New interview with Pentagon whistleblower

[mwb]

Was it as clear under the Clinton Administration that al Qaeda posed a greater threat from any other terrorist organization, as it was under Bush's first few months?

If 9/11 happened on Jan 21, 2001, you'd probably still blame Bush. Your dislike for Bush is evident. We get it. You don't have to convince us.

 

[BearerBob]

That's not the question I was asking, though; the question was, "Was there any evidence that al Qaeda was more of a threat than any other terrorist threat to the U.S.?"



That's a fascinating leap in logic, considering that I have yet to say that Bush was fully responsible for any of it.

I'm done with the circular questioning, and goal changing. Have fun.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Then we would call it a liberal Republican duck.

You missed my reference. I was referring to Lieberman, and his recent threats to caucus with the GOP.

Lieberman may endorse a liberal policy or two on the domestic end of things, but any fool knows that that's not where a senator's political responsibilities end. There is also foreign policy, an area in which Lieberman is a staunch neoconservative. Therefore, calling him a liberal is terribly misleading.

His actions were his votes. The liberal organizations were obviously pleased enough with his votes to give him 100% ratings for them.

All of those groups are domestic policy-based.

In 2003? I realize that in this presidential cycle the campaigning has already started . I'm not so sure that that was the case in 2003. At least, not near to the degree of the current situation.

It was well underway by the summer of 2003, which is when Wesley Clark entered the race with an overwhelming surge of popularity that unfortunately did not last. I should know; I started working for his campaign shortly afterward.

Or hottest doesn't mean least cold??

On some issues (especially budgetary issues), George W. Bush is the least conservative president this country has ever seen; it would still be a gross misnomer to call him a liberal, however.

In the absence of any polls, can we really know how the Kurdish people feel as a whole?

No, we can just take the evidence that we have on-hand. And clearly, given the history of the Kurdish independence movement, the (considerably more-nuanced) Washington Post article is more in-line with the facts.

Did not!

See for yourself; I already posted her rebuttal about a page back.

 

[mwb]

Your comments in this thread. That's cool. You don't like Bush. Just try to stick to the facts & leave the sensationalism to the filmmakers.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Your comments in this thread. That's cool. You don't like Bush. Just try to stick to the facts & leave the sensationalism to the filmmakers.

Interesting. So far as I can see, all of my criticisms of the Bush Administration are based upon documented facts, so I don't see any hint of sensationalism.

And I don't dislike Bush personally; I just think he's criminally negligent of his duties, and this has led to many American deaths.

 

[mwb]

I wasn't talking about personally anyway.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Well, you said that if 9/11 had happened closer to Bush's first inauguration, that I still would have blamed it on him. That seems to imply that there is no small amount of personal resentment to be found in my opposition to Bush, doesn't it?

 

[mwb]

I do believe you would have blamed it in him. "It was under Bush's watch" is a familiar refrain by Bush bashers. This makes it Bush's fault even though the government knew about terrorists like AQ since 1993.

If you consider that personally than I guess I think you blame him personally. Personal to me means you dislike him when it comes to matters not involving his duties are president.

 

[KomissarSteve]

I do believe you would have blamed it in him. "It was under Bush's watch" is a familiar refrain by Bush bashers.

Nonsense; if I were to do that, I would logically have to blame Clinton for the Somalia incident.

This makes it Bush's fault even though the government knew about terrorists like AQ since 1993.

Knowing about a terrorist group doesn't mean that terrorist group deserves more attention than any other terrorist group.

If you consider that personally than I guess I think you blame him personally.

Then you are mistaken; I only blame Bush for those faults for which he or his Administration are responsible.

 

[burrow_owl]

You and me both; I find it positively sickening, personally, that a representantive of the people like Bush would put national security on the back-burner in favor of ideological considerations.

This has been the administration's raison d'etre from day one. It's a constant, from the partisan hacks at the Coalition Provisional Authority to the firing of attorney generals that wouldn't indict Democrats in time for the midterm elections.

 

[oldbetang]

You missed my reference. I was referring to Lieberman, and his recent threats to caucus with the GOP.

I didn't miss your reference. Why do you assume that I did?

Lieberman may endorse a liberal policy or two on the domestic end of things, but any fool knows that that's not where a senator's political responsibilities end.

It's not just one or two liberal policies. He votes almost exclusively liberal on domestic policies.

There is also foreign policy, an area in which Lieberman is a staunch neoconservative. Therefore, calling him a liberal is terribly misleading.

Calling Joe Lieberman a staunch neoconservative is just extreme ignorance. You are stuck on his position on Iraq as if that were the sole describer of his foreign policy ideology. When he gets 56% rating from Peace Action, 63% from Council For A Livable World, and an "A" Citizens for Global Solutions, he can hardly be considered a foreign policy conservative , let alone a staunch neoconservative.

See for yourself; I already posted her rebuttal about a page back.

It wasn't much of a rebuttal I'm afraid. Still not convinced!

 

[KomissarSteve]

I didn't miss your reference. Why do you assume that I did?

Because since you were talking about a liberal Republican, you clearly weren't referring to Lieberman.

Calling Joe Lieberman a staunch neoconservative is just extreme ignorance. You are stuck on his position on Iraq as if that were the sole describer of his foreign policy ideology. When he gets 56% rating from Peace Action, 63% from Council For A Livable World, and an "A" Citizens for Global Solutions, he can hardly be considered a foreign policy conservative , let alone a staunch neoconservative.

You still haven't told me why these ratings that you cite so much mean anything.

But I digress...

It wasn't much of a rebuttal I'm afraid.

Tell us why, or everyone's going to know that it's because you can't find any fault in the rebuttal.

Actually, I think everyone's already pretty clear on that, at this point, anyway.

 

[MachZer0]

This has been the administration's raison d'etre from day one. It's a constant, from the partisan hacks at the Coalition Provisional Authority to the firing of attorney generals that wouldn't indict Democrats in time for the midterm elections.

If they were holding off indictments until after the elections, they should be fired

 

[oldbetang]

Because since you were talking about a liberal Republican, you clearly weren't referring to Lieberman.

"If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck then it's probably a duck. Lieberman is a liberal". You do remember that, right? If "it" (meaning Lieberman) were to caucus with the Republicans that would make "it", for all intents and purposes, a liberal Republican, would it not?

You still haven't told me why these ratings that you cite so much mean anything.

But I digress...

I'm afraid I've gone far as I can go with that one. Votes are actions, and it is those actions that Lieberman has been rated on.

Tell us why, or everyone's going to know that it's because you can't find any fault in the rebuttal.

She offers nothing that would disprove Rubin charges. So, why should I believe her over him?

Actually, I think everyone's already pretty clear on that, at this point, anyway.

Ummm, everybody??

 

[JoyJuice]

"The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy." -- CIA official, Tyler Drumheller — a 26-year veteran of the agency


Just one of many..........

 

[mwb]

Case closed.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Don't be so dense! "If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck then it's probably a duck. Lieberman is a liberal". You do remember that, right? If "it" (meaning Lieberman) were to caucus with the Republicans that would make "it", for all intents and purposes, a liberal Republican, would it not?

Nonsense, for two main reasons.

One, caucusing with the Republicans would not mean that Lieberman is necessarily changing his party affiliation.

Two, as I've already established, Lieberman's foreign policy is very, very, very, very not-liberal.

I'm afraid I've gone far as I can go with that one. Votes are actions, and it is those actions that Lieberman has been rated on.

Right, as far as domestic policy is concerned. But his foreign policy is a different story - so much so that one can't honestly call him a liberal.

She offers nothing that would disprove Rubin charges. So, why should I believe her over him?

Rubin offers nothing to prove his own charges, so why should I believe him?

Ummm, everybody??

Except you, of course. Silly me, I should've added that.

 

[KomissarSteve]

"The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy." -- CIA official, Tyler Drumheller — a 26-year veteran of the agency


Just one of many..........

One of many indeed.

That's the unfortunate thing about your case, oldbetang - no matter how fervently you argue that there's no proof of Kwiatkowski's claims, the fact of the matter is that history has shown itself to corroborate her story more than it does the Bush Administration's.

 

[oldbetang]

"The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy." -- CIA official, Tyler Drumheller — a 26-year veteran of the agency


Just one of many..........

From the article:

"This was a very high inner circle of Saddam Hussein. Someone who would know what he was talking about," Drumheller says. ​

"You knew you could trust this guy?" Bradley asked. ​

"We continued to validate him the whole way through," Drumheller replied. ​

According to Drumheller, CIA Director George Tenet delivered the news about the Iraqi foreign minister at a high-level meeting at the White House, including the president, the vice president and Secretary of State Rice. ​

At that meeting, Drumheller says, "They were enthusiastic because they said, they were excited that we had a high-level penetration of Iraqis." ​

What did this high-level source tell him? ​

"He told us that they had no active weapons of mass destruction program," says Drumheller. ​

"So in the fall of 2002, before going to war, we had it on good authority from a source within Saddam's inner circle that he didn't have an active program for weapons of mass destruction?" Bradley asked. ​

"Yes," Drumheller replied. He says there was doubt in his mind at all. ​

From the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report (pages 146 and 147 of the PDF):

The 60 minutes story focused on the account of the former Chief of CIA’s Europe Division(Chief/EUR) who claimed that the source described above “told us that [Iraq] had no active weapons of mass destruction program”. This story was followed by numerous other media appearances by the former Chief/EUR such as, CNN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight and Anderson Cooper 360 degrees, and MSNBC’s Hardball, in which he claimed that the source said Iraq had no WMD programs.

Concerned that something might have been missed in our first Iraq review, the Committee began to request additional information from the Intelligence community and to question current and former CIA officers who were involved in this issue. As noted above, the Committee has not completed this inquiry, but we have seen the operational documentation pertaining to this case. We can say that there is not a single document related to this case which indicates that the source said Iraq had no WMD programs. Both the operations cable and the intelligence report prepared for high-level policymakers said that while Saddam Hussein did not have a nuclear weapon “he was aggressively and covertly developing such a weapon”. Both documents said that ‘Iraq was producing and stockpiling chemical weapons” and they both said Iraq’s weapon of last resort was mobile launched chemical weapons , which would be fired at enemy forces and Israel. The sources comments were consistent with the nuclear, chemical and missile assessments in the October 2002 WMD NIE. The only program not described as fully active was the biological weapons program which the source described as “amateur”, and not constituting a real weapons program.

The former Director of Central Intelligence testified before the Committee in July 2006 that the former Chief/EUR “had mischaracterized [the source’s] information” and said the former Chief/EUR never expressed a view to him, as the former Chief/EUR has claimed publicly, that the source’s information meant Iraq did not have WMD programs. The Committee is still exploring why the former Chief/EUR’s public remarks differ so markedly from the documentation.

 

[oldbetang]

Nonsense, for two main reasons.

One, caucusing with the Republicans would not mean that Lieberman is necessarily changing his party affiliation.

What part of "for all intents and purposes" do you not understand? Right now he is essentially a Democrat, even though he no longer carries the party label. If he were to caucus with the Republicans, he would in effect be considered one of them, regardless of whether he officially joined the party or not.

Two, as I've already established, Lieberman's foreign policy is very, very, very, very not-liberal.

You did no such thing! In fact, I demonstrated that he is most likely a moderate that leans towards the liberal side on foreign affairs.

Right, as far as domestic policy is concerned. But his foreign policy is a different story - so much so that one can't honestly call him a liberal.

LOL!

Rubin offers nothing to prove his own charges, so why should I believe him?

Well, there we are!

Except you, of course. Silly me, I should've added that.

You said everybody. All I count so far is one individual, and that would be you.