Scooter Libby found guilty.

Yep. There's nothing new about you at all.

LIFE Magazine: Americans Are Losing the Victory in Europe

January 7, 1946

We are in a cabin deep down below decks on a Navy ship jam-packed with troops that’s pitching and creaking its way across the Atlantic in a winter gale. There is a man in every bunk. There’s a man wedged into every corner. There’s a man in every chair. The air is dense with cigarette smoke and with the staleness of packed troops and sour wool.

“Don’t think I’m sticking up for the Germans,” puts in the lanky young captain in the upper berth, “but…”

“To hell with the Germans,” says the broad-shouldered dark lieutenant. “It’s what our boys have been doing that worries me.”

The lieutenant has been talking about the traffic in Army property, the leaking of gasoline into the black market in France and Belgium even while the fighting was going on, the way the Army kicks the civilians around, the looting.

“Lust, liquor and loot are the soldier’s pay,” interrupts a red-faced major.

The lieutenant comes out with his conclusion: “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” You hear these two phrases again and again in about every bull session on the shop. “Two wrongs don’t make a right” and “Don’t think I’m sticking up for the Germans, but….”

The troops returning home are worried. “We’ve lost the peace,” men tell you. “We can’t make it stick.”

A tour of the beaten-up cities of Europe six months after victory is a mighty sobering experience for anyone. Europeans. Friend and foe alike, look you accusingly in the face and tell you how bitterly they are disappointed in you as an American. They cite the evolution of the word “liberation.” Before the Normandy landings it meant to be freed from the tyranny of the Nazis. Now it stands in the minds of the civilians for one thing, looting.

You try to explain to these Europeans that they expected too much. They answer that they had a right to, that after the last war America was the hope of the world. They talk about the Hoover relief, the work of the Quakers, the speeches of Woodrow Wilson. They don’t blame us for the fading of that hope. But they blame us now.

Never has American prestige in Europe been lower. People never tire of telling you of the ignorance and rowdy-ism of American troops, of out misunderstanding of European conditions. They say that the theft and sale of Army supplies by our troops is the basis of their black market. They blame us for the corruption and disorganization of UNRRA. They blame us for the fumbling timidity of our negotiations with the Soviet Union. They tell us that our mechanical de-nazification policy in Germany is producing results opposite to those we planned. “Have you no statesmen in America?” they ask.


The Skeptical French Press

Yet whenever we show a trace of positive leadership I found Europeans quite willing to follow our lead. The evening before Robert Jackson’s opening of the case for the prosecution in the Nurnberg trial, I talked to some correspondents from the French newspapers. They were polite but skeptical. They were willing enough to take part in a highly publicized act of vengeance against the enemy, but when you talked about the usefulness of writing a prohibition of aggressive war into the law of nations they laughed in your face. The night after Jackson’s nobly delivered and nobly worded speech I saw then all again. They were very much impressed. Their manner had even changed toward me personally as an American. Their sudden enthusiasm seemed to me typical of the almost neurotic craving for leadership of the European people struggling wearily for existence in the wintry ruins of their world.

The ruin this war has left in Europe can hardly be exaggerated. I can remember the years after the last war. Then, as soon as you got away from the military, all the little strands and pulleys that form the fabric of a society were still knitted together. Farmers took their crops to market. Money was a valid medium of exchange. Now the entire fabric of a million little routines has broken down. No on can think beyond food for today. Money is worthless. Cigarettes are used as a kind of lunatic travesty on a currency. If a man goes out to work he shops around to find the business that serves the best hot meal. The final pay-off is the situation reported from the Ruhr where the miners are fed at the pits so that they will not be able to take the food home to their families.

“Well, the Germans are to blame. Let them pay for it. It’s their fault,” you say. The trouble is that starving the Germans and throwing them out of their homes is only producing more areas of famine and collapse.

One section of the population of Europe looked to us for salvation and another looked to the Soviet Union. Wherever the people have endured either the American armies or the Russian armies both hopes have been bitterly disappointed. The British have won a slightly better reputation. The state of mind in Vienna is interesting because there the part of the population that was not actively Nazi was about equally divided. The wealthier classes looked to America, the workers to the Soviet Union.

The Russians came first. The Viennese tell you of the savagery of the Russian armies. They came like the ancient Mongol hordes out of the steppes, with the flimsiest supply. The people in the working-class districts had felt that when the Russians came that they at least would be spared. But not at all. In the working-class districts the tropes were allowed to rape and murder and loot at will. When victims complained, the Russians answered, “You are too well off to be workers. You are bourgeoisie.”

When Americans looted they took cameras and valuables but when the Russians looted they took everything. And they raped and killed. From the eastern frontiers a tide of refugees is seeping across Europe bringing a nightmare tale of helpless populations trampled underfoot. When the British and American came the Viennese felt that at last they were in the hands of civilized people. But instead of coming in with a bold plan of relief and reconstruction we came in full of evasions and apologies.

U.S. Administration a Poor Third

We know now the tragic results of the ineptitudes of the Peace of Versailles. The European system it set up was Utopia compared to the present tangle of snarling misery. The Russians at least are carrying out a logical plan for extending their system of control at whatever cost. The British show signs of recovering their good sense and their innate human decency. All we have brought to Europe so far is confusion backed up by a drumhead regime of military courts. We have swept away Hitlerism, but a great many Europeans feel that the cure has been worse than the disease.

The taste of victory had gone sour in the mouth of every thoughtful American I met. Thoughtful men can’t help remembering that this is a period in history when every political crime and every frivolous mistake in statesmanship has been paid for by the death of innocent people. The Germans built the Stalags; the Nazis are behind barbed wire now, but who will be next? Whenever you sit eating a good meal in the midst of a starving city in a handsome house requisitioned from some German, you find yourself wondering how it would feel to have a conqueror drinking out of your glasses. When you hear the tales of the brutalizing of women from the eastern frontier you think with a shudder of of those you love and cherish at home.

That we are one world is unfortunately a brutal truth. Punishing the German people indiscriminately for the sins of their leader may be justice, but it is not helping to restore the rule of civilization. The terrible lesson of the events of this year of victory is that what is happening to the bulk of Europe today can happen to American tomorrow.

In America we are still rich, we are still free to move from place to place and to talk to our friends without fear of the secret police. The time has come, for our own future security, to give the best we have to the world instead of the worst. So far as Europe is concerned, American leadership up to now has been obsessed with a fear of our own virtues. Winston Churchill expressed this state of mind brilliantly in a speech to his own people which applies even more accurately to the people of the U.S. “You must be prepared,” he warned them, “for further efforts of mind and body and further sacrifices to great causes, if you are not to fall back into the rut if inertia, the confusion of aim and the craven fear of being great.”
 
And a bit more ...

Getting Déjê Vu yet? Here's more from this issue of LIFE...

The first winter of peace holds Europe in a deathly grip of cold, hunger and hopelessness. In the words of the London Sunday Observer: “Europe is threatened by a catastrophe this winter which has no precedent since the Black Death of 1348.”

These are still more than 25,000,000 homeless people milling about Europe. In Warsaw nearly 1,000,000 live in holes in the ground. Six million building were destroyed in Russia. Rumania has her worst drought of 50 years, and in Greece fuel supplies are terribly low because the Nazis, during their occupation, decimated the forests. In Italy the wheat harvest, which was a meager 3,450,000 tons in 1944, fell to an unendurable 1,304,000 tons in 1945. In France, food consumption per day averages 1,800 calories as compared with 3,000 calories in the U.S.

Germany is sinking even below the level of the countries she victimized. The German people are still better clothed than most of Europe because during the war they took the best of Europe’s clothing. But their food supply is below subsistence level. In the American zone they beg for the privilege of scraping U.S. army garbage cans. Infant mortality is already so high that a Berlin Quaker, quoted in the British press, predicted. “No child born in Germany in 1945 will survive. Only half the children aged less than 3 years will survive.”

On Germany, which plunged the Continent into its misery, falls the blame for its own plight and the plight of all Europe. But if this winter proves worse even than the war years, blame will fall on the victor nations. Some Europeans blame Russia for callousness to misery in eastern Europe. But some also blame America because they expected so much more from her. On the following pages the distinguished novelist John Dos Passos, who has been abroad as LIFE correspondent, reports on Europe’s suffering and what it means for America.
 
Are you saying that the people of Iraq where the most in need people in the world? That there are no other places where people are worse off than the people or Iraq were?

Because if that is not the case why did we chose Iraq?

Ah, so, there is an order in which the peoples of the world are to be liberated. You see, I simply didn't understand that "fact". So who sets the order -- you?
 
All,

By the by. Do not swing polling data under my nose as it is of no effect. Polls are constructed to effect the result the poll taker wishes.

ALL POLLS ARE CRAP -- PERIOD.
 
You don't mind if I dispute the validity and accuracy of those number then.
Not at all...but "nay saying" has little weight unless you can back up your dispute with more solid evidence. So far we have the reports on CNN and the website that the SecDef listed. What do you have besides strong personal opinion?

Here is another link to back up my statement and if you check ABC's, NBC's, and CBS's news websites you will find polls saying similar things. Although some of the pools have the numbers as low as 56% saying they were much better off under Saddam. But how could the Iraqis possibly know more about it than you do?

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/14282
 
Don't know. Don't care.
a) obviously. B) You should.

Your "four hour" figure is bogus as it is only half the truth. In this day and age with all of the information available did you truly think I wouldn't check your stats?

Sorry, I missed specifying Baghdad.

But let's use your link and quote it. Half truth? Maybe you can interpret it that way as I presented it.
"Before the invasion, Baghdad received electricity for between 16 and 24 hours per day with 4 to 8 hours received outside of the capital. Recent information from the Brookings Institution (early 2007) indicates that Baghdad now receives electricity from 4 to 8 hours per day with the remainder of the nation receiving from 8 to 12 hours of electricity per day"

You ignore BOTH halves.

You seem to conveniently forget that the insurgency attacking the infrastructure is the main reason that the infrastructure is deficient.
Not at all. I understand that the insurgency is a direct result of our troops being there.

I want you to realize that you are a member of the greatest liberating nation on the face of the Earth and have some appreciation of that fact. No other nation in history has done so much for so many for so little appreciation.

You do not understand my position.

ALL POLLS ARE CRAP -- PERIOD.

Yes, including the ones in November. That quote is simply ignorant. I will go ahead and use it against you in the future.

Do you believe that the Iraqis were only deserving of liberty and freedom if there were some extenuating circumstance? Do you believe they were only deserving of freedom based upon the existence of a physical, inanimate object that was to your satisfaction?

That's out of left field, and smacks of misdirected anger, son. It would have been nice if that were the justification when we went into war though, instead of 18 months later.

Do you believe that they don't deserve what you enjoy every day because this object was not found -- i.e. "F--- 'em. They got what they deserved."? Are they even human to you at all?

No, that's not what I believe at all. That's the right wing argument against illegal immigration from Mexico.
 
Sorry, I missed specifying Baghdad.

Weasel words. We are talking about Iraq, not the capital. Even at that, your contention in post 94 was:

You do realize that we are now 5 years in and STILL can't have more than 4 hours of electricity because we destroyed their infrastructure?

As it turns out, the minimum amount of electricity available is four hours. "Can't have more than" is wrong. Words mean things -- son.

But let's use your link and quote it. Half truth? Maybe you can interpret it that way as I presented it.
"Before the invasion, Baghdad received electricity for between 16 and 24 hours per day with 4 to 8 hours received outside of the capital. Recent information from the Brookings Institution (early 2007) indicates that Baghdad now receives electricity from 4 to 8 hours per day with the remainder of the nation receiving from 8 to 12 hours of electricity per day"

Thank you for reposting my proof that your contention was incorrect.

Not at all. I understand that the insurgency is a direct result of our troops being there.
Ah, yes, right out of the "Blame America First" playbook. So if we left the attacks on the infrastructure would magically disappear. Yeah. Right. Got it.

The "insurgency" would merely become the "separatists" and full-scale civil war would break out. I suppose you are one of those, along with the mainstream press, who call the current attacks on the populace "civil war". Trust me. You haven't yet seen civil war.

You also likely were one of those who believed, prior to the war, that the people of Iraq should have risen up against Saddam and overthrown him and his regime. If so, you were then a great believer in civil war. What's changed?

Commerce in the capital is increasing and the surge is working and working (Note: Those last two are Leftist sources CNN and The Washington Post).

You do not understand my position.

Au contrair, mon frere. I understand it perfectly.

Yes, including the ones in November.
Agreed.
That quote is simply ignorant. I will go ahead and use it against you in the future.

Feel free. All polls are crap and all stats which use percentages are crap. Percentages lie and so do pollsters. Only stats which use rates are in any manner accurate.

If, and when, I use quoted stats and polling numbers it is within the context of not having stated rates with which to work. Example:

I live in Longmont, CO. Let's say that the population is 100,000 just for easy numbers. All numbers used here are made up for convenience.

Year before last, there were two murders in Longmont and last year there was only one. The news would be emblazoned "Murder down in Longmont by 50%".

But this year, if there is again two murders here the newspapers would claim "Murder up 100% in Longmont".

Now by rate, the murder rate in Longmont would be 2 per 100,000 population the first year; 1 per 100,000 population the second; and again 2 per 100,000 the last year.​
Get it?

That's out of left field, and smacks of misdirected anger, son. It would have been nice if that were the justification when we went into war though, instead of 18 months later.

How so? You obviously believe that we shouldn't have gone there in the first place and, by extension, that you believe that Saddam should still be in power. LACKING THAT, though, you still believe that without the WMD as true justification we shouldn't have gone in there. Conversely, are we to believe that you would be content with this war had vast stockpiles of WMD been found in Iraq? Your entire argument seems to hinge on the presence of WMD and nothing else.

Here's a multi-part question that I would truly like to see an answer to:

Do you believe that the people of Iraq are in any way deserving of liberty and freedom; that the UN was eventually going to free them; and that any of the resolutions hoisted by the UN were ever going to be enforced; and, if so, which one -- #18; #225; #578 -- which one?

No, that's not what I believe at all. That's the right wing argument against illegal immigration from Mexico.

I said:
"F--- 'em. They got what they deserved."? Are they even human to you at all?

I am against illegal immigration but I have never referred to illegal immigrants in that manner.

Hmmm. Methinks I have been called a racist in a very subtle way. That should come as a surprise to my Mexican/Indian wife and my Black/White/Mexican/Indian grandson.
 
Last edited:
Not at all...but "nay saying" has little weight unless you can back up your dispute with more solid evidence. So far we have the reports on CNN and the website that the SecDef listed. What do you have besides strong personal opinion?

Here is another link to back up my statement and if you check ABC's, NBC's, and CBS's news websites you will find polls saying similar things. Although some of the pools have the numbers as low as 56% saying they were much better off under Saddam. But how could the Iraqis possibly know more about it than you do?

Nay saying has plenty of weight when a station like CNN has openly presented their bias towards the war and this administration. I'm not going to sit here and throw up number from fox news for the same reason. While the jury may be out on the Iraqi opinion of the war, I have zero faith that out of shear fear alone, enough iraqis would actually vote to kill americans. That is unless CNN decided to cruise around with more terrorists in which case its perfectly possible.
 
I have zero faith that out of shear fear alone, enough iraqis would actually vote to kill americans.
What makes you think their motivation is "fear"?

I have been there and I can tell you these people have never loved us. Even in the first Gulf War the local population was aware of the USA's two-faced role in the events that unfolded. We sell Saddam weapons, we encourage him to settle disputes with rivals and give him intelligence on bordering countries, then we walk in a slap his hand when he does as we encouraged him to do.

I can't tell you how many times I heard from locals "do you accept your part in encouraging this war?"

I now currently have seven family members over there and dozens of old friends. Pretty much each one can tell you the medias portrayal of the situation is not a doom and gloom portrayal as some people are trying to tell us. If anything it does not convey how dangerous it really is to be there and based on my own person experience overseas I agree. It is hard to understand from news coverage what it is like to be somewhere you know you are hated and could be killed atany moment.

One friend told me a story of how they were trying to produce fluff pieces for awhile. Things like video of soldiers going out and handing out candy so that people can see how the kids loved the soldiers and soldiers helping out in hospitals and with people trying to repair their roofs etc. They pretty much had very little success and had to stop because the film crews started being unwilling to go after soldiers started getting killed doing them.

I think their motivation is pure hatred...not fear.
 
You obviously believe that we shouldn't have gone there in the first place and, by extension, that you believe that Saddam should still be in power.
See, this is where you have absolutely no idea what my position is. My problem, and here is where I will state my position for you to attack if you think it appropriate, is that we went in at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons. The primary concern of the U.S. and the military is to protect the U.S. first. Afghanistan was a direct connection to 9/11, Iraq was a different beast. I do NOT like the fact that Bush felt he needed to lie about 9/11-Iraq connections (mostly through Cheney). Lie may be a difficult word for you to swallow, but I am referring to the fact that due to WH statements, most of the the U.S. (and currently still 85% of the military in country) believe that Saddam was behind 9/11. THAT was not the reason we were there. The WMD argument was to support that justification.

We damn well should have gone in there to get Saddam out, but for what he was doing to his own people, NOT for his supposed role in 9/11.

LACKING THAT, though, you still believe that without the WMD as true justification we shouldn't have gone in there.

No, I have a problem with the fact that intelligence was picked over and misrepresented to justify whatever the WH wanted. Just as you hate Polls. BTW, you are right about how % increase and decrease in polls can easily misrepresent the situation, but that's why I don't reference those types of things. It is perfectly valid to us your 1 per 100,000 or 2 per 100,000 numbers though. That is why when I referenced polls, I even indicated that methodology should be reviewed and that you shouldn't take them at face value. The underlying results, though, can be perfectly valid and useful as long as your know the poll size/sample, and what the questions asked were (in context). You can't expect to understand the views of a large group without poll numbers.

Hmmm. Methinks I have been called a racist in a very subtle way. That should come as a surprise to my Mexican/Indian wife and my Black/White/Mexican/Indian grandson.

You get my point. All I did was hold up a mirror to your statement to see that it was patently offensive. Note that I did not make it personal, and you shouldn't have taken it as such.

Weasel words or not in reference to Baghdad electricity (which really was my intention.. I'm just happy I got the right number from memory) the fact is that there is significant room for improvement, and in a major metropolitan area (where it should be easiest) we are unable to deliver even the low bar of pre-war levels. This has nothing to say about the engineers on site. It has much more to do with the fact that we are fighting an asymmetrical war.
 
In his most recent post SecDef makes mention of polls.

Funny thing about those things, polls that is. When I hear roundly pronounced that 78% or whatever number it is of whomever was supposedly polled and responded, I tend to get rather interested in the following aspects of the thing.

1. Was whatever the number of people polled a scientifically valid number of responses from which meaningful conclusions could be drawn?

2. Given that he who controls the phrasing of the question also exercises a significant measure of control over responses obtained, since the pollster usually interprets the results, exactly what were the questions asked. By this, I refer to the exact wording of the questions. We don't know that, or do we?

By the way, should any who read this consider me to be an old nag, so be it. I am old. As to the nag part, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
 
There are certain polling systems such as Gallup and Zogby that expose all of these things (specifically what questions are asked)

Better is to look at trends.. a one time poll can very easily be influenced by current events and skew wildly on a particular day.

Using the same wording every single time, and looking at the results of the poll over time can help to cancel out poorly worded or influencing questions. However, I am more likely to look for Gallup and Zogby rather than polls run by an interested party (dems or repubs own polls) precisely due to the issues you bring up.

Alan, if both #1 and #2 aren't easily available (such as in this great PDF) definitely maintain a caveat emptor mentality.
 
My problem, and here is where I will state my position for you to attack if you think it appropriate, is that we went in at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons. ... Afghanistan was a direct connection to 9/11, Iraq was a different beast. I do NOT like the fact that Bush felt he needed to lie about 9/11-Iraq connections (mostly through Cheney). Lie may be a difficult word for you to swallow, but I am referring to the fact that due to WH statements, most of the the U.S. (and currently still 85% of the military in country) believe that Saddam was behind 9/11. THAT was not the reason we were there. The WMD argument was to support that justification.
No, I have a problem with the fact that intelligence was picked over and misrepresented to justify whatever the WH wanted. ...

You seem to dwell on the subject of bad intel and how Bush lied to get us into Iraq. Has it ever -- EVER -- occurred to you as to just why our intel was so bad?

It’s a long story so I’ll give you the Clif’s Notes version with citations. You can do the legwork yourself.

The players on our story are:

Jennifer Harbury (Leftist Commie and attorney)

Efrain Bamaca Velasquez ("Evarardo" Mayan leader of the Guatemalan resistance forces, or U.R.N.G.)

Robert Toricelli (United States Representative at the time)

William Clinton (President of the United States)

Janet Reno (Attorney General of the United States)

Jamie Gorelick (Deputy Attorney General of the United States)

As it turns out, Jennifer Harbury married a Leftist named “Evarardo” who was the leader of the resistance in Guatemala. Evarardo was captured by the Guatemalan military and eventually executed after he was tortured brutally. The people who were doing the torture were CIA assets who were being paid by the CIA.

Harbury went on a hunger strike in front of the presidential palace in Guatemala and subsequently went on a hunger strike in front of the White House.

Harbury testified before the “Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight“ and described her ordeal in Guatemala. Robert Toricelli revealed a top secret classified memo to the press, something for which he should have been sent to prison.

Toricelli then authored, and Janet Reno approved, and William Clinton signed into law what has come to be known as the “Toricelli Principle”.

The Toricelli Principle disallows the U.S. government from hiring as assets anyone who has a criminal background taking fully into effect that only boy scouts and their cronies are of interest to the CIA. This was the first instance of the now famous “wall” -- not mentioning FISA because I don't want to muddy this discussion.

The hands of the CIA to gather intel were now severely tied.

Subsequent to this, Jamie Gorelick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Gorelick authored, the now infamous “wall” memo http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document_1995_gorelick_memo.pdf which tied the hands, feet, and mouths of the CIA and law enforcement and kicked them to the curb. It is the main reason that we have to glean our intel from foreign sources and the absolute reason that we could not search the computer of Zacharias Moussaui(sp?). The memo raised the wall originally erected by the Toricelli Principle to the point that the enemies of America were able to fly several aircraft full of screaming passengers into American landmarks.

There was much made of her involvement in facilitating the 9-11 attacks by the issuance of her memo but her obvious conflict of interest went unaddressed by the 9-11 commission even though it was rubbed in their faces by many witnesses and sources.

Now comes the part that will be hard to swallow. Bush acted on that foreign intel because we didn’t have any of our own to act upon because of that damned wall. Bush lied? No. He used bad intel because the likes of Harbury, Toricelli, Gorelick, Reno, and Clinton robbed this nation of its ability to gather good intel.

And that’s the way it is.

Continue to blame Bush and call him a liar but you now have the resources to find out the truth as to why our intel was so bad and the president unable to get to the truth.

Here are some other links.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/bio_gorelick.htm Gorelick official biography
http://www.wilmerhale.com/jamie_gorelick/ Gorelick biography
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004956 ''Gorelick's Wall'', Opinion Journal (Wall Street Journal 4/15/04)
http://www.cpanj.com/capitalreportp... LASHES OUT AT TORRICELLI OVER SPY POLICY.htm
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040429-122228-6538r.htm
 
jimpeel,

You are blaming the past adinistration for the "inteligence fishing" of the current administration?

I was in MI for eight years and I would say that the bullying and fishing for information they wanted to hear, that was rampant in this adminstration, is the reason the inteligence was bad. They consistantly disregarded information that did not support their preformed conclusions and then exagerated and stretched information that did support their desired conclussion.
 
I gave you the tools to figure it out. Ignore them if you will.

The fact is that it was our own government which tied the intel community's hands and disallowed them to garner good intel. We now live with the result.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004956

At issue is the pre-Patriot Act "wall" that prevented communication between intelligence agents and criminal investigators--a wall, Mr. Ashcroft said, that meant "the old national intelligence system in place on September 11 was destined to fail." The Attorney General explained:

"In the days before September 11, the wall specifically impeded the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. After the FBI arrested Moussaoui, agents became suspicious of his interest in commercial aircraft and sought approval for a criminal warrant to search his computer. The warrant was rejected because FBI officials feared breaching the wall.

"When the CIA finally told the FBI that al-Midhar and al-Hazmi were in the country in late August, agents in New York searched for the suspects. But because of the wall, FBI headquarters refused to allow criminal investigators who knew the most about the most recent al Qaeda attack to join the hunt for the suspected terrorists.

"At that time, a frustrated FBI investigator wrote headquarters, quote, 'Whatever has happened to this--someday someone will die--and wall or not--the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain 'problems.' "

That investigator was absolutely correct. "... the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain 'problems."

He was talking about you.
 
You seem to dwell on the subject of bad intel

Nope. I can handle acting on the best intel available. I dwell on the fact that intel that we did have was ignored.

Your entire argument breaks down in three places:
1) Intel we did have was ignored.
2) We based our "intel" on a guy codenamed curveball who we were told was unreliable by the Germans.
3) Downing Street memo.

Without time to follow-up and read your links, for the sake of argument, I'll accept your premise that our intel was extremely limited.

Seems to me that is a fantastic reason to push for UNMOVIC to gather intel before attacking.

How are the 16 words in the SOTU not a lie? It was well established by Wilson that there was no attempt by Saddam to obtain yellow-cake Uranium in Niger. He confirmed nearly a YEAR before the SOTU. By early 2002, around the same time, both the CIA and the State dept. had determined the initial documents regarding obtaining yellowcake uranium from Niger were forgeries.

So, Bush had two independent pieces of our own intel saying that there was no reason to connect Iraq and Niger, yet Bush almost a year later went ahead and made that claim. The IAEA also voiced their opinion that the documents were forged. Oops, let's pile on, there was also Marine Gen. Carlton Fulford who came to his own conclusion if some some reason you have an irrational hatred of Wilson. The CIA clearly didn't think there was a connection seen from the fact that Tenet asked dep sec advisor Stephan Hadley to remove remarks from the Oct 7, 2002 speech by Bush. These were NOT removed, and repeated in the SOTU.

This claim was later retracted by the WH, not on any new evidence, but merely on the evidence that they already had. THAT is the problem I have.

Again, your argument about bad intel fails in this particular instance.
 
Jimpeel...

so, spend some time reading your links..

Got to this part:
"However, the report from the 9/11 Commission asserts that the 'wall' limiting the ability of federal agencies to cooperate had existed since the 80's and is in fact not one singular wall but a series of restrictions passed over the course of over twenty years. All members of the 9/11 Commission agreed that Gorelick played no significant role in damaging information sharing on terrorist activities."

and realized you are full of it.

I apologize for taken so long to realize you were trolling.
 
PlayboyPenguin said, "I was in MI for eight years and I would say that the bullying and fishing for information they wanted to hear, that was rampant in this adminstration, is the reason the inteligence was bad. They consistantly disregarded information that did not support their preformed conclusions and then exagerated and stretched information that did support their desired conclussion."

But you did not know .mil is the extension for the US Military and DoD.

Reliability of source: Low.

Geoff
Who listens.
 
Geoff Timm

When I was in the military the internet did not yet exist. So "no" I did not know anout the .mil designation.

I guess you cannot defend your position and attack my point so you decided to attack me personally. A sure sign you have nothing of value to say.

I can provide you with copies of my discharge papers and many accomidations I received in service if you would like to try and question my military service.
 
Back
Top