I love it. I've held back any comments since the GOP started bashing this guy and requesting his previous testimony be declassified. And now, not only is Clarke not dodging the issue, he is encouraging the powers that be to declassify all six hours of that testimony (and more apparently).
He's played them at their own game. I believe now that he knew from the start that this would be their reaction, and that he actually wants them to react this way. I hope they declassify and it makes them look even worse than they do now. Jackasses.
Quote:
From the NYT:
"I would welcome it being declassified, but not just a little line here or there," Mr. Clarke said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press." "Let's declassify all six hours of my testimony."
I love it. I've held back any comments since the GOP started bashing this guy and requesting his previous testimony be declassified. And now, not only is Clarke not dodging the issue, he is encouraging the powers that be to declassify all six hours of that testimony (and more apparently).
He's played them at their own game. I believe now that he knew from the start that this would be their reaction, and that he actually wants them to react this way. I hope they declassify and it makes them look even worse than they do now. Jackasses.
This is going to get interesting real quick.
It sure is because he may be indicted for lying under oath. As a matter of fact he may anyway.
There is new evidence being found almost on a daily basis.
It sure is because he may be indicted for lying under oath. As a matter of fact he may anyway.
There is new evidence being found almost on a daily basis.
I agree it will be interesting.
I wouldn't get your hopes up. "The new evidence" is hardly that; just anything the white house can find to throw into the mix.
The strategy here is to overwhelm the channel with as much confusing and condradictory "information" as possible, in the hopes that most people will just write it off as a partisan slap fight. Talk of indictments for perjury are, I would guess, just another vigorous shake of the snow globe.
However, Clarke's public demand to declassify all the testimony is a very smart move. (By the way Naples, why would a guy who presumably knows if he lied make this call? Crazy? Bluffing? Against the white house that clearly would love to see him put down like a rabid dog?)
So now he has made it harder for the white house to release redacted bits and pieces to bolster their case, which they no doubt would prefer to do. He also strengthens the perception that he has nothing to hide, and is in fact telling the truth.
I hope the Dems step up their call for more widespread declassifications, since the Bush white house has really hurt their usual "you can't know anything, national security" argument by the release of all this "get Clarke" material.
I wouldn't get your hopes up. "The new evidence" is hardly that; just anything the white house can find to throw into the mix.
The strategy here is to overwhelm the channel with as much confusing and condradictory "information" as possible, in the hopes that most people will just write it off as a partisan slap fight. Talk of indictments for perjury are, I would guess, just another vigorous shake of the snow globe.
However, Clarke's public demand to declassify all the testimony is a very smart move. (By the way Naples, why would a guy who presumably knows if he lied make this call? Crazy? Bluffing? Against the white house that clearly would love to see him put down like a rabid dog?)
So now he has made it harder for the white house to release redacted bits and pieces to bolster their case, which they no doubt would prefer to do. He also strengthens the perception that he has nothing to hide, and is in fact telling the truth.
I hope the Dems step up their call for more widespread declassifications, since the Bush white house has really hurt their usual "you can't know anything, national security" argument by the release of all this "get Clarke" material.
You may be right, but all I see is his own words contradicting themselves, over and over. The problem is he looks less believable by the day.
As far as him calling for declassification, it is the safest thing he can say. Think about it.
by the way . . . more people step forward . . . why are you refusing to see it?!?!
I see it, I just don't see anyone with NO motive to speak out. I see some arguably disgruntled people that just HAPPEN to be selling books. Of course there are other reasons. I may be wrong but that is the way I see it.
The only info we did not have *full* access to (although we certainly had more than enough) were the reports from INC, INA, and we knew they weren't credible. However, we did have the actual reports, we just didn't have the transcripts of CIA interviews, if they existed:
All of the credible info was gathered from the UN inspection processes and other open sources.
As just explained, we had more than enough access to that classified information to know it was not credible, and this was further enforced when it was put into the larger picture painted by the actual verified information that was publicly available.
In short, yes we did have access to the intel, as we almost always do. If you know how to look for information and use the resources at you local major library, then you can find out everything you need to.
Just to give an example of how much info was out there, visit ccr:
And this outline hasn't even been updated for a year. Click on any of the other outlines to see that there was simply a TON of information to work with.
Welcome to the information age. There's a lot more where that came from.
giant, I don't want to get in it with you over this, so I will say it in this way:
I do agree there is a ton of information available, but what I don't agree with is that you have it all or can get to it all. There are certain things that a government like SH's, there are/were secrets that only a handful of people knew and all but impossible to expose with public information.
There are certain assets that this government and others can bring to bear that you have no access to and are kept secret for security reasons. I contend that these bits of information are very critical to the argument.
giant, I don't want to get in it with you over this, so I will say it in this way:
I do agree there is a ton of information available, but what I don't agree with is that you have it all or can get to it all. There are certain things that a government like SH's, there are/were secrets that only a handful of people knew and all but impossible to expose with public information.
There are certain assets that this government and others can bring to bear that you have no access to and are kept secret for security reasons. I contend that these bits of information are very critical to the argument.
This 'information' that you hold in blind confidence that they had but cannot show due to its 'secret nature' was shown to the head of a number of large nations . . . . most of whom refused to believe that it was solid information or that it justified the aggressive invasion of another country
kind of like when the nations of Europe believed that Germany's excuse that it was 'liberating' the German's of the Sudatenland was merely an excuse for an aggressive invasion of another country. both were excuses . . . and many people and other countries knew it!
3. Protecting the ideals of the nation? It seems from your post you don't even know what they are. The nation was founded by people who generally believed in God and were quite religious. The Constitution referenced the establishment of religion only so that Congress could not establish a state religion. It wasn't meant to prevent people from expressing their faith. It wasn't meant to remove all religion from all public life. What other ideals do you speak of? The country's ideals are under attack alright....they're under attack from the LEFT. The complete cleansing of religion from public life, the destruction of international borders so we can be a part of "global community", revisionist interpretations of the Constitution, "blame America first," peace at any cost, a bloated government which taxes its citizens at confiscatory rates, ineffective social programs that destroy work incentive, hatred of the military,......THESE are the problems.
No.
Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
I do agree there is a ton of information available, but what I don't agree with is that you have it all or can get to it all. There are certain things that a government like SH's, there are/were secrets that only a handful of people knew and all but impossible to expose with public information.
There are certain assets that this government and others can bring to bear that you have no access to and are kept secret for security reasons. I contend that these bits of information are very critical to the argument.
Naples, listen carefully. This is a situation where it doesn't matter whether you agree or not. Fact: it's estimated that 90-95% of intel is from open sources. Fact: OSP was created to examine open sources and Iraqi defectors. Fact: Any claim that was made by the defectors was also put into open channels in order to build a case for war. Fact: When looking at the big picture, it was clear there were not large stocks of WMD. Fact: the only thing pointing to an armed Iraq was speculation coupled with unbelievable stories from horrible sources.
I understand you've watched films. I understand that maybe you even read a spy novel or two. But in the real world intelligence is not something done in the shadows. What little information you might not have can be figured out so long as you look at it logically and always try to prove your conclusions wrong.
And, of course, the more you know about how intel agencies work and understand sound intel practices, the better you are at understanding what is going on.
So you can go on believing in all of this mystery information that only a few people in the government have, but if you actually bothered to look at what it is as it's declassified or leaked, you realize that 99.9% of the time (literally) it is not sexy or even new or earth-shattering. And you can look. There are archives online. You can go to your local government depository library (like the one I work at).
The fact is that it has been estimated that even during the cold war something like 80-85% of intel was from open sources. Of course, back then people and sources were still very disconnected. These days I can go look up a Polish newspaper and have today's news translated in 30 seconds. I can use Interlibrary Loan to get conference papers from a conference in Japan or sweden or India (hell, you can find a zillion conference papers from US intel conferences just by looking online). In fact, you can use ILL to get basically anything that exists anywhere. That is a recent development.
Intelligence is far more about analysis than collection. The hard parts are making it easier to consume and being able to see the bigger picture. That's exactly what projects like CCR and individuals like Glen Rangwala aim to do. Other sources, like fas, cryptome, global security, wikipedia and the american presidency act as archives. And those are miniscule compared to what's in a University Library and Government Depository.
But all that is useless without background knowledge, which requires getting an education and reading as much as possible about that particular subject.
So, to say it again, it doesn't matter whether or not you agree. This is just the way it is. It's as complex as anything out there, so trying to make it a straight black and white issue is insane.
In the end, however, we are able to get a pretty clear picture of what is going on in the world. Sure you can't know everything that's going on everywhere in the world unless you are a large organization with a few thousand people, but in terms of overall trends and specific well-documented cases (like Iraq) we have a ton of info. In almost every other case you could get a hold of the information if you needed it and had a librarian help you locate the sources.
In fact, the only thing standing in the way is the same kind of bias that leads people to think Clarke is saying anything new.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
We are not a christian nation.
Yes we are, for all practical purposes. But that's besides the point, because my point was that the Constitution was not intended to remove all religion from public life. Quite the opposite.....the framers of the document intended to preserve religious freedom, which includes the expression of beliefs. As for being Christian, many of our laws are indeed based on Christian principles. This cannot be ignored. My point is simply that the intent of "Congress shall make no law respecting the etsbalishment of relgion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" has been twisted.
Do you realize that the children I teach often think that the word "God" is not allowed to be said in school? That's how bad things have gotten. The ONLY intent of the separation clause is to prevent the US Government from establishing an official state religion. It doesn't say that the government or government employees cannot display religous symbols. It doesn't say employees of schools cannot lead prayer. These are interpretations....and liberal ones at that.
Let's just wait and see what happens, people. I'm sure Clarke is no saint (saints don't hold those kind of positions in our government), but I am willing to bet whatever double-talk he might eventually be suspected of, those six hours of testimony are quite damning to certain individuals in the administration.
What's the point of bad-mouthing public servants without basis (slinging mud if you prefer), if you have no reason to believe your words will ever be heard by the general public? The only thing that makes sense is that there is a basis for it, but not very many people have the balls to spell it out -- even in private testimony.
What do you want to bet the GOP will back off the demand to "open the files" now? Because even if they take Clarke down, they'll go down with him if the general public is finally slapped in the face with what this administration is all about....
Naples, listen carefully. This is a situation where it doesn't matter whether you agree or not. Fact: it's estimated that 90-95% of intel is from open sources. Fact: OSP was created to examine open sources and Iraqi defectors. Fact: Any claim that was made by the defectors was also put into open channels in order to build a case for war. Fact: When looking at the big picture, it was clear there were not large stocks of WMD. Fact: the only thing pointing to an armed Iraq was speculation coupled with unbelievable stories from horrible sources.
I understand you've watched films. I understand that maybe you even read a spy novel or two. But in the real world intelligence is not something done in the shadows. What little information you might not have can be figured out so long as you look at it logically and always try to prove your conclusions wrong.
And, of course, the more you know about how intel agencies work and understand sound intel practices, the better you are at understanding what is going on.
So you can go on believing in all of this mystery information that only a few people in the government have, but if you actually bothered to look at what it is as it's declassified or leaked, you realize that 99.9% of the time (literally) it is not sexy or even new or earth-shattering. And you can look. There are archives online. You can go to your local government depository library (like the one I work at).
The fact is that it has been estimated that even during the cold war something like 80-85% of intel was from open sources. Of course, back then people and sources were still very disconnected. These days I can go look up a Polish newspaper and have today's news translated in 30 seconds. I can use Interlibrary Loan to get conference papers from a conference in Japan or sweden or India (hell, you can find a zillion conference papers from US intel conferences just by looking online). In fact, you can use ILL to get basically anything that exists anywhere. That is a recent development.
Intelligence is far more about analysis than collection. The hard parts are making it easier to consume and being able to see the bigger picture. That's exactly what projects like CCR and individuals like Glen Rangwala aim to do. Other sources, like fas, cryptome, global security, wikipedia and the american presidency act as archives.
And those are miniscule compared to what's in a University Library and Government Depository.
So, to say it again, it doesn't matter whether or not you agree. This is just the way it is. It's as complex as anything out there, so trying to make it a straight black and white issue is insane.
In the end, however, we are able to get a pretty clear picture of what is going on in the world.
In fact, the only thing standing in the way is the same kind of bias that leads people to think Clarke is saying anything new.
Thanks for that info. I will look into it.
I will ask that you please not talk down to me though, I don't think that you strengthen you argument or appear any smarter in any way by doing so. I think that it is counterproductive to those ends.
I love it. I've held back any comments since the GOP started bashing this guy and requesting his previous testimony be declassified. And now, not only is Clarke not dodging the issue, he is encouraging the powers that be to declassify all six hours of that testimony (and more apparently).
He's played them at their own game. I believe now that he knew from the start that this would be their reaction, and that he actually wants them to react this way. I hope they declassify and it makes them look even worse than they do now. Jackasses.
Quote:
From the NYT:
"I would welcome it being declassified, but not just a little line here or there," Mr. Clarke said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press." "Let's declassify all six hours of my testimony
This is going to get interesting real quick.
I'm extremely interested in seeing this as well. He also said they should declassify rice's testimony and a bunch of correspondence.
He's probably the first person to stand up to them to this degree.
also, anybody note that Hammas just came out and said that Bush is "the" enemy . . . and more specifically:
Quote:
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) -- The new Hamas leader in Gaza on Sunday called President Bush an enemy of Islam and said that "God declared war" against the United States
now I haven't found any refference to Iraq in any of the articles that I have seen on this but it seems to be part of the background of this
It seems that the dominoes are not falling towards democracy in people's opinions in the Middle-East . . . hmmm? Whoodda figured?!?!
more:
Quote:
"We knew that Bush is the enemy of God, the enemy of Islam and Muslims," Rantisi told the crowd. "America declared war against God. Sharon declared war against God and God declared war against America, Bush and Sharon."
"The war of God continues against them and I can see the victory coming up from the land of Palestine by the hand of Hamas," he said.
also, possibly related: Pakistan seems to have caved into pressure form local Islamist groups who called for an end to the siege against the Islamic fighters
Is it possible that there is a goundswell of support for Islamists . . . possibly due to the fact that Bush's explaination for our invasion of an Islamic country does not fly?
is it possible tht our actions are galvanizing Islamic people towards sympathy with Islamists?
just as many of us predicted before the catastro . . . I mean 'war'?
Comments
He's played them at their own game. I believe now that he knew from the start that this would be their reaction, and that he actually wants them to react this way. I hope they declassify and it makes them look even worse than they do now. Jackasses.
From the NYT:
"I would welcome it being declassified, but not just a little line here or there," Mr. Clarke said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press." "Let's declassify all six hours of my testimony."
This is going to get interesting real quick.
Aren't there groups like FAIR that come across as clearing houses for a more fair selection of information?
Originally posted by Moogs
I love it. I've held back any comments since the GOP started bashing this guy and requesting his previous testimony be declassified. And now, not only is Clarke not dodging the issue, he is encouraging the powers that be to declassify all six hours of that testimony (and more apparently).
He's played them at their own game. I believe now that he knew from the start that this would be their reaction, and that he actually wants them to react this way. I hope they declassify and it makes them look even worse than they do now. Jackasses.
This is going to get interesting real quick.
It sure is because he may be indicted for lying under oath. As a matter of fact he may anyway.
There is new evidence being found almost on a daily basis.
I agree it will be interesting.
Originally posted by NaplesX
It sure is because he may be indicted for lying under oath. As a matter of fact he may anyway.
There is new evidence being found almost on a daily basis.
I agree it will be interesting.
I wouldn't get your hopes up. "The new evidence" is hardly that; just anything the white house can find to throw into the mix.
The strategy here is to overwhelm the channel with as much confusing and condradictory "information" as possible, in the hopes that most people will just write it off as a partisan slap fight. Talk of indictments for perjury are, I would guess, just another vigorous shake of the snow globe.
However, Clarke's public demand to declassify all the testimony is a very smart move. (By the way Naples, why would a guy who presumably knows if he lied make this call? Crazy? Bluffing? Against the white house that clearly would love to see him put down like a rabid dog?)
So now he has made it harder for the white house to release redacted bits and pieces to bolster their case, which they no doubt would prefer to do. He also strengthens the perception that he has nothing to hide, and is in fact telling the truth.
I hope the Dems step up their call for more widespread declassifications, since the Bush white house has really hurt their usual "you can't know anything, national security" argument by the release of all this "get Clarke" material.
Originally posted by addabox
I wouldn't get your hopes up. "The new evidence" is hardly that; just anything the white house can find to throw into the mix.
The strategy here is to overwhelm the channel with as much confusing and condradictory "information" as possible, in the hopes that most people will just write it off as a partisan slap fight. Talk of indictments for perjury are, I would guess, just another vigorous shake of the snow globe.
However, Clarke's public demand to declassify all the testimony is a very smart move. (By the way Naples, why would a guy who presumably knows if he lied make this call? Crazy? Bluffing? Against the white house that clearly would love to see him put down like a rabid dog?)
So now he has made it harder for the white house to release redacted bits and pieces to bolster their case, which they no doubt would prefer to do. He also strengthens the perception that he has nothing to hide, and is in fact telling the truth.
I hope the Dems step up their call for more widespread declassifications, since the Bush white house has really hurt their usual "you can't know anything, national security" argument by the release of all this "get Clarke" material.
You may be right, but all I see is his own words contradicting themselves, over and over. The problem is he looks less believable by the day.
As far as him calling for declassification, it is the safest thing he can say. Think about it.
by the way . . . more people step forward . . . why are you refusing to see it?!?!
Originally posted by pfflam
I can't wait . . . hahaha
by the way . . . more people step forward . . . why are you refusing to see it?!?!
I see it, I just don't see anyone with NO motive to speak out. I see some arguably disgruntled people that just HAPPEN to be selling books. Of course there are other reasons. I may be wrong but that is the way I see it.
Originally posted by giant
Yeah, he knew it.
The only info we did not have *full* access to (although we certainly had more than enough) were the reports from INC, INA, and we knew they weren't credible. However, we did have the actual reports, we just didn't have the transcripts of CIA interviews, if they existed:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines
All of the credible info was gathered from the UN inspection processes and other open sources.
As just explained, we had more than enough access to that classified information to know it was not credible, and this was further enforced when it was put into the larger picture painted by the actual verified information that was publicly available.
In short, yes we did have access to the intel, as we almost always do. If you know how to look for information and use the resources at you local major library, then you can find out everything you need to.
Just to give an example of how much info was out there, visit ccr:
http://cooperativeresearch.org/wot/iraq/iraqwmd.html
And this outline hasn't even been updated for a year. Click on any of the other outlines to see that there was simply a TON of information to work with.
Welcome to the information age. There's a lot more where that came from.
giant, I don't want to get in it with you over this, so I will say it in this way:
I do agree there is a ton of information available, but what I don't agree with is that you have it all or can get to it all. There are certain things that a government like SH's, there are/were secrets that only a handful of people knew and all but impossible to expose with public information.
There are certain assets that this government and others can bring to bear that you have no access to and are kept secret for security reasons. I contend that these bits of information are very critical to the argument.
Originally posted by NaplesX
giant, I don't want to get in it with you over this, so I will say it in this way:
I do agree there is a ton of information available, but what I don't agree with is that you have it all or can get to it all. There are certain things that a government like SH's, there are/were secrets that only a handful of people knew and all but impossible to expose with public information.
There are certain assets that this government and others can bring to bear that you have no access to and are kept secret for security reasons. I contend that these bits of information are very critical to the argument.
This 'information' that you hold in blind confidence that they had but cannot show due to its 'secret nature' was shown to the head of a number of large nations . . . . most of whom refused to believe that it was solid information or that it justified the aggressive invasion of another country
kind of like when the nations of Europe believed that Germany's excuse that it was 'liberating' the German's of the Sudatenland was merely an excuse for an aggressive invasion of another country. both were excuses . . . and many people and other countries knew it!
Originally posted by NaplesX
It sure is because he may be indicted for lying under oath. As a matter of fact he may anyway.
Uh... where'd you get that from??
Which oath, IYHO, would he be indicted for lying under? The latest one, or the one two years ago?
What basis do you have for this (I'm almost afraid to ask since no one has brought a shred of proof, AFAICT, but rather just sling mud at him).
From SDW:
3. Protecting the ideals of the nation? It seems from your post you don't even know what they are. The nation was founded by people who generally believed in God and were quite religious. The Constitution referenced the establishment of religion only so that Congress could not establish a state religion. It wasn't meant to prevent people from expressing their faith. It wasn't meant to remove all religion from all public life. What other ideals do you speak of? The country's ideals are under attack alright....they're under attack from the LEFT. The complete cleansing of religion from public life, the destruction of international borders so we can be a part of "global community", revisionist interpretations of the Constitution, "blame America first," peace at any cost, a bloated government which taxes its citizens at confiscatory rates, ineffective social programs that destroy work incentive, hatred of the military,......THESE are the problems.
No.
Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
We are not a christian nation.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I do agree there is a ton of information available, but what I don't agree with is that you have it all or can get to it all. There are certain things that a government like SH's, there are/were secrets that only a handful of people knew and all but impossible to expose with public information.
There are certain assets that this government and others can bring to bear that you have no access to and are kept secret for security reasons. I contend that these bits of information are very critical to the argument.
Naples, listen carefully. This is a situation where it doesn't matter whether you agree or not. Fact: it's estimated that 90-95% of intel is from open sources. Fact: OSP was created to examine open sources and Iraqi defectors. Fact: Any claim that was made by the defectors was also put into open channels in order to build a case for war. Fact: When looking at the big picture, it was clear there were not large stocks of WMD. Fact: the only thing pointing to an armed Iraq was speculation coupled with unbelievable stories from horrible sources.
I understand you've watched films. I understand that maybe you even read a spy novel or two. But in the real world intelligence is not something done in the shadows. What little information you might not have can be figured out so long as you look at it logically and always try to prove your conclusions wrong.
And, of course, the more you know about how intel agencies work and understand sound intel practices, the better you are at understanding what is going on.
So you can go on believing in all of this mystery information that only a few people in the government have, but if you actually bothered to look at what it is as it's declassified or leaked, you realize that 99.9% of the time (literally) it is not sexy or even new or earth-shattering. And you can look. There are archives online. You can go to your local government depository library (like the one I work at).
The fact is that it has been estimated that even during the cold war something like 80-85% of intel was from open sources. Of course, back then people and sources were still very disconnected. These days I can go look up a Polish newspaper and have today's news translated in 30 seconds. I can use Interlibrary Loan to get conference papers from a conference in Japan or sweden or India (hell, you can find a zillion conference papers from US intel conferences just by looking online). In fact, you can use ILL to get basically anything that exists anywhere. That is a recent development.
Intelligence is far more about analysis than collection. The hard parts are making it easier to consume and being able to see the bigger picture. That's exactly what projects like CCR and individuals like Glen Rangwala aim to do. Other sources, like fas, cryptome, global security, wikipedia and the american presidency act as archives. And those are miniscule compared to what's in a University Library and Government Depository.
But all that is useless without background knowledge, which requires getting an education and reading as much as possible about that particular subject.
So, to say it again, it doesn't matter whether or not you agree. This is just the way it is. It's as complex as anything out there, so trying to make it a straight black and white issue is insane.
In the end, however, we are able to get a pretty clear picture of what is going on in the world. Sure you can't know everything that's going on everywhere in the world unless you are a large organization with a few thousand people, but in terms of overall trends and specific well-documented cases (like Iraq) we have a ton of info. In almost every other case you could get a hold of the information if you needed it and had a librarian help you locate the sources.
In fact, the only thing standing in the way is the same kind of bias that leads people to think Clarke is saying anything new.
Originally posted by rageous
you say X + giant says Y = you lose.
wwhne Naples is the X-sayer then you can count on it
Originally posted by BR
No.
Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
We are not a christian nation.
Yes we are, for all practical purposes. But that's besides the point, because my point was that the Constitution was not intended to remove all religion from public life. Quite the opposite.....the framers of the document intended to preserve religious freedom, which includes the expression of beliefs. As for being Christian, many of our laws are indeed based on Christian principles. This cannot be ignored. My point is simply that the intent of "Congress shall make no law respecting the etsbalishment of relgion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" has been twisted.
Do you realize that the children I teach often think that the word "God" is not allowed to be said in school? That's how bad things have gotten. The ONLY intent of the separation clause is to prevent the US Government from establishing an official state religion. It doesn't say that the government or government employees cannot display religous symbols. It doesn't say employees of schools cannot lead prayer. These are interpretations....and liberal ones at that.
What's the point of bad-mouthing public servants without basis (slinging mud if you prefer), if you have no reason to believe your words will ever be heard by the general public? The only thing that makes sense is that there is a basis for it, but not very many people have the balls to spell it out -- even in private testimony.
What do you want to bet the GOP will back off the demand to "open the files" now? Because even if they take Clarke down, they'll go down with him if the general public is finally slapped in the face with what this administration is all about....
Originally posted by pfflam
wwhne Naples is the X-sayer then you can count on it
I see. So under no circumstances, in your opinion, has Naples ever been nor will he ever be "right"?
Well that sure lays a solid foundation for some level headed debates in the future.
Originally posted by giant
Naples, listen carefully. This is a situation where it doesn't matter whether you agree or not. Fact: it's estimated that 90-95% of intel is from open sources. Fact: OSP was created to examine open sources and Iraqi defectors. Fact: Any claim that was made by the defectors was also put into open channels in order to build a case for war. Fact: When looking at the big picture, it was clear there were not large stocks of WMD. Fact: the only thing pointing to an armed Iraq was speculation coupled with unbelievable stories from horrible sources.
I understand you've watched films. I understand that maybe you even read a spy novel or two. But in the real world intelligence is not something done in the shadows. What little information you might not have can be figured out so long as you look at it logically and always try to prove your conclusions wrong.
And, of course, the more you know about how intel agencies work and understand sound intel practices, the better you are at understanding what is going on.
So you can go on believing in all of this mystery information that only a few people in the government have, but if you actually bothered to look at what it is as it's declassified or leaked, you realize that 99.9% of the time (literally) it is not sexy or even new or earth-shattering. And you can look. There are archives online. You can go to your local government depository library (like the one I work at).
The fact is that it has been estimated that even during the cold war something like 80-85% of intel was from open sources. Of course, back then people and sources were still very disconnected. These days I can go look up a Polish newspaper and have today's news translated in 30 seconds. I can use Interlibrary Loan to get conference papers from a conference in Japan or sweden or India (hell, you can find a zillion conference papers from US intel conferences just by looking online). In fact, you can use ILL to get basically anything that exists anywhere. That is a recent development.
Intelligence is far more about analysis than collection. The hard parts are making it easier to consume and being able to see the bigger picture. That's exactly what projects like CCR and individuals like Glen Rangwala aim to do. Other sources, like fas, cryptome, global security, wikipedia and the american presidency act as archives.
And those are miniscule compared to what's in a University Library and Government Depository.
So, to say it again, it doesn't matter whether or not you agree. This is just the way it is. It's as complex as anything out there, so trying to make it a straight black and white issue is insane.
In the end, however, we are able to get a pretty clear picture of what is going on in the world.
In fact, the only thing standing in the way is the same kind of bias that leads people to think Clarke is saying anything new.
Thanks for that info. I will look into it.
I will ask that you please not talk down to me though, I don't think that you strengthen you argument or appear any smarter in any way by doing so. I think that it is counterproductive to those ends.
Have a good evening.
Originally posted by Moogs
I love it. I've held back any comments since the GOP started bashing this guy and requesting his previous testimony be declassified. And now, not only is Clarke not dodging the issue, he is encouraging the powers that be to declassify all six hours of that testimony (and more apparently).
He's played them at their own game. I believe now that he knew from the start that this would be their reaction, and that he actually wants them to react this way. I hope they declassify and it makes them look even worse than they do now. Jackasses.
Quote:
From the NYT:
"I would welcome it being declassified, but not just a little line here or there," Mr. Clarke said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press." "Let's declassify all six hours of my testimony
This is going to get interesting real quick.
I'm extremely interested in seeing this as well. He also said they should declassify rice's testimony and a bunch of correspondence.
He's probably the first person to stand up to them to this degree.
also, anybody note that Hammas just came out and said that Bush is "the" enemy . . . and more specifically:
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) -- The new Hamas leader in Gaza on Sunday called President Bush an enemy of Islam and said that "God declared war" against the United States
now I haven't found any refference to Iraq in any of the articles that I have seen on this but it seems to be part of the background of this
It seems that the dominoes are not falling towards democracy in people's opinions in the Middle-East . . . hmmm? Whoodda figured?!?!
more:
"We knew that Bush is the enemy of God, the enemy of Islam and Muslims," Rantisi told the crowd. "America declared war against God. Sharon declared war against God and God declared war against America, Bush and Sharon."
"The war of God continues against them and I can see the victory coming up from the land of Palestine by the hand of Hamas," he said.
also, possibly related: Pakistan seems to have caved into pressure form local Islamist groups who called for an end to the siege against the Islamic fighters
ARTICLE
Now, why would Pakistan do that?
Is it possible that there is a goundswell of support for Islamists . . . possibly due to the fact that Bush's explaination for our invasion of an Islamic country does not fly?
is it possible tht our actions are galvanizing Islamic people towards sympathy with Islamists?
just as many of us predicted before the catastro . . . I mean 'war'?