Obama gets another Key Endorsement

[pBills]

And since when do any of you care what these people say? Everything that comes of out their mouths is automatically dismissed by you, unless of course it's something you can jump all over and use against a person or cause you view as "the opposition". This is all meaningless noise, right up there with flag pins and vetoing of all beers.

 

 

Come on vetoing of all beers. That should strike a nerve with everyone

[erynthered]

And since when do any of you care what these people say? Everything that comes of out their mouths is automatically dismissed by you, unless of course it's something you can jump all over and use against a person or cause you view as "the opposition". This is all meaningless noise, right up there with flag pins and vetoing of all beers.

 

 

Nope. You never did this. Nope. Never. Nada. Not you. Nope.

 

Thats some funny chit, Deb.

[/dev/null]

do you think The Messiah will re-appoint her as the Secretary of State?

 

Will the Obamassiah have appoint or can he just annoint?

[finknottle]

Or is it because Obama is pacifist? Don't get that one because wasn't he the one that stated he would do anything it takes to keep America safe as long as the information is credible? ie: going into Pakistan if need be to get terrorists

 

I will never be accused as an apologist for Bush's foreign policy debacles, but this credibility stuff is bunk.

 

The intelligence community and those of all of our allies all concluded Saddam was working on WMD. They were fooled - but that's hindsight. The point is that it was their job to assess things, and that's the conclusion they gave. The conclusions of the experts is credibility by any reasonable definition.

 

So would Obama have fallen victim to the same thing Bush did, or is he magically different? Where will he find 'credible' sources on Pakistan harboring terrorists if not his own services, who can sometimes be wrong? MoveOn and the Carter Foundation? Or is he going to pick and choose when to listen to the professionals within his own government, whether it be the CIA, NASA, or the OMB, and call their findings credible only when it suits him? That sounds suspiciously like Bush...

[PastaJoe]

I will never be accused as an apologist for Bush's foreign policy debacles, but this credibility stuff is bunk.

 

The intelligence community and those of all of our allies all concluded Saddam was working on WMD. They were fooled - but that's hindsight. The point is that it was their job to assess things, and that's the conclusion they gave. The conclusions of the experts is credibility by any reasonable definition.

 

So would Obama have fallen victim to the same thing Bush did, or is he magically different? Where will he find 'credible' sources on Pakistan harboring terrorists if not his own services, who can sometimes be wrong? MoveOn and the Carter Foundation? Or is he going to pick and choose when to listen to the professionals within his own government, whether it be the CIA, NASA, or the OMB, and call their findings credible only when it suits him? That sounds suspiciously like Bush...

 

The intelligence community said it was possible he was working on WMD, but their evidence was not conclusive. The Bush administration took the possible and sold it to the public as a certainty, especially the inferrence that he would have nuclear capabilities soon. That's why they got paranoid whenever their assersions were challenged by people like Joe Wilson.

[GG]

The intelligence community said it was possible he was working on WMD, but their evidence was not conclusive. The Bush administration took the possible and sold it to the public as a certainty, especially the inferrence that he would have nuclear capabilities soon. That's why they got paranoid whenever their assersions were challenged by people like Joe Wilson.

 

You do realize that the US intelligence was a lot more negative than UK's, Germany's & Italy's, etc. And how many times can Joe Wilson be discredited before you stop bringing up his name?

[Kelly the Dog]

You do realize that the US intelligence was a lot more negative than UK's, Germany's & Italy's, etc. And how many times can Joe Wilson be discredited before you stop bringing up his name?

Some ways. Other ways they weren't. I recently saw the UK ambassador to the United Nations on Charlie Rose and he said, flat out, that the UK knew for a fact that Saddam had no nuclear weapons before the war started. They told the US and the US knew it, too. Rose was shocked, but the Ambassador just implied it was common knowledge. And he was for the war. He said that Saddam might eventually try to get some down the line. But when we went to war the Brits knew for a fact he had no nuclear weapons. They thought he still had some chemical and biological ones.

 

And the fact that Joe Wilson is an ass and opportunist and all kinds of other things aside, the fundamental point of the whole escape was that Niger did not try to sell Iraq yellowcake. You can refute him and what he said and reported as many times you want to say other people should stop bringing him up, but he went there to disprove it and he disproved it. They never brought it up and it never happened and the documents were false, regardless of the spin that some (including yourself) have put on it.

[DC Tom]

Some ways. Other ways they weren't. I recently saw the UK ambassador to the United Nations on Charlie Rose and he said, flat out, that the UK knew for a fact that Saddam had no nuclear weapons before the war started. They told the US and the US knew it, too. Rose was shocked, but the Ambassador just implied it was common knowledge. And he was for the war. He said that Saddam might eventually try to get some down the line. But when we went to war the Brits knew for a fact he had no nuclear weapons. They thought he still had some chemical and biological ones.

 

And the fact that Joe Wilson is an ass and opportunist and all kinds of other things aside, the fundamental point of the whole escape was that Niger did not try to sell Iraq yellowcake. You can refute him and what he said and reported as many times you want to say other people should stop bringing him up, but he went there to disprove it and he disproved it. They never brought it up and it never happened and the documents were false, regardless of the spin that some (including yourself) have put on it.

 

Pardon me for interrupting this train wreck...but did anyone EVER say in 2002 that Saddam had nuclear weapons?

 

I remember a lot of sh-- about Saddam having a nuclear weapons program...but not the weapons themselves. And I did pay pretty close attention at the time. And it's a pretty unsellable lie anyway...hiding a chem/bio program is pretty easy. Hiding a nuke program...ask the North Koreans how well that's going for them...

[Kelly the Dog]

Pardon me for interrupting this train wreck...but did anyone EVER say in 2002 that Saddam had nuclear weapons?

 

I remember a lot of sh-- about Saddam having a nuclear weapons program...but not the weapons themselves. And I did pay pretty close attention at the time. And it's a pretty unsellable lie anyway...hiding a chem/bio program is pretty easy. Hiding a nuke program...ask the North Koreans how well that's going for them...

No weapons and no capabilities and no capacity to make them and no materials. The White House surely implied if not flat out said that he was reconstituting his programs. Again, Rose, who is very well read on this stuff, was shocked. Here is the show, he starts talking about it about 3 minutes in.

 

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/05/1...remy-greenstock

[GG]

Some ways. Other ways they weren't. I recently saw the UK ambassador to the United Nations on Charlie Rose and he said, flat out, that the UK knew for a fact that Saddam had no nuclear weapons before the war started. They told the US and the US knew it, too. Rose was shocked, but the Ambassador just implied it was common knowledge. And he was for the war. He said that Saddam might eventually try to get some down the line. But when we went to war the Brits knew for a fact he had no nuclear weapons. They thought he still had some chemical and biological ones.

 

And the fact that Joe Wilson is an ass and opportunist and all kinds of other things aside, the fundamental point of the whole escape was that Niger did not try to sell Iraq yellowcake. You can refute him and what he said and reported as many times you want to say other people should stop bringing him up, but he went there to disprove it and he disproved it. They never brought it up and it never happened and the documents were false, regardless of the spin that some (including yourself) have put on it.

 

What in the world are you talking about? If anything the interview with Greenstock reinforces what I've been arguing. Why don't you quote his answer to Rose when asked what he thought would happen if the invasion didn't happen. The answer was blunt, Saddam would be a menace for a long time and he would rebuild his military capability and he had already started smuggling weapons from the Russians. Rose changed the interview topic immediately after that answer. You would figure that a skilled interviewer like Rose would probe that line of reasoning, such as determining whether Saddam would be a controllable menace or a menace that had to be dealt with eventually (but with greater ammunition)

 

Rose's feigned surprise (IMHO) is bizarre because someone in his stature should surely know that there was never ever a claim that Saddam had nukular capabilities in 2003. Even though Rose's questions to Greenstock were leading, Greenstock did not come out and call the administration liars, he only said that if people believed what the admin told them that Saddam had nukes, it was wrong. But no where is the implication that Bush sold the war because of existing nuclear capability. Note that Greenstock also said that the West had the capacity to block Iraq's WMD ambitions as long as the sanctions were in place. Of course, it's left unsaid that UN was on its way to lifting the sanctions thanks to France, Russia & China.

 

Why do you ignore Greenstock's point in the interview that Saddam was very interested in acquiring nukes. Which is the whole point of the Wilson debacle. No one claimed that Niger tried to sell yellowcake to Iraq. The claim was that Iraq was interested in buying yellowcake from Niger.

 

If I'm the one who's trying to spin a story, what does that make you?

[blzrul]

...Saddam would be a menace for a long time and he would rebuild his military capability and he had already started smuggling weapons from the Russians.

 

Whoop de freaking do. He's about as scary as Fidel Castro. Yes, the guy who DID have Russian weapon on his soil and was, oh by the way, faced down by one-a those candy-ass liberal Democrats (war hero? Can't be, he was a Democrat).

 

Since then we pee our collective pants at the thought of Fidel...why I cannot imagine. It's ludicrous. Ridiculous. And really, sort of embarrassing that the superpower United States of America refuses to normalize relations with a country that's about as dangerous as a horsefly on a horse's ass.

 

Speaking of the latter I wonder if GWB had a nice day today...is he still on his European Vacation, ignoring another disaster in the country he swore to preserve and protect?

[Kelly the Dog]

What in the world are you talking about? If anything the interview with Greenstock reinforces what I've been arguing. Why don't you quote his answer to Rose when asked what he thought would happen if the invasion didn't happen. The answer was blunt, Saddam would be a menace for a long time and he would rebuild his military capability and he had already started smuggling weapons from the Russians. Rose changed the interview topic immediately after that answer. You would figure that a skilled interviewer like Rose would probe that line of reasoning, such as determining whether Saddam would be a controllable menace or a menace that had to be dealt with eventually (but with greater ammunition)

 

Rose's feigned surprise (IMHO) is bizarre because someone in his stature should surely know that there was never ever a claim that Saddam had nukular capabilities in 2003. Even though Rose's questions to Greenstock were leading, Greenstock did not come out and call the administration liars, he only said that if people believed what the admin told them that Saddam had nukes, it was wrong. But no where is the implication that Bush sold the war because of existing nuclear capability. Note that Greenstock also said that the West had the capacity to block Iraq's WMD ambitions as long as the sanctions were in place. Of course, it's left unsaid that UN was on its way to lifting the sanctions thanks to France, Russia & China.

 

Why do you ignore Greenstock's point in the interview that Saddam was very interested in acquiring nukes. Which is the whole point of the Wilson debacle. No one claimed that Niger tried to sell yellowcake to Iraq. The claim was that Iraq was interested in buying yellowcake from Niger.

 

If I'm the one who's trying to spin a story, what does that make you?

I was only referring to Greenstock's point in reference to your argument that the US intelligence was more negative than UK's and others. That's it. I didn't add anything else from the interview because it was immaterial to my point. Some of the things he said made the US intelligence seem less negative, some of it more negative. Hence I said in "some ways, others not." I wasnt sayng or implying Greenstock thought they were liars. I know he thought the invasion was the right thing to do, and that they thought he had bio and chemical, and that he was for the war. He's even for the surge. That was only to say he wasnt an anti-war guy saying this.

 

Charlie Rose is not the kind of guy to feign surprise and then make his guest say something again for theatrics. C'mon. I have never seen him do anything of the sort, and I watch him almost every night.

 

Wilson's report was they had the meeting and yellowcake was never mentioned. Refuting the allegation as well as showing the report was fabricated. The spin that this actually supported the claim was laughable.

[GG]

I was only referring to Greenstock's point in reference to your argument that the US intelligence was more negative than UK's and others. That's it. I didn't add anything else from the interview because it was immaterial to my point. Some of the things he said made the US intelligence seem less negative, some of it more negative. Hence I said in "some ways, others not." I wasnt sayng or implying Greenstock thought they were liars. I know he thought the invasion was the right thing to do, and that they thought he had bio and chemical, and that he was for the war. He's even for the surge. That was only to say he wasnt an anti-war guy saying this.

 

Charlie Rose is not the kind of guy to feign surprise and then make his guest say something again for theatrics. C'mon. I have never seen him do anything of the sort, and I watch him almost every night.

 

Wilson's report was they had the meeting and yellowcake was never mentioned. Refuting the allegation as well as showing the report was fabricated. The spin that this actually supported the claim was laughable.

 

Is Molson back? My argument is that US intelligence was more skeptical than the Europeans. In no way does the Greenstock interview prove that wrong. You're clinging to Rose's surprised look to infer that the US thought that Saddam had nukular capability, while there are no documents that I'm are aware of that support that view. Perhaps you can point me to it, but I have never seen anything even close to resembling that assertation.

 

You're arguing against the spin that was used to sell the war, which is different from the actual info that the US intelligence community had compiled - which until proven otherwise, was more skeptical than the European counterparts.

 

As for the truth broker that Joe Wilson is, let's unretire the obligatory linky thingy.

[Simon]

So would Obama have fallen victim to the same thing Bush did, or is he magically different?

Would any other administration aside from our current one have repeatedly sent back intelligence reports in an effort to have them altered to fit their preconceived notions and a course of action that had already been determined?

Or is this administration just magically different?

[Kelly the Dog]

Is Molson back? My argument is that US intelligence was more skeptical than the Europeans. In no way does the Greenstock interview prove that wrong. You're clinging to Rose's surprised look to infer that the US thought that Saddam had nukular capability, while there are no documents that I'm are aware of that support that view. Perhaps you can point me to it, but I have never seen anything even close to resembling that assertation.

 

You're arguing against the spin that was used to sell the war, which is different from the actual info that the US intelligence community had compiled - which until proven otherwise, was more skeptical than the European counterparts.

 

As for the truth broker that Joe Wilson is, let's unretire the obligatory linky thingy.

I was counting what Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld said and implied about the nuclear weapons and programs based on the intelligence, like the Meet The Press exchange...

 

MR. RUSSERT: And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree?

 

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree, yes. . . . We know that based on intelligence that he has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. . . ."

 

And again, the refutation of the Wilson thing is just plain stupid, IMO. He was sent there to find out if there was any truth to the idea that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake from Niger. he reported no, they weren't. They didn't. And then after the fact, the CIA decided they actually never did. All the crap about the 16 words, whether Bush lied or didn't know, who actually said what and when, and the fact Wilson is a slimeball are all just a sideshow. He was sent to see if Iraq was buying. He found out they werent. The Intelligence found out they werent. They never did. End of story. And yes, I think he is a grandstanding slimeball. But that doesnt negate the fact he was right. And he didn't lie about what he found.

[GG]

I was counting what Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld said and implied about the nuclear weapons and programs based on the intelligence, like the Meet The Press exchange...

 

Which is totally irrelevant to my point.

 

And again, the refutation of the Wilson thing is just plain stupid, IMO. He was sent there to find out if there was any truth to the idea that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake from Niger. he reported no, they weren't. They didn't. And then after the fact, the CIA decided they actually never did. All the crap about the 16 words, whether Bush lied or didn't know, who actually said what and when, and the fact Wilson is a slimeball are all just a sideshow. He was sent to see if Iraq was buying. He found out they werent. The Intelligence found out they werent. They never did. End of story. And yes, I think he is a grandstanding slimeball. But that doesnt negate the fact he was right. And he didn't lie about what he found.

 

His trip was a waste because he brought back contradictory evidence. While there was no sale, there was the indication that Iraq was looking to do a deal. He changed his story after his report to the CIA, which actually bolstered the intelligence that there may have been a deal in the works.

 

The reason that the admin went full press on Wilson is that he flat out lied in his NYT op-ed and in other public appearances, until the Senate Committee and the Butler Report showed that he lied about major aspects of the trip and how the data was used. In retrospect, it's hard to argue about their rationale for the spin against Wilson, as people are still clinging to Wilson's words as gospel.

[Wacka]

Kadaffi in Libya , when he realized the US meant business and came clean stated that Iraq was doing its research in LIBYA. Saddam had a program and was working on developing a weapon, he just moved it to Libya.

[finknottle]

Would any other administration aside from our current one have repeatedly sent back intelligence reports in an effort to have them altered to fit their preconceived notions and a course of action that had already been determined?

Or is this administration just magically different?

 

What course of action an administration chooses to pursue based on the findings of its experts and how they sell them is completely different from whether or not they accept the findings. I am unaware of any community findings that were 'sent back' to change the conclusion. Are you saying that there were NIE's that originally said Saddam was *not* looking to reconstitute his WMD programs?

 

There *was* credible evidence. The fact that it was trumped up by Saddam, to fool even his own generals into believing that they were backed up by chemical weapons and to sow uncertaintity in the coalition forces opposing him, doesn't change that.

[finknottle]

And the fact that Joe Wilson is an ass and opportunist and all kinds of other things aside, the fundamental point of the whole escape was that Niger did not try to sell Iraq yellowcake. You can refute him and what he said and reported as many times you want to say other people should stop bringing him up, but he went there to disprove it and he disproved it. They never brought it up and it never happened and the documents were false, regardless of the spin that some (including yourself) have put on it.

 

I've been pretty clear in my utter contempt for those who defend the outing of Wilson's wife.

 

Having said that, Wilson has nothing to do with this. The NIE is about connecting a million dots to build up a probable picture. It is not a law-enforcement document, hanging on singular facts which must be proved or disproved beyond a shadow of a doubt. Wilson's findings in Niger were just one data point, to be weighed and contrasted with all the other data points about Iraqi intentions. It say's nothing about whether other procurement activities were ongoing.

[PastaJoe]

Kadaffi in Libya , when he realized the US meant business and came clean stated that Iraq was doing its research in LIBYA. Saddam had a program and was working on developing a weapon, he just moved it to Libya.

 

Gadaffi, there's a reliable source of intelligence. He'd say anything to get back in U.S. good graces after blowing up Pan Am 103.