| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Saddam and al-Qaeda .... NOT! | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 6 2007, 07:42 AM (810 Views) | |
| QuirtEvans | Apr 6 2007, 07:42 AM Post #1 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| pianojerome | Apr 6 2007, 08:45 AM Post #2 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
"not directly cooperating" Were they indirectly cooperating, or simply not cooperating at all? |
| Sam | |
![]() |
|
| Kincaid | Apr 6 2007, 08:50 AM Post #3 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
So Zarqawi was just there on a student visa? |
| Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Apr 6 2007, 09:13 AM Post #4 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
I guess you missed the fact that the report was written by the Department of Defense. The Bush Administration's Department of Defense. They have a real interest in downplaying the links between Saddam and al-Qaeda, don't they? If anything, they had a bias in favor of exactly the opposite conclusion. So ... since their finding was opposite to their bias ... exactly what part of it don't you believe? |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Kincaid | Apr 6 2007, 11:42 AM Post #5 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Well, my bad. I had forgotten that Zarqawi was not allied with Al-Quaeda until after the invasion. Before that, he was just a garden-variety terrorist given safe haven by Saddam. Now, I don't know if Cheney has any info that shows closer links between Zarqawi and Al-Quaeda prior to the invasion. I suspect not. Anyway Quirt, I don't think the DOD (or the CIA or the State Dept, for that matter) were ever in lockstep with the administration. So, I would have to disagree that they had a bias in favor of the administration. In fact, it may be that their biases went in other directions. FWIW, I doubt that I would disagree with much of the report's findings - but would not be surprised if the Washington Post's reporting pushed an agenda of their own and we might not be getting an even-handed story. |
| Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006. | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Apr 7 2007, 05:45 AM Post #6 |
|
Finally
|
Lifted from a post by John Hinderaker... Here's what the report actually says, rather than what the WaPo says it says: In a footnote to the IG's report: "Noteworthy is that post-war debriefs of Saddam Hussein, Tariq Aziz, al-Tikriti and al-Libi as well as document exploitation by DIA all confirmed that the Intelligence Community was correct: Iraq and al-Qaeda did not cooperate in all categories. The terms the Intelligence Community used to describe the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda were validated, "no conclusive signs," and "direct cooperation...has not been established." The footnote doesn't say that Iraq and al Qaeda were not cooperating before th U.S. invasion, as the Post erroneously reported; it says that "direct cooperation...has not been established," an entirely different proposition. Further, the IG's footnote says that al Qaeda and Iraq "did not cooperate in all categories." This refers to a slide in a presentation prepared by Feith's group which says that al Qaeda and Iraq cooperated across "all categories," of which ten were listed, e.g., training and financing. So, far from saying that there was no cooperation at all, the IG footnote said that the two entities didn't cooperate "in all [ten] categories." Further, by extracting (and misreporting) that single footnote, the Post misrepresents the overall tenor of prewar intelligence, as set forth in the IG's report. Far from flatly stating that al Qaeda and Iraq didn't collaborate, the CIA and DIA expressed doubt and agnosticism about the extent of such cooperation. Here are some quotes from those agencies' reports, as set forth by the IG: "Compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and al Qaeda has not been established, despite a large body of anecdotal information." "Overall, the reporting provides no conclusive signs of cooperation on specific terrorist operations, so discussion of the possible extent of cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda is necessarily speculative." As far as knowledge or implication in 9/11 goes, the [CIA's August 20, 2002] report offers, "no conclusive indication of Iraqi complicity or foreknowledge in the 11 September attacks." Further, the report cites "no conclusive reporting that al Qaeda and Iraq collaborated on terrorist operations...." While some of those phrases actually made it into the Post's account, the overall tenor of the article would lead all but the most careful readers to think that pre-war intelligence estimates flatly rejected the possibility of cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda. This false impression is accentuated by the Post's effort to suggest that the IG's report contradicts Vice President Dick Cheney's statements on the same subjects: "The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June. "This is al-Qaeda operating in Iraq," Cheney told Limbaugh's listeners about Zarqawi, who he said had "led the charge for Iraq." Cheney cited the alleged history to illustrate his argument that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq would "play right into the hands of al-Qaeda." So what is "alleged" about this history? Zarqawi indisputably ran a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and fled that country in late 2001 as the Taliban's regime crumbled. No one denies that he went from Afghanistan to Iraq and set up terrorist operations there. We know that, among other operations, he engineered the assassination of American diplomat Laurence Foley in Amman, Jordan, while in Iraq prior to our invasion of that country. It is similarly beyond dispute that Zarqawi headed the "al Qaeda in Iraq" organization until his death last year. So how, exactly, has the IG report turned Cheney's narrative into "alleged history"? If you read to the very last paragraph of the Post piece, you find this: Zarqawi, whom Cheney depicted yesterday as an agent of al-Qaeda in Iraq before the war, was not then an al-Qaeda member but was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al-Qaeda adherents, according to several intelligence analysts. He publicly allied himself with al-Qaeda in early 2004, after the U.S. invasion. Given the Post's notorious fondness for anonymous sources, we don't know who these "intelligence analysts" who apparently speak with such confidence about Zarqawi's murky career might be. But how about a source who isn't afraid to be named, Sayf al Adl, al Qaeda's global security chief? Here is what he wrote about Zarqawi: "Al-Zarqawi: The Second Al-Qaeda Generation," a recently published book on Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi -- who pledged his group's loyalty to Osama bin Laden last year -- chronicles al-Zarqawi's presence in Afghanistan and his relationship with the Al-Qaeda network, which funded al-Zarqawi training camps in Herat before the U.S.-led invasion in 2001. Following the invasion, al-Zarqawi and other Al-Qaeda leaders scattered and regrouped in Iran, pledging to reassemble in Afghanistan in seven years' time, Sayf al-Adl, the official in charge of security for the Global Al-Qaeda of Islam Army, recounted in the book. Al-Adl further documented al-Zarqawi's decision to establish his network of fighters in Iraq in 2001, an undertaking assisted through his relationship with the Ansar Al-Islam terrorist network based in Iraqi Kurdistan close to the Iranian border. That relationship was reportedly forged in Afghanistan. "We began to converge on Iran one after the other. The fraternal brothers in the peninsula of the Arabs, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates who were outside Afghanistan, had already arrived. They possessed abundant funds. We set up a central leadership and working groups," al-Adl recounted. "We began to form some groups of fighters to return to Afghanistan to carry out well-prepared missions there. Meanwhile, we began to examine the situation of the group and the fraternal brothers to pick new places for them. Abu Mus'ab and his Jordanian and Palestinian comrades opted to go to Iraq...[an] examination of the situation indicated that the Americans would inevitably make a mistake and invade Iraq sooner or later. Such an invasion would aim at overthrowing the regime. Therefore, we should play an important role in the confrontation and resistance. It would be our historic chance to establish the state of Islam that would play a major role in alleviating injustice and establishing justice in this world," al-Adl said. Al-Adl's account is, obviously, fully supportive of Cheney's characterization of Zarqawi's role. Beyond that, this whole dispute turns on very fine distinctions. No one questions that Zarqawi worked with Ansar al-Islam, which is generally described as an al Qaeda "affiliate." What, exactly, does that mean? Terrorists have no need of clear rules or sharp lines between organizations. At the end of the day, it matters very little whether Zarqawi (or any other terrorist) was a "member" of al Qaeda or "merely" someone who communicated and cooperated with al Qaeda in pursuit of shared goals. And, by the way, none of this has much to do with the IG report, which never mentions Zarqawi. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Apr 13 2007, 12:17 PM Post #7 |
|
Finally
|
Who's Spinning Intel? Captured Iraqi documents tell a different story. by Thomas Joscelyn 04/13/2007 12:00:00 AM LAST WEEK, the Washington Post ("Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted") covered the latest round in Senator Levin's ongoing struggle to prove that the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda was nothing more than a fiction. Levin has been at this game for a while, and this time the Post's story centered on Levin's request for the declassification of a report written by the Pentagon's acting inspector general, Thomas F. Gimble. The report's conclusion: a Pentagon analysis shop, once headed by former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith, "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers." The inspector general determined that Feith's shop did nothing illegal, but still maintained that his office's analyses were "inappropriate." Why? According to the inspector general, Feith & Co. did not sufficiently explain that their conclusions were at odds with the CIA's (and the DIA's) judgments. That was enough for Levin to go on the attack once again. But Levin's story, which was simply repeated without any real investigation by the Post or even the inspector general's office, relies on a false dichotomy. The senator now pretends that the CIA and other intelligence outfits had reached a rock-solid conclusion that there was no noteworthy relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in 2002, but Feith's shop improperly pressed on. The Post summarized the inspector general's report as saying: " the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials and had said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups." This is simply revisionist history at its worst. Although there were certainly disagreements between the CIA and Feith's shop, both argued in 2002 that there was a relationship between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda. George Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, stated the CIA's position quite clearly in an October 7, 2002 letter to then head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Bob Graham (D-FL). Tenet explained, "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." Iraq and al Qaeda "have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression." Tenet warned, "We have credible reporting that al-Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs." And, "Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al-Qaeda, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent US military action." Tenet was far from alone in these assessments. Michael Scheuer, the one-time head of the CIA's bin Laden unit, also used to be certain that Iraq and al Qaeda were working together. Scheuer's first book on al Qaeda, Through Our Enemies' Eyes, which was published in 2002, went into elaborate detail about the support the Iraqi regime was providing to al Qaeda. Among the areas of concern was Iraq's ongoing support for al Qaeda's chemical weapons development projects in the Sudan. In 2004, after fashioning a career as a critic of the Bush administration, Scheuer did an about face. He suddenly claimed that there was no evidence of a relationship. He even decided to re-write history--literally. He revised Through Our Enemies' Eyes to be consistent with his newly formed opinion by claiming he was simply mistaken. The bottom line is that members of the CIA, including the Agency's director, certainly believed in 2002 that there was a relationship between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda. And no matter what he says now, Senator Levin knows that. In a June 16, 2003 appearance on NewsHour, Senator Levin explained: "We were told by the intelligence community that there was a very strong link between al-Qaida and Iraq, and there were real questions raised. And there are real questions raised about whether or not that link was such that the description by the intelligence community was accurate or whether or not they [note: "they" here refers to the intelligence community, not the Bush administration] stretched it." The idea that Feith's analysts cooked up the connection, while the CIA shunned the very notion, is pure fantasy--a fantasy dreamed up by Senator Levin and some former CIA members who have repeatedly made clear their disdain for the Bush administration. But all of this is almost entirely beside the point. Instead of focusing on Levin's "who said what in Washington" game, we'd be better served by focusing on the best evidence available: Saddam's own intelligence files. Here, the Post's account is thoroughly lacking. The story leads off with this startling conclusion, purportedly gleaned from the inspector general's report: "Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides 'all confirmed' that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq " Taking the denials of Saddam and his goons at face value is, of course, ridiculous. But exactly which "captured Iraqi documents" confirmed that Saddam's regime and al Qaeda were "not directly cooperating?" The Post doesn't say. And the inspector general did not perform a thorough review of the Iraqi intelligence documents captured during the Iraq war. Here is just a small sample of what some of the Iraqi intelligence documents and other evidence collected in postwar Iraq has revealed: 1. Saddam's Terror Training Camps & Long-Standing Relationship With Ayman al-Zawahiri. As first reported in THE WEEKLY STANDARD, there is extensive evidence that Saddam used Iraqi soil to train terrorists from throughout the Middle East. Among the terrorists who received Saddam's support were members of al Qaeda's Algerian affiliate, formerly known as the GSPC, which is still lethally active, though under a new name: al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. Joe Klein, a columnist for Time magazine and an outspoken critic of the Bush administration, has confirmed the existence of Saddam's terrorist training camps. He also found that Iraqi intelligence documents demonstrated a long-standing relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda bigwig Ayman al-Zawahiri. Other evidence of Saddam's terror training camps was reported in a paper published by the Pentagon's Iraqi Perspectives Project. A team of Pentagon analysts discovered that Saddam's paramilitary Fedayeen forces were hosting camps for thousands terror of from throughout the Middle East. 2. A 1992 IIS Document lists Osama bin Laden as an "asset." An Iraqi Intelligence memorandum dated March 28, 1992 and stamped "Top Secret" lists a number of assets. Osama bin Laden is listed on page 14 as having a "good relationship" with the Iraqi Intelligence Service's section in Syria. 3. A 1997 IIS document lists a number of meetings between Iraq, bin Laden and other al Qaeda associates. The memo recounts discussions of cooperating in attacks against American stationed in Saudi Arabia. The document summarizes a number of contacts between Iraqi Intelligence and Saudi oppositionist groups, including al Qaeda, during the mid 1990's. The document says that in early 1995 bin Laden requested Iraqi assistance in two ways. First, bin Laden wanted Iraqi television to carry al Qaeda's anti-Saudi propaganda. Saddam agreed. Second, bin Laden requested Iraqi assistance in performing "joint operations against the foreign forces in the land of Hijaz." That is, bin Laden wanted Iraq's assistance in attacking U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia. We do not know what, exactly, came of bin Laden's second request. But the document indicates that Saddam's operatives "were left to develop the relationship and the cooperation between the two sides to see what other doors of cooperation and agreement open up." Thus, it appears that both sides saw value in working with each other. It is also worth noting that in the months following bin Laden's request, al Qaeda was tied to a series of bombings in Saudi Arabia. The document also recounts contacts with Mohammed al-Massari, a known al Qaeda mouthpiece living in London. 4. A 1998 IIS document reveals that a representative of bin Laden visited Baghdad in March 1998 to meet with Saddam's regime. According to the memo, the IIS arranged a visit for bin Laden's "trusted confidant," who stayed in a regime-controlled hotel for more than two weeks. Interestingly, according to other evidence discovered by the U.S. intelligence community, Ayman al-Zawahiri was also in Baghdad the month before. He collected a check for $300,000 from the Iraqi regime. The 9-11 Commission confirmed that there were a series of meetings (perhaps set up by Zawahiri, who had "ties of his own" to the Iraq regime) in the following months as well. 5. Numerous IIS documents demonstrate that Saddam had made plans for a terrorist-style insurgency and coordinated the influx of foreign terrorists into Iraq. In My Year in Iraq, Ambassador Paul Bremer says a secret IIS document he had seen "showed that Saddam had made plans for an insurgency." Moreover, "the insurgency had forces to draw on from among several thousand hardened Baathists in two northern Republican Guard divisions that had joined forces with foreign jihadis." Cobra II, a scathing indictment of the Bush administration's prosecution of the Iraq war by New York Times authors Michael Gordon and General Bernard Trainor, offers additional detail about the terrorists who made their way to Iraq in advance of the war. "Documents retrieved by American intelligence after the war show that the Iraqi Ministry of Defense coordinated border crossings with Syria and provided billeting, pay, and allowances and armaments for the influx of Syrians, Palestinians, and other fighters." Still another IIS document contains Saddam's orders to "utilize Arab suicide bombers" against the Americans. Saddam's agents were also ordered to provide these terrorists with munitions, cash, shelter, and training. These are just five examples of the types of documents that have been discovered in postwar Iraq. There are many more examples not listed here. They all undermine the conventional wisdom that there was never any relationship between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda. But you won't see Senator Carl Levin calling attention to any of these documents. And the Washington Post has shown no interest in bringing them to his attention either. Instead, Levin and the Post like to pretend that the relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda was cooked up by neoconservatives bent on war. The Post even initially--and incorrectly--reported that a copy of a memo from Feith's shop was leaked to THE WEEKLY STANDARD prior to war. (In reality, Stephen Hayes reported on the memo months after the war began. The implication of the Post's misreporting was clear: this was all about justifying war. But instead of worrying about a memo written by Feith's analysts, perhaps the Post should take more interest in what Saddam's files have to say. They're a lot more interesting. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Apr 13 2007, 12:33 PM Post #8 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
So much for the NOT! pwn3d! |
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Apr 13 2007, 02:06 PM Post #9 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Really? I guess the current Defense Department report doesn't know what it's talking about, hmm? Or maybe George Tenet, that paragon of virtue, was proven wrong? Which is more likely? |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Apr 13 2007, 02:25 PM Post #10 |
|
Finally
|
What you posted:
What the WaPo Said:
What the IG said:
What Tenet said:
Er, he was CIA, if memory serves. So... the assessment that CIA said there was no contact between Saddam and al-Queda is, what, selective hindsight. You make a big point about this report, yet the report says that CIA (in the person of Tenet, the director) saw evidence of some co-operation. What Levin said:
That's the CIA, right?
No friend of the Bush adminstration, Klein agrees that Saddam had terrorist training camps, though Al-Queda is not specifically mentioned.
So the Iraqi intelligence service considers bin Laden an asset, though the IG says no "direct" co-operation existed. That's OK, look at what the WaPo says, not at the actual documents (as I posted above). Distilled news is the easiest to digest. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| David Burton | Apr 14 2007, 07:18 PM Post #11 |
|
Senior Carp
|
--- edit --- Thanks George K for your work on this subject. --- edit --- |
![]() |
|
| pianojerome | Apr 14 2007, 07:31 PM Post #12 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Why are you so quick to believe our government when it says what you want it to say, but you are so quick to be skeptical when it says what you don't want it to say? Just an observation, which makes it hard for me to believe you when you are *now* saying, repeatedly, things like "I guess the current Defense Department report doesn't know what it's talking about, hmm?" |
| Sam | |
![]() |
|
| Sparky | Apr 14 2007, 07:54 PM Post #13 |
![]()
Junior Carp
|
Actually, it looks like you missed the part where the news media twisted the truth. |
|
It's easy, with Tweezie!! Ok, I confess - I'm gray. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Apr 14 2007, 08:02 PM Post #14 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Because he's a democrat. Democrats historically haven't been interested in the truth, or motivated to search for it. Everything they do, everything they think, and every point they raise, is designed to advance their political party, not to advance truth, or the general welfare of the country at large. They would politicize bowel movements if they thought it would get them an extra vote. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Apr 15 2007, 06:30 AM Post #15 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
It's pretty simple, just use a little bit of logic. When someone says something against their own interest, they are far more believable than when they say what is in their interest to say. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Nobody's Sock | Apr 15 2007, 06:45 AM Post #16 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
Speaking of which, I had the most wonderful one in ages this morning. I ate alot yesterday. :rolleyes: |
| "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Apr 15 2007, 07:19 AM Post #17 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
Yes, but it is not the Defense Department you are believing but, rather, the Washington Post's mischaracterization of their report. Still, there are many competing interests within any department of government and to say that anything is in "their interest" is a gross simplification. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Apr 15 2007, 07:24 AM Post #18 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
And it's naive to the point of childishness to think that anything with this high a profile wasn't reviewed at the WH before it was released ... and that it wouldn't have been rewritten, delayed, or killed if the WH insisted. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| pianojerome | Apr 15 2007, 07:29 AM Post #19 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
That's true, although the fact that it may be against their best interest does not mean they are right. It may mean they have put a lot of thought into it -- but people are known to be wrong, even when they put a lot of thought into something. Appealing to authority works when you believe that the authority is credible. You have argued many times that this authority is not credible, and even that it has purposefully lied on several occassions. You have argued that their reports have been fallacious, even when it was clear that they put a lot of thought into their work. If they are not credible -- then it shouldn't matter if their words harm them or help them. They still aren't a credible source. ... or they might be credible. But you have to find some other way of validating this report, seeing as that you have already poisoned that means that you now employ. |
| Sam | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Apr 15 2007, 08:27 AM Post #20 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
The fact that certain people lie leads you to question their motives. The fact that they are incompetent leads you to question whether they can get anything right. Since I think they lie, I then look to motives. If motives fall in the opposite direction, then there is no motive for lying. Hence, no reason to believe that lying is taking place. Which means greater reason to believe that they are telling the truth, in this circumstance. And I don't think the Defense Department is incompetent. So I see your "poisoning the well" argument, but I don't think it differentiates between the various reasons not to believe someone's veracity. In other words, it's a little simplistic. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Apr 15 2007, 09:24 AM Post #21 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
An Inspector General's report reviewed and vetted by the White House? Now, that would be a scandal if it were true. Believing it to be standard operating procedure is naive to the point of childishness. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Apr 15 2007, 09:37 AM Post #22 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
I think he meant that he thinks the Washington Post is supposed to run their articles by the White House before they publish them. It has to be that, since it was the WP who misrepresented things...... |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Apr 15 2007, 10:03 AM Post #23 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
Well, yes, then there is that little fact that the IG's report doesn't really say what the WP and Quirt want it to say. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Apr 15 2007, 10:06 AM Post #24 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Excuse me, but this is what the report said (according to George, I am pulling this directly from George's quoting of the report):
Yet, Cheney said, and still continues to say, that there was cooperation. Despite the fact that the best intelligence sources that we have, as of today, still can't verify it. The fact that refuse to see the truth when it stares you in the face isn't surprising. You make allegations all the time that you can't prove. You're nasty, too. Hey, maybe you really ARE Dick Cheney. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Apr 15 2007, 10:32 AM Post #25 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Tell us Quirt - what does the word "direct" mean to you? |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |












12:44 AM Jul 13