Politics: J'accuse!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
No, the tone has to do with our exchange about your flytrap theory.

But the fact that there is a split in the Iraqi Shia's and the more radical muslims are rising up against the Iraqi police and the coalition doesn't foreclose that AQ has been focused on Iraq and that is sparing attacks on US soil. I also would not be surprised to find out that Iran has something to do with this. Would you? Sadr has been know to visit Iran and be greeted with open arms.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2975340.stm

Sadr wants to establish an Iranian-like theocracy in Iraq. This is the basis for the split in the Iraqi Shia community - the moderates are OK with a more secular government and the radicals want to turn Iraq into Iran.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
But the fact that there is a split in the Iraqi Shia's and the more radical muslims are rising up against the Iraqi police and the coalition doesn't foreclose that AQ has been focused on Iraq and that is sparing attacks on US soil.

It certainly doesn't foreclose your conjecture, but, as Donald Rumsfeld has observed, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Please explain. When you refer to his reduced role, do you mean that Rice forced him to meet with deputies instead of principals? He's certainly pissed about that, but moreso because it kept counterterrorism on the back burner during 2001. Or do you mean that he moved to cyberterrorism? Because his book says that he requested that move, and points out that people cycled in and out of his former job after he left.

From what I understand, there was that, plus the fact that he didn't get the homeland security gig. And don't give me this shit about him being pissed off because of the backburner bullshit - he's pissed off because he felt demoted. I'm not saying that he didn't have a right to feel that way, I don't know enough about the situation - Hell, maybe he deserved homeland security too. But, some of this is too self serving for me to bare.

I've heard a few discrepencies over the last week. The first that sticks in my mind is that he said that Condi hadn't heard of Al qaeda when he initially briefed her in 2001 (or something to that effect), though Condi is on record via speech on the subject circa 2000. The other is that he attributes a particularly damning quote to Rumsfeld shortly after 9/11, when Rumsfeld was not even in the meeting. I'm sure the others will be in easily retrievable format sometime this week.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You would need an electron microscope to detect the shit I give about Mylroie, but wasn't the quotation you gave that she was an advisor on Iraq to the 1992 Clinton campaign? If that is the extent of her participation during the Clinton era, and I'm too lazy even to Google that, how on earth does that advance her credibility or objectivity w/r/t Clarke, who was already a government official at that time, and who I'm given to understand doesn't think Iraq was a lynchpin of world terrorism, then or now?

edited to fix spelling of "Mylroie"; unnecessarily pedantic for anyone's else post, I admit -- T.S.

1. That was the note at the bottom of the article. I didn't know her from eve before Ty's post.

2. If you can't figure that out, you are more politically green than I've previously given you credit.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
In ConservativeLand, once you establish that someone has ties to a Clinton, preferably Hillary, you can ignore the substance of what they say because it is "partisan." The corollary is that if the person says something useful to a defense of the Administration, if becomes automatically true.

You are doing the same thing with O'neil and Clarke. You are quick to believe that because they've "ratted" on the administration, they are righteous whistleblowers with no alternative agendas.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I've heard a few discrepencies over the last week. The first that sticks in my mind is that he said that Condi hadn't heard of Al qaeda when he initially briefed her in 2001 (or something to that effect), though Condi is on record via speech on the subject circa 2000.

His statements about Condi are preposterous.

The apology he gave was also unbearable. Who the hell does he think he is to take it upon himself to apologize like that? Self-serving, indeed.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
It certainly doesn't foreclose your conjecture, but, as Donald Rumsfeld has observed, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

logic flaw.

WMD's could be hidden or destroyed, so none found doesn't prove none exist(ed). Al queda doesn't typically "hide" its attacks, so the absence of evidence there is evidence of absence. You might want to stick to humor argument- your political arguments are also Mendoza line, but your humor line has a 40 point offset up.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Me
His statements about Condi are preposterous.

are her boobies real?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
are her boobies real?

She generally doesn't wear clothes that give you a good look at her boobs. My guess is that they are real. She doesn't strike me as the type who would get them.

I searched for a picture of her in a gown or anything other than a business suit, but I cannot find one. Her clothing makes her look absolutely shapeless, but I am sure that she probably has a cute figure underneath all that material. Maybe not, but at least she is thin.

Although, if you met me IRL, I wouldn't strike you as the type who would get them, either. Humorless women like me typically don't get implants.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
She generally doesn't wear clothes that give you a good look at her boobs. My guess is that they are real. She doesn't strike me as the type who would get them.

I searched for a picture of her in a gown or anything other than a business suit, but I cannot find one. Her clothing makes her look absolutely shapeless, but I am sure that she probably has a cute figure underneath all that material. Maybe not, but at least she is thin.

Although, if you met me IRL, I wouldn't strike you as the type who would get them, either. Humorless women like me typically don't get implants.

Condi's Hot!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Condi's Hot!

I think she is cute, too. You never hear about her having an SO, though. I wonder what is up with that.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
I think she is cute, too. You never hear about her having an SO, though. I wonder what is up with that.

I seemed to recall her being linked to Gene Washington (head of NFL Players Association), but I could be wrong. I would make sense though, as she has indicated she would like to run the NFL.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I seemed to recall her being linked to Gene Washington (head of NFL Players Association), but I could be wrong. I would make sense though, as she has indicated she would like to run the NFL.

I am sure it is hard for her being such a high profile successful woman. This is very intimidating to men. I know that it has been hard for me to find men who want to be with women who are their equals. Most, unfortunately, don't. God forbid you are smarter or have more education than the man. Far too many of them feel emasculated by that. Sad for them.

I have found that I do best with men who are wealthier than me. Then they don't seem so threatened by my intelligence and education. Although my boyfriend before my current SO was extremely wealthy and he was still intimidated by the fact that I was more educated than he was. He had only completed a bachelor's degree and got very lucky in life with opportunities and ended up quite wealthy. It is good to be smart but better to be lucky, YKWIM?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
From what I understand, there was that, plus the fact that he didn't get the homeland security gig. And don't give me this shit about him being pissed off because of the backburner bullshit - he's pissed off because he felt demoted. I'm not saying that he didn't have a right to feel that way, I don't know enough about the situation - Hell, maybe he deserved homeland security too. But, some of this is too self serving for me to bare.

If you're going to demand that people say things that aren't self-serving, that's a pretty high standard. Just about Bush says is self-serving, and it doesn't seem to bother you.

I've heard a few discrepencies over the last week. The first that sticks in my mind is that he said that Condi hadn't heard of Al qaeda when he initially briefed her in 2001 (or something to that effect), though Condi is on record via speech on the subject circa 2000.

The way I saw this, it was reported as if she hadn't heard of Osama bin Laden. The book makes it clear that she knew who bin Laden was, but maybe not Al Qaida. I've seen Clarke "refuted" by someone who pointed out that she knew who OBL was, but this isn't the point. If there's a speech where she knew about Al Qaeda, I'd like to see it, because I haven't yet (not that I've been looking).

eta: After some quick searching on the web, here is Rush Limbaugh purporting to "nuke" Clarke's claim by quoting an interview with Condi Rice from late 2000, and yet the interview doesn't show that she's familiar with the term "Al Qaeda," which is the point. This doesn't prove he hasn't been contradicted elsewhere, but I'd like to see it. There's no reason for him to make it up, since anything she says in the public record about AQ is going to be used against him.

The other is that he attributes a particularly damning quote to Rumsfeld shortly after 9/11, when Rumsfeld was not even in the meeting.

No, he said Rumself was inattentive during the meeting, or something like that. Interesting that you just accept the proposition that Rumsfeld wasn't there, as if Clarke must be wrong in a "he-said/she-said" situation.

More importantly, so what? Who cares whether Rumsfeld was or wasn't at a specific meeting? It's clear from the book that Clarke wasn't keeping notes all along a la Dean Acheson or someone like that. He wasn't planning to write a memoir, and the book isn't as detailed as other memoirs. But that hardly detracts from the important points about (1) counterterrorism before 9/11 and (2) Iraq.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You are doing the same thing with O'neil and Clarke. You are quick to believe that because they've "ratted" on the administration, they are righteous whistleblowers with no alternative agendas.

No, I've read both books. O'Neill is an odder figure - I don't think he particularly has an agenda, other than telling people how it was. He has a commitment to openness that's a little bizarre for someone in government. Clarke is a Cassandra figure. She probably wasn't fun to hang out with either, but she was right.