Time Magazine reveals Cheney's secret hiding place!

Well, since they were headquartered in Afghanistan and we had our troops in Afghanistan, it makes alot more sense keeping them there than moving them thousands of miles away only to allow the Taliban and AQ to flourish again in Afghanistan, as they are by all reports.

As far as intelligence failures, I would venture a guess to say that the failure was in the special agency created by the administration within the DoD, you know, the one that vetted the "intelligence" that the CIA wouldn't.

 

No, I really wouldn't. They seemed to function as a militaristic dictatorship. I'm not an Iraqi historian, but I cannot find sufficient evidence that corporate power played much of a role in Saddam's Iraq. Industry was much less of a priority for him than extreme consolidation of power and control.

Maybe the key is to separate Nazis (with visions of the gestapo torturing people a la Saddam's thugs) from the generic term fascists.

Not the main point, but I feel that the word gets thrown around by all sides somewhat carelessly. I need to learn more about it also, but other topics are more interesting and less depressing.

 

I said that for those who have INNOCENT american blood on their hands, I really could care less about what ahppens to them as long as they suffer. Now for those that do not have blood on their hands that is a completely different story and the punishment should fit the crime.

As for comparing what Saddam did to the Iraqi people with what we have done to the prisoners and not the people, that seems a bit irresponsible to do so. Saddam killed whole families for crimes of 1 person. He killed parents in front their children. He cut hands, arms, and legs, off of people who did not do what he said. He had prisons setup just for rape and debauchary. He had prisons setup for children of people who he wanted to control.

I am not condoning the actions of the people who have committed the abuses but it is still a very small group of numbskulls who are obiviously very sick people. I do not believe for a moment that this was ordered as the norm.

Let me say one last thing on the subject, if we found any information that led to the capture of a terrorist and/or stopped a terrorist act that saved lives, torture , on some level, is appropiate.

 

Dennis, I hear you, and I sympathize, but in my view we will have become what we fear when we do this.

Anyone know why we can't just give them polygraphs and/or "truth serum" sorts of drugs. I know those exist. That's probably illegal too, but it's much more humane than torture. If we have a religious bone in any of our bodies, how can we really talk about torture as a legitimate means to an end? It just blows my mind.

 

Since the reports indicate that 70-90% of the people in these prisons were rounded up for the crime of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, I would venture a guess to say that MOST of the "abuses" were performed on the innocent.

We haven't been there for as long as Saddam was, but according to the reports, the pics we have seen are nothing compared to the ones coming down the pike. Apparently, they include rapes, murders, and actions taken against children. I would never claim that we are as bad as Saddam was, but these actions do put us on the same playing field, as my original post claims.

So you do not believe the memos from administration lawyers that said that GWB had the right to supercede the law to order torture of prisoners? There have been MANY abuses committed and it is starting to appear that these abuses were condoned by a MUCH larger group than the 6 guards.

Excuse me, but on this you are absolutely WRONG.

By saying that, you would also give leave for other countries who felt the US was a threat to torture American citizens. The reason we signed the Geneva Accords is to protect AMERICANS. If we claim that torture is OK for US to do, who are we to say that any other country does not have the same right?

 

I don't even have the slightest religious bone in my body (highly spiritual, just no religion) and I know that torture, performed by ANYONE at ANY TIME is ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

 

a) we have over 17,000 troops in afghanistan.
b) tenent called the WMD intel a slam dunk. that's he might have been wrong is somehow the fault of the DOD? by what covoluted logic?

 

inter alia....Office of Special Plans....

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact

 

national socialism doesn't necessarilty represent true fascism. and the idea that thr baathists were fascists didn't originate with me, in fact it was in SOTU 2003. andy ridiculous bush-fascist comment is an example of the moveon.org rhetoric i was bemoaning in a post above.

 

that's a DOD op. what does it have to do w/ tenet? unless you and seymour are arguing that tenet just said **** it, we can't fight these guys we'll just use there intel and analysis, and you know what, "it's a slam dunk!"

 

I will say this, basso. I have been very disappointed by Moveon.org.

Not that they don't have *some* good points, which they do. I particularly liked some of their early ads.

But now so much of their rhetoric is just preaching to the choir, when they could really fine-tune their PR to be more level-headed and persuasive. Instead of taking every opportunity to attack Bush, why not choose one or two key issues and make sensible arguments about those issues. Now they're just as devisive as any other political entity. Blech.

I'm not going to give money to a leftie version of Limbaugh. That's just my take.

 

does this fit your definition?

"Sunshine go away today
I don't feel much like dancin'
Some man's come he's trying to run my life
Don't know what he's askin'
When he tells me I better get in line
Can't hear what he's sayin'
When I grow up, I'm gonna make it mine
These ain't dues I been payin'"

 

Did you actually read the article in that short of a time? It's pretty explicit about what the OSP had to to Tenet and the CIA, for example:

Are you asking me that Tenet is at fault for acquiescing and not resigning in protest rather than trying to be a team player for going along with the disastrous plans of "the Cabal", as they like to call themselves? Sure, he likely is.

However, if I acknowledge that Tenet was at fault for listening to the Cabal, then necessarily so was the Cabal, and so is somebody else who inflicted them upon us in the first place and implemented their suggestions....guess who that is (your attempts to make Tenet into the fall guy notwithstanding).

THis is W's war. He wanted it before he came into office, and he got it. That's the truth and there isn't anything you can say about that to refute it.

 

Which obviously isn't enough given that the Taliban has been expanding and we haven't caught bin Laden. We could have been attacking the f***ers that took down the towers, but instead, W had to get us involved in an unjustified preemptive war that has taken our focus OFF of the war on terror.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of failures to go around, but it was the "intelligence" service inside the DoD that was duped by Chalabi and Iran.

 

excellent, i agree, and i ignore rush, hannity, et al for the same reasons.

 

i read the same paragraph you quoted. tenet used his own intel, and his analysts wrote reports to justify their own intel, not the cabal's. tenet's "slam dunk" was based on his own agency's intel, not anyone elses.

 

I could dig up ten million more quotes and articles about this issue from Clarke, Thielman, Beers, Tenet, Powell, any number of accounts; but it looks like you're going to be deliberately obtuse here so I'm not sure it's worth my time. You're fixating on Tenet purposefully so as to ignore the 8,000 pound gorillla in the room, which is fine -- but you asked the question:

I gave you an answer, many of the facts of which have been corroborated, and most/all of which have not been refuted . It's not hard to see how Tenet was influenced and the intelligence was cherry picked by the Cabal. If you want a comprehensive picture, read this article http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact

Is Tenet at fault for being pushed around? Yes, I conceded that he was. What you won't concede, probably because it would be too embarrassing, given your 1000 plus pro-war, pro-administration posts, is that the people who pushed him are necessarily at fault as well.

EDIT:

You nailed it there, not my words though...!

 

Dennis, thanks for posting and joining the discussions. It's been refreshing.

I have to disagree with you about torture even for those with American Blood on their hands, or even if would somehow stop a terrorist bombing. I will do my best to explain why.

1. I want to say first that I understand the desire for punishments that fit the crime, or vengeance/justice if a family member was injured. However, I believe that rule of law, principles and values, trump these things. For one a person who was directly involved with the victim may find it next to impossible to be objective when dealing out punishment or wanting punishment dealt. It should be about justice, and not vengeance. That may not stop me from wanting to rip these guys limb from limb, but what I want, and what's for the greater good, and justice are different things. After all the situation could become cyclical. We tortured them, so they may have the right to make the punishment on our guys fit the crime. The whole thing then deteriorates, and we end up with a similar cycle as to the one in Palestinian/Israeli situation. By setting an example of rule of law serving justice, and sticking to it even in the most difficult times show's how effective it can be, but also our commitment to it, and belief in that system. If we are truly trying to spread democracy and our ideals, how can we do so if we abandon those ideals at times of challenge?

2. Even if torturing a terrorist might somehow stop a terrorist attack, I again disagree with the tactic. I disagree with it for the reasons listed above plus the fact that in the long run I doubt it saves lives. It goes back to B-Bob's point about combatting terrorist recruitment. As long as we give them ammunition to use as recruitment posters to their cause, enlistment will be substantial. Torture will do that. More terrorists means more terrorism. Stopping one attack by cruel means may spawn four other attacks. It may further endanger the lives of those on the frontlines in this battle, and it may alienate help we could get from allies in the war. Along that same line there is a middle ground that we should be fighting for. If we are to hold ourselves up as an example of freedom, justice, etc. then torture under any circumstances shows us to be weak in our beliefs toward such ideals. People who were on the fence and may have wanted to enlist in our effort to combat terrorism will now become more apathetic, or only concerned with their own well-being, etc. With this group I'm not talking about terrorists, but potential combatants against terrorism. As an example I use the unprecedented goodwill after the 9/11 attacks, that has since been washed down the drain. If we want to spread democracy, torture isn't the way to do it. Being an example of all that is right with democracy, freedom, and justice is the way to spread it, even if people have to die for that cause, and those ideals. If we hold true to our principles any lives lost will be in a good cause. If we abandon our principles any lives lost will have been for naught.

3. It's also been widely reported by intel officers that information obtained uner torture isn't very reliable because the person subjected to torture will say what he thinks the torturer wants to hear, rather than the truth. Some of that may be PC mumbo jumbo, but that is still what they say. In addition torture has been shown to be unsuccessful in cases such as the Japanese in WWII(lost) the French in Algeria(lost), etc.

 

quite clever, really, i commend your editing, compiling, and juxtaposition skills. just one problem however, the intelligence estimates on saddam's WMD predate the bush admin and the cabal's formation.

 

Fortuitous rather than clever, I had forgotten about the Stovepipe article and that line and am sort of kicking myself for going a few posts without bringing it up.

Anyway, let's get 3 things straight:

1. The failure to collect accurate intelligence on an operational level are problematic, I agree with this, and so do you, seemingly.

This is more of a systemic problem (though apparently it is possible that it was part of Saddam's domestic and regional security strategy to make people think he had WMDs that is attributable to many things (things not named Frank "Scapegoat" Church -- he didn't not recruit enough arab speakers, make satellite technology the best way to collect cold war intel, etc etc etc.)

2. Tenet's buckling under to pressure from the Cabal and say f-ck it and feed the homines whatever they wanted to credunt is problematic and he is at fault for it. I agree with this, and so do you, seemingly.

3. The pressure from the Cabal, where they either removed, or cause to removed various vetting processes and filters regarding the intel that got sent up the chain in the service of the cause of cherry picking (which caused several embarassments even before the War and we found that the cupboard was bare, such as the Niger forgery and the Powell UN speech) is also problematic. I agree with this, but apparently you do not, or if you do , you won't admit it.

I just don't see how, logically, you can fault Tenet without faulting the Cabal itself.