[mike777]

I do not know anyone on the record who wants to attack Iran

Heck do the Democrats want to bomb anyone on the record?

[Al_U_Card]

Cleveland, I believe.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jan 12 2007, 07:29 PM, said:

~~Now, all of this may just be complete coincidence - but then again, it may be something else entirely - IMHO.

ok, i'll make a statement about your post and you tell me whether i'm right or wrong... you replaced the original premise ("The President and his neo-con handlers knowingly falsified intelligence..."), stated by you, with another ("... the White House promoted intelligence it liked and ignored intelligence it didn’t...") stated by a former cia op... so those quotes don't really speak to your premise, do they?

since your premise wasn't really defended, i'll assume you have abaonded it... as for the motive for the actions taken, there's a difference between embarking on action A for reason B and in embarking on action A for reason C, but discovering along the way that reason B is now both beneficial and possible... in any event, you can't say that the motive for action A is reason B when you haven't shown action A to be true

i'm not saying that the cia op is wrong (that the administration accepted certain intelligence but not others), only that others might view the same set of circumstances in a different light... i would never say that a person *knowingly* falsified intelligence, imo that borders on libel, unless i was prepared to attempt a proof... i'd do it this way:

the president of iran wnats nuclear energy so that he can make weapons grade material, with the final end being a planned attack on israel and the west - imho

i could then defend my opinion as an opinion, not as a necessary truth

[Winstonm]

Quote

i'm not saying that the cia op is wrong (that the administration accepted certain intelligence but not others), only that others might view the same set of circumstances in a different light... i would never say that a person *knowingly* falsified intelligence, imo that borders on libel, unless i was prepared to attempt a proof... i'd do it this way:

the president of iran wnats nuclear energy so that he can make weapons grade material, with the final end being a planned attack on israel and the west - imho

i could then defend my opinion as an opinion, not as a necessary truth

Jimmy, once again you are right - I would lose any logic argument with you, for sure. And BTW, it's good to see you back. I did add a disclaimer of sorts - I added to the start: A conspiracy theory: I thought it obvious from the original post - from the added comment about conspiracy - that the post was conjecture and not intended as statement of fact. I also did not specify which president or in what time frame the actions occured - a ficticious president at some unknown time. But I am taking your advice anyway, and will add IMHO at the end - because that is all it is and I knew that at the time.

I also did not answer your other question so I will address that now. I have read before (but didn't feel like searching it out) that the administration was warned by the CIA that some of the intelligence came from a totally unreliable source but the WH elected to ignore that warning and present the intel as fact - now I ask you: if you are aware that the information you are publicly presenting is tarnished and your own agency says it is unreliable, have you knowingly falsified the information (not the document but the information being told to the public) by claiming it as fact? Perhaps that is too strong of wording - knowingly ignored warning that the intelligence was seriously doubted to be accurate - might be better?

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jan 13 2007, 10:52 AM, said:

I did add a disclaimer of sorts - I added to the start: A conspiracy theory:

you're right, you did... my apologies

Quote

if you are aware that the information you are publicly presenting is tarnished and your own agency says it is unreliable, have you knowingly falsified the information (not the document but the information being told to the public) by claiming it as fact?

i don't know if i'd say it that way... i would agree that if those things are true then a person's selective use of that intelligence could call into question the objective nature of any decision flowing from it.. and i do agree that bush used the intelligence he wanted, that which justified a path he'd already chosen... i doubt he's the only president to do this (roosevelt comes to mind), but it doesn't make it right

[Winstonm]

Here are direct quotes from the transcript of the Bush "surge" speech.

Quote

The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy – by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom – and help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.

(emphasis added)

Is this or is it not a declaration to expand nation building across the entire region?
Is the U.S. engaged in U.S.S.R.-like satellite state building in order to expand an empire?

Quote

The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.

(emphasis added)

At long last Bush lays out his reasoning for the pressing need for success. Do you accept this view? Was Iraq a "safe haven" for terrorists prior to the U.S. invasion?
Would Iraq indeed becoming a launching base for hijacked U.S. airliners?

Quote

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity – and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing – and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

(emphasis added)

How do we plan on addressing Iran and Syria? Is "seeking out and destroying networks" imply a Cambodian-like operation? If Iran is the country that could "dominate the region", were they the targets originally - and what was the purpose of invading Iraq, then?

And lastly, how often do you use aircraft carriers in a civil war?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Winstonm]

Late-breaking news item:

Quote

Pentagon sources tell CBS News the U.S. military has planned covert cross-border raids into Iran — but so far none has been approved.

Cambodia, anyone?

Quote

By KIM GAMEL
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Five Iranians seized by U.S.-led forces were working in a longtime government liaison office that was being upgraded to a consulate, the Iraqi foreign minister said Friday.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said the building where the Iranians were detained Thursday had operated with Iraqi government approval for 10 years.

[ (emphasis added)

Seems like this should be funny, but I'm not laughing.

Quote

WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 — A recent series of American raids against Iranians in Iraq was authorized under an order that President Bush decided to issue several months ago to undertake a broad military offensive against Iranian operatives in the country, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday.

So Bush ordered the raid on the consulate - who would have guessed.

Quote

ANKARA, Jan 11 (KUNA) -- U.S. F-16 jet-fighters arrived Thursday in Incirlik Air base in southern Turkish city of Adana after, the first time in three years.

According to Local Cihan News Agency, at least 16 F-16 jets joined by early warning system AWACS airplane, as well as tanker airplanes landed here at Incirlik coming from an American base in Germany.

F-16 fighters in Turkey - isn't that kind of close to Iran?

WWIII Countdown Contest: Grand prize awarded to the first to predict the day we start a war with Iran.

[Al_U_Card]

Anyone remember the "Dead Zone" and the president (Martin Sheen) that wanted to press the button? Life and art.....where is Chris Walken when we need him?

[Winstonm]

Guess I'm not the only one concerned:

Quote

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. contingency planning for military action against Iran's nuclear program goes beyond limited strikes and would effectively unleash a war against the country, a former U.S. intelligence analyst said on Friday.

"I've seen some of the planning ... You're not talking about a surgical strike," said Wayne White, who was a top Middle East analyst for the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research until March 2005.

"You're talking about a war against Iran" that likely would destabilize the Middle East for years, White told the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington think tank.'

And how dangerous is Iran?

Quote

Middle East expert Kenneth Katzman argued "Iran's ascendancy is not only manageable but reversible" if one understands the Islamic republic's many vulnerabilities.

Tehran's leaders have convinced many experts Iran is a great nation verging on "superpower" status, but the country is "very weak ... (and) meets almost no known criteria to be considered a great nation," said Katzman of the Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service.

The economy is mismanaged and "quite primitive," exporting almost nothing except oil, he said.

Also, Iran's oil production capacity is fast declining and in terms of conventional military power, "Iran is a virtual non-entity," Katzman added.

The administration, therefore, should not go out of its way to accommodate Iran because the country is in no position to hurt the United States, and at some point "it might be useful to call that bluff," he said.

But Katzman cautioned against early confrontation with Iran and said if there is a "grand bargain" that meets both countries' interests, that should be pursued. "

Where is the big, spooky country that can threaten world peace I keep hearing about? Sounds like Iran isn't much different than North Korea - lots of noise with no way to loose the threats. We wouldn't go after them just to change a regime and get their oil, would we? Nah.

[mike777]

The fear is, right or wrong, silly or not is that radical islamic elements will be encouraged in places such as Pakistan, India, Egypt or Turkey and cause huge domestic problems for those countries that affect USA interests. Another is the fear of some sort of larger Sunni/Shia regional battle. Of course this is all just speculation based on a defeat of the USA in Iraq and the USSR defeat in Afghanistan years ago. The fear is this will be a major problem for the USA for another 40 years.

[pbleighton]

"The fear is, right or wrong, silly or not is that radical islamic elements will be encouraged in places such as Pakistan, India, Egypt or Turkey and cause huge domestic problems for those countries that affect USA interests. Another is the fear of some sort of larger Sunni/Shia regional battle. Of course this is all just speculation based on a defeat of the USA in Iraq and the USSR defeat in Afghanistan years ago. The fear is this will be a major problem for the USA for another 40 years."

So the obvious solution to these fears is another doomed invasion?

When will we learn to MYOFB?

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

If anything, the eventual Sunni-Shiite internecine war is being relied on to defuse any "real" threat to the US and its "economic" interests.....its just an oil grab, plain and simple.

[Winstonm]

Regress to Jimmy's argument:

From the New York Times:

Quote

"I rejoice in the newfound freedoms in Iraq. But there are indications that the U.S. government souped up intelligence, leaned on spooks to change their conclusions, and concealed contrary information to deceive people at home and around the world.

I will not argue whether "souped up intelligence", "leaned on spooks to change their conclusions", and "concealed contrary information" should be classifed as "knowingly falsifying intelligence"; however, to do the above "to deceive people at home and around the world", would, IMO, be an impeachable offense.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jan 20 2007, 10:02 AM, said:

Regress to Jimmy's argument:

From the New York Times:

Quote

"I rejoice in the newfound freedoms in Iraq. But there are indications that the U.S. government souped up intelligence, leaned on spooks to change their conclusions, and concealed contrary information to deceive people at home and around the world.

I will not argue whether "souped up intelligence", "leaned on spooks to change their conclusions", and "concealed contrary information" should be classifed as "knowingly falsifying intelligence"; however, to do the above "to deceive people at home and around the world", would, IMO, be an impeachable offense.

since you won't argue those things, neither will i argue that "indications" of such actions differ from facts... however, even if those indications are facts, upon what charge would you hinge impeachment? would you have impeached roosevelt (re: japan)? kennedy (re: bay of pigs et al)? i'm just asking so that i can have a clearer view of which "concealed contary information" used to "deceive people.." is impeachable

[mike777]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 20 2007, 09:44 AM, said:

If anything, the eventual Sunni-Shiite internecine war is being relied on to defuse any "real" threat to the US and its "economic" interests.....its just an oil grab, plain and simple.

Good grief how long does it take to grab the oil. It seems it would have just been cheaper to pay for the damn stuff? How much oil has been grabbed and how much did we save?

[luke warm]

mike777, on Jan 20 2007, 04:51 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Jan 20 2007, 09:44 AM, said:

If anything, the eventual Sunni-Shiite internecine war is being relied on to defuse any "real" threat to the US and its "economic" interests.....its just an oil grab, plain and simple.

Good grief how long does it take to grab the oil. It seems it would have just been cheaper to pay for the damn stuff? How much oil has been grabbed and how much did we save?

stop it, you're just trying to confuse me

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Jan 20 2007, 04:49 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 20 2007, 10:02 AM, said:

Regress to Jimmy's argument:

From the New York Times:

Quote

"I rejoice in the newfound freedoms in Iraq. But there are indications that the U.S. government souped up intelligence, leaned on spooks to change their conclusions, and concealed contrary information to deceive people at home and around the world.

I will not argue whether "souped up intelligence", "leaned on spooks to change their conclusions", and "concealed contrary information" should be classifed as "knowingly falsifying intelligence"; however, to do the above "to deceive people at home and around the world", would, IMO, be an impeachable offense.

since you won't argue those things, neither will i argue that "indications" of such actions differ from facts... however, even if those indications are facts, upon what charge would you hinge impeachment? would you have impeached roosevelt (re: japan)? kennedy (re: bay of pigs et al)? i'm just asking so that i can have a clearer view of which "concealed contary information" used to "deceive people.." is impeachable

The presumption is the administration was aware that the intelligence did not coincide with the desire for war, so intelligence that contradicted that view was ignored while flawed intelligence that supported that view was supported. If true, this would define a conspiracy to attack a foreign country without provocation, which would be a violation of interntional law, therefore satisfying the constitutional requirements for "high crimes and misdeamenors" necessary to impeach.

I do not see in history a total parallel - The Gulf of Tonkin is probably closest and that was used to escalate an existing war and not used to instigate an illegal war.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Jan 20 2007, 04:51 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Jan 20 2007, 09:44 AM, said:

If anything, the eventual Sunni-Shiite internecine war is being relied on to defuse any "real" threat to the US and its "economic" interests.....its just an oil grab, plain and simple.

Good grief how long does it take to grab the oil. It seems it would have just been cheaper to pay for the damn stuff? How much oil has been grabbed and how much did we save?

Unfortunately, the Shi'is and Sunnis have not cooperated in their part of the plan - instead of rolling over and playing dead, they had the poor social skills to start a civil war, making it too dangerous for the execs of the oil companies to hold their photo opp at the well heads for their latest annual reports - unfortunately for the U.S., we couldn't just pay for the oil as the Bank of China has decided to hold fewer dollars and therefore is not buying enough of our bonds to allow the U.S. to create the dollars needed; instead, we had to use our Mobil-Exxon National Debt Oil-War credit card so future generations get to pay for it along with the bills for Medicare and Social Security.

[luke warm]

Quote

If true, this would define a conspiracy to attack a foreign country without provocation, which would be a violation of interntional law, therefore satisfying the constitutional requirements for "high crimes and misdeamenors" necessary to impeach.

is this true? do the high crimes etc concern int'l law or u.s. law? iow, if the u.s. entered a treaty with another nation then broke that treaty, is that an impeachable offense?

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Jan 20 2007, 09:10 PM, said:

Quote

If true, this would define a conspiracy to attack a foreign country without provocation, which would be a violation of interntional law, therefore satisfying the constitutional requirements for "high crimes and misdeamenors" necessary to impeach.

is this true? do the high crimes etc concern int'l law or u.s. law? iow, if the u.s. entered a treaty with another nation then broke that treaty, is that an impeachable offense?

The constitution does not specify high crimes and misdemeanors under U.S. law, so it is arguable. Another question is whether the conspiracy to violate international law would violate U.S. law, as any conspiring would have been done in the U.S. It is an interesting question if these extend under law to impeachable offenses.

Of course, Bush has admitted violating the law with illegal wiretaps, so there is no question about that illegality.

The differences lie in the fact that Clinton denied having sex under oath and in front of a grand jury, while Bush said there were WMD in front of the UN assembly and not under oath. Odd that if Bush knew he way lying, Clinton's is still the more punishable under law?

Still, if the intelligence was known to be doctored then one would think a conspiracy to defraud could be argued based on the cost of the war and the contracts to Haliburton and others. It could be arued, too, that if the information was known to be false, a conspiracy to extort argument could be adopted.

What do you think, Jimmy?