CIA:Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]JeffR wrote:
They can’t scream that it’s Bush’s fault without accepting that we have no choice but to truly win in Iraq.[/quote]

Jerffy the nutclown,

We all wish Bush actually had a plan of action that might lead to a win in Iraq, but so far he has allowed the incompetence of his administration to ensure this cannot happen.

At this point, honestly, it looks like Bush is just trying to make it through the current election season. I suspect that things will be left to the next president to clean up…

I’m sure all of your jumping up and down about defeat is pretty similar to the stories that were told about pulling out of Vietnam.

The world needs some new thinking, going it alone and taking on all comers is not really a good way to conduct world affairs. We recognize it on the street as simple bullying and we reject it, in international affairs for some reason it has been embraced as wisdom.

What a crock of shit.
[/quote]

62

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
…it does make me wonder a bit on whether “reporting” consists of passing along, without bothering to verify, the opinions of sources with dubious motivations.

vroom wrote:
Well, unless it is occurring on Fox![/quote]

Yeah, FOX sure edited the hell out of that Clinton interview, didn’t they…

On a related digression, some wonderful insights into the NYT’s top USSC reporter:

63

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Yeah, FOX sure edited the hell out of that Clinton interview, didn’t they…
[/quote]

Why am I not surprised you choose to miss the point?

With the penchant the right has for cherry picking information, for posing ridiculous questions so that implications can be made, for using word games to let them not actually be lying when they aren’t being honest, I don’t think they have much room to cry foul when people focus on actual report excerpts and state opinions based on them.

Holy fuck.

Never have I seen an era in which disinformation, infotainment and outright word games have taken the place of open communications in government. Your current administration is basically a propaganda department, supported by various tricks, chicanery and suppositions to ensure that nobody is lying.

Seriously, one guy on an infotainment channel will make some shit up, play some word games, next thing you know a senator starts commenting on how “X has been supposed” and then the infotainment channel escalates things to a new level with suppositions and word games on top of the senators statements.

It’s a pyramid of half truths, word games and cherry picked information that has risen to unprecedented proportions.

Eventually someone is going to ask why the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes!

64

[quote]JeffR wrote:
BB,

Another point that must be considered. If the dems swallow the increased recruiting of terrorists since the war began, they must also swallow that Iraq is the central front on the war.

They can’t scream that it’s Bush’s fault without accepting that we have no choice but to truly win in Iraq.

If they advocate pulling out of Iraq, the NIE states that they will have given the jihadists a victory that they will exploit.

Therefore, for all of you snivelers who demand an Iraq pullout, remember you are also advocating the defeat of the United States.

JeffR[/quote]

It comes down to if you think that this war is still winnable with the resources the US is willing to commit.

If there is no way to get enough men there, or if the American public is unwilling to do so you might as well get out asap.

65

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Yeah, FOX sure edited the hell out of that Clinton interview, didn’t they…

vroom wrote:
Why am I not surprised you choose to miss the point?

With the penchant the right has for cherry picking information, for posing ridiculous questions so that implications can be made, for using word games to let them not actually be lying when they aren’t being honest, I don’t think they have much room to cry foul when people focus on actual report excerpts and state opinions based on them.

Holy fuck. [/quote]

Methinks in your enthusiasm for ethereal copulation you haven’t realized that you don’t have, and never had, a point.

The NYT reporters did NOT see the excerpts before writing their articles.

So aside from your allegations stated as facts, you don’t even grasp the critique that was made.

The NYT reporters interviewed leakers who had read the reports, and then passed along the leakers’ summaries without having seen any part of the actual reports – thus my comment about passing along opinions – and not just any opinions but opinions that were obviously at least questionable in their motivation – as straight news.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Never have I seen an era in which disinformation, infotainment and outright word games have taken the place of open communications in government. Your current administration is basically a propaganda department, supported by various tricks, chicanery and suppositions to ensure that nobody is lying.

Seriously, one guy on an infotainment channel will make some shit up, play some word games, next thing you know a senator starts commenting on how “X has been supposed” and then the infotainment channel escalates things to a new level with suppositions and word games on top of the senators statements.

It’s a pyramid of half truths, word games and cherry picked information that has risen to unprecedented proportions.

Eventually someone is going to ask why the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes![/quote]

That whole “infotainment” hypothetical that you just floated essentially mirrors, among other items, and with a few word changes, such as “NYT story” for “infotainment channel”, the Plame Kerfluffle and this “news” story. Bravo.

BTW, what was your position on that whole Plame thing again?

66

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Methinks in your enthusiasm for ethereal copulation you haven’t realized that you don’t have, and never had, a point.

The NYT reporters did NOT see the excerpts before writing their articles.
[/quote]

How do you know what they received. If a leaker is reading (I know that might be a foreign concept to some) an excerpt to a reporter, and they are trustworthy, then the reporter will have good information.

You know, there are many ways to communicate information, without physically delivering an entire copy of a document to someone. You may seriously want to consider what information the reporters may or may not of had.

What do you mean when you say they “didn’t have it”? How do you know what they actually had access to? Who are you believing when you say this? Maybe you shouldn’t always believe the side that tells you things you’d like to believe?

Interestingly, and strangely, what was reported was in fact accurate. The report does indeed support the reports, and the parts that are now public are pretty much what everyone said they were. How surprising. To sit around play hypotheticals on who had exactly what seems a bit retarded at this point.

The cat is out of the bag, the facts were correct, and we have even more information to discuss now because of it.

[quote]
That whole “infotainment” hypothetical that you just floated essentially mirrors, among other items, and with a few word changes, such as “NYT story” for “infotainment channel”, the Plame Kerfluffle and this “news” story. Bravo.[/quote]

Not at all. The facts completely support the statements made. The now released document sections show that the statements made were true. I think you are missing that part.

When much of the bullshit on FOX is analyzed, it turns out that the claims are not actually and factually true, but that they are carefully worded so as not to be actual lies.

It is similar to Condi claiming that she wasn’t left a comprehensive plan to combat Al Queda, when Clinton had instead said he’d left behind a plan to combat terorrism. There is an important difference in wording, used to imply that Clinton lied, when he didn’t.

It’s also funny to note the 9/11 commission interview with Condi where she admits that she was left a series of topics with action items to be taken, with respect to terrorism. It almost sounds like she was describing a plan, doesn’t it.

Important Note: This is publicly available information showing Condi talking to the 9/11 commission. The change in wording between Clinton’s statement and Condi’s rebuttal should also be currently available for public review. However, you have to go and find their statements, not the “analysis” of their statements by your favorite pundits. Strange, why would anyone ignore such little discrepencies and allow their constituents to form opinions without the full information? This shit happens all the time people… and you sit there happily in ignorance of it. Why is that?

Wake up man, you are in a fog of half truths and you don’t know it.

67

[quote]orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:
BB,

Another point that must be considered. If the dems swallow the increased recruiting of terrorists since the war began, they must also swallow that Iraq is the central front on the war.

They can’t scream that it’s Bush’s fault without accepting that we have no choice but to truly win in Iraq.

If they advocate pulling out of Iraq, the NIE states that they will have given the jihadists a victory that they will exploit.

Therefore, for all of you snivelers who demand an Iraq pullout, remember you are also advocating the defeat of the United States.

JeffR

It comes down to if you think that this war is still winnable with the resources the US is willing to commit.

If there is no way to get enough men there, or if the American public is unwilling to do so you might as well get out asap.[/quote]

orion,

I must point out that I am in complete agreement with you. (I wrote down the date and time that I wrote that sentence.)

You may also be right that there is a real chance that our country doesn’t have the will to do what it takes as Iraq inches toward stability.

I acknowledge both of those possibilities.

JeffR

68

The funny thing, vroom, is that both sides of the aisle are playing the word games, but your view only spins one way.

For the “facts” of the stories, you’re spinning yourself – see above.

For your Condi example, it’s politicians slicing word meanings. For a recent example, this goes back to “what’s the meaning of “is”?” Nothing like trained lawyers or academics getting technical on word definitions, eh? (See threads with me and hspder arguing over word nuances to realize this isn’t confined to politicians).

What’s a “comprehensive plan”? That’s what Clinton claimed to have left behind. A set of checklists that hadn’t been updated since 1998 (and of course, weren’t acted on)? I could see contending that with a straight face, particularly when what was left had been detailed.

And when you have a contention like that, people on both sides of the argument claim the other side is “lying” or “spinning” – one could re-word your statement above to say, “Clinton claimed he left a comprehensive plan, and yet there were just a few checklists of items that had been compiled and apparently rejected back in 1998 – some ‘comprehensive plan.’”

Info-tainment is interesting and at least you know you’re getting opinions – e.g. Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann. They present information, but through their own prisms, and they have no principles of journalistic ethics that require balance or the removal of bias. You’re not supposed to get conclusions and unvarnished opinions passed on as hard news stories by supposedly upstanding news journals. If you take your information from them, you take it with that knowledge.

I know you disagree, but I think Fox News – i.e. the news shows like Fox News Sunday, not the O’Reilly Factor or Hannity & Colmes – do a decent job of making a balanced presentation (i.e. not unbiased, but showing both sides). I do not think the NYT does a good job of providing unbiased news coverage, which it claims to provide.

69

On the “spinning” digression, check out this quote that lefties have been floating out to prove Bob Dole and the Republicans were leading a push to cut-and-run in Somalia:

“I think it is clear to say from the meeting we had earlier with–I do not know how many Members were there–45, 50 Senators and half the House of Representatives, that the administration is going to be under great pressure to bring the actions in Somalia to a close.” - Bob Dole, October 5, 1993.

Gee, that looks bad, doesnt’ it?

Well, perhaps we should look at more of the quote:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:26:./temp/~r103f7nxPu::

“I think it is clear to say from the meeting we had earlier with–I do not know how many Members were there–45, 50 Senators and half the House of Representatives, that the administration is going to be under great pressure to bring the actions in Somalia to a close. It is up to the administration to give us a plan–a plan–not a U.N. plan, an American plan, that will stress American interests because I do think if we just say, ‘OK, we are out of there,’ and everybody packs up and goes home, we place American hostages in danger, of course. We also, I think, would jeopardize anything else we might be involved in from this time for the next 5 or 10 years.” - Bob Dole, October 5, 1993.

I think “spinning” would be a generous description – more accurate would be changing the meaning via purposefully omitting the full quote. More accurate would be completely lying.

70

[quote]vroom wrote:
I suspect that things will be left to the next president to clean up…
[/quote]

Bush has already said that it will be up to the next administration to “finish the job” (in other words-clean up his mess).

71

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I know you disagree, but I think Fox News – i.e. the news shows like Fox News Sunday, not the O’Reilly Factor or Hannity & Colmes – do a decent job of making a balanced presentation (i.e. not unbiased, but showing both sides). I do not think the NYT does a good job of providing unbiased news coverage, which it claims to provide.[/quote]

I like the way you framed this statement. You framed it very much like the lawyer that you are. You think that FOX news presents a balanced presentation [quote](i.e. not unbiased, but showing both sides)[/quote], but you do not think that [quote]the NYT does a good job of providing unbiased news coverage, which it claims to provide.[/quote] But by your own statements, both are biased.

So my questions to you are:

(1) How is it possible to be biased AND balanced?

(2) If it is possible to be both biased and balanced, when you show the other side, are you showing it from an unbiased or biased viewpoint?

(3) Is your problem with the NYT is that it is biased without being balanced? (You only state that the NYT is biased but you mention nothing about it being balanced. You also say that FOX news is biased as well, but you say they have balance.)

(4) What is the criteria for being balanced? Do you show what you WANT to show from the other side, or you show EVERYTHING from the other side? Which approach does FOX news take?

Others, please join in if you like.

72

[quote]ALDurr wrote:

I like the way you framed this statement. You framed it very much like the lawyer that you are. You think that FOX news presents a balanced presentation:

(i.e. not unbiased, but showing both sides)

, but you

do not think that the NYT does a good job of providing unbiased news coverage, which it claims to provide.

But by your own statements, both are biased.

So my questions to you are:

(1) How is it possible to be biased AND balanced? [/quote]

This isn’t a paradox – though it would be if I claimed Fox were perfectly balanced. I think it does a pretty fair job, and obviously tries to present both sides. If it’s not perfectly balanced, you can say it’s biased, but it’s a much better result in my book than something that is presented as unbiased but in reality only presents one side of a disputed point.

And what Fox tries to balance is two arguments, or two biases. It shows an argument with one bias – say the left-wing bias – and then shows the argument for another bias – say the right-wing bias. The viewer is exposed to both (and in my experience usually by a strong advocate for the position - kind of akin to a courtroom in the U.S. with an advocate for the prosecution and an advocate for the defense) and decides between them.

To me, this is superior to someone claiming to produce a story from which he has removed the biases, but which is obviously biased one way if you have the background knowledge to make that assertion.

On that level, it’s kind of like the difference between a U.S. court room based on the adversarial system and a Napoleonic-Code courtroom that does not use the adversarial system.

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
(2) If it is possible to be both biased and balanced, when you show the other side, are you showing it from an unbiased or biased viewpoint? [/quote]

Most often both sides are represented by advocates of those positions, so I would assume they would set forth their best arguments – again back to the courtroom analogy.

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
(3) Is your problem with the NYT is that it is biased without being balanced? (You only state that the NYT is biased but you mention nothing about it being balanced. You also say that FOX news is biased as well, but you say they have balance.) [/quote]

That’s one half of it – the other is that it pretends its putting forth news that is bias-free.

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
(4) What is the criteria for being balanced? Do you show what you WANT to show from the other side, or you show EVERYTHING from the other side? Which approach does FOX news take? [/quote]

With the constraints of TV segments or with the constraints of column inches, I would say that balance means giving room for the best arguments from both sides and trying to allocate roughly equivalent space in a given segment or story (and in a print story, roughly equivalent placement near the top of the story for the most pertinent ideas or facts from both perspectives).

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Others, please join in if you like.[/quote]

Please do.

73

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
As to what has been released, certain sections, read out of context, could back what was concluded (great word for a news story eh?) in the initial stories put out by those reporters – of course, other sections, pulled out of context, would lead to entirely different conclusions. And read as a whole, it’s a pretty muddled picture.
[/quote]

It’s not a muddled picture at all. There are of obviously some items of hope and there are some items of bad news.

There is no need to say that we can’t look at those items and draw conclusions from them.

What a crock!

74

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The funny thing, vroom, is that both sides of the aisle are playing the word games, but your view only spins one way.
[/quote]

No, because when you are cautious and playing the lawyer, your personal statements are more cautious. However, you aren’t necessarily the person that I’m referring to, am I.

There are all kinds of people that are SURE that Condi implied that Clinton lied and that no plans were left behind, because of improper coverage. That is not fair and balanced, that is one sided.

If you want to get into the specifics of whether or not it was comprehensive, then we getting down to a level of detail which means that plans were left, but that there is disagreement on how complete they were.

That is a much different statement than is being carried by the spin meisters and you know it.

[quote]
Info-tainment is interesting and at least you know you’re getting opinions – e.g. Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann. They present information, but through their own prisms, and they have no principles of journalistic ethics that require balance or the removal of bias. You’re not supposed to get conclusions and unvarnished opinions passed on as hard news stories by supposedly upstanding news journals. If you take your information from them, you take it with that knowledge.[/quote]

Sure, you do, I do, but there are plenty of people that don’t. You know as well as I do that the people that put that shit on television take advantage of that fact, as do some politicians, pundits and spokespeople.

It’s shameful.

Anyway, if we want to play word games, what is the meaning of torture?

If we want to talk about moral relativism as a liberal flaw, when is torture ok?

Those two items are really pointed at H2, but come on, there are political games being played all over the place. All I’m wanting is to help uncover the real information and let people decide based on that.

If you want to get down to what the plans that Clinton left behind contained, and whether or not they were taken seriously, and we can get at that type of information, then we have moved the debate ahead light years from the crap and spin actually being discussed right now.

I think you and I both know that. I’m in favor of that, getting down to the truth, and I’m going to keep on talking about the ridiculous antics that I see, you go ahead and do so if you notice them on the other end of the spectrum, I’m all for it!

75

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
What the hell are you talking about? We could raise the defense budget by slahing the absurd pork barrel spending that has gone on under Bush’s watch

[…]

we could make the CIA engage in careful, humane interrogations that won’t alienate the millions we are now driving into the arms of radical Islamists…

I agree with you 100% that pork barrel spending under Bush is WAY out of control, But I’d like to know what kind of “humane” interrogations would extract the necessary information.

Do you honestly believe that a religious zealout is going to caugh up relevent information under “humane” conditions? To think so is ridiculas.

-Bigflamer

Well its you vs. every single expert on the subject and our military. The ONLY way to get reliable information with out consequences is to not torture. I’m guessing that’s why intelligent people are against it.

It’s almost like the reality is THE EXACT opposite of what you just said.

Not suprising.

Utterly false. The pro “torture” guys do not want their face on TV.[/quote]

No, still utterly true.

You said:
Do you honestly believe that a religious zealout is going to caugh up relevent information under “humane” conditions? To think so is ridiculas.

Despite the fact that this is one of the stupidest things posted here (low bar amongst the yellow elephant brigade)…it is refuted BY EVERBODY FAMILIAR WITH THE SUBJECT AND ALL THE EVIDENCE.

You have military commanders testifying all the useful information they’ve gotten was through traditional methods, and still you pull this s–t out…jeebus!

76

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

I’m not saying it was all the Republicans’ fault- the Democrats voted for the war too.

Actuall NONE did.

The AUMF gave the president the authority to carry a “big stick”. While they should have known Bush was lying when he said war was a last resort—they certainly did not vote “for war”.

Still it’s enraging to think some were dumb enough to believe the president.

Bullshit. The US has not declared war since WW2.

Both sides knew exactly what they were voting for. Bush made it very clear it was going to be a war if Saddam did not cave in.[/quote]

Clear as in last resort?
is the AUMF a vote for war?
yes or no? be honest…

77

[quote]100meters wrote:

Despite the fact that this is one of the stupidest things posted here (low bar amongst the yellow elephant brigade)…it is refuted BY EVERBODY FAMILIAR WITH THE SUBJECT AND ALL THE EVIDENCE.

You have military commanders testifying all the useful information they’ve gotten was through traditional methods, and still you pull this s–t out…jeebus!

[/quote]

Okay - so you are an expert at blaming Bush based on only one sentence in one paragraph - never mind that the NIE is designed to be a CYA document that basically says “it can be this” - or - “it could be that”.

IMO - the NIE means nothing as it can be interpreted any way you want to interperet it.

But that aside - the whole ABB contingent both here and in Washington has been crying to cut and run, or wanting to impeach Bush.

I have a question for you. What do you do about Iraq? There was a column in the WaPo today about that very subject. What do you do about Iraq?

You could very well sweep the elections if the ABBer’s would just answer that one question. No one will answer it though as you are all preoccupied with hating Bush.

Once more - What do the ABBer’s do about Iraq?

78

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:

Uh, no–the report does not confirm Bush’s contention that the war is making us safer. And since reporters who’ve had access to those who’ve read the entire report say it’s incredibly bleak, it really doesn’t make you wonder.

Let’s see – reporters who have had access to people who leaked classified information but have not seen the classified information are reporting that such leakers of classified information are telling the reporters that the report paints a bleak picture… it does make me wonder a bit on whether “reporting” consists of passing along, without bothering to verify, the opinions of sources with dubious motivations.
[/quote]

Uhhmmm…well they’ve been dead-on with this one…It doesn’t paint the same picture Bush has. The point is reality differs from what Bush says, and yet still he has “supporters”…

79

[quote]JeffR wrote:
BB,

Another point that must be considered. If the dems swallow the increased recruiting of terrorists since the war began, they must also swallow that Iraq is the central front on the war.

They can’t scream that it’s Bush’s fault without accepting that we have no choice but to truly win in Iraq.

If they advocate pulling out of Iraq, the NIE states that they will have given the jihadists a victory that they will exploit.

Therefore, for all of you snivelers who demand an Iraq pullout, remember you are also advocating the defeat of the United States.

JeffR[/quote]

Jeffr:

“Ok, yeah, we f–ked up, ok? we blew it and made a real big mess…but what are you guys gonna do about it?!”

Why must we always pick up the pieces of your messes… And you’re wrong anyway, because a better Iraq may hinge on less troops there, not to mention your president has no plans on fixing Iraq otherwise 3x the troops would be there now. Either way the solutions rely on other people in power.

80

[quote]rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:

Despite the fact that this is one of the stupidest things posted here (low bar amongst the yellow elephant brigade)…it is refuted BY EVERBODY FAMILIAR WITH THE SUBJECT AND ALL THE EVIDENCE.

You have military commanders testifying all the useful information they’ve gotten was through traditional methods, and still you pull this s–t out…jeebus!

Okay - so you are an expert at blaming Bush based on only one sentence in one paragraph - never mind that the NIE is designed to be a CYA document that basically says “it can be this” - or - “it could be that”.

IMO - the NIE means nothing as it can be interpreted any way you want to interperet it.

But that aside - the whole ABB contingent both here and in Washington has been crying to cut and run, or wanting to impeach Bush.

I have a question for you. What do you do about Iraq? There was a column in the WaPo today about that very subject. What do you do about Iraq?

You could very well sweep the elections if the ABBer’s would just answer that one question. No one will answer it though as you are all preoccupied with hating Bush.

Once more - What do the ABBer’s do about Iraq?

[/quote]

By defintion the only people that can do anything about Iraq would be ABB’ers.
1.can we win with the current troop footprint? (obviously not)
2.Can we increase it 3x? (don’t have the boots/political will)
3.That leaves what? Redeployment-perhaps into friendly kurdistan/splitting iraq into 3 pieces and political/financial support(by people who know what they’re doing–not the current idiots).

your guys don’t have the balls to do 2 or 3, that leaves 1. Not good, and painfully totally predicted.