For the Iraqis, a Missile Deal That Went Sour

Posted by jon_forward
Why is it so wrong to try and protect our country, our citizens from terrorist?

It isn't, the question is what is effective and what is counter productive. Suicide Bombers can not be dissuaded by fear of capture, they intend to die. Use of aggression in Iraq is creating more of these people, not less so our original target, International Terrorism, is not being attrited by our actions in Iraq, imho.
posted by nbdysfu
Instead they have found a hard paper trail, in Baghdad.
No, they haven't. You were told by a reporter, who was told by men who didn't want their names used, that one exists. If it exists, and if it is conclusive (or even highly suggestive) we have not seen it. Perhaps it will come out in the Final Kay report, but until it can be examined who can say what it is? We've been told lots of things by lots of confidential administration sources, most of it turned out to be nothing more than political spin.
the inimicable GOP_Jeff
...there is no PNAC wing of the GOP.
They are imbedded in the "neo-con" movement, an interesting article by Mr. Crystal in the weaklystandard. Normaly I don't attribute much weight to the publication, but this is the "Godfather of Neo-Conservatism" speaking so I listened:
... And it is a fact that if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you.
The older, traditional elements in the Republican party have difficulty coming to terms with this new reality in foreign affairs, just as they cannot reconcile economic conservatism with social and cultural conservatism.
The presence of the same people in the leadership of both movements (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Abrahms, Feithe) lends credence to the beleif that the Neo-Cons are at the very least endorsing the PNAC agenda.
kathianne
Truth is there is too much happening right now for most of us. It just keeps going faster and faster.
That's why considering the source of what your being told is so important. People who don't want there names used come in two varieties. The first don't want to have to defend their statements and the second fear persecution for telling the truth. GWBs' administration has been the "leakiest" on record but nary a firing or even a serious investigation. They outed a CIA officer and their investigation consisted of
"Did you do it?"
"Nope."
"How about you?"
"Uh-uh."
So what, if anything, is the leaker afraid of? Apparently, as long as he remembers how to say the word "No" he is in no danger. That means he doesn't want his name used because he doesn't want to have to defend it later, but he does want to whisper it in your ear, just to make it all more confusing.
KathyAnne, I would never discourage you from posting. I don't allways agree with your point of view, but I don't doubt it is given in good faith and that you are motivated by the best of intentions. Please don't curtail your posts because I was critical I am occasionaly grouchy, that's all that keeps me from attaining Nirvahna...oh well, perhaps in the next life ;)
 
Originally posted by dijetlo
It isn't, the question is what is effective and what is counter productive. Suicide Bombers can not be dissuaded by fear of capture, they intend to die. Use of aggression in Iraq is creating more of these people, not less so our original target, International Terrorism, is not being attrited by our actions in Iraq, imho.
Where is the proof of this? If I were a suicide bomber trying to die and make die for a cause I believed in [rather than being payed money to do so], I'd be pissed that I had failed, and that now I was to be carted off. As bystander with such mentality, I'd say 'man, that was stupid'. An average person would say 'good riddance'. The only scenario in which your theory works, would be that the suicide bombers are merely poor men with debts to pay, that have bargained their life for money. Certainly then, it might make someone more eager to earn a buck by taking a chance that he will get caught before he blows up. But that is entirely dependent on an organization or entity which advertises and orders, and has money. Any recruiting activity will eventually attract attention.

No, they haven't. You were told by a reporter, who was told by men who didn't want their names used, that one exists. If it exists, and if it is conclusive (or even highly suggestive) we have not seen it. Perhaps it will come out in the Final Kay report, but until it can be examined who can say what it is? We've been told lots of things by lots of confidential administration sources, most of it turned out to be nothing more than political spin.

No, it doesn't work that way. Otherwise you have to wait ten years to crack open a history book and even then you may not get a fair spin.

They are imbedded in the "neo-con" movement, an interesting article by Mr. Crystal in the great article:D . Normaly I don't attribute much weight to the publication, but this is the "Godfather of Neo-Conservatism" speaking so I listened:
________________________ _________________________
Its an op/ed you're showing us here.
It and the members listed on the website still don't prove there's a PNAC wing of the GOP.
There's no evil conspiracy; it's nothing more than intellectual supposition, and there's nothing wrong with that. If Mr. Crystal's take is correct, I can't see I disagree with the change.
I think it useful to further point out that neoconservatism in the article is not neo in the sense of neonazi. It's neo in the sense that it has reached a new form which appeals to many traditional liberals, because it is conservative of our system of democracy. The article points out that the traditional conservatism is being left out in the cold in the GOP by the neoconservative influx. We're moving to the left rather than the right, being more open to change rather than reverting to authoritarianism. We're moving forward to be conservative of the egalitarian society ushered in by the twentieth century, rather than backward into any kind of totalitarianism or imperialism.

So what, if anything, is the leaker afraid of? Apparently, as long as he remembers how to say the word "No" he is in no danger. That means he doesn't want his name used because he doesn't want to have to defend it later, but he does want to whisper it in your ear, just to make it all more confusing.
_______________________ _______________________
On that basis all theories should have been treated as false, Luther would have burned at the stake, and the world would have been declared flat.
 
"[President Bush is] an engaging person, but I think for some reason he's been captured by the neoconservatives around him."

--Howard Dean, U.S. News & World Report, August 11, 2003

:laugh: Is it the extreme 'Zionist' right supporting Bush, or the neoconservative democrats who won't vote for you, Dean?
 
Originally posted by nbdysfu
International Terrorism, is not being attrited by our actions in Iraq
Where is the proof of this?...The only scenario in which your theory works, would be that the suicide bombers are merely poor men with debts to pay, that have bargained their life for money.

No, the idea that a suicide bomber could be profit motivated is inherently incorrect. The terrorists who have come to the United States have fit a specific set of criteria. The are educated, come from fairly wealthy families and have a deep religious conviction that giving their life in a suicidal terrorist attack against an american target is the will of God. More importantly, the perpetrators of the next 9/11 have to be able to get into the US. You wont find them lobbing RPG rounds in Basra, that's being done by mercenaries who have a history of this kind of effort dating back to the Soviet occupation of afghanistan.
No, it doesn't work that way. Otherwise you have to wait ten years to crack open a history book and even then you may not get a fair spin.
It's a fair bet that nothing attributed to a anonymous source is going into history books. A fact has to be able to stand up to scrutiny or it is not a fact. The "leaks" are not fact, at least until someone produces the documents and independant organizations attest to their authenticity. Since if the case was as strong as "the people who don't want their names used" claim it is, they would have no problem producing the documents for examination.

Its an op/ed you're showing us here.
Yeah, but it is the opinion of Irving Crystal, who is widely considered to be a leading proponent of the "Neo-Conservative" movement.
It and the members listed on the website still don't prove there's a PNAC wing of the GOP...There's no evil conspiracy; it's nothing more than intellectual supposition, and there's nothing wrong with that. If Mr. Crystal's take is correct, I can't see I disagree with the change.

Mr Crystal is also a member of PNAC (imagine that!!!). No, Jeff was right, there is no wing of the Repub party that advertises "we're the guys who have been hijacked by the global supremecist movement but everybody knows they are the Neo-Cons. The fact that the leadership of the Peanuts and the Neo-Cons consist of the same group of people is the tip off.
I think it useful to further point out that neoconservatism in the article is not neo in the sense of neonazi. It's neo in the sense that it has reached a new form which appeals to many traditional liberals, because it is conservative of our system of democracy.
"Conservative of our system of democracy"? Is their anybody who isn't?
Neo cons aren't fiscally conservative (god knows) nor are they truly social conservative. They aren't "new" to the republican party either (they are not "liberals" who have seen the light) . What the Neo-Cons who adhere to Mr Crystals views are is militarists, though they don't like to be called that.
The article points out that the traditional conservatism is being left out in the cold in the GOP by the neoconservative influx. We're moving to the left rather than the right, being more open to change rather than reverting to authoritarianism. We're moving forward to be conservative of the egalitarian society ushered in by the twentieth century, rather than backward into any kind of totalitarianism or imperialism.

Moving left? No, no, no, no, no. I'm to the left of the Repub party and beleive me, the neo-cons aint headed my way. Being more open? Egelitarian Society, anti imperialist? Wow, that seems to be entirely counter-intuitive based on thier actions.
Here's a little something Mr. Crystal and his ilk seem to gloss over every time they open their mouths. We cannot beat the arabs so hard or so long that they stop hating us. It will never happen. The more we beat them, the more they hate us.
On that basis all theories should have been treated as false, Luther would have burned at the stake, and the world would have been declared flat.
Hey, state your thesis and present your evidence, that is how it works. If you can't produce evidence, don't try to substitute with the rumor of evidence. That's simply obfuscation.
Since you are aware of my paranoid/delusional ranting visa vis the CIA and our shadow overlord, George Tenet, I'll use this theory to demonstrate.
Does Mr. T. run that clownschool?(The Whitehouse?) I argue he does, and produce significant circumstantial evidence to back up that claim. The problem is circumstancial evidence is not going to prove the case, what I need is solid, incontravertable evidence the GWB is a CIA sock puppet. I'm unikely to get it so I rant on endlessly about my pet theory. If I worked for the government, I could probably spin my tale to a left wing media outlet and get an article much like the one you're reffering too in your post. Would some repeat it as gospel even though I, it's author, see that it is not a "case closed" for the CIA control argument? Yes, you know they would because they fail to examine it criticaly and see it for what it is, the rantings of a partisan with an axe to grind. Your arguing that my theory, which has more verifyable proof supporting it and does not rely on secret documents that we can't see to support, should be accepted as truth and put in the history books?
A simple dynamic is at work here, the administration is eager for the chance to prove any of the stories that have been repeated about Hussein. They have tried and failed to verify similar stories (the Al-Qaeda-Hussein connection). If they thought they could prove this one, it would be the lead story on Fox, announced in a press conference by Ari Fleischer.
 

Forum List

Back
Top