New interview with Pentagon whistleblower

[oldbetang]

So, wait a second...you've presented here an article found in a notoriously partisan shill-rag, written by a notoriously partisan shill in whose direct interests it would be to cover his hindquarters (because, after all, if Kwiatkowski is telling the truth, he has been most-certainly complicit in a treasonable offense), whose strongest objection to her claims is that she got some help from a man associated with Lyndon Larouche (ZOMG CONSPIRACY + POTENTIAL GODWIN?!?!?!).

My irony meter just exploded! You have the audacity to slam an old and well respected magazine like the National Review after having just posted an article that you pulled from a gutter site like truthdig?

I see. And I should take this seriously why, exactly? Especially when its author has, among other things, claimed that Mary Robinson is a war criminal (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-rubin052002.asp),

The page cannot be found.

and, before the invasion of Iraq, that the Kurds had no interest in splitting from the country (http://www.meforum.org/article/11).

That link does not go to any specific article written pre-invasion.

But perhaps I should let Kwiatkowski herself do the talking: http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski75.html

Lew Rockwell? Ole Lew is a bit of a nutcase himself.

 

[KomissarSteve]

My irony meter just exploded! You have the audacity to slam an old and well respected magazine like the National Review

Yes, but from what audience does it garner this respect? Any educated individual would have to admit that its last scraps of credibility were swept away when it claimed that John Kerry was the most liberal person in the Senate.

after having just posted an article that you pulled from a gutter site like truthdig?

Be that as it may, it would have been a different story if it had been one of their editorials, but it wasn't. It was a transcript of an interview, and the important parts of that interview were from someone whose credibility is above question.

The page cannot be found.

We've been through this before; pay attention this time: copy-paste the link into your browser and delete the close-paranthesis that the boards added into it.

That link does not go to any specific article written pre-invasion.

Same with this one. It should take you to a July 10th, 2001 article entitled "Sanctions Have Helped Northern Iraq."

Lew Rockwell? Ole Lew is a bit of a nutcase himself.

That may be, but I'm waiting for you to prove the same about Kwiatkowski.

 

[KomissarSteve]

I know it's Rush but a quote is a quote.

Democrat Quotes on Saddam's WMD

As I pointed out earlier, the Senators who supported the invasion initially were misled by deliberately falsified information, and those Clinton quotes were taken from his bombing campaign in Iraq. (which, might I point out, incurred absolutely no U.S. casualties)

 

[KomissarSteve]

Isn't that what you did with the OP

Yeah, but it wasn't an editorial by one of their staff writers.

 

[Verv]

I put almost zero credit in 'Intel Whisteblower' theories, being that for every person who is blowing the whistle there are hundreds left at work scratching their heads. It is all a matter of opinion, and I am sorry that an Air Force Colonel feels something was done incorrectly.

 

[KomissarSteve]

I put almost zero credit in 'Intel Whisteblower' theories, being that for every person who is blowing the whistle there are hundreds left at work scratching their heads. It is all a matter of opinion, and I am sorry that an Air Force Colonel feels something was done incorrectly.

"Feels something was done incorrectly"? How could you consider deliberately misleading Congress and the American people into an ill-planned debacle like Iraq?

And as for the people who aren't blowing whistles, of COURSE they aren't saying anything - they want to keep their jobs.

You guys are really making an effort to bury your heads in the sand over this, aren't you?

 

[k]

I put almost zero credit in 'Intel Whisteblower' theories, being that for every person who is blowing the whistle there are hundreds left at work scratching their heads. It is all a matter of opinion, and I am sorry that an Air Force Colonel feels something was done incorrectly.

Have you read Woodward's "State of Denial?" He details several different sources that knew the WMD intel was invalid. One of the most intriguing items pointed out is NO Base Commander wanted the task of finding WMDs in Iraq...because they all knew they did not exist there. Think about it...if WMDs was a valid reason don't you think the Base Commanders would have been falling all over each other for the job? I mean, whomever was responsible for finding them would receive myriad accolades, so why did they all shy away from the task?

 

[oldbetang]

Yes, but from what audience does it garner this respect?

From both sides of the political spectrum and places in between. I've encountered many liberals who profess to having respect for the magazine ,while disagreeing with its conservative perspective.

Any educated individual would have to admit that its last scraps of credibility were swept away when it claimed that John Kerry was the most liberal person in the Senate.

That's just silly! Are you sure that it wasn't the National Journal ,instead of the National Review? The Journal ranked Kerry the most liberal Senator for 2003. Regardless of who made that statement, it is not one that can be proven to be false.Various groups use different criteria when ranking politicians on voting records. Kerry ranks right up there among the top liberals in the assessments of both conservative and liberal groups. He had a lifetime rating of 5% by the American Conservative union by the end of 2005 and a 92% lifetime rating by the liberal Americans for Democratic Action up to the end of 2002.. He ranked higher on the ADA survey than Ted Kennedy. The Eagle Forum, which considers voting record on issues relating to individual liberty, respect for family integrity, public and private virtue, and private enterprise gave Kerry a "0" rating for 2003.

someone whose credibility is above question.

I'm not convinced!

We've been through this before; pay attention this time: copy-paste the link into your browser and delete the close-paranthesis that the boards added into it.

I don't mind doing that but you should learn how to properly post a link. It's a good article by Rubin and one in which he did not claim that Mary Robinson was a war criminal.

Same with this one. It should take you to a July 10th, 2001 article entitled "Sanctions Have Helped Northern Iraq."

So, has he been proven wrong? He gave his impression of what he got from living among the Kurds. I don't see a mass movement for an independent and sovereign Kurdish nation.

 

[KomissarSteve]

From both sides of the political spectrum and places in between. I've encountered many liberals who profess to having respect for the magazine ,while disagreeing with its conservative perspective.

I would only believe this if your definition of "liberal" is Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller.

The Journal ranked Kerry the most liberal Senator for 2003. Regardless of who made that statement, it is not one that can be proven to be false.

Sure it is; they based their ranking on Kerry's voting record for 2003, but Kerry missed 37 of the 62 votes that year, because he was out campaigning. Their ranking was extremely misleading.

It's a good article by Rubin and one in which he did not claim that Mary Robinson was a war criminal.

I take it you didn't read the title of the article? "Mary Robinson - War Criminal?"

So, has he been proven wrong? He gave his impression of what he got from living among the Kurds.

You mean, from living among university students in the Kurdish region. Hardly an effective cross-section of the Kurdish population.

I don't see a mass movement for an independent and sovereign Kurdish nation.

Then you're really not looking very hard; the Kurds have been fighting for independence from Iraq for decades. Their current leadership supports the federal government, but their current leadership also hardly reflects the sentiments of the overall population: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/31/AR2005073101055.html


Now I do hope you'll be addressing what you find objectionable about the content of what Kwiatkowski is saying sometime in the near future?

 

[oldbetang]

I would only believe this if your definition of "liberal" is Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller.

With a 17% lifetime ACU ranking, I'd say that Lieberman is definitely a liberal.

Sure it is; they based their ranking on Kerry's voting record for 2003, but Kerry missed 37 of the 62 votes that year, because he was out campaigning. Their ranking was extremely misleading.

They base their rankings on voting records. Kerry's record is what it is; very liberal. There was no misrepresentation.

I take it you didn't read the title of the article? "Mary Robinson - War Criminal?"

I take it you didn't notice the question mark in that title?

You mean, from living among university students in the Kurdish region. Hardly an effective cross-section of the Kurdish population.

How do you know that he wasn't exposed to a large cross-section of the Kurdish population?

Then you're really not looking very hard; the Kurds have been fighting for independence from Iraq for decades. Their current leadership supports the federal government, but their current leadership also hardly reflects the sentiments of the overall population: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/31/AR2005073101055.html

Kurds have led the drive for a federal system for Iraq -- one that would leave Kurdistan within Iraq's borders, but preserve much of the de facto autonomy Kurds gained under U.S. protection after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
​

Like I said, no mass movement for independence. Not that it would necessarily be a bad idea anyway.

Now I do hope you'll be addressing what you find objectionable about the content of what Kwiatkowski is saying sometime in the near future?

I don't view her as being credible. Therefore, I see no need to comment on what she has to say.

 

[KomissarSteve]

With a 17% lifetime ACU ranking, I'd say that Lieberman is definitely a liberal.

A low ACU rating does not mean he's liberal. It means he's not conservative, by ACU standards, but that doesn't mean he's liberal by any means.

They base their rankings on voting records. Kerry's record is what it is; very liberal. There was no misrepresentation.

As I already explained, Kerry's voting record in 2003 was not representative of his overall views and policies, because he was not there for most of 2003's votes.

I take it you didn't notice the question mark in that title?

If I posted a thread whose title was, "oldbetang - Hitler?!", the clear implication is that there's enough of a chance that Hitler, that it's worth discussing.

How do you know that he wasn't exposed to a large cross-section of the Kurdish population?

Because his conclusions are directly contradicted by those of the article I just posted. Since he lived on university campuses, and since his conclusions don't seem very representative of the Kurdish population as a whole, the most likely conclusion is that he didn't get a very good sampling of what Kurds actually think.

Kurds have led the drive for a federal system for Iraq -- one that would leave Kurdistan within Iraq's borders, but preserve much of the de facto autonomy Kurds gained under U.S. protection after the 1991 Persian Gulf War

Like I said, no mass movement for independence. Not that it would necessarily be a bad idea anyway.

The paragraph above it states the following:

The demands from Kurdistan for independence and for immediate action on broader territorial claims are shaping much of the debate in Baghdad as Shiite Arabs, Sunni Arabs, Kurds, who mostly practice the Sunni version of Islam, and other groups draft the country's post-Saddam Hussein constitution.

My goodness, could you be more misleading?

I don't view her as being credible. Therefore, I see no need to comment on what she has to say.

In other words, you're copping out.

You haven't even explained what's not credible about her.

 

[heathergirl2006]

hi

 

[KomissarSteve]

hi

Hi!

 

[oldbetang]

A low ACU rating does not mean he's liberal. It means he's not conservative, by ACU standards, but that doesn't mean he's liberal by any means.

If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, we can safely assume that it's a duck. Lieberman is a liberal. His ACU rating for 2004 was 0%. He consistantly gets 100% ratings from groups like NARAL, Planned Parenthood, the Human Rights Campaign, the Fund For Animals, and numerous labor organizations. He has gotten 100% ratings from the NEA, the Campaign for America's Future, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and many 90+% from other liberal groups. He consistantly gets an "F" from the NRA, 0% ratings from small business groups, and 0% ratings from social conservative organizations like Concerned Women of America.

As I already explained, Kerry's voting record in 2003 was not representative of his overall views and policies, because he was not there for most of 2003's votes.

Where was he then? Is that the explanation for 2004 when he also got a 0% from the ACU?

If I posted a thread whose title was, "oldbetang - Hitler?!", the clear implication is that there's enough of a chance that Hitler, that it's worth discussing.

It may be worth discussing but it wouldn't have been a case of you calling me Hitler.

Because his conclusions are directly contradicted by those of the article I just posted.

I don't see that! There are two conflicting points made in that article. One that the Kurds want independence and the other that they don't.

The paragraph above it states the following:

My goodness, could you be more misleading?

The paragraph I quoted speaks for itself.

In other words, you're copping out.

You haven't even explained what's not credible about her.

Michael Rubin did!

 

[BearerBob]

Took about 4 sentences to figure out her angle. Notice how she never mentions the intel failures under Clinton even though they lead to huge mistaks and a large number of deaths. She's just another partisan hack.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Took about 4 sentences to figure out her angle. Notice how she never mentions the intel failures under Clinton even though they lead to huge mistaks and a large number of deaths. She's just another partisan hack.

Which intel failures under Clinton led to huge mistakes and large numbers of deaths?

 

[KomissarSteve]

If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, we can safely assume that it's a duck.

And what if it caucuses with the GOP and splits with its party on the most important issue of the day? What then would we call it?

Lieberman is a liberal. His ACU rating for 2004 was 0%. He consistantly gets 100% ratings from groups like NARAL, Planned Parenthood, the Human Rights Campaign, the Fund For Animals, and numerous labor organizations. He has gotten 100% ratings from the NEA, the Campaign for America's Future, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and many 90+% from other liberal groups. He consistantly gets an "F" from the NRA, 0% ratings from small business groups, and 0% ratings from social conservative organizations like Concerned Women of America.

And why, pray tell, should I take any of these organizations' word for it? Why shouldn't his actions speak for themselves?

Where was he then?

As I've already explained to you, campaigning.

Is that the explanation for 2004 when he also got a 0% from the ACU?

I'm not entirely sure why I should care a word about what the ACU says..."least conservative" does not mean "most liberal."

It may be worth discussing but it wouldn't have been a case of you calling me Hitler.

No - only implying it strongly enough that I may as well have.

I don't see that! There are two conflicting points made in that article. One that the Kurds want independence and the other that they don't.

Ah, good - only one conclusion. Never mind that it's the central conclusion to both articles.

The paragraph I quoted speaks for itself.

Again, as I've already explained to you, the opinions of the Kurdish politicians do not accurately reflect the opinions of the Kurdish people as a whole.

Michael Rubin did!

Michael Rubin tried and failed; Kwiatkowski rebutted his entire argument.

 

[mwb]

As I pointed out earlier, the Senators who supported the invasion initially were misled by deliberately falsified information, and those Clinton quotes were taken from his bombing campaign in Iraq. (which, might I point out, incurred absolutely no U.S. casualties)

Some quotes were spoken before Bush took office. So the democrats misled themselves. That's responsible.

 

[mwb]

Bob Woodward cherry-picked intelligence too. For every Bob Woodward book, there's a report that shows there were links between AQ & Iraq.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Bob Woodward cherry-picked intelligence too. For every Bob Woodward book, there's a report that shows there were links between AQ & Iraq.

I'm sure there are also several reports that extraterrestrial aliens are the reason why we can't find the Iraqi WMDs. That doesn't make them credible.