Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I have long wondered why the President kept Tenet in his position for so long. I oscillate between two possibilities (others may exist):

1. The President is a fair minded man, and wanted to give Tenet a chance to fix the problem.

2. The President recognized the structural and institutional failures of the CIA's culture, and gave it enough rope to hang itself.

The problem with either of these is that it assumes that the Byzantine intrigues of the Beltway get suspended during wartime.

The CIA (perhaps) interpreted mercy as weakness. The CIA (definitely) fought back during the 2004 election season.

Posted by MG at May 5, 2007 02:00 PM

I think the problem had at least two aspects...

First GWB is a nice guy and see's others the same (looking into Putin's eyes? Rather than paying attention to his assasination of political opponents?)

Second was the transitional turmoil... thx Al!

Posted by ken anthony at May 5, 2007 02:22 PM

The sheer bluster in the face of facts is astonishing to watch.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at May 5, 2007 02:44 PM

And to think that Bush kept him on...

thinking here...competence of "help" says something about competence of person hiring said help....

The amazing thing about all these jokers is that they are all trying to excise the lepers in their heads from committing a fraud on the American people.

Had Clinton done this Whittington et al would be storming the White House fence.

LOL

What a joke these people are...
Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 5, 2007 02:50 PM

Posted by Dennis Wingo at May 5, 2007 02:44 PM

Yes...no WMD, no terrorist connections, incompetent post war theories, four years of "dead enders"...you must be hosed...you voted for the guy who made all this possible...

LOL

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 5, 2007 02:51 PM

Posted by MG at May 5, 2007 02:00 PM

Try sheer incompetence...it explains almost everything...

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 5, 2007 02:52 PM

Doug Feith

LOL this guy is incredible...he made one wrong assumption after another in his "pre war planning" and now is trying to explain to us about the DCI making missteps...

The worst and the dumbest....

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 5, 2007 02:57 PM

he made one wrong assumption after another in his "pre war planning" and now is trying to explain to us about the DCI making missteps...

Robert, the DCI did make missteps. Feith is simply pointing them out. Your ad hominem attacks on Feith aren't of any interest to my readership, and aren't of relevance as to whether or not Tenet was incompetent, and his book a self serving fantasy. If you don't have anything useful to contribute, and that's the best you can do, then please stop wasting my disk space and bandwidth. The rest of us would like to have an intelligent discussion here.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 5, 2007 03:10 PM

It would not be a problem for me to agree with criticism of Tenet if it came from a source with more credibility than Feith. Isn't this the guy that Tommy Franks called the "f*ing stupidest man he's met?" So many of our mistakes in Iraq come from the group Feith represents.

Posted by Offside at May 5, 2007 04:22 PM

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 5, 2007 03:10 PM

DF can point out all the missteps he wants to IN OTHER PEOPLE...but that is clearly the pot calling the kettle a color similar to its appearance.

DF made so many missteps that they are almost incalculable...

Indeed they are in the scheme of things the "final event" on the disaster known as Iraq.

If the DCI made mistakes in the justifications for why we went, those mistakes would be of some note but not of a lot of importance to how Iraq is turning out HAD THE DECISIONS made as to how to act upon the information the DCI supplied NOT BEEN SO FLAWED.

An example to make this very clear. An appraiser might tell one that a new roof is needed and be in error...but that error is trivial if the new roof is put on in error...

And it is not a really helpful statement by the person who put the roof on badly that "well the guy who told you that one was needed in the first place was really to blame...he was wrong." Would that satisfy you?

Likewise the mistakes of the DCI (which I believe are real) are entertaining based on the fact that they seem just one of the mistakes made by almost everyone else in the administration including the person who is in theory "in charge".

DF pointing out that mistakes were made is like Linda H pointing out that the shuttle should not have been designed how it was.

The problem with this administration and the people (I guess you included) who are trying desperatly to explain "why" we went into Iraq is that there is no politically acceptable reason that we went. There might be one day if it turns out "OK" (and it might) but right now the execution was so flawed that the decision to go looks assine.

A LOT of people might have thought there were WMD in Iraq BUT we would not have gone into Iraq had people like DF been suggesting that it was a good idear...mostly for reasons that had nothing to do with WMD at all.

the DCI made a lot of mistakes...and they are all something to explore...but the major mistake was caused by the people who executed the policy in a flawed manner and that is DF.

So it is really hard to take ANYTHING he says with anything but a hah. If Shinseki had made some comments...now there is someone who has credibility.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 5, 2007 04:22 PM

Isn't this the guy that Tommy Franks called the "f*ing stupidest man he's met?" So many of our mistakes in Iraq come from the group Feith represents.

Posted by Offside at May 5, 2007 04:22 PM

YES.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 5, 2007 04:24 PM

In other words, neither of you wants to address the substance of the post. Probably because you can't. So instead, you simply want to attack Feith. Did either of you ever take a basic course in logic, and logical fallacies?

As I said, I have better use for my disk space and bandwidth.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 5, 2007 04:35 PM

nope...it is because accusations made by a person who has made so many errors as DF dont merit rebuttal.

There are errors that the DCI made, and his book (which I have read) is simply the DCI trying to explain why he got sucked into the "Invade Iraq" vortex...(and not all that well).

Problem is that DF was one of the people who created the vortex....

As I said, the person who puts the roof on badly, doesnt have a lot of stroke in trying to explain how badly the appraiser worked.

Would he with you?

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 5, 2007 04:40 PM

Rand

If you want to see someone who has some horsepower and was very critical of the DCI in fact takes him apart...go peruse what the author of Imperial Hubris wrote in the Post.

Quote that...this person has some substance.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 5, 2007 04:41 PM

Rand, et al,

I think it is reasonable to acknowledge that Feith made his own errors in judgment. If his critique of Tenet had no corroborations, then his own credibility would be a proper issue.

HOWEVER, Tenet makes a number of specific, counterfactual claims, and a number of self-serving hand-washings. This, from the DCI of the several years previous to 9/11/2001.

Attacking Feith, without addressing the substance of his claims, is, as Rand has stated, a logical fallacy, and if that is all you "critics" can offer, then please, return to your fellow cultists, and rehearse your mythic litany elsewhere.

I asked a substantive question. "Incompetence" is NOT a substantive response. Ad hominem attacks on Feith are also not substantive.

Can any of you "critics" offer a substantive response to my lead-off question? If you only assume your conclusions, then your analyses are no better than those of the very people you castigate so severely.

Posted by MG at May 5, 2007 04:54 PM

there are claims made in error that mean something and there are claims made in error that mean nothing.

If the basis to beat up on the DCI is that he got a meeting wrong with Perle...then where were you when Dick Cheney got a meeting with Atta and Iraqi intellegence wrong? And kept speaking about it and speaking about it and still kind of does, long after it was proven to be a "non fact"?

I have YET to hear Perle say that the "SUBSTANCE" of the DCI's claim..that Dark STar was among other things trying to find a reason to go into Iraq...wrong.

The writer of the book IMperial Hubris did a pretty good job on the book and the DCI in his Washington POst op ed.

The substance of the DCI's book...that the administration was looking for a fight with Saddam is just about irrefutable. That they "oversold" the threat and undersold the "we cant wait for a threat to emerge" line is also irrefutable...

That Colin Powells speech at the UN was hogwash is irrefutable...that he/they everone should have paused on it...is as well. We had special forces in Iraq before we invaded...you dont think that they were looking for WMD? Any WMD? and couldnt find it.

The fact remains...a lot of people (not me but that is irrelevant) did think Saddam had WMD...had these folks including DF not 1) made it sound so necessary and 2) made it sound so easy...we never would have gone.

Put another way...if the American people knew then what they know now...how far do you think the smoking mushroom line would have gone?

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 5, 2007 05:12 PM

Robert,

You are getting closer to proper argument.

On a related issue:

"then where were you when Dick Cheney got a meeting with Atta and Iraqi intellegence wrong? And kept speaking about it and speaking about it and still kind of does, long after it was proven to be a "non fact"?"

Has the Czech Republic retracted that intelligence finding? I guess I missed it. Could you point me to where they have? Last I heard, they stood by their finding.

You know, sort of like the Brits never retracted THEIR intelligence finding that Saddam was seeking yellow-cake from Africa (the infamous "fourteen words" that launched the Plame Incident (TM)).

So, please, unless you can point me to the Czech government's retraction of the Atta meetings, please retract your claim about Cheney. You might still be correct, but until you can substantiate your claim, you had best withdraw it.

Unless, of course, you prefer exercise the very same methods you accuse others of making.

Posted by MG at May 5, 2007 05:19 PM

Posted by MG at May 5, 2007 04:54 PM

One more thing...

think about this. If Bush/DF/and the rest of the band of idiots have FOUGHT THE WAR at competent level X....then isnt if fair to assume that they got us into the war at the same competence level?

Think about that.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 5, 2007 05:20 PM

Posted by MG at May 5, 2007 05:19 PM

long ago the Cheney claim was pointed out to be bogus. An informed citizenry knows that.

Cheney made a lot of claims...all which were not ours to disprove but HIS TO PROVE...

He said he knew for a fact that Saddam was doing this and that and Rummy said we "knew" where the WMD was and that Atta had that meeting...and yet he could offer no proof of it.

NO PROOF, the best he and others could do is say "disprove this" and yet a lot of things were...the Al Tubing fiasco was simply a lie and Oak Ridge knew it.

I dont care what British intel was saying...they didnt say it with certianty absolute fact, something that Dick Cheney did say about Saddam and his nuclear program. Colin Powell was presenting drawings at the UN for a reason...they had no facts.

Bush NEVER NOT ONCE in a single speech made the centerpoint of that speech "we have reevaluated the threat and based on old evidence we now believe that we have to go now".

Worse there were inspectors doing what Bush wanted done...looking for WMD...now we know why they couldnt find it.

This administration made extroadinary claims about why going to Iraq was important...all to a scared populace...and all with no real proof.

And that is the flaw, not the DCI's assertion of a meeting with Perle...which Perle has never denied the substance of...wonder why? (a hint might be the handwriting of Don Rumsfeld who on 9/11 was already trying to pin it on Saddam)...

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 5, 2007 05:27 PM

Robert,

Quit assuming your conclusions, and you might craft better arguments.

For example, I can argue that the war has not been run stupidly, but by bureaucratic structures ill-suited to the task. However, they were / are the only bureaucratic structures we had / have. Almost everything of the past five years fits into the model of:

"In the 1990's, we failed to retool the implements of state power for the new nature of conflict. Events in the 2000's have required us to use them in situations for which they are ill-suited. Some of those implements are retooling (especially the DoD). Some perhaps less so (Department of State?)."

This is a USEFUL starting point for analysis. It is rational (not emotional). It does not engage in ad hominem attacks. It relies upon established analytical tools to craft hypotheses that can be tested against evidence. The test results can then modify the model.

You now have an example. Do you want to give it a try?

Posted by MG at May 5, 2007 05:28 PM

Nope. Because your statement is completly without merit. Your word/thought/whatever "For example, I can argue that the war has not been run stupidly, but by bureaucratic structures ill-suited to the task"

YOu can argue that all you want, but it is a charade to the real problem.

The structures that should have ran the war- worked. The US military consistently said what it needed to 1) take down Saddam and 2) attempt to form a new Iraq. We have models for such things, we have done things "like this" in Kosovo for instance.

Your argument might have value if General Zinni, Admiral Owens, General Shinseki and a cast of others all in the bureacracy which you attempt to blame HAD NOT CORRECTLY PREDICTED WHAT WOULD HAPPEN. They did, your argument flounders on that.

You dont have as much intellectual horsepower or experience as General Zinni and he more or less put short work to your statements. So why should I try?

We have had serious problems in Iraq because 1) the foundation of the war was laid on a charade and that charade has worn out, 2) the people in this administration overrulled the "buracracies" and the people in them who knew what they were doing. In part because people like DF were so much smarter then say Shinseki... and 3) the people in the administration were to fracken stupid or pig headed or something to recognize that their policies were NOT WORKING until they got their hat handed to them at the polls in 06.

The buracracies were saying "stay the frack out of Iraq". The Presidents father's aides were saying "stay the frack out of Iraq". (for all I know he was saying that) A lot of people were saying "if you are going,do this differently"...

Were you paying attention in the run up to the war? All the people who said "dont go" or "if you must go differently" were correct and this administration and its "band of idiots" was wrong. (it must chap a lot of zenophobic rightwingers that Al Gore got this correct...)

When you can admit that then you are closing in on the real problem. Until then simply trying to blame "the system" is simply ignoring reality.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 5, 2007 07:02 PM

1. The President is a fair minded man, and wanted to give Tenet a chance to fix the problem.

2. The President recognized the structural and institutional failures of the CIA's culture, and gave it enough rope to hang itself.

Posted by MG at May 5, 2007 02:00 PM

Do you really buy this?

Try point 2 first...is Bush that incompetent...? IE that he knew that the CIA was flawed but went to war on the intel he was getting from it "anyway" so it would flounder and hence give him the chance to reorganize it for "real" (my word)? Do you really think that...

As for Bush giving the former DCI a chance to fix the agency..? Same thing...is Bush that dumb? He committed this country to war on the intel of an agency he knew was broken?

This is a hoot...

The same people who beat up on Clinton for tossing Cruise missiles in to Sudan...cant seem to recognize that under Dick Cheney's "Low percent possibility" doctrine that was an entirely valid manuever...and Clinton had more information about Sudan then Cheney had about Iraq.

Try occam's razor in trying to solve things...

Incompetence explains everything.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 5, 2007 07:06 PM

nope...it is because accusations made by a person who has made so many errors as DF dont merit rebuttal.

In other words, you (typically) ungrammatically admit to committing the argumentative sin of an ad hominem attack.

Sorry, we use reason and logic around here. We've had enough of your irrational graffiti at this web site.

Please leave, and don't return.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 5, 2007 07:13 PM

Rand

From Wiki...

"A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false "

I dont say DF is a coward or unpatriotic or has body odor or wears bad suits.

I do say that he has been in error on so many policy points that his calling someone else flawed is in itself bad logic.

I am not aware of one prediction about Iraq that DF has gotten correct...

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 5, 2007 07:27 PM

Rand.

Perhaps an example of ad hominem attack would be useful.

This is what was said about Al Gore after his SFO speech oppossing going into Iraq. Notice they dont say one of his points is wrong...that is good because they were all correct.

Enjoy

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-23-gore_x.htm
Republican National Committee spokesman Jim Dyke dismissed Gore's speech as crafted "for a political hack." He said Gore "may be serving a political purpose in appeasing a certain segment of the Democrat party that wants to use this type of rhetoric."

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 5, 2007 07:33 PM

Mr. Oler,

I think we will have to agree to disagree that Kosovo, or Bosnia, is a useful model.

I also think we shall have to agree to disagree that it was / is the DoD's portfolio to "attempt to form a new Iraq".

Without you having offered specifics, we may also have to agree to disagree that Shinseki, Zinni, and Owens predicted what (absent specifics) you seem to think they predicted.

Also, I suspect we will have to disagree about when the Administration "changed course". I'll offer a hint: One doesn't announce a new Secretary of Defense the day after an election unless one has been working on the transition MONTHS in advance. One doesn't announce a new "strategy (sic)" unless it has been thoroughly vetted through the leadership institutions in the executive branch. The assessed need for change, and the changes, occurred long before November 2006.

Finally, I assure you that I paid keen attention to the runup to the war. I observed large majorities of both houses of Congress agree to twenty-some causus belli. I listened attentively to arguments for and against. I learned what I could about Islam (I don't know Arabic). I reflected upon the characteristics of thug regimes, upon the Department of Defense missions of the 1990's, and the extreme risk aversion evident in the Balkans. I reflected upon the influences that the permanent bureaucracies (i.e. civil service personnel) can have in shaping the information available to decision makers. I observed the political gamesmanship regarding the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, especially with regard to unionization of federal security personnel. I attended to General Shinseki's estimate of personnel required for stabilization, and recognized that the US Armed Services could not sustain that sized-force in the field.

And yet, the need remained to:

-- End the thug regime in Iraq;
-- Limit and roll-back the ability of the Persian Empire to sink its claws and fangs into Iraq
-- Complicate the Persian Empire's drive for nuclear weaponry
-- Refocus Arab attention on the real dangers to their societies (Hint: It is not Israel or the US).
-- Atone for the 1991 American betrayal of the Kurds and Shia.

And time was not on our side. There wasn't ample time to double the size of the Army and Marines. The sanctions against Iraq had failed, and three permanent members of the UN Security Council were on the take.

As I was asked frequently in my younger years, "What do you do NOW, lieutenant?"

I am not "blaming" anyone or anything. The President has responsibility for the executive branch of government, and necessarily delegates to the subject matter experts available to him at that time.

If the subject matter experts are mistaken (for whatever reason), and the decision-makers perceive that the opportunity costs of postponing decisions are too high, then the outcome goes sideways, and one reacts flexibly within the constraints that exist.

This is how adults deal with uncertainty, and the inevitable problems that arise in responding to it.

I note, with paltry amusement, that you have declined an opportunity to argue your case. I have no doubt of the sincerity of your emotions (and heck, I am angry about the long and winding road in Iraq, too), but there is not much I can argue in response to your hand-waving generalities, other than to note their existence.

Rand, I regret the length of this. Perhaps I should start my own blog...

Respectfully submitted,

Posted by MG at May 5, 2007 08:02 PM

Slightly OT, but whatever happened to the 500 or so WMDs that they *did* find?

Anybody remember them? Yeah, most of them were old--and the press immediately wrote them off because of that--but, they were still there, and some of them apparently had considerable potency left.

Posted by Big D at May 5, 2007 08:20 PM

Rand,

I think Mr. Oler's example of "ad hominem" is a good one. However, events have NOT substantiated Mr. Gore's predictions. A careful parsing of his speech, identifying predictions, assertions of fact, and descriptions of the past reveal that his claims do not hold up.

For example:

The US continues to support the government of Afghanistan, and continues the fight against the Taliban. We have not abandoned Afghanistan, even though Gore said that we had.

The US, through the "Proliferation Security Initiative" has constructed an effective multi-national structure for tracking and impeding WMD proliferation. Libya is an early and visible success in this.

The US has not lost its leadership as a result of Iraq.

-- When India and Pakistan approached nuclear conflict, the world "community" called upon US to defuse it -- and we did.

-- When tsunamis devasted the Indian Ocean, we sent aircraft carriers to provide communication, medical support, potable water, and aviation assets. We did so outside UN auspices until Kofi threw a sh*t f*t.

-- The six party negotiations on North Korea have continued, and remain much more effective than the unilateral actions of the Clinton administration.

-- We have persevered in Iraq, through all the heartache, all the naysaying by "friends" (Exhibit 'A': the BBC).

-- Iraq has a security infrastructure that now reflects its population. Gone are the days when Sunni officers executed Shia soldiers >. Iraq has a functioning, sovereign government, that is developing the habits of negotiation and compromise that 30 years of Saddam's thuggery dissipated.

-- Iraqis don't want us to stay forever, but they don't want us to leave just yet. And that has been true for quite a while now.

Gore's predictions, then, don't stand up to the five years that have elapsed since.

Having reviewed all that, he does accurately portray the fundamental problem of pre-emption -- that of other states making use of it, and pointing to us a precedent.

I propose that pre-emption will occur anyway, regardless of our actions. Tibet comes to mind. So does the the Soviet annexation of the Baltic Republics. Or Russia's continued interference in Georgia. Or Sudan's destruction of the Dar tribe. Or... well, you get the picture.

Mr. Gore's speech, at its root, is a plea to act solely within the bounds of the UN / international "law", and to reject a particular expression of American sovereignty. You have to look for it, and to cut away the paragraphs of partial-truths, forecasts, and appeals to authority or emotion.

Rand, I ran long again. Sorry about that.

Posted by MG at May 5, 2007 08:24 PM

Rand wrote:
"Your ad hominem attacks on Feith aren't of any interest to my readership, and aren't of relevance as to whether or not Tenet was incompetent, and his book a self serving fantasy. If you don't have anything useful to contribute, and that's the best you can do, then please stop wasting my disk space and bandwidth. The rest of us would like to have an intelligent discussion here."

Might I be so bold as to point out that you're being totally hypocritical here? You have no problem when your lapdogs viciously attack other people (heck, Mike Puckett spews venom all the time and you seem to enjoy it). If they say something that you agree with, you keep silent. I notice that you did not say anything about this comment:

"They did the same thing with would be pedophile/ephebophile scott ritter..."

Somebody commits libel on your website and you don't say a word--unless they're attacking somebody that you agree with politically.

Posted by Kevin Destropper at May 5, 2007 08:26 PM

ted by Big D at May 5, 2007 08:20 PM

they were of no threat to the US as they were old really old arty and the like shells that were used against the Iranians.

Santorium from PA tried to bring that up. He lost

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 5, 2007 08:32 PM

Posted by MG at May 5, 2007 08:24 PM

Let us clear up the part about Gore's speech and some errors you make about it first

You wrote "We have not abandoned Afghanistan, even though Gore said that we had."

what are you referring to?...this is what Gore said

"Another example: Two decades ago, the Soviet Union claimed the right to launch a preemptive war in Afghanistan. And we properly encouraged and then supported the resistance movement, which a decade later succeeded in defeating the Soviet army's effort.
Unfortunately, however, when the Russians left, we abandoned the Afghans,
"

that is a fact...

Moving on...You wrote "Mr. Gore's speech, at its root, is a plea to act solely within the bounds of the UN / international "law", and to reject a particular expression of American sovereignty"

you are free to interpret it however you want, but that is not what Gore was saying.

Preemption is a viable expression of sovereignty either American or Israeli or anyone else. If for instance one has "proof" that an enemy is on the verge of attacking ones country then like the IDF in 67 or the US Navy in Dec 41 firing the first shot, indeed attacking first is valid.

The problem is in Iraq that This administration had no such proof. What they had was "old data" that had been reinterpreted in a political light...ie either their ideology of "fixing the mideast' or Cheney's "low probability" occurances.

In a nutshell Cheney's theory, which is evil for a moral country such as ours is if we just think or there is "a small chance" that we could be attacked then we are justified in "preempting" that attack.

It is the moral equivelent of "I think he might one day hit me, so I am going to draw my weapon and kill him". If that is an expression of American Soverignty then it is a very new one in our history.

What Gore was urging in his San Fran speech was that absent clear and convincing evidence that an attack was imminent then to do something like attacking Iraq...we needed some consensus to do that.

This formula worked amazingly well in Bosnia...we (the US) did the heavy lifting but the politics of it worked because Europe agreed. Absent a "clear and present danger" threat...why not?

It is not an upsurption of American soverignty absent a convincing threat to get some agreement as to a course to be followed.

The problem is that this Administration painted a picture of an urgent war. Condi "we cant keep our troops in the desert forever" (seems odd now doesnt it) or the other folks who were beating the drum of "threats".

Even the mockery of Gore's speech by actors of This administration is illustrative of the contempt that this administration had for people who were urging caution...after all they were geniuses were they not?

Can you imagine some civilian who had never served a day in uniform in the Clinton administration taking down the Army Chief of Staff...and the zenophobic right not going ballistic?

That happened in this administration. How do you explain that?

Problem is now that the going has gotten tough and four years of mistakes latter...Iraq is a tar baby that very little of the world want a part of.

this administration was careless in how it treated preparations for war,it was condenscending of how it treated those who urged caution, and it was fraudulent as to how it justified going. Now the chickens are coming home.

Put it this way. If Bush started showing pictures of IRanians with a special on board a Shahab...you might believe them...the rest of the American people...not so much.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 5, 2007 08:50 PM

Posted by MG at May 5, 2007 08:02 PM

It is not my fault that you did not watch General Zinni on MTP. He has been saying the same thing since I saw him in VA BEach at a USNI (godless bunch of liberals USNI...) meeting where he more or less took down this administrations plan for war.

And I agree that the Dems went along with the war drum. That was stupid. BUT the point remains...we would not be in Iraq if this administration had not pointed us there. Dems who voted for the war bear responsibility particularly in light of their turn coat presidential candidate stands...but it is this administration that sold Iraq.

As for the new Sec Def... Bush himself (odd isnt it) says he only got interested in changing SecDefs about 1 month before the election. This is borne out by how the Sec Def himself speaks about how he was approached.

It took these clowns four years of failed policy to figure out things were not working. That is a fact. I dont know how many times I have heard Dick Cheney use "dead enders"

What do we do now?

First stop listening to the people who got us into this mess. Just stop. That includes Cheney...if he were an honorable man he would resign. He wont but he should.

Second, hope we can hang on until a new President comes who has some credibility with the American people...and who recognizes that we have opened a can or worms in the mideast...and need to stick the fight out.

See I was oppossed to going because it was idiots who were sending us there. I am oppossed to leaving because it is equal idiots who want us to leave.

As for learning about "Arabs". I've lived and worked in the Mideast a great deal of my adult life.

That is why I frequently laugh aloud at the SecState...

one more thing...you can say you dont like how Bosnia turned out. But we stopped the slaughter of Moslems (which was happening), stabilized Europe and it is peaceful there with political evolution occuring. Have you been to Bosnia and Kosovo? I have.

Gee wouldnt that be nice in the Mideast?

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 5, 2007 09:04 PM

Mr. Oler,

I was referring to this paragraph of Mr. Gore's speech:

"Moreover, if we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth rate military of Iraq and then quickly abandon that nation as President Bush has abandoned Afghanistan after quickly defeating a fifth rate military there, the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Please, do note the last sentence. How do you interpret it? Is Mr. Gore engaging in hyperbole, or perhaps Clintonian hair-splitting ("has stored" vs. "had stored" vs. "is storing")?

---------------

"It is the moral equivelent of "I think he might one day hit me, so I am going to draw my weapon and kill him"."

Your analogy suggests far more trigger happiness than the administrations doctrine of pre-emption incorporates, and ignores the actual history from which pre-emption derives.

International "law" stems from the Treaty of Westphalia, and its successor agreements. 9/11 provided the most visible indicator that the assumptions that underlie Westphalia are no longer entirely valid.

A better analogy than what you propose is:

"That known thug, who his bribing neighbors, killing members of his household, spreading cash to known killers, who burglarized his neighbor and raped their kids, and is known to have "packed heat". Now he is claiming that he has no weapon on him.

I am unable to search effectively him, his residence, or his property, or his cooperative neighbors. My eyesight is quite poor, and won't get remedied for quite a while. SoMost of my neighbors, though, agree that he is hiding dangerous weaponry, and planning to reconstitute his ability to manufacture more as soon as he has finished buying off his cooperative neighbors.

Oh, and there is no police force, no army, and no government in this town.

And I can't move away. What should I do?

How long should I wait to pull the trigger?

-----------

One of the themes of my writing is trying to answer the question, "How does one act in the face of uncertainty?" My approach to considering foreign policy, especially warfare, forever revolves around that question.

WHEN: Non-state actors can cooperate with state actors to acquire WMD,

AND: The same non-state actors have demonstrated the will and ability to attack innocents,

AND: You haven't intelligence in which you have confidence,

AND: The consequences of waiting too long are a "mushroom cloud" over one of your cities,

THEN: What do you do?

"Proof" is not possible when one's intelligence services are blinded. There is only evidence, and evidence is a product of human frailties. This thread started with a "discussion" of Mr. Tenet's tenure as DCI. Do you propose that the CIA was a reliable source of intelligence in these matters?

Sometimes one shoots when, only in retrospect, it wasn't really necessary. Sometimes one holds fire when it is necessary to fire, and the result is one's own death.

In the case of Iraq, we held fire from 1991 to 2003. Many died, but they were nameless, faceless Kurds and Arabs; Shia and Sunni; in short, brown people, so they didn't matter.

We fired in 2003, and some of the reasons that we used to justify our action have not been borne out in fact (yet, perhaps). The thug regime is gone, and a new, bloody, painful birthing is happening. State policies of mass-killing are no longer part of Iraq. Lethal violence continues, and will for quite a while.

A policeman, in a dark alley, sometimes faces uncertain danger with no backup available. Do you counsel retreat? What of the innocent?

What of the innocent, indeed.

Posted by MG at May 5, 2007 09:26 PM

Mr. Oler,

"you can say you dont like how Bosnia turned out."

Please don't put words into my mouth. I stated my skepticism that Bosnia is a useful model for Iraq.

The differences are many; the similarities, few.

My discontent with our Bosnian operation is that American involvement was even necessary. The principal powers of western Europe did NOTHING to stem the creeping genocide until the US stepped in. Stepped in, I note, without UN authorization, without Russian approval, and AFTER the Dutch acquiesced to the Serbs in Srebrenica.

Since then (well, since Rwanda), I have had little regard for the "United" Nations, and pitifully more for international "law". Both institutions have morphed from their liberal 19th and early 20th century roots, and become weapons in the hands of 21st century flouters, to be used against the institutions' creators.

Again, I don't doubt your sincerity, or the ferocity of your emotions on any of this.

Hurling "idiots" however, does not offer me a convincing argument.

Surely you have had responsibility to act in uncertain circumstance, and your action / omission resulted in unsatisfying consequence? Do you then consider yourself an "idiot", or an "incompetent"?

Just wondering, because I have found that particular path to be pretty self-destructive,and wish it on no one.

Posted by MG at May 5, 2007 09:44 PM

Posted by MG at May 5, 2007 09:26 PM

Forgive me if I miss a point from your long, but thoughtful post. I'll pick three topics to respond to that caught me eye...

First Gore.

Gore is predicting what in fact happened.

We have committed forces to Iraq that could have gone to Afland. I would argue that the Afland governments grasp on power is even more tenuous then the Iraqi governments...had we committed more forces to Afland in a more timely manner we might have avoided that and gotten OBL...

Now I conceed that losing in Afland isnt important if we lose in Iraq but we picked the fight in Iraq....with an army that was small and we didnt increase its size.

It is I know hard to get your arms around this...but Saddam wasnt a threat to the US. All the "justifications" you use (and to be fair the administration does as well) are not about being a threat to the US...but "course change" in the Mideast. Now you, and I might agree that is a good thing if it can be done...

But it is a purely discritionary war...and the war was not sold as that. The irony is all the justifications you are using are about discretionary war.

Do not confuse 9/11 with Saddam Hussain. They are not even remotly connected.

Point two you write "Do you propose that the CIA was a reliable source of intelligence in these matters?"

YES empatically yes. If one looks at the National Intel Estimate the CIA analyst nailed Saddams capabilities, the threat and his potential. It was the administration the non analyst that "jazzed" it up.

The CIA nailed the tubes correctly, the missiles, just about everything. There is nothing in the CIA NIE that justifies a "threat".

The people that got it wrong are/were the people who had a poltical ideological agenda...Cheney etal.

Point three...you write "Sometimes one shoots when, only in retrospect, it wasn't really necessary. Sometimes one holds fire when it is necessary to fire, and the result is one's own death.

In the case of Iraq, we held fire from 1991 to 2003."

Not really. Clinton did Desert Fox, which more or less deleted almost all of Saddams heavy conventional and "other" capabilities. I was "in the region" when DF occurred and could only hear the GOP comments from afar, but it was the GOP far right who was aruging that it was the "phoney war"...Tom DeLay called it "Wag the Dog".

Dont ever carry a badge...your concepts of "shooting" will get you before a grand jury and charged with unjustifiable homicide. I've been through six grand juries on "shootings" and each time got a clean bill of health (I was attached to a US federal law enforcement agency)...called the correct shot everytime.

The only way you do it correctly everytime is to have rules, good training, follow the rules and your training.

You are left with this...there was nothing in saddams world that posed a threat to the US. Gore was correct.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 5, 2007 10:06 PM

Posted by MG at May 5, 2007 09:44 PM

You might not think that Bosnia was a useful model for Iraq. Shinseki, he was the four star who commanded the army before people like DF told him he was "wrong" (can you imagine the uproar if a Clinton twerp who had never been in uniform told Shalikasvilie (spell) that he didnt know what he was talking about...would you have been upset at that? I would have been..) disagrees with you.

Sorry in a test of models I will go with Shinseki (he commanded stablization force Bosnia before he took on the four stars) over you.

There was no chance Europe was going to "fix" Serbia/Kosovo etc. They dont and didnt have the military to do it, nor the political will without a leader. That was us. I have a LOT of experience on the ground with this.

I have almost no regard for the UN in terms of taking action...but there is a point where I do.

What seperates us from Saddam and the other bad actors in teh world is the same that seperates cops from the crooks. Cops follow the law. Crooks dont.

There is no chance for the rule of law to succeed or take root on an international scale if the major power, that professes to be a nation "of laws" wont follow the law.

You see I am pretty sure OJ killed his wife etc...but I am also sure that the LAPD did not follow the law, and based on that OJ goes free....annoying isnt it.

To thine own self be true.

If we go around the world "exaggerating" threats against us...well as I am fond of saying "it sounds better in the native Japanese".

You wrote "Surely you have had responsibility to act in uncertain circumstance,"

yes...but not irresponsibly. Bush and his administration exaggerated (at best) the threat, they acted in disregard of competent authority who said their plans were flawed, and they ignored the data that said their plans were not working.

NOTHING EXCUSES THAT.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 5, 2007 10:16 PM

"It is I know hard to get your arms around this...but Saddam wasnt a threat to the US."

Respecfully, Mr. Oler,

You don't know what is hard for me to get my arms around.

No one that I know of has argued that Saddam was a threat specifically to the territorial integrity of the US. Nor have I read of anyone claiming that he was involved ("operationally" is the key word I recall) in the 9/11 attacks. He was a present threat to American interests, harbored known terrorists, funded others, and -- well, look at items in the authorization act.

As I recall, Desert Fox's effect was to "substantially degrade" Saddam's WMD programs. That was the phrase of the SecState and the SecDef. Forgive me, but "substantially degraded" does not equal "destroyed", nor "can not reconstitute".

I am grateful for your law enforcement service. The willingness to shed and spill blood to protect one's own is the highest calling of a citizen of a liberal, democratic republic. I suspect that is the source of your principled views on these matters.

I am an Army veteran. That informs my principled view on these matters. There is no executor of international "law". What we call international "law" is more properly widely accepted custom, or perhaps codified agreements. They carry the force of law, but they are not law.

There is no properly constituted court to adjudicate international "law". There is no international executive to execute "law". There is no international legislature to pass "law". And, given my assessment of the UN, I hope you will understand that I don't want any of those international institutions to form.

How then, are disputes between states resolved? Through political processes, not legal ones. Warfare, not law enforcement, is the proper mechanism for the violent attempt at resolving such disputes.

It surprises me not, then, that you and I have a different assessment of the past several years. We have different starting points. We rely on different authority sources when our experience is insufficient to analyze a complex situation.

By all means, admire and respect whatever authority source (military or not) in whom you trust. That is your birthright, and it is mine, also.

Generals Zinni and Shinseki are honorable men, but the CENTCOM commander in 2003 was neither man. War is full of stupidity. Every war is full of stupidity. The winner of a war is the party who can best recover from their own stupidity, and take advantageo of the stupidity of their opponent.

We are where we are, and Mr. Tenet has been singularly unhelpful in securing our nation. We are where we are, and the Church Commission, and every Congress thereafter, has gutted the CIA's effectiveness. Rely on it if you must. I am thankful they are not the only intelligence organization available to the POTUS.

Respectfully submitted,

Posted by MG at May 6, 2007 06:53 AM

"No one that I know of has argued that Saddam was a threat specifically to the territorial integrity of the US."

Then we 1) had no business attacking him "lone wolf" and 2) that is not the cas that Mr. Bush made in the run up to the war. Mr. Bush in several speeches including the Cincy speech made it quite clear that Saddam was a "gathering threat"...I can dig up Mr. Bush's exact quote if you would like. It was played on MTP for this sunday.

"Nor have I read of anyone claiming that he was involved ("operationally" is the key word I recall) in the 9/11 attacks."

By the start of the war 70 something percent of Americans believed Saddam was involved in the operational control of 9/11. The CIA AND FBI had specifically nixed that link but well after they had Mr. Cheney kept referring to this meeting between Atta and Iraqi National Security Service (the INSS) in Praque which was fiction. By mid 2002 that link was established as false, but Mr. Russert on MTP played statement after statement by Mr. Cheney after that link had beeen shown to be broken where he kept saying it...

"Generals Zinni and Shinseki are honorable men, but the CENTCOM commander in 2003 was neither man. War is full of stupidity. Every "

And yet amazingly both called everything "darn near right"...go figure. LOL As we say on "the boat" GANS...snag spelled backwards.

We are in a different place because I dont believe in policy making by fear and I do believe that TheRepublic in its internal actions should always not exaggerate to its citizens and compart itself to the rule of law.

Wars are not stupid (sorry they would not like that statement at the Carlisle Barracks or the USN Naval War College where they teach professionals in a professional way.

Wars are things that rational nations resort to when all rational methods of policy making are exhausted and National Goals are not met or secured. (hint that is on one of the walls of the US Naval War College...you get points if you can figure out who said it...he is the only President to achieve the Medal of Honor).

People who thought going into Iraq was a good idear done the way these clowns were going to do it, and who still defend that effort as a valid decision making process are easy to judge about what they can get their arms around.

War is the biblical sacrifice of Abraham and his son Issac. We as a nation are Abraham taking our sons (and daughters) to the alter, to kill them...and they willingly go.

These people, this administration including the DCI under discussion took our sons and daughters to the alter on hubris and their own inflated view of themselves...a view that has little or no real world substantiation. And then they sat there for four years as their policy floundered in more hubris as real Americans bleed, and our image around the world floundered.

I am glad you are a vetern. When I start collecting my retirement check, I'll give you a call we can compare notes.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 6, 2007 08:54 AM

Dennis, please check your email.

Posted by Mike Puckett at May 6, 2007 09:41 AM

Posted by MG at May 6, 2007 06:53 AM

"No one that I know of has argued that Saddam was a threat specifically to the territorial integrity of the US."

do you know who Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld are? I pulled a few of their "choice" statements...

Robert

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

Dont these all seem comical now?

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 6, 2007 09:57 AM

Robert, you wrote:

"A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false "

I think the model that we're using here.

FC makes claim X.
FC benefits from claim X being perceived as true and has a history of making false and/or erroneous claims.
Therefore, FC's claims are inadequate as evidence for claim X being true. Look for evidence elsewhere.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at May 6, 2007 10:10 AM

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 6, 2007 09:57 AM

Change Cheney's date up four years and is he ever right!

He WAS right. He was looking into the FUTURE! I hate it when Robert Oler makes fun of him.

He could easily try a new line of work with "Madame Alessandra's Astrology !! May I read your palm for you?"

PS. "I know my predictions are right, because I will make them happen." ;-)

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at May 6, 2007 10:35 AM

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Oler, how many democrats made the same sort of statements? Your man Howard Dean for one. You like quotes; I have some quotes for you.

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies. If Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, then we're clearly going to have to do something about it."
Howard Dean 09/29/02

And didn't you say that all Iraqi WMD were destroyed in Operation Desert Fox?

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
Bill Clinton 07/22/03

"There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is. People in Iraq do. The scientists know some of it. Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations. There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this."
Wesley Clark 01/18/03

“With us or against us”, George W. Bush has caught a lot of flack for that comment. But was he the only one to say it?

"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."
Hillary Clinton 09/13/01

"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."
Nancy Pelosi 11/17/02

"I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
Nancy Pelosi 10/10/02

"I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
John Edwards 02/24/02

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."
Edward Kennedy 09/27/02

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Hillary Clinton 10/10/02

"I don't. I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening. And it was on that basis that I voted to do this."
Richard Gephardt 11/02/03 (asked if he had been mislead into supporting war on Iraq)

"The threat from Iraq is real, and it cannot be permanently contained. For as long as Saddam Hussein is in power in Baghdad, he will seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. We have no doubt that these deadly weapons are intended for use against the United States and its allies. Consequently, we believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later."
Letter to President Bush signed by: Ford, Graham, Lantos, Lieberman, Brownback, Helms, Hyde, Lott, McCain, Shelby 12/05/01

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts."
Henry Waxman 10/10/02

"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."
Bill Clinton 12/16/98

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
John Kerry 10/09/02

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore 09/23/02

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."
Robert Byrd 10/03/02

“But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.”
John Rockefeller 10/10/02

Is Bush a magician? He must be, as he evidently convinced these people with his lies about Saddam and WMD even before he became President.

"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright 02/18/98

"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."
Madeleine Albright 02/18/98

"Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger 02/18/98

"Dear Mr. President: ... We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton signed by: Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum. 10/09/98

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 6, 2007 05:12 PM

Cecil

I know that it is a mandatory thing for the far right to defend the incompentence of the Administration...but I would note this. It is hardly a good "defense" of leadership to note that the followers of the leader were as incompetent as the leader was.

LOL

Sadly for your course of logic two realities are there.

First the only two other people to be in a position to invade and occupy Iraq previous to the leader today, Bush the Old and Bill Clinton both saw more or lesws (as it turns out) the same evidence this guy saw and wisely passed on it.

sEcond...I dont know what your position was on the airstrikes that Mr. Clinton tossed into the Sudan and Afland, or Desert Fox...but I know people who share your (to be kind) "zeal" were oppossed to them. Oddly enough they were both just the correct "Note".

Oh and there is a third...in the letter that you quote (the last missive)...no where is invasion and occupation written...amazing isnt it.

It must chap you that Al Gore got everything correct about Iraq and this administration almost NOTHING. If I had backed a so wrong horse, it would me.

LOL

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 6, 2007 05:46 PM

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 6, 2007 05:12 PM

The letter you quote is dated October 98...do some research on Desert Fox.

Clinton took their suggestion...and did it correctly.

Annoying isnt it?

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 6, 2007 05:49 PM

Mr. Oler,

Thanks for the offer to compare notes, but I don't think there is much point.

We approach the problem with different standards of evidence, different analytical tools, different assumptions, and different questions.

That makes effective communication quite difficult -- without common "ground rules", no synthesis is possible.

Regards,

Posted by MG at May 6, 2007 06:15 PM

no synthesis is possible.

Posted by MG at May 6, 2007 06:15 PM

thank goodness...I learned a long time ago to not worry about people who wont deal in facts...

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 6, 2007 11:42 PM

Mr. Oler,

Likewise.

Posted by MG at May 7, 2007 03:36 AM

Oler, "followers of the leader" you say? I won’t take time to list them here but go back and look at the names attributed to the quotes above; all of these DEMOCRATS were followers of George W. Bush? Some were his followers even before he was elected President? The most incompetent President we’ve ever had (according to you) and yet he cunningly had the entire democrat party hierarchy in his back pocket starting 2 years before he was elected! How is anyone supposed to take you serious Bob?

As for the letter of October 98 and Desert Fox, you’re slipping Bob, if it is possible for you to slip further that is. Look at the quote attributed to Bill Clinton dated 07/22/03 where Bill Clinton states flatly that Iraq had WMD stores "on the day I left office". Remaining unaccounted for WMD stores when he left office Bob, which would be AFTER Desert Fox. The same Desert Fox that you have always claimed wiped out all Iraqi WMD stores. As usual you skip over anything that doesn’t align with your dogma.

Oler: "I learned a long time ago to not worry about people who wont deal in facts"

That is beyond laughable Bob. You have a fact filter installed around your cranium that is impenetrable to anything that does not coincide with your preconceived Bush Derangement Syndrome ideas. You just proved that with your response to the quotes I posted. You can’t even read them and process them correctly due to your fact filter.

You throw out 3 incomplete Cheney quotes and one Rumsfeld quote that you take as gospel proving your theory of a Bush propaganda campaign; yet when faced with a long list of similar quotes from YOUR democrat party dating from 1998 all the way through 2003 your BDS filter blocks them.

You are hopeless and a lost cause.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 7, 2007 06:04 AM

Cecil.

Desert Fox OBVIOUSLY did wipe out all the WMD or they didnt exist before because they certianly did not exist when Dick Cheney said he knew "without a doubt" that they existed... remember his line "without a doubt".

Anyway down the line of your points

Why did Dems follow Bush after 9/11? Beats the heck out of me. After 9/11 a sort of nuttiness seemed to take over the country. We were scared of our shadow, we seemed to lose our ability to rationale examine issues instead we seemed to enable our adversaries with mystical powers (Saddam was going to attack us with Al Samouds off of tankers! LOL or the drones were my favorite)... which defied reason.

Had Mr. Bush not been President we would not ahve gone into Iraq. I am saddened that the Dems voted for the war and even more disgusted that they now dont have the courage of their vote... but such is the life of politicans. I am stunned that Bush et al kept up with a failed policy in Iraq for four years, costing a lot of Americans their lives.

Some people have a hard time facing reality over political expiedency. You seem to feel it necessary to defend bad decision making.

Clinton might have left office thinking Saddam had WMD but he WAS NOT SAYING THAT WMD was an imminent threat. HE left that for his predecessor.

I know it must hose you. Al Gore, Zinni, Shinseki Owens, and yes I nailed it about how stupid this invasion was, how badly it was going to go.

I WAS OPPOSSED TO GOING TO IRAQ CECIL. I KNEW (said it on the Space Board) that there was no WMD or no WMD that could threaten the US. Guess my data analysis was better then yours! LOL

"You are hopeless and a lost cause." As my boss tells everyone " A sorry sailor indeed". It is amazing that I can function at all!

LOL

Having gotten everything correct about Iraq when folks like you were following the herd mentality I share this bit of well wisdom. Try and break out of your ideological blinders. REcognize that ideology is not facts.

Which administration do you think was more incompetent then this one?

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 7, 2007 07:50 AM

Robert says: Why did Dems follow Bush after 9/11?

Two possibilities. They believed as did many that WMD existed. Two, they were lying in their beliefs so as to amass more votes to move into power. Either way, ouch.

Personally, I believe that it was a combination. The Dems read the polls and saw the American people would support action against Saddam, so they immediately agreed to look like they were supporters. Then, when the popularity went down, they all jumped ship and start chastising without end because the polls say the people don't support the action anymore. Its a political ploy to win power, not giving a tinker's damn about what's right.

Posted by Mac at May 7, 2007 08:31 AM

Bob I don’t care that you were against the war. I don’t care that you were “right” in saying Iraq had no WMD prior to the invasion, if in fact you did make that claim then. Frankly I don’t believe a word you say or write. Just last week you were proclaiming the Tenet book to be holy writ and that it would finally prove all you had claimed about the Bush administration. But it took less than 48 hours for most of the claims in that book to be brought into question or proven wrong outright. But you bought it all hook line and sinker just like you did the Dan Rather TANG story.

What I do care about is your claim that it was the Bush administration that over inflated claims about Iraqi WMD. That is a provable LIE. (FYI on this point Tenet agrees with me)

The facts are that the Clinton administration also believed Iraq had WMD. The hierarchy of the democrat party, in 1998 and in 2003, believed Iraq had WMD. And Clinton himself stated that “Desert Fox” did NOT destroy all Iraqi WMD stores. How is it that you claim to have better intel on the results of Desert Fox than did the man who ordered the strikes?

And now after all these claims by Clinton and his party, over a period of several years, you and your ilk have the gall to claim Bush made it all up?

No President Clinton didn’t invade and occupy Iraq. But September 11, 2001 changed everything.

Hillary Clinton DID believe that Iraq had WMD, (she must have thought as her husband did that Desert Fox didn’t take care of it all, she should have consulted you) and she DID vote for the invasion, as did numerous other democrats (Kerry, Edwards, Reid, Feinstein, Dashle, Dodd, Rockefeller, Schumer to name a few). You bring up Gore as one who did not support the war, that is true but he DID believe Iraq had WMD, even after Desert Fox. So I guess he’s only half as smart as you.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 7, 2007 09:12 AM

Cecil

you can ask your fellow zenophob Whittington about my statements about Iraq pre war...

Stating that Iraq had WMD is one thing...stating that the WMD was a threat to the US is another...and advocating an invasion based on non existant data is yet again.

Plus you are misstating my views on the DCI's book and overstating its faults...but then thats pretty typical stuff for the extremes of both parties.

Sept 11 2001`should have changed nothing IN TERMS Of the US acting rationaly. Instead we had people who were full of hubris, did not listen to the professionals and who fed on the fears of people who dont recognize the facts but see their ideology.

Sorry dude. Wrong war, wrong place, fought incompetently.

You beat up on me allyou want, it doesnt bother me. Your gripe is with people like Zinni and Owens et al who well have/had stars on their shoulders and think your view ridiculous...you know the professionals.

As for believing me...what was the line Rhett Butler said to Scarlett in his last scene of Gone with the Wing...that works for me. I could care less what you think. you are a captive of ideology.....annoying isnt it...lol

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 7, 2007 11:00 AM

Oler: "stating that the WMD was a threat to the US is another"

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies."
Howard Dean 09/29/02

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 7, 2007 02:04 PM

Posted by Mac at May 7, 2007 08:31 AM

I think that the Dems who are now oppossed to the war went along for a couple of reasons...you name two ofthem.

My view is that very few of the people in the country understood (clearly the administration did not) the magnitude of what was going to be attempted. We have been lulled by a series of "cheap wars" ...Haitti, Bosnia even Desert Storm where there are very limited objectives and the fighting might be fierce but its over and everyone comes home.

I think a lot of them thought this would be that way (the administration clearly did)...the sense of fear in the country...and worse the sense of "if you are not for this you are for The Base" that Bush and his people were very good at pushing...

All those combined to really stifle geniune discussion of what we were trying to do.

It is a sad choice between people who are incompetent (Bush) and maybe the Dems and people who are voting one way for pure political motives.

The trick is to go view the GOP reaction to Gore's speech in SFO...he made some valid points and all the "chest beaters" of the far right could do is attack him personally.

Sadly for them his points were absolutly correct.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 7, 2007 02:59 PM

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 7, 2007 02:04 PM

congratulations Cecil you are moving on to step 2 in the logic parade. Many countries are threats to the US...the question is are they imminent threats...and what is your proof.

Keep hunting. and remember this. We would not have done this stupid thing had the GOP's uber boy not been in power.

The Dems who voted for it were stupid (and now dispicable for retracting their vote as the going has gotten rough) but it is the geniuses of the chickenhawks who have gotten the "post war" about as correct as they got the pre war.

LOL

I honestly can understand why you are so steamed. I can only imagine the pain that must be associated with having supported and believed in this lightweight and now see all the turds he left behind.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 7, 2007 03:02 PM

What I do care about is your claim that it was the Bush administration that over inflated claims about Iraqi WMD.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 7, 2007 09:12 AM

they obviously were overinflated...there were none. LOL

We went from Dick Cheney "we know without question" to "WTF TONTO THERE IS NO WMD"

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 7, 2007 03:05 PM

You are an ass and a liar. You can't admit that your democrats were just as adamant about Saddam having WMD as Bush was because to do so would completely undermine your BDS theories.

Maybe there is a reasonable explanation for your psychosis, like if you had an mask failure while you and your wife were flying your F14's and are suffering from the effects of oxygen deprivation.

I'll leave with you some quotes from your hero General Zinni:

"While Iraq's WMD capabilities were degraded under UN supervision and set back by Coalition strikes, some capabilities remain and others could quickly be regenerated. Despite claims that WMD efforts have ceased, Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions, and is concealing extended-range SCUD missiles, possibly equipped with CBW payloads. Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains the scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months. A special concern is the absence of a UN inspection and monitoring presence, which until December 1998 had been paramount to preventing large-scale resumption of prohibited weapons programs. A new disarmament regime must be reintroduced into Iraq as soon as possible and allowed to carry out the mandates dictated by the post-Gulf War UN resolutions."
General Anthony C. Zinni to the Senate Armed Forces Committee 02/29/00

"Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf region. This is primarily due to its large conventional military force, pursuit of WMD, oppressive treatment of Iraqi citizens, refusal to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR), persistent threats to enforcement of the No Fly Zones (NFZ), and continued efforts to violate UN Security Council sanctions through oil smuggling.”
General Anthony C. Zinni to the Senate Armed Forces Committee 02/29/00

http://armedservices.senate.gov/statemnt/2000/000229az.pdf

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 7, 2007 05:35 PM

Cecil...

not a single comment from General Zinni said "invade Iraq".

YOu really need to get your arms around what is and what is not a threat to The Republic.

We (The Republic) are not a big bully. We dont run around beating up on anyway just because we can. We only do it when doing so directly furthers the interest of The Republic or to defend ourselves.

Otherwise we are no better then the Japanese.

YOu can do all the insulting you want to, and that is fine, I expect that from the bases.

But you cannot square these points.

Iraq was no threat to the US which warranted us taking down Saddam...

and when we did it anyway it was done Incompetently.

A long time ago I was like you. I grew out of it.... I left childhood.

Thats when I learned from both practical and professional experience to ignore people like DF and Wolfie and all the other chickenhawks who have never heard a shot fired in anger...and insist on easily sending others to.

They are your boys...(and girls...Condi is a chickenhawk...although well suited)

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 7, 2007 06:15 PM

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 7, 2007 05:35 PM

I would add Cecil.

I never suspect Saddam was a threat to the US...but there were two moments in the leadup to the war when I more or less came to the conclusion he didnt have WMD...a conclusion I was correct about.

In no particular order.

The first was when the inspectors went in. You know the ones that Bush said he wanted.

We obviously were "cueing" them about where to look from our intel. Had "they" found WMD then the rush to invade would have been a stampede. There was a moment (and I have the date at home but not with me) when we sent inspectors to a place in Anbar (forget the name, it was by Ramadi. YOu could tell we sent them. They did a "no notice" check and showed up with chem suits ON. They didnt put them on as they got out of the White vans, they had them on in the vans. The went right to a particular bunker (Fox News covered this until the WMD ran dry) and found all the appropraite BIO symbols. They started opening containers. There was nothing, not even traces found on very accurate chem/bio detection meters.

The second was when Colin showed up at the UN with artist drawings and NOT real pictures or an actual sample. I am pretty certian we had SEAL and other teams deployed in country before boots came on the ground. We had them looking. Tram Trainor's book says we had SEALS looking. They could find nothing. Indeed they scoured the countryside for the infamous mobile labs.

I believed we didnt have anything then. Bush was looking for his Adali STephenson moment, the one where Adali unveils "THE PICTURES" of the missiles of October.

It was pretty clear we had spent a lot of time looking and found well nothing.

by that time coupled with the Al tubes that were not a nuclear thing and a lot of other "exaggerations" it was clear that these folks would say anything. When they drummed up a Naval Aviator that Dick Cheney had abandoned in the Desert during Desert STorm...

I knew that the threat was overstated. I think on the old space board about three weeks before the "boots on" I gave it my prediction. Whittington scoffed...

I still get a hoot out of that now.

I know it is tough for people like you to grapple with the reality of the fraud that has been committed... Just think that this will keep Clinton and Lewinsky in the history books. Scholars will doubtless compare the "exaggerations" of the two men.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 7, 2007 06:26 PM

"not a single comment from General Zinni said "invade Iraq"."

I never said he did. But you claimed that he said Iraq had no WMD. Clearly you lied, so you change the subject to "invade Iraq".

Typical Oler, typical.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 7, 2007 08:52 PM

I never said he did. But you claimed that he said Iraq had no WMD. Clearly you lied, so you change the subject to "invade Iraq".

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 7, 2007 08:52 PM

No Cecil

I didnt say that.

I did not say that General Zinni said that there was "no wmd".

Find the post and reference it...or put your head down and try and get a grip on the real world.

I am kind. I will attribute your statement to "right wing confusion"...

I never said Zinni said that there was no WMD.

Cecil. I said there was no WMD.

Get a grip on yourself.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 7, 2007 10:22 PM

"I said there was no WMD."

Yes you did. And then you claim that Zinni, Shinseki and at one time "no one in the military" agree with you.

Keep your lies straight.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 8, 2007 05:52 AM

Cecil

Try some reading comphrension classes...or read slower. Sometimes I suggest that people who are angry mouth the words

I never said that Zinni agreed with me that there were no WMD in Iraq. YOu cant find anywhere outside of your imagination that I said that.

And if you repeat I will call you a liar.

I never said that Zinni or Owens or anyone for that matter agreed with me that there was no WMD in IRaq. I did win 100 dollars in the betting pool about how much WMD would be found, but that was just a "round" between friends.

Breath in and exhale slowly Cecil...it will help the word recognition.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 8, 2007 06:31 AM

"I never said that Zinni or Owens or anyone for that matter agreed with me that there was no WMD in IRaq."

You implied it. You ramble on about ALL your beliefs and then you end up with nonsense like "Zinni is on my side".

And you calling ANYONE a liar is the height of hypocrisy, and you know it "Tomcat".

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 8, 2007 10:00 AM

Robert said a ways back: I KNEW (said it on the Space Board) that there was no WMD or no WMD that could threaten the US. Guess my data analysis was better then yours! LOL

There were biological weapons found. Had one been carried and subsequently released in the US, that's a threat. Regardless of how possible, it was still a threat. Guess you analysis was wrong too...LOL

Posted by Mac at May 8, 2007 10:38 AM

"I never said that Zinni or Owens or anyone for that matter agreed with me that there was no WMD in IRaq."

You implied it.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 8, 2007 10:00 AM

Ah so that is the way out.

We have gone from "you said it" to "you implied it"...lol

Cecil I am pretty blunt. If I had wanted to state "Zinni agreed with me that there was no WMD" then I would have said it.

I didnt. Zinni agreed with me that 1) the war was the wrong war and 2) done the wrong way.

It is you who implied WMD.

Sorry Cecil. BONG you get the Bush overstating award for today.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 8, 2007 12:43 PM

There were biological weapons found. Had one been carried and subsequently released in the US, that's a threat.

Posted by Mac at May 8, 2007 10:38 AM

What a ridiculous statement.

I guess you believe that "guns kill people" based on your above statement.

The bio weapons were arty shells long passed their prime, They were probably sold to the Iraq's by Rummy back in the Reagan days. There is no evidence that they were transportable, MUCH LESS that anyone was planning on transporting them.

WMD doesnt kill people. WMD is not a threat. Neither are "guns" a threat.

Your left wing ideology is showing...lol

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 8, 2007 12:46 PM

Robert replies: There is no evidence that they were transportable, MUCH LESS that anyone was planning on transporting them.

So what? Would you deny that a bio weapon transported to the US is a threat? Who cares if there was no evidence that the weapons found were transportable or that there was little evidence that someone would....Would you deny a bio weapon transported onto US soil is a threat?

Your statement: ...no WMD that could threaten the US.

There were, no matter how implausible, there were. You're so drilled into the box that you've forgotten there is an outside to the box.

Posted by Mac at May 8, 2007 02:32 PM

A "knife" that can be transported to the US is a threat...

Yet we dont go invading countries over it.

There was no threat to the CONUS from any WMD in Iraq.

I didnt think (for reasons that I have stated) pre the war that Saddam had any effective WMD left.

But even had he had some wmd non of it was going to threaten the US... and there were no actors in Iraq that were going to threaten the US.

It is all from the world of Make Believe

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 8, 2007 04:29 PM

So a knife is equivalent to WMD, brilliant Oler. My leaking F14 oxygen mask theory is looking better all the time. That would be if you had ever actually been in the cockpit of an F14.....

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 9, 2007 07:41 AM

A knife not used, a special in its silo a gun on the shelf of a store are all the same. They are potential weapons. None of them kill people.

People kill people.

Cecil stop making things up, stop putting your own implied on what other people are saying. Just express your frustration with having supported an idiot for the last two elections for President...admit the mistakes you will fell better.

And stop the personal attacks. You can do better then the far left of the Dem party.

LOL

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 9, 2007 07:56 AM

Cecil's not making things up. You stated that NO WMDs existed. You stated that no WMDs could threaten the US. I pointed out that there was indeed a threat, even though is was highly improbable. Then you brought up the knife. Now, since we've been discussing WMDs, you bring in the knife to deflect the question, meaning that you concede the point there was indeed a threat from WMDs. And since we don't invade others for bringing "knives" into the country, I allude to the concession that invading for a WMD threat to you is okay. Thank you for the concession that there was a threat to US interests and I again point out that we acted to prevent that threat from becoming a reality.

Posted by Mac at May 9, 2007 11:11 AM

Not quite.

I stated that Saddam had no WMDs that he could use to threaten the US.

One artillery shell full of chem that might negate 20 people is only a weapon of mass destruction if you are now ready to class as WMD the pistols that the nut up in Virginia used.

A little hint. The sign of a failing logical point is when the ONLY Thing one can do is point to the minutia of a point to try and make it.

As Donald Trump would say "your fired"

LOL

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 9, 2007 11:34 AM

Robert said a ways back: I KNEW (said it on the Space Board) that there was no WMD...

I said: You stated that NO WMDs existed.

Robert said: Not quite.

Hmmmm, seems pretty definitive to me.

Robert said: I stated that Saddam had no WMDs that he could use to threaten the US.

And I pointed out that no matter how improbable, the threat existed. To which you immediately jumped the track and diverted the discussion by bringing up the knife being brought into the US. By this diversion, you are admitting that is indeed possible, though not very likely, that a bio weapon like the ones found could have been introduced to US soil. That is a threat. The bio weapon is classified as a WMD. That WMD could have been brought to US soil, that is a WMD threat. Simple definition using your responses.

Robert spews: A little hint. The sign of a failing logical point is when the ONLY Thing one can do is point to the minutia of a point to try and make it.

The failing was your inability to prove that there was NO threat whatsoever. If you didn't mean to say that, you shouldn't have said it. The simple point is that you stated there was no WMDs and no WMD threat to US soil. I haved proved there was, HOWEVER UNLIKELY.

Robert finished: As Donald Trump would say "your fired"

Yes, you are.

Posted by Mac at May 9, 2007 12:27 PM

No.

one doesnt prove that "no threat exist"... that concept is what we hung Japanese for at the end of WWII.

A moral nation proves to itself that a threat exist before starting a war.

You must be one paranoid dude!

LOL

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at May 9, 2007 02:24 PM

Robert, you're falling apart now: one doesnt prove that "no threat exist"...

If someone, namely you, says that no threat existed while engaged in a debate, I can easily ask you to prove it. That's what debating is about. You say there was no WMDs and no WMDs that could threaten the US. I proved you wrong on both accounts. The LOL is sounding rather forced now.

Posted by Mac at May 9, 2007 02:43 PM

Personal attack Oler? What personal attack? I'm just reminding you what a liar you are.

I'm done with this.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at May 10, 2007 06:36 AM

Post a comment