Politics As Usual

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by the Spartan
Word to the wise (and time efficient), a .gif image is worth a 1000 words. Thanks for playin though.

At first I thought Ty's post was persuasive, then I realized it wasn't.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Please explain.

Originally posted by the Spartan
Who?

Ambassador Joseph Wilson was no friend of SH. In fact, he faced down SH prior to Gulf War I as the ranking US diplomat in Iraq at the time and arranged for the release of hundreds of Americans. His efforts in this dangerous situation earned great praise from GHWB.

Prior to the second Gulf War, the present admin hired him to research claims that Iraq was importing uranium from Niger. He reported to the admin that the claims were certainly false. He was the third person tasked by the admin to look into the claims, and he was the third person to report that the claims were false. Wilson was not compensated for his services. He was only reimbursed for expenses.

Later, making the case for war in Iraq during his State of the Union address, W repeated the claims about Iraq attempting to obtain uranium from Niger. There may have been other areas in his speech where W may be accused of "embroidering key assertions," but not here. Bush lied.

Wilson did not want to believe that Bush lied, so he contacted the admin and informed them of their error and gave them the opportunity to correct it. Instead of thanking the Ambassador for giving them this opportunity, the admin sought to discredit Wilson personally. The admin did this by leaking to Novak that Wilson was merely a profiteer and the only reason he got the job investigating Niger was because his wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA operative.

Which is funny because Wilson had extensive diplomatic experience in the region and was well qualified to research the claims and because he was not compensated for his services. They lied again. But they did tell the truth about one thing - Valerie Plame is in fact Ambassador Wilsons wife. Oh, another thing - she was also a CIA operative.

And not just any CIA operative. She was an undercover CIA operative who specialized in rooting out WMDs (the reason we went to war in Iraq, remember?). Compromising CIA operatives does not seem like a very effective way of combatting the spread of WMDs, and it is also illegal. A grand jury is trying to determine the source of the leak.

To recap, in order to avoid political embarrassment, the admin compromised national security interests by exposing an experienced CIA operative. Now who's playing politics with the war on terror?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Ambassador Joseph Wilson was no friend of SH. In fact, he faced down SH prior to Gulf War I as the ranking US diplomat in Iraq at the time and arranged for the release of hundreds of Americans. His efforts in this dangerous situation earned great praise from GHWB.

Prior to the second Gulf War, the present admin hired him to research claims that Iraq was importing uranium from Niger. He reported to the admin that the claims were certainly false. He was the third person tasked by the admin to look into the claims, and he was the third person to report that the claims were false. Wilson was not compensated for his services. He was only reimbursed for expenses.

Later, making the case for war in Iraq during his State of the Union address, W repeated the claims about Iraq attempting to obtain uranium from Niger. There may have been other areas in his speech where W may be accused of "embroidering key assertions," but not here. Bush lied.

Wilson did not want to believe that Bush lied, so he contacted the admin and informed them of their error and gave them the opportunity to correct it. Instead of thanking the Ambassador for giving them this opportunity, the admin sought to discredit Wilson personally. The admin did this by leaking to Novak that Wilson was merely a profiteer and the only reason he got the job investigating Niger was because his wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA operative.

Which is funny because Wilson had extensive diplomatic experience in the region and was well qualified to research the claims and because he was not compensated for his services. They lied again. But they did tell the truth about one thing - Valerie Plame is in fact Ambassador Wilsons wife. Oh, another thing - she was also a CIA operative.

And not just any CIA operative. She was an undercover CIA operative who specialized in rooting out WMDs (the reason we went to war in Iraq, remember?). Compromising CIA operatives does not seem like a very effective way of combatting the spread of WMDs, and it is also illegal. A grand jury is trying to determine the source of the leak.

To recap, in order to avoid political embarrassment, the admin compromised national security interests by exposing an experienced CIA operative. Now who's playing politics with the war on terror?

By the way how could an ambassador's wife be an effective undercover agent?

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Now who's playing politics with the war on terror?

Kerry? What do I win?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I really like it much better on the FB, where it's more explicitly about sex.

And I always thought males were supposed to be more direct about this stuff. Maybe this is more like foreplay, or when the elk or deer or whatever are running at each other smashing their horns/heads into each other, then getting up, shaking off, and doing it again.

See you just don't get it. We men realize that, other than shopping, we are everything to women. Yet women play a fairly small roll for us. We actually enjoy smashing horns simply to smash horns.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
By the way how could an ambassador's wife be an effective undercover agent?

Why would that make her ineffective? It gave her a good reason to travel extensively in weird places, etc.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Good one. I can really see Tom DeLay saying, "I'm sorry, Mr. President, despite the fact that we're in the same party and you make a strong case that scheduling this vote will help our party in the elections, I just don't think it would be constitutional to let you dictate when a matter gets called to the floor for a vote."
So you missed all the clips of Bush stumping in contested congressional districts in '02 and giving the sam speech over and over about how the Dems were against homeland security? This of course was after Dems had advanced the DHS idea in the first place and were focusing their opposition to Bush's bill on the provisions stripping civil service designations for DHS workers.* To say under those circumstances that the Dems were "against homeland security" is to me the epitome of politicizing the war on terror.

* I'm not sure I necessarily disagree with having some of the DHS workers be non-civil service, but that's a separate argument.

I did. I thought what he said was that they were putting politics (i.e., union money) above security, which they were.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Or perhaps intellitence is not a perfect science, and the administration is doing the best they can with the information they have. Honest question: how would you propose they handle the situation, assuming bona fide intentions?

Sorry, I had a meeting.

I think they should either scrap the terror threat level system or rework it so people understand what it means.

I think everyone around here knows that the threat level in this particular city on this particular week is higher than usual, because the All Star Game. Obviously, the threat level for the whole country doesn't need to go up to handle whatever threat may be going on in Houston. Same goes for Boston in a few weeks and NYC in a month or so.

My understanding is that it's a pain in the ass for local law enforcment and other homeland security personnel every time the threat level changes. It costs a lot too. I'm sympathetic to that. I'm also sympathetic to the concept that we can't be on constant vigilance all the time, and we have to be able to move on with our lives.

At the same time, I'm not sure how to interpret Ridge's statements, and they seem contradictory. It seems, after going through his statement a few times, that he's reiterating that Al Qaeda has always intended another large strike against the US and recent chatter has indicated that they've still got the same goals in mind. He also seems to be saying that our elections are a motivating factor for Al Qaeda.

Ridge's statment isn't telling me something that I didn't already know, and it's not telling me anything that Ashcroft didn't say a month ago. Maybe he's just reiterating that I should be terrified at level yellow, but it sounded like he was telling me that I should be more terrified than I usually am at level yellow.

Maybe sort of a weekly update on the general state of the Homeland would be a good idea. It'd be good for law enforcment, and it'd be good for the public. Sort of a "we're at level yellow this week, and this is what we can tell you about why we're at level yellow...." Special announcements about vauge threats don't seem to accomplish much, and lately, I've seen a lot skepticism about these announcements (especially Ashcroft's).

I'll make sure that the duct tape and plastic sheeting are close to the attic door though, just in case.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I did. I thought what he said was that they were putting politics (i.e., union money) above security, which they were.

I see.
1. Dems propose DHS bill
2. Bush opposes bill
3. Bush changes mind, says DHS is a good idea
4. Bush vows to veto bill unless it is amended to delete civil service protections
5. It's the Dems who were putting politics above national security.

[SlaveNoMore]

Hank Chinaski
By the way how could an ambassador's wife be an effective undercover agent?

Same sleeping arrangements as Bill and Hill?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'll make sure that the duct tape and plastic sheeting are close to the attic door though, just in case.

Save the softballs for the fb.

Have fun.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Same sleeping arrangements as Bill and Hill?

That doesn't even make sense. You sound like Pen "obsessed with Hillary" ske.

However, I just realized you are obviously into S 'n' M. I'll top you anytime, baby.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Save the softballs for the fb.

Have fun.

I think that was intended to make them hard. Do you need some Viagra? Cialis? Levitra?

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
... W repeated the claims about Iraq attempting to obtain uranium from Niger. There may have been other areas in his speech where W may be accused of "embroidering key assertions," but not here. Bush lied.

Bush - January 28, 2003

"the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa


From the FT - June 27, 2004

"The British government has said repeatedly it stands by intelligence it gathered and used in its controversial September 2002 dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programmes. It still claims that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger."

yes, Bush lied alright.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Sorry, I had a meeting.

I think they should either scrap the terror threat level system or rework it so people understand what it means.

I think everyone around here knows that the threat level in this particular city on this particular week is higher than usual, because the All Star Game. Obviously, the threat level for the whole country doesn't need to go up to handle whatever threat may be going on in Houston. Same goes for Boston in a few weeks and NYC in a month or so.

My understanding is that it's a pain in the ass for local law enforcment and other homeland security personnel every time the threat level changes. It costs a lot too. I'm sympathetic to that. I'm also sympathetic to the concept that we can't be on constant vigilance all the time, and we have to be able to move on with our lives.

At the same time, I'm not sure how to interpret Ridge's statements, and they seem contradictory. It seems, after going through his statement a few times, that he's reiterating that Al Qaeda has always intended another large strike against the US and recent chatter has indicated that they've still got the same goals in mind. He also seems to be saying that our elections are a motivating factor for Al Qaeda.

Ridge's statment isn't telling me something that I didn't already know, and it's not telling me anything that Ashcroft didn't say a month ago. Maybe he's just reiterating that I should be terrified at level yellow, but it sounded like he was telling me that I should be more terrified than I usually am at level yellow.

Maybe sort of a weekly update on the general state of the Homeland would be a good idea. It'd be good for law enforcment, and it'd be good for the public. Sort of a "we're at level yellow this week, and this is what we can tell you about why we're at level yellow...." Special announcements about vauge threats don't seem to accomplish much, and lately, I've seen a lot skepticism about these announcements (especially Ashcroft's).

I'll make sure that the duct tape and plastic sheeting are close to the attic door though, just in case.

I think they're just trying to get us immune to the threat, because clearly it will be a constant until at least our grandchildren become adults. Rent Brazil and see how a mature country reacts to a terrorist strike- I think that's where we need to go.