For those who have supported Mr. Bush in the past, I would like to know if the recent news is affecting that support in any way.
Today's news includes the Administrations response to the accusation that the President authorized the release of classified information. Mr. McClellan has responded to questions about this issue not with a denial, but with a carefully worded statement drawing a distinction between releases of classified information that are "for the good of the country" versus those that "harm the country."
And,...
According to the Washington Post Alberto Gonzales has now testified before the Senate that purely domestic wiretaps without any warrant (even the after-the-fact FISA ones) would be legal if the President ordered them.
To my mind, this is just laying the groundwork for coming revelation regarding the fact that these wiretaps have already taken place. But hey, I'm cynical and have stated numerous times why I despise the guy.
I'm just wondering how much support he still retains among people who actually started out liking him.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I don't have a problem with it if there is a non american involved in the conversation...since that person should not be protected by american privacy laws.
I would have a problem with it if they were listening to 2 american citizens without court approval.
Either way, I don't really like the way the article was written. The base the article around one line that Gonzales said, where he was answering a question...but they don't give the text of the question he was answering. From that line they wrote an article full of conjecture. It would have been better if they had put more meat in the story, so we could know exactly what was being debated.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I started out not liking Bush, but started liking him more when he managed to successfully invade Afghanistan (something I don't think anyone's done since Genghis Khan) just as winter was coming on. Every time I hear him slandered I like him better, just by comparison.
When I heard his admin defending wiretaps w/o warrant, I like him less.
When I hear this thing about a leak . . . a leak is an unauthorized disclosure. The President can't authorize a leak, because when he authorizes it, it isn't a leak. Did this declassification harm the country? I don't know what was in it. Certainly I don't think that all classified information must remain classified until the end of time.
OTOH, he's not very eager to defend himself. When he lets this go, without that very simple refutation -- and I am certain he will -- that makes me like him a little less.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
You were impressed that the US could take out the Taliban? I wasn't aware anyone ever thought the US would fail in invading Afghanistan. I've heard people question the ability for the US to set up a real democracy afterwards, however.
Also, I disagree that the President can't authorize a leak. If the end result of it is the same, it doesn't matter if it was "authorized" or not. At least, I certainly don't think it should matter.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Mr. McClellan has responded to questions about this issue not with a denial, but with a carefully worded statement drawing a distinction between releases of classified information that are "for the good of the country" versus those that "harm the country."
I'm not a fan of our president--I suspect you know that. But I have to ask, are you saying this is not a valid distinction to draw?
(Educate me, also: if the president authorizes the release/"leaking" of classified information, is it effectively declassified now, or is the definition I'm working with incomplete?)
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
more at US Archivist's Keynote address to the US Information Agency, Wash DC, 1996
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As we've soundly failed in establishing a real democracy in Afghanistan, questioning our ability to do so wasn't far out of line.
As for Afghanistan being difficult to invade, however, Afghanistan had no military forces to speak of to oppose us with. The only successful insurgents in the country (who actually controlled most of the country, territory-wise, before we even invaded) were on our side, and they don't care about us now because we've let them retain power (and run lots of drugs, and rule their controlled areas undemocratically).
Heck, the only reasons the Afghan insurgents were able to kick out the Soviets (they spent several years being massacred before having any successes, even with the American/Pakistani training and small arms they were getting) were bountiful supplies of stinger missiles from America and political instability in the USSR. And its not like there was a great history of resisting overthrowing before then; I mean, the government the soviets toppled had started with a coup by non-military forces when the King was on vacation!
[ April 08, 2006, 12:27 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
In terms of the "leak" maybe I should say that if the President "authorizes" it, technically it is not a leak (from my understanding). Yet if it is authorized for the wrong reasons, or declassified in the same sense as a "leak" is, then while it may not technically be a leak, for all other purposes it still may be one.
(It's rather late, so I hope I am stating my opinion somewhat clearly)
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: I started out not liking Bush, but started liking him more when he managed to successfully invade Afghanistan (something I don't think anyone's done since Genghis Khan) just as winter was coming on.
In a, "Yay, we're America, it's time a President started throwing his weight around and playing Chief of Police of the World" kind of way?
-pH
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Icarus,
What I heard on the radio was that when asked about the President authorizing the leaks that Libby is charged with "leaking" (there, I'll used quotation marks around it), Scott McClellan didn't deny that the President gave Cheney the go-ahead, didn't confirm or deny actually...just said something about it there being a difference between disclosing classified information if it helps the country, versus if it hurts the country.
Yes, that's true, but he didn't answer the question.
And, last I heard, "the President did it, so it's no longer classified" is not correct. If material is classified, the mere fact of its being released at the behest of the President is not sufficient to make it now declassified.
I know we're not talking about Valerie Plame's identity here, but Libby is actually accused of releasing stuff that he shouldn't have. If he can point the finger at his bosses and get off, that's okay by me, but there's still the nagging question of whether the stuff was still classified.
I suspect that there are more formal ways to declassify things than a verbal order from the VP to his chief of staff, and that Libby would know that. I suspect there are more formal ways than a word exchanged between the President and the VP too. Like there would be a paper trail somewhere.
If that's the case, then Libby is off the hook for at least part of the charges against him, and the prosecutor is going to look awfully silly.
If there is no paper trail, then I think we have bigger problems.
LUPUS: I wish there was more information too. I think the press in this country is asleep at the switch. Someone should be knocking on Alberto Gonzales' door and asking him to clarify what he means and what (if any) safeguards two American citizens have from a warrantless search. I'm pretty sure we have a body of laws that says they can't do what he has said they can.
If the Patriot Act gave the President powers to order warrantless searches on American citizens, then it went way beyond what its defenders say it did.
If there's some other law out there that allows this, then I think we need to know about it.
The press is doing a really poor job on this issue.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
This president did not leak classified information. The administration, with the president's approval, may have authorized the release (or leak, in the sense that the information was not credited to a source) of information that was once classified. Classified information gets declassified everyday. Once classified information get authorized for release by the president or the VP, it is no longer classified. No news here. During the lead-up to the war information needed to explain or backup the administration's position was routinely declassified. For example, all of Secretary Powell's UN presentation to the Security Council was declassified for that presentation.
There is no news here. Sen. Shummer and the democrats have simply spun this without regard to the facts and the law. I've yet to find any report or analysis that says that anything illegal was done here. Even the NY Times and the Washington post have acknowledged as such.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If Bush authorized the release of Plame's name, then there most certainly is news here, because of his statements on the subject. Remember, he said he would fire anyone involved in the leak of her name.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Mig, in your opinion, was this reaction unethical, regardless of whether or not it was illegal? In other words, is it ethical for a President to blow an agent's cover in order to shut down a critic of his administration, even if the legality of that action is assumed?
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
First, Libby has not alleged that Mr. Bush authorized the release of Plame's cover. Second, Plame was not an agent whose cover could be blown. There is a reason why the Special Prosecuter charged Libby for lying to FBI agents about what he told a couple of reporters. Read the indictment, as I have, Libby is not charged with disclosing the cover of a CIA agent. Plame may have been a CIA employee, but she was not, under the position she held, protected under the law in question because she was not 1) overseas, and 2) she was not, nor had she ever been, undercover. If she was protected under the law, then Libby would have been so charged.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: LUPUS: I wish there was more information too. I think the press in this country is asleep at the switch. Someone should be knocking on Alberto Gonzales' door and asking him to clarify what he means and what (if any) safeguards two American citizens have from a warrantless search.
I agree with you there. I just wish someone would come out and ask him if any of this applies to 2 american citizens talking to eachother, and then publish both the question and the answer without all the comentary. I hate it when a paper/news program has this huge story on an issue, with plenty of commentary but doesn't give you the information that you really need to know.
I find cnn.com to be better about this than most sources, but even they do it sometimes as well.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy news comentary at times...and watch fox news when I am in the mood for it, but on issues like this I would like to see some source give unwatered down facts.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Where's your source that she has never been undercover? Every reference I see states she was an undercover agent.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
First of all, on the declassification issue: It was my impression, when I read the Executive Order dealing with the classification and declassification of information, that the president or vice-president could declassify information that they had classified in the first place, but that information classified by another agency, say the CIA, had to be declassified by that agency. If that understanding is correct, the president or vice-president can't just go around declassifying anything they want without the participation of the classifying agency. That would make it incorrect to say that just because the president or vice-president discusses classified information, that makes it no longer classified.
As far as my gut feeling about Bush...I honestly have come to the conclusion that Bush and those he has surrounding him make Richard Nixon and his administration look like amateurs in the promotion of an imperial presidency in which the theory is that the president can do anything he wants, any time he wants. I think they are consciously trying to subvert the Constitution and the principles of checks and balances and separation of powers.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
...partisans amaze me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And, last I heard, "the President did it, so it's no longer classified" is not correct. If material is classified, the mere fact of its being released at the behest of the President is not sufficient to make it now declassified.
We've covered this extensively in another thread. Can you back up your assertion?
quote:First of all, on the declassification issue: It was my impression, when I read the Executive Order dealing with the classification and declassification of information, that the president or vice-president could declassify information that they had classified in the first place, but that information classified by another agency, say the CIA, had to be declassified by that agency. If that understanding is correct, the president or vice-president can't just go around declassifying anything they want without the participation of the classifying agency. That would make it incorrect to say that just because the president or vice-president discusses classified information, that makes it no longer classified.
Again (this must be the third or fourth time I've posted something like this), the procedures for declassifying something are established by executive order. An executive order does not bind the President, any more than an act of Congress binds Congress.
When Congress passes a law that contradicts another law, it is assumed that the previous law is either repealed or exempted with respect to the new law. SCOTUS has rules about whether a new law repeals or modifies an older one, but there is no dispute that a newer law by Congress can override an older one.
It's the same way with executive orders. An executive order exists based on the President's power. Any act pursuant to that power can be assumed to modify existing executive orders, usually on a one-time basis. To see why this is so, just imagine if a new president was bound by the Executive Orders of his predecessors.
Statutes can affect his ability to do make such exceptions, but there's been no cite to such a statute posted to override the default assumption that the president cannot make case-by-case exceptions to executive orders regarding declassification. If someone knows of such a limiting statute, please cite it.
Unless the procedures for declassifying information are statutorily mandated, those previous executive orders do not prevent Bush from declassifying documents on an ad hoc basis without following the procedure required in those documents.
quote:Today's news includes the Administrations response to the accusation that the President authorized the release of classified information. Mr. McClellan has responded to questions about this issue not with a denial, but with a carefully worded statement drawing a distinction between releases of classified information that are "for the good of the country" versus those that "harm the country."
None of the articles I've found suggest that the information being discussed here included Plame's identity.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dag...
back up what? that a verbal order from the President does not constitute declassification? I'm sorry, but I don't know how to back up that something that isn't true is in fact not true. The process of declassification, as far as I know, includes signatures. On a piece of paper. Ordering that information declassified.
I haven't read the "extensive" discussion on this, so I apologize if this has been covered already. If I'm wrong, and the President truly can declassify material simply by verbally saying so, then I certainly have learned something new. I'd be appalled that there's no paper trail, but then, I'm not the one who would have to do a CYA if I mistakenly released something because of a verbal order that wasn't recorded anywhere.
Seems like a dumb way to run a government, though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm sorry, but I don't know how to back up that something that isn't true is in fact not true.
Well, you said, "And, last I heard, 'the President did it, so it's no longer classified' is not correct." Where did you hear this?
quote:The process of declassification, as far as I know, includes signatures. On a piece of paper. Ordering that information declassified.
Yes. But the process of declassification is described in an executive order. Executive Orders don't limit future acts of the President any more than laws passed by Congress limit future laws passed by Congress.
quote:I haven't read the "extensive" discussion on this,
I repeated most of it in the post right above yours.
quote:Seems like a dumb way to run a government, though.
Dumb or not, absent some limiting statute (which, again, might exist although no one has been able to point out to me in several threads), that's the law. All your speculation on the effect of this on Libby's case is based on what the law is, not what's silly or not.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Every time I see the title of this thread, I momentarily picture a hockey player plowing into Bush's stomach, with accompanying "Ooof!" sound effect.
That is all.
--Enigmatic
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
I can definatively state that the President can do whatever he wants with Classified. The only thing holding him back is public/originating agency opinion. All Executive Power, including the power to classify, is derived from the President, so if he spews Classified it is by definition no longer Classified. But if the public or the originating agency get pissed enough, coming out against such action, he would have no choice but to apologize at the very least.
I feel he used that crazy power irresponsibly; to refute a New York Times Op-Ed piece is not in the national interest. While not technically illegal, I think using Presidential authority like that is Nixonesque. And I remember him talking about dealing with whomever leaked that information, and the info out now sort of makes him look shady. Not cool.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:All your speculation on the effect of this on Libby's case is based on what the law is, not what's silly or not.
Out of curiosity, Dag, would you agree that it's silly?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Out of curiosity, Dag, would you agree that it's silly?
The idea that the president can make case-by-case decisions about what to classify and what to declassify without following the normal procedure?
No, I don't find that silly at all. In fact, it's necessary.
Whether it was used well (or at all) in this case is an open question. But in general, I find it to be a highly necessary thing.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dag, I tried to find some description of the declassification "process" online somewhere, and, apparently it differs agency-by-agency in the federal government. I didn't know that. I honestly thought there were two process: one a time-limited one where things just automatically became declassified after a certain amount of time had passed (barring a re-classification by the government); the other an actual "process" involving written approvals for anything that is declassified prior to the normal elapsed time.
I was aware that the President can order items classified or declassified. What I did NOT know is that the mere act of the President disclosing something made it automatically declassified, no matter that it WAS classified before that point.
I truly thought that the President had to ask an agency to do the declassification, and that the agency in question had to make a review/determination and either recommend for or against.
The item in question in Libby's case is a threat assessment provided to the President on a regular basis by the intelligence services. Potentially, this is something far more serious than Valerie Plame's identity (even if she had been a covert operative in the past).
It indeed makes sense that the Administration can decide to release information from a Secret classified briefing to the public. I would assume that this would happen after at least getting the CIA, NSA, or whichever agencies contributed to that section of the briefing, had had a chance to review the material that might be released in order to (at the very least) advise the President of anything that it would be dangerous to release at that time.
We don't know yet what happened in this case.
What we do know is that the prosecutor has gone after Libby for releasing stuff that was classified, and that now, months into the prosecution, it seems a "verbal" order of declassification was already there.
What seems silly to me (whether it is legal or not), is the failure to keep a record of that decision -- if indeed, no record was kept.
This appears to have been a rather momentous decision in the history of this Administration -- which has a record of not releasing information. The decision came after months of agonizing back & forth regarding the details of the Administration's contention that Iraq posed an immediate threat, and them completely stonewalling regarding their proof of that assertion.
How is it even remotely credible that they would let Libby take the fall for even a minute for releasing classified information if they KNOW they'd already declassified it?
Didn't a reporter go to jail to protect the identinty of a man they could prove HADN'T actually leaked ANYTHING? Why would they let that happen? Doesn't it seem rather heartless to choose Judith Miller as their conduit of this information then leave her hanging out to dry as well?
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: What we do know is that the prosecutor has gone after Libby for releasing stuff that was classified, and that now, months into the prosecution, it seems a "verbal" order of declassification was already there.
Scooter Libby was charged with perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements to a federal grand jury, NOT with "releasing stuff that was classified." Fitzgerald was VERY clear about that when Libby was indicted.
quote: A top aide to the US vice-president has resigned after being charged with perjury over an investigation into the unmasking of a covert CIA agent.
Lewis Libby, chief-of-staff to Dick Cheney, was also charged with obstruction of justice and making false statements to a federal grand jury.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Dag, what about Bush's statements about firing whomever leaked her name?
If the President calls something a leak, is it one?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, what about Bush's statements about firing whomever leaked her name?
Things can be leaked that aren't classified. It refers to unnamed, unofficial giving of information to reporters, not disclosure of classified info. To date, there is no indication that Bush authorized the release of her name. Even if he did, it was still a leak.
As best I can piece together, the key element that Libby is charged with lying about is a conversation in which he was told Plame's name by someone in the administration. Libby's defense is that he misremembered because Plame's name was inconsequential to everything being discussed. The prosecution's claim is that no one would forget anything related to something they were told was authorized by the President.
To be clear, every account I have seen says that what was described as being authorized by the President was the release of info in a NIE, not Plame's name.
It's beginning to sound very plausible that Libby was told Plame's identity in the course of being prepped for this, had no idea she was ever undercover, and mentioned her name to reporters.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Well, I guesss we disagree on what is plausible, although not on much else regarding this issue.
I think there is at least as mcu possibility of her name being "leaked" in retaliation for her husband disagreeing with the party line on Iraq.
I am NOT saying that is what happened for sure, nor am I saying Bush was the source of the info in either case, but I think there is a lot more to this that a simple mistake by Libby.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's still plausible that the release was deliberate. Plausible is a very low standard.
The leaking of her name refuted a very particular point in Wilson's editorial. It was relevant beyond mere retaliation, although that doesn't necessarily justify the release.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
The reasons I find it impressive that the US successfully invaded Afghanistan are
Nobody's ever done it before, at least since Genghis Kahn; and the UK and USSR both tried.
In Afghanistan, the cities aren't the places to hold; it's the mountains, and that seems to be impossible
Afghanistan is inaccessible without crossing other countries' territory, and none of them are exactly firm allies. The US managed to get Uzbekistan and Pakistan to allow it, despite Pakistanis' sympathy for al-Qaeda.
It happened within a few weeks. Remember how long it took for Desert Storm? It had to happen in a few weeks: winter was coming on. Unless we were willing to give al-Qaeda six months plus to escape.
We did it without any significant number of American troops on the ground.
Finally, I don't hate GWB (or anyone) so much that I will call even such an amazing achievement a failure, simply because he's associated with it.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I can see no reason whatsoever for the release of information concerning Wilson's wife's formerly secret career other than purely stupid political vindictiveness. If anything at all, the release of Plame's identity as a former* field operative specializing in tracking down rumors of nuclear proliferation bolstered Wilson's claim to expertise on the subject.
Not only was Plame being burned, but all of the CIA's foreign sources who had been in contact with Plame. And those who hadn't been in such contact would likely reevaluate their openness with other possible USintelligence agents. The appearance of having a policy allowing deliberate breach of trust by politicians and their aides, merely for the purpose of engaging in domestic political chicanery, makes it more difficult for foreigners friendly toward US interests to make the decision to actually aid the US. And making it more difficult for foreign friends to trust the USgovernment makes life a LOT easier for less-than-friendly governments and terrorists who wish to penetrate the security that the USintelligence services provide.
And I don't see how that appearance of having a policy allowing deliberate breach of trust can be rectified in the near future. Even IF Cheney authorized the Plame leak: 1) Dubya signed an executive order delegating declassification authority to Cheney 3months before that leak occurred, so no judicial prosecution can be made. 2) Impeachment&conviction is at best a dicey proposition. While it could be argued that the process does allow Congress to overide Presidential and Judicial interpretations of the Law, making that argument successfully before both Houses of Congress would be extremely difficult.
Assuming that Libby was a loose cannon, ie that neither Dubya nor Chaney authorized Libby's Plame leak: Short of Cheney committing political-sepuku on the WhiteHouse lawn for having handpicked the aide who released Plame's identity -- ala the USNavy's "The ship's captain is responsible, even when his actions did not directly cause the shipwreck." -- the US is going to be living with the geopolitical and intelligence fallout from the Plame leak for many years to come.
* And possible future field operative if Plame's career hadn't been exposed. Working as a CIA analyst doesn't mean that reactivation into the field ceases to be an option.
[ April 09, 2006, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Will B,
We haven't been in Afghanistan very long, man. Being amazed at not seeing a conventional military defeat there when we've essentially given it back to Afghanis is pretty strange.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's still plausible that the release was deliberate. Plausible is a very low standard.
Dag, I'm actually much more interested in hearing your opinion of the ethics involved, not the legality.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Will, you have a somewhat flawed grasp of the international relations of the area (coincidentally, I'm taking a course from one of the world's foremost experts in the area, which has been extremely helpful in my understanding).
First, as noted, the Soviets certainly held onto it longer than we did. This is particularly true if you realize the state the soviets invaded was a close ally, nearing puppet state status; however, they realized that regime was soon to fall, so proceeded under the Brezhnev doctrine.
Furthermore, the Soviets were in no danger of losing it whatsoever until we started supplying the Mujahedeen with real-time intelligence and stinger missiles. The stingers were the only thing that allowed the Afghanis to fight effectively against soviet attack helicopters capable of entering the mountains and wiping out entire troops of mujahedeen.
Nobody's supplying the current resistance fighters (what few there are) with weaponry capable of providing a similar level of opposition to our far more advanced forces. Its worth noting that we sent all these supplies (and a huge amount of small arms and training) through Pakistan.
Pakistan desperately wants to be our friend. Or more specifically, Pakistan desperately wants us to think of it as needed. We have considered them a staunch ally for most of their history as a modern state, and have given very large amounts of economic and military aid to Pakistan (many billions of dollars). There have been periods in Pakistani history where the US has cut off its support: they did not go well for Pakistan, and each time Pakistan worked extremely hard to get back in our good graces (even so usually only succeeding via the shifting tides of the region). Right now as India has risen in our esteem, Pakistan especially fears being cut off again.
There is even a (large) contingent in the study of international relations that maintains Pakistan knows approximately where Bin Laden and company are along the Afghan-Pakistani border region, but don't supply us with that information because we would reduce aid were the major terrorists all caught. Instead, whenever our interest wanes they feed us one of his high ranking underlings.
And of course, in one sense you're sort of right but wrong on the important matter. Perhaps we couldn't hold the mountains; we certainly aren't. This is unsurprising, as we aren't even trying. Our force in the country is dedicated to preventing large scale uprisings (of which there's no incentive for them to have) and upholding the regime we put in place (which would likely topple otherwise due to popular dissatisfaction). We don't give a whit about the mountains.
And of course, it was generally expected we'd be able to walk all over the Taliban. The Taliban weren't holding the mountains either, they were unable to take on the warlords with their piddling army. We merely didn't try to take on the warlords (though they don't like us much better) and they stayed out of our way. As noted, the Taliban's armed forces were singularly unimpressive, and as predicted by military scholars we succeeded very quickly. And of course, Pakistan wasn't the reluctant ally you cast it as, it enthusiastically supported our efforts.
Its rather hard to be impressed with carrying off handily an invasion the experts knew was going to be easy. Its rather hard to be impressed with an invasion of Afghanistan for successfully holding the mountains when that invasion isn't holding the mountains.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Given US policy, it would be strange to expect the US *not* to "give" the country back to Afghanis, as soon as we reasonably can. The goal, after all, was regime change, not the acquisition of a colony. Admittedly, if our goal was to start an empire, we failed big time. I don't think that's a reasonable standard.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
We've done a markedly bad job at giving the country back to the Afghanis: we prop up the current government, but leave real power in the hands of the warlords (who, oddly enough, are also some of the world's biggest druglords and not particularly enamored of either the US or democratic principles).
If our intent was to leave power in the hands of the Afghanis in a democratic sense, we've failed at that, too. Strange, isn't spreading democracy one of the guiding principles of our foreign policy according to the Bush admin?
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
You know, I've been thinking about this - and I don't think the issue is even whether the information leaked was classified or not. I've always tended to believe that a lot more stuff is classified than really needs to be.
I think the real issue is the idea of "leaks" in the first place. If the reason that information was leaked was to support the adminstration's contentions regarding why troops went into Iraq, they should have just announced the information with a statement to the effect that "We have declassified this information and are releasing it so that the American public can see exactly why we decided to go into Iraq."
But, apparently, that was too honest and straightforward for the current administration (and I'm sure the same thing has been done by previous administrations, both Republican and Democrat). They have to play childish games, pretending that they are upset when information gets out that they arranged to be revealed in the first place. That's just dishonest, and I don't think it serves any good. Especially in light of other leaks, like that of Valerie Plame's name, after which actions claims that information is classified to protect "sources" ring rather hollow. If the information, or the sources of the information, are really too sensitive to be released, then they need to just bite the bullet and take criticism for their actions like men instead of acting like little boys.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
I think lma hits the nail on the head. It's the games that are dishonest, and the games that lead to people getting in trouble. I understand the politics of why someone would take this course of action, but that doesn't mean it was their only possible choice. It may be politically unpopular to man up and say what you want to say, but I really wish more politicians would do it.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lupus: I don't have a problem with it if there is a non american involved in the conversation...since that person should not be protected by american privacy laws.
I would have a problem with it if they were listening to 2 american citizens without court approval.
What? If your in the U.S. you have full constitutional protection, anyone, anytime. If Osama Bin Laden walked into the white-house and surrendered, they would read him his rights, and they would mean it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, until they whisk him off to Gitmo anyway...
I agree with lma too. So far as I'm concerned, the legality isn't a problem, I'm heavily betting on the fact that Bush has his butt covered legally. My issue is with the dishonesty of the whole thing. He's cloak and daggering something that could just as easily have been done in the open, and probably would have worked with better results. It's a gaffe.
He leaks information, then declares his outrage at a leak, vowing to find the perpetrators, then when we find out it was him, he says it was perfectly legal and a giant misunderstanding. It's bull, and it's stupid, considering he had to know it would come to this from the moment he first leaked it. Either that, or he is just an idiot and somehow didn't think it'd come back at him like this. And if that is the case, he made a big mistake in not admitting to it when it first happened, instead of playing bad cop on national television.
There's a trust issue in American politics that he's just making worse and worse. Doesn't really effect me, I haven't trusted him for years. But he's shooting other Republicans who want a future in the party in the foot. Him, and Tom DeLay, and Bill Frist, all of them. The only thing that's going to save them from major losses in the Midterms is the fact that the Democrats suck at crafting their message. If the Dems wise up and learn how to speak coherent sentences that DON'T sound like petulant children, then the Republicans are in big trouble. Especially if they keep this crap up.
Posted by mistaben (Member # 8721) on :
I'm so sick of politicians.
Once I was a Dittohead.
I used to enjoy Ann Coulter.
It was somehow satisfying to hear how stupid/greedy/corrupt/deceptive those on the other side were.
It's not funny anymore now that I've realized "my" side is just as s/g/c/d, though perhaps in different ways.
Bob, I voted for Bush twice. The first time it was so "evil Gore" and his co-conspirators didn't ruin the country, because "of course that's what the democrats would do," and because Bush spouted enough right-wing rhetoric that I fell for it.
The second time the rhetoric was more transparent to me, but keeping those "crazy lefties" out of the white house was too important.
After a while, it finally hit me that I was revelling in the Democrats screwups and ignoring those of the Republicans. I started doing more digging and thinking.
My conclusion? There's not hardly an man or woman in D.C. that wants to make (keep?) this country great as much they want to make themselves great. The two prominent parties keep the population so polarized that we fail to see them both leading us down the garden path.
I voted for a libertarian back in November, for some city position. Maybe it was mayor. Anyway, that was a first.
Summary: Yeah, I'm done with Bush. But Dean (for example) is no less of a scheming madman.
Who's the constitutional party candidate...?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Nah. There ARE good men and women in DC, the problem is that parties will never nominate them. Russ Feingold is a good man who for the most party says what he thinks and votes his personal morality and represents his people well. He doesn't bow to the will of his party. I don't know what his position is on special interests, but on the whole I certainly trust and respect him more than most of the other hacks in DC. McCain will probably never get the nomination either, he won't toe the party line like he's supposed to.
I don't think the problem is with individuals, though they ARE a problem. The problem is with the party machinery. They're entrenched. They think they are fighting a war. Anyone who moves to the center is outcast by his party or they attempt to pull them back into the fold, but battle lines are drawn, and crossing into the killzone can kill careers, legislation, and anything else the party feels needs to die.
Unless you take out the leadership, there is no way to fix the problem. Even if you vote out half the congress, the leadership will just cull the weak and pull the newbies into the fold. It's an all or nothing game, cut off the head or you'll get stung by the tail.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Lyrhawn-
I think you're on the right track with the party machinery stuff.
I have always felt as if I were taking crazy pills during election year, because I'm the kind of person who hears a stupid obviously exaggerated story about some politician, a story that means nothing, and I look at the person who told it to me and say: "How stupid are you?". Actually I am more likely to say: "how stupid do you think I am?"
It always starts off with everybody not knowing who's going to be the big candidate, then everybody makes predictions about who it will be. Later, we all pretend to each other that we even knew who John Kerry was 6 months ago, (I was 19 you understand), and we talk about how great he is and how different its going to be. 3 months after that, when all the positives have been leveled off with a healthy dose of irresponsible journalism, opinion pollers telling us what we think, and the media and the parties attempting to arrive at an image for Kerry that lands somewhere around someone they can hate and love all at once, then we start hearing that pointless, mind-numbing lament.
Pundit- "Its really just the greater of two evils, isn't it?"
me- *facepalm* I've been taken in AGAIN!!!
There will never, MARK my words, be an election in which this doesn't become the catch all phrase for a country that's gotten tired of hearing itself blow so much collective hot air all over the place. The newscasters' hair will be frizzing like they've been struck by lightning, when that draft of good ol' american hot-nonsense blows through the county in 2008. I for one, can't wait.
Posted by mistaben (Member # 8721) on :
Lyrhawn,
I like your comments about the machinery and how difficult it is for the honest men and women to do anything.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Fugu, the impact of the Stinger missiles for the Mujahadin has been greatly overstated. CIA operatives from the time have said that what made the biggest impact was providing them with heavy mortars (120mm) and the training for GPS target acquisition for them. The stingers made for good press, but it was the mortar tubes (usually hauled around disassembled on the backs of donkeys) that did the trick. Soviet bases in the boonies took a serious beating.
Sorry, back to the subject at hand. On the Libby deal, whether it was legal or not, it's still dirty pool. But heck, every time the president has gotten covered with mud, he just wipes it off with a freshly wa(i)ved American flag.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I trust Bush. I distrust the liberal media. (in my best Forest Gump voice) That’s all I have to say about that.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Sopwith: I've heard some back and forth about that. No doubt the mortars were important (though I might argue the GPS was more important, even without the mortars, edit: and covered by my mention of real time intelligence), but I've seen some pretty good arguments that without the stingers the mortars wouldn't have been able to be used particularly effectively.
That is, the mortars certainly did more damange, but the mujahedeen access to stingers may have been what made it feasible to assault such bases at all.
[ April 10, 2006, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:(in my best Forest Gump voice) That’s all I have to say about that.
Good choice of role models, Jay.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: There will never, MARK my words, be an election in which this doesn't become the catch all phrase for a country that's gotten tired of hearing itself blow so much collective hot air all over the place. The newscasters' hair will be frizzing like they've been struck by lightning, when that draft of good ol' american hot-nonsense blows through the county in 2008. I for one, can't wait.
The fun thing about 2008, is that for the first time in almost 20 years there is going to be a power vacuum with no heir apparent waiting in the wings for his chance. Republicans and Democrats alike are going to eat their own young in a year to see who gets the party nomination. Tom DeLay being out of the running just means the other dozen or so Republicans considering a run feel that much more empowered by it.
As much as it looks like a giant explosion of party politics, which is usually just bad for everyone, this is GOOD for everyone. No one is going to get a free ride. Bush got three or four months of free, clear message while nine Democrats tore each other apart trying to claw their way to the top. By the time Kerry got there, he was so battered it took him three more months just to put that behind him. Bush was gift wrapped the first half of that campaign.
It won't be the same story in 2007-2008 when the election starts to ramp up. Republicans will have to fight each other for their nomination, and so will the Democrats. The two who come out of that engagement will be tempered by fire more or less, and will marshall their forces for battle.
The hope, my REAL hope, for this campaign is that it will become a war of ideas. I WANT a war of ideas. I'm sick of the two parties fighting over "he said she said" and who slept with who. Yes, that stuff matters, I really believe it does, but at the end of the day I care more about what a candidate is going to do with foriegn policy and the budget than I care about who is in his or her bed at any given time.
I hope, and think, this next election could be about ideas, and plans for the future of America. Specific plans will be put forth on how each candidate wants to fix the problems at hand. And whoever has the best record of working across the aisle with the other team, and who shows himself as the most centrist will probably win.
Though I think quite a bit of who wins will also depend on who wins the midterm elections. If the Dems can manage to either take back one of the houses of congress, or at the very least narrowly close the gap, it becomes harder I think for a Republican to win. After all, a Republican congress and a Republican president couldn't get all that much done in eight years, why would a Republicans President and a Democratic Congress (or even Congress) be any better for passing legislation?
That's what a Democratic candidate will say anyway.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:(in my best Forest Gump voice) That’s all I have to say about that.
Good choice of role models, Jay.
Geez. He lobbed that one at you.
Still, a home run in T-Ball is still a home run.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm a little mystified as to what exactly is being "lobbed" in a game of t-ball.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: [QUOTE]Geez. He lobbed that one at you.
Still, a home run in T-Ball is still a home run.
That's always what my mother told me.... Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I can certainly understand someone not appreciating the genuine and honest pure character of Forest Gump.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Have you read the book, Jay? I ask because there are distinctions between "simple" and "pure" and "unsophisticated" and "genuine" that don't get expressed particularly well in the movie.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: For those who have supported Mr. Bush in the past, I would like to know if the recent news is affecting that support in any way.
Well, I voted for Bush, but have supported his impeachment ever since he signed the anti-constitutional Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, so it's been quite a while since I really could say that I 'support' him -- but I'll answer anyway.
The Plame / Wilson / Libby information disclosure stuff doesn't bother me in the slightest. I have yet to see any wrongdoing by Bush in this matter, and many of his opponents (Wilson, for one) are simply liars.
Wiretaps on Americans w/o a warrant violate the 4th and 14th amendments. But on the other hand, so did the warrantless sweeps of public housing projects supported by Clinton in 1994, in much more flagrant way.
The most troubling stuff from Bush recently, IMO, has been his pattern of lies about illegal immigration.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."
The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.
The article goes on to say that the resulting contrary report was stamped "secret" and the Administration continued to refer to the trailers as proof of having found WMD.
I'm curious as to why the report was made public now. I'm furious that it was buried in an apparent attempt to allow the administration time to use the trailers as justification for the war.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
National politics is just like High School, without the maturity.
There is no coincidence that a White House term and an average high school both last 4 years.
President Bush didn't so much get re-elected, as he flunked. (The same could be said about President Clinton).
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:The retired commander of key forces in Iraq called yesterday for Donald H. Rumsfeld to step down, joining several other former top military commanders who have harshly criticized the defense secretary's authoritarian style for making the military's job more difficult.
He says that Rumsfeld's leadship style is responsible for things like Abu Ghraib...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In grand jury testimony two years ago, former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby did not assert that President Bush or Vice President Cheney instructed him to disclose the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame to reporters as part of an effort to rebut criticism of the Iraq war, Libby's lawyers said in a court filing late yesterday.
A court filing last week by the special federal prosecutor investigating the disclosure of Plame's identity had highlighted the fact that Bush and Cheney ordered Libby to disclose details of a previously classified intelligence report as part of an effort to rebut criticism by her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV. This disclosure provoked speculation that Bush or Cheney had instructed Libby to disclose Plame's identity.
But the lawyers asserted that White House documents outlining what Libby was to say in conversations with reporters did not mention Plame's name. They said this supports Libby's contention that he did not participate in a campaign to damage Wilson by disclosing Plame's CIA employment or in a coverup of the episode.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Wow. I'd be amazed that Libby agreed to take the fall on this if I didn't think that the president's team, through the advice of counsel, was working very hard to ensure that, due to technicalities, no fall remains to be taken.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Thanks Dag for posting that. I feel a bit better knowing that there is some sort of paper trail associated with all this.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
No Hint Seen in Memo that Plame's Role Was Secret, which I find that to be an overly kind interpretation of the recently declassified July7th2003Memo. The June10thMemo2003 webpage is still active though the NewYorkSun has removed both the link and mention that it had been linked at the conclusion of it's article. Possibly because the censoring editor thought that the June10thMemo's
quote:The alleged contract between Niger and Iraq says that Niger will sell Iraq 500 tons of Uranium in two tranches per year. INR explained that would mean somewhere between one eighth of the total output of the two mines and that twice a year 25 semi tractor trailers loads of yellow cake would have to be driven down roads where one seldom sees even a bush taxi. In other words it would be very hard to hide such a shipment.
When the idea of moving the stuff across the desert to Sudan (???) was broached INR responded that while it is not difficult to drive across much of the hard packed, flat desert terrain, there are many problems including heat up to 130 degrees, wear and tear on the vehicles, water, fuel, and drifting sand would make such a trip difficult in the extreme.
INR also explained that the French appear to have complete control of the mining, milling, and transportation process, and would seem to have little interest in selling uranium to the Iraqis.
was a direct attack on the credibility of the July7thMemo's "Italian intelligence report" on the "secret Niger-Iraq uranium contract" so prominently misused by the DubyaAdministration to promote the invasion of Iraq. And thus felt that leaving their previous link to such strong counter-arguments weakened the NewYorkSun's general editorial position on the matter.
BTW: The bold "Sudan" followed by "(???)" is probably there because for such a convoy to succeed, Niger and Iraq would have had to obtain STRONG cooperation from at least one other nation (Chad? Libya?) as well as from Sudan not only for fuel and water but also for military protection to get the shipments through the bandit/rebel bands that wouldn't care much about secret agreements between governments.
[ April 17, 2006, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Dag, just because a collaborator denies something doesn't make it the truth.
This was too convienant for me to believe otherwise.
I realize it isn't proof, not in a legal sense, but I think one of the best ways you can tell who someone is by the fruits of their labors....and Bush profited a lot by the attempts at discrediting Wilson.
Attempts made by multiple people inside Bush's own staff.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Kwea, I think you missed the point. Since this recent disclosure broke, i've been hearing again and again that this shows that "Bush authorized the leak," usually with referenes to Bush's promise to fire whoever disclosed Plame's name. The clear implication is that the newest disclosure (caused by Libby's request for documents for his defense) is some kind of smoking gun about Bush authorizing the disclosure of Plame's name.
I'm not presenting evidence that Bush didn't authorize it. I'm showing that the new evidence does nothing to demonstrate that Bush authrized the disclosure.
To sum up:
Headlines: Bush authorized the leak according to documents. Bush accusers: See, we told you Bush authorized the leak of Plame's name. Me: There's nothing in those articles to suggest Bush authorized the disclosure of Plame's name. Other Bush accusers: See, we told you Bush authorized the leak of Plame's name. Newspaper article posted by me: There's nothing in the document about Plame.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Have you read the book, Jay?
What's that got to do with anything?
I like the movie, and the character Hanks plays. I can't stand the book, or the Gump in it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Quite oooobviously you don't have a full understanding of Forest Gump until you have read the booook.
That's all I have to say about that. Frankly.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What's that got to do with anything?
As you note, the Forrest Gump in the book is substantially different from the Gump in the film. I wanted to figure out which was his primary mode of reference.
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
Off topic? But this really did perturb me.
Taken from the headlines at CNN.com:
quote:President Bush today forcefully defended his defense secretary, saying Donald Rumsfeld is doing a fine job. "I hear the voices, and I read the front page and I know the speculation," the president said. "But I'm the decider, and I decide what's best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense."
And that's apparently all he said? Does he really think that is an appropriate way to address the American people and experts and generals whose critiques, to me, seem like they should at least be acknowledged respectfully?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: And that's apparently all he said? Does he really think that is an appropriate way to address the American people and experts and generals whose critiques, to me, seem like they should at least be acknowledged?
What should he have done? Immediately fired Rumsfeld because 7 Generals said he should? Should he then rehire Rumsfeld because many Generals think Rumsfeld should stay? Maybe those Generals should respect the Commander in Chief, and the Secretary of Defense first.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think Kristen is saying that he should have acknowledged that the people making the criticisms were in fact experts who knew wht they were talking about and demonstrated that, while he considered their opinions, he ultimately didn't agree because of these reasons: ....
Instead of, you know, saying "Because I'm the President. That's why."
---
That's not just a disrespectful reponse to the Generals, troops, and the American people, but I think it's politically stupid (assuming of course, the President has actually considered the criticisms and has reasons why he doesn't agree). It keeps the criticisms of Donald Rumsfeld's performance as a active dead weight and only satisfies people like you DK, how would vehemently agree if the President said the sky was yellow.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
The sky is already be yellow in your world MrSquicky. How is it stupid for him to say that he heard the voices, read the front page news, knows the speculation, and has decided to keep Rumsfeld? Didn't he just do what you wanted him to do? Acknowledge that he heard the critiscms? This is not disrespectful at all. If anything it is a restrained response to the terrible reporting. Maybe he knows that the media found a few generals to bash Rumsfeld and Bush and put them front and center while also completely ignoring any generals who would support both Rumsfeld and Bush. There are two sides to this issue, yet you believe that the media, CNN in this case, just has to be right because they reported it. Should CNN also be forced to apologize for not reporting on the generals who support Rumsfeld? Should CNN have to acknowledge other experts who know what they are talking about in supporting Rumsfeld? Probably not because only the anti-Bush crowd can be reported on.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
DK, err...this is a "Man Bites Dog" story, not a "Dog Bites Man". It is terribly rare to have recently retired Generals calling for the resignation of the Secretary of Defense they served under. The list of 7 is a prestigious one, including the former Commander and Deputy Commander of U.S. Central Command and the former leader of the 1st Infantry while they were stationed in Iraq.
These are serious, professional men who, from their expert vantage point and against their training and culture, have made serious criticisms about the performance of the Secretary of Defense. The president basically said "Hey, I don't have to answer these criticisms. I can do what I want."
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
and yes, I did read the whole article on CNN so I do know that they included Generals supporting Rumsfeld, and even that Bush said more than Kristen reported. I am demonstrating how people here think, and how the media reports things knowing most people only read the headlines and not the story
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
so are the Generals who have come out supporting Rumsfeld, but I guess their opnions cannot matter since they are not anti-Bush. Did you even read the article?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Maybe the Generals came forward because... McMaster Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, of course their opinions matter, but they're dogs biting men, not the other way around. This isn't a case where equal weigh is given to both sides, because retired Generals do not in nearly any cases, do what these ones have done. They've furnished expert criticism that has not been refuted, merely dismissed.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Or maybe they came forward now because they've recently retired and thus this is the first chance they had to actually offer criticism without violating the military culture and the law.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
MrSquicky, you might want to do some more reading and find out that their expert critiscm has been refuted. American thinker Opinion Journal
Here's a quote right from the CNN article
quote: In defense of Rumsfeld, four retired generals wrote an op-ed piece Monday in The Wall Street Journal suggesting that some of his critics don't understand the war on terrorism.
"Much of the acrimony expressed by Secretary Rumsfeld's military critics appears to stem from his efforts to 'transform' the military by moving to a joint expeditionary force that is lighter and more mobile in nature to meet the nation's current and future threats," the commentary said.
"Many senior officers and bureaucrats did not support his transformation goals -- preferring conventional weapons of the past ... which prove practically useless against lawless
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That's not answering the criticisms, DK. That's dismissing them as being due to something else. I think when people who were commanding the forces on the ground in Iraq come forward with explicit concerns, they deserve more than that.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Let the smear campaign begin.....
It worked against McCain, even if he has forgotten about it due to political expediency, among others.
Standard modus operandi for Bush's camp ....damage control at it's ugliest,
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It's also important to note that we're not debating this in a vacumn. Collosal foul ups were made in the Iraq War. It's not like you can get around that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
DK, may I suggest that when someone says "only satisfies people like you DK, how would vehemently agree if the President said the sky was yellow" to you in the context of a political debate, the time has come to save your sanity and refuse to engage them on the issues.
They don't care. They've sorted you into a nice little easily-ignorable package.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Except, you may notice, I'm not actually ignoring him or refusing to engage him on the issues. I'd appreciate you not lying about me Dag.
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
Dark:
I was just horrified at the way he talked to the public--it was brusque and disrespectful.
Do I think he should address the retired generals situation? Yes I do. Does he have to? No.
In fact, I wouldn't hold it against him (too much) if he didn't for that is a method of dealing with criticism: ignoring it.
However, his defensive and dismissive speech to the public was completely unnecessary. We want reassurance or, at least, to know that Bush really does have faith in Rumsfield and we want to know why. We don't want to be yelled at like a teenager who questioned her angry dad: "I'm the dad. I make the decisions around here. End of discussion"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Except, you may notice, I'm not actually ignoring him or refusing to engage him on the issues. I'd appreciate you not lying about me Dag.
I didn't lie about you. That's your specialty.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
MrSquicky, I'm not ignoring you and so far I don't think you have read any of my links on these issues.
quote: As for those who've raised the issue of competence, we'd be more persuaded if they weren't so impossibly vague. If their critique is that Mr. Rumsfeld underestimated the Sunni insurgency, well, so did the CIA and military intelligence. Retired General Tommy Franks, who led and planned the campaign that toppled Saddam Hussein, took a victory lap after the invasion even as the insurgency gathered strength.
quote: If their complaint is that Mr. Rumsfeld has since fought the insurgents with too few troops, well, what about current Centcom Commander John Abizaid? He is by far the most forceful advocate of the "small footprint" strategy--the idea that fewer U.S. troops mean less Iraqi resentment of occupation.
quote: General Zinni assumed command of CENTCOM in August of 1997, and, as a highly credentialed soldier-statesman, embarked upon a program of “engagement” with the various corrupt, medieval rulers in the Middle East and Central Asia. Later, Gen. Tommy Franks would describe engagement as “establishing a personal rapport with the region’s government and military leaders.” Supposedly, this was one of the necessary evils to gain information about adversaries in the Central Region since CENTCOM had no permanent large-scale troop presence and no established intelligence apparatus in the area.
Nevertheless, in February of 2000, long before President Bush assumed office, Zinni felt confident enough to provide a strikingly familiar threat assessment on Iraq to the Senate Armed Services Committee:
• Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region. This is primarily due to its large conventional military force, pursuit of WMD [emphasis mine], oppressive treatment of Iraqi citizens, refusal to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR) …
• Despite claims that WMD efforts have ceased, Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions, … Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains the scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months. [Emphasis mine]
• The Iraqi regime’s high regard for WMD and long-range missiles is our best indicator that a peaceful regime under Saddam Hussein is unlikely.
• … extremists may turn to WMD in an effort to …overcome improved U.S. defenses against conventional attack. Detecting plans for a specific WMD attack is extremely difficult, making it likely such an event would occur without warning. [Emphasis mine]
• Extremists like Usama bin Laden …benefit from the global nature of communications that permits recruitment, fund raising, and direct connections to sub-elements worldwide. Terrorists are seeking more lethal weaponry to include chemical, biological, radiological, and even nuclear components with which to perpetrate more sensational attacks. [Emphasis mine]
• Three (Iraq, Iran and Sudan) of the seven recognized state-sponsors of terrorism [emphasis mine] are within this potentially volatile area [CENTCOM], and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan has been sanctioned by the UN Security Council for its harboring of Usama bin Laden.
quote: In his 2000 testimony, Zinni cited the promotion of democratic values in the CENTCOM AOR as being one of the critical aspects in securing the interests of the US and providing stability to this volatile region. Now that President Bush and his national security team have actually had the courage and will to do just that, the General still slams the administration for implementing a key concept in his own operational plan.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Kristen, did you read the article or the headline? I only ask because President Bush said much more, and spoke many times, than just what the headline led you to believe
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
DK, None of what I read answered anywhere near all of the criticisms and most didn't even touch the substantive ones. Here's an example from one of the statements:
quote:Some of the missteps include: the distortion of intelligence in the buildup to the war, McNamara-like micromanagement that kept our forces from having enough resources to do the job, the failure to retain and reconstitute the Iraqi military in time to help quell civil disorder, the initial denial that an insurgency was the heart of the opposition to occupation, alienation of allies who could have helped in a more robust way to rebuild Iraq, and the continuing failure of the other agencies of our government to commit assets to the same degree as the Defense Department. My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions--or bury the results.
Three of the most significant criticisms were that Rumsfeld pushed through a doctrine of using minimal troops, leading to inadequate boots on the ground to secure Iraq after invasion, his decision to disband the Iraqi military, and his supression of the idea or even use of the word insurgency. I see none of these three addressed in your links.
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
Dark,
I did read the full CNN article, which only mentioned that aspect of the speech.
Can you point me to a link where he said more? I am interested, although I still wished he used a more respectful style of speaking to the American public. On the other hand, if he did justify his reasoning, then I do commend him for that.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
You would if you read what I posted above, I even quoted it for you quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If their complaint is that Mr. Rumsfeld has since fought the insurgents with too few troops, well, what about current Centcom Commander John Abizaid? He is by far the most forceful advocate of the "small footprint" strategy--the idea that fewer U.S. troops mean less Iraqi resentment of occupation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Also, I love how these Generals were lauded when they supported (or at least didn't speak out against) the current choices that the Administrations made, but now that they speak up against these...in many cases providing proof that their concerns were ignored previously....they are now all either incompetent or politically motivated.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
DK, As far as I can tell, that has nothing to do with the complaint. Saying that we didn't go in with enough troops is a very different statement from saying that we should reduce our presence now at a completely different part of the operation. Abizaid is saying the latter, but I fail to see how that is in conflict with the former.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
hmmm... the current Google ad at the bottom of the page is for the Hillary Clinton Store...
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Bush already had interrupted his Easter vacation at Camp David, Maryland, on Friday to release a public statement of support for the defense secretary
"You can understand why, because we've got people's reputations at stake," Bush said of his aversion to speculation about personnel matters.
"And on Friday I stood up and said, 'I don't appreciate the speculation about Don Rumsfeld; he's doing a fine job; I strongly support him.'"
Pressed to respond to critics who say he is ignoring the advice of respected former military commanders, Bush vigorously stood by Rumsfeld.
"I listen to all voices, but mine is the final decision," he said. "And Don Rumsfeld is doing a fine job. He's not only transforming the military, he's fighting a war on terror. He's helping us fight a war on terror. I have strong confidence in Don Rumsfeld.
"I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense."
Rumsfeld spoke to reporters at the Pentagon after the president spoke and suggested that his critics are uncomfortable with change in the military.
He presented a long list of developments of the past five years, ranging from arms reduction agreements with Russia, to strengthening the role of special operations forces, to base closings, and added, "Every one of those changes that I just described has met resistance."
Rumseld said he was proud of the changes he had made, and continued, "At the same time, we had a war in Afghanistan, we've got a war in Iraq, and we've got the global war on terror going on.
"Now, that's hard for people. That's difficult. With all of those moving parts, with all of those challenges to try to get from the 20th century, the industrial age, into the information age, to the 21st century, from conventional warfare into a regular and asymmetrical warfare, is a difficult thing to do.
"And, by golly, one ought not to be surprised that there are people who are uncomfortable about it and complaining about it."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not sure I understand your point DK. Do you agree that disbanding the Iraqi military was a mistake or not?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Well, from what I know of the Iraq military based on my readings, we should have definitely disarmed their military but Bremer should have followed Bush's plan of putting several hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers on the U.S. payroll and kept them available to provide security, repair roads and prepare for unforeseen postwar tasks. I do not think we should have kept Iraq's military intact as it was. There were too many people in power that were still loyal to Saddam Hussein. So I guess it depends on what you mean by "disband". I don't think that will satisfy you so to answer your question with a sound bite: No it was not a mistake, keeping the Iraq military in power would have caused huge problems.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Bush's plan of putting several hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers on the U.S. payroll
What plan was this? Are you telling me that there was this plan to deal with the Iraqi army and Bremer, on his very first days in Iraq, directly went against it?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Before the war, President Bush approved a plan that would have put several hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers on the U.S. payroll and kept them available to provide security, repair roads and prepare for unforeseen postwar tasks. But that project was stopped abruptly in late May by L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, who ordered the demobilization of Iraq's entire army, including largely apolitical conscripts.
Bremer reversed himself a month later, but by then the occupation had lost not merely time and momentum but also credibility among former soldiers and their families, an important segment of Iraq's population.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
From that link:
quote:As Garner was developing the policy amid the unexpected lawlessness in Baghdad, the White House replaced him with Bremer, a terrorism specialist with high-level State Department experience. He arrived May 12 with a mandate from Bush to take firm control of the U.S. occupation.
By that time, the prewar intelligence had proved inaccurate. No Iraqi units changed sides, and the number of surrendering forces was small. Iraqis had sacked Army garrisons, and entire divisions had melted away.
Bremer soon declared in internal meetings that no Iraqi units would be reconstituted and that soldiers would not be paid. On May 23, he issued a formal order that dismissed the army and canceled pensions. The order covered many categories of Iraqis, among them war widows and disabled veterans who were senior party members, defined as any officers at the rank of colonel or above.
U.S. officials in Baghdad, including Garner and Bates, were startled.
"It came with formidable force and decisiveness, as the president's policy. Nobody was supposed to challenge it and that was that," said one U.S. official in Baghdad at the time. Another said: "There was never a discussion that I was involved in where we would disband the military. It caught me completely by surprise."
The second official, recalling violent crime in the Iraqi capital, said Iraqi commanders had offered to gather soldiers, who would be paid for their work. The Americans could easily have pulled together "a couple of thousand military police in the Baghdad region," he said. "Many of the soldiers had taken their weapons home. Some had armored vehicles."
The demobilization decision appears to have originated largely with Walter B. Slocombe, a former undersecretary of defense appointed to oversee Iraqi security forces. He believed strongly in the need to disband the army and felt that vanquished soldiers should not expect to be paid a continuing salary. He said he developed the policy in discussions with Bremer, Feith and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz.
"This is not something that was dreamed up by somebody at the last minute and done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad. It was discussed," Slocombe said. "The critical point was that nobody argued that we shouldn't do this."
Slocombe recalled discussing the issue with Wolfowitz on May 8 and with Feith several times, including on May 22, the night before Bremer issued the formal order. Trying to put the army back together at that point, he said, "would've been a practical disaster."
For a minute there, I thought you were suggesting the Paul Bremer instituted his own plan against that of the President and the Defense Department. Were that the case, I'd be amazed that he kept his job.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
And that's apparently all he said? Does he really think that is an appropriate way to address the American people and experts and generals whose critiques, to me, seem like they should at least be acknowledged respectfully?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)