Politics: A new beginning

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
[Speaking of which, someone previously posted a link to a site that sells faux motivational posters, mugs, etc. If anyone knows what this site is, please post a link.

http://www.despair.com/ thank god (and Gore) there's an internet!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

If anyone's looking for a distraction, the SF Chronicle ran a good series of articles this week by a reporter who was embedded with the Marines during the war. It's not always easy to read, but it's worth it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

tarnation! my hat trick ruined!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
http://www.despair.com/ thank god (and Gore) there's an internet!

I can't thank you enough.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

To those of you who said the Bush Administration would see it through in Iraq:

"Faced with escalating violence in Iraq, the Bush administration wants to speed up the handover of power to Iraqis -- dropping its earlier insistence that the Iraqis first draw up a new constitution and hold general elections, a process likely to last at least another year. The Iraqis had been insisting on a faster transfer."

But it's important to spin this as a victory. "From Washington, the White House welcomed the new plan in a statement, calling it 'an important step toward realizing the vision of Iraq as a democratic, pluralistic country at peace with its neighbors.'"

I like the sycophantic-journalistic speak of "welcomed" -- as if this plan just showed up unannounced on the doorstep of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
To those of you who said the Bush Administration would see it through in Iraq:

I'm not sure why you think this indicates that the administration won't see things through. It sounds like they read my post the other day and understand how important it is to hand power back to any part of Iraq that shows its able to control itself. Obviously joking, but I fully expect them to start organizing localized elections in any place they have not done so yet.

And, at some point or another, I think you will see a gunship attack on any crowds looting a destroyed humvee or whatever in Fallujah. The overriding lesson has to be that resistance is futile, while cooperation and self-control will lead to the popular reward of, democratic elections and no more occupation.

So, are you saying they pull out of Fallujah and Tirani (or whatever) next June, even if the attacks are continuing at their current levels? I promise you this. If that happens (America cuts and runs from a fight), I'll be voting for Sharpton (there really are not very many good alternatives for me... maybe Dean -- seriously).

What do the voters want? Anything but giving in to our enemies. If they even think about it, we will be pissed. But that's not what the plan says. THe plan just says we will be reasonable with reasonable self-controlled Iraqis.

Is your problem with it the fact that it seems to be driven by unfortunate events? If so, then I agree that it is a problem. This shit should have been announced months ago.

Hello

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
It sounds like they read my post the other day and understand how important it is to hand power back to any part of Iraq that shows its able to control itself. Obviously joking, but I fully expect them to start organizing localized elections in any place they have not done so yet.

This is talking about handing power back on the national level. From what I've read lately, there's no reason to think the Governing Council is able to control things. All else equal, it's clearly a better idea to let the Iraqis run things, but recent events don't suggest that we should be accelerating that shift.

Is your problem with it the fact that it seems to be driven by unfortunate events? If so, then I agree that it is a problem. This shit should have been announced months ago.

Not exactly -- my problem is that it likely is driven by unfortunate events.

edited to add:
I'm not the only one to interpret this as a path to an early exit.

"Administration officials have dismissed critics who suggest that the process might be driven by Mr. Bush's electoral needs, taking pains to portray the new approach as Iraqi-born, initiated by Iraqi leaders out of what Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, called a "clamor" for a faster turnover of power.

"Yet until sometime in the past few weeks, Mr. Bremer argued internally that the Iraqis were not ready to assume full authority, and that turning it over before the basic outlines of Iraqi democracy were established would invite chaos, or worse."

Bremer was called back to Washington for high-level consultations recently. He either (a) had a sudden change of heart, and called Cheney to say, 'listen to this, I think they can handle it now, never mind the escalating violence,' or (b) was told to back a new policy. I'm going with (a).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
[Fox news cites Weekly Standard as reporting memo delivered to Senate Intelligence Committee supports strong link betwee SH and OSB.]

The DoD is not amused:

• News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate. A letter was sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 27, 2003 from Douglas J. Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in response to follow-up questions from his July 10 testimony. One of the questions posed by the committee asked the Department to provide the reports from the Intelligence Community to which he referred in his testimony before the Committee. These reports dealt with the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida.
  
  The letter to the committee included a classified annex containing a list and description of the requested reports, so that the Committee could obtain the reports from the relevant members of the Intelligence Community. The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the NSA, or, in one case, the DIA. The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the Intelligence Community. The selection of the documents was made by DOD to respond to the Committee's question. The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaida, and it drew no conclusions.
  
  Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal.

So there's nothing in the Feith letter that wasn't known and testified about on July 10.

If we're not eating crow, does that mean you are?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The DoD is not amused:

So there's nothing in the Feith letter that wasn't known and testified about on July 10.

If we're not eating crow, does that mean you are?

How odd. I'm just a guy, and I've posted the DoD press release here, but I can't find anything about it on the FOX News website. You'd think that having run that story, they'd want to post an update about it, but apparently they're busy with more important stories.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
the FOX News website....................busy with 9shoe recycling story

Wow! Fox is really mellowing. Time was an article like this would end with a paragraph reminding us that recycling does not make economic sense, and arguing that until the market dictates a reason we should drop the feel good nonsense of small recycling efforts. Are you sure this came from Fox, and isn't a fake like the CNN felatio article, or a meat shake page?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
(1) Scroll down, then post.

(2) Please explain how 9/11 would lead one to have different principles about nation building. Does this mean Clinton was right, and his critics wrong, about nation building? (I didn't think so.)

(3) About the left, bullshit.

(4) Anyone who uses the phrase "thinking outside the box" isn't.

1. agreed
2. yes, Clinton was right in eastern europe and I supported him at the time because there was a connection b/t that and our safety. Don't see the connection Haiti. Didn't see it in Rwanda either, but he would have been right had he gone in and help stop the slaughter of 1 million.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The DoD is not amused:

• News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate. A letter was sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 27, 2003 from Douglas J. Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in response to follow-up questions from his July 10 testimony. One of the questions posed by the committee asked the Department to provide the reports from the Intelligence Community to which he referred in his testimony before the Committee. These reports dealt with the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida.
  
  The letter to the committee included a classified annex containing a list and description of the requested reports, so that the Committee could obtain the reports from the relevant members of the Intelligence Community. The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the NSA, or, in one case, the DIA. The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the Intelligence Community. The selection of the documents was made by DOD to respond to the Committee's question. The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaida, and it drew no conclusions.
  
  Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal.

So there's nothing in the Feith letter that wasn't known and testified about on July 10.

If we're not eating crow, does that mean you are?

I don't see where DOD says the information is inaccurate. The only thing this post and the link says is that it's not new. So, no, not eating crow.

[Say_hello_for_me]

A few things that caught my attention this week:

First: Two Chileno military officers were caught rifling through files at an Argentinian consulate in southern Chile recently. Chile apologized, dismissed the two from its army, and publicly swore that they were not working on behalf of the Chileno government. Argentina accepted the apology. Apparently, the two countries get along pretty well these days.

Second: Is anyone still alive in the LA area after this weekend, or did everyone die at the hands of the police? Holy fuck, there were car crashes ending in suspect deaths, and something like 4 or 5 shootouts where offenders were killed. Yesterday's (saturdays) LA Times online read like a Tarantino movie or something.

Third: Very local to Chicago, but I've heard whispers that a certain police commander of a certain historically-second-most-violent police district, pissed hot in a drug test. When they asked him to report for a second test, he called in sick for awhile. When someone in the neighborhood suspected their boy was about to get canned, they held rallies a few weeks ago. According to press reports, he was moved to another unit as a commander, and he was replaced by a nice white, female lawyer from the labor relations unit. Anyone wanna bet how the homicide rate trends from here? FWIW, being a lawyer is apparently a big thing over there now, as you now have Matt Crowl in charge of the office of violence prevention (according to a recent Tribune article), a lawyer in charge of the training academy (according to a recent Tribune article -- replacing a former marine!), a lawyer in charge of the second most violent district (according to a recent Tribune article), and I think I've read of one or two more. Somehow I think they need more Bratton emulation, and not more lawyers. But, then again, I'm all in favor of full lawyer employment, so good job Mr. Mare.

Fourth: Clark is just not coming across the way I would hope. Turning today's interview into a discussion on "after action reports" was, well, a strain. They really needed to teach him to talk like a politician before they threw his hat in the ring. And that flag burning amendment is just not going to play well for him in the primaries.

Hello


Edited to add that re: #3, so far its just a rumor I've heard several times in the old neighborhood. Which might be why its not in the media, and which might be why it shouldn't be taken as gospel until its confirmed (i.e., I ain't defaming nobody here).

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2091194/

[Slate defends Wesley Clark from the New Yorker.]

[I admit I am partially just amused by the spectacle of Slate defending a Dem candidate from the New Yorker, so rightly famed for its scurroulous attacks on well-meaning Dems. But I don't bother with the New Yorker anymore, so for all I know they are rabid Dean or Kelly backers.]

[Hank Chinaski]

nicked from Infirm.......
Janet Reno's justice department thought there were al queda/Iraq WMD links

In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the indictment said.

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/98110402.htm