Politics: J'accuse! - Page 294

sgtclub · 05-13-2004, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Cite, please. Please recall that there was a lot of material that was shown only to people on the intelligence committees, and that stuff was selectively classified so that people like Senator Graham could not tell the public about the stuff that cut against the administration's case.

1. Congress persons share information
2. Even if they couldn't share it, if they were skeptical you would think they would vote accordingly. How did Kerry vote?

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The NIE was a bogus document, cooked up so that the administration would have something to show Congress.

Most of the time, Ty, I enjoy the back and forth with you, but there are times, like this, when you go off the deep end and it is just not worth it.

Shape Shifter · 05-13-2004, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Most of the time, Ty, I enjoy the back and forth with you, but there are times, like this, when you go off the deep end and it is just not worth it.

He's not off the deep end. This point is presented in Plan of Attack.

Not Me · 05-13-2004, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Most of the time, Ty, I enjoy the back and forth with you, but there are times, like this, when you go off the deep end and it is just not worth it.

You'll have to excuse him today, as I pushed him off the deep end with my Evil Idiot schtick.

[confidential to Ty]You really should stop taking me so literally; it is bad for your mental health[/confidential to Ty]

Atticus Grinch · 05-13-2004, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I think I've just been set on edge by all the "well 9/11 was horrible, so this stuff isn't so bad" crap. I'd like to ask those people if it gives us carte blanche to do anything we want in perpetuity to people who we know weren't involved in 9/11. Then again, I doubt I'd care for the answer, so I hope that question remains rhetorical.

Not likely.

Not Me, Clubby, and Bilmore (in absentia): Let's remember that the people we're dealing with fly planes into buildings and behead and/or enslave their prisoners.

It's a complex version of the "glass half full" perspective, like saying that we get to kill 5,999,999 Jews before anyone can say we're as bad as the Nazis.

Tyrone Slothrop · 05-13-2004, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
1. Congress persons share information
2. Even if they couldn't share it, if they were skeptical you would think they would vote accordingly. How did Kerry vote?

I asked you for a cite for the proposition that the administration told all this stuff to 535 members of Congress, and this is what you come back with?

Quote:

Most of the time, Ty, I enjoy the back and forth with you, but there are times, like this, when you go off the deep end and it is just not worth it.

The NIE is a significant document in all of this because it is supposed to be the intelligence community's definitive statement about what they now. I have read in more than one source that there was no NIE re Iraq & WMD for a long time, and that it was drafted only because they needed to show one to Congress. There are plenty of complaints about whether it correctly stated the intelligence. Graham, for example, now feels that he was misled by the NIE. Suffice it to say that the NIE appears to have been drafted for the purpose of getting Congress on board, and not as a summary of the CIA's thinking. This is what I mean when I say it was "bogus" -- which was not a good word to summarize all of this -- as I say, all of this is at best tangentially germane to the limited point I was making, which was about Franks' and Bush's statements on September 6 & 7, 2002. (My timing may be off, but I think the NIE hadn't been drafted at that time.) My sources for all of this this probably include Clarke's book, Woodward's book, Graham's statements, and things Thomas Powers has written in the New York Review of Books.

Not Me · 05-13-2004, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Nazis.

Now whose the Evil Idiot?

sgtclub · 05-13-2004, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Not likely.

Not Me, Clubby, and Bilmore (in absentia): Let's remember that the people we're dealing with fly planes into buildings and behead and/or enslave their prisoners.

It's a complex version of the "glass half full" perspective, like saying that we get to kill 5,999,999 Jews before anyone can say we're as bad as the Nazis.

If you could guarantee me that we will win the war on terror and not lose more lives in the process without some unseemly tactics, I'll happily come over to your side.

Tyrone Slothrop · 05-13-2004, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
If you could guarantee me that we will win the war on terror and not lose more lives in the process without some unseemly tactics, I'll happily come over to your side.

How do you envision that we could "win the war on terror," as you put it?

Not Me · 05-13-2004, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
535 members of Congress

So then, are you saying the delegate from the District of Columbia doesn't count?

Not Me · 05-13-2004, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How do you envision that we could "win the war on terror," as you put it?

I am not Club, but how about bombs. It is just a guess of course.

sgtclub · 05-13-2004, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I asked you for a cite for the proposition that the administration told all this stuff to 535 members of Congress, and this is what you come back with?

I don't have time to google today, but if it makes you happy I'll submit that I may have been wrong and it may only have been those members of the intelligence committees. Not sure how it changes the point though. There many DEMS on those committees, including Kerry, that (1) saw the info and (2) voted for the war.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop The NIE is a significant document in all of this because it is supposed to be the intelligence community's definitive statement about what they now. I have read in more than one source that there was no NIE re Iraq & WMD for a long time, and that it was drafted only because they needed to show one to Congress. There are plenty of complaints about whether it correctly stated the intelligence. Graham, for example, now feels that he was misled by the NIE. Suffice it to say that the NIE appears to have been drafted for the purpose of getting Congress on board, and not as a summary of the CIA's thinking. This is what I mean when I say it was "bogus" -- which was not a good word to summarize all of this -- as I say, all of this is at best tangentially germane to the limited point I was making, which was about Franks' and Bush's statements on September 6 & 7, 2002. (My timing may be off, but I think the NIE hadn't been drafted at that time.) My sources for all of this this probably include Clarke's book, Woodward's book, Graham's statements, and things Thomas Powers has written in the New York Review of Books.

I've read the version of the NIE that was released. It contains the positive evidence and the negative evidence. Is the positive evidence highlighted more than the negative? Yes, because the intelligence community consensus was that, on balance, it was more likely that the positive view was correct. The alternative view is in the document for these guys to read.

As to the Frank's comment, you are reaching a serious conclusion (Bush Lied) based on a jounalist's non-contemporaneous record of events. There are all sorts of things that could effect the veracity of the statements. This is not to say that it is not true, but Woodward has a record of shading a story towards those that will actually talk to him at the expense of those that do not. Rumsfield comes to mind in the first Woodward book on this administration.

sgtclub · 05-13-2004, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How do you envision that we could "win the war on terror," as you put it?

That's the $1.0 million question.

I define it as substantially eliminate the threat of global jihad against Americans.

Tyrone Slothrop · 05-13-2004, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
So then, are you saying the delegate from the District of Columbia doesn't count?

Ask club. Maybe he thinks they didn't show Eleanor Holmes Norton the secret intel they showed everyone else.

Hank Chinaski · 05-13-2004, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How do you envision that we could "win the war on terror," as you put it?

Do you have an answer Ty?

I'd say we really can't win, but can only manage for the next 10 years. A big step would be if our "friends" in Mid-East would start trying to reduce the hate and move forward. I would be hopeful if some Pali state could be established, some of the hate will dissapate, and a generation form now things could be better.

ltl/fb · 05-13-2004, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
If you could guarantee me that we will win the war on terror and not lose more lives in the process without some unseemly tactics, I'll happily come over to your side.

If you could guarantee me that your way will ensure we win the war on terror, I'll happily come over to your side.

ETA using your definition of winning the war on terror works for me in this context.