Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest BushBacker

A Win For Bush

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest
Yes we do. They're all atheists. Thank you for reminding everyone.

You know what? Take your "Christianinity" and shove it up you holier than thou ass! When your done with that maybe you can find time in your busy schedule and burn a witch or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are career employees in every department including State and the Pentagon. Why didn't Bush widen his 'resolve' into those departments? Simple, they were, for the most part, telling him what he wanted to hear.

To the CIA falls the responsibility of compiling the collected intelligence of the other agencies (NIE).

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/index.htm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...igence_Estimate

The CIA was very wid[e]ly split on the issue of Iraq in 2002 but you'd never know that by what you hear from the Administration.

You'd never know it from the NIE, either--and the CIA wasn't that widely split. There was high confidence that Iraq had illegal weapons, and there was concern about the lack of reliable human intelligence.

Those two facts reconcile without difficulty.

The only way that the people in the CIA (who turned out to be right) were able to get their positions out for discussion was to leak their findings.

Well, you should offer a citation in support of that claim. The NIE included significant statements about minority views.

You'd have to wonder about government officials who would break the law to publicize minority views on intelligence.

What's the real motivation?

That is the reason for the overhaul of the CIA ... to stop opinions that do not agree with Bush from ever seeing the light of day. Just another exercise in paranoia that this Administration is famous for.

Okay. So they should just ignore it when CIA officials break the law by leaking classified information. But Scooter Libby is fair game even if he didn't leak classified information. Gotcha. That makes all kinds of sense.

Bush ignored what turned out to be true because he was listening to Chalabi and others who were more interested in lining their pockets than anything else. They spoon fed 'intel' to BushCo. Ahhhh ... and where is Chalabi today? Still wheeling and dealing for oil money. It was all he was ever intereted in. BushCo is paying the price for being narrow minded and I don't feel a damn bit sorry for him.

You seem to be ignoring the fact the the intelligence services of our allies all agreed with the basic presumption that Iraq had WMDs.

Your Bushco-colored glasses may have a hard time resolving that dilemma.

Who did he convince? The UN?

Everyone except Dennis Kucinich, iirc. <_<

The UN security council was convinced but certain nations later found to be the most significant beneficiaries of OFF bribery opposed the strongest resolutions against Iraq.

More than a coincidence?

You want intel on the ground? There it was. Blix and his crew found virtually nothing except what we already knew was there. There was not one shred of evidence of a nuclear program.

Again, UNMOVIC reported that Iraq failed to comply fully with inspections. Look it up.

Also review the portion of the thread where I referenced the NYT story where the U.S. inadvertently published Iraq's nuclear bomb plans to the Internet (the UN complained loudly about that one).

You can explain how a country can have a plan for a nuclear bomb but no nuclear program?

Oh, but of course, that was because they weren't looking hard enough or they were being tricked by the Iraqis blah blah ... the Chalabi noise machine and the Wolfowitz-Pearle lobby for that other Middle-Eastern country, was all Bush wanted to

hear

French intelligence was also confident that Hussein probably had WMDs, and they had every reason (huge debt owed by Iraq for Mirage jets) to hope that Hussein's regime persisted.

"In contrast, according to Blix, President Chirac had a healthy scepticism about intelligence. Although the French intelligence services were convinced WMD remained in Iraq, Chirac recognised that the intelligence services "sometimes intoxicate each other". His thinking "seemed to be dominated by the conviction that Iraq did not pose a threat that justified armed intervention".

http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd77/77iraq.htm

The preponderance of evidence supported the idea that Iraq had WMDs.

That is utter nonsense.

Wow--that's an impressive argument.

Iraq was required to produce documentation of the destruction of their weapons. Large amounts of WMD were known to have existed but did not have their destruction documented as required by the ceasefire agreement to which Iraq was bound.

You must completely ignore that evidence in order to disagree with me, I think. What is the most reasonable explanation for Iraq's failure to document the destruction of its known WMDs, given that the failure to comply with the terms of the ceasefire is exactly what perpetuated the sanctions regime on Iraq?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Radagast
To the CIA falls the responsibility of compiling the collected intelligence of the other agencies (NIE).

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/index.htm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...igence_Estimate

You'd never know it from the NIE, either--and the CIA wasn't that widely split.  There was high confidence that Iraq had illegal weapons, and there was concern about the lack of reliable human intelligence.

Those two facts reconcile without difficulty.

Well, you should offer a citation in support of that claim.  The NIE included significant statements about minority views.

You'd have to wonder about government officials who would break the law to publicize minority views on intelligence.

What's the real motivation?

Okay.  So they should just ignore it when CIA officials break the law by leaking classified information.  But Scooter Libby is fair game even if he didn't leak classified information.  Gotcha.  That makes all kinds of sense.

You seem to be ignoring the fact the the intelligence services of our allies all agreed with the basic presumption that Iraq had WMDs.

Your Bushco-colored glasses may have a hard time resolving that dilemma.

Everyone except Dennis Kucinich, iirc.  :o

The UN security council was convinced but certain nations later found to be the most significant beneficiaries of OFF bribery opposed the strongest resolutions against Iraq.

More than a coincidence?

Again, UNMOVIC reported that Iraq failed to comply fully with inspections.  Look it up.

Also review the portion of the thread where I referenced the NYT story where the U.S. inadvertently published Iraq's nuclear bomb plans to the Internet (the UN complained loudly about that one).

You can explain how a country can have a plan for a nuclear bomb but no nuclear program?

French intelligence was also confident that Hussein probably had WMDs, and they had every reason (huge debt owed by Iraq for Mirage jets) to hope that Hussein's regime persisted.

"In contrast, according to Blix, President Chirac had a healthy scepticism about intelligence. Although the French intelligence services were convinced WMD remained in Iraq, Chirac recognised that the intelligence services "sometimes intoxicate each other". His thinking "seemed to be dominated by the conviction that Iraq did not pose a threat that justified armed intervention".

http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd77/77iraq.htm

Wow--that's an impressive argument.

Iraq was required to produce documentation of the destruction of their weapons.  Large amounts of WMD were known to have existed but did not have their destruction documented as required by the ceasefire agreement to which Iraq was bound.

You must completely ignore that evidence in order to disagree with me, I think.  What is the most reasonable explanation for Iraq's failure to document the destruction of its known WMDs, given that the failure to comply with the terms of the ceasefire is exactly what perpetuated the sanctions regime on Iraq?

The Pearle-Wolfowitz Cabal in the Pentagon was feeding their version of the Iraq story to Rummy and Bush. According to the to site that you list above, there were former CIA agents who claim to have been 'pressured' to agree with the wizards at the Pentagon. After what happened to Valarie Plame, who would now speak up? If you spoke up, BushCo retaliated. So they went along.

>>Who's Unpatriotic Now

by Paul Krugman

July 22, 2003 | Some nonrevisionist history: On Oct. 8, 2002, Knight Ridder newspapers reported on intelligence officials who "charge that the administration squelches dissenting views, and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary." One official accused the administration of pressuring analysts to "cook the intelligence books"; none of the dozen other officials the reporters spoke to disagreed. The skepticism of these officials has been vindicated. <<

There seemed to have been more than enough skeptics, however, the drum beat to war was very loud. Do you completely deny that BushCo was predisposed to go to war with Iraq even prior to any evidence of the existence of WMDs?

When British, French and US Intel is coming from the same sources, Chalabi and others with a personal axe to grind, the conclusion is going to be the same. Conventional wisdom is very often neither.

The IAEA had dismantled whatever existed of Iraq's nuclear program in the mid-1990's. There is no credible evidence that it was ever revived. Blix never found any before we invaded.

>>From yalenewsdaily.com

As head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, Blix delivered the commission’s final verdict in February 2003 that contrary to the claims of the United States and Great Britain, no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.

In spite of this conclusion, Blix said on Monday, the United States still chose to invade Iraq in a preemptive assault predicated on the assumed existence and danger of these weapons. <<

Even David Kay, one of Bush's biggest cheerleaders, concluded the same after the war.

There was certainly enough doubt to preclude a full scale invasion. Unless of course you were planning to invade no matter what. Even if your only excuse was poor record keeping on the part of Saddam. That, in the end, is the only excuse offered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Pearle-Wolfowitz Cabal in the Pentagon was feeding their version of the Iraq story to Rummy and Bush.

And France, Germany, Italy and the UK. Don't forget about them.

According to the to site that you list above, there were former CIA agents who claim to have been 'pressured' to agree with the wizards at the Pentagon.

No, actually the agents claimed that they felt pressure.

Nice try at spinning the info, but I've seen it before.

Agents uniformly denied pressure tactics from administration officials.

After what happened to Valarie Plame, who would now speak up? If you spoke up, BushCo retaliated. So they went along.

The CIA has kept up a fairly steady flow of leaks, and the Justice Department is apparently so similarly corrupted that prosecutions cannot proceed.

http://www.nysun.com/article/46407?page_no=2

>>Who's Unpatriotic Now

by Paul Krugman

July 22, 2003 | Some nonrevisionist history: On Oct. 8, 2002, Knight Ridder newspapers reported on intelligence officials who "charge that the administration squelches dissenting views, and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary." One official accused the administration of pressuring analysts to "cook the intelligence books"; none of the dozen other officials the reporters spoke to disagreed. The skepticism of these officials has been vindicated. <<

If they're under such intense pressure then why do they end up submitting views that supposedly get squelched? Evidently the pressure wasn't strong enough to stop them.

Why bother pressuring them for favorable reports when they can just squelch the ones they don't like?

The 9-11 Commission was unable to substantiate this report. Intelligence personnel, under oath, denied that administration officials pressured them.

Hey--maybe they lied under oath?

There seemed to have been more than enough skeptics, however, the drum beat to war was very loud. Do you completely deny that BushCo was predisposed to  go to war with Iraq even prior to any evidence of the existence of WMDs?

Yes, since pressuring Hussein to step down in favor of a democratic government would have been an acceptable outcome--one that was made available to Hussein before the invasion, I might add.

When British, French and US Intel is coming from the same sources, Chalabi and others with a personal axe to grind, the conclusion is going to be the same. Conventional wisdom is very often neither.

Uh, yeah--and don't forget that Bush and Rove were whispering in the ears of all the foreign intelligence agencies.

Seriously, I doubt that Chalabi had any direct involvement in the intelligence gathering of foreign states. Feel free to offer evidence in support of your claim.

The IAEA had dismantled whatever existed of Iraq's nuclear program in the mid-1990's. There is no credible evidence that it was ever revived. Blix never found any before we invaded.

Where did we get the plans for the nuclear bomb that was posted to the Internet? Did the UN determine that it was okay for Hussein to salt away some nuclear weapon plans for a rainy day, or what?

>>From yalenewsdaily.com

As head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, Blix delivered the commission’s final verdict in February 2003 that contrary to the claims of the United States and Great Britain, no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.

In spite of this conclusion, Blix said on Monday, the United States still chose to invade Iraq in a preemptive assault predicated on the assumed existence and danger of these weapons. <<

Even David Kay, one of Bush's biggest cheerleaders, concluded the same after the war.

Founded January 28, 1878, the Yale Daily News is the nation's oldest college daily newspaper.

http://www.yaledailynews.com/aboutus

But it's not just any student newspaper. It's Yale.

Look, I provided a URL to Blix's final report. If you can't find support for your claims in that document directly, there's no point in citing an article written for a student newspaper.

There was certainly enough doubt to preclude a full scale invasion.

Apparently not.

Unless of course you were planning to invade no matter what. Even if your only excuse was poor record keeping on the part of Saddam. That, in the end, is the only excuse offered.

Except that I've also already mentioned that Hussein's regime consistently acted as though it had WMDs via a pattern of uncooperation and communication.

Plus the weapons were never the sole rationale for ousting Hussein. They just constituted the best reason for acting quickly since he would not permit verification of his weapon capabilities.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/al-samoud_2.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest a proud american
No, they didn't.

Both teams stated that Iraq was failing to cooperate fully with inspections.

You tell me what sense there is in declaring no weapons of mass destruction when the nation under inspection isn't cooperating fully (the Blix team found missiles with a range far longer than Iraq was permitted--missiles that had been hidden from previous inspections).

Where do people such crazy ideas such as the notion that the inspection teams cleared Iraq?

"The first point, made in paragraph 8 of the report, is that the Commission has not at any time during the inspections in Iraq found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items – whether from pre-1991 or later. I leave aside the Al Samoud 2 missile system, which we concluded was proscribed.

As I have noted before, this does not necessarily mean that such items could not exist. They might – there remain long lists of items unaccounted for – but it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for."

http://www.unmovic.org/

Evidence suggested that Iraq was being tipped off about the supposedly unannounced visits.  Regardless, somehow you got the wrong idea about the reports that came from the inspections.

Ever thought about the money trail between Iraq, France, Germany, and Russia?

The next comment deserves to stand on its own.

According to whom?

The Baker group was selected and designated by Congress.

http://www.usip.org/isg/about.html

It wasn't really possible to take the report seriously, since it suggested that the US should seek help from Syria and Iran in stabilizing Iraq.

And we should put the fox in charge of the hen house while we're at it.

General Petraeus seems to disagree.

They were trying to keep the inspectors from finding any WMD but the teams did go to sites unannounced and could never locate any weapons. They never said they didn't have them they just could never find them but believed they didn't exist. After the invasion the military had 945 sites that were thought to have WMD. However, they never located any. What they did find were loads of aluminum tubes that Secretary Powell talked about. However, they were virtually useless because Husseins son contracted with a company of which he was getting a kickback to produce rocket fuel which wouldn't work with the types of tubes they purchased. And what was determined was that the Iraqi's always purchased more than they needed which is why there were so many.

What did occur is that in the end Sadaam had destroyed the WMD but kept the Iraqi's and the world thinking he still had them. If you want further information read the book State of Denial by Bob Woodward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They were trying to keep the inspectors from finding any WMD

Uh ... why do that? Iraq didn't have anything according to you.

but the teams did go to sites unannounced and could never locate any weapons.

"Prospects remain dim for inspectors allowed in sites [Charles Duelfer

says that it is impossible to ensure genuinely surprise inspections. He even

argues this quite reasonably saying: 'is it reasonable to demand that Iraq

turn off its entire air defence system so inspectors may fly into Iraq

anytime, and anywhere? Baghdad will reasonably point out that it has a

legitimate air defence system and some accommodation must be made to provide

information on UN flights. From this, the Iraqi government can derive

warning information on inspections. Similar accommodations will sprout in

virtually all inspection activities.' He concludes that the US should just

go ahead and overthrow Mr Hussein anyway, for the sake of the wellbeing of

the Iraqi people, regardless of inspections.]"

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/f.dowker/Iraqarc...itles2002_5.htm

"Former UNSCOM inspectors reported: "It was a rare inspection when the Iraqis did not know what the inspectors were looking for before they arrived."11 A panel of former U.N. inspectors concluded that of UNSCOM's 260 inspections, "only a half-dozen actually surprised the Iraqis."12"

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/bg1608.cfm

They never said they didn't have them they just could never find them but believed they didn't exist.

That would be a great point if you could locate it in the report filed by Blix.

http://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/documents/...0March%2003.pdf

Please have a go at it.

Here are a few things I found:

"As it has proved impossible to verify the production and destruction details of the R-400 bombs, UNMOVIC cannot discount the possibility tat some CW and BW filled R-400 bombs remain in Iraq." (p 47)

"However, due to the absence of credible evidence, UNSCOM was not able to verify Iraq's declared unilateral destruction of some 2,000 empty bombs and some 450 mustard bombs destroyed as declared by Ira in a fire accident." (p 50)

"Additionally, as of 1998, Iraq still had significant stocks of conventional 122-mm warheads and 155-mm projectiles siilar to those previously modified for use with chemical agents. Iraq's industries appear fully capable of modifying these conventional munitions for use with chemical agents as well as the indigenous production of most or all of their components." (p 55)

"Spraying devices modified for CBW purposes may still exist in Iraq." (p 59)

"The foregoing suggests that Iraq's interest in cluster munitions, and the developments it did make, may have progressed well beyond what it had declared" (p 64)

"In the absence of further documentation, it cannot be ascertained whether Iraq developed its true binary weapons system for Sarin into large-scale production of binary artillery shells and rockets." (p 73)

"However, Iraq had some items of dual-use equipment that could be removed and assembled for the construction of a dedicated Mustard production plant." (p 77)

"It is unlikely that the remaining gaps in the material balance of Mustard produced and weaponized from 1982 to 1990 can be solved without Iraq providing additional evidence to support its declarations." (p 78)

"Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist." (p 98)

"Since Iraq produced more botulinum toxin than other agents and it still possesses the expertise and possibly the seed stock, material inputs (such as growth media), and equipment (fermenters), hten production at least at the scale of its pre-1991 level could be rapidly recommenced." (p 101)

Maybe I'm must biased, but this doesn't look anything like a declaration that Iraq had no WMDs. Maybe you'll have better luck with the document.

After the invasion the military had 945 sites that were thought to have WMD. However, they never located any.

And Iraq had how long between the departure of UNMOVIC and the start of the war?

Iraq probably did not have significant stockpiles of WMD--but that wasn't known until almost a year after the war started. UNMOVIC didn't find much, but they found plenty of suspicious behavior by Iraq.

What they did find were loads of aluminum tubes that Secretary Powell talked about. However, they were virtually useless because Husseins son contracted with a company of which he was getting a kickback to produce rocket fuel which wouldn't work with the types of tubes they purchased. And what was determined was that the Iraqi's always purchased more than they needed which is why there were so many.

They found Iraq actively planning to circumvent sanctions and positioning itself to go right back to being the same old Iraq after they got sanctions lifted.

The aluminum tubes were not ideal for use in centrifuges, but Iraq's nuclear capabilities were radically underestimated as was discovered in the wake of the Gulf War. The tubes had tolerances well in excess of what would be expected for rocket applications--but they want an excess of tubes that have excess quality (and probably an excess price to match)?

Tubes proscribed by the ceasefire agreement?

What did occur is that in the end Sadaam had destroyed the WMD but kept the Iraqi's and the world thinking he still had them.

That is, unless the kept people thinking he still had them and he did still have them. There were some suspicious truck movements into Syria.

There's still an outside chance that the present assessments are wrong.

Though you might say the notion that Iraq had no large stockpiles of WMD in the lead-up to the war is a "slam dunk." :)

If you want further information read the book State of Denial by Bob Woodward.

I don't trust Woodward. I've heard interviews with some of the officials he talked to for that book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest a proud american
Uh ... why do that?  Iraq didn't have anything according to you.

"Prospects remain dim for inspectors allowed in sites [Charles Duelfer

says that it is impossible to ensure genuinely surprise inspections. He even

argues this quite reasonably saying: 'is it reasonable to demand that Iraq

turn off its entire air defence system so inspectors may fly into Iraq

anytime, and anywhere? Baghdad will reasonably point out that it has a

legitimate air defence system and some accommodation must be made to provide

information on UN flights. From this, the Iraqi government can derive

warning information on inspections. Similar accommodations will sprout in

virtually all inspection activities.' He concludes that the US should just

go ahead and overthrow Mr Hussein anyway, for the sake of the wellbeing of

the Iraqi people, regardless of inspections.]"

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/f.dowker/Iraqarc...itles2002_5.htm

"Former UNSCOM inspectors reported: "It was a rare inspection when the Iraqis did not know what the inspectors were looking for before they arrived."11 A panel of former U.N. inspectors concluded that of UNSCOM's 260 inspections, "only a half-dozen actually surprised the Iraqis."12"

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/bg1608.cfm

That would be a great point if you could locate it in the report filed by Blix.

http://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/documents/...0March%2003.pdf

Please have a go at it.

Here are a few things I found:

"As it has proved impossible to verify the production and destruction details of the R-400 bombs, UNMOVIC cannot discount the possibility tat some CW and BW filled R-400 bombs remain in Iraq." (p 47)

"However, due to the absence of credible evidence, UNSCOM was not able to verify Iraq's declared unilateral destruction of some 2,000 empty bombs and some 450 mustard bombs destroyed as declared by Ira in a fire accident." (p 50)

"Additionally, as of 1998, Iraq still had significant stocks of conventional 122-mm warheads and 155-mm projectiles siilar to those previously modified for use with chemical agents.  Iraq's industries appear fully capable of modifying these conventional munitions for use with chemical agents as well as the indigenous production of most or all of their components."  (p 55)

"Spraying devices modified for CBW purposes may still exist in Iraq." (p 59)

"The foregoing suggests that Iraq's interest in cluster munitions, and the developments it did make, may have progressed well beyond what it had declared"  (p 64)

"In the absence of further documentation, it cannot be ascertained whether Iraq developed its true binary weapons system for Sarin into large-scale production of binary artillery shells and rockets."  (p 73)

"However, Iraq had some items of dual-use equipment that could be removed and assembled for the construction of a dedicated Mustard production plant."  (p 77)

"It is unlikely that the remaining gaps in the material balance of Mustard produced and weaponized from 1982 to 1990 can be solved without Iraq providing additional evidence to support its declarations."  (p 78)

"Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist."  (p 98)

"Since Iraq produced more botulinum toxin than other agents and it still possesses the expertise and possibly the seed stock, material inputs (such as growth media), and equipment (fermenters), hten production at least at the scale of its pre-1991 level could be rapidly recommenced."  (p 101)

Maybe I'm must biased, but this doesn't look anything like a declaration that Iraq had no WMDs.  Maybe you'll have better luck with the document.

And Iraq had how long between the departure of UNMOVIC and the start of the war?

Iraq probably did not have significant stockpiles of WMD--but that wasn't known until almost a year after the war started.  UNMOVIC didn't find much, but they found plenty of suspicious behavior by Iraq.

They found Iraq actively planning to circumvent sanctions and positioning itself to go right back to being the same old Iraq after they got sanctions lifted.

The aluminum tubes were not ideal for use in centrifuges, but Iraq's nuclear capabilities were radically underestimated as was discovered in the wake of the Gulf War.  The tubes had tolerances well in excess of what would be expected for rocket applications--but they want an excess of tubes that have excess quality (and probably an excess price to match)? 

Tubes proscribed by the ceasefire agreement?

That is, unless the kept people thinking he still had them and he did still have them.  There were some suspicious truck movements into Syria.

There's still an outside chance that the present assessments are wrong.

Though you might say the notion that Iraq had no large stockpiles of WMD in the lead-up to the war is a "slam dunk."  :angry:

I don't trust Woodward.  I've heard interviews with some of the officials he talked to for that book.

Whether or not anyone trusts him or not, the White House tried to debunk his book and failed because he had the documents to back up what he wrote. Now that the book is published I am sure there are many who have now gotten selective amnesia, but the facts are the facts and he has them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I don't trust Woodward.  I've heard interviews with some of the officials he talked to for that book.

Names?

For any substantial reason other than them saying what you don't want to hear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whether or not anyone trusts him or not, the White House tried to debunk his book and failed because he had the documents to back up what he wrote. Now that the book is published I am sure there are many who have now gotten selective amnesia, but the facts are the facts and he has them.

Look, I answered every point you made. You're going to take issue with the fact that I don't trust Woodward?

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_...60-8c95d331d1f1

Edsall's a Democrat.

One of Woodward's interviews had done radio interviews the week before. I don't remember his name (he's no longer part of the administration).

If you think you've got something significant from Woodward to make your case, then do it.

I've answered the argument you've got so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest a proud american
Look, I answered every point you made.  You're going to take issue with the fact that I don't trust Woodward?

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_...60-8c95d331d1f1

Edsall's a Democrat.

One of Woodward's interviews had done radio interviews the week before.  I don't remember his name (he's no longer part of the administration).

If you think you've got something significant from Woodward to make your case, then do it.

I've answered the argument you've got so far.

Here's a thought, why don't you go to the library and sign out his book. You can then read it for yourself and decide. I'm in the process of reading it and instead of trying to dispute his words I'm applying what he's written to what is happening today. Whetheer or not you trust him, what he has written so far is exactly whats happening or has happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I've answered the argument you've got so far.

At best you're a master at supplying smoke and mirrors and labeling them as answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Help support KOTW. If you are going to purchase Bob Woodward's Book, State of Denial, please use the link in the announcement section above. Your purchase will support KOTW's future.

KOTW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a thought, why don't you go to the library and sign out his book. You can then read it for yourself and decide. I'm in the process of reading it and instead of trying to dispute his words I'm applying what he's written to what is happening today. Whetheer or not you trust him, what he has written so far is exactly whats happening or has happened.

Obviously you did not read what Woodward's former colleague Thomas Edsall had to say. Either that or you simply chose to ignore it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
For example?

Like when someone mentions Kerry having called for more troops in '05 and you try to tie it in with the '04 election, '05 was after the election in case you hadn't noticed.

Or when you supply a link to an article about Bush's trips to Camp David as your 'proof' that the cowboy doesn't engage in showboat fluff.

I can see why you like cowboys since you obviously have a love of BULLSH*T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"And your also a talent at supplying non-answers to even your own questions."

I'll back it up in time, and that is the difference between us.

Like when someone mentions Kerry having called for more troops in '05 and you try to tie it in with the '04 election, '05 was after the election in case you hadn't noticed.

Kerry's call for troops in 2005 was simply a continuation of his late 2004 campaigning. In neither case is the past two years of Iraqi experience taken into account.

WASHINGTON - Senator John F. Kerry yesterday called for the United States to add 40,000 troops to its ground forces and improve benefits to military families, the latest in a series of signature issues from his presidential campaign that he has pledged to push in Congress.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,1331..._021605,00.html

I note that you excused yourself from answering my broader argument on that topic.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...t=140&p=43257

Or when you supply a link to an article about Bush's trips to Camp David as your 'proof' that the cowboy doesn't engage in showboat fluff.

That was proof that the person who accused Bush of engaging in showboat fluff was engaging in his own showboat fluff.

As remains the case today, judging from your current post.

I can see why you like cowboys since you obviously have a love of BULLSH*T.

Fluffy!

Now go back and address the issues, if you can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest a proud american
Obviously you did not read what Woodward's former colleague Thomas Edsall had to say.  Either that or you simply chose to ignore it.

YOu are always going to find people who don't agree but this is the third book I've read about what was/is going on in Iraq and so far the one thing in common is that this fiasco was botched as soon as we got into Baghdad. Taking each chapter of the book and applying it to what we know already and also knowing that the White House tried to discredit Woodward is very simple to understand. As I said before go to the library and sign out the book and read it for yourself. But also remember that Woodward is a successful investigative writer and he is bound to have people who either out of jealousy or dislike will not agree with what he writes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YOu are always going to find people who don't agree but this is the third book I've read about what was/is going on in Iraq and so far the one thing in common is that this fiasco was botched as soon as we got into Baghdad.

The Edsall material did not pertain to agreement/disagreement but to Woodward's credibility in general.

If you think that Woodward is completely reliable or if you believe that he is the sole conduit of accurate information concerning Iraq, then you are fooling yourself.

And you're still invited to go back and answer the arguments I made without trying to refer me to Woodward's book.

As I said earlier: if there's material you want to introduce from Woodward's book in answer to my arguments, then do it.

Taking each chapter of the book and applying it to what we know already and also knowing that the White House tried to discredit Woodward is very simple to understand.

If you were fair-minded, wouldn't you stack up the White House claims against Woodward's to see which provided the overall stronger explanation, instead of simply trusting Woodward to get it right and taking White House criticism as a verification of Woodward's accuracy?

Come to think of it, what is is that "we already know" according to you?

As I said before go to the library and sign out the book and read it for yourself. But also remember that Woodward is a successful investigative writer and he is bound to have people who either out of jealousy or dislike will not agree with what he writes.

Silly me for believing Woodward's colleague and poker opponent over somebody who reads his books.

Thomas Edsall was a reporter with the Washington Post for like 30 years. He provided a balanced view of Woodward, with the caveat that Woodward's journalism has some weaknesses.

You'd know that if you read the interview.

Hmmm. Why don't I just join your game?

Just go to the website and read the interview for yourself. But also remember that Thomas Edsall is a successful senior political reporter for the Washington Post, and he is bound to know more about Woodward's methods that somebody who just picks up Woodward's books and reads them.

I guess I could mention that Edsall left the Post to take a position at the Columbia journalism program (the most esteemed such program in the nation).

And give some further consideration to actually answering my arguments instead of ducking into the Woodward bomb shelter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YOu are always going to find people who don't agree but this is the third book I've read about what was/is going on in Iraq and so far the one thing in common is that this fiasco was botched as soon as we got into Baghdad. Taking each chapter of the book and applying it to what we know already and also knowing that the White House tried to discredit Woodward is very simple to understand. As I said before go to the library and sign out the book and read it for yourself. But also remember that Woodward is a successful investigative writer and he is bound to have people who either out of jealousy or dislike will not agree with what he writes.

I guess I can't get you to take off the Woodward-tinted glasses.

But can you at least go back and address the arguments instead of bailing?

Again, if you think there's information in any of Woodward's books that makes your case, feel free to use that information in your argument.

I'm not going to join you in your adoration of Woodward, and it's not hard to find the key points in his works since such information tends to get published widely after the books come out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bern
That last post was mine, I forgot to log on.

Impeachment would divide the nation.  It would create a lot of tension and would also begin a process that would drag on for many months.  We don't need that right now.  What we need is for the current president to start listening to his advisors and act on the information that he is given.  The Democratic party has already announced that impeachment is not going to be on the agenda, and rightly so.  I think that they are showing a great understanding of the current position of things by not trying to drive Bush out of office.  Even though I think he is a terrible President, it wouldn't help things to impeach him at this point. 

As for your last comment, while I agree with it fully, it is not possible at the moment.  The world is in too much consternation for that to occur.  I hope that it will happen at some point.  As for debts, I think that is a lost cause once you get into the trillions.

If we don't impeach, do we have any standards for our President? Are our presidential performance expectations so low that we will never impeach due to possible dissension?

Besides, this didn't seem to bother the republicans when they tried it on Clinton.

Impeachment might be painful but in the end there will be a big sigh of relief. Look at it as an operation, painful but you're getting rid of something rotten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest a proud american
I guess I can't get you to take off the Woodward-tinted glasses.

But can you at least go back and address the arguments instead of bailing?

Again, if you think there's information in any of Woodward's books that makes your case, feel free to use that information in your argument.

I'm not going to join you in your adoration of Woodward, and it's not hard to find the key points in his works since such information tends to get published widely after the books come out.

I am not asking you to believe everything that he says in his book. All I am saying is that no matter how many of the books are written about Iraq, their content is the same. We blew it in the beginning. I am not a great lover of Woodward or any other Author for that matter. But simply dismissing a content of a book on the word of an interview with someone else may not be right also. SOme of the things that are written by Woodward are now being echoed by Republican and Democratic politicians. I guess you just have to not read anything and keep believing that only the Government has been telling us the truth. That journalists can write a column or give an interview and depending on your persuasion choose to believe it or not. And as far as other books being written, there are plagerism laws that protects the finished products. So far I haven't heard of any law suits being filed aginst Woodward. I guess it's kind of like casinos in Atlantic City. Even though they have different names and different people tend to go to different casinos and will tell you which ones they do well at and not well at the one thing that is the same is its up to the individual to choose which one he believes is good and which ones he believes is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...