|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.
* BB :
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 18:00:01 -0300, Jason wrote: The man is without a doubt the biggest threat to world peace and Marks post described him perfectly. "openly supports terrorists and has tried to assassinate a US President" describes him perfectly? Yep only they call them freedom/resistance fighters same thing though, change US to country of your choice and the phrase works. Jason |
Ads |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.
* Mark Hickey :
Jason wrote: * Bill Sornson : Jason wrote: * Mark Hickey : To me, an aggressive dictator with known WMD stores, who openly supports terrorists and has tried to assassinate a US President, who's flaunting UN resolutions to describe where the WMD went IS to dangerous to leave in place. So you do agree Bush currently is the biggest threat to world peace then. Your smiley face doesn't make that any less innane. The man is without a doubt the biggest threat to world peace and Marks post described him perfectly. Besides the many other points that don't fit - I'm wondering if you could fill us in on which US President GWB tried to assassinate. If that happened, I gotta check up on my news sources better... Sure it fits mark, sustitute terrorist with resistance/freedom fighter and the word US with a countrys name and it's perfectl Here let me demonstrate. who openly supports resistance fighters (one mans terrorist is anothers resistance fighter after all) and has tried to assassinate/have assassinated a countrys President. Jason |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.
Raptor wrote:
Mark Hickey wrote: To me, an aggressive dictator with known WMD stores, who openly supports terrorists and has tried to assassinate a US President, who's flaunting UN resolutions to describe where the WMD went IS to dangerous to leave in place. There's that. You're still wrong: it doesn't add up to a real war. Like I said - we have to agree to disagree because I do believe that Saddam more than "met the criteria" to be removed from power. But that's just one thing. How about the *way* of the war? You seem at least mildly reasonable. Can't you join me in unreservedly condemning most of the means leading to the hoped-for end? As wars go this one is a World-Class cluster****. If you mean, will I agree that GWB fabricated evidence? No I won't, since there's been absolutely NO proof of that. Do I condemn some of the intelligence gathering (including the UNMOVIC weapons inspectors)? You betcha. Do I believe ALL of the intel was wrong? No, but I truly HOPE it was (which is lots better than the WMD still existing in Syria, for example). Do I think the UN and Security Council should have locked arms and provided an unambiguous, unified front to Saddam's WMD gamesmanship? Do I think the UN and Security Council should take a VERY hard-line stance against ANY state-sponsored terrorism? Yep. They should have then, and they should be doing that now. Do I support every decision that the US has made in Iraq? Hardly. But unfortunately those kind of discussions are nearly impossible to have on these forums since most of the discourse is of the shrill Al Goresque "He lied to us" rhetoric. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:10:13 -0300, Jason wrote:
Yep only they call them freedom/resistance fighters same thing though, Well, it wasn't my argument that Saddam "openly supported terrorists", and I've never seen anything more substantial than suspicion as such. But it was your argument that the same allegation applies to Bush, and I don't know of any evidence of that either. There is of course a difference between "insurgents" and "terrorists": the guys who blew up the London subways, Madrid trains & Bali Hotel, and flew airplanes into the twin towers were terrorists. Who does Bush support that has done such things? change US to country of your choice and the phrase works. OK, my country of choice is Canada; tell me which president Bush tried to assasinate. I'm anything but a Bush advocate; I've been against this war from the start and vocal about it. I believed and still believe he deserved to lose his job for incompetence. But nonsense is nonsense, no matter which side it comes from, and your post was nonsense. -- -BB- To e-mail me, unmunge my address |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.
Mark Hickey wrote:
Mark Hickey wrote: If you mean, will I agree that GWB fabricated evidence? No I won't, since there's been absolutely NO proof of that. Do I condemn some of the intelligence gathering (including the UNMOVIC weapons inspectors)? You betcha. Do I believe ALL of the intel was wrong? No, but I truly HOPE it was (which is lots better than the WMD still existing in Syria, for example). Mark, I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the Office of Special Plans. Little is heard in the investigatory realm about this relatively shadowy outfit, but the reporting has been exceptionally consistent--from some reasonably credible sources [1]. The December, 2002 Joint Inquiry had three points to its charter[2]: 1) conduct a factual review of what the Intelligence Community knew or should have known prior to September 11, 2001, regarding the international terrorist threat to the United States, to include the scope and nature of any possible international terrorist attacks against the United States and its interests; 2) identify and examine any systemic problems that may have impeded the Intelligence Community in learning of or preventing these attacks in advance; and 3) make recommendations to improve the Intelligence Community’s ability to identify and prevent future international terrorist attacks. I would argue that looking into the Bush administration's relationship to intelligence (a funny concept on its face!) is /conspicuously/ absent from this one. The 9/11 Commission's Report doesn't address the OSP, but then, it had five stated things to look into[3]: 1) terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, occurring at the World Trade Center in New York, New York, in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon in Virginia; 2) ascertain, evaluate, and report on the evidence developed by all relevant governmental agencies regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the attacks; 3) build upon the investigations of other entities, and avoid unnecessary duplication, by reviewing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of— (A) the Joint Inquiry of the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives regarding the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, (hereinafter in this title referred to as the ‘‘Joint Inquiry’’); and (B) other executive branch, congressional, or independent commission investigations into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, other terrorist attacks, and terrorism generally; 4) make a full and complete accounting of the circumstances surrounding the attacks, and the extent of the United States’ preparedness for, and immediate response to, the attacks; and 5) investigate and report to the President and Congress on its findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective measures that can be taken to prevent acts of terrorism. Again, missing from that list is any request to delve into whether or not the GWB administration swayed the intel through its own action or direction. In the Roberts-Rockefeller "Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq,"[4] you can find six cursory references to the OSP. In those references, the whole question of what the OSP was, who set it up, what was its charter, and did it purposely ignore caveats from the more conventional intelligence community about the INcredibility of many cited sources for the purposes of the policy makers. Other passages within that document, however, allude to the machinations of Douglas Feith, et al. Read through Rockefeller (et al)'s comments . [5] It's a good read, and a blatantly damning indictment of a pretty disgusting end run. I haven't read the whole thing (sadly, I can't), but--from the snippets--I'm left with no doubt that this was a fait accompli orchestrated by Bush and the NeoCons. Read it and I think you'll agree. [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...999737,00.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...999737,00.html http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...nate.pentagon/ [2] http://snipurl.com/gil7 [3] http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/107-306.pdf [4] http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html [5] http://snipurl.com/h90t |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.
BB wrote:
Well, it wasn't my argument that Saddam "openly supported terrorists", and I've never seen anything more substantial than suspicion as such. Well, for starters he made direct payments to the families of Palestinian suic--- HOMICIDE bombers. |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.
Neil Brooks wrote:
Mark Hickey wrote: Mark Hickey wrote: If you mean, will I agree that GWB fabricated evidence? No I won't, since there's been absolutely NO proof of that. Do I condemn some of the intelligence gathering (including the UNMOVIC weapons inspectors)? You betcha. Do I believe ALL of the intel was wrong? No, but I truly HOPE it was (which is lots better than the WMD still existing in Syria, for example). Mark, I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the Office of Special Plans. Little is heard in the investigatory realm about this relatively shadowy outfit, but the reporting has been exceptionally consistent--from some reasonably credible sources [1]. I hadn't heard of the OSP previously, but would from a general perspective would make a few points about your conclusions... 1) the organization seems to be focused on 9/11, not the run-up to the Iraq war (or actually, the continuation thereof). 2) as such, the issue of coersion simply isn't applicable. The shortcomings that led to our inability to prevent the 9/11 attacks weren't because of believing faulty intelligence, but the lack of intelligence. 3) the major mistakes made that allowed 9/11 to happen undetected happened during the Clinton presidency (including systemic problems that the 9/11 commissioners glossed over in their report - which is really quite troubling). So on the surface, it sounds like you're expecting the OSP to do things that don't appear to be related to its charter. The thing that makes me absolutely certain that no evidence of intelligence tampering by the Bush administration will come to light is simply that it didn't. If there HAD been a "smoking gun", is there any doubt at all that the Democrats on the 9/11 committee (or one of the other bipartisan committees looking into related topics) would have come forward? After all, this was all happening during the run-up to a VERY close election, and could have clearly changed the outcome of the election. To surmise that the evidence was obvious enough for "civilians" like you or me to uncover, but hidden from those on the Senate intelligence subcommittee or those on the various commissions is a bit of a (loooong) reach. To assume that the Democrat congresscritters knew of wrongdoing by Bush but kept it to themselves is even further from the neighborhood of reality. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame The December, 2002 Joint Inquiry had three points to its charter[2]: 1) conduct a factual review of what the Intelligence Community knew or should have known prior to September 11, 2001, regarding the international terrorist threat to the United States, to include the scope and nature of any possible international terrorist attacks against the United States and its interests; 2) identify and examine any systemic problems that may have impeded the Intelligence Community in learning of or preventing these attacks in advance; and 3) make recommendations to improve the Intelligence Community’s ability to identify and prevent future international terrorist attacks. I would argue that looking into the Bush administration's relationship to intelligence (a funny concept on its face!) is /conspicuously/ absent from this one. The 9/11 Commission's Report doesn't address the OSP, but then, it had five stated things to look into[3]: 1) terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, occurring at the World Trade Center in New York, New York, in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon in Virginia; 2) ascertain, evaluate, and report on the evidence developed by all relevant governmental agencies regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the attacks; 3) build upon the investigations of other entities, and avoid unnecessary duplication, by reviewing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of— (A) the Joint Inquiry of the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives regarding the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, (hereinafter in this title referred to as the ‘‘Joint Inquiry’’); and (B) other executive branch, congressional, or independent commission investigations into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, other terrorist attacks, and terrorism generally; 4) make a full and complete accounting of the circumstances surrounding the attacks, and the extent of the United States’ preparedness for, and immediate response to, the attacks; and 5) investigate and report to the President and Congress on its findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective measures that can be taken to prevent acts of terrorism. Again, missing from that list is any request to delve into whether or not the GWB administration swayed the intel through its own action or direction. In the Roberts-Rockefeller "Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq,"[4] you can find six cursory references to the OSP. In those references, the whole question of what the OSP was, who set it up, what was its charter, and did it purposely ignore caveats from the more conventional intelligence community about the INcredibility of many cited sources for the purposes of the policy makers. Other passages within that document, however, allude to the machinations of Douglas Feith, et al. Read through Rockefeller (et al)'s comments . [5] It's a good read, and a blatantly damning indictment of a pretty disgusting end run. I haven't read the whole thing (sadly, I can't), but--from the snippets--I'm left with no doubt that this was a fait accompli orchestrated by Bush and the NeoCons. Read it and I think you'll agree. [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...999737,00.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...999737,00.html http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...nate.pentagon/ [2] http://snipurl.com/gil7 [3] http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/107-306.pdf [4] http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html [5] http://snipurl.com/h90t |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 02:29:25 GMT, Bill Sornson wrote:
BB wrote: Well, it wasn't my argument that Saddam "openly supported terrorists", and I've never seen anything more substantial than suspicion as such. Well, for starters he made direct payments to the families of Palestinian suic--- HOMICIDE bombers. Ah, I see. When people say "terrorists" in relation to a war to protect America, I keep thinking of terrorists who endanger America. Isn't support for the Palistinian situation pretty common in that region? -- -BB- To e-mail me, unmunge my address |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.
Mark Hickey wrote:
Neil Brooks wrote: Mark Hickey wrote: Mark Hickey wrote: If you mean, will I agree that GWB fabricated evidence? No I won't, since there's been absolutely NO proof of that. Do I condemn some of the intelligence gathering (including the UNMOVIC weapons inspectors)? You betcha. Do I believe ALL of the intel was wrong? No, but I truly HOPE it was (which is lots better than the WMD still existing in Syria, for example). Mark, I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the Office of Special Plans. Little is heard in the investigatory realm about this relatively shadowy outfit, but the reporting has been exceptionally consistent--from some reasonably credible sources [1]. I hadn't heard of the OSP previously, but would from a general perspective would make a few points about your conclusions... 1) the organization seems to be focused on 9/11, not the run-up to the Iraq war (or actually, the continuation thereof) You should read more about this OSP bunch [1, 2, 3, 4, pick your own sources]. These were the administration's go-to guys for the intel they wanted to hear vis-a-vis 9/11-Iraq connections and justification for war. In most cases, the actual intel community had no idea what the OSP was feeding POTUS, their caveats regarding sources had been stripped, etc., etc. 2) as such, the issue of coersion simply isn't applicable. The shortcomings that led to our inability to prevent the 9/11 attacks weren't because of believing faulty intelligence, but the lack of intelligence. Disagree. Many people claim "well, Congress voted for the war and they had the exact same intelligence before them as the President did." That's what scares me. Too many people had the intel derived by the Bush administration, but not vetted (actually, discredited) by the intelligence community. 3) the major mistakes made that allowed 9/11 to happen undetected happened during the Clinton presidency (including systemic problems that the 9/11 commissioners glossed over in their report - which is really quite troubling). So on the surface, it sounds like you're expecting the OSP to do things that don't appear to be related to its charter. From this comment, I'm not sure you understand what the OSP is alleged to have been and done. I'd humbly suggest that--via your own choice of sources--you learn a bit more about it. The thing that makes me absolutely certain that no evidence of intelligence tampering by the Bush administration will come to light is simply that it didn't. That's what's known as "argumentum ad ignorantiam--" the assertion that--because something is inexplicable--it must not be true. It may bolster a belief, but it doesn't prove a case. If there HAD been a "smoking gun", is there any doubt at all that the Democrats on the 9/11 committee (or one of the other bipartisan committees looking into related topics) would have come forward? After all, this was all happening during the run-up to a VERY close election, and could have clearly changed the outcome of the election. OK, now this sounds dangerously close to contradicting Rumsfeld's famous "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." :-) The Democrats couldn't find a smoking gun if it were pointed at them on national TV. Things that do, and things that don't, get picked up by the national media often have no rhyme or reason (sometimes the reason is that they're too controversial, or likely to upset corporate sponsors . . . or media owners). This story got enough legs that the administration should have had much to answer for . . . but it didn't. I can't definitively explain that . . . but that doesn't mean it's not all true (nor, of course, does it mean that it all /is/ true). To surmise that the evidence was obvious enough for "civilians" like you or me to uncover, but hidden from those on the Senate intelligence subcommittee or those on the various commissions is a bit of a (loooong) reach. I thought Watergate taught us all that this just isn't necessarily the case. Sometimes it takes the public to unearth the darkest acts of our government. Why didn't it go further? I dunno . . . but I'd like to find out. CNN just did a show ("Dead Wrong: Inside an Intelligence Meltdown") [5] which--while not going into any detail--mentions the OSP as a filter used by the administration to cherry pick intelligence in support of a war. You should watch this show if you get a chance. If I could figure out how to dump it from TiVo to a VCR, I might :-) Here's a quote from the show: "At the Pentagon, SECDEF Donald Rumsfeld sets up a special office to provide him with alternative intelligence analysis, focusing on a possible link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. The Pentagon unit is not mentioned by the President's Commission." Larry Johnson, Counterterrorism expert from the State Department, is quoted as saying (about OSP), "They would brief their findings to the [intelligence] Community and the Community would come back and say, 'Wait a second. You don't know what you're talking about. That's garbage. That's misleading. That misrepresents, . . . ' and then they would take the same brief--or even a more extreme version--and brief it directly to people like the Vice President." To assume that the Democrat congresscritters knew of wrongdoing by Bush but kept it to themselves is even further from the neighborhood of reality. Here we just disagree, and for several reasons. First, I would say that the current world of Democrats are anything but masterful politicians. That, as much as anything, explains why they continue to lose elections. You may find (Senator John Kyl's and ) the Pentagon's non-denial denial interesting as well. Very little in it directly contradicts the direct accusations that the OSP was a filtering mechanism, asked to find intelligence in support of a particular policy, which actively ignored the intelligence community's admonitions [6] And--though thoroughly trashed by certain groups who don't like her position--you might be interested in reading about, and the publications of, Air Force Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, formerly of the Pentagon and the NSA [7] Now I'm trying to muster up the grit to jump on my damned bike. I'm not gonna' b*tch to you--a desert rat--about how hot it is here, but . .. . for us . . . it's hot ;-) [1] http://snipurl.com/h9fu [2] http://snipurl.com/h9fv [3] http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...nate.pentagon/ [4] http://snipurl.com/h9fw [5] http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/ [6] http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/iraqpentagoncsisspeech.pdf [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Kwiatkowski |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.
Neil Brooks wrote:
Mark Hickey wrote: The thing that makes me absolutely certain that no evidence of intelligence tampering by the Bush administration will come to light is simply that it didn't. That's what's known as "argumentum ad ignorantiam--" the assertion that--because something is inexplicable--it must not be true. It may bolster a belief, but it doesn't prove a case. If there HAD been a "smoking gun", is there any doubt at all that the Democrats on the 9/11 committee (or one of the other bipartisan committees looking into related topics) would have come forward? After all, this was all happening during the run-up to a VERY close election, and could have clearly changed the outcome of the election. OK, now this sounds dangerously close to contradicting Rumsfeld's famous "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." :-) The Democrats couldn't find a smoking gun if it were pointed at them on national TV. Things that do, and things that don't, get picked up by the national media often have no rhyme or reason (sometimes the reason is that they're too controversial, or likely to upset corporate sponsors . . . or media owners). Oh, c'mon... can you really believe that if ANYONE came forward with semi-provable evidence that GWB had influenced the evidence that was presented to the intelligence subcommity(ies) that it wouldn't have been splashed across every front page / cover story in the US? Look at the treatment a forged document from a very shaky source about Bush's behavior a few decades ago got. This story got enough legs that the administration should have had much to answer for . . . but it didn't. I can't definitively explain that . . . but that doesn't mean it's not all true (nor, of course, does it mean that it all /is/ true). There were just too many people who sincerely wanted to find the "smoking gun", who were intimately involved in the events, and who didn't bring it up. I'd be absoutely dumbfounded to find out that the "smoking gun" is actually just laying there on the ground where a casual google search will bring it all to light. To surmise that the evidence was obvious enough for "civilians" like you or me to uncover, but hidden from those on the Senate intelligence subcommittee or those on the various commissions is a bit of a (loooong) reach. I thought Watergate taught us all that this just isn't necessarily the case. Sometimes it takes the public to unearth the darkest acts of our government. Why didn't it go further? I dunno . . . but I'd like to find out. One of the beauties of our two-party system is that neither of 'em let the other get away with major things. CNN just did a show ("Dead Wrong: Inside an Intelligence Meltdown") [5] which--while not going into any detail--mentions the OSP as a filter used by the administration to cherry pick intelligence in support of a war. You should watch this show if you get a chance. If I could figure out how to dump it from TiVo to a VCR, I might :-) Here's a quote from the show: "At the Pentagon, SECDEF Donald Rumsfeld sets up a special office to provide him with alternative intelligence analysis, focusing on a possible link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. The Pentagon unit is not mentioned by the President's Commission." Larry Johnson, Counterterrorism expert from the State Department, is quoted as saying (about OSP), "They would brief their findings to the [intelligence] Community and the Community would come back and say, 'Wait a second. You don't know what you're talking about. That's garbage. That's misleading. That misrepresents, . . . ' and then they would take the same brief--or even a more extreme version--and brief it directly to people like the Vice President." To assume that the Democrat congresscritters knew of wrongdoing by Bush but kept it to themselves is even further from the neighborhood of reality. Here we just disagree, and for several reasons. First, I would say that the current world of Democrats are anything but masterful politicians. That, as much as anything, explains why they continue to lose elections. They might not be masterful, but they're certainly vindictive (with certain refreshing exceptions like Joe Lieberman). They would have gone for the kill had they had the chance (does anyone really doubt that?). You may find (Senator John Kyl's and ) the Pentagon's non-denial denial interesting as well. Very little in it directly contradicts the direct accusations that the OSP was a filtering mechanism, asked to find intelligence in support of a particular policy, which actively ignored the intelligence community's admonitions [6] And--though thoroughly trashed by certain groups who don't like her position--you might be interested in reading about, and the publications of, Air Force Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, formerly of the Pentagon and the NSA [7] Now I'm trying to muster up the grit to jump on my damned bike. I'm not gonna' b*tch to you--a desert rat--about how hot it is here, but . . . for us . . . it's hot ;-) "Only" 111F here today (got my morning ride in VERY early). ;-) I'll try to get through some of the links - no guarantees though. In the meantime I'll be happy to admit that I'm basing my position only on the logic presented above. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame [1] http://snipurl.com/h9fu [2] http://snipurl.com/h9fv [3] http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...nate.pentagon/ [4] http://snipurl.com/h9fw [5] http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/ [6] http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/iraqpentagoncsisspeech.pdf [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Kwiatkowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Roadside Tour Funny Guys | Michael | Racing | 18 | July 7th 04 06:22 PM |
Fat guys bike and bike seat. | Walter | General | 95 | November 15th 03 04:46 AM |
Question for the anti-helmet guys | Mike S. | Techniques | 3 | September 29th 03 07:19 AM |
Planning on getting my first Unicycle.... what do you guys think of this one?!? | CETME | Unicycling | 6 | August 18th 03 09:43 PM |
I finally got my Rhoades Car fixed so I can tell you guys how it rides | Russell Kanning | Recumbent Biking | 6 | June 30th 03 07:27 AM |