LOL. I’m not spewing insults and hatred like you are… I’m afraid the onus is on you.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I do think however that he is simply a lightning rod for right wing hate mongering.[/quote]
Could the same not be said of Bush and leftist hate mongering?
I think so.
flamer,
That makes it better or appropriate because… ?
[quote]100meters wrote:
With regards to [Alito] lying.
Puts down CAP on resume. A racist organization, Period. Is Alito a racist? NO! He put it down, because he thought it would look good to those hiring him.(Attny. Gen. Meese–Alito cited CAP in 1985(not during Carter)) and it DID!
Does he really not remember doing this, or belonging of joining? Of course he does! But how on earth could he admit it, because then he’s admitting to lying to get jobs (saying/writing anything down to get a job—supreme court judge for one)
Of course asking him about CAP is not a giant crock of crap—HIS ANSWER IS!
“I don’t recollect” is not a credible/honest answer.[/quote]
Unsurprisingly, I completely disagree.
It’s quite credible to not remember one organization one listed oneself as being a member of on one line of a 20-year-old employment application. It becomes even more credible if you believe your explanation as to why he put it there: because he thought it might impress Meese. If he was a member, but his membership was limited to subscribing to the magazine or some other de minimus type of contact, why would he remember this little factoid?
Coincidentally, at least one of the articles Kennedy read from during the hearings was apparently meant to be a satire. Whether it was a funny satire is not a point I can argue, not having read it, but it does show either that Kennedy was going to amazing links to attempt to smear Alito, or that he didn’t bother researching his slanders too carefully.
I don’t know much about CAP, other than I’ve seen come claims about its supposed positions on admitting women/minorities (though I’ve seen no corroborations of those claims). I do know the only link between Alito and CAP seems to be the one reference on one employment application from over 20 years ago…
So, to me, quite plausible.
[quote]100meters wrote:
As for coached.
Feingold:
I?m going to say that I am still somewhat troubled by the idea that you were prepared for this hearing by some lawyers who were very much involved in promoting the purported legal justification for the NSA wiretapping program?.
I note, for example, that one of the people who participated in these sessions was Benjamin Powell. He recently advised President Bush on intelligence matters and was just given a recess appointment as general counsel to the national intelligence director.
I also see the name of White House Counsel Harriet Miers on the list. And she, obviously, is involved in the president?s position on this matter.
and Graham:
“On Thursday, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the ?gang of 14? who sits on Judiciary, joined a so-called moot court session at the White House.”
These ARE coaching sessions.[/quote]
Not necessarily. There’s a difference between coaching, which would imply they were telling him what to say because he wasn’t smart enough to come up with answers himself or because they wanted things presented in a certain way, and preparing for questioning, by going over subjects on which he was likely to be questioned – likely reviewing his opinions and discussing his reasoning on the opinions brought up by the various liberal organizations in their “scare” memos.
Seeing as how you weren’t there, I think it’s an awfully big assumption on your part to affirmatively assert the sessions must have been the former, especially given 1) Alito’s keen intellect and 2) His previous nervousness in his 3rd Cir. confirmation hearings. It seems much more likely he just wanted to practice his Q&A and review facts on things he was likely to be questioned on (and no, CAP doesn’t count as such, as that wasn’t exactly an anticipated line of questioning - another reason to believe Alito when he said he didn’t recall).
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Not necessarily. There’s a difference between coaching, which would imply they were telling him what to say because he wasn’t smart enough to come up with answers himself or because they wanted things presented in a certain way, and preparing for questioning, by going over subjects on which he was likely to be questioned – likely reviewing his opinions and discussing his reasoning on the opinions brought up by the various liberal organizations in their “scare” memos.
Seeing as how you weren’t there, I think it’s an awfully big assumption on your part to affirmatively assert the sessions must have been the former, especially given 1) Alito’s keen intellect and 2) His previous nervousness in his 3rd Cir. confirmation hearings. It seems much more likely he just wanted to practice his Q&A and review facts on things he was likely to be questioned on (and no, CAP doesn’t count as such, as that wasn’t exactly an anticipated line of questioning - another reason to believe Alito when he said he didn’t recall).[/quote]
CAP was anticipated! And answers with regards to executive power etc. were surely coached. This has nothing to do with his brilliance as a person (he is). Surely you’d agree there’s a preferred way to answer certain questions? I doubt very little was fact checking, this isn’t Harriet Meiers.
Why are you polluting this thread with this nonsense?
There is an Alito thread already.
FightinIrish26 wrote:
So what’s your point? I said this war is about oil. You respond that “Yes, this war is about oil”. Great.
Opposing the Soviet Union was something that had to be done. I can understand Carter’s issues with this.
However, there was no excuse this time. I don’t care at all if you, or any other neocon, is getting tired of hearing that this war, and every action in the Middle East, is about oil. Not about freedom- about oil. Just because you are “tired of hearing it” it doesn’t mean its a lie, it just means gasp it might be true.
Actually I didn’t say anything about the war being about oil. Somehow you came up with that. I said we have had and will continue to have a strong military presence in the area. Please explain to me how a strong presence in the area, a presence that has been long ago been put in place, ties into a war for oil.
If we are already established in the area military wise, what sense does it make to go to war for oil? If we just wanted to control the oil pipelines we would not need near the manpower that we have in theater now. I hope you don’t believe the reason we have troops in so many cities in Iraq is because there is oil in all these cities.
As for Carter and the Soviets, I doubt you were even alive when all this was going on, so you probably have no idea what the issues were. I also doubt Carter even understood all the issues with the Soviets. Maybe he should of asked his daughter Amy about it.
Maybe getting tired of hearing about the war was the wrong choice of words. I am getting tired of hearing this Soros-inspired drivel that is not backed up by any credible facts.
By the way, what was the excuse for the Bosnia war? Have you ever done any checking on that? Maybe if/when you do you will see it is not the first time we have recently went to war on bogus intel, to cause a regime change.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Why are you polluting this thread with this nonsense?
There is an Alito thread already.[/quote]
Yes. My bad.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Why are you polluting this thread with this nonsense?
There is an Alito thread already.
Yes. My bad.[/quote]
Now we can back back to our regularly scheduled nonsense.
“This war is all about oil.”
“Is not.”
“Is too.”
“Liberal”
“Neo-con”
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
“This war is all about oil.”
“Is not.”
“Is too.”
“Liberal”
“Neo-con”
[/quote]
Or better, “what terror training camps?”
What is the point of fake articles like this one? The article doesn’t say anything about terror camps, places like Salman Pak have long been debunked, there still is no real meaningful connection to Al queda, and of course no link to 9/11.
I guess its a little fodder for the really nutty wingnuts out there, but boy what a waste of time.
shorter stephen hayes article:
“unknown documents, that haven’t been analyzed, may show something.”
Thank you, Stephen Hayes.
Vice President Cheney then touts up this pointless article as:
“Well, I think Steve Hayes has done an effective job in his article of laying out a lot of those connections.”(to Al Queda)
Of course there is no mention of Al queda in connection to Iraq in the article.
But
he
just
can’t
stop
lying.
They’re releasing more of the Iraq translated documents – they don’t seem to be getting too much play in the press as of yet.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&issue=20060316
Declassified Truth
Posted 3/16/2006
The War On Terror: The government is finally getting around to unloading some of Saddam Hussein’s secret documents. A look at just a few pages already leads to some blockbuster revelations.
In the early stages of the war that began three years ago, the U.S. captured thousands of documents from Saddam and his spy agency, the Mukhabarat. It’s been widely thought the documents could shed light on why Saddam behaved as he did and how much of a threat his evil regime represented.
Yet, until this week, the documents lay molding in boxes in a government warehouse. Now the first batch is out, and though few in number, they’re loaded with information.
Among the enduring myths of those who oppose the war is that Saddam, though murderous when it came to his own people, had no weapons of mass destruction and no terrorist designs outside his own country. Both claims now lie in tatters.
As we’ve reported several times, a number of former top military officials in Saddam’s regime have come forward to admit that, yes, Saddam had WMD, hid them and shipped them out of the country so they couldn’t be detected. And he had plans to make more.
Now come more revelations that leave little doubt about Saddam’s terrorist intentions. Most intriguing from a document dump Wednesday night is a manual for Saddam’s spy service, innocuously listed as CMPC-2003-006430. It makes for interesting reading.
Here, for instance, are the marching orders for Directorate 8, the Mukhabarat’s “Technical Affairs” department: “The Eight Directorate is responsible for development of materials needed for covert offensive operations. It contains advanced laboratories for testing and production of weapons, poisons and explosives.”
It goes on. Directorate 9, we discover, “is one of the most important directorates in the Mukhabarat. Most of its work is outside Iraq in coordination with other directorates, focusing on operations of sabotage and assassination.”
The document also discusses the Mukhabarat’s Office 16, set up to train “agents for clandestine operations abroad.” The document helpfully adds that “special six-week courses in the use of of terror techniques are provided at a camp in Radwaniyhah.”
Got that? Terror techniques.
Even as the media studiously avoid these new documents ? just as they avoided 500 hours of Saddam’s personal tapes showing his scheming on WMD ? it’s clear the U.S. did the right thing in invading Iraq and taking out a formative terrorist threat.
Saddam had close ties to al-Qaida. That’s not just our opinion, but also that of the 9-11 Commission Report that so many in the media have selectively cited to bolster the case against the war.
As Chairman Thomas Kean said the day the report was released: “There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida.”
As such, we were heartened to see that President Bush on Thursday reaffirmed the U.S. will continue to fight a pre-emptive war on terror ? accompanied by news that the U.S. had launched Operation Swarmer, its largest anti-insurgent offensive since 2003.
Polls be damned ? that’s how a war is fought.
Related Resources:
Here’s some more interesting information on newly declassified documents:
More GWOT documents are released
Athena at Terrorism Unveiled ( http://www.terrorismunveiled.com/athena/2006/03/docex_goes_publ.html )describes the release of more war-related documents for public review and the challenges it will create.
[i]Recently, the public has been tossed a gem of what was previously unavailable open-source: Guantanamo Bay transcripts of detainee interrogations. There is an all-out organized effort to sift through these transcripts (some sets which are very lengthy), and write-up nuggets of information found within them. See GroupIntel for more. Thus far, Dan Darling has done a relentless job at reviewing them and has sent along overviews.[/i]
But Athena adds this caution.
But, herein lies the problem. Experienced analysts are needed, yet ones who haven’t been stymied into accepting and spouting the typical intel community line. What’s needed are analysts who can offer solid assessments based on the data. And from that, offer predictions that, inherently, cannot be within the data.
Commentary
The release of detainee interrogation transcripts is unlikely to be the last event of the sort. There are many other research situations, some in the natural sciences, where there is more data than human analytical capability which can benefit from a dataset release to the public. Data dumps may not long be confined to Iraq-related documents. Supposing that were so, the organization of the blogosphere itself is likely to evolve to meet the challenge. Since not all bloggers will be equally interested in detainee interrogations, networks of specialists are likely to arise in order to perform data mining. A market in information nuggets will probably arise to consume the product.
If I am broadly right then there will probably be a demand for information tools which will allow for collaborative analysis of large data sets. A surprising number of tools are already available commercially, including Instant Messaging, e-mail and various types of groupware. HTTP itself allows the authoring of documents which one can progressively “drill-down” until a source document is reached. And specialized software or portals could be written to enhance collaboration among a distributed group of researchers. It sounds pretty exciting. Considering the general rise of knowledge workers in the economy, these developments are not only natural but probably inevitable.
Societies with well educated, technically capable populations and a large degree of freedom will benefit the most from opportunities like these, while restrictive societies will benefit least. While it would seem natural for bloggers in the Arab world to best take advantage interrogation transcripts or untranslated documents, it may be Israelis, many of whom understand Arabic and English, who will have the initial lead because of their technical sophistication and unrestricted access to the Internet. As the information economy spreads there will be economic pressure on restrictive societies, including Osama’s, where women are confined, to adapt or be left behind. Philip Bobbitt wrote that America’s key strategic adaptation during the Cold War was developing the Globalized economy in its face-off with world Communism. To Bobbitt, Globalization was America’s Communism-killer – it forced Communist societies to stop being Communist in order to survive – and the catalyst for unanticipated terrorist challenges from the Third World. It will be interesting to see what the shift to the Information Economy will do to radical Islam, just as to note what future enemies will be engendered by it.
Those documents they captured are starting to be translated – and showing connections between Saddam and terrorism – including al Queda.
Excerpt:
This original translation by my translator-colleague, who goes by the nom de guerre of “Sammi,” comes from a notebook kept by an Iraqi intelligence agent. It provides evidence of a cooperative, operational relationship agreed to at the highest levels of the Iraqi government and the Taliban. The notebook is lengthy and we will present it on the FOX News Web site in a series of postings. It deals extensively with meetings between Maulana Fazlur Rahman, an Al Qaeda/Taliban supporter, and Taha Yassin Ramadan, the former vice president of Iraq, and other unnamed Iraqi officials.
Ramadan also was Saddam Hussein’s chief enforcer, making sure Saddam’s orders were carried out by Iraqi officials. He is discussed in a 2002 BBC article ( BBC NEWS | Middle East | Obituary: Taha Yassin Ramadan ) that stated "Washington showed considerable interest in him well before the Iraq war this spring, after opposition forces claimed he hosted Usama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, in Baghdad in 1998. He currently is under detention and facing trial in Baghdad along with Saddam. Also present at the discussion recorded in the notebook is Maulana Fazlur Rahman, a Pakistani cleric described in another 2002 article from the BBC Profile ( BBC NEWS | South Asia | Profile: Maulana Fazlur Rahman ): Maulana Fazlur Rahman as “A pro-Taliban cleric in Pakistan ? one of the two main contenders for the post of the country’s prime minister.” The BBC also said that “Maulana Fazlur Rahman ? is known for his close ties to Afghanistan’s ousted Taliban regime.”
They aren’t getting play because unless you spin them, they aren’t very interesting at all.
Somewhere in there I’m sure they’ve got detailed plans for a car that runs on water too… go check.
‘The government… has just… disclosed secret Iraqi documents… which were previously collecting dust… until now… The information within them proves that we were right…’
…
‘…And they lived happily ever after…’
LOL
Good stuff BB.
Anyone with a brainstem could have guessed saddam was in league with lucifer.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Good stuff BB.
Anyone with a brainstem could have guessed saddam was in league with lucifer.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
JeffR[/quote]
So then you’d be friends with the Nazi’s since they are also enemies of your enemies? Or are they also your enemies?
You gotta love these sound-byte motto philosophies they are so edgy and clever.
[quote]Sepukku wrote:
‘The government… has just… disclosed secret Iraqi documents… which were previously collecting dust… until now… The information within them proves that we were right…’
…
‘…And they lived happily ever after…’
LOL[/quote]
They weren’t translated previously – there are still a lot of documents that they took that haven’t been translated yet.
[quote]vroom wrote:
They aren’t getting play because unless you spin them, they aren’t very interesting at all.
Somewhere in there I’m sure they’ve got detailed plans for a car that runs on water too… go check.[/quote]
That’s right vroom – unless you spin contacts with al Queda in the years leading up to the war, they aren’t very interesting.
[quote]sepukku wrote:
So then you’d be friends with the Nazi’s since they are also enemies of your enemies? Or are they also your enemies?
You gotta love these sound-byte motto philosophies they are so edgy and clever. [/quote]
Dear little fellow:
Who exactly are the nazi and United States’ common enemies?
I do believe the nazi’s were allied with all of our enemies. Oh, you remember the tripartite pact? The axis? Drawing a blank. Ok, germany, italy, and japan.
Coincidentally, they were who we declared war against.
I know, you didn’t think about it.
Since you lack comprehension skills, please ask someone to help you next time. You might not look as silly.
Thanks,
JeffR