Posts made by DarthMaximus

Yanny, some instance could be:

1)  if you capture a high level terrorist and don’t want other terrorists to know.

Ex.  A top Lt. of UBL, if they don’t know you have him you may be able to foil more plans, b/c if they knew they obviously would change their plans.

2)  You don’t want terrorists to know where the prisons are, otherwise they could come attack and try to free people

3)  Maybe the host country does not wish to have its alliance with the US known

Ex.  Say there was a US prison in Germany, they may not wish to be a public target of the terroists, but have obviously helped in rounding up people locally.

I’m sure there are a few others that don’t necessarily lead to “abuse” or “torture” but I think you can see have so called “secret” prison would be needed for high level captures.

Imagine if we ever caught UBL alive.  There aren’t too many countries that would want to have it known publically that they are holding him.

I’m not defending these particular places, I haven’t read up on it enough, but I just wanted to point out a few reasons why not all prisons would be revealed publically.

12. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good
guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play
English characters. Watching Andie MacDowell attempt English dialogue in
“Four Weddings and a Funeral” was an experience akin to having one’s ears
removed with a cheese grater.

Well, thats good news for Gweneth Paltrow.

What???…she’s an American???  Oh, nevermind.

I think all these people (reporters) should be indicted and arrested for leaking CIA information.

Chengora,

And I stand by my assertion about pro-war individuals not treating the critic’s arguments fairly.

Because they are cherry picking.
As I posted above, Dems believed the same thing all the way back to 98.

Why the sudden change?

Because Bush is in office and the anti war kooks have hi-jacked the Dem party.
Heck, Cindy Shehan has even called out Hillary. Not smart.

Now, you’re correct, there were additional reasons for Bush’s decision to go to war. But that wasn’t the one that was touted at the UN or as the main reason in the run-up to the war. And it is insufficient in my mind to switch between reasoning that appears suited for the moment, especially when what you are doing is waging a war. Is this a war to remove Saddam? Is it because he has weapons of mass destruction? Is it to improve the lives of the Iraqi people? These all imply fundamentally different strategic objectives, economically, politically, and militarily, and to switch between them pell mell creates enormous difficulties in selling an action to international actors (look at Powell), as well as those closer to home.

Selling it, is not an issue.
If there are 10 reasons and 1000 people believe Reason 1 is the most important and you believe reason 7 is, it doesn’t diminsh anything.

Al Capone was arrested for Taxes, not for all teh killing he did. It doesn’t make his arrest any less.

Getting Saddam for UN violations doesn’t diminsh the failure to find an armed nuke pointed at the US.

That is why you list multiple reasons. Happens all teh time in law enforcement.

Heck we can get so and so for murder but we can get him on….

what gives the US the right to decide when something is a security risk, endanger the international community, etc., etc.?

The US has every right to defend itself as it sees fit. As does any other country. And in the US’s case it take congressional approval to “declare war” and the Pres got a blank check from Congress post 9-11.

As I’ve said before, if Democrats have issues they should take it up with their Senators who voted for it. Don’t be mad at Bush when he uses the authority that they gave him.

But give me a good reason for any non-American to think that.

Cause if you don’t we’ll invade!!! Muhuahahhahahaha! :D

That’s a joke.

Exerpts from the Silberman Report: (March 2005)

_Below are excerpts from the Report to the President by The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction – also known as the Silberman-Robb Report – which make it clear that allegations that intelligence was warped or manipulated are false. Below are some specific findings from the report which came out in March 2005:

(i) “Many observers of the Intelligence Community have expressed concern that Intelligence Community judgments concerning Iraq’s purported WMD programs may have been warped by inappropriate political pressure… The Commission has found no evidence of ‘politicization’ of the Intelligence Community’s assessments concerning Iraq’s reported WMD programs. No analytical judgments were changed in response to political pressure to reach a particular conclusion.” – Intelligence Capabilities Commission Report, pages 187-188.

(ii) “We looked very closely at that question [Administration pressuring intelligence analysts]. Every member of the commission was sensitive to the number of questions that have been raised with respect to the, what we’ll call politicization, or however you want to describe it. And we examined every single instance that had been referred to, in print or otherwise, to see if there was any occasion where a member of the administration or anyone else had asked an analyst or anybody else associated with the intelligence community to change a position that they were taking or whether they felt there was any undo influence, and we found absolutely no instance.” – Charles S. Robb, Co-Chairman, The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, March 31 press conference.

(iii) “The Intelligence Community’s Iraq assessments were … riddled with errors. Contrary to what some defenders of the Intelligence Community have since asserted, these errors were not the result of a few harried months in 2002. Most of the fundamental errors were made and communicated to policymakers well before the now-infamous NIE of October 2002, and were not corrected in the months between the NIE and the start of the war. They were not isolated or random failings. Iraq had been an intelligence challenge at the forefront of U.S. attention for over a decade. It was a known adversary that had already fought one war with the United States and seemed increasingly likely to fight another. But, after ten years of effort, the Intelligence Community still had no good intelligence on the status of Iraq’s weapons programs.” – Intelligence Capabilities Commission Report Overview, page 9.

(iv) “Post-war investigations concluded that Curveball’s [the code-name of an Iraqisource] was not influenced by, controlled by, or connected to, the INC [Iraqi National Congress]. In fact, over all, CIA’s post-war investigations revealed that INC-related sources had a minimal impact on pre-war assessments.” – Intelligence Capabilities Commission Report Overview, page 108.

(v) “The NIE simply didn’t communicate how weak the underlying intelligence was. This was, moreover, a problem that was not limited to the NIE. Our review found that after the publication of the October 2002 NIE but before Secretary of State Colin Powell’s February 2003 address to the United Nations, intelligence officials within the CIA failed to convey to policymakers new information casting serious doubt on the reliability of a human intelligence source known as ‘Curveball.’ This occurred despite the pivotal role Curveball’s information played in the Intelligence Community’s assessment of Iraq’s biological weapons programs, and in spite of Secretary Powell’s efforts to strip every dubious piece of information out of his proposed speech. In this instance, once again, the Intelligence Community failed to give policymakers a full understanding of the frailties of the intelligence on which they were relying.” – Intelligence Capabilities Commission Report Overview, pages 10-11._

Download Report here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/wmd/

This is why this is posturing.

I just wanted to post this: These are all Dems, and I bolded those from the 90’s before Bush was ever in office. Were all of these people lying as well. Well, some of them are from the Clinton admin…

**October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry – all Democrats

“We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”**

**Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”**

John Kerry, January 23rd, 2003

“Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he’s miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.”

**Sandy Berger February 18th, 1998

“He’'ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983.”**

**Madeleine Albright, February 1st, 1998

“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”**

Senator Carl Levin September 19th, 2002

“We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”

**Nancy Pelosi December 16th, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”**

Senator Carl Levin September 19th, 2002

“We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”

Al Gore September 23rd, 2002

“We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”

Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10th of 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”

John Kerry October 9th, 2002

“I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”

Ted Kennedy September 27th, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”

**Madeleine Albright November 10th, 1999

“Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”**

Robert Byrd October 3rd, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.”

Jay Rockefeller October 10th, 2002

“There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”

Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”

Senator Bob Graham December 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”

Chengora,

But I find it equally disaterous that the UN was so willing to go along with “no invasion” when the Oil-for-Food program was such a good scam for them.

People can question Bush’s motives for war all you want.

But likewise I will question the motives of those who sit in powerful seats in the UN who didn’t.

That implies a problem on the part of the pro-war individuals, in that they cannot treat the critic’s arguments fairly.

No they fail to realize there was MORE THAN one reason for the war.

Finally, don’t forget that this was fundamentally a war of choice. Bush is dead wrong when he calls the war a pre-emptive one. Outside of the debunked British report, there really wasn’t evidence that Iraq had an imminent capability. Rather, this was preventive war, which runs against many traditions of appropriate military engagement (just war, for example), and other countries certainly picked up on that.

Bush always said “we can’t wait until Saddam has these capabilities”. He never said he had nukes. He said we can’t wait until he gets them. Too many people gloss over this.

Why is it so hard to think he wanted nukes. Why does Iran or NK want them. Deterence. We must prevent regimes like this from getting them.

I think (a nuclear) Saddam probably posed more of a threat to Israel, like Iran. For me that is enough of a justification. Israel is our friend and we should do whatever it takes to help them (assuming they want our help).

Why did most of them vote for the war? A) The intelligence presented to them by the President showed a radically different situation than reality B) The intelligence presented to their constituents presented an even more radically different situation from reality. The President used the bully pulpit to get what he wanted.

Um, yes. Information by the CIA and other spy organizations. I wasn’t aware Dubya was a spy and actually aquired the information himself then presented it to the Senate.

I’m for changes in the CIA, btw.

This is beyond a normal conspiracy theory. It’s Congressional investigation territory

No, it is based on some conspiracy theory that Bush doctored info on the lead up to war. Or that this Joe Wilson guy is some sort of hero. The guy is a liar sent to Afr by his wife to try and discredit the Pres.
His lies are document by many Senators including Dems. His testimony is full of holes. He could not disprove the British Intel. That Saddam sought info from Niger. There may have been no sale of nuke material, but there was an inquiry by the Saddam regime.

That is why there is no Indictement for “outting a CIA Agent”, or why the Prosecutor said this has nothing to do witht he lead up to war.

Libby was indicted for lying during the process.

This crushed the Dems, thus lead directly to their posturing yesterday.

There was already an investigation going on, they pulled this move for show.

They got some deal that a Bi-Partisen committee will report back before the close of the year (or this session). Whoopeee!

Why you need a closed door for that…

Just for show.

EDIT:

It wasn’t just the Democrats. The Dems couldn’t pass this motion alone.

Actually it was. According to the AP, there is no vote when a member asks for a secret session.

Harry Reid invoke rule 21 (or something) and the room was immediately cleared. no vote.

The session came to order and about 2 hrs later that deal was reached.

_When Reid made his move at mid-afternoon, the public was ordered out of the chamber, the lights were dimmed, the TV cameras were turned off and the doors were closed.

Under Senate rules, no vote is required when a member demands a secret session._

Furthermore, the investigation was already happening and it was just about this phase 2 report or something.

Roberts’ committee produced a 511-page report in 2004 on flaws in an Iraq intelligence estimate assembled by the country’s top analysts in October 2002, and he promised a second phase would look at issues that couldn’t be finished in the first year of work.

It was all for show (due to lack of indictments and failing Dem platform).
The report was out in 2004, and there is supposed to be a follow-up, phase 2.

Which they will now report on Nov. 14 (I guess), I think that was the “deal” that was reached.

Why this needed a secret session… shrugs

Well, let’s say, that’s where the misleading comes in.

That is not misleading, that is bad intel. There is no intent.

I’m all for fixing the CIA, which I think is starting to be done, but the suggestion of delibrately lying or misleading is too far out there.

What would be the point of that?

Everyone knows you can’t keep a secret in Wash, what would Bush gain by trying to fabricate a war?

Okay, assume no lying or misleading for a second. That means Bush’s gets reelcted in a close election (3% which was no gimmie leading up to it) and approval now is at 40% for a complete legit war.

Now assume he faked it.

How does having a 40% approval help? If a legit war pres is at 40% how low would a fake war pres be? How does being at war help someone? It certainly hasn’t help Bush (and that assumes he thought he was doing the right thing)

Plus if you are going to fake it, why not just plant a couple of make shift dirty bombs in Baghdad?

Why fake some baloney build up? Just fake some elementary dirty bombs (in the months after the war) and get your approval up to 90%. Have your troops kill Saddam in his rat hole (eliminate witness). Forge some old Saddam documents from the 90’s saying he aquired stuff to make dirty bombs and planning to hit Israel and give to people to hit US.
I mean people made documents that foold Dan Rather. I think the US could forge some really great stuff.

I mean go all the way with it.

It just doesn’t make sense to fake such a stupid part. Plus why would all these people put their butts on the line so late in the careers (Rummy Cheney, not to mention the entire Bush family name - good bye Jeb’s future, any of their children, the Bush 41, etc.), as well as Colin Powell. Why the heck would he go along with knowingly fake stuff?

It makes no sense. These aren’t stupid people.

We don’t have a problem with saddam being removed, we have a problem with the way it was done. The only superpower left decided not play by any rules anymore. That is scaring the world.

But why was the UN so unwilling to back up its resolutions? Oil-for-Food perhaps.
I think if we had full UN support, Iran, NK and Syria would have all caved by now. Because then what the UN says it means. Now it appears as if we play good cop bad cop, with the UN being the good cop and of course the US being the bad cop. Might not be so bad that way, but I think the UN lost a chance to really step up and show some authority. I’m actually glad the UN didn’t support the war, but that is another thread.

About the scaring the world, I guess I can see that, but it shouldn’t.

You shouldn’t get worried until we invade Canada or Mex. As it is, it seems like Mexico is invading the US.

And with your gov’t thinking in black-or-white terms only, we either have to sneak up your butt or “face the consequences” … of the only superpower which doesn’t play by the rules anymore. Do you like to be blackmailed?

I think that may be a bit harsh, but it goes both ways, as Dubya owes Blair bigtime. You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours. Welcome to the world of diplomacy.

Why do i have to pick a fight at all? Why is that necessary?

Fight was a bad choice of words.

No, we want you to play by the rules. If you go anywhere just because you think it is “good” doesn’t help.

But we are always right. :D

I just don’t know where the misleading/lying come in.

These were all laid out (among others):

Saddam was in violation of UN resolutions.
Saddam had shot at US planes.
Attempted assaination of former US Pres.
Supported suicide bombers (Hamas) in Israel
WMD

Now, I’ll grant you our intel was not great on the WMD but I think it is extremely nieve to think Saddam didn’t want nukes. Now there have been some minor weapons found, but I’m sure they won’t satisfy those opposed to war.

I just really don’t understand why people have a problem with Saddam being removed.

I have heard no one overtly defend him or his past actions, yet that is how it comes across.

I do see people being more mad that the US organized its own “coalition of the willing” and actually removed him.

Fine, we don’t play nice with the rest of the world. I get it. We are an Economic power, we are a military power, heck were the only superpower left and that leaves many countries on edge. I see that.

But pick a better fight, then us going into Iraq. I mean Saddam was evil. And all these arguments against what we did, come across as you defending Saddam. That is not a side I’d want to be on.

Here is an oppurtunity to help not only Iraq and Afghan, but the whole region and all we get is a daily death count and how evil we are.

How is this supposed to encourage the US to make more substancial efforts (troops) to Sudan or some other grief stricken area, when all we get is grief and a death count.

EDIT:

You’re right Falk, that was a flame.

Sorry Mary.

It is posturing.

If it has been used so infrequently it just shows how desperate the Dems are.

There was no lying or misleading.

Why the heck did most of them vote for the war. They all had the same intel. If you are criticizing the CIA methods or how it was run in the 90’s, that is one thing, but to suggest info was made up by the Pres or that he delibrately lied, well that is way off in kookville or MoveOn Land.

Not everything is a conspiracy theory.

@Yanny:

You whine in front of TV cameras.

I don’t get it.

Oh, do you mean Frist? Yeah that was over doing it a bit.

I guess the Dems broke protocol with this move shrugs

It is just a bunch of posterioring.

The Dems are mad that Fitzgerald didn’t indict Rove and speccifically said in his press conference that this has no bearing on the war.

Plame WASN’T outted and they Indicted Libby for something else.

Similar to what happen to Martha Stewart. She wasn’t busted for insider trading but for lying during the investigation or something.

Nope, just a bunch of whining.

Oh yeah, I forgot this,

There is this really great program on the History Channel, or maybe it was the some sister network to the History Channel (it was on digital cable), but it was a 2 hr show detailing 9-11 and went into a lot of the backstory right up to the events.

I’ve only seen parts of it, but it was really good, and it might provide some of the details you are looking for.

It aired around 9-11 this year and I’m sure gets a fair amount of replay (if you know someone with digital cable), so you might want to keep your eye out for that.

Good pick IMO.

Although I like Janice Rodgers Brown the best.

EDIT:

LOL!!!

At the retire after the Simpson Trial. Great choice! I’ll be voting for that due to its funniness.

Lol!

There a million reasons why a plane may deviate from its course.

I didn’t check the links nor do I care to.

Just a question, did you read the 9-11 Report? I believe it has info on all the flights.

Anyway, from what I quickly skimmed, ftrs were already scramble since the WTC had already been hit twice, and I think this flight was lost from radar. So perhaps the change in course had to do with flying lower to hide from the radar so they couldn’t be shot down.

And how did they know where the best military targets are in the Pentagon?

Perhaps the Pentagon wasn’t the initial target. Perhaps the turn was made to take a shot at the WH or Capital. But settle for the Pentegon in haste cause it is easily distiguishable from the air, and felt they wouldn’t have made it to the WH or Captial or SC (due to passengers or ftrs).

Perhaps they felt that the “under construction” part would cause more damage. Afterall, if they are working on it, perhaps the walls aren’t going to be as sturdy.

You have to remember anything of any importance is on the inner rings of the Pentagon or under ground. You want penetration, thus going for the weakest point, which could very well be where they hit, which is why you’d want to hit the “under construction” part.

All the conspiracy theories are bunk. Their is no hidden agenda or anything really secret to it at all. The terrorist had a well executed plan, knew our weaknesses in security (box cutters), and exploited them.

Just because Rush and Sean say it, it isn’t neccessarily true.

Lol!

But Yanny, Rush is documented to be right 98.6% of the time. :wink:

Again, those numbers are fine an dandy but don’t mean a thing.

Why?

1. Bush isn’t running and can’t run.
2. Yes Rep Congress numbers are bad, but the Dems #'s in Congress are WORSE.
3. Polls only take a brief snapshot of an instant in time, and the only instant that matters is the first Tues in Nov.

I’m trying not to argue for Bush here, I’m just saying NOBODY gets elected by being negative and saying “look at how bad the other guy is”, you HAVE TO OFFER SOMETHING (read some sort of agenda) as well. Go back to Clinton in 92, he was VERY UPBEAT and POSITIVE and ran on something.

If the Dems can’t figure out a coherent strategy to defend the US, they will never win another Pres election. It won’t matter if the Reps approval is at 20%, saying stuff like the UN is the answer or the US causes more problems that it solves won’t get you elected no matter what.

Polls won’t help no matter how bad they may show Bush or Reps. People don’t go into a voting booth and vote on a poll, they vote in this order:
(in post 9/11 world)
1. Defense of country
2. Their pocketbook/Economy - do they have a job
3. Tax cuts (although this could go with #2)

Then comes stuff like:
Boarder, Judges, and everything else…

#1 and #2 are NEVER going to change.

I’m trying to help, the Dems need coherent policies, not name calling or some other nonsense.

Other than Bill in 92, 96 they have lost EVERY other Major Election:
94 - Dems lost
96 - Clinton re-elected
98 - Dems lost
00 - Dems lost
02 - Dems lost
04 - Dems lost

Notice a trend. This is no fluke and until the Dems realize why this is happening they will never be able to stop it.

I’d even be willing to argue that the current make up of the Dem party makes it impossible to stop.

To keep it simple:

The Republicans will gain ground (or hold steady in 06) and will win again in 08.

Why, because the Dems are far too fractured and believe in nothing.

The far far far left (who vote in primaries) are already pushing for anti-war this or that. Yet no anti-war candidate will EVER win a general election.

Could a Dem candidate push for stronger boarder control? No, way in heck.
(not that a Rep would either)

Dems Solution for the Economy? (which btw just had another good quarter of growth) Higher taxes.
sorry, that ain’t gonna do it.

Reps are a party of “the rich” (I disagree with that but…). Fine, what is the Dem solution? A welfare State like New Orleans, which they controlled for 60 years. We all saw what a disaster that city was.

You can’t demonize people and expect to win.

Sure you want to hit hard, but you need solutions to the problems to follow up. And the Dems have none.

I seriously would like to know what the Dems foreign policy is?

I get the part about Bush is evil blah blah blah, but that is irrelevant now. We are in Iraq and in Afghan, pushing Iran, Syr, and NK, plus their is China and Russia and the EU.

Please someone state a prominant Democrats (who could seriously get the nomination) foreign policy with some detail.

I’m being completely serious, I follow politcs and I have no idea what it is.
Just imagine what a casual voter thinks.
That is why they lose and will continue to do so.

I guess I really didn’t keep it simple. :D

I just got it last night, so if I’m not around a lot, it might be a good bet I got caught in a CIV timewarp. :D

So far it looked pretty sweet, and the music kicks butt!