Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Discrepancies, Real And Imagined | Main | The Times Discovers Ari Fleischer »

July 26, 2005

Comments

Steven J.

SYL - "Later events proved to me that America had lucked out and Bush was in office. "

Leak Allowed al-Qaida Suspects to Escape
By MATTHEW PENNINGTON, AP 08/10/04 11:53 EDT
Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, a 25-year-old Pakistani, was nabbed in a July 13 raid in the eastern city of Lahore. His capture was a signal victory for Pakistan, a key U.S. ally in the war on terrorism. He led authorities to a key al-Qaida figure and sent e-mails to terrorists so investigators could trace their locations.
But on Tuesday, two senior officials expressed dismay that the arrest of Khan made it into the media too soon - reported first in American newspapers on Aug. 2 after it was disclosed to journalists by U.S. officials in Washington.
"Let me say that this intelligence leak jeopardized our plan and some al-Qaida suspects ran away," one of the Pakistani officials said on condition of anonymity.


Steven J.

SYL - "It's funny, but I voted for Gore. "

You are a liar.

Tommy V

Ah, yes, the warm brotherly embrace we enjoyed from the Arab world before we invaded Iraq. Oh, how I miss it.

Syl

RedDan

"by failing to fully engage all our resources directly against the clear enemy"

First, you must define 'clear enemy'. Until you're able to do that, the statement is meaningless.

and

"by failing to cut off the flows of drugs, guns, money, and people, by failing to interdict enemy networks, by failing to truly strike at the heart of the enemy organization"

I assert that we've done and are doing ALL of those things. Some to a greater extent than others. And I don't see how Iraq interferes with any of it.

And the 'heart of the enemy organization' is not a person but an ideology. The muslim world, itself, must play a greater role in that one. Our role is to make that point obvious to them.

Steven J.

SYL - "I assert that we've done and are doing ALL of those things."

Then you would be wrong, especially about the drug issue. Afghan is turning into a narco-state:

The Lure of Opium Wealth Is a Potent Force in Afghanistan
By Paul Watson LA Times Staff Writer
Sun May 29, 7:55 AM ET

Taliban guerrillas also have a share in the opium and heroin trade, which the United Nations estimates is worth $3 billion a year. Warlords who once fought them collect a tax on drug shipments heading to Iran, Pakistan or Tajikistan. As long as the Taliban pay cash, they are pleased to let bygones be bygones, said police and two drug traffickers who claimed to have done business with the militants.

RedDan

Tommy,

Hornets are always dangerous, and sometimes we get stung. When we identify a nest of hornets, we try to destroy it intelligently.

Burning down your house because there is a hornets nest in the eaves, burning down a forest because there might be a hornets nest in one tree or two...these are not smart ways of accomplishing anything particularly destructive.

Killing all the honeybees or bumblebees you see because you got stung by a hornet is as stupid.

Did Arabs love the US before 9-11? Not particularly.

Did our invasion of Iraq make things better or worse on that score?

Worse.

Did 9-11 cause a LOT of Arabs to seriously question the morality, wisdom, and intent of AQ, bin Laden and the Extremist Islamists? Yes, most certainly.

Did invading Iraq help or hurt that trend?

Hurt.

Jim Rockford

To those, principally Steven J, who take it as a "Known Fact" that Iraq makes Al Qaeda stronger and magically conjures up terrorists ... our non-response to the Cole got us ... well 9/11. We weren't in Iraq THEN now were we?

Mohammadans are always getting stirred up, because they see the utter failure of their own society and the success of ours, and get the sneaking suspicion that the whole religion thing might be one giant sham. Hence the rage, and of course, jihad. As Churchill said about the Hun, at your throat or at you feet, so too with the Mohammedans. Clinton saved thousands of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo, and got a declaration of War by bin Laden, the 98 Embassy attacks and the Cole in 2000. And that actually IS a fact.

Politically, Rove/Plame etc. is a loser for the Party. Kerry, Durbin, and a few other senior Dem Senators can be indicted for revealing CIA agents (Kerry stupidly used the guy's real name in a hearing when Bolton used "Mr. Smith" repeatedly and tried to steer Kerry into that nomenclature). Durbin and others blew a secret NRO satellite imaging program including capabilities and budget (it was a MASSIVE violation of national security). The NYT blew the CIA airline transferring terrorist prisoners around and put people's lives in real danger (as opposed to Aldrich Ames blown Plame).

Lots of indictments for everyone.

Fitzgerald is obviously pursuing the passing of secrets around casually (either by Powell or subordinates on Air Force One with the memo) or Plame/Wilson, or the Martha Stewart "lying to investigators" which could take in Libby or Rove or the Media bigwigs as well. You might for example see Cooper frogmarched into jail.

The biggest problem with Dems is by pursuing the "Rove lied, there are no terrorists and Joe Wilson was right" they destroy themselves politically. Maybe you can't see that but I do. Look at the rehab of LARRY JONHSON, the CIA analyst who gave the Dem's radio address on Plame/Wilson.

Larry Johnson, author of July 2001 "Declining Terrorist Threat" who in 1999 said on Frontline that "bin Laden talks a big game" about wanting to kill Americans but lacks the will or means to do it.

Yep. Why don't Dems just send Jane Fonda on an anti-War tour praising the "insurgents" who saw heads off, and have Durbin call the troops Nazis. Oh wait they have.

The OTHER shoe waiting to drop is the inevitable, sadly, attack in America that kills lots of people by Al Qaeda. Dems will have ZERO credibility then, and the Party will simply disappear into Beserkeley and San Francisco reservations of looniness.

Steven J.

MOREON THE FAILURE THAT IS AFGHAN:

Afghan heroin a huge threat to world stability, report says
REUTERS 3/5/05
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/attack/64208
WASHINGTON - Afghan heroin production represents an "an enormous threat to world stability" and the country is "on the verge of becoming a narcotics state," the State Department said in a report released Friday.

Despite steps by the Afghan government and foreign donors, the U.S. International Narcotics Control Strategy Report found the Afghan "narcotics situation continues to worsen" more than three years after U.S.-led forces toppled the Taliban regime. "Afghanistan's illicit opium/heroin production can be viewed, for all practical purposes, as the rough equivalent of world illicit heroin production, and it represents an enormous threat to world stability," it said.

Steven J.

JIM ROCKFORD - "The biggest problem with Dems is by pursuing the "Rove lied, there are no terrorists and Joe Wilson was right" "

Rove did lie - he told McClellan that he had absolutely nothing to do with the leak.

Joe Wilson was correct:

DUELFER REPORT
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap4.html

ISG has not found evidence to show that Iraq sought uranium from abroad after 1991 or renewed indigenous production of such material—activities that we believe would have constituted an Iraqi effort to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program.

So far, ISG has found only one offer of uranium to Baghdad since 1991—an approach Iraq appears to have turned down.

Larry Johnson is a Republican.

RedDan

Clear enemy:

Al Qaida, Muslim brotherhood, Pakistani Madrassa, Saudi Wahabbi terror factories.

Not so clear enemies: the rest of the muslim world.

Cutting off the flow of drugs, guns, and money? Really? Opium is number one in Afghanistan again, and Afghanistan is once again at or near the top of the Opium export business. Military grade weaponry and explosives are finding their ways from Afghanistan and Iraq to many other places. Islamicist groups are rolling in cash and are currently proving their ability to field multiple, complex, and expensive operations in multiple countries simultaneously either through extremely good central coordination, or through a franchise-like operation.

Finally, And the 'heart of the enemy organization' is not a person but an ideology. The muslim world, itself, must play a greater role in that one. Our role is to make that point obvious to them.

The heart of the enemy organization comprises people and ideologies spread and supported by those people. The muslim world should and must indeed play a major role in dealing with the tamping down or stamping out of those people and ideologies, but the muslim world is not likely to do so if they see themselves as indiscriminately targetted by the US in a scattershot, illogical, poorly thought out, and extremely bloody revenge campaign in a country/region completely unrelated to the real problem.

Steven J.

JIM ROCKFORD -

Bush is responsible for 9-11. He ignored the plans we had made to attack Osama and the Taliban.

Steven J.

JIM ROCKFORD - "Mohammadans are always getting stirred up, because they see the utter failure of their own society and the success of ours, and get the sneaking suspicion that the whole religion thing might be one giant sham. Hence the rage, and of course, jihad."

Thanks for the fuckwit analysis.

Steven J.

RedDan - "The muslim world should and must indeed play a major role in dealing with the tamping down or stamping out of those people and ideologies, but the muslim world is not likely to do so if they see themselves as indiscriminately targetted by the US in a scattershot, illogical, poorly thought out, and extremely bloody revenge campaign in a country/region completely unrelated to the real problem."

DESERVED REPEATING!

Syl

RedDan

You are not paying attention to current trends in much of the Arab world. What you said about opinon is mostly true IMMEDIATELY after we invaded Iraq. That was TWO years ago! But you did omit the fact that 9/11 was a humungous recruiting tool for Islamic terror!

How do you explain, by your thesis, the drop in popularity of bin laden? That is much more important than whether Arabs like us and cannot be cavalierly discounted.

Steven J.

JIM ROCKFORD - "Kerry, Durbin, and a few other senior Dem Senators can be indicted for revealing CIA agents "

So can Richard Lugar. BTW, what does this have to do with the traitor Bush? Are you lapsing into moral relativism or are you just stupid?

Steven J.

SYL - "But you did omit the fact that 9/11 was a humungous recruiting tool for Islamic terror!"

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

Syl

RedDan

"but the muslim world is not likely to do so if they see themselves as indiscriminately targetted by the US in a scattershot, illogical, poorly thought out, and extremely bloody revenge campaign in a country/region completely unrelated to the real problem."

I wonder whose fault it is that they believe that tripe. No I don't wonder. Just note that in bin laden's tape before the election he may as well have quoted Michael Moore.

Steven J.

SYL -

How do you explain that fact that terror attacks tripled in 2004?

Bush administration switches gears, releases terror report
BY FRANK DAVIES 4/27/05
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/11505370.htm

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - Under pressure from Congress, the Bush administration reversed gears Wednesday and released a report showing an upsurge in terrorist attacks worldwide in 2004 after first withholding the statistics from the public.
The number of "significant attacks" grew to about 651 last year, from 208 in 2003,
according to statistics released by the National Counterterrorism Center. The 2004 total includes 201 attacks in Iraq. The terrorist attacks last year claimed about 9,000 victims, including 1,907 people killed. In 2003, there were 625 people killed.

Steven J.

SYL - "I wonder whose fault it is that they believe that tripe."

GEORGE W. BUSH

RedDan

Syl, current trends in the Muslim and Arab world are extremely variable, dependent on the accuracy of polls taken there, and in any case, indicate that Iraq is playing a major role in the continued popularity (>50% in Pakistan and Jordan, >15% in many, many other countries) of AQ/OBL.

9/11 as a recruiting tool for Islamic Terror is an assertion that you will have to defend with evidence. I saw it more as a shocking and terrible event that turned many, many of my muslim acqaintances completely against the Islamists and any hint of extremism.

The drop in popularity of ObL is very closely related in space to places where massive terrorist bombings have taken place, for example Morocco, Spain, Indonesia. When terrorists kill normal people, normal people start to hate terrorists - wherever and whoever those normal people may be...

references to Michael Moore as publicist for bin Laden will not help your argument much.

How about peoples' personal experiences and their families' and extended networks of friends personal experiences contributing to the formulation of their opinions and actions?

Steven J.

UPDATE

Court nominee does well in poll; Rove does not
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
Posted 7/25/2005 10:04 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-25-roberts-rove-poll_x.htm
The controversy hasn't gripped the public's attention. Just half of those surveyed say they are following the story closely; one in five aren't following it at all.
Even so, 25% think Rove broke the law in the case. An additional 37% suspect that he did something unethical but not illegal. Just 15% say they think he didn't do anything seriously wrong.
Those surveyed are split almost evenly, 40%-39%, over whether Bush should fire him. By 49% to 31%, a plurality says he should resign.

kim

God, are you confused, SJ.

I told you before, Noor Khan was outed by the NYTimes. Get with the program.

The rest of your worldview is just as myopic.
=============================================

kim

Same technique as with Plame. Press mentions it, admin confirms. Go look at times of publishing and the time of the interview in which YOU think he was outed by admin.

This is the sort of BS running around your blogosphere that doesn't get corrected like in legitimate information sources. Get out. Read a little beside what's available there in your fever swamp. Real data will cure the fever, in most cases.
===========================================

kim

In fact this is a good test case. We'll find out if you are a serious student of this or just another yap case in the corner. Find out what really happened in the Noor outing, and report back. Homework is due tomorrow.
================================================

Steven J.

KIM - " told you before, Noor Khan was outed by the NYTimes."

LMFAO - The treasonous Administration gave his name to the Press.

Steven J.

THE WHORE SPEAKS:

BLITZER: Let's talk about some of the people who have been picked up, mostly in Pakistan, over the last few weeks. In mid-July, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan. There is some suggestion that by releasing his identity here in the United States, you compromised a Pakistani intelligence sting operation, because he was effectively being used by the Pakistanis to try to find other al Qaeda operatives. Is that true?

RICE: Well, I don't know what might have been going on in Pakistan. I will say this, that we did not, of course, publicly disclose his name. One of them...

BLITZER: He was disclosed in Washington on background.

RICE: On background.

CNN LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER
Interview With Condoleezza Rice; Interview With Rudy Giuliani

Steven J.

THE MORON APOLOGIZES:

US apologises for terror news leaks

Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday September 17, 2004
The Guardian

President Bush's chief domestic security official yesterday apologised for the disruption of a big MI5 and police surveillance operation in Britain.
Tom Ridge, the homeland security secretary, said the leaking of intelligence in the US about alleged terrorist suspects here was "regrettable".
Mr Ridge was speaking to journalists in London before meeting David Blunkett and Sir David Omand, the prime minister's security and intelligence coordinator.
Whitehall was furious early last month when individuals were named and allegations about terrorist attacks were made public in the US.
The claims, about putative attacks on buildings in the US and on British targets, including Heathrow, were based on information found on the computers of an alleged al-Qaida sympathiser in Pakistan.
The disclosures forced the police to quickly arrest 12 suspects in raids across England.

kim

I gave you a day to find the truth. No need to yap yet.

Here's clues. NYT had published it before the admin disclosure. Look for names and dates. Happy Hunting.
================================================

kim

By the way. Notice the slant in the Guardian. Nowhere do they say the leak was by the admin. Yet they leave the impression that the admin apologised. Why would the Guardian do that, when they probably knew the real facts? You might be interested to find out.
==========================

Steven J.

KYM -

BLITZER: He was disclosed in Washington on background.

RICE: On background.

Steven J.

KYM - "Same technique as with Plame. Press mentions it, admin confirms."

NOT AT ALL THE SAME -

Referring to the Newday interview from July 22nd, Novak says
"[T]hat was an interview right after the column appeared....That isn't very artfully put and what I was trying to say was that I didn't do an investigative report in the CIA, going into the bowels of the CIA talking to agents - what I meant was that the senior official had given me her name."

Karl Rove, CNN Interview, August 31, 2004.


Steven J.

Newsday, July 22, 2003 - "Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it.""

Seven Machos

Things I learned from Stevie:

1. Condi Rice is a whore.

2. George W. Bush is a moron.

3. Had we only attacked the Taliban and Al Queda before September 11 like Stevie was advocating before Septmeber 11, there would have been no hijackings.

Please go away.

Seven Machos

Stevie -- Do you read what you post? "The controversy hasn't gripped the public's attention. Just half of those surveyed say they are following the story closely; one in five aren't following it at all."

Only 50 percent of the public even claims to be following the Plame story. Hence, polling-based arguments prove nothing.

Also, Stevie, calling the Secretary of State a whore is ineffective and juvenile. So is calling for IMPRACHMENT!!!!!!! and all this ridiculous copying and pasting. Nobody is reading much of anything you are copying or writing. All your invective is a big waste of time.

Slartibartfast

Stop the insanity.

Jim E.

Tommy V,

Let’s see here. You accused me of “rewriting new arguments” (I’m not sure what that even means) by bringing up “pre-emptive war,” something you claim we’re not discussing. In fact, you were the first to bring up “pre-emptive war” and I was responding to that. You wrote (in your 7:59pm post as well as your 10:09pm post) that the threat was NOT imminent. Yet the dictionary and real-world definition of the phrase “pre-eminent war” is predicated on an “imminent threat.” In addition, the White House and pro-war supporters said at the time that the threat was imminent. I quoted from the war resolution to show that the threat was thought to be imminent. You can read the whole resolution yourself. And here’s a few quotes for you to chew on:

"This is about imminent threat." McClellan, Feb 10, 2003
“Of course he is.” Dan Bartlett answering a question of whether Saddam represents an “imminent threat.” Jan 26, 2003
“The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat." Pres Bush, Jan 3, 2003
“The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." Pres Bush, Pct. 2, 2002
"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons." Rumsfeld, Sept, 2002

(I now see Steven J. has already posted a few of these. Sorry about the repetition. Not that you bothered addressing them when he posted some of them.)

They aren’t talking about the future, they are talking about now. (“Now” being the dates of the quotes.) You are rewriting history if you claim no one ever argued that Iraq was an imminent threat. Plenty of people argued that was the case, including Bush. You can parse away all you want, but you are totally wrong about this. You remain wrong about the definition of “pre-emptive war,” too.

What empirical evidence can you point to that shows Iraq was even more dangerous to the U.S. than we thought? You can’t even compensate for the lack of WMDs, and even if you could (which you can’t) that would get you back to "as," not “more,” dangerous than we feared.

And I don’t think it’s out of bounds to focus on Kay’s use of the word “potential.” Potential means: “Capable of being but not yet in existence.” So Kay is NOT saying Iraq is a more dangerous threat, he’s saying it might have become a more dangerous threat off in the future – maybe. And my nephew has the potential to be a Hall of Fame basketball player – maybe.

kim

I told you where it is Jim E. It's in the Duelfer report and Rosett's reporting. We worried pre-war that he'd be a source of terrorist WMD. In fact he was an emerging rogue state holder of WMD. I can't say it any plainer than that. Read what I say. The fact was worse than the worry. Say it again, louder, louder.

See if you can remember that until tomorrow.

SJ: you are getting warmer. What does background meand to you? Now about the timeline; where did the name come from originally? Hint: Not the US as the Guardian would have you believe.

One selective quote of the Plame revelations does not counter my point. Do you see that?
======================================================
===================================================

Jim E.

" In fact he was an emerging rogue state holder of WMD."

Actually, Iraq had no WMD, so Saddam wasn't holding anything. The Bush administraiton thought Iraq already had it. It didn't. Therefore Iraq was considerably less dangerous (not more dangerous) than the Bush adminstration feared.

I notice how you all mocked JBG for providing direct quotes and the links for those quotes. Yet here you are telling me (over and over and over) to read a multivolume study that doesn't bolster (at least according to every news report) your claims. You claim to have read the whole report? Then give me a relevant sentence or two or three.

kim

Do I have to paint a picture? We thought Saddam might have WMD despite sanctions and give them to terrorists. In fact he was planning to be a rogue state holder and user of WMD. The second case is more dangerous than the first. Ergo.
=============================================

Jim E.

Saddam not having WMD is worse than Saddam having WMD?

Jim E.

Because it really doesn't matter whether it's Saddam or the terrorists using the WMD, the result is the same. Saddam not having WMD at all, however, is an entirely different -- and less dangerous -- picture.

kim

You are absolutely refusing to see that it makes no difference whether or not he actually had WMD. Intent is important.
=================================================

Jim E.

Intent is completely irrelevant if he didn't have the means to fulfill it.

Besides, even before the war, the Bush administration was making the same allegations of Saddam's "intent" that you think we only found after the invasion. To wit:

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02 (This one pretty much negates your argument that Saddam posed a greater threat than we thought. Bush was making that argument BEFORE the war. So we already knew then -- supposedly -- that Saddam was more dangerous than we feared.)

"In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States . . . with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03 (Again, this quote is arguing about Saddam's "intent" and this was also pre-war.)

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02

You seem to think "intent" is so important, and I've just shown that Saddam's so-called "intent" was well addressed by the Bush administration before the war. They were saying Saddam intended to attack the U.S. himself.

Thanks for not quoting a single line from all the thousands of pages of documents you keep urging others to read. Yeah, I bet you've read them all cover to cover.

P.S. I guess you'd disagree with Pres Bush on this quote: Iraq's "dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02

jukeboxgrad
jukeboxgrad

FLORENCE: "Why is Miller in jail?"

I think the answer might be here.

"Since the probe began before Bush got reelected, if he knew Rove was involved why would he PROMOTE him?"

Bush and Rove et al never imagined that Fitz would be so tough and relentless that he would send Miller to jail and get someone like Cooper to crack (although it also took some interesting decisions on the part of both Pearlstine and Luskin before Cooper changed his mind).

TOMMY: "you need to update yourself with the SSCI report"

SSCI (pdf) does not provide meaningful support for the 16 words. Especially "significant quantities" and "recently."

"the threat was not immediate but in the future."

You have said this repeatedly, in various forms, and you have been answered well. I'll just toss in this: Bush said "the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes." Is that not "immediate" enough for you?

jukeboxgrad

CECIL: "The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium."

This does not justify "significant quantities" and "recently."

KIM: "Show me"

Your MO is quite stale: constantly demand proof while showing no proof of your own.

"I have a problem with your selective quoting"

You have quite a novel approach to that problem: virtually no quoting at all, but rather simply making sweeping declarations that readers are supposed to take on faith, simply by repetition.

"you can also link instead of think"

Good job demonstrating how to do neither.

"what lies did he [Bush] tell?"

A good place to start is here (pdf).

"the measures he was taking to get WMD ... freed of sanctions, in control of a state capable of high technology, Saddam would be a nightmare ... he was an emerging rogue state holder of WMD"

You're talking about how dangerous Saddam might have become. Trouble is, Bush didn't hype the war by telling us that Saddam might become dangerous. Bush hyped the war by telling us Saddam had massive stockpiles tucked under his arm, ready to go at a moment's notice. Important difference.

"We thought Saddam might have WMD despite sanctions and give them to terrorists. In fact he was planning to be a rogue state holder and user of WMD. The second case is more dangerous than the first."

This is a classic, even for you: Saddam "planning" to have WMD is "more dangerous" than Saddam actually having WMD. This one is worth remembering.

"it makes no difference whether or not he actually had WMD"

Then Bush et al sure wasted a lot of breath trying to convince us of something which "makes no difference."

"what about the IAEA figuring out the forgeries so fast"

You mean like the way Power Line et al jumped on the TANG memos so fast?

jukeboxgrad

SEVEN: "[Saddam was] connected to terrorists."

If you think we should be concerned about people who are "connected to terrorists," then read what I said to Syl (just above) about these folks.

"HE DECIDED [to go to war] BEFORE TELLING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!!"

It's not just that he decided without consulting Congress, which is not how a democracy is supposed to operate. It's that he lied to us about it, by claiming he hadn't decided.

"Saddam’s government killed 5000 people with chemical weapons"

Then it's a darn shame that some Americans were perfectly happy to pat him on the back and do business with him.

"Saddam’s government supported terrorism by paying 'bonuses'"

At least Bush's pals would never do anything like that!

"Abu Musab al Zarqawi is believed to have received medical treatment in Saddam's Iraq for a leg injury."

Many of the 9/11 attackers are believed to have received flight training in Bush's USA.

"Salman Pak"

Highly questionable.

"How do you know that these individuals [Rove et al] made false statements?"

For a couple of years the White House has insisted that Rove wasn't involved. Cooper said Rove told Cooper about Plame, and Luskin very noticeably declined to deny this. Instead he offers some pathetic and highly questionable spin but he says nothing to dispute the essential facts ("Rove did not mention her name to Cooper ... This was not an effort to encourage Time to disclose her identity. What he was doing was discouraging Time from perpetuating some statements that had been made publicly and weren't true." [link]).

This is more than enough to know there are liars in the White House.

"I would add that having ready bases and thousands of troops bearing down on Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia is geopolitically invaluable, and the real reason for the invasion."

It's nice to finally find out "the real reason for the invasion." Trouble is, in a democracy we're supposed to know that ahead of time.

jukeboxgrad

DAVIS: "Karl Rove and Lewis Libby had no reason to be aware of any covert status."

A reasonable person knows that if someone works at the CIA, there is a significant chance that person might be a covert agent: "as many as one-third of the CIA's approximately 20,000 employees are undercover or have worked in that capacity at some point in their careers" (link).

"Since Joe Wilson spoke out, he IS fair game"

If Bush objected to Wilson's assertions, the White House should have shown proof that Wilson was wrong. Instead, the White House treated Wilson and Plame as "fair game" (which means an argument based on character assassination rather than relevant facts), outed Plame (and then lied about this for a couple of years). This tends to create the impression that the White House had no proof to show. Everything we know two years later tends to support this impression.

METOOTHEN: "the little, if any, voice given to the well being of the Iraqis themselves."

Let me know if you think there was sufficient "voice given to the well being" of this particular Iraqi.

HARRY: "Perhaps we can be patient just a little longer and let the investigation run its course."

As I explained above to Seven, we already have enough information to know there are one or more liars in the White House.

JIM ROCKFORD: "The NYT blew the CIA airline"

I guess you have the same double-standard as our host.

kim

JBG: I don't link because it can degenerate into the fallacy of arguing to bogus authority. If you can't accept my sweeping declarations as truth, despite repitition, then I'll hope you can change.

Like I say, prove me wrong.

I'm also sorry to see that you have such a twisted memory of all of the impulses to war. Have you been asleep for 15 years? The gathering storm of Saddam was a nightmare of destructive force.

And you are wasting your breath trying to make a point with your IAEA/Powerline irrelevancies.

Don't waste your breath; you are worth reading when you don't.
============================================
===========================

kim

Jim E, do you seriously believe that Saddam has NOT used WMD to kill thousands?
=================================================

kim

To help you along, Jim E, the ayatollahs have an estimate of the number of Iranian soldiers killed in the '80s with poison gas.
===============================================

kim

SJ: It's Noor time. Have you gotten to the bottom of the Noor outing yet? Have you looked in Pakistan? Have you wondered who would benefit from his outing? Have you thought to look around Waziristan?

Nah, it was the New York Times. All the News that's Left to Print.
===========================================

kim

And the Guardian propagandized you, SJ. Aren't you just a little ashamed at how easy it was?
============================================

jukeboxgrad

KIM: "the number of Iranian soldiers killed in the '80s with poison gas."

What a darn shame that some Americans were patting Saddam on the back at the time, and then doing business with him later.

Kind of reminds me of the way we treat these folks who support terrorism and other unsavory actiivities. Then again, these are the folks who say it's OK to kill homosexuals, so one starts to see how Bush might be serving his base, in a way.

kim

You know, when one doesn't follow your links, your prose just comes across as diffusely crabby. Following the links just gets tangled. Look at your last post. Three links in one sentence. Isn't that bad punctuation or something?
================================================

jukeboxgrad

"Isn't that bad punctuation or something?"

No, it's just you having trouble counting.

kim

I see a sentence with three links in it.

It happens to have another also. How well you accentuate my point.
================================================

jukeboxgrad

"Hey Kim, how many fingers you see on my hand?"

"Four."

"Really?"

"Yes. I see a hand with four fingers on it. It happens to have another also."

Just appreciating your unique view of the world.

kim

Four fingers and a thumb? Ah yes you do improve my point.
===========================================

jukeboxgrad

Most of us learn before kindergarten that it's normal to speak of humans as having ten fingers, even though the thumb is sometimes not called a finger. Anyway, my mistake. I should have realized that you're easily distracted and will jump at any opportunity to miss the point.

kim

And I thought you'd gotten the point that you have too many links to make your argument go smoothly. We had a nice, almost linkless, conversation yesterday. Your powers of persuasion were much better displayed when you just spoke. I suspect rampant linking is a hangover from high school forensics when the judges weigh the citations to determine winners, and the arguments are all ready-made. It breeds the habit of not making the argument yourself, and depending on external authority to make it. You do alright by yourself.
========================================
===============================================

kim

And I thought you'd gotten the point that you have too many links to make your argument go smoothly. We had a nice, almost linkless, conversation yesterday. Your powers of persuasion were much better displayed when you just spoke. I suspect rampant linking is a hangover from high school forensics when the judges weigh the citations to determine winners, and the arguments are all ready-made. It breeds the habit of not making the argument yourself, and depending on external authority to make it. You do alright by yourself.
========================================
===============================================

jukeboxgrad

Thanks for the encouragement and the feedback.

"high school forensics when the judges weigh the citations to determine winners"

I think weighing number of citations to determine winners is probably exactly as senseless as the opposite, which is what I think you're doing.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame