It's taken three days, but the official White House spin regarding Libby's testimony is starting to emerge. David Sanger and David Johnston of the New York Times have the official line:
A senior administration official confirmed for the first time on Sunday that President Bush had ordered the declassification of parts of a prewar intelligence report on Iraq in an effort to rebut critics who said the administration had exaggerated the nuclear threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
But the official said that Mr. Bush did not designate Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., or anyone else, to release the information to reporters.
Sanger and Johnston provide this bit of analysis:
The disclosure appeared intended to bolster the White House argument that Mr. Bush was acting well within his legal authority when he ordered that key conclusions of the classified National Intelligence Estimate, which was completed in the fall of 2002, should be revealed to make clear that intelligence agencies believed Mr. Hussein was seeking uranium in Africa.
Moreover, the disclosure seemed intended to suggest that Mr. Bush may have played only a peripheral role in the release of the classified material and was uninformed about the specifics — like the effort to dispatch Mr. Libby to discuss the estimate with reporters.
The White House is trying to walk a fine line here. On the one hand, in order to characterize everything as being above board, they are forced to confirm Libby's claim that the President personally authorized the release of information from the NIE, a decision which amounted to de facto "declassification." On the other hand, they are hoping to distance the President as much as possible from Libby's subsequent actions, i.e., misrepresenting the NIE, asking that the information be attributed to a "former Hill staffer," and outing an undercover CIA agent in the process.
So, after three days, they've settled on their spin: the President authorized discussion of the NIE but left all the details to Cheney and his aides.
The problem with this strategy is that Libby was quite specific in his testimony about what he was authorized to say. According to Fitzgerald, Libby testified that he was "specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller." Later Fitzgerald notes:
Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium.
So, according to Libby, he was authorized to discuss the key judgments section of the NIE, specifically the part that said Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium.
But here's the problem for the White House. There is no such section. As Walter Pincus points out in today's Washington Post:
Some of Libby's comments about the NIE that he made to reporter Judith Miller, then of the New York Times, on July 8, 2003, were inaccurate. Libby said one "key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium." That was not an NIE key judgment, and the CIA officials who wrote the document disputed that statement.
Moreover, according to Judy Miller's account of the conversation, Libby told her that the NIE "firmly concluded that Iraq was seeking uranium" and that "the assessments of the classified estimate were even stronger than those in the unclassified version." This is, of course, entirely untrue.
In other words, Libby badly misrepresented the portion of the NIE he claims he was authorized to divulge--the key judgments section--and actually cites language buried in the text of the NIE. Because the entire NIE has never been declassified, it very much matters which portions of the document the President claims to have authorized Libby to discuss. Did the President only "declassify" the key judgments section, or did he also "declassify" the portion of the text that Libby misrepresented to Miller? Did Bush or Cheney instruct Libby to describe that section, falsely, as a "key judgment"?
This is not just a minor semantic point either. There is an important difference between the key judgments and the less credible data points found elsewhere in the NIE. And this distinction was not lost on reporters at the time. When portions of the NIE were "officially" declassified on July 18, 2003, the White House held a background briefing. At that briefing, the following exchange took place between the briefer and (I believe) Wendell Goler of Fox News (emphasis is mine):
Q. Second question. The information about Africa did not rise to the level of a key judgment, it is not listed as one. The NIE is not meant to come out of the President's mouth -- at best, key judgments are. So why was the information, if it did not rise to the level of a key judgment, why was the information put in the President's speech?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, you made an assertion inside your question, where you're saying that the President is not supposed to cite the NIE. There are ways in which the President can assert the NIE if it's cleared through the process.
Q. But the other things the President asserts are key judgments. The Africa stuff, the uranium stuff did not rise to that level.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The NIE is a 90-page document. All those documents provide facts. The key judgments are not -- do not include everything in the 90 pages, or it wouldn't be key judgments, it would be the report, itself. And in this case, there were very specific data points provided in writing in the NIE that were included. That's why it was included in the speech by the speechwriters. There was not anybody specifically saying, put this in there; it was included based on a body of information that was provided. And then is the fact-checking progress that clears whether information like that could be used or not.
There are many points, there are central points to the reconstitution of the nuclear program -- those are outlined in the key points. But that doesn't mean that other elements of the case of why they believe it was reconstituting were not accurate.
Q. I don't think you've addressed the question -- let me try a different way. Name me another assertion the President made that failed to rise to the level of a key judgment.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I can't do that here today. I will be happy to look for that, but I'm not here -- I don't have the NIE and every speech the President has given memorized.
Q. I'm just talking about in this specific case. In the case of the State of the Union address from the '02 NIE, can you show me another assertion the President made that didn't rise to the level of a key judgment?
[snip]
Q. Isn't the reason this didn't rise to the level of a key judgment because there was so much disagreement --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don't know.
Q -- and the sources were so weak?
Because Libby so badly misrepresented the content of the NIE, it is very difficult for the White House to claim that the President authorized the disclosure without also implicating the President in a rather egregious bit of deception. That's why it's important that reporters press the White House on the specifics of Bush's "declassification" order. Which portions of the NIE did the President want reporters to know about and how did he want those portions to be represented? These are important questions, not just politically but legally. Only the portions of the NIE Bush actually mentioned can even arguably be described as having been declassified.
If reporters do their jobs and press the White House for answers to these questions, they may end up driving a wedge between the White House, on one side, and Libby and Cheney on the other. Up until now, the White House has been very careful not to say anything bad about Libby or to do anything to add to his legal troubles. Their worst fear is that Libby will flip and begin cooperating with Fitzgerald, a move that would spell disaster for the Vice President. But if Libby's testimony continues to cause political headaches for the White House--and it will if reporters continue to connect the dots--we will start to see a noticeable rift development between the White House and the Vice President's Office. Today's White House spin is the first sign of it.
From AL:
ReplyDelete"It's taken three days, but the official White House spin regarding Libby's testimony is starting to emerge."
And a pathetic mess it is, too. Still, if nothing else this simply proves Rove and company aren't really geniuses when it comes to politics.
This section of the quoted conversation seems rather relevant as well. It contains an acknowledgement that a procedure needs to be followed for even the president to cite classified information:
ReplyDelete"Well, you made an assertion inside your question, where you're saying that the President is not supposed to cite the NIE. There are ways in which the President can assert the NIE if it's cleared through the process."
If there is a process, there should be a paper trail that shows which sections of the NIE were declassified.
Another question is: given that more than just key findings were declassified, how is it in the national interest to present a distorted picture by not declassifying anything that contradicts the administration's objectives?
Hey, I gave you guys props on the Diane Rehm show this morning...
ReplyDeleteNice post. A couple thoughts to add (cribbed from this VichyDems post):
ReplyDeleteAbout Bush's power to "declassify":
[M]ost commentators jumped to the conclusion that such "declassification" is within the President's scope of power.
I question that legal analysis: the President didn't "declassify" those documents, he leaked them (in fact, official declassification efforts continued after that leak). If Jimmy Carter had secretly handed the Soviet ambassador targeting data for the U.S. nuclear arsenal, or Bill Clinton had been caught disclosing troop deployment plans to Somali warlords, they would have been impeached as traitors, not defended as having "de facto declassified" those documents.
An under-remembered indicator that Cheney also was trying to lead the hunters away from Bush but may have incriminated himself in so doing:
Adding tinder to the fire is a tantalizing bit of info I haven't seen anyone mention yet in connection with the new disclosures: the misleading way the White House initially tried to "spin" this story back in February, when Libby's Nurenburg ("my bosses told me to") defense first surfaced and Cheney (in an interview on Fox News) tried to make himself (rather than Bush) the target of inquiry:
"WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney says he has the power to declassify government secrets, raising the possibility that he authorized his former chief of staff to pass along sensitive prewar data on Iraq to reporters."
*** [I]t now looks as if taking the heat off Bush -- by offering disinformation about his own authority in a strained non-sequitur to a question that didn't really ask for it -- was the real reason Cheney gave that interview in the first place. In other words, the disclosure last Thursday of Bush's role in leaking classified intelligence to reporters shows Cheney's February interview for what it was: a fairly clumsy attempt to distract reporters and investigators from looking too closely at Bush. It was, in short, a cover-up.
My question is: did Cheney take the same line in 2004 when he was questioned by Fitzgerald?... [T]here is reason to think he did:
About why Bush may not be able to build a firewall between himself and Cheney (or: where we should be focusing our efforts to STOP him from getting away from building a firewall):
[W]hen special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald interviewed Bush and Cheney in 2004, did he ask either or both of them whether Bush had authorized disclosure of classified intelligence? If so, did they tell him the truth? Because if they didn't, then one or both of them are guilty of obstruction of justice -- an impeachable offense if ever there was one. (Remember that Libby is being prosecuted for obstructing Fitzgerald's inquiry (h/t Bob for the link), and that the "twentieth hijacker", Zacarias Moussaoui, is facing the death penalty for misleading federal investigators about the 9-11 plot.)
In fact, if one of them misled Fitzgerald, and the other failed to correct Fitzgerald's misimpression, that silence alone may be criminal and should, whether it's criminal or not, be impeachable. Given how closely Cheney manipulates works with Bush, I have difficulty imagining a scenario in which both of them aren't implicated if either of them misled the special prosecutor's investigation.
snip
I imagine a colloquy that can be summarized something like this:
Fitzgerald: "Mr. Libby testified to the grand jury that the President authorized him, via the Vice President, to disclose components of the classified National Intelligence Estimate to reporters in an effort to discredit Mr. Wilson. Was that testimony true?"
Cheney: "There was no effort to discredit Mr. Wilson."
Bush: "Whatever Dick said."
Any permutation of these facts that involves Cheney not being entirely forthcoming with Fitzgerald means that Cheney committed the impeachable offense -- literally, the high crime -- of obstruction of justice. And if Bush learned (from White House sources or from the special prosecutor's questions) either of Cheney's misdirection or of Fitzgerald's resultant misimpression, and did not correct the record in his later interview with Fitzgerald, then he committed an impeachable offense, too.
The trick will be to see that Fitz, the media and our brave Dem leadership don't let the inquiry stop at Cheney.
Connect the dots. Unlikely. I haven't seen any paper put this story in the context of Murray Waas's story about Rove and Hadley worrying that the President would not be re-elected if it became known that portions of the NIE, which the President had been made aware of, contradicted the claims he and others were making regarding Iraq's nuclear ambitions.
ReplyDeletethe really fine line the white house is walking is this
ReplyDeletebetween protecting the president by claiming he played no part in the actual leaking, per se,
and
giving libby, or someone close to him, a sense of white house betrayal
who will then begin to sing
unwelcome songs
of the white house propaganda campaign
to reporters or prosecutors.
ender said...
ReplyDelete"What do you suppose goes through Bush's mind when contemplates what lie is now needed to cover his previous lies?"
Does a wooden marionette contemplate it's next move or does it just have to wait for the strings to be pulled by someone else? IMO Bush is more of an empty vessel waiting to be filled with what ever comes next by others.
Whig,
ReplyDeleteBart will respond to some trivial part of the post and use that to claim the thesis is wrong. He will then refer to Clinton or Carter in some derogatory manner.
There will be no direct point by point rebuttal to AL's argument, nor any other that shows Bush is a liar and a malignant president who governs first and foremost for his own good, and even then he gets it wrong.
The key point, I think, is that even if the Supreme Court were to run unanimously that Bush has the power to ad-hoc declassify things, it is clearly an abuse of his authority to declassify only the evidence that supports his case while ignoring the evidence against, or for members of his administration to lie about the importance the experts placed on pieces of evidence. The (fictional) uranium purchase attempt was not a key finding, and Libby portrayed them as such, and Bush himself did by specifically mentioning it in the SOTU.
That's what's called a lie of omission, and impeachable. It would be akin to finding a quote by a member of the Iranian government calling for war with the US, using that to justify war, but ignoring the fact that the Ayatollah or the President of Iran fired that person and refuted the call for war.
The American people have the right to have a president who makes the best judgements he can using all the available evidence, not merely the stuff he agrees with.
Of course, we also know this information "declassification" was not done in the interest of national security, but instead as a vicous partisan attack on a perceived political foe.
Please explain to us, Bart or any Bush supporter, how releasing Valerie Plame's covert identity was in the national interest. Don't claim she wasn't covert, she was. Her identity was not widely known, that's a lie. When her status was published, her coworkers and sources in other countries were put in jeapordy. Revealing the id of any covert operative puts everyone they know, speak to etc at risk, because a hostile government may decide to liquidate anyone tied to them, just to be sure.
I hope Bart responds in latin and MEOWS. I really get his points when he does that.
ReplyDeleteI don't seem to be getting much traction with this argument, but I still contend that if Libby's testimony can be believed, Bush had not declassified the NIE material at the time Libby was authorized to disclose it. This is how Libby's testimony is characterized in last week's filing by Fitz:
ReplyDelete"Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter MIller - getting approval from the President through the Vice President to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval - were unique in his recollection."
According to Libby, Bush purported to give some kind of limited "use" declassification, i.e., Libby could disclose it to an unauthorized recipient (such as Judy Miller) but the material was not otherwise declassified. This concept doesn't exist in Bush's own Exec. Order regarding classification or any prior Exec. Order or federal law regarding declassification. The very concept of "use" declassification results in an absurdity: the material continues to be classified because of its potential harm to national security but it is permitted to be disclosed to unauthorized persons who may well further disclose it, thereby harming national security.
The power of the President to classify and declassify information is not unfettered. To the extent it is rooted in his constitutional powers to protect national security it requires a finding by the President that disclosure will harm the national interest. The problem for Bush is that he cannot purport to satisfy the condition to classification by finding that disclosure would harm the national interest and then simultaneously decide that disclosure to reporters would not harm the national interest. The finding necessary to maintain classification is irreconcilable with the finding necessary to permit disclosure, and the two conclusions are mutually exclusive.
Since the President's classification powers in Article II are based upon his powers to protect national security, then there is no escaping the fact that Bush is required to make determinations regarding classification based on whether disclosure would harm national security. Take your pick - Bush violated his Article II powers when he maintained the classification subject to Libby's limited "use" declassification, or he violated his Article II powers when he permitted disclosure to unauthorized persons even as he was continuing the classification based on his finding that disclosure would be harmful.
Bush can't have it both ways.
Am I making sense? Libby's testimony contradicts White House claims that the material was declassified. There is no such thing as the kind of limited declassification Libby describes, and the very definition of "classified information" in Bush's Exec. Order bears this out. "Classified Information" is defined as information with respect to which it is necessary to protect against unauthorized disclosure. Bush could not purport to maintain any degree of classification while simultaneously authorizing Libby's disclosures.
Great points and analysis, but if the MSM isn't willing to carry the facts to the people, will do little good.
ReplyDeleteI too see it as a "catch-22" but then logics doesn't prevail among the repugs -- criminality does.
This administration is guilty of treason, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. To put themselves in power to commit these acts, they stole 2 elections. Since taking over our government, they have totally eliminated free, fair, open, and verifiable elections.
GREAT CRIMES DEMAND ONGOING CRIMINALITY -- so nothing would surprise me know.
Rove and company aren't really geniuses when it comes to politics.
ReplyDeleteOF COURSE THEY ARE NOT!!!!! They would not have stolen 2 "accountability moments" if that were the case.
The would "welcome" free, verifiable, open, and fair elections if they were "geniuses" that stood for good policies. There would not even be a need for this thread.
The chimperor and gang of thieves did not get where they are today based on their own merits. They are doing the dirty work for someone else -- interest groups that prefer to stand anonymously in the background.
After all -- you have to be very quiet when you steal!
Who are these people? FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL.
It is facinating that the "speculators" that made fortunes off of 9/11 were never publically identified, isn't it?
"What do you suppose goes through Bush's mind when contemplates what lie is now needed to cover his previous lies?"
ReplyDeleteHe stepped across the room. There was a memory hole in the opposite wall. O'Brien lifted the grating. Unseen, the frail slip of paper was whirling away on the current of warm air; it was vanishing in a flash of flame. O'Brien turned away from the wall.
'Ashes,' he said. 'Not even identifiable ashes. Dust. It does not exist. It never existed.'
'But it did exist! It does exist! It exists in memory. I remember it. You remember it.'
'I do not remember it,' said O'Brien.
Winston's heart sank. That was doublethink. He had a feeling of deadly helplessness. If he could have been certain that O'Brien was lying, it would not have seemed to matter. But it was perfectly possible that O'Brien had really forgotten the photograph. And if so, then already he would have forgotten his denial of remembering it, and forgotten the act of forgetting. How could one be sure that it was simple trickery? Perhaps that lunatic dislocation in the mind could really happen: that was the thought that defeated him.
Chronicles of Dissent points out:
ReplyDelete"Apart from the President acting as if there had indeed been disclosure of classified information, there are other facts in the timeline that raise serious doubts as to whether there really had been any declassification prior to the disclosure of Plame's identity. If the material had been declassified, how is that the CIA didn't know it was declassified by the time that they conducted and concluded their own investigation into the leak of Plame's name and identity or by the time they asked the DOJ to initiate its own investigation? And how is it that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald did not issue a clear statement to the public that there definitely had been no "leak" "
let's also be clear about another part of the overall strategy, namely to discredit patrick fitzgerald and his investigation. bill kristol announced this yesterday on FNS with some reluctance, but loudly and clearly nevertheless.
ReplyDeleteYou know, the leak story is absurd. But I now think the whole prosecution is absurd. And I hesitated to say this because I have friends who respect Fitzgerald. But I now think it's a politically motivated attempt to wound the Bush administration.[...]It seems to me that Fitzgerald's case is crumbling. He's refusing to close, incidentally, his investigation of Karl Rove and other people. You can read his 39-page rebuttal to Libby. He focuses now on Cheney. He is now out to discredit the Bush administration. He has bought the argument that there was something improper about the Bush administration responding to Joe Wilson's charges. And that's the real meaning of what's happened in these last few days, which is very dangerous for the Bush administration. They now have a special prosecutor out to discredit -- not to convict Scooter Libby, but out to discredit the administration.
rest assured that as the dean of the conservative elite media, kristol has set the party line that the underlings and lackeys will follow lockstep...
tom orange
p.s. ender, i'm certain bush thinks he's acting justly, honorably, and doing god's work. petty thief delay is quite open about it.
But the other problem is the tie in to the statements that outing Plame was a *side-issue* Cheny idea to rebutting Wilson via the NIE and through an insinuation of *nepotism* (”a junket set up by Mr. Wilson’s wife,”) are intertwined in this narrative. But neither set of circumstances are *innocent facts* garnered independant of the classified sources they came from.
ReplyDeleteThere is no way to get the NIE info out via Libby without this *claim* of a Presidential authorization to do so…but on Plame they are STUCK. This is not *innocently acquired information* - try as they might wish to claim “everyone knew she worked at the CIA” bullshit.
So - How DOES one get to the notion that this entire event could have been “a junket set up by Mr. Wilson’s wife,” without just *casually mentioning* Valerie Plame WORKED at the CIA?!?
This demonstrates not only a “conspiracy” at the highest levels to discredit Mr. Wilson – beginning with ole Dick-Yourself, but a deliberate effort to tie Wilson’s Niger visit to Mrs. Wilson as nepotism DIRECTLY OWING to her CIA employment/position!
And the only way to create that connection is to REVEAL she worked at the CIA. This can not be spun any other way.
I’ve said it before and each revelation makes the implications of these court filings Clear: This was a conspiracy to misuse classified information to discredit and punish a political opponent and an effort (negligently or otherwise) to reveal the identity of a Covert NOC CIA agent.
These are NOT the actions of *Patriots* but the crass political moves of TRAITORS to our Nation - selling out our undercover operatives and CIA officers/soldiers for payback political motives from the highest levels of our Government.
This Badmin is despicable and made up up of Incompetents, Cronies, Liars and Traitors - and on No Terms should they be allowed to keep running our government.
Wolf? There's a wolf at the door? My God! Grab the shotgun! (while loading) Where is it? Is it big? (closing breech and heading toward door) Who saw it first? "The NYT." (slowing to a stop) And who else? "The WaPo." Anyone else? "No" (handing back the gun) Call me if you get a credible report of a wolf, I'll be on the front porch. (opening door) Whew! The stench of burning hair is terrible. I wish you guys would quit doing that.
ReplyDeleteProps at 24:20 in "White House Disclosures" segment...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/06/04/10.php#10229
I hope Bart responds in latin and MEOWS. I really get his points when he does that.
ReplyDeleteLOL! :)
Wonder what Bart will say next.
ReplyDeleteBart actually never says anything -- he is a "copy and paste" troll that keeps his clipboard full of repug talking points.
He dumps them into this thread for the sole purpose of derailing meaningful discussion.
There is not "conversation" with a clipboard.
Bush is more of an empty vessel waiting to be filled with what ever comes next by others.
ReplyDeleteExactly, and that is why the people BEHIND this administration needed the alcoholic/cokehead idiot son of george I.
While waiting for his empty head to be filled, I am sure he is partaking in his favorite beverages and recreationals...
After all, this makes him the ideal tool to carry out his "marching orders" later...
Looks like a train wreck in progress. And Cheney appears to be in danger of getting thrown under the wheels. If so, it could happen to a nicer guy.
ReplyDeletePlease explain to us, Bart or any Bush supporter, how releasing Valerie Plame's covert identity was in the national interest.
ReplyDeleteDamn - wish you wouldn't do that, there is an endless amount of crap on the 'net that bart can fill his copy and paste into this thread.
There are any number of sites that keep text-based "talking points" available for this. Bart is never actually part of the discussion and it is obvious he is less and less "on-topic" and even reading the posts and comments today.
I respect your points and your right to post as you want -- but we give bart too much "credit".
Bart is a copy and paste troll...
NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS!
Longtime readers here will recall Glenn's smackdown of NRO bloggers George and Kellyanne Conway. Well, to my sheer astonishment, I just read this from George:
ReplyDeleteI voted for President Bush twice, and contributed to his campaign twice, but held my nose when I did it the second time. I don't consider myself a Republican any longer. Thanks to this Administration and the Republicans in Congress, the Republican Party today is the party of pork-barrel spending, Congressional corruption — and, I know folks on this web site don't want to hear it, but deep down they know it's true — foreign and military policy incompetence. Frankly, speaking of incompetence, I think this Administration is the most politically and substantively inept that the nation has had in over a quarter of a century. The good news about it, as far as I'm concerned, is that it's almost over. (my emphasis)
This signals something, if NRO is hosting such commentary from the likes of George Conway. Don't y'all think?
Frankly, speaking of incompetence, I think this Administration is the most politically and substantively inept that the nation has had in over a quarter of a century.
ReplyDeleteWow, he has just said that chimpy is worse than CLINTON!!!! An incredibly popular president that oversaw one of the greatest economic booms in US history while personally accepting the challenge and responsibility for paying of Govt debt and creating a surplus...
Course, he is leaving it open to specualtion that he seems to be stating that St Senile Ronny or Carter were more "incompetent"...
Don't get me wrong, I am grateful for this "progress"...
I do find it offensive when people seem to imply that stealing national elections, allowing 9/11, lying this country into a war of conquest based on lies, treason, war crimes, and crimes against humanity were somehow be OK if only they were executed more "efficiently" or "competently".
WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did you ever think you'd read the phrase sacrificial lamb and Cheney in the same sentence? It's obvious Bush thinks he needs Rove more than Cheney. He just doesn't get yet that it's over.
ReplyDeleteBamage:
ReplyDeleteI just listened to the segment on Diane Rehm show. Thanks for the shout out. I think your comment was pretty well received by the panelists.
Prof. Sunstein at the UofChicago Law School Blog thinks the issue is political so far.
ReplyDeleteFunny, some of you are suggesting that Bush is drinking again. I think he's been drinking all along; surely nobody believes that "I choked on a pretzel and fell down and banged my face" story, do you?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, why should Bush be any different from the rest of us, many of whom have been driven to drink by his administration?
Worst in a quarter century? Has any president in our history done this much damage? Maybe it's partly that they're more powerful, nowadays...
ReplyDeleteso, that's ok, then.
ReplyDeleteSo Bush authorized the exposure of Brewster Jennings? Is that what the White House is saying?
ReplyDelete"This signals something, if NRO is hosting such commentary from the likes of George Conway. Don't y'all think? "
ReplyDeleteyes. it signals the self interested recognition that the rest of the rethuglicans still have elections in which to prevail, and that to do so they must very soon distance themselves from "the problem", the problem being something other than rethuglican policies. the problem being in the execution of the good intentions that are never, ever reached by those who will never, ever, admit their policies are motivated by greed and hatred.
Anyway, why should Bush be any different from the rest of us, many of whom have been driven to drink by his administration?
ReplyDeleteMore to the point - he has been drinking and snorting all along because it makes him the ultimate tool. These personal attributes are why he was "chosen".
Does anyone really want to argue that the chimperor in leak and his gang of thieves are really calling all these shots?
LOL!
Well done, A.L.
ReplyDeleteAnd this doesn't even get into the fact that the ACTUAL "key judgements" about the Iraqi nuclear weapons program(s) in this NIE [an NIE that the White House was basically shamed into compiling late in 2002 by Senator Dick Durbin] were FLAT WRONG.
The 2002 NIE's "key judgements" about nuclear weapons in Iraq were basically that their nuclear weapons program was reconstituted, or well on its way to being reconstituted. Oops... Except it WASN'T. And when Scooter Libby was selectively leaking from the NIE to Judy Miller in July, 2003 -- it was already more than three months since the U.S. Army and Marines had spread out across the Iraqi countryside, searching high and low for this fantasy of a nuclear weapons facility or facilities. And more than two months since "Mission Accomplished" and all major "threats" had been subdued, according to the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces inside Iraq.
So - I guess ol' Scooter couldn't very well use the NIE's now obviously-debunked ACTUAL "key judgements" about nuclear weapons in Iraq to try to sway Ms. Miller to his side of the argument... Even SHE would have a hard time selling that spin to her editors with a straight face.
Chris from boca is right on.
ReplyDeleteThis represents nothing more than distancing themselves from the administration and the policies they supported and helped.
And in the end, it will only justify their own view that they are for a better and responsible government, made of Republicans, because this current government can't be "Republican".
Next time they'll support a true Republican.
If they don't recognize that the GOP's foundation is PR and misdirection, and that their values make them Democrats, nothing will be changed.
This is another example of blowing in the wind Republicanism.
The pile of sheep carcasses put off a stench that gagged the villagers. Once again the wolf sneaks in and murders the food supply. The villagers grabbed their shotguns and headed out to get the thing. On the way out they ran across the village idiot, notherbob. "Where y'all goin with them guns? Don't you know there aint been a wolf around here in 100 years?"
ReplyDeleteThey wiped the drool off his lip and escorted him back to his hovel, where his caretaker was cleaning feces off the walls of notherbobs bedchamber. "Where'd ya find him this time?" she queried. "Same old same old."
She put a new diaper on him and tucked notherbob in and gave him his dogeared copy of Rebel in Chief. "Don't use that to wipe your ass again. There's hardly any pages left."
Notherbob stared of into the darkness. "I love you georgie porgie. I love you georgie porgie. I love you georgie porgie," over and over and over until shit himself again. He reached into his diaper and took up a handful of what he called his "fingerpaint" and smeared and image of georgie on the wall and got down on his knees and began to pray to it.
celo writes: This represents nothing more than distancing themselves from the administration and the policies they supported and helped.
ReplyDeleteBut what to make then, of all the Bush-worshipping bloggers who are still insisting their man is righteous, and that all the "calumny" is coming from "defeatists" and "moonbats" assisted by the evil MSM?
I remember reading an article by George McGovern, I think it was in Atlantic Monthly, about how America has two proud traditions in its politics - conservative and liberal, and how the problem is from the movements to the left of liberalism and to the right of conservatism. How we fought a war against fascism, but then turned our attention to defeating the Commies, our former allies - and never looked back. And how the far right has gradually gained power, within the Republican Party and then within the country at large.
ReplyDeleteUnlike some people here, I never did have the slightest inclination to vote for Bush, or his father, or Reagan. Indeed, it's hard for me to understand how sensible people could have voted for Bush Jr. - he seemed so petty Texas politics and so sneering, right from the start. I knew he would be bad news, but I didn't predict the nightmarish quality to his "presidency," the militarism and appeals to blind patriotism and the absence of any real policy shops. I mean, Clinton made some appointments to help out political friends - but he tended to give them jobs where they would not be able to interfere in real policy-making - there was for example a fisheries office set up in D.C., topheavy with politically savvy managers but with few worker bees, sort of off the regular NOAA radar and harmless enough, if you didn't mind your tax dollars being spent that way. But Clinton was serious about foreign and domestic policy and chose competent people for positions that mattered.
I've admired some Republicans in my lifetime, especially our maverick former governor in Alaska, Jay Hammond, who recently died. There are some relatively honorable ones in Congress, of course, but they're under such pressure to toe the party line. I think some would be better if the political atmosphere were better - one of my senators, Lisa Murkowski, is simply not as bad as her father and I think would make a decent senator, except for environmental issues, in a different climate. But basically I really see the Republican Party as having been taken over by outright scoundrels. Mark Twain would have had a field day caricaturing these Fat Cats. The Democrats, on the Alaska state level which I know best, and also on the national level, do tend to be more oriented toward the people and less towards big business, so I vote for them. But especially on the national level you can't get anywhere without lots of money, and that has a corrupting influence on the lot of them.
I'm just rambling, maybe this is all obvious. But it's hard to watch this happen, and hard to believe things will somehow be made right again in this country, the rot has spread so far. I think maybe we'll see a period of some sweeping out and improvement, but a great deal of damage has been done to our country's economy and the world is far less stable, particular the Middle East (as if it wasn't unstable enough before).
hypatia:
ReplyDeleteBut what to make then, of all the Bush-worshipping bloggers who are still insisting their man is righteous, and that all the "calumny" is coming from "defeatists" and "moonbats" assisted by the evil MSM?
Hard to argue with people who don't want to argue. If they think that 2+2=blue, and are not receptive to anythinge else, then its best to marginalize them. I'd rather surround myself, and support others who are intelligent and critical of the world around them.
My point, however, was specific to those who want to distance themselves from the people and not the policies, not those who "stay the course" (the dead-enders, if you will). The argument that the current situation is a result of a failure of implementation, not of policy is laughable. The pragmatist in me recognizes that Republicans moving away from Bush towards another Republican, and continuing to support the GOP in power are just as bad as the ones who are Bush-cultists. I recognize that Bush will be retired soon, so the focus should be on the GOP at large, with Bush as the illustration. To the extent that people can separate Bush from the GOP, the GOP wins.
People still think that Reagan was a great President (despite the loss of life and democracy in Latin America), and that Clinton's failure in Rwanda shouldn't haunt our view of his terms.
I think the next Rep Presidential candidate will have problems with the evangelo-bloc in the GOP. Thus, we see Rudy trying to get religion and McCain saying he already has it.
ReplyDeleteMcCain's already in the neocon camp--see his unswerving support for the invasion and sustained occupation of Iraq. Rudy can ride that wave on his performance in NYC ante-911. But Rudy will have a lot of problems with his personal life issues in the evangelo-bloc.
More to the point of AL's posting: Bush broke the protocol to declassify information the way he did. I still think Benjamin Hellie has Bush's number on declassifying portions of the NIE because it was in the public interest.
Politically, of course, it looks bad for Bush because he and his admin are so strenuously against leaks of all kinds. The prima facia case so far is that Bush is hypocritical in this regard: it's ok to leak if it supports our view but not if it doesn't support our story.
As Hellie points out, however: Sneaking classified information into the public ear is not the same as declassifying it, clearly. For Hellie, the fact that Bush said it was okay to talk to the press about this issue doesn't mean he actually declassified the NIE.
In fact, this issue came up at the press conference with McClellan. As reporters noted, the declassified NIE was not released to the public until 10 days after Libby is reported to have talked to the NYTimes' Miller. McClellan was very squsihy on when--exactly--the NIE was declassified.
Hellie describes the process through which a classified document needs to go to be declassified:
This declaration takes the two forms specified in 1.6(h) and 3.7(a): namely, rubber-stamping the relevant pages with a stamp saying "declassified" (or whatever), and altering the status of the document in a big database -- or, presumably, if you're Pres and too busy to do this personally, issuing an order that someone do this.
Again, Bush simply did not follow protocol and thereby broke the law. It is for this and similar reasons that I think that Arlen Specter wants more explanation and that John Dean thinks that Bush and Cheney have questions to answer.
From one anon to another -- WELL SAID. There is a great deal of feces smeared on some walls and an awful lot of truth in your fable.
ReplyDeleteFrom The New World Order Dictionary:
ReplyDeleteDumbocracy (noun):A system of government in which the ruling party is determined by who can lie to the people most effectively. Example: the United States of America, esp. since 2000 A.D. (ie. yr. zero on the new world order calendar.) Note that dumbocracies exist primarily in societies where the public education system is chronically underfunded, and religious fundamentalism thrives. Often devolves into full-blown Moronarchy (see separate entry.)
Neoconservativism:Redolent with the stench of decaying values. What's that smell? Its...NEW WORLD ODOR
I knew he would be bad news, but I didn't predict the nightmarish quality to his "presidency," the militarism and appeals to blind patriotism and the absence of any real policy shops.
ReplyDeleteYou weren't paying close enough attention. I saw prescient predictions before his first term that he'd have us in a war in a couple of years.
As for the rest of his incompetence, all you had to do was look at his record ... and actually listen when the numbskull tried to talk in public outside of a prepared speech....
Cheers,
How about another Catch 22? By the time trial comes around Libby will look to his defense from Cheney & Bush. By then, Glenn's book will be out, Fitz will have indicted at least one more person, Abramoff will have had a chance to sing some more and so Libby will be faced with a defense manned by the chief leaker, shooter and God knows what other names we'll have by them. No wonder he's using memory loss as a defense. They may be able to keep Libby out of jail until Bush can pardon him but will Bush be able to stay in office that long? So many questions.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth De la Vega gets it:
ReplyDeleteIs a President, on the eve of his reelection campaign, legally entitled to ward off political embarrassment and conceal past failures in the exercise of his office by unilaterally and informally declassifying selected -- as well as false and misleading -- portions of a classified National Intelligence Estimate that he has previously refused to declassify, in order to cause such information to be secretly disclosed under false pretenses in the name of a "former Hill staffer" to a single reporter, intending that reporter to publish such false and misleading information in a prominent national newspaper?
Eric Alterman spotted it.
Arne: Sure. Some of it you could see coming. The Onion predicted war and "an end to our national nightmare of peace and prosperity."
ReplyDeleteBut some of the unprecedentedly dark deeds of this administration would have been hard to predict.
Is a President, on the eve of his reelection campaign, legally entitled to ward off political embarrassment and conceal past failures in the exercise of his office by unilaterally and informally declassifying selected -- as well as false and misleading -- portions of a classified National Intelligence Estimate that he has previously refused to declassify, in order to cause such information to be secretly disclosed under false pretenses in the name of a "former Hill staffer" to a single reporter, intending that reporter to publish such false and misleading information in a prominent national newspaper?
ReplyDeleteWHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES IT, THAT MEANS IT'S NOT ILLEGAL.
ReplyDeleteWhether he is taking a leak on the WH walls and rugs because he had too much to drink (as W did when daddy was in WH) or is leaking classified information to save his sorry ass, it does not matter....
Chimpy has been "leaking" on us all for a long time now...
....and throwing feces at us too!
ReplyDeleteBart or any Bush supporter, how releasing Valerie Plame's covert identity was in the national interest. Don't claim she wasn't covert, she was.
ReplyDeleteAstoundingly, Scott Johnson of Powerline made this very point yesterday on reliable sources; i.e. the old Plame wasn't covert argument.
It is important to keep in mind at all times that the people who continue to spout this stuff and worse, those who continue to believe and argue it simply do not understand statutory construction or the most rudimentary of the rules of criminal procedure. Their crazy talk reminds me of the argument put forth by the "pro-life" crowd. Dangerous ignorance governs their mindset.
This is for anybody who still makes the outrageous claim that outing Valerie Plame didn't do extreme damage to America. In fact it did exactly the kind of damage that caused Bush Senior to claim anybody who outed a CIA officer was committing treason.
ReplyDeleteLarisa Alexandrovna
Published: February 13, 2006
The unmasking of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson by White House officials in 2003 caused significant damage to U.S. national security and its ability to counter nuclear proliferation abroad, RAW STORY has learned.
According to current and former intelligence officials, Plame Wilson, who worked on the clandestine side of the CIA in the Directorate of Operations as a non-official cover (NOC) officer, was part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran.
Speaking under strict confidentiality, intelligence officials revealed heretofore unreported elements of Plame's work. Their accounts suggest that Plame's outing was more serious than has previously been reported and carries grave implications for U.S. national security and its ability to monitor Iran's burgeoning nuclear program.
While many have speculated that Plame was involved in monitoring the nuclear proliferation black market, specifically the proliferation activities of Pakistan's nuclear "father," A.Q. Khan, intelligence sources say that her team provided only minimal support in that area, focusing almost entirely on Iran.
Intelligence sources would not identify the specifics of Plame's work. They did, however, tell RAW STORY that her outing resulted in "severe" damage to her team and significantly hampered the CIA's ability to monitor nuclear proliferation.
Intelligence sources familiar with the damage assessment say that what is called a "counter intelligence assessment to agency operations" was conducted on the orders of the CIA's then-Deputy Director of the Directorate of Operations, James Pavitt.
One former counterintelligence official described the CIA's reasons for not seeking Congressional assistance on the matter as follows: "[The CIA Leadership] made a conscious decision not to do a formal inquiry because they knew it might become public," the source said. "They referred it [to the Justice Department] instead because they believed a criminal investigation was needed."
The source described the findings of the assessment as showing "significant damage to operational equities."
Another counterintelligence official, also wishing to remain anonymous due to the nature of the subject matter, described "operational equities" as including both people and agency operations that involve the "cover mechanism," "front companies," and other CIA officers and assets.
Three intelligence officers confirmed that other CIA non-official cover officers were compromised, but did not indicate the number of people operating under non-official cover that were affected or the way in which these individuals were impaired. None of the sources would say whether there were American or foreign casualties as a result of the leak.
Several intelligence officials described the damage in terms of how long it would take for the agency to recover. According to their own assessment, the CIA would be impaired for up to "ten years" in its capacity to adequately monitor nuclear proliferation on the level of efficiency and accuracy it had prior to the White House leak of Plame Wilson's identity.
The revelation that Iran was the focal point of Plame's work raises new questions as to possible other motivating factors in the White House's decision to reveal the identity of a CIA officer working on tracking a WMD supply network to Iran, particularly when the very topic of Iran's possible WMD capability is of such concern to the Administration.
Several intelligence officials described the damage in terms of how long it would take for the agency to recover. According to their own assessment, the CIA would be impaired for up to "ten years" in its capacity to adequately monitor nuclear proliferation on the level of efficiency and accuracy it had prior to the White House leak of Plame Wilson's identity.!!!??!!
ReplyDeleteGood Lord what have they done to us?!!
If this isn't sufficient reason to have Bush impeached I don't know what is. For any of these Bush loyalists to maintain their bullshit position that this was no big deal makes them more loyal to their fearless leader than to their country. they should be ashamed.
wrathogod said:For any of these Bush loyalists to maintain their bullshit position that this was no big deal makes them more loyal to their fearless leader than to their country. they should be ashamed.
ReplyDeleteWrath, what I don't think you or perhaps others on this list realize is that GW is considered by many of these people to be an emissary of God. They have reached the conclusion that the country is in such bad shape that lying, stealing, defaming, and treason are justifiable in the name of God.
This nihlistic position is extremely troubling. It suggests that nothing is beyond their ethics. Everything else is secondary to ensuring that America, the Promised Kingdom on earth, be ushered into existence.
How many are this die-hard? I imagine they are the fanatical few. They feel that they are, as mark Juergensmyer says in his book on terrorism, in a war between good and evil.
Unfortunately, this fanatical few inhabit gate-keeper and leadership positions in their respective congregations and audiences. They're adept at stealth tactics and misdirection, not to mention manipulation of the MSM. Their own communications infrastructure is vast.
I hate to write this way. It seems so utterly surreal and paranoid. Yet, the surreality of this administration calls for such statements. One of the challenges faced by those who oppose this threat is not giving in to a hyper-apocalyptic rhetoric of its own.
Indeed, it's hard for me to understand how sensible people could have voted for Bush Jr. - he seemed so petty Texas politics and so sneering, right from the start.
ReplyDeleteNot so fast. First you must make the case for voting for Joe Lieberman, who would have been next in line for President if Gore had won. You may think that was preferable at the time, but I certainly don't.
Next explain Schumer, H. Clinton,and the rest of the "I never worry about crimes against humanity----what the hell does that have to do with fundraising?" crowd. You may hear them screaming out in outrage about the torture issue or the illegal detainments or the War but from where I sit, all I hear is a deafening silence
You partisan Democrats can attempt to discredit every traditional Republican economic and social policy because of who is in office now, but it's not a Republican or Democratic issue which confronts this nation now.
The current administration and prior administrations have all been heading in
the direction we find ourselves at now, which represents a bastardization of the system of governing our Founders created and the hi-jacking of the halls of power by corrupt, immoral profiteers in both parties and their greedy, amoral supporters in the body politic. (See Gates, B., Buffet, W. and Soros, G, otherwise known as the SILENT BRIGADE.
Bill Clinton is morally bankrupt. His actions since he has been President are a disgrace as are the actions of his wife.
The "New World Order" is going to take a particularly ugly turn when the Democratics get in and do away with the United States as a sovereign nation by getting rid of its borders and annexing it to South America and Canada and allowing every revolutionary n'eer do well from across the globe who asserts it is his "right" to live here to enter lawlessly and assert his "rights."
Why would the Democrats do that, you might ask? Votes, of course. Votes to establish their own corrupt political dynasty.
They "care" about human beings?
But, but, but state sanctioned torture, the gruesome deaths of innocents abroad, immoral wars, police state tactics, the Sudan, etc.......
And so it goes.....
PS. Why have no Democrats or Republicans pointed out the real tragedy that the immigration movement is ushering in: human cannon fodder.
I suggest readers familiarize themselves with newly proposed legislation that would allow illegal immigrants to be shipped to Iraq and other fields of war.
Making them work for below market wages is not enough. Let's use their bodies to oil the war machine, courtesy of those humanitarians, your friendly neighborhood Democrats.
Some folks have asked what the rules are for classifying/declassifying docs. From VichyDems:
ReplyDeleteBush, Cheney and Libby Did Not Follow Rules for Disclosing and Declassifying Intelligence
Here, courtesy of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, are relevant excerpts of Executive Order 13292, setting forth the procedures for classifying and declassifying secret information (and which, incidentally, was referred to by V.P. Cheney in his February 2006 Fox News interview).
Several things are immediately clear from even a cursory review:
(1) There is a difference between declassifying information, and sharing that information with someone not normally allowed to see it (which is permitted in certain situations affecting national security). This should interest conservatives who keep justifying Bush's actions (torture, warrantless surveillance) by citing "Jack Bauer" scenarios: the law encompasses such scenarios.
(2) This wasn't such a scenario. Classified material may not be disclosed to outsiders merely to "conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error" or to "prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency" (for example, the embarassment of starting a preemptive war based on erroneous assertions about WMDs that turn out not to exist). Rather, it may only be disclosed ("leaked") "[i]n an emergency, when necessary to respond to an imminent threat to life or in defense of the homeland." This wasn't that.
(3) Rebutting the "de facto declassification" argument, the order makes clear that authorizing disclosure of classified material to an outsider is not the same thing as "declassifying" it.
This isn't the first I've heard where actual pissed off CIA operatives come forward out of sheer outrage (and loyalty to "the Co," as opposed to partisan loyalty, which is the only kind Bushies comprehend) to try to get the public to realize how much damage Bush/Rove/Cheney did by putting their own political futures ahead of the country when they leaked Plame's idenity. The right-wing echo chamber does its best to create rumors about how innocuous the leak was, and then the repetition of those rumors is quoted eventually as fact by guys like Bart who use them to maintain their fantasy about Bush's innocence in all this. But Bush's daddy was right, this is treason, and the fact that Fitzgerald can't at this point make the case doesn't make it any less egregious.
ReplyDelete"Astoundingly, Scott Johnson of Powerline made this very point yesterday on reliable sources"
ReplyDeleteAnd responding to him, Larry Johnson said(quoting from memory, may be off), "if truth were sand and he was stranded in the Gobi desert he wouldn't accept it."
David Fiderer
ReplyDelete04.08.2006
Leaks Against Joe Wilson Never "Rebutted" Anything
The White House never tried to rebut Joe Wilson's charges. Quite the opposite.
Right after Wilson's op-ed piece appeared in the Times, Ari Fleischer said "There is zero, nada, nothing new here." The White House National Security Council then followed up, stating "Knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech."
And then, George Tenet publicly disclosed those parts of the National Intelligence Estimate addressing uranium from Africa. If anything, the NIE seemed to validate Wilson's charges. So Tenet admitted that the famous 16 words, "did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for Presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed."
So by July 11, 2003, Joe Wilson's allegation -- that the uranium-from-Africa intelligence was always flimsy and was sexed up in the State of the Union address -- was no longer disputed. Meaning Wilson's motivations and veracity were irrelevant.
But thee days later, Robert Novak's column outed Wilson's wife. A week after that, Andrea Mitchell told Joe Wilson, "I heard in the White House that people were touting the Novak column and that that was the real story."
The real story of what? Not the real story of Wilson's findings, which were validated by General Carlton Fulford, Ambassador Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the State Department, the Department of Energy, and the International Atomic Energy Commission. None of them could overlook the obvious. Niger's sale of uranium was implausible for the same reason Castro's sale of timeshares at Guantanamo was implausible. In both cases, foreign powers exerted exclusive physical control over the host country's territory. In Niger's case, the uranium mines and their output were under exclusive physical control of a joint venture among entities from France, Spain and Japan -- all US allies.
But last night on Hardball Ben Ginsberg, former counsel the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign, tried to pass off a Libby's personal smear campaign as a legitimate political rebuttal:
Ginsberg: [A]s soon as the president says it's not classified anymore, it's not classified. But this needs to be put in context. Joe Wilson raised charges in his op-ed article in the New York Times that were serious policy issues about whether there was justification for the war. There was a White House need and effort to rebut those serious charges. That's what happens when charges are raised in a debate like that.
Three things happen: Number one, the president declassified the NIE, the National Intelligence Estimate.
Chris Matthews: When did he do that?
Ginsberg: At some point before --
Chris Matthews: Between July 6 and July 8.
Ginsberg: That will come out, but presumably that's the case. Scooter Libby then did some background work with Judith Miller. On Friday the 11th, CIA Director Tenet went out and talked about this issue and said that there was credible evidence that indeed Saddam Hussein was trying to get nuclear weapons of some sort. And then on the 18th, the whole NIE is declassified.
And so because that is an issue that Wilson raised that needed to be talked about substantively, it is a disservice, I think, to mix the Valerie Plame issue in with the serious policy debate.
But Joe Wilson never talked about whether "Saddam Hussein was trying to get nuclear weapons of some sort." He talked about a sale of uranium by Niger. In the National Intelligence Estimate, there were only three short paragraphs that referred to uranium. As described by George Tenet on July 11, 2003:
"The NIE states: 'A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of pure 'uranium' (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out the arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake.' The Estimate also states: 'We do not know the status of this arrangement.' With regard to reports that Iraq had sought uranium from two other countries, the Estimate says: 'We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources.' Much later in the NIE text, in presenting an alternate view on another matter, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research included a sentence that states: 'Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious.'"
Ginsberg was absolutely right. It was a disservice to mix in Valerie Plame with a serious policy debate. Too bad he didn't tell Libby, Rove and Novak.
By the way, did anyone else notice Larisa Alexandrovna's excellent reporting in Raw Story two months ago? Her sources told her that Mrs. Wilson's job as a covert operative involved tracking the distribution and acquisition of WMD technology to and from Iran. Novak's column severely hampered the CIA's continued ability to monitor nuclear proliferation.
By Larry Johnson
ReplyDeleteThe misinformation being spread in the media about the Plame affair is alarming and damaging to the longterm security interests of the United States. Republicans' talking points are trying to savage Joe Wilson and, by implication, his wife, Valerie Plame as liars. That is the truly big lie.For starters, Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak. Novak's column was not an isolated attack. It was in fact part of a coordinated, orchestrated smear that we now know includes at least Karl Rove.Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover--in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport--i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card.
A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.
The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her.The Republicans now want to hide behind the legalism that "no laws were broken". I don't know if a man made law was broken but an ethical and moral code was breached. For the first time a group of partisan political operatives publically identified a CIA NOC. They have set a precendent that the next group of political hacks may feel free to violate.They try to hide behind the specious claim that Joe Wilson "lied". Although Joe did not lie let's follow that reasoning to the logical conclusion. Let's use the same standard for the Bush Administration. Here are the facts. Bush's lies have resulted in the deaths of almost 1800 American soldiers and the mutilation of 12,000. Joe Wilson has not killed anyone. He tried to prevent the needless death of Americans and the loss of American prestige in the world.But don't take my word for it, read the biased Senate intelligence committee report. Even though it was slanted to try to portray Joe in the worst possible light this fact emerges on page 52 of the report: According to the US Ambassador to Niger (who was commenting on Joe's visit in February 2002), "Ambassador Wilson reached the same conclusion that the Embassy has reached that it was highly unlikely that anything between Iraq and Niger was going on." Joe's findings were consistent with those of the Deputy Commander of the European Command, Major General Fulford.The Republicans insist on the lie that Val got her husband the job. She did not. She was not a division director, instead she was the equivalent of an Army major. Yes it is true she recommended her husband to do the job that needed to be done but the decision to send Joe Wilson on this mission was made by her bosses.At the end of the day, Joe Wilson was right. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It was the Bush Administration that pushed that lie and because of that lie Americans are dying. Shame on those who continue to slander Joe Wilson while giving Bush and his pack of liars a pass. That's the true outrage.
Every Bush follower knows all these CIA people will lie to hurt Bush. They hate Bush, and they hate republicans. Alaways have. They will say anything to help the Democrats take over. Right Bart?
All you guys have on your side are facts. If all that mattered were facts, Bush would never have been elected in the first place. So take your facts and shove them. I don't care about facts, and neither do other people. Only on these moonbat websites do you see facts marched out like they're supposed to mean something. I have undying loyalty and that beats facts in my book any day.
ReplyDeleteBecause Libby so badly misrepresented the content of the NIE, it is very difficult for the White House to claim that the President authorized the disclosure without also implicating the President in a rather egregious bit of deception.
ReplyDeleteLet me see if I get this right...
Libby told Miller "that a "key judgment" of the NIE held that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium."
In fact, the NIE does state: "Iraq has about 550 metric tons of yellow cake and low-enriched uranium at Tuwaitha, which is inspected annually by the IAEA. Iraq has also been vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellow cake. Acquiring either would shorten the time Baghdad needs to produce nuclear weapons."
However, because the NIE does not characterize this of its statements as a "key judgment," you claim that Libby (and somehow by extension the President) engaged in an "egregious distortion" which will drive a wedge between the President and Messrs. Cheney and Libby?
:::chuckle:::
If I may make a suggestion, don't quit your day job to work as a political analyst.
Even the leftist WP editorial page thinks this is a whole lot of partisan motivated ado about nothing.
"First you must make the case for voting for Joe Lieberman." He seemed okay at the time in many ways. He was good on the environment and social programs. He apparently has been getting progressively nuttier. And in any case, when you consider his opposition...Dick Cheney...
ReplyDeleteAnti-bart, Sure looks like treason to me.
ReplyDeleteSince there are dozens of lawyers on this blog, some seemingly simple yet perplexing questions:
ReplyDeleteFitzgerald says Libby discussed Valerie Plame with Judith Miller on July 8th.
Libby said he didn't.
Fitzgerald claims Libby is lying and is charging him with obstruction of justice.
For whatever reason, Judith Miller did not write a story on this "leak" of freshly declassified information.
Fitzgerald refuses to charge Libby with outing a covert agent.
It seems obvious he feels he cannot prove the legal standards in purposely outing a covert agent.
What can't he prove?
That she wasn't covert (under the legal definition, the CIA definition appears to be irrelevant to the law)?
That Libby didn't do it on purpose?
He seems to think he can prove Libby is lying, then why is he not going after the outing a covert agent charge?
Bart said:
ReplyDeleteSed rhoncus, diam eget malesuada iaculis, felis enim facilisis est, et egestas nisl tellus nec mi. Sed dui. Vivamus porta sapien non nisl. Maecenas placerat nibh at metus. Fusce id est sed lacus convallis dapibus. Vivamus justo massa, tincidunt id, iaculis ac, feugiat eu, risus. Suspendisse potenti. In sagittis vehicula sapien. In mi nisl, facilisis ut, posuere in, tincidunt sit amet, elit. Suspendisse sit amet erat vitae dolor dapibus tempus. Duis nisi ligula, volutpat id, tempor vitae, accumsan id, nunc. Maecenas quis orci. Vivamus non mauris. Suspendisse at est vitae leo placerat iaculis.
Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Sed varius tellus a massa. Aliquam vulputate congue diam. Aliquam vitae eros. Sed aliquet imperdiet nibh. Suspendisse tincidunt hendrerit ante. Sed commodo consequat massa. Nullam consectetuer. Duis luctus quam eu magna. Nunc a leo. Integer vitae metus quis purus gravida aliquam. Nulla hendrerit nunc ac sapien. Vivamus at dui in massa lobortis lacinia. Sed semper iaculis elit. In gravida, nisl vel molestie iaculis, tellus erat adipiscing dolor, nec posuere erat justo quis arcu.
Suspendisse potenti. Nam accumsan, augue sagittis hendrerit blandit, metus ligula gravida eros, in rutrum turpis sapien ut purus. Donec vulputate. Vestibulum hendrerit, mi eu hendrerit ultricies, diam felis porttitor metus, sed fermentum massa lorem eget lectus. Donec lobortis. Ut metus dolor, rhoncus id, mattis eu, faucibus nec, purus. Aenean lobortis. Morbi magna sem, dapibus at, tristique eu, aliquam non, eros. Ut rutrum ante ac mi. Phasellus id ligula eget tellus euismod interdum. Nam ac odio vel libero fringilla mollis. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Cras lacus erat, malesuada feugiat, sodales quis, sagittis id, magna. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Curabitur ultrices mi vitae felis. Phasellus at est sit amet orci iaculis sollicitudin. Donec posuere lorem a turpis.
meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow
meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow
meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow
meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow
meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow
From anonymous at 8:57PM:
ReplyDelete"That she wasn't covert (under the legal definition, the CIA definition appears to be irrelevant to the law)?"
I believe the CIA's designation *is* the legal designation; as such there has not been any dispute on this point (save by those who seem to think intelligence work should be like 'Alias' or '24').
Anyone can correct me on this.
"That Libby didn't do it on purpose?"
Given the man has been charged with prejury, at this point can his testimony (whether under oath or not) be trusted without second and third sources?
Look, Fitzgerald's investigation is still ongoing, and this isn't Ken Starr we're talking about. Informed speculation is pretty much all we can do here.
But how about we hold off declaring it a success or failure until its work is finished and Fitzgerald declares the case closed?
That editorial was breaktakingly stupid, kicked in the stomach stupid. When in god's name did the Washington Post descend to that level on its editorial page? What has happened to the press in this country?
ReplyDeleteThe same thing has happened to Fred Hiatt as has happened to our troll who quoted this piece of crap to support his views – subservience to Bush overrides facts, logic, and common sense.
For a quick look at how stupid this editorial was (and even stupider to link to it as support of anything) see this and this.
The repetition of talking points that have been repeatedly debunked and refuted is really getting old. I don’t know why our trolls aren’t embarrassed citing such nonsense, but I guess, it’s the best they’ve got.
Anonymous: I would like to compliment you on your story (it would make me seem a "regular guy" and all) but the feces quotient is a kind of turn-off. Now, don't get me wrong, I like feces references; use them all the time. It's just there are limits and I can see that once you get started you have...ugh... trouble limiting yourself.
ReplyDeleteWell, you are not alone. Let me recommend your next favorite movie. It is an Italian film, directed by Lina Weurtmeuller, called "Seven Beauties".
The handsome protagonist is incarcerated in a Nazi (you'll like that) prison camp in WWII. He is a POW. For no apparent reason except as a setup of the scene, the latrine is composed of large (10'X 20') vats of feces and urine. A fellow prisoner, fed up with the prison administration (one is reminded of the frustration with the Bush Administration epressed by certain commenters herein) screams that he is fed up and can't take it any more and throws himself into the vat and drowns.
You'll love it.
Bush Administration epressed by certain commenters herein) screams that he is fed up and can't take it any more and throws himself into the vat and drowns.
ReplyDeleteYou'll love it.
notherbob2: In the credit where it is due dept, that was clever and funny.
i wonder how long it will be before someone shouts "troll" at me and then starts to dismiss all that I say by quoting me, or pretending to quote me, in a long-dead (or at least relegated to Catholic Pomp and Circumstance and English boys school meaninglessness) language, and then babbling in feline monosyllabic idiocy for a few page down worths.
ReplyDeleteWhile I often find Bart's point of view objectionable, to say the least, he is far more civil and on point than the second grade response he seems to be generating out of the people reponsding to him.
I don't have any interest in a discussion board of sycophants, and I wouldn't think y'all would, either. Cut the crap and respond to the ideas. you may never convince Bart, but you can hone your arguments, as he seems perfectly willing to justify his beliefs, however dunder-headed and eggregiously flawed they may be.
Argue all you want, but name calling is childish, churlish, and chuffish.
just my $2 (for inflation, y'know).
nick, and what makes you think that it is not bart who is posting those posts?
ReplyDeleteThat is why those with names associated to their comments are read more seriously that those who just appear or are "anons." Right or wrong, people establish their own reputations on this
blog by the body of their ideas.
Now: a question to the lawyers and the political analysts on this blog:
Can a journalist be tried for treason, say one like Robert Novak who "outs" an undercover CIA agent and risks national security and that agent's own life and those of her co-agents?
It occurs to me that it should be the case that a journalist should be able to be tried for a certain type of treason which I won't get into a discussion of here.
For instance, if a journalist cannot be tried for treason, what would stop a traitor who wanted to betray this country from getting a job as a journalist and working at it for a number of years and then engaging in treasonous activities?
Nick,
ReplyDeleteBart is not civil. Civility requires an ability and willingness to actually pay attention to and respond to the points that others are making. Bart is either incapable of or unwilling to do that. He continues to simply cut and paste GOP talking points that have been endlessly and accurately refuted here and elsewhere. Bart does not live in the reality-based community and he doesn't want to move there.
Which means that dealing with him entails a Sisyphean effort that is ultimately futile. Why bother?
notherbob2
ReplyDeleteHEADS UP!!!! FECES COMING YOUR WAY!!!
Eyes Wide Open,
ReplyDeleteuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Yeah right, you have earned SO MUCH credibility with your essentially anonymous handle....
Makes you real special and qualifies EVERYTHING you post as GOSPEL!!!!!!
I can't wait until National Geographic does a series on THE GOSPEL OF EYES WIDE OPEN!!!!
The self-importance of many on the bloggosphere never ceases to amaze me. Get a grip, man!
At Johns Hopkins today, Bush stumbled and stammered through an "explanation" of why he declassified portions of the NIE: "I wanted to see -- I wanted the public to see the truth." Except that he'd already been told -- repeatedly-- that the yellowcake story was bogus. He didn't address that little problem. He also didn't address the timing of his declassification decision, and whether he authorized Scooter Libby to leak selected portions of the NIE to Judy Miller on July 8 -- which preceded the "official" declassification by more than a week.
ReplyDeleteCivility requires an ability and willingness to actually pay attention to and respond to the points that others are making. Bart is either incapable of or unwilling to do that.
ReplyDeleteHe is a "copy and paste" troll that keeps his clipboard "loaded" with inane, rightwing talking points. He scans the post and/or threads for certain words or news items and then pastes in the "talking point" from any number of wingnut sites.
He seems arrogant and "disengaged" in the converstaion because, well, he isn't reading anything!
He is merely copying and pasting in talking points and then moving on.
anonymous:
ReplyDeleteHe [Fitzgerald] seems to think he can prove Libby is lying, then why is he not going after the outing a covert agent charge?
Did you read his report a half year ago? He explained all that.
Cheers,
Litigatormom
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking that Bush's words today are going to make plausible deniability later (when he really needs it as he takes that long walk towards impeachment) really tough.
And I don't think even his base is buying that he's leaking in the public interest -- lunatic WP editorial notwithstanding.
brambling said...
ReplyDelete"Arne: Sure. Some of it you could see coming. The Onion predicted war and "an end to our national nightmare of peace and prosperity."
But some of the unprecedentedly dark deeds of this administration would have been hard to predict."
Not difficult at all if anyone had been paying attention to Bush's life, career, and political career as Governor of Texas.
He said at a political rally when campaigning in 1999. What do they (meaning the Democrats) think Social Security is, some kind of Government program or something.
Claimed that the best speech he ever gave was given right after he came back from an exercise run. Said he couldn't remember a word of what he said but it was the best speech he ever gave.
Claims that God picked him to be President.
In a magazine interview he was asked about a woman on death row that had asked for a 30 day stay because there was new evidence in her case. When asked about it Bush mocked her saying yeah she's saying please don't kill me please don't kill me.
Bush's campaign staff was trying to get a web site shut down that was lampooning him during the campaign. Bush's comment about free speech: There ought to be limits.
etc. etc. etc.
The evidence was all there, but no one was looking at it.
"the price of freedom is eternal vigilance" Don't remember the author right now but I would recommend it as sage advice to everyone before they vote.
It would have just been easier to give Judy Miller a Top Secret clearance related to certain compartmentalized information instead of declassifying particular information for her. Then again maybe my argument is purely semantic and I am stating the same thing.
ReplyDeleteanonymous said...
He seems to think he can prove Libby is lying, then why is he not going after the outing a covert agent charge?
I have no idea if this is the truth, but one obvious explanation:
Fitzgerald thinks Libby was acting on the orders of someone else and is lying to protect whoever may have given those instructions.
or another explanation:
Fitzgerald realizes that the President and apparently the VP have the power to unilaterally and retroactively control the status of Plame's classification and therefore the power to control the application of the law itself.
To those who wish to be the arbiters of humor...
There is nothing funnier in the world than someone who insists something cannot be funny. They are the straight man who by their very existence justify even the most crass and obnoxious punch line.
Even the most absurd becomes paralyzingly hilarious when you are sitting on a church pew, everyone is silent except the preacher, and you are certain your little brother is thinking the exact same thing. He is...and we are both in trouble with God again...but we had found the rapture with tears streaming down our faces.
"He [Fitzgerald] seems to think he can prove Libby is lying, then why is he not going after the outing a covert agent charge?
ReplyDeleteDid you read his report a half year ago? He explained all that."
That was then, this is now. I take it arne that you don't have an answer, or haven't read a newspaper for three days.
Fitzgerald is trying to nail someone with violating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act
the Intelligence Indentities Protection Act.
Since there is a specific definition of covert agent that must be reached,
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000426----000-.html
I would like to know why he is not charging Libby.
Even if Libby obstructed and lied, Fitzgerald just said Bush and Cheney initiated leaks but not Plame's name. He said Libby told Miller Plame's name.
Fitzgerald refused to say that Plame was covert, yet keeps hinting she was. Fitzgerald says Libby leaked the name to Miller. What are the reasons for not charging Libby under the Intelligence Indentities Protection Act?
Is it that he can't prove Plame was covert?
Is it he can't prove Libby intentionally outed her?
Is it he can't prove that Libby heard her name from someone else first?
Or is it common to charge Libby now and try to draw out more information from these charges?
It seems Fitzgerald has him under everything I can read in the statute.
What is stopping Fitzgerald from charging Libby with that crime?
Even the leftist WP editorial page thinks this is a whole lot of partisan motivated ado about nothing.
ReplyDeleteDisassembled, melted for scrap, and jettisoned into the deep blue for the aeons to oxidise into rust and crud here.
You know what's really strange??? HWSNBN seems to spit out the same damn "talking points" that the Republican Mighty Wurlitzer is trying as hard as they can to sell to an increasingly leery public ... all within hours of one another. The "1). It was declassified, 2). It was justified to defend against Wilson's lies, and 3). Plame wasn't a NOC".... Betcha if you used the NSA and searched the fax records of the RNC, you'd see those three points blast-faxed to all the operatives ... and to our little troll HWSNBN.
Save your time, folks. If you want to know what HWSNBN is gonna post, just listem to Limbaugh, read the NRO website, or go to the RNC web page ... or, I suppose, you could check out Instahack or Powerline. It's all there, and you won't see a word's worth of difference.
Cheers,
Nick:
ReplyDeleteWhile I often find Bart's point of view objectionable, to say the least, he is far more civil and on point than the second grade response he seems to be generating out of the people reponsding to him.
"On point"??? Surely you're joking. When he starts posting cites to dicta in a case that actually went the other way from his main thrust, you think he's "on point"??? Then there's the little matter of his being "on point" consisting of "facts" that are known only to him and the RNC "spin machine". He's been spanked on his grasp of reality many a time here, so I'm not sure where you get this idea he's "on point".... Certainly doesn't correspond to any definition of "on point" I've ever heard of in law school.
As for "civility", there's 'civility', and then there's civility. See my colloquy with Bart three posts back on that. He is just as capable as anyone else of incivility.
Cheers,
Larry Johnson gives an updated timeline of Plamegate, including the suspected complicity of Bush in the conspiracy to 1) slime Wilson and 2) out Plame:
ReplyDeleteEVENT EIGHT--George Bush and Dick Cheney consult on how to respond to Ambassador Wilson's charges and decide to leak the Executive Summary of the October 2002 NIE. Curiously, the Executive Summary says nothing about uranium sales by Niger to Iraq. And it was during the week after Joe Wilson's op-ed appearts that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, at the behest of Dick Cheney and George Bush, fan out to trash the Ambassador. In the process they also divulge the name of Joe's wife, Valerie Wilson.
For those who still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, it is unlikely that the name of Valerie Wilson surfaced during the White House planning to retaliate against Joe Wilson. For those still in touch with reality, who recognize the difference between hard facts and wishful fantasies, it is very likely that George Bush and Dick Cheney at least gave tacit approval to go after Valerie Wilson. In fact, the White House spin worked mightily to make her part of the story when, if they really wanted to know the truth, they only needed to ask George Tenet. They did not and the rest is history.
Until last week we could assume that George Bush avoided the plan to use leaks and false information to attack Joe Wilson. Now, in light of the revelations from Patrick Fitzgerald, George Bush is implicated directly.
The real point, however, is not the outing of a covert CIA officer. The tragedy is that our President lied to make the case to go to war in Iraq. He manipulated and ignored intelligence. And, when the lie was exposed, he blamed the CIA rather than take responsibility for his own actions. As I have said before, that is a definition of a coward.
litigatormom:
ReplyDeleteAt Johns Hopkins today, Bush stumbled and stammered through an "explanation" of why he declassified portions of the NIE: "I wanted to see -- I wanted the public to see the truth." Except that he'd already been told -- repeatedly-- that the yellowcake story was bogus.
In fairness, one might suppose that Dubya thought that he was defending himself by claiming that the NIE gave him some plausible reason to hang his hat on the Niger uranium hook, and that he wasn't being malignly dishonest in pushing it, rather just somewhat accepting of a story that turned out to be not nearly as ironclad as he made it out to be (and to be totally wrong in the final analysis, FWIW). Not his fault, even if he made a completely boneheaded blunder and got thousands of soldiers killed; he believed what he was saying....
A couple problems with this, though. First and foremost, the Niger stuff was shown to be a cheap forgery long before Dubya invaded, and he never batted an eye nor wavered a step from his determination to go to war (which makes his bluster about "last resort" and all the dog'n'pony stuff about the WoMD and the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud and we can't afford to stand idly just a pile'o'crap.
Second problem: Dubya has a habit of "believing" stuff that just ain't so ... particularly when it serves to cover his ass (and seemingly hoping you'll do the same). For instance, I was appalled that he opined not once, but twice, a while back that Saddam "wouldn't let them [the U.N. inspectors] in" and that's why we had to invade. What was even more appalling is that he repeated this hallucination a couple weeks ago for the third time. Which means that either he lies about what he was thinking and what he knew at the time, or he's just completely psychotic. Either way, it's time for impeachment. And is a real argument that he knew (or should have known) that the Niger stuff was a pile'o'crap. But instead, he tossed it into the SOTU and hoped we'd buy it ... and then defended his reliance on it a half year later.
Cheers,
OH MY GOD
ReplyDeletePlease. Go to this link. Take the time to read this whole transcript of Bush at a function today where he takes questions. Read it yourselves---the whole thing. It's way worse than anything we had ever imagined.
Anon:
ReplyDelete[anon]: "He [Fitzgerald] seems to think he can prove Libby is lying, then why is he not going after the outing a covert agent charge?"
[Arne]: Did you read his report a half year ago? He explained all that.
That was then, this is now. I take it arne that you don't have an answer, or haven't read a newspaper for three days.
Ummm, you take it wrong. He said back then that the Identities Protection Act is quite constrained in terms of mens rea (evil intent) and scienter (need to know what you're doing is wrong), and that given the stonewalling and lies he'd gotten, getting a good case on that would be difficult. He also said that prosecutions under the Espionage Act (or other such laws) are a rather extreme measure and should be reserved for extreme circumstances and he didn't want to pursue that. I don't think anythigng in the recent revelations have changed that much in terms of proof admissible in trial against Libby, but maybe he'll get Libby to flip on someone else WRT the Identities Protection Act. Keep in mind his investigation is ongoing.
Is it that he can't prove Plame was covert?
Nope.
Is it he can't prove Libby intentionally outed her?
Possibly.
Is it he can't prove that Libby heard her name from someone else first?
Irelevant to the law.
Or is it common to charge Libby now and try to draw out more information from these charges?
Keep in mind that Fitzgerald has a record of nailing the kingpins. ;-)
Cheers,
"He quietly sought to persuade the White House to issue a correction, but was given the brush off. Wilson persisted, and in the end warned then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice that, as a matter of conscience, he would be forced to tell the American people that the uranium story was bogus. The reply, through a Rice intermediary: "Go ahead! Who will believe you?"
ReplyDelete-antiwar.com
I am not going to belabor this point, but I do want to say that I did go "3 posts back" and at least re-skim the material.
ReplyDeleteWhile Bart's essential view points I find, still, wrong, and more than a little stubborn and "reality-challenged" (howz that for PC?), I stick by the point I made above:
- Bart tends to respond to the points made here, not to the personalities involved
- While his point of view is in keeping with right-wing points of view, he is well-versed in the materials available and continues to behave respectfully, even if wrong
- Most, if not all, of the churlishness and superficiality and lack of "on-point-ness-man-ship" in the dialogues in which he is involved comes from the people disagreeing with him. He is referred to as idiot, fool, troll, hack, ... and rarely resorts to that type of name calling in return.
I read this blog for the consistently high quality of the posts, and the occassional high quality of the exchanges in the commentary. I feel, and I am willing to be wrong about this, that Bart contributes to that, even though I think I disagree with him on almost every point he has ever made on here. I find it distracting, immature, and somewhat vexing that almost anything he posts is met with a chorus of "troll! hack! cut-and-paste right-wing buffoon!" (amidst some genuine and informative back and forth).
I am not here for some liberal, progressive, libertarian, or anti-Bush circle jerk. I would like to discuss issues. Bart seems to do that more than a lot of the people that accuse him of the opposite.
I mean, the latin meow-ing; it was funny ... once. Now, it's just 2nd grade with a better vocabulary.
Stephen Elliott over at Huffington Post makes the point that even those folks who are drinking the kool-aid about the legality of the president's ability to spontaneously declassify have got to be wondering why a president with that kind of power has allowed a costly investigation of a leak to proceed.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, if what he was doing was declassification in the interest of the public's right to know, he could have saved the taxpayers millions simply by stepping forward sooner.
And now, two years into the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity, with millions of dollars spent on investigating this serious breach of public trust, after reporter Judy Miller spends 80 days in jail, after George W. Bush promises to reckon with anyone in his administration responsible for the leak, we're told George Bush is actually responsible for the leak after all.
So why have the investigation? Why this egregious irresponsible use of tax money from an administration so adamant about tax cuts? If the information was declassified and the president authorized it, what were we investigating? This administration is so used to not being held accountable that it means nothing to them to waste millions of tax payer dollars investigating a leak that they knew all along was their own.
Nick,
ReplyDeleteHow well-versed to you have to be to cut and paste?
I am generally a reader rather than poster here because the regulars here have more expertise than I do vis-a-vis the legal issues. With the notable exception of Bart, whom I have generally ignored, thus giving his posts just about all the attention they merit.
But this thread is turning into a referendum on Bart and how we treat him, which does bother me. It seems to me that you have two choices. Engage with him yourself rather than criticize how others do so. Or post your thoughts on the issue at hand and let Bart come to you.
Either way, you get to experience Bart's "civility" and "responsiveness" and "knowledgeability" first hand.
And we get to know what you think about the issues rather than what you think of how we deal with Bart.
I am not here for some liberal, progressive, libertarian, or anti-Bush circle jerk.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, this puts you among a small minority of the regular posters here. Most people who comment (and post) here cannot tolerate even the mildest dissent from their hate-Bush orthodoxy. Even benign remarks like yours above are likely to engender a series of scatology-laced insults.
This blog is a small society of like-minded Bush haters, and any "serious" discussion soon gets drowned out by a legion of moonbats and crazies eager to display their hate-Bush bona fides to the throng.
Quick follow-up to my post about Elliot's thoughts (at Huffington Post) on the costs of the investigation. I do realize that Bush is not claiming to have declassified Plame's status.
ReplyDeleteBut wouldn't it have been better for the administration to make the argument two years ago that her status was accidentally leaked by an overzealous staffer who was attempting to carry out Bush's desire to selectively and spontaneously declassify information in the interests of the public's right to know? That the staffer neglected to confirm Plame's status or simply assumed she was an analyst or support staff of some kind. That there was never an intention to "out" anybody.
At first blush, that seems more plausible than the "I forgot where I first heard she worked at the CIA because I am such a busy man" defense.
If Libby had been willing to say that, wouldn't that have precluded the investigation whether he was telling the truth or not? Which would have certainly saved millions in investigative costs. But maybe Libby was not willing to do a Tenet and take the fall.
What kind of punishment would he have been looking at if he had taken that approach?
From anonymous at 10:24AM:
ReplyDelete"This blog is a small society of like-minded Bush haters, and any "serious" discussion soon gets drowned out by a legion of moonbats and crazies eager to display their hate-Bush bona fides to the throng."
Ah, the contrarian anonymous returns.
You raise a semi-valid point, although your continued preoccupation with noting how often fectal references are used (not without justification in most cases) rather than address the issues under discussion in a more adult and serious fashion speaks more about you than this 'circle'. One would think the more mature thing would be to politely ignore the unsavory language and actually address the issues.
This is actually the real impediment to serious discussion: yourself, Bart, and others who would defend the Administration and its actions don't actually deal with any given issue on its own merits, nor do you answer the many challenges to your positions by other commentators, either directly or indirectly.
I agree that name-calling isn't the most constructive way of fostering dialogue, but neither is spouting off talking points (some long-disproven) and then refusing to answer challenges to them.
If you want a serious discussion of the issues here, show it. Actually state your position and be prepared to defend it with something other than the latest talking points from the RNC or White House or Powerline. Also be prepared for a bit of name-calling; the mature sort would ignore it and treat the respondent with the same respect you would wish to be treated with.
Or is that too much to ask?
""the price of freedom is eternal vigilance"
ReplyDeleteUm, I believe that this is chisled into the walls of the Jefferson Memorial. I'm going to go with Thomas Jefferson for 100 Gris.
While you-all are sitting around the ER rubbing salve on your blackened scalps, you might want to take a look at what Christopher Hitchens
ReplyDelete“...the Iraqi representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency—Iraq's senior public envoy for nuclear matters...was a man named Wissam al-Zahawie... At the time, most democratic countries did not have full diplomatic relations with Saddam's regime. ...There was one exception—an Iraqi "window" into the world of open diplomacy—namely the mutual recognition between the Baathist regime and the Vatican. To this very important and sensitive post in Rome, Zahawie was appointed in 1997, holding the job of Saddam's ambassador to the Holy See until 2000.
In February 1999, Zahawie ... paid an official visit to Niger, a country known for absolutely nothing except its vast deposits of uranium ore. It was from Niger that Iraq had originally acquired uranium in 1981, as confirmed in the Duelfer Report.
In order to take the Joseph Wilson view of this ... you have to be able to believe that Saddam Hussein's long-term main man on nuclear issues was in Niger to talk about something other than the obvious.
Italian intelligence (which first noticed the Zahawie trip from Rome) found it difficult to take this view and alerted French intelligence (which has better contacts in West Africa and a stronger interest in nuclear questions). In due time, the French tipped off the British, who in their cousinly way conveyed the suggestive information to Washington. As everyone now knows, the disclosure appeared in watered-down and secondhand form in the president's State of the Union address in January 2003.”
Reasonable people would agree that we don't need to actually know for sure what the visit to Niger was about to make a judgement on the issue of the sixteen words. The intelligence was credible and the dots connected.
Oh yes, the hindsighters can wail (see comments on this thread), egged on by the partisan pundits, but reasonable people would agree with Mr. Hitchens.
Nick:
ReplyDelete- Most, if not all, of the churlishness and superficiality and lack of "on-point-ness-man-ship" in the dialogues in which he is involved comes from the people disagreeing with him. He is referred to as idiot, fool, troll, hack, ... and rarely resorts to that type of name calling in return.
I read this blog for the consistently high quality of the posts, and the occassional high quality of the exchanges in the commentary. I feel, and I am willing to be wrong about this, that Bart contributes to that, even though I think I disagree with him on almost every point he has ever made on here.
Problem is he makes (translation from Republican into English: "cuts and pastes") his "points" over and over and OVER, never responding to when people blow his c*** out of the water ... and then trots the same damn points out again a week or a month later. An example would be the tired old nag about Plame not being a NOC. I think many people just get tired of having to shout "bulls***" at him for his repeated garbage, and simply summarize with calling him a troll (which he most assuredly is).
You seem to think he responds to other people's points. I think you're sadly mistaken (but feel free to point out where he's ever taken time to seriously address other people's counters to his nonsense rather than just simply repeating himself thinking that this is some form of argumentation).
Once when I was in college, my buddies decided that certain sentences were sufficiently common to deserve a numerical index, so that conversation would be more efficiently carried out by just responding "37!" Well, I think that people have gotten tired of Bart's same'ol's****, and have decided that full responses take time waya from more productuve activities. I note that Glenn has addressed many of the maladministration "spin points" (which Bart religiously spouts ad nauseam), and under Hypatia's [IIRC] suggestion, just put them into an easily clicked and referenced link. So now, when Bart does his same'ol'same'ol, you can just paste the link. Maybe it looks to be "non-responsive", but you can save useless time and effort. Let me be clear: Bart wants to muddy up the discourse here, and he wants to distract people. Maybe it does sound a bit like an "echo chamber" when you take out Bart, "notherbob2", and one of the "anons" (and the thankfully departed Gedaliya), but that's just because most of the people here are pretty rational and agree that the maladministration's spew is pretty bats*** insane from a legal perspective. Kind of like having a discussion on whether murder should be illegal; kind of a one-sided discussion, and I don't see any point to inviting in trolls to make some pretense of a "discussion" about it like it's some kind of arguable point....
Cheers,
When Will the Democrats Break with Bush?
ReplyDeleteBut the fundamental truth of American politics remains that justice will only be served when the opposition party moves, as a united force encouraged and supported by its leadership in the House and Senate, to demand accountability from this Administration. For most Democrats, that will demand something they have not yet been willing to make: a break from Bush. And Democrats had better be quick about making that break, unless they want their Republicans colleagues to beat them to the punch.
Too late. It's already happened as you see by reading the link above which talks about a group of conservative Republicans you don't read that much about who represent the thinking of many on this blog more than the Democrats do. The Dems had their chance, but aside from a few mavericks like Sen. Feingold, they blew it.
Soon many will be going back to the Republican Party to look for people in that Party they can support. When the opposition party deserts its own base and supports a corrupt Administration for reasons having only to do with PERSONAL GAIN and cowardice, they are more dangerous than anyone. The Emperors who really have no clothes are the Democratic Party Leadership and the vast majority of Democrats in office.
I was willing to put up with all the pinko stuff because there are more important issues facing this country now.
But since the Dems are complicit in all that is wrong, then supporting a party where people like Parachut at Firedoglake represent the thinking is a little too much to take.
I am not stupid enough to want the worst of both worlds. I'll take my poison in single doses rather than doubling up on it.
From now on I have only one question for Democrats: please explain Rahm Emanuel. He didn't get his position in the Democratic Party by holding it hostage with a gun---he was chosen for that position.
ender:
ReplyDeleteThinking, considerate people are tired of it Nick and see no reason to continue the charade that "civility in discourse" will eventually win the day with those that are blind, deaf and just plain dumb.
For Bart, I vote "dishonest". I don't think it's possible to be as obtuse as Bart is while claiming to be a lawyer. Lawyers are not immune to dishonesty, though (although MRPC 8.4(c) might encourage some closer adherence to what most rational people consider fact).
Cheers,
Cheers,
From notherbob2 at 12:51PM:
ReplyDelete"...you might want to take a look at what Christopher Hitchens"
And here we have a steller example of what I wrote about earlier.
First, we're talking about Christopher Hitchens, which is a bit like going to Bill O'Reilly for your news and analysis (admittedly presented with a bit more coherence and far fewer words than O'Reilly himself appears capable of offering).
Second, there has never been any question that Iraq was 'shopping' for unranium in Niger and elsewhere. Let me repeat that: there has NEVER BEEN ANY QUESTION IRAQ WANTED TO BUY URANIUM FROM NIGER. The reality is that they were NOT successful, which unless I'm very much mistaken is precisely what Ambassador Wilson reported and what the Bush Administration and its partisans subsequently distorted.
Third, exactly what does Hitchen's bent-over-backwards article have to do with anything (beyond repeating the same tired claims and attacks)? It provides no new information about Mr. Zahawie's trip to Niger nor Ambassador Wilson's investigation.
notherbob2:
ReplyDeleteReasonable people would agree that we don't need to actually know for sure what the visit to Niger was about to make a judgement on the issue of the sixteen words.
Actually, despite Hitchens's prevarications here, it's not at all clear the 1999 meeting was about uranium. No one said the Iraqis actually asked for uranium; the one official who said they were looking for uranium was just guessing (IIRC). Others have pointed out that the visit was one of several on a tour of a couple African countries, and may just have been a "say 'Howdy'" stop, trying to mend fences in general. So Hitchens's assertion that there was only one possible conclusion is just plain wrong.
But you're right about one thing: There's no difficulty in making judgement on the "sixteen words". In fact, you've been left the the dust on this one, Notherbob2, because the maladministration itself said that the sixteen words should not have been included. Case closed, eh?
Cheers,
"...like it's some kind of arguable point...."
ReplyDeleteMr. Langsetmo reminds me of the old joke about being in Heaven and there being a tall wall. After looking over the wall, a new arrival asks: "There are people over there who look just like us; what's the deal?"
The Appointed Spokesperson replies: "Oh, they're ******sts. They think they are the only ones up here."
Mr. Langsetmo seems to be saying: "I don't know who those guys like Bart are, but I wish they would go away and quit screwing up my country."
Who is it who is "bat****" crazy again?
The MUZZLE AWARDS are out.
ReplyDeleteBush and Department of Justice get muzzles
My only objection to the prizes given is they forgot to honor Alan Dershowitz. I would have had him right up there with the other proud winners.
The MUZZLE AWARDS are out.
ReplyDeleteBush and Department of Justice get muzzles
My only objection to the prizes given is they forgot to honor Alan Dershowitz. I would have had him right up there with the other proud winners.
… the real impediment to serious discussion: yourself, Bart, and others who would defend the Administration and its actions don't actually deal with any given issue on its own merits, nor do you answer the many challenges to your positions by other commentators, either directly or indirectly.
ReplyDeleteI beg to disagree. By the very nature of the medium debates on various issues must be narrowly focused and dealt with one at a time. No comment can address every objection thrown at the writer from a previous comment, and no one who has a life can spend all day writing blog comments. I have read many comments by Bart, and written many comments myself that “deal with issues on their merits.” I have answered challenges from other commentators (as I am doing now), and often attempted to gainsay my opponents’ arguments through reasoned discourse and colloquy. Unfortunately, this process all too often results in a flood of nasty and insulting remarks from the feckless herd, which effectively drowns out whatever productive dialogue may be taking place.
Given these facts, I find without merit your accusation that it is we “contrarians” who are the “real impediment to serious discussion.” As I said in my previous comment, I maintain that it is nearly impossible to carry on a serious discussion when most people who reply to us are doing so for the sole purpose of hurling insults.
Actually state your position and be prepared to defend it with something other than the latest talking points from the RNC or White House or Powerline.
Most debates that occur here are simultaneously taking place in countless other venues on the Web. This necessarily results in the repetition of certain arguments that you or others have read elsewhere. This isn’t a crime. At the worst it is annoying, but that’s about it. You must agree that we can level the same charge at most of the comments made in these threads, i.e., that they represent “talking points” from the other side and offer no real or constructive information to resolve disputes. Besides, most people here simply love to read their own writing, and use the medium to listen to themselves talk. Our “talking points” often enable you and others to hone your arguments against them. If, when Bart or I “state our position,” you find that it represents what in your mind is a “talking point,” you are free to ignore it and move onto something else.
Is that, to borrow your own phrase, too much to ask?
Yankeependragon:
ReplyDeleteLet me repeat that: there has NEVER BEEN ANY QUESTION IRAQ WANTED TO BUY URANIUM FROM NIGER.
Not sure I agree with you. You have evidence of this?
Cheers,
notherbob2:
ReplyDeleteMr. Langsetmo seems to be saying: "I don't know who those guys like Bart are, but I wish they would go away and quit screwing up my country."
Who is it who is "bat****" crazy again?
Ummm, other people don't see your hallucinations. Did you think you had a point?
Cheers,
From arne langsetmo at 1:37PM:
ReplyDelete"Not sure I agree with you. You have evidence of this?"
I believe Ambassador Wilson's own reporting confirms Iraqi delegates (I'll have to check whether Mr. Zawarie was among them) were making overtures to Niger to purchase uranium ore; I can't be sure if this was in the late 1990s or later. I'll see if I can find a workable link for this.
Anyone want to correct me on this?
Good news today from Iran!
ReplyDeleteWhen will our bombing campaign begin already? I'm getting impatient.
I didn't write my last comment very well. Sorry. I knew in my mind what I wanted to say, I just didn't say it. Mr. Langsetmo and those who share his views are a minority (and it isn't even close). Oh, and I am not suggesting that the majority is united against him; not by any means. Those who think as I do are a minority as well. For various reasons we will probably never be a majority, but we can strive to influence how things are done. I believe that is the American way. I grant the same right to Mr. Langsetmo. I just don't see why he wishes to close out someone else, for whatever reason [a disruptive troll being an exception].
ReplyDeleteFor what it is worth, I find most of Mr. Langsetmo's comments as odious as he finds Bart. It never occured to me to demand that he be ignored. If I am going to find a new idea, it will probably be in comments from someone like Mr. Langsetmo.
Thersites2 at Vichy Dems has a terrific comprehensive overview of the latest in the Plamegate matter.
ReplyDeleteGood Overview of Plamegate, Leaks, and Obstruction Potential.
Thersites2 is doing really great work on this story. As he writes "Well worth reading, since this is going to bring down at least the Veep and we want to be able to follow all the details..."
I have heard that when thersites2 originally called his site VichyDems he met with some criticism from certain liberal blogs. The more time that passes, the more clear it has become that thersites2 is one of the more prescient observers on the scene.
BTW, is Daily Kos still extolling the virtues of their "hero" Obama?
Thersites2 at Vichy Dems has a terrific comprehensive overview of the latest in the Plamegate matter.
ReplyDeleteGood Overview of Plamegate, Leaks, and Obstruction Potential.
Thersites2 is doing really great work on this story. As he writes "Well worth reading, since this is going to bring down at least the Veep and we want to be able to follow all the details..."
I have heard that when thersites2 originally called his site VichyDems he met with some criticism from certain liberal blogs. The more time that passes, the more clear it has become that thersites2 is one of the more prescient observers on the scene.
BTW, is Daily Kos still extolling the virtues of their "hero" Obama?
I again point out to other readers here that the anon who posts things like this:
ReplyDeleteIf, when Bart or I “state our position,” you find that it represents what in your mind is a “talking point,” you are free to ignore it and move onto something else.
Is that, to borrow your own phrase, too much to ask?
Is Gedaliya. Glenn has limited him to one comment per thread, and he has insisted he will flout that restriction, and posts as Anon in order to do so.
He has already been deemed disruptive of the discussion here, by the site's owner. A decision he is willfully refusing to abide by.
I suggest ignoring him.
anonymous:
ReplyDeleteThis necessarily results in the repetition of certain arguments that you or others have read elsewhere. This isn’t a crime.
How many times do you want to hear dicta flung at you in a case that actually went the opposite way WRT the general question that is under consideration (i.e. whether the preznit can violate [or act in disregard of] FISA), and have Bart claim that's the "holding" of the case? I'd think that amongst (supposedly) legally trained professionals, we should be able to agree on what dicta are and what holdings are (not always obvious, in part because judges aren't always the best writers and thinkers), but in this instance, it's no question at all).
So do you think we can ask Bart to admit that his favourite quote is dicta, and rejoin the world of civilised discussion of the real world? My guess is we can ask, but Bart will once again "fling feces at the wall" and keep doing what he's doing....
Cheers,
yankeependragon:
ReplyDeleteI believe Ambassador Wilson's own reporting confirms Iraqi delegates (I'll have to check whether Mr. Zawarie was among them) were making overtures to Niger to purchase uranium ore; I can't be sure if this was in the late 1990s or later. I'll see if I can find a workable link for this.
IIRC, Wilson reported that one official though they might be making overtures and were looking to buy, but AFAIK, no one said that the Iraqis actually did ask; it was just presumption on the part if the NIgerian official. To be fair, I think that Wilson reported this, and he may well have said he was thinking the same thing as to the Iraqi intent. But nonetheless, that's still speculation, possibly educated and informed speculation, but still subject to uncertainty. On the other side of the equation, we now know that Saddam didn't have an active nuke program then, and he already had uranium, and the NIger uranium wasn't for sale by the people the Iraqis talked to there, so the circumstantial evidence is somewhat equivocal.
It may be that the Iraqis were in fact going to ask (or did, unbeknownst to anyone), but AFAIK, nothing we've found out in the aftermath of the war (well, the invasion, OK?) in terms of captured documents or talks with said people has confirmed that this was the intent of the visit.
Cheers,
So do you think we can ask Bart to admit that his favourite quote is dicta, and rejoin the world of civilised discussion of the real world?
ReplyDeleteYou're discussing In Re: Sealed Case, which has generated millions of words of dispute here and elsewhere. I'm sure you'll agree that the issue isn't about to be resolved until and when the entire NSA controversy finally comes to an end.
So you and Bart disagree about the ruling of the FISA Court of Review. You claim the "dicta" (dictum?) including in the ruling have (has) no legal ramifications. I'm sure you'll agree, however, that many others don't share your view, and that some of those who disagree with you include sitting federal judges, prominent law professors, politicians elected to public office, and many in the public press possessed of solid and respected reputations in legal matters.
Given these facts, why should Bart's views be excluded solely because he disagrees with you and Glenn on this matter? Why should he be insulted, shunned or otherwise treated with disrespect, simply because he takes an opinion contrary to yours?
Bart is an experienced attorney, and if I were you, I'd welcome his perspective on what is a significant and contentious legal matter. For you to use it as an excuse to browbeat him and thus ignore his remarks is simply childish behavior on your part. To use it as an excuse to insult him and attempt to stifle his opinion is even worse than childish...it is thuggish, and I would hope that those few people here truly interested in real debate would strive to prevent such behavior whenenver they can.
notherbob2:
ReplyDeleteI just don't see why he [Arne] wishes to close out someone else, for whatever reason [a disruptive troll being an exception].
You're hallucinating again. Wishing Bart would either grow up or blow away is hardly a call for censorship. I have stated that Bart might be best handled by being put in the category of those who are allowed to make one post on a subject, and if they've added nothing new, repeats be deleted. As many have noted, he doesn't respond to others or modify his views (or "talking points"), so there's no dialogue to speak of. Let him have his say and be done with it. One post and you're out.
But that hardly shuts up Bart either; he can behave himself here, or he can go on any of the tousand other blogs and "do his thing" (or start his own, now wouldn't that be lovely?).
Cheers,
Why not discuss the real problem? This site has not attracted a conservative commenter other than Bart and Gedalia. So the problem is similar to the problem President Bush faced when the only woman on the SCOTUS resigned. Get rid of Bart and how many conservative commenters regularly comment here? And Mr. Greenwald has banished one of them. You are on your way to becoming the major leagues who happen to have no black players because none are “good enough” to play here. Neither Satchel nor Bart have enough “stuff” for the big leagues and all team managements agree. Uh-huh. “They’s a reel good white boy comin’ up, not an unburnt hair on his head. Le’s git him and git rid a no’count Bart.”
ReplyDeleteJust want to thank Glenn and Anon Liberal for all the good work here.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that BushCo/Mayberry Machiavellians will justify everything as "necessary" and "justfied" by the inherent power of the Wartime Commander in Chief.
Until Congress and or the courts act decisvely, we're just stuck with that B@#$ S@#$
notherbob2 writes; This site has not attracted a conservative commenter other than Bart and Gedalia.
ReplyDeleteThat is true only if "conservative" by definition means buying into George Bush's Yoo theories of Executive power, and a blind willingness to embrace and promote every discredited and vacuous legal argument ever put forward in defense of same. Many people consider me a conservative, for example because I supported the Alito nomination. Ditto for JaO, who has identified himself as a jurisprudential conservative. We post here quite a bit, and are generally accepted as part of the Unclaimed Territory community.
The trolls, by contrast, are conservative only in the sense that they distort and endlessly recycle discredited claims, of any and every variety, meant to do only one thing: protect George Bush. The truth of matters, and the manifest absurdity of the Bush DoJ's legal arguments and antics, those they will defend no matter how silly and inane they must sound to do so.
After having spent quite a bit of time engaging him in good faith, I dismissed Bart as a troll a few months ago, and did so because after I introduced a Clarence Thomas dissent into the discussion, Bart's response was to boldly lie about the contents of that opinion; he mischaracterized it to render it not dangerous to Bush's legal theories, which the Thomas dissent actually is.
I believe Bart's claim to be a lawyer, and I know that it is impossible for an actual attorney who has passed a bar exam to have said what he did by virtue of mere error -- it was naked distortion, and dishonest. I do not waste my time on people who do not argue in good faith.
As for Gedaliya, he has been limited to one comment per thread, and this "conservative" who supposedly respects property rights, violates the site owner's decision by reverting to anon posting. I rather doubt he'd permit that at his blog, and expect he would announce his right to moderate as he sees fit at his own site -- a position he brazenly violates at this one. That isn't "conservative" it is being a jerk.
For those who might wonder, I used to have a blog. I mostly took shots at liberals (much like my comments here)with the occasional reaming of an outlandish conservative. You know the kind of thing: "Liberal Insanity of The Day" or "Bible Beater Becomes Bonkers". I chose that modus operandi because there was an unending stream of ripe material and I sincerely believe that liberals... ugh...don't do their homework and are consistently misled by manipulators who are fully aware of this fact.
ReplyDeleteHowever, pointing this out, however amusingly done, does not have enough "gravitas" to sustain a blog and I discontinued it after, oh, six months or so. The bio came from that defunct blog. I believe that completes the file.
Iran joins the nuclear club.
ReplyDeleteNOW can we stop obsessing over Valerie Plame? Our time would be much better spent building a consensus -- across the Left and Right -- that we ought to bomb Iran's nuclear sites and major military installations.
From david at 3:36PM:
ReplyDelete"NOW can we stop obsessing over Valerie Plame? Our time would be much better spent building a consensus -- across the Left and Right -- that we ought to bomb Iran's nuclear sites and major military installations."
I *really* hope you're joking here.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletedavid: we ought to bomb Iran's nuclear sites and major military installations.
ReplyDeleteHardly. According to Reuters:
Each chain contains 164 centrifuges. Such cascades refine uranium gas into fuel for power stations, or if highly enriched, for bombs.
Around 1,500 centrifuges running optimally for a year could yield enough material for a bomb, experts say.
By most expert estimates, the Iranians are still 5-10 years away from actually producing a bomb--not to mention getting into some form of delivery system, except maybe a Toyota.
David Shaugnessy writes: But from my perusal of other blogs, it seems to me that conservatives are just as eager to speak in echo chambers as liberals. If you can recommend a blog where there is a more thoughtful exchange of ideas than there is here -- recognizing that this blog plainly tilts liberal -- please let me know. I'd love to visit it.
ReplyDeleteI think there is quite a bit of thoughtful discussion here, altho not as robust as had been the case when the NSA matter did not (properly) become the primary focus. And even when that first started -- upon the NYT disclosure last December -- I found parsing the legal arguments here to be surpassingly enjoyable, and the many lawyers and bright laypeople who participated generated some of the most intellectually stimulating activity I've encountered in quite some time.
That all said, yes this site is dominated by left-of-center people. It is easier for non-Republicans to accept the outrageousness of Bush's legal arguments because they have no emotional or ideological investment in liking or embracing them. The Barts and Gedaliyas --whether they were always GOP or became so out of love for Bush -- are afflicted with impenetrable mental walls that literally do not allow them to do anything but deny, distort and spew inanity in support of their Leader. A lot of Bush supporters, especially harcore GOPers, cannot overcome their cognitive dissonance, which would be necessary to accepting the truth about Bush's outrageous legal positions, critiques of which are the main focus here.
Anyway, over at Glenn's blogroll you will see a link to the group blog Obsidian Wings. I've commented there a few times, and it is a "moderate" and intellectually stimulating site, with both left- and right-of-center posts. It is a moderated site, and they don't like ad hominems.
I *really* hope you're joking here.
ReplyDeleteI'm *really* not. I don't mean to rule out diplomacy. We should make an attempt at resolute diplomacy first. But it won't work. If you're honest, you'll admit -- to yourself at least -- that Iran is intent on getting the Bomb.
And, as terrible as the consequences of bombing are, I'd rather the emergency broadcast from the White House interrupting our daily programming be a message from the President that they have just completed a massive bombing campaign against Iranian nuclear sites, than one that says that Iran has just successfully tested a nuclear bomb.
It's one or the other. Pick your choice.
No! This "ignore it and move onto something else" is part of the problem. You can't have an honest debate without agreeing on the basic facts.
ReplyDeleteI agree. The solution, however, isn't to shower the blog with scatological insults. The solution is to refuse to debate someone with whom you cannot find common ground regarding facts.
If you don't want to debate Bart, don't debate Bart.
Cynic Librarian,
ReplyDeleteAgreed. It's not time yet. But we ought to prepare for that day.
Also, we don't know about any clandestine nuclear sites. Iran only refers to the known sites. There may not be clandestine sites, but most experts believe that they probably exist. The mullahs learned the right lessons from the Osirak strike.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletedavid: The mullahs learned the right lessons from the Osirak strike.
ReplyDeleteWhat mullahs? I believe you refer to the Israeli attack on an Iraqi reactor. Iraq was run by Hussein, an atheist, secular Baathist.
I believe--following military, scientific and diplomatic experts--that a nuclear Iran is not the imminent or long-term threat that only pro-Israel fanatics, doomsdayers, and Pres. Bush think it is.
One step that is crucial at this time is to pressure Israel to dismantle its nuclear stockpile, thereby establishing a basis for good faith dialog with Iran.
arne langsetmo said...
ReplyDeleteIIRC, Wilson reported that one official though they might be making overtures and were looking to buy, but AFAIK, no one said that the Iraqis actually did ask; it was just presumption on the part if the NIgerian official.
You do remember correctly. From the SSCI report:
(bold is my emphasis)
The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,( REDACTED ) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."
...
(U) In an interview with Committee staff, the former ambassador was able to provide more information about the meeting between former Prime Minister Mayaki and the Iraqi delegation. The former ambassador said that Mayaki did meet with the Iraqi delegation but never discussed what was meant by "expanding commercial relations."The former ambassador said that because Mayaki was wary of discussing any trade issues with a country under United Nations (UN) sanctions, he made a successful effort to steer the conversation away from a discussion of trade with the Iraqi delegation.
Quoting this conversation as evidence of Iraq trying to buy yellowcake is an embarrassingly weak argument. I ask anyone who thinks this is credible to just flip the facts.
- The Iraq delegation asked to purchase yellowcake but Mayaki interpreted that as merely trying to "expand commercial relations."
- The only reason the yellowcake was discussed is because Mayaki steered the conversation away from a discussion of general trade and towards yellowcake sales.
- Therefore the conversation between Mayaki and the Iraq delegation is evidence that Iraq was not interested in purchasing yellowcake.
By “engaging in debate” do you mean looking up court cases and arguing interpretation of rulings? No. I don’t do that. I recall having several “debates” on this blog. Did pretty well, too, or have you forgotten?
ReplyDeleteI am reminded of “Spartucus”; everyone here is a “conservative”, it seems. I guess some are in the sense of “I am conservative: I only want to stab Bush two times; these other guys are liberals: they want to stab him a hundred times.” Can it be that any reader could rationally interpret my comment to mean other than “someone who is willing to take the Bush Administration’s part in discussions”? What have we been talking about, flag burning? If that is true, why would a response cite immaterial information like Hypatia saying she has been called a conservative? The point is that there is a paucity of Bush defenders on this blog. Setting up your response to frame the issue as one of whether or not Bush-bashing commenters are conservatives is the same kind of framing manipulation that makes most discussions on this blog meaningless.
You insist that Bart discuss all issues in your frame. When he rejects your frame (which frame, by the way, of course, greatly enhances your conclusions – which is why they are framed in that manner to begin with) you claim that he is disruptive. Of course, he is. He often rejects your framing of an issue. Apparently your rejection of his framing of the issue is not disruptive. Perhaps not, since the claque instantly prefers your framing of the issue.
Yes, I know, I know. The “framing” doesn’t matter, etc., etc. Try: “Has the Bush Administration kept us safe from Al Qaeda attacks in the American homeland since 9/11?” Sort of facilitates the “Yes” folks, doesn’t it? Maybe with a a strong chorus of “Yes, but...” however, they are slightly out of order. Most commenters here would insist on: “Have the steps taken to keep the American homeland safe from Al Qaeda attacks since 9/11 been ...” which facilitates any number of complaints and puts the “Yes, buts” in charge and handicaps the “Yes” folks. With such aggressive framing, one may expect “disruptive” comments from those in opposition.
CL,
ReplyDeleteYou're living in a fantasy world and I'm so glad people who think like you are not in charge of our national security. Israel's posession of nuclear weapons has not been a destabilizing force in the Middle East, and if anything, it has the opposite effect. None of the surrounding Arab countries have been spurred into a nuclear race because of Israel. None of them fear an Israeli nuclear offensive. They all know that it's defensive. All the Arab countries are far more concerned about Iran getting the Bomb than the fact that Israel already has it.
Iran's motivation to commence the process was to counter Iraq.
Israel will not dismantle its nuclear capability so long as it is living alongside hostile neighbors bent on its destruction. Prior to that point, which will take generations, dismantling equals suicide.
Iran won't be impressed by "good faith." It is hell-bent on getting these weapons, and have already paid a huge economic and social price for it.
It's not a matter of being a "doomsdayer" to believe that Iran is a threat and that we're on a collision course. Iran -- and not Iraq -- has been the biggest problem we face in the 9-11 war. Regime change is the only way out. And now it's a race. A race between the democratic forces within Iran changing the regime and Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. If the change does not happen organically, then at some point we will need to bomb them -- and thoroughly.
I forgot to mention the QandO blog. If you really want a discussion, you will like it. The issue-framing is not liberal (except for some of Jon Henke's posts) so it will take some getting used to. Jon is currently doing a "Bush Lied" post that any liberal would be comfortable joining in on.
ReplyDeletedavid: All the Arab countries are far more concerned about Iran getting the Bomb than the fact that Israel already has it.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Khaleej Times:
Saudi Arabia, fearing that US military action against Iran would wreak further havoc in the region, has asked Russia to block any bid by Washington to secure UN cover for an attack, a Russian diplomat said on Tuesday.
Most of your statement is what you think and feel. I don't know, but from your statements you do not seem to be 1) a military expert, 2) a nuclear scientist, or 3) a mideast expert. I must, therefore, decline to accept your "assessment" as anything but personal opinion--based on I know not what misinformation/disinformation, or otherwise.
On the other hand, I've dealt with this issue--quoting numerous experts--before in previous postings. I suggest you take a look at those comments with associated links.
notherbob2 sez:
ReplyDeleteWhy not discuss the real problem? This site has not attracted a conservative commenter other than Bart and Gedalia.
Bart and Gedaliya aren't conservatives (just ask a few of the conservatives here). They're Dubya apologists and boot-lickers.
Cheers,
CL,
ReplyDeleteYou quoted just one expert saying that Iran is still at least 5 years away from a nuclear bomb. I did not disagree with the argument that Iran has some distance to travel, although I'm not sure about five years. There are expert opinions putting the range anywhere between next year and ten years. Then, there's another benchmark -- the so-called "point of no return" -- which comes even earlier.
I would not rest comfortably. Pakistan, India and North Korea all got there way sooner than expected, and Iraq was MUCH closer than expected when we examined their nuclear sites after the first Gulf War.
As for my "personal opinion" on the Israel issue, what else can you conclude from the fact that Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, etc. -- that NONE of them was nuke obsessed? These sworn enemies of Israel -- if they were truly afraid of Israel's use of a nuclear weapon -- would have tried to get them. It was the hostilities between Iraq and Iran that led to both countries' pursuit of nukes. Same with India and Pakistan. But, if it makes you feel enlightened and progressive, feel free to advocate the Israel-should-commit-suicide-option. World peace would surely ensue.
Same with India and Pakistan. But, if it makes you feel enlightened and progressive, feel free to advocate the Israel-should-commit-suicide-option. World peace would surely ensue.
ReplyDeletecynic librarian is an anti-Semite who ardently wishes to see the destruction of the state of Israel. On this an many other threads he has unambiguously and without shame worn this conviction as a badge of honor.
CL believes there is a Jewish cabal that controls American foriegn policy, and a Jewish press that prevents the truth regarding this conspiracy from ever becoming known. He, along with a few others, such as "eyes wide open" and "nuf said," proudly and openly share this bizarre anti-Semitic worldview with anyone who will listen, and don't hesitate expressing it whenever the opportunity arises.
notherbob2:
ReplyDeleteI recall having several “debates” on this blog. Did pretty well, too, or have you forgotten?
Must have missed it. When did you ever tender a salient point, much less one that stood up? I'm serious ... I really don't recall any such event.
I am reminded of “Spartucus”; everyone here is a “conservative”, it seems. I guess some are in the sense of “I am conservative: I only want to stab Bush two times; these other guys are liberals: they want to stab him a hundred times.”
You prove Hypatia's point (and the other commentators' here, not to mention Glenn's fine post while back on the Cult'O'Bush) in spades: You see "conservatism" along the sole metric of fealty to Dubya. But thanks for making that clear. And with that knowledge, I guess we can safely ignore you as a non-contributor of anything resembling rational discourse.
Cheers,
Framing: "Did Dubya rape any young boys on the Rose Garden lawn today?" "No? Well things are looking good, indeedy...."
ReplyDeleteCheers,
cynic librarian is an anti-Semite who ardently wishes to see the destruction of the state of Israel. On this an many other threads he has unambiguously and without shame worn this conviction as a badge of honor.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your support, but I don't know anything about the sentiments quoted above. Moreover, I'd rather not go there.
I do not believe in the destruction of the state of Israel. I do believe that the pro-Israel lobby, in its Jewish and evangelical Xtian forms, is seriously wrong-headed.
ReplyDeleteThe debate on this lobby's influence--unfortunately--cannot be debated rationally, as exhibited by anon's very comment.
I do believe that the US should disconnect its foreign policy from the goals and objectives of the current Israeli government. I do agree with Meretz and others in this.
It's interesting to note that according to many Israeli media outlets, the strident and somewhat fanatical stances of the pro-Israel lobby are rejected by many, if not most, Israelis.
Uh-Oh, I've made Mr. Langsetmo's "move-em-out list". Damn! When I have tried so hard to nuzzle up to him. He's tough! I was going to characterize his comment, but it speaks for itself. Also, it doesn't add much to the issues being discussed. Which discussion appears to be over anyway. Elvis is in the building. Everyone got their kerosene? Check Their hair-net? Check.
ReplyDeleteI cannot wait to see what revelation will surely, surely this time, lead to the downfall of the Bush Administration (if only the media would write about it and Congress would act upon it).
Gris Lobo said:
ReplyDeletebrambling said...
"Arne: Sure. Some of it you could see coming. The Onion predicted war and "an end to our national nightmare of peace and prosperity."
But some of the unprecedentedly dark deeds of this administration would have been hard to predict."
Not difficult at all if anyone had been paying attention to Bush's life, career, and political career as Governor of Texas...
It's funny how some people will argue hard with people who essentially agree with them as if they were the enemy! What is the point of that?
The essential thing in a good discussion is to really try to understand what the other person is saying before you argue with a strawman.
If you read my Onion link, I was talking about darker deeds than even those; if you read my link in my Lieberman comment, now that's one dark deeds if the guy is right, which, of course, he might or might not be; everything is shrouded in secrecy, so who really knows? Yes it was obvious about Social Security and he's not very bright and has a mean streak -
But not one author I read before the election, no matter how worried about Bush and his shallowness and lack of compassion and likely incompetence and indebtedness to Big Bidness, not Molly Ivins, not the most astute writers in the best political magazines, predicted the depths to which this administration would sink - did you? really? Perhaps we disagree about how deep that level is! But it doesn't matter. We are ALLIES. We want this gang gone, yes?
I do not believe in the destruction of the state of Israel.
ReplyDeleteHmmm. So, you support the right of the Israelis to defend themselves against such enemies as Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Iran Mullahs, the Syrian Baath regime and others, such as Ghaddafi, who have openly called for the destruction of the Jewish state?
And just so we don't have any equivocation here, do you support the right of the Israelis to maintain Israel as a Jewish state, in its present form, and within defensible borders?
david: ... feel free to advocate the Israel-should-commit-suicide-option.
ReplyDeleteDo I really need your okay to think and feel the way I do? I doubt it. If you want to trade sarcasm, then I suggest that you continue in your ignorant and triumphalist angst, fearing every little shadow Herr Ubu-bush sees in his cowardly imagination.
I have made this suggestion in the past and stick by it: Israel sign the Non-proliferation Treaty, come clean on how many nuclear weapons it has, and begin to dismantle its stockpile.
In return, Iran is allowed to pursue its peaceful nuclear program. If it or any other Arab country (which one is really at this moment seriously considering that?) threatens Israel in any form they will suffer immediate attack.
The same goes for Iran. If Israel or any other country threatens Iran, the US will respond in kind. I imagine you could get Russia, China, and other countries to join in on this.
How serious this suggestion is is probably as serious as those who advocate nuking Iran. In the meantime, I suggest following the recommendations outlined by the US Army War College, whose major report I have linked to numerous times.
Among their recommendation, BTW, is exactly this notion of pressuring Israel to dismantle its nuclear program.
CL,
ReplyDeleteIts abundantly clear that Iran has made a strategic decision to aquire a nuclear weapon. The motivation is utterly irrelevant at this point. As for delivery, a seagoing vessel could easily be modified to launch a nuclear-tipped Shahab-3 from international waters. The idea of good faith negotiation is ludicrous. And regime change wont change the scenario at all. Nuclear weapons are a nationalist project, not religious. We must bomb the population centers as well.
anon: And just so we don't have any equivocation here, do you support the right of the Israelis to maintain Israel as a Jewish state, in its present form, and within defensible borders?
ReplyDeleteSure, I think it should abide by international treaty and return to the pre-1967 borders that it agreed to. Once there, build away. Stop killing young Palestinian girls, give the PA its money, and protect away, treat Arab Israelis with respect and with full rights, etc. etc.
nate: The idea of good faith negotiation is ludicrous.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the rest of your comment is absurd. But I want to ask why "ludicrous" here? ...Because they're Muslims? Your prejudice is showing I guess. They're just a bunch of slvaering, irrational, fanatical animals right? I imagine you'd kill your daughter if she married one right?
Sure, I think it should abide by international treaty and return to the pre-1967 borders that it agreed to.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't answer my question regarding Israel's right of self-defense against its mortal enemies.
BTW, have you read the Hamas charter? If so, do you agree with it? If not, please read it an let me know what you think.
Hamas Charter
Here are a couple interesting excerpts:
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "
"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."
I'm going to throw the following out and see who is willing to answer:
ReplyDeleteExactly how is Iran's construction of nuclear power facilities a clear, present and immediate danger to the United States?
Exactly what about these facilities is so overwhelmingly menacing that it requires the immediate destruction of both the facilities and effective genocide against the Iranian civilian population (let's not be coy, children; that is *exactly* what we're talking about)?
While past experience suggests countries can convert civilian use nuclear technology to military application in fairly short order, exactly how does the possibility of a nuclear weapon armed Iran prove any more or less threatening (and that's all we see here: a possibility) and worthy of destruction than one simply engaging in an aggressive but fundamentally limited research program?
David says he'd prefer to see the President report a massive bombing campaign against Iran than hear that it has successfully tested a nuclear weapon; that this is the lesser of two presumably bad outcomes.
Has anyone considered how yet another essentially unprovoked attack upon a large Muslim country, one that has consistently (if half-heartedly) called for diplomatic talks to resolve this issue, by the United States will be received by the rest of the world? What if, as has been suggested, any such attack involved the use of tactical or strategic nuclear weapons?
Does anyone seriously consider *that* the *greater* and *worse* of two fundamentally bad outcomes?
I'm going to throw the following out and see who is willing to answer:
ReplyDeleteExactly how is Iran's construction of nuclear power facilities a clear, present and immediate danger to the United States?
Exactly what about these facilities is so overwhelmingly menacing that it requires the immediate destruction of both the facilities and effective genocide against the Iranian civilian population (let's not be coy, children; that is *exactly* what we're talking about)?
While past experience suggests countries can convert civilian use nuclear technology to military application in fairly short order, exactly how does the possibility of a nuclear weapon armed Iran prove any more or less threatening (and that's all we see here: a possibility) and worthy of destruction than one simply engaging in an aggressive but fundamentally limited research program?
David says he'd prefer to see the President report a massive bombing campaign against Iran than hear that it has successfully tested a nuclear weapon; that this is the lesser of two presumably bad outcomes.
Has anyone considered how yet another essentially unprovoked attack upon a large Muslim country, one that has consistently (if half-heartedly) called for diplomatic talks to resolve this issue, by the United States will be received by the rest of the world? What if, as has been suggested, any such attack involved the use of tactical or strategic nuclear weapons?
Does anyone seriously consider *that* the *greater* and *worse* of two fundamentally bad outcomes?
notherbob2:
ReplyDeleteAlso, it doesn't add much to the issues being discussed.
Well, there was some gold amidst the dross, but you ignored it (how surprising...):
[Arne]: "You prove Hypatia's point (and the other commentators' here, not to mention Glenn's fine post while back on the Cult'O'Bush) in spades: You see "conservatism" along the sole metric of fealty to Dubya. But thanks for making that clear."
Care to respond? Want to explain your not-so-unique theory that we should measure conservatism by the number of knives in Dubya's back? Do you really think that conservatism is about "loyalty", rather than holding to a consistent set of principles that were in existence long before the Doofus-In-Chief marched on the scene?
Try answering rationally, rather than more of the same fluff you usually spew.
If you do, perhaps some of the conservatives here might even want to discuss your curious views with you....
Cheers,
I think it sort of got lost in the referendum on Bart, but I did have a question about what would have happened had Bush said openly two and a half years ago(as the investigation was getting underway and when Fitz already had Rove and Libby in his sights) that he had declassified portions of the NIE and that an overzealous staffer had simply revealed more than he was authorized to reveal. That it was all a big mistake because said staffer simply did not realize that Wilson's wife was covert. That outing her was simply an inadvertent byproduct of the president's desire to selectively leak misleading information to educate the American people on his thought process leading up to the war.
ReplyDeleteAssuming that Libby was willing to take the fall (and remember the previous fall guy, Tenet, got a Medal of Freedom out of the deal), what is the worst that could have happened to Libby? No perjury or obstruction charges would apply in that case and since the outing would be called "inadvertent" there would be no intent which I think is a required element under at least one of the laws at issue.
So what kind of punishment would Libby have been looking at?
Last Name Chosen,
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html
According to a correction run in the sidebar of this WP article from 2004, Wilson reported that it was actually Iran rather than Iraq who was tring to purchase uranium. (I had thought it was Iraq since that is what I've seen reported almost everywhere and this is the first time I'd seen the correction to a story that originally ran in July 2004). I have not read Wilson's book so I can't check it that way.
But even if it has been Iraq, two points undermine the president.
1) he called Iraq's efforts both "recent" and "vigorous" in late 2002 and early 2003.
Since the most recent effort that he could possibly have been referencing data back at least three years (1999) and was unsuccessful according to three separate sources (Wilson, the US Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick and Gen. Fulford), it hardly seems that the effort was all that recent or all that vigorous.
2) and, to beat a dead horse, it was unsuccessful by all accounts. So even if the effort had been both recent and vigorous, big whup. It didn't breing them any closse to making a mushroom cloud.
Yankeependragon,
ReplyDeleteThere won't be a "genocide." We are capable of pin-point strikes. There will certainly be civilians killed, and that's unfortunate. But collateral damage is unavoidable.
The Iranian Bomb will be the greatest boon for the Islamo-fascist forces. It will provide an umbrella for all their activities. We will be checked from carrying out any substantial military operations because Iran will have the same clout as Russia. Iran will be much more aggressive in supporting Hezbollah, Hamas and every Muslim Brotherhood chapter in the Middle East. They will be able to export their revolution to the entire Middle East. They will be the strongest power. And given the suicidal death-worship cult sweeping through the world of Islam nowadays, I wouldn't put it past them to use it offensively.
Do we really want to allow the savages to obtain a nuclear weapon? Why take the chance?
As for the consequences, yes, they will run around in some rage. They're good at that. And they'll do that anyway. Better without a nuclear weapon.
David sez:
ReplyDeleteDo we really want to allow the savages to obtain a nuclear weapon?
OK, I've seen enough. <*PLONK*>
Go back to LittleGreenSnotballs, you POS.
Cheers,
aj,
ReplyDeleteI think you misunderstood my post, but it is not your fault because I am a terrible writer.
We are talking about two separate issues. Although the WP misprint is still mistakenly cited as evidence of Iraq pursuing yellowcake, the Mayaki conversation is also used as evidence for such a purchase. They are both silly arguments. I think my problem is that by trying to prove its absurdity by inverting the Mayaki conversation, I have left an impression that I think this is evidence for an Iraqi purchase when my intention was the opposite.
I will repeat, I am not a good writer.
"Try answering rationally, rather than more of the same fluff you usually spew." - Mr. Langsetmo TALKS
ReplyDelete"Go back to LittleGreenSnotballs, you POS." - Mr. Langsetmo WALKS
OK, enough is enough. If you go along with castigating Bart and you tolerate an outburst like this from Mr. Langsetmo, you know what you are. Mr. Langsetmo’s comment is inexcusable and exactly the kind of comment many of you are so fond of attributing to the right. Go ahead, be too busy to note your opinion of it. Everyone who has ever enveighed against those horrible right wing name-callers and doesn’t condemn that comment is a hypocrite.
From David at 8:04PM:
ReplyDelete"The Iranian Bomb will be the greatest boon for the Islamo-fascist forces."
Leaving aside there realy isn't any such thing as "Islamofascists" in the first place, I agree Iran managing to go fully nuclear would greatly enhance Tehran's position in the region. It would also place all the more pressure on whatever government is in power in Iran at the time (given its any number of years before they manage to actually construct such a device, so its anyone's guess what regime will be in power whatever that is) to act with greater moderation than before, or so history demonstrates.
"There won't be a "genocide." We are capable of pin-point strikes. There will certainly be civilians killed, and that's unfortunate. But collateral damage is unavoidable."
Spoken as a true conservative hawk. I've never realized until now how little human life (American or Iranian or other) really mean to you.
I'll refrain from further comment there as I'm too polite to give full voice to my contempt.
"They will be able to export their revolution to the entire Middle East. They will be the strongest power. And given the suicidal death-worship cult sweeping through the world of Islam nowadays, I wouldn't put it past them to use it offensively."
The 'revolution' has been effectively over since the 1980s, when Tehran bled its country dry with that useless war with Hussein's regime. The 'suicidal death-worship cult' (i.e. Al-Qaeda and its off-shoots) you are referring to is no more prevalent throughout Islam than Denominationist or Reconstructionism is amongst Christians; I've yet to see any indication Iran has forged close ties with such networks (Hamas and Hezbollah's focus is centered primarily, if not exclusively upon Israel, and have yet to prove an actual threat to the US directly).
"Do we really want to allow the savages to obtain a nuclear weapon? Why take the chance?"
A sentiment we both agree upon. I'm sure therefore you are all in favor of strengthening non-proliferation regimes through civilized and practical methods, such as say treating other countries as adults and equals and moving to secure 'loose nukes' in Russia and elsewhere?
Not as flashy or macho as carpet-bombing somewhere, I admit, but ultimately more successful a path.
"As for the consequences, yes, they will run around in some rage. They're good at that. And they'll do that anyway. Better without a nuclear weapon."
Thinking like *that* is what got us into bloody Iraq, causes the sorts of quagmires that destroy entire generations, leads me to wonder just how seriously you take this.
"They will run around in some rage"? Who precisely will "they" be? The Iranians, certainly, not to mention a likely good portion of the rest of the world, which will see this proposed bombing campaign as just another example of the United States proving itself to be as rogue a nation as ir claims Iran and North Korea to be.
How many more allies will we loose as a result? Do you honestly believe Israel or the UK be willing to continue to stand with a country that thinks pre-emptively attacking other countries, particularly those that have not attacked us first, is an acceptable course of action?
Gods help us all if the doctrine of "No First Use" is tossed out and we actually deploy and use nukes in all this.
There's an old, old Irish saying: "Touch the Devil once, you can never let go." I'd suggest you and those who agree with your sentiments (honest as I believe you hold them) to check where your hands are right now.
last name chosen,
ReplyDeleteNothing wrong with your writing at all.
I went back and reread the Post correction and it only refers to the purported 1998 purchase, not the Mayaki conversation.
So in fact Wilson's report and his testimony to the SSCI:
(1) provide some, albeit very thin, evidence of an Iraqi attempt to purchase uranium (Mayaki);
(2) indicate that Iran not Iraq made an attempted purchase in 1998, and
(3)show zero evidence that Iraq was successful in obtaining uranium from Niger between 1997-2003.
Thanks for taking the time to clarify that for me.
notherbob2 sez:
ReplyDeleteOK, enough is enough. If you go along with castigating Bart and you tolerate an outburst like this from Mr. Langsetmo, you know what you are.
You can go take a walk too if you din't like it around here. When "David" goes off the deep end wiith his comments about "savages" and his 'hit them hard and now' crapola even if there's civilian casualties, I'd say it would not be the least surprising if "David" gets banned (and I certainly have nothing further to say to him). Same goes for you too, to be honest. I don't think that Glenn set his blog up as a poster easel for overt racists.
Mr. Langsetmo’s comment is inexcusable and exactly the kind of comment many of you are so fond of attributing to the right.
OK. Go complain to Glenn and see where it gets you. What a WATB you are. You think my comment is "inexcusable"? I'd venture to say that when someone talks about killing the "savages", it makes my comment seem like tea-party chatter.
Here's "David's" rant in all its glory:
["David"]:
They will be the strongest power. And given the suicidal death-worship cult sweeping through the world of Islam nowadays, I wouldn't put it past them to use it offensively.
Do we really want to allow the savages to obtain a nuclear weapon? Why take the chance?
As for the consequences, yes, they will run around in some rage. They're good at that. And they'll do that anyway. Better without a nuclear weapon.
"David's" comments speak for themselves. And it's ugly through and through.
Now that we've dispensed with that, Notherbob2, want to actually contribute something other than whining about how "persecuted" overt racists are around here? You know, like I asked you to, concerning your curious views about what constitutes conservatism? Doubt it. You'll just come back with more fluff. Three ... two ... one ......
And when you do, you're plonked too. My final word; after that I leave Glenn to clean up the dog droppings from the likes of you and "David"....
Cheers,
aj,
ReplyDeleteMaybe I am having trouble understanding your posts.
I could be wrong but I think we agree completely on this issue. Just so I am clear, I do not believe there is any credible evidence to suggest that Iraq, after sanctions were implemented, attempted to procure yellowcake from Niger. The fact that people trot out the "gut instinct" of Prime Minister Mayaki as evidence for such a transaction shows not only the desperation of that position but reveals a lack of trust of GWB. If someone is going to rely on "gut instinct" instead of evidence, why would they pick Mayaki instead of Bush, Cheney or Blair?
I think it would be fun and productive to debate with you but we may want to save that for something we disagree on. If my perceptions are incorrect, please forgive me. I have had a two day headache that seems to be immune to ibuprofen, booze and everything else I have thrown at it.
yankee,
ReplyDelete"Nuclear Power" facilities? Are you kidding? Perhaps you should take your own advice and think of the Iranians as equals and adults. The Iranians have a set of strategic goals, the first of which is to reduce and ultimately eliminate US influence in the region. Establishing regional hegemony by aquiring a nuclear weapon will bring them immeasurably closer to this goal. A Persian bomb will also greatly strengthen the regime by validating their leadership and creating an upsurge of nationalist pride.
No non-proliferation regime can change this calculus, in the current geo-political climate, the benefits of having a bomb simply outweigh the risks. Can we live with a nuclear Iran? Sure. Until the day the supreme leader decides to close the straits of hormuz and we have to lose a carrier battle group to get the oil flowing again or face a worldwide economic depression.
And just a note concerning the subject here: This is Glenn's blog here about predominantly legal issues, and this post is about Dubya's excuse-making for his and the maladministration's illegal and partisan shenanigans. NOT about Iran. The proper forum for the "nuke 'em all and let Gawd sort 'em out" crew is over at Freeperville and LittleGreenSnotballs, where the denizens are more adept at discussing the many ways that "ragheads" can be efficiently dispatched. Just sayin'....
ReplyDeleteCheers,
Dave/Gedaliya writes:You didn't answer my question regarding Israel's right of self-defense against its mortal enemies.
ReplyDeleteBTW, have you read the Hamas charter? If so, do you agree with it? If not, please read it an let me know what you think.
cynic librarian, I don't agree with you on all; but please feel no need to answer the Dave/Gedaliya troll.
Arne, CL, Yankee - all so petulant and self-righteous. And now, disappointingly, Hypatia has lumped me in with Gedaliya. Here's a newsflash: The option of bombing Iranian nuclear sites as a last resort is on the table, and for nearly every politician, with the exception of the far-Left, it is agreed that it belongs there. It is being discussed and planned as we speak. Yet for some of the commenters here, the acknowledgment and support for maintaining this option is beyond barbaric and beneath their contempt. Arne petitions Glenn to ban me from the site, citing the disruptive Gedalia as precedent, because all this talk is very upsetting to him. Pathetic. This is the hot topic right now. And rightfully so. Arne, I suggest you go to Kos, where you won't have to read anything with which you disagree.
ReplyDeleteWell, there it is. If Mr. Langsetmo is your champion - and you can read his comments as well as I - then we have answered a lot of questions. Again, your call, based on your principles. If I don't see him criticized then I know that we have another Kos going here and I am out of here. I don't really disagree that much with what I perceive is his attitude, it is his rhetorical behavior that I find repulsive. The last thing I like to comment about is someone else's method of expression. Mr. Langstemo has crossed the line. I cannot imagine the rage if he were a Winger. Somehow, all of the pious calls for raising the bar of discussion seem to be revealed as what they are when there is an opportunity to criticize "one of your own".
ReplyDeleteIntellectually Disgusting. Politically - hey, you are just like "them".
To the thread:
ReplyDeleteArne petitions Glenn to ban me from the site, citing the disruptive Gedalia as precedent, because all this talk is very upsetting to him.
Correction: I never petitioned Glenn to ban him (and this is verifiable to anyone who can read). However, I would support Glenn asking him politely, or not so politely, to take his hatred to a more suitable and relevant forum.
This [nuking Iran] is the hot topic right now.
Not on this thread. I'd think that a guest would not hijack the thread (see my earlier post on this), or have the decency to go get their own blog, if they were pissing-their-pants impatient to spout on what they think should be the hot topic of the day....
Cheers,
"I would support Glenn asking him politely, or not so politely, to take his hatred to a more suitable and relevant forum.
ReplyDelete"This [nuking Iran] is the hot topic right now."
Not on this thread. I'd think that a guest would not hijack the thread (see my earlier post on this), or have the decency to go get their own blog, if they were pissing-their-pants impatient to spout on what they think should be the hot topic of the day...."
Oh, well, Arne, gee whiz, you were just protecting the thread from a racist, hating scumbag who was trying to hijack it. Butter wouldn't melt in your mouth. I guess I can just forget my principles and agree that you are OK. That lets me off the hook. Let's all sing Kumbaya and forgive and forget.
Hypocrites.
In response to David at 2:20AM:
ReplyDeleteI see you didn't answer or respond to a single point I challenged your earlier assertion with. Disappointing, but not surprising.
Rather your only response to myself or others who do challenge you on your language or positions is condescension, the second to last refuge of the vacuous, bankrupt argument. Again, disappointing, but not surprising.
You and Nate M (who wrote at 11:20PM) believe a mass bombing campaign will be restrained and cause minimal civilian damage, and that this is the less-bad outcome. This assumes of course that the facilities can be targeted with pin-point accuracy and civilian casualties can be kept to a minimum, both dubious assumptions.
I and others see such an option as the giving us the worst of all possible worlds. The likely, logical results of such a campaign: America will likely find itself completely isolated both diplomatically and economically as a result, Tehran will find its stature enhanced enormously after the attack (far moreso than if it had nuclear capability), the Straits may be closed anyway and OPEC prove even more punative than it was in 1973 or 1979, and any hope of maintaining an effective and respected non-proliferation regime will go out the window.
Oh, and give yet another marvelous recruiting tool to bin Laden and his ilk. Mustn't forget that.
Explain to me again how this is the less-bad option?
I think the problem here is that you can easily post under multiple identities by using "other."
ReplyDeleteIndeed I can think of no reason why anyone would post as "anonymous" under the circumstances, since they can simply post as "fried chicken" or "too fried to tell my name," so that people can respond to their posts. Responding to the many people calling themselves "anonymous" is futile, who knows who you're talking about? Why not post as Anonymous A1, or whatever?
yankee,
ReplyDeleteActually I agree with your conclusion, for the simple reason that a bombing campaign will not thoroughly destroy the Iranian nuclear program, it will only delay it by a few years. The Iranians will of course use every tool of retaliation at their disposal, including activating their infiltrators in Iraq and turning the shiites against the Americans. Come to think of it, maybe this will provide a desirable outcome for people of your persuasion, ie Americans running for the helicopters as they evacuate the green zone.
Didn't I hear a door slam? Was that someone saying goodbye? Nevermind, I must have been mistaken....
ReplyDeleteCheers,
yankeependragon:
ReplyDeleteI and others see such an option as the giving us the worst of all possible worlds. The likely, logical results of such a campaign: America will likely find itself completely isolated both diplomatically and economically as a result, Tehran will find its stature enhanced enormously after the attack (far moreso than if it had nuclear capability), the Straits may be closed anyway and OPEC prove even more punative than it was in 1973 or 1979, and any hope of maintaining an effective and respected non-proliferation regime will go out the window.
Quite true. Not to mention that the U.S.'s goose is cooked if Venezuela decides that enough is enough and turns off the spigots. Venezuela is responsible for enough U.S. oil so that a cutoff by them would be far more catastrophic than losing Iraq or Iran. Of course, then Dubya could go after Venezuela with nukes and whatever's left of the army, but by this time, the jig would be up and the world would see in astonishment just exactly how evil the maladministration is.
Non-proliferation is a sick joke with the Republicans, given their talk about all the ways that nukes can be "useful", the blind eye towards Israel's nukes, the neglect of real efforts to get SNM under control (the best tool for non-proliferation), and their managing to show that a nuclear deterrent is actually a handy thing to have when the U.S. "comes calling" (see, e.g., North Korea).
"Nate M." seems to be another blood-thirsty cur that would feel more at home on LGF. He's in the same boat as "David":
"The idea of good faith negotiation is ludicrous. And regime change wont change the scenario at all. Nuclear weapons are a nationalist project, not religious. We must bomb the population centers as well."
Translated from racist to English: "The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim." Where is all the slime coming from? Speaking of Iranian nationalism, betcha "Nate M." hasn't ever read "All The Shah's Men", by Stephen Kinzer, where the U.S. last thought it would solve the "problem" of Iraqi nationalism. That worked out real good. Stoopidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Enough said.
Cheers,
... where the U.S. last thought it would solve the "problem" of Iraqi nationalism."
ReplyDeleteMy bad. Should have been "Iranian nationalism".
Cheers,
Nate,
ReplyDeleteWhile it's true that bombing would not be a permanent solution, it is still useful. According to the Sy Hersh article, we have over 400 sites targeted, only 20 of which are nuclear. Once we decide to bomb, we would take out their missile sites, air defenses and other retaliatory strike capabilities. I think the consequences -- good and bad -- are too unpredictable to assume that bombing will only delay the program a few years. It will do AT LEAST that.
Nate,
ReplyDeleteWhile it's true that bombing would not be a permanent solution, it is still useful. According to the Sy Hersh article, we have over 400 sites targeted, only 20 of which are nuclear. Once we decide to bomb, we would take out their missile sites, air defenses and other retaliatory strike capabilities. I think the consequences -- good and bad -- are too unpredictable to assume that bombing will only delay the program a few years. It will do AT LEAST that.
Responding to David at 12:53PM:
ReplyDeleteI can understand this point of view. Really, I can.
As a purely military matter, there exists the chance (a thin one, from where I'm sitting) that a sustained conventional bombing campaign could degrade Iranian research facilities and capacity to the point where they won't be able to home-produce a nuclear device of any workable design for at least the rest of the decade. Of course, most analysts I've read already put their first nuclear test at least that far away anyway.
The trouble is the consequences of such an action won't be confined to just the military arena. That's been my point from the start, and unless someone has a crystal ball that can show with 100% accuracy that such a campaign *won't* result in the nightmare scenario I suggested is likely, I maintain bombing Iran (whether conventionally or with nukes, whether limited to just nuclear research sites or a wider campaign) is the worst of all options.
Then there's Nate at 11:38AM:
"Come to think of it, maybe this will provide a desirable outcome for people of your persuasion, ie Americans running for the helicopters as they evacuate the green zone."
I'll leave aside the frankly idiotic insinuation that I *want* Iraq to fall apart and address your comment on merits (one must set the example, after all).
Who's to say we aren't seeing that already, Nate? And let's not fool ourselves here: Iraq *is* falling apart and is in the midst of a full-blown (if low-intensity) civil war. The Bush Administration has managed to destroy any hope of Iraq being a functioning country since toppling the Hussein regime, has managed to mis-manage both what little reconstruction has actually been accomplished, left the Iraqis even more destitute than they were before, and accomplished absolutely nothing that improves either our nation's physical or economic security.
Show me where I'm wrong on any of these points. Show me how invading Iraq three years ago was a good idea on any practical level.
Responding to David at 12:53PM:
ReplyDeleteI can understand this point of view. Really, I can.
As a purely military matter, there exists the chance (a thin one, from where I'm sitting) that a sustained conventional bombing campaign could degrade Iranian research facilities and capacity to the point where they won't be able to home-produce a nuclear device of any workable design for at least the rest of the decade. Of course, most analysts I've read already put their first nuclear test at least that far away anyway.
The trouble is the consequences of such an action won't be confined to just the military arena. That's been my point from the start, and unless someone has a crystal ball that can show with 100% accuracy that such a campaign *won't* result in the nightmare scenario I suggested is likely, I maintain bombing Iran (whether conventionally or with nukes, whether limited to just nuclear research sites or a wider campaign) is the worst of all options.
Then there's Nate at 11:38AM:
"Come to think of it, maybe this will provide a desirable outcome for people of your persuasion, ie Americans running for the helicopters as they evacuate the green zone."
I'll leave aside the frankly idiotic insinuation that I *want* Iraq to fall apart and address your comment on merits (one must set the example, after all).
Who's to say we aren't seeing that already, Nate? And let's not fool ourselves here: Iraq *is* falling apart and is in the midst of a full-blown (if low-intensity) civil war. The Bush Administration has managed to destroy any hope of Iraq being a functioning country since toppling the Hussein regime, has managed to mis-manage both what little reconstruction has actually been accomplished, left the Iraqis even more destitute than they were before, and accomplished absolutely nothing that improves either our nation's physical or economic security.
Show me where I'm wrong on any of these points. Show me how invading Iraq three years ago was a good idea on any practical level.
Otherwise can we please table the 'cut-and-run' nonesense and get back to more sensible discussion?
The trouble is the consequences of such an action won't be confined to just the military arena. That's been my point from the start, and unless someone has a crystal ball that can show with 100% accuracy that such a campaign *won't* result in the nightmare scenario I suggested is likely, I maintain bombing Iran (whether conventionally or with nukes, whether limited to just nuclear research sites or a wider campaign) is the worst of all options.
ReplyDeleteThere will be serious and dangerous consequences to any bombing. I have never suggested otherwise. Iran will retaliate against American forces in Iraq, and through Hezbollah, it will try to drag Israel into war in the hopes that a larger, perhaps regional conflict ensues. Moreover, Iran, again through Hezbollah, will retaliate with more terrorism against American interests and targets globally. There will also consequences, of course, that we cannot yet predict. All that is true.
But we can deal with that. We would, however, be powerless to thwart a nuclear-armed Iran aggressively pursuing dominance of a region that is of the utmost strategic importance to us, as well as the genocide of another people and country.
We went to war against Saddam in the first Gulf War to protect our oil interests. If you think that was justified -- as I do -- then the following question arises: what would we have done if Saddam was about to go nuclear, prior to his attack on Kuwait? If Saddam had been just a little bit more patient, he would have kept Kuwait, and would have probably grabbed some more. Was preventing Saddam from gaining effective control over the global economy the right move? Is allowing Iran the opportunity to do the same, all the while supporting every terrorist group inimical to the West's vision of a new and better Middle East -- is that the right move?
Our options are terrible. But we're going to have to make a choice.
Responding to David at 2:23PM:
ReplyDeleteI'd like to say its refreshing to hear the commentator isn't totally divorced from reality, acknowledging there are serious and unpredictable consequences likely to result from US bombings of Iran.
I'd like to say this, but I can't, given the commentator goes on to say "But we can deal with that."
Once I was sure I wasn't mis-reading that, and that alone took a few minutes, I tried to take this assertion seriously in light of the rest of the commentator's predictions: Hezbollah reorientating itself against American targets worldwide, the Straits closed and US shipping under constant threat, Israel potentially prompted into yet another war, etc.. No mention of course of the US becoming diplomatically and economically isolated, but we'll leave that go for the moment.
Exactly how can we "deal with that" kind of political and security environment? I can't see it, I really can't.
Worse, david goes on to assert a nuclear-armed Iran would the US "powerless". His word, not mine: "powerless"
If you're not prepared at this point to start banging your head on the desk (or burst out laughing), you're better than I am.
Even allowing that Iran could, theoretically, home-build say a half-dozen nuclear devices with uniform megaton yields in the low-teens *and* possessed the means to deliver these devices effectively (these aren't Alpha Units/'suitcase nukes' we're talking about, but potentially very big devices)...so what?
Remind me please which country has the larger, more reliably designed and tested, more easily deliverable nuclear arsenal at its disposal? The same country that, at least presently, has a firm doctrine of "No First Use" in place, and thus the moral high ground when it comes to using nukes?
Okay, for sake of argument, let's say five years down the road the regime in Tehran actually has a device and puts its money where its mouth currently is. Let's further presume that (a) they manage *somehow* to actually deliver the nuke by missile or bomber over, say, Tel Aviv, and (b) the device doesn't malfunction and detonates as designed. What's next?
Several things most likely: Iran looses all international sympathy and creditability; Tehran will likely disappear under a similar mushroom cloud (likely of Israeli origin), as will any force that seeks to cross Israel's borders; Islamic radicals around the world will rejoice for awhile, but the more rational among them and the world in general will also question what has really been accomplished by this save more death and destruction.
My personal prediction: presuming no bombing campaign takes place, Iran will continue its research and continue to use the research itself as a chip in bargaining its position both regionally and internationally. Jingoistic rehtoric, particularly with respect to Israel, will continue as it has since the early 1950s, but will result in little to no direct action; any action will be done through proxies like Hezbollah. Even if Iran does manage to develop, build and successfully test a nuclear device, it will only encourage all sides to behave with greater restraint; Iran has already lost nearly an entire generation to a senseless war with its neighbor, so I doubt they really have the stomach for another one.
I'm going to leave the proposed 'what ifs' about the 1991 Gulf War alone as I really have no idea what he's talking about.
Any response anyone?
Yankee: great analysis of this what if... The question is, however, whether it'd even get as far as you so clearly describe. If there were a will to meet Iran on equal and good faith grounds, I do believe that they'd carry through on their declaration that all they want is a peaceful energy program.
ReplyDeleteAs Juan Cole points out, this is well within their rights as a nation. Cole also points out the religious connotations of Ahmedinajad's statements.
Again, we see the rhetoric of war mounting from the Bush admin. and no one in the press or political opposition mounting a concerted effort to counter the disinformation promulgated by Bush et al.
Anyone heard from a Democrat lately about this? How long are they going to wait before they get their heads out of their butts? After another AUMF is passed? Or will Bush et al. actually use the present AUMF to justify attacking Iran? ...
I'm betting that there's more that one person that said "Gee, if I'd known before that this was all it took to shoo off trools like 'notherbob2...."
ReplyDeleteCheers,
I'm Alger Hiss's ghost and I hate snakes!
ReplyDelete