that there was a connection at some level. The evidence of a connection, at this point, although circumstantial, is more substantial than you suggest. That said, I'm still waiting to see what is discovered and what comes out.

Your point on ass-covering is a fair one, though I'm not sure what cover Woolsey actually needs.

[SlaveNoMore]

Diane_Keaton
Um...maybe as an appropriate response to the media's outrageous posting of this HS one?

Note the source (New York magazine).

This is nothing more than a Hamptons personal ad.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Right, because it doesn't comport with your conspiracy theory view of the world. How come when I post articles providing some (albeit not conclusive) evidence of a link from, e.g., NRO, you are quick to dismiss it, but you adhere whole heartedly to the articles that are consistent with your world view?

This schtick of calling non-conservative views of the world "conspiracy theories" is really, really tired. What's the conspiracy? I think a bunch of ideologues with preconceptions about how the world works took control of the federal government and saw their job as one of building public support for a war that in their hearts they knew was right. (Barry Goldwater reference intended.) As it happens, they were wrong, and we are all now stuck with the mess they created. Where's the conspiracy?

You post articles with the weakest, most tenuous evidence. When they found those trailers used to make artillery spotting balloons, you were posting articles about it as if they'd found the Lost Ark of the Covenant with conclusive evidence inside it of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden butt-fucking each other on top of missiles pointed at Houston with warheads full of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The media on which you are relying appears to see its job as furthering the conservative movement, not as weighing and reporting the evidence. Which is fine -- there's a place for that -- but don't mistake it for something it's not. You don't show any signs of thinking critically about what you are posting. The echo in Woolsey's interview of what Tenet was saying two years ago is unmistakable -- e.g., the "over ten years" phrasing used to mask the fact that the only evidence is more than ten years old. Do you really think Woolsey -- who hasn't been DCI for nine years now -- has access to some knowledge that the Senate Intelligence Committee doesn't? Don't you think that that if there was better evidence available to the administration, we'd know about it? And what about that TNR article -- it gives a comprehensive description of intelligence between twisted in support of a political agenda. Do you read that and think, Spencer Ackerman is a partisan hack who's just out to make the President look bad? If so, do you conclude that solely on the basis of the fact that he's criticizing the administration, or do you know something else about him? If not, doesn't it bother you? Doesn't it prompt you to think that the CIA's analysts were right and Woolsey is wrong?

I don't categorically dismiss the possibility that more WMD and links between SH and OBL will turn up. At this point, however, advocates of the war are straining so hard to point to anything to cover their ass that I'm highly, highly dubious. It is beyond clear that the administation was trumpeting as firm conclusions which were anything but. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, ....