To read the whole thing simply go through day pass: three clicks no info given et voila!
(unfortunately she is not the best writer . . . but her skills at prosody are not the issue)
Quote:
I witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president.
here is much much more . . . five pages.
She maps out the influence of the neo-conservative philosophy and shows how it is directly related to the program put forward in the Pax Americana doctrine . . . . so now I can mention it and you people won't think I am some nut-case . . . . it is these people, a group of chums who have worked together for over a decade, that now run American foriegn policy . . . that now run it into the ground!
read it . . . if you can get through her terrible prose . .
Col K connects some scary dots in her picture of neocon manipulations of intel.
Combined with Seymour Hersh's Stovepipe, General Zinni, and now Chalabi bragging about 'truth not mattering' and other, should we say *Confirmed* or would we just get accused of piling on
What was the name of the neocon group that half the administration belonged to before Bush got the Whitehouse? Amercian Policy Institute? They had the invasion of Iraq as their plan to democratize the middle East all along. 9/11 just provided the excuse.
I can't wait until China pre-emtively invades Taiwan and Russia invades Tadjikistan and India invades Pakistan and Israel invades Palestine (oh ya, that's right-pours gasoline on the conversation). This policy will bite us one day.
What was the name of the neocon group that half the administration belonged to before Bush got the Whitehouse? Amercian Policy Institute? They had the invasion of Iraq as their plan to democratize the middle East all along. 9/11 just provided the excuse.
I can't wait until China pre-emtively invades Taiwan and Russia invades Tadjikistan and India invades Pakistan and Israel invades Palestine (oh ya, that's right-pours gasoline on the conversation). This policy will bite us one day.
That is discussed in the article by the Colonel . . . she maps out, not just 'the American Plicy Institute' members that now run the Administration but shows how they invaded the Pentagon and used it as a propaganda vehicle . . .
I am increasingly of the opinion that the true reason the neocons pushed for war in Iraq because they felt it was they best way to ensure American military supremacy for another few decades. Either bases or democracy (either would work, but democracy is cheaper and less risky politically) in Iraq provide an additional foothold in the Mid East and keeps oil flowing. Access to oil ensures that tanks, jets and bombers can be fuelled.
Maybe this desire to keep America as the worlds' sole superpower simply stems from the neocons wanting the USA to be #1. Or maybe they really are worried about the impending environmental apocalypse the Pentagon wanted to warn us all about...maybe the neocons want to ensure the US is strong enough to face China / India / Russia in case climate change causes world wide famines that lead to world war III.
Whatever it is, I think that the neocons regard themselves as patriots. I think they do what they are doing not because they want to lie and cheat and beggar America in order to create profit for their corporate contributors and CEO cronies, but because they believe they know what is best for America. When you think about it, money isn't important at all...the raw materials that you need to survive are all that really counts.
I am increasingly of the opinion that the true reason the neocons pushed for war in Iraq because they felt it was they best way to ensure American military supremacy for another few decades. Either bases or democracy (either would work, but democracy is cheaper and less risky politically) in Iraq provide an additional foothold in the Mid East and keeps oil flowing. Access to oil ensures that tanks, jets and bombers can be fuelled.
Maybe this desire to keep America as the worlds' sole superpower simply stems from the neocons wanting the USA to be #1. Or maybe they really are worried about the impending environmental apocalypse the Pentagon wanted to warn us all about...maybe the neocons want to ensure the US is strong enough to face China / India / Russia in case climate change causes world wide famines that lead to world war III.
Whatever it is, I think that the neocons regard themselves as patriots. I think they do what they are doing not because they want to lie and cheat and beggar America in order to create profit for their corporate contributors and CEO cronies, but because they believe they know what is best for America. When you think about it, money isn't important at all...the raw materials that you need to survive are all that really counts.
Good points,
I am inclined to agree with you.
The problem is is that America is a Democracy and such far reaching agendas should be layed out on the table before all-of us . . . otherwise the very nature of the nation to which one claims patriotism has essentially changed.
That's why such activity, if it is in fact the case, is tantamount to High Treason:
It negates the qualities of America that make it worth being proud of a rewrite its form of government with a covert form of despotism.
I think that the obfuscation and outright lying that is going on is symptomatic of an arrogance inherent to the Bush administration. They are obviously intelligent individuals (particularly those with ties to the PNAC...some of them come across as being quite brilliant). The problem is that they feel that their abilities and experience make them better equipped than the average American to make decisions for the average American. While it might make sense to many people, meritocratic rule by a self-regarded intellectual elite is anathema to democracy.
FOX news interviewed the Colonel . . . and then had their own hatchet man pathetically call her names and slander her in the most idiotic fashion: it is a good example of how teh Faux Channel subtly but very consistently rewrites people as worthless or just plain bad and wrong . . . they are INCREDIBLE!
It also shows that the Colonel is VERY CONSERVATIVE ideologically, and doesn't really mind the notion of invading Iraq . . . if the reasons were real as stated (think about that you BushLickers!)
(I have to post the whole thing otherwise you would have to go through a lengthy process to be able to read it:
"The Big Story on Faux News
The big story on Fox News last night was Karen Kwiatkowski, the Pentagon whistleblower who wrote this exclusive insider's account in Salon about how the administration manufactured its case for war in Iraq. From the transcript, it's clear Kwiatkowski doesn't change the mind of "The Big Story" host John Gibson, who goes on to call Kwiatkowski an anarchist and sympathizes with the counterpoint guest, an RNC spokesman who has zero inside information about the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans but joins us to provide political cover for the administration. What is the GOP to do "when people like that are talking and scoring points with people in the public," Gibson wonders.
You know Gibson's desperate when he belittles valid concerns about Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi's role in the march to war by saying Kwiatkowski "saw Chalabi around the office, didn't like him and thought he was a punk."
Fox doesn't have the transcript on its Web site, so we pulled it from Nexis. For sake of space, we trimmed just a bit:
KWIATKOWSKI: My concern is that George Tenet is absolutely correct. The facts that he had were not even used. The facts that were used to make up the propaganda, the content of the presidential speeches in the fall of 2002, much of that information was never produced by the CIA. It was information from other sources.
GIBSON: Well, right. But why do you call it propaganda? I mean, people who are elected to make decisions about the safety of the nation have to make a prudent decision based on the information they see. Why would you characterize the information they see and what they say about their decisions as propaganda instead of prudent decisions? What do you know?
KWIATKOWSKI: Yes. Well, prudence does not enter into the things that were said in the fall of 2002 to the Congress and to the American people. That was very imprudent as we know now, as the president has had to backtrack on many of those things. So, prudence doesn't enter it.
GIBSON: Wait a minute, are you saying that war was such a grave error that today Saddam Hussein should still be running Iraq?
KWIATKOWSKI: I like how you put that question.
GIBSON: Well, what's the answer?
KWIATKOWSKI: I'm no fan of Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein should not be running Iraq but the Iraqi people should be the ones that make that decision not ...
GIBSON: But Ms. Kwiatkowski, what you seem to be saying is, yes, I want it both ways, I want Saddam Hussein gone but I want to criticize the president for doing it because I don't like the reasons he cited for doing it.
KWIATKOWSKI: You know what? I don't like the lies that are being called reasons. Ok? There are some very valid reasons for this country to have gone in and toppled Saddam Hussein. None of those reasons were presented by the president or the vice president ...
GIBSON: Tell me what you think were good reasons.
KWIATKOWSKI: There are good reasons that some people may or may not agree with, and one of them is to change our geo-strategic military footprint in the Middle East, to reduce our dependency on bases that we currently have in Saudi Arabia.
GIBSON: Rights, but as a political military analyst, would you guess that would have convinced the world that that was a good reason for war?
KWIATKOWSKI: To me, it's irrelevant if it convinced the world. Like the president says, this country doesn't need to convince the world to go and do something in its own interests
GIBSON: I don't understand why you're criticizing the president for acting on information he saw, characterizing that information as lies and at the same time you're saying you agree what he did.
KWIATKOWSKI: Frankly, I don't agree with him going into Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein when he did based on lies. The fact that Saddam Hussein may have needed to have been toppled at some point by his own people. This is something the United states could have supported in any number of ways, but he chose not to. He chose to put in a force and he based it on false information, most of which he's already identified as being false information.
GIBSON: What was false? Was it false that Saddam Hussein was murdering his own people? Was it false ...
KWIATKOWSKI: Him and 50 other guys, half of which are our allies. Yes. How about this question? How about this question? Mushroom clouds over St. Louis? Do you think that's reasonable? That is not reasonable and that's not what the intelligence community gave him.
GIBSON: You know, Ms. Kwiatkowski, I've gone over the State of the Union address and the address to the United Nations and so forth. I didn't see anything about mushroom clouds over St. Louis.
KWIATKOWSKI: Did you look at the October 11 Cincinnati speech ...
GIBSON: Let me ask you, you are criticizing the president for going to war and it appears as a lieutenant -- a lieutenant colonel, you are claiming you saw all of the information the president had and can make a judgment about whether he made the right decision on that information or not. How do you know this?
KWIATKOWSKI: I'll tell you what. I'm a citizen of the United States. Ahmed Chalabi, I saw him in the office, he was a key source of information. He has admitted as much. He has said if his information was wrong, it doesn't matter. Well, you know what, we have 130,000 troops in Iraq. It does matter. OK, false pretenses, it matters. The president has made a grave error and he owes it to the American people to fully explain what he's doing.
GIBSON: Retired US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski. Thanks.
GIBSON: For another perspective, Cliff May is a former communications director for the Republican National Committee. Cliff, today's big question, well, what do you have to say?
CLIFFORD MAY, FMR RNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Let me tell you a dirty secret of Washington, John, that you probably know. In any administration, there are people in the bureaucracies, in the State Department, in the Defense Department, who disagree with the policies of the president. Now, sometimes they manage to hang up their politics on the door as they walk in. Sometimes they resign and sometimes they do what she did which is to write anonymous articles and make an effort to undermine the administration for which she was working. And I'm afraid that's what she did. And she wrote for some very, and does, radical associations from Lyndon LaRouche, to Lincoln (ph) Rockwell to Guerrilla News Network, where she was guerrilla of the year, to Liberation News Service, to DangerousCitizen.com.
GIBSON: That's the guest I just had on?
MAY: Yes, that is the guest. Let me read something she said. She knew what she was doing was wrong, I think. She wrote the following -- "Hardcore anarchists and other purists might criticize me for not just throwing a few grenades over the office dividers and letting the chips fall where they may, but by this time I had already submitted my retirement request and I wanted to spend the money, not time in Leavenworth." She also said, John, that some American government policies makes consideration of anarchism or violent revolution attractive. Incremental change may not be possible. Again, I ...
GIBSON: But Cliff, what do you do when you have people like her out there saying the president lied about why we went to war, I saw everything the president saw, I'm telling you it was a lie. I saw Ahmed Chalabi around the office. I didn't like him. I thought he was a punk, and he lied. What do you do when people like that are talking and scoring points with people in the public?
MAY: Boy, that's a good question. I'm not sure I have a very good answer.
GIBSON: You have to have, Cliff, because she's doing it.
MAY: I know she is. I think you're right. I think that people in the administration, not just me, need to say this sort of talk at a time when we're at war is really a very bad idea. And these people are saying things that are simply not true. As you point out, we have numerous intelligence agencies. We have a lot of information that goes to the president. And by the way, people need to understand that intelligence is not a clear picture. It's an inkblot test.
GIBSON: But is this an example -- is that woman we just had on, the anarchist, as you describe, is this an example of those people who did not agree with the intelligence assessment and who formed the consensus in the CIA that Iraq wasn't as bad as the vice president, the president, the secretary of defense thought it were? Is that who was saying, no, no, we're not going to give you permission to go to war on these reasons because we won't form a consensus that these reasons are right.
MAY: That's not really their job. The job of the intelligence ...
GIBSON: But that's it, isn't it?
MAY: What they are supposed to do -- what is supposed to happen is you're supposed to gather intelligence, analyze intelligence by a different group of people, and then make policy based on it. We have a lot of it right now for a very specific reason, and that is after 9/11, this president set a lot of policies that we pursued in the past haven't really worked. And that's why 9/11 happened, we need to change our policies. That means that everybody who helped form those earlier policies had an investment in them and was very reluctant to see any kinds of changes. There are people in the administration, I'm sorry to say, and I've heard this -- who say, look, the White House, if that is the Christmas help -- if we just wait a while, it'll be gone and we can continue to do what we've always done so well.
GIBSON: Clifford May, president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Cliff, thanks a lot, appreciate it."
seems that the PR machine has its eyes on discrediting the Colonel.
From the article:
Quote:
Kwiatkowski's right-wing critics could not challenge her facts, not a single one, so they immediately reached for the tar brush. The Wall Street Journal smeared her as "something of a right-wing crank." Max Boot, a conservative columnist for the Los Angeles Times, trashed her as "flaky."
One thing tht the article notes is that The Colonel is Cosnervative . . Libertarian even . . . and that none of her critics, thus far, have been in military unifom . . .
anyway its interesting even if it turns out to be anarticle that wants you to subscribe to Salon for supporting Kwiatkowski . . . .
We are all waiting for responses from the conservatives on the board.
Why the silence?
Howdy, Though I agree with much of what this thread has propogated, I disagree the automatic link between conservatives and Bush. I'm conservative, and I'm very much anti-shrub. Did the administration mislead and warp intellegence? Yes, and the proof is and has been leaking out at a slow trickle for the last 11 months. Does the administration have a history of understating displeasing figures while painting beautiful falsities? Yes, the January announcement of 2.6million jobs this year is again proof of the Nefarious Mr Bush and Co. (NMB&C) wouldn't know the truth if it where a WMD in the middle of the Iraqi desert.
Many aspects of NMB&C policy are so unconservative that we shoud call a turd a turd and say these policies are liberal. Drugs for the elderly woo-hoo. I'm sorry, but social security, and medicare where not ment to be sole sources of income. They where suppose to suppliment prudent savings... Or my favorate, "Dude lets run huge defecits, Regan did and whoa man whoa!" The effects on huge defecits are minor when compared to advanced technology, but lets face it guys. The US is barely the top dog on the block anymore. We need to guard ourselves financially least we become early 90's Russia falling into bankruptcy.
So, to conclude my disjointed rant, Conservative != administration lap dog. Thank you and have a good day
Comments
To read the whole thing simply go through day pass: three clicks no info given et voila!
(unfortunately she is not the best writer . . . but her skills at prosody are not the issue)
I witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president.
here is much much more . . . five pages.
She maps out the influence of the neo-conservative philosophy and shows how it is directly related to the program put forward in the Pax Americana doctrine . . . . so now I can mention it and you people won't think I am some nut-case . . . . it is these people, a group of chums who have worked together for over a decade, that now run American foriegn policy . . . that now run it into the ground!
read it . . . if you can get through her terrible prose . .
Combined with Seymour Hersh's Stovepipe, General Zinni, and now Chalabi bragging about 'truth not mattering' and other, should we say *Confirmed* or would we just get accused of piling on
I can't wait until China pre-emtively invades Taiwan and Russia invades Tadjikistan and India invades Pakistan and Israel invades Palestine (oh ya, that's right-pours gasoline on the conversation). This policy will bite us one day.
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
What was the name of the neocon group that half the administration belonged to before Bush got the Whitehouse? Amercian Policy Institute? They had the invasion of Iraq as their plan to democratize the middle East all along. 9/11 just provided the excuse.
I can't wait until China pre-emtively invades Taiwan and Russia invades Tadjikistan and India invades Pakistan and Israel invades Palestine (oh ya, that's right-pours gasoline on the conversation). This policy will bite us one day.
That is discussed in the article by the Colonel . . . she maps out, not just 'the American Plicy Institute' members that now run the Administration but shows how they invaded the Pentagon and used it as a propaganda vehicle . . .
and more . . . read it!
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
What was the name of the neocon group that half the administration belonged to before Bush got the Whitehouse? Amercian Policy Institute?
The Project for the New American Century
I am increasingly of the opinion that the true reason the neocons pushed for war in Iraq because they felt it was they best way to ensure American military supremacy for another few decades. Either bases or democracy (either would work, but democracy is cheaper and less risky politically) in Iraq provide an additional foothold in the Mid East and keeps oil flowing. Access to oil ensures that tanks, jets and bombers can be fuelled.
Maybe this desire to keep America as the worlds' sole superpower simply stems from the neocons wanting the USA to be #1. Or maybe they really are worried about the impending environmental apocalypse the Pentagon wanted to warn us all about...maybe the neocons want to ensure the US is strong enough to face China / India / Russia in case climate change causes world wide famines that lead to world war III.
Whatever it is, I think that the neocons regard themselves as patriots. I think they do what they are doing not because they want to lie and cheat and beggar America in order to create profit for their corporate contributors and CEO cronies, but because they believe they know what is best for America. When you think about it, money isn't important at all...the raw materials that you need to survive are all that really counts.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
The Project for the New American Century
I am increasingly of the opinion that the true reason the neocons pushed for war in Iraq because they felt it was they best way to ensure American military supremacy for another few decades. Either bases or democracy (either would work, but democracy is cheaper and less risky politically) in Iraq provide an additional foothold in the Mid East and keeps oil flowing. Access to oil ensures that tanks, jets and bombers can be fuelled.
Maybe this desire to keep America as the worlds' sole superpower simply stems from the neocons wanting the USA to be #1. Or maybe they really are worried about the impending environmental apocalypse the Pentagon wanted to warn us all about...maybe the neocons want to ensure the US is strong enough to face China / India / Russia in case climate change causes world wide famines that lead to world war III.
Whatever it is, I think that the neocons regard themselves as patriots. I think they do what they are doing not because they want to lie and cheat and beggar America in order to create profit for their corporate contributors and CEO cronies, but because they believe they know what is best for America. When you think about it, money isn't important at all...the raw materials that you need to survive are all that really counts.
Good points,
I am inclined to agree with you.
The problem is is that America is a Democracy and such far reaching agendas should be layed out on the table before all-of us . . . otherwise the very nature of the nation to which one claims patriotism has essentially changed.
That's why such activity, if it is in fact the case, is tantamount to High Treason:
It negates the qualities of America that make it worth being proud of a rewrite its form of government with a covert form of despotism.
It also shows that the Colonel is VERY CONSERVATIVE ideologically, and doesn't really mind the notion of invading Iraq . . . if the reasons were real as stated (think about that you BushLickers!)
(I have to post the whole thing otherwise you would have to go through a lengthy process to be able to read it:
"The Big Story on Faux News
The big story on Fox News last night was Karen Kwiatkowski, the Pentagon whistleblower who wrote this exclusive insider's account in Salon about how the administration manufactured its case for war in Iraq. From the transcript, it's clear Kwiatkowski doesn't change the mind of "The Big Story" host John Gibson, who goes on to call Kwiatkowski an anarchist and sympathizes with the counterpoint guest, an RNC spokesman who has zero inside information about the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans but joins us to provide political cover for the administration. What is the GOP to do "when people like that are talking and scoring points with people in the public," Gibson wonders.
You know Gibson's desperate when he belittles valid concerns about Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi's role in the march to war by saying Kwiatkowski "saw Chalabi around the office, didn't like him and thought he was a punk."
Fox doesn't have the transcript on its Web site, so we pulled it from Nexis. For sake of space, we trimmed just a bit:
KWIATKOWSKI: My concern is that George Tenet is absolutely correct. The facts that he had were not even used. The facts that were used to make up the propaganda, the content of the presidential speeches in the fall of 2002, much of that information was never produced by the CIA. It was information from other sources.
GIBSON: Well, right. But why do you call it propaganda? I mean, people who are elected to make decisions about the safety of the nation have to make a prudent decision based on the information they see. Why would you characterize the information they see and what they say about their decisions as propaganda instead of prudent decisions? What do you know?
KWIATKOWSKI: Yes. Well, prudence does not enter into the things that were said in the fall of 2002 to the Congress and to the American people. That was very imprudent as we know now, as the president has had to backtrack on many of those things. So, prudence doesn't enter it.
GIBSON: Wait a minute, are you saying that war was such a grave error that today Saddam Hussein should still be running Iraq?
KWIATKOWSKI: I like how you put that question.
GIBSON: Well, what's the answer?
KWIATKOWSKI: I'm no fan of Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein should not be running Iraq but the Iraqi people should be the ones that make that decision not ...
GIBSON: But Ms. Kwiatkowski, what you seem to be saying is, yes, I want it both ways, I want Saddam Hussein gone but I want to criticize the president for doing it because I don't like the reasons he cited for doing it.
KWIATKOWSKI: You know what? I don't like the lies that are being called reasons. Ok? There are some very valid reasons for this country to have gone in and toppled Saddam Hussein. None of those reasons were presented by the president or the vice president ...
GIBSON: Tell me what you think were good reasons.
KWIATKOWSKI: There are good reasons that some people may or may not agree with, and one of them is to change our geo-strategic military footprint in the Middle East, to reduce our dependency on bases that we currently have in Saudi Arabia.
GIBSON: Rights, but as a political military analyst, would you guess that would have convinced the world that that was a good reason for war?
KWIATKOWSKI: To me, it's irrelevant if it convinced the world. Like the president says, this country doesn't need to convince the world to go and do something in its own interests
GIBSON: I don't understand why you're criticizing the president for acting on information he saw, characterizing that information as lies and at the same time you're saying you agree what he did.
KWIATKOWSKI: Frankly, I don't agree with him going into Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein when he did based on lies. The fact that Saddam Hussein may have needed to have been toppled at some point by his own people. This is something the United states could have supported in any number of ways, but he chose not to. He chose to put in a force and he based it on false information, most of which he's already identified as being false information.
GIBSON: What was false? Was it false that Saddam Hussein was murdering his own people? Was it false ...
KWIATKOWSKI: Him and 50 other guys, half of which are our allies. Yes. How about this question? How about this question? Mushroom clouds over St. Louis? Do you think that's reasonable? That is not reasonable and that's not what the intelligence community gave him.
GIBSON: You know, Ms. Kwiatkowski, I've gone over the State of the Union address and the address to the United Nations and so forth. I didn't see anything about mushroom clouds over St. Louis.
KWIATKOWSKI: Did you look at the October 11 Cincinnati speech ...
GIBSON: Let me ask you, you are criticizing the president for going to war and it appears as a lieutenant -- a lieutenant colonel, you are claiming you saw all of the information the president had and can make a judgment about whether he made the right decision on that information or not. How do you know this?
KWIATKOWSKI: I'll tell you what. I'm a citizen of the United States. Ahmed Chalabi, I saw him in the office, he was a key source of information. He has admitted as much. He has said if his information was wrong, it doesn't matter. Well, you know what, we have 130,000 troops in Iraq. It does matter. OK, false pretenses, it matters. The president has made a grave error and he owes it to the American people to fully explain what he's doing.
GIBSON: Retired US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski. Thanks.
GIBSON: For another perspective, Cliff May is a former communications director for the Republican National Committee. Cliff, today's big question, well, what do you have to say?
CLIFFORD MAY, FMR RNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Let me tell you a dirty secret of Washington, John, that you probably know. In any administration, there are people in the bureaucracies, in the State Department, in the Defense Department, who disagree with the policies of the president. Now, sometimes they manage to hang up their politics on the door as they walk in. Sometimes they resign and sometimes they do what she did which is to write anonymous articles and make an effort to undermine the administration for which she was working. And I'm afraid that's what she did. And she wrote for some very, and does, radical associations from Lyndon LaRouche, to Lincoln (ph) Rockwell to Guerrilla News Network, where she was guerrilla of the year, to Liberation News Service, to DangerousCitizen.com.
GIBSON: That's the guest I just had on?
MAY: Yes, that is the guest. Let me read something she said. She knew what she was doing was wrong, I think. She wrote the following -- "Hardcore anarchists and other purists might criticize me for not just throwing a few grenades over the office dividers and letting the chips fall where they may, but by this time I had already submitted my retirement request and I wanted to spend the money, not time in Leavenworth." She also said, John, that some American government policies makes consideration of anarchism or violent revolution attractive. Incremental change may not be possible. Again, I ...
GIBSON: But Cliff, what do you do when you have people like her out there saying the president lied about why we went to war, I saw everything the president saw, I'm telling you it was a lie. I saw Ahmed Chalabi around the office. I didn't like him. I thought he was a punk, and he lied. What do you do when people like that are talking and scoring points with people in the public?
MAY: Boy, that's a good question. I'm not sure I have a very good answer.
GIBSON: You have to have, Cliff, because she's doing it.
MAY: I know she is. I think you're right. I think that people in the administration, not just me, need to say this sort of talk at a time when we're at war is really a very bad idea. And these people are saying things that are simply not true. As you point out, we have numerous intelligence agencies. We have a lot of information that goes to the president. And by the way, people need to understand that intelligence is not a clear picture. It's an inkblot test.
GIBSON: But is this an example -- is that woman we just had on, the anarchist, as you describe, is this an example of those people who did not agree with the intelligence assessment and who formed the consensus in the CIA that Iraq wasn't as bad as the vice president, the president, the secretary of defense thought it were? Is that who was saying, no, no, we're not going to give you permission to go to war on these reasons because we won't form a consensus that these reasons are right.
MAY: That's not really their job. The job of the intelligence ...
GIBSON: But that's it, isn't it?
MAY: What they are supposed to do -- what is supposed to happen is you're supposed to gather intelligence, analyze intelligence by a different group of people, and then make policy based on it. We have a lot of it right now for a very specific reason, and that is after 9/11, this president set a lot of policies that we pursued in the past haven't really worked. And that's why 9/11 happened, we need to change our policies. That means that everybody who helped form those earlier policies had an investment in them and was very reluctant to see any kinds of changes. There are people in the administration, I'm sorry to say, and I've heard this -- who say, look, the White House, if that is the Christmas help -- if we just wait a while, it'll be gone and we can continue to do what we've always done so well.
GIBSON: Clifford May, president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Cliff, thanks a lot, appreciate it."
Sorry, didn't mean to kill another thread...
Originally posted by Artman @_@
Really!
You're acting like a fool, and, surprinsingly, like an ass!
Do me a favor and delete your stupid post
you don't like this thread then stay the fvck out of it!
from HERE
seems that the PR machine has its eyes on discrediting the Colonel.
From the article:
Kwiatkowski's right-wing critics could not challenge her facts, not a single one, so they immediately reached for the tar brush. The Wall Street Journal smeared her as "something of a right-wing crank." Max Boot, a conservative columnist for the Los Angeles Times, trashed her as "flaky."
One thing tht the article notes is that The Colonel is Cosnervative . . Libertarian even . . . and that none of her critics, thus far, have been in military unifom . . .
anyway its interesting even if it turns out to be anarticle that wants you to subscribe to Salon for supporting Kwiatkowski . . . .
Why the silence?
Originally posted by sammi jo
We are all waiting for responses from the conservatives on the board.
Why the silence?
Howdy, Though I agree with much of what this thread has propogated, I disagree the automatic link between conservatives and Bush. I'm conservative, and I'm very much anti-shrub. Did the administration mislead and warp intellegence? Yes, and the proof is and has been leaking out at a slow trickle for the last 11 months. Does the administration have a history of understating displeasing figures while painting beautiful falsities? Yes, the January announcement of 2.6million jobs this year is again proof of the Nefarious Mr Bush and Co. (NMB&C) wouldn't know the truth if it where a WMD in the middle of the Iraqi desert.
Many aspects of NMB&C policy are so unconservative that we shoud call a turd a turd and say these policies are liberal. Drugs for the elderly woo-hoo. I'm sorry, but social security, and medicare where not ment to be sole sources of income. They where suppose to suppliment prudent savings... Or my favorate, "Dude lets run huge defecits, Regan did and whoa man whoa!" The effects on huge defecits are minor when compared to advanced technology, but lets face it guys. The US is barely the top dog on the block anymore. We need to guard ourselves financially least we become early 90's Russia falling into bankruptcy.
So, to conclude my disjointed rant, Conservative != administration lap dog. Thank you and have a good day
Vote no on proposition NMB&C in November BTW.