Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[SlaveNoMore]

In sum:

1) What the F was Sandy thinking.
2) Nevertheless, the timing of this story is more GOP dirty tricks.

link


eta: Ty, you should be so proud. I read this on TPM long before Daily Dish linked to it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
In sum:

1) What the F was Sandy thinking.
2) Nevertheless, the timing of this story is more GOP dirty tricks.

link

For the reasons Burger just mentioned, I have to believe that these regulations are breached all the time, so when you read about them in the paper, you have to ask yourself, why was that leaked? Maybe it wasn't partisan -- maybe someone had a score to settle with Sandy Berger.

And Slave, you are the man.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As I have posted here before, in direct response to you as I recall, air strikes launched by Clinton (Operation Something Or Other) are now credited with destroying Hussein's programs. Also, the sanctions were working. As to the facts on the ground, the answer start there.

For our end, pretending that Clinton and Bush took the same view of what was happening in Iraq is a cute debating trick, but nothing more. Obviously, the intelligence was ambiguous. Clinton felt that containment was appropriate, based on what he was told. Bush decided earlier on, it would appear, that he was not going to follow the same policy, and then -- as Hoagland helpfully explained back in 2002 -- the CIA eventually followed his lead.

Hussein got rid of them, either destroyed or hid. Airstrikes can't get rid os WMD stockpiles tY. There'd be a mess.

Whatever actually happened in 98 Clinton and the Dems talked a good story about how he had them. Did they have intel that the bombings destroyed it all? My only poitn is that is Clinton thought he had them, why shoud Bush look at the intell differently. Are you saying Clinton didn't really think he had them? when he said that he thought so, was he lying?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Hussein got rid of them, either destroyed or hid. Airstrikes can't get rid os WMD stockpiles tY. There'd be a mess.

Whatever actually happened in 98 Clinton and the Dems talked a good story about how he had them. Did they have intel that the bombings destroyed it all? My only poitn is that is Clinton thought he had them, why shoud Bush look at the intell differently. Are you saying Clinton didn't really think he had them? when he said that he thought so, was he lying?

I don't know what points you're trying to score here, Hank. It was Clinton. Nobody ever claimed that he was honest.

[SlaveNoMore]

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?

You mean Filegate? When Craig Livingstone - the former bar bouncer turned Clinton Security Chief - was caught with over 900 sensitive FBI files on prominent Republicans?

Yes, I realize, all these scandals get fuzzy because as we know, it was all about sex.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe it wasn't partisan -- maybe someone had a score to settle with Sandy Berger.

With a line like "he had taken...documents he reviewed at the National Archives by sticking them in his... pants." you have to wonder if the axe-grinder is the AP writer. Sheesh.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I don't know what points you're trying to score here, Hank. It was Clinton. Nobody ever claimed that he was honest.

I need to work on my spelling.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Yglesias responds to the clubbian point about Wilson's continuing importance, or lack thereof:

The statements of Wilson's that now seem to be untrue pertain to things like Wilson's role in exposing the bogosity of the Niger claims, and how Wilson got the job that put him in a position to play a role. The reason top officials have been eager to distance themselves from the 16 words is that Wilson's op-ed helped bring to light the fact that the Intelligence Community believed, for a variety of reasons that don't have a great deal to do with Wilson, that the claim should not be made. What the SSCI Report debunks about Wilson is the notion that he personally played some sort of grand heroic role here, it confirms that US intelligence does not believe and has not believed for some time that there was sufficient evidence for thinking that Saddam sought uranium in Niger. Of all the different sources for that claim, all but one -- maybe, a British source that the Brits won't tell us about and that appears to have come from French intelligence that the French intelligence agencies don't believe in -- have been debunked. As a result, American intelligence, while not able to categorically state that this never happened, doesn't believe there's a real evidentiary basis for thinking it did happen. This is why the administration distanced itself from the claim. Joe Wilson just isn't very relevant.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Hussein got rid of them, either destroyed or hid. Airstrikes can't get rid os WMD stockpiles tY. There'd be a mess.

Whatever actually happened in 98 Clinton and the Dems talked a good story about how he had them. Did they have intel that the bombings destroyed it all? My only poitn is that is Clinton thought he had them, why shoud Bush look at the intell differently. Are you saying Clinton didn't really think he had them? when he said that he thought so, was he lying?

But Bush did look at the intel differently -- he looked at it as justifiying an invasion on the grounds that bombing and sanctions had failed to remove an imminent threat.

And Clinton did not offer the claims that Bush offered. No statement that Iraq could deploy WMD in 45 minutes. No statements about mushroom clouds. No Trailers of Mass Destruction.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
But Bush did look at the intel differently -- he looked at it as justifiying an invasion on the grounds that bombing and sanctions had failed to remove an imminent threat.

And Clinton did not offer the claims that Bush offered. No statement that Iraq could deploy WMD in 45 minutes. No statements about mushroom clouds. No Trailers of Mass Destruction.

as to para. 1
Yes. different evaluation of what it meant, but that's not a lie.
as to para. 2
So when you say "Bush lied" you mean to limit to those specific statements, with the general "he has WMD" not being included?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yglesias responds to the clubbian point about Wilson's continuing importance, or lack thereof:

Maybe a seperate thread for Wilson?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
So when you say "Bush lied" you mean to limit to those specific statements, with the general "he has WMD" not being included?

When I say Bush lied, I'm sticking to specific statements. I would hesitate to point to the general "he has WMD" line, except when (for example) I know that the general in charge of Central Command who was planning the invasion of the country told Bush a day or two before that they've been looking for WMD for ten years and haven't found a single one. That doesn't look so good.

It doesn't reflect all that well on Clinton, either, but I don't know what Clinton was being told. Since Clinton wasn't interested in invading Iraq, I don't suspect he had ulterior motive to twist the truth. Or "inflate" things, as Hoagland put it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Maybe a seperate thread for Wilson?

I'll stop until someone says something new. He just doesn't matter, which was Yglesias's point.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'll stop until someone says something new. He just doesn't matter, which was Yglesias's point.

Sorry, one more:

• Though the authors of the Senate report chose not to include this point, Plame's bosses at the CIA have always said they came up with the idea to send him, not her. Indeed, only yesterday a senior intelligence official confirmed to me that, according to her bosses, Plame "did not initiate" the idea of sending Wilson on the Niger mission. Her bosses came up with the idea, the official explained, and then she agreed to ask him if he'd be willing to undertake it.

Josh Marshall

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe it wasn't partisan -- maybe someone had a score to settle with Sandy Berger.

Oops. I didn't read the post Slave linked to until now:

According to this article in the Post, the National Archives began investigating this matter in October and then referred it to the FBI in January. That is, needless to say, at least six months ago. The article also notes that the FBI has yet to interview Berger, which suggests that the investigation has not reached a critical stage, for good or ill, that would have brought it to light now.

The most obvious, and probably the only, explanation of this leak is that it is intended to distract attention from the release of the 9/11 report due later this week. That would be yet another example of this administration's common practice of using the levers of executive power (law enforcement, declassification, etc.) for partisan purposes.

That doesn't mean Berger doesn't have any explaining to do. The two points are not exclusive of each other.

Also note the refutation there at the end of club's epistemology.