US intelligence agencies lying about Iran?

[Seth]

They weren't "shifting" reasons, they were additive, brick by brick as the intelligence came in. First Sarin on the Kurds, then satellite images, on-the-ground intel, reports of Saddam's agents meeting with terrorists in France, discovery of thousands of anonymous bank accounts funded by Saddam and used to support international terrorists, then his belligerent acts in Kuwait, then his obstruction of UN inspectors, his creation of faux biowarfare facilities, his innuendo regarding nukes and so on and so on. Just because our leaders did not repeat the entire list of (mostly classified) information they had, and you did not, to satisfy your skepticism doesn't mean they didn't have valid and actionable intelligence. What the President told the press, and what the press chose to report and how they chose to report it have almost no connection to the reality of the intelligence and data available to our vast network of intelligence professionals in this and other countries upon which the President made his decisions.

What's this? A "Libertarian" trusting the government?

This isn't about Libertarianism, it's about debunking your revisionism.

The fact is that the reasons were shifted as objections were raised.

So? What leads you to the belief that the general public is entitled to full disclosure of classified intelligence? That the Bush Administration addressed issues as they came up doesn't mean they didn't have actionable intelligence.

T

his "actionable intelligence" you keep bruiting about was wrong.

Some of it turned out to be wrong, in hindsight. But you don't prosecute a war based on hindsight, you go with what you have at the time.

It was wrong because the Administration made plain exactly what its expectations were regarding "evidence" and as a result negative indications weren't fed into the decision making process.

So you say. Are you privy to classified information given to the President at the time? No? I thought not.

Curveball was strongly suspected by personnel inside the CIA to be a plant, yet Bush and Powell waved his misinformation around, and ignored the skeptics inside the intelligence community.

Where's the smoking gun? And Bush and Powell are making the decisions, that's what they are paid to do, so they can ignore skeptics if they deem their skepticism, like your skepticism, to be invalid and based on ideological bias rather than hard facts.

Sure they are. The only question is whether we want to go to war based on those acts.

No, they're not:

Yes, they are.

The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, with the exception of measures against any enemy state, as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article, provided for pursuant to Article 107 or in regional arrangements directed against renewal of aggressive policy on the part of any such state, until such time as the Organization may, on request of the Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a state.

It may have escaped your notice, but we're a UN member state, that is a lawful treaty we've entered, and under our own Constitution, that has the force of law in America.

The Constitution and the authority of our Congress to declare war (or authorize the invasion as in this case) supersedes UN agreements. The reference you cite is regarding actions by UN forces, and it does not restrict the US from going to war if it has what it considers causus belli, which we did, and which Congress duly acknowledged and for which it gave the President authority to take military action.

Don't care. They are Communists and therefore they are automatically a danger to the planet and everyone on it, and the Communists among the Chinese need to be destroyed using whatever tactics manage it without destroying the rest of the planet.

I will never agree that destroying someone else is justified solely on the basis of differing political views.

Communism is not a "differing political view," it's a poisonous ideology that has as its core purpose the enslavement of populations to collectivism and the destruction of capitalism and democracy worldwide, by design and specific intent.

Anyone who doesn't understand that is terminally stupid.

If and when they present open hostilities, I'll be glad to renew the oath I swore as a youth.

If and when the Communist Chinese present "open hostilities" as I suspect you intend, you will be a collection of loosely associated atoms in a high-temperature plasma and your oath will be meaningless. We must stop Communism BEFORE it engages in open hostilities, and we must recognize when it's engaging in COVERT hostilities with the intent to destroy our nation, which Communist China absolutely is doing right this very minute. Just today a Chinese national living in the US was arrested for illegally exporting computer chips used in satellites manufactured right here in Colorado Springs. He's undoubtedly an agent of the Chinese military.

Until then, so long as they leave us be, we ought not be killing them for simply accepting a different political system, no matter how repulsive I find it.

The you're a fool because they mean to subjugate you or kill you. I won't let them do that to me.

If the Chinese want freedom, let them buy it with their own blood. I reject interventionism in the absence of incipient danger, and you should too.

That policy is a fine one when the country involved doesn't have thermonuclear weapons, the world's largest military, and ICBM's capable of delivering nuclear warheads to the US.

Nukes change the parameters of the game substantially.

[Thumpalumpacus]

This isn't about Libertarianism, it's about debunking your revisionism.

Humor

So? What leads you to the belief that the general public is entitled to full disclosure of classified intelligence? That the Bush Administration addressed issues as they came up doesn't mean they didn't have actionable intelligence.

Your faith is charming. This citizen, however, prefers thinking for himself. If you're unwilling to educate yourself beyond what the government tells you, that's fine. Quit whining when others disagree with you.

Some of it turned out to be wrong, in hindsight. But you don't prosecute a war based on hindsight, you go with what you have at the time.

... and then you practice analysis in order to arrive at the true course of events, so that you may learn from your mistakes.

It was wrong because the Administration made plain exactly what its expectations were regarding "evidence" and as a result negative indications weren't fed into the decision making process.

So you say. Are you privy to classified information given to the President at the time? No? I thought not.

Actually, had you been paying attention, this didn't require a security clearance. They had hearings on it, which anyone who actually wanted to know what was going on could follow as they unfolded:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 (UPI) -- The Pentagon's inspector general told a Senate committee Friday the U.S. Defense Department tailored intelligence findings on Iraq to the audience.

Discussion of the report on the Senate Armed Services Committee divided along partisan lines, The New York Times reported. The chairman, Carl Levin, D-Mich., called it a "devastating condemnation" of the misuse of intelligence as the Bush administration tried to justify its plans to invade Iraq.

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, pressed Thomas Gimble, the acting inspector general, on whether he agreed with Levin. Gimble refused to characterize the report and said that he had found no evidence of illegal activity by former Undersecretary Douglas Feith.

But Gimble had little comfort for Republicans.

"The actions, in our opinion, were inappropriate, given that all the products did not clearly show the variance with the consensus of the intel community, and in some cases were shown as intel products," he said.

Gimble also said that Feith made "adjustments" in his findings, depending on the audience.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2007/02/09/ ... z1lkxWR4SZ

It's amazing what you can learn by paying attention.

Where's the smoking gun?

You clearly didn't read the link I provided. Go back and read it.

And Bush and Powell are making the decisions, that's what they are paid to do, so they can ignore skeptics if they deem their skepticism, like your skepticism, to be invalid and based on ideological bias rather than hard facts.

Indeed. But they cannot escape criticism for their fuck-ups.

The Constitution and the authority of our Congress to declare war (or authorize the invasion as in this case) supersedes UN agreements. The reference you cite is regarding actions by UN forces, and it does not restrict the US from going to war if it has what it considers causus belli, which we did, and which Congress duly acknowledged and for which it gave the President authority to take military action.

That's not what's under discussion. We were talking about international law. Stick to the topic, eh?

Communism is not a "differing political view," it's a poisonous ideology that has as its core purpose the enslavement of populations to collectivism and the destruction of capitalism and democracy worldwide, by design and specific intent.

Anyone who doesn't understand that is terminally stupid.

That's your opinion. I have to say that your last little bon mot devalues it greatly.

If and when the Communist Chinese present "open hostilities" as I suspect you intend, you will be a collection of loosely associated atoms in a high-temperature plasma and your oath will be meaningless. We must stop Communism BEFORE it engages in open hostilities, and we must recognize when it's engaging in COVERT hostilities with the intent to destroy our nation, which Communist China absolutely is doing right this very minute. Just today a Chinese national living in the US was arrested for illegally exporting computer chips used in satellites manufactured right here in Colorado Springs. He's undoubtedly an agent of the Chinese military.

Yes, I'm pretty sure I didn't say they were innocent. However, you advocate for the killing of hundreds of millions of people on the basis that their government engages in the statecraft that we do as well -- after all, where do you think the "actionable intelligence" you keep blathering about above came from? Did Iraq tweet it? No. We spied. We did the same thing that you think justifies the killing of hundreds of millions.

The you're a fool because they mean to subjugate you or kill you. I won't let them do that to me.

You're operating under the impression that I regard your good opinion as meaningful. It isn't.

That policy is a fine one when the country involved doesn't have thermonuclear weapons, the world's largest military, and ICBM's capable of delivering nuclear warheads to the US.

Nukes change the parameters of the game substantially.

I look forward to your enlistment. You are going to enlist and fight this war you're so eager to see happen, right?

[JimC]

Thumpalumpacus wrote:

If the Chinese want freedom, let them buy it with their own blood. I reject interventionism in the absence of incipient danger, and you should too.

[Seth]

This isn't about Libertarianism, it's about debunking your revisionism.

Humor

So? What leads you to the belief that the general public is entitled to full disclosure of classified intelligence? That the Bush Administration addressed issues as they came up doesn't mean they didn't have actionable intelligence.

Your faith is charming. This citizen, however, prefers thinking for himself. If you're unwilling to educate yourself beyond what the government tells you, that's fine. Quit whining when others disagree with you.

I'm not whining, I'm debunking your revisionism. You haven't educated yourself, you've drunk the leftist Kool-aid.

Some of it turned out to be wrong, in hindsight. But you don't prosecute a war based on hindsight, you go with what you have at the time.

... and then you practice analysis in order to arrive at the true course of events, so that you may learn from your mistakes.

Indeed. But that presumes the decision to go to war was a "mistake." It wasn't.

It was wrong because the Administration made plain exactly what its expectations were regarding "evidence" and as a result negative indications weren't fed into the decision making process.

So you say. Are you privy to classified information given to the President at the time? No? I thought not.

Actually, had you been paying attention, this didn't require a security clearance. They had hearings on it, which anyone who actually wanted to know what was going on could follow as they unfolded:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 (UPI) -- The Pentagon's inspector general told a Senate committee Friday the U.S. Defense Department tailored intelligence findings on Iraq to the audience.

Discussion of the report on the Senate Armed Services Committee divided along partisan lines, The New York Times reported. The chairman, Carl Levin, D-Mich., called it a "devastating condemnation" of the misuse of intelligence as the Bush administration tried to justify its plans to invade Iraq.

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, pressed Thomas Gimble, the acting inspector general, on whether he agreed with Levin. Gimble refused to characterize the report and said that he had found no evidence of illegal activity by former Undersecretary Douglas Feith.

But Gimble had little comfort for Republicans.

"The actions, in our opinion, were inappropriate, given that all the products did not clearly show the variance with the consensus of the intel community, and in some cases were shown as intel products," he said.

Gimble also said that Feith made "adjustments" in his findings, depending on the audience.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2007/02/09/ ... z1lkxWR4SZ

It's amazing what you can learn by paying attention.

Hindsight, and therefore irrelevant to the decisions made at the time and the strength of the justification for going to war.

Where's the smoking gun?

You clearly didn't read the link I provided. Go back and read it.

I read it. It's not relevant. You think a letter from German authorities was the deciding factor. You are not privy to other intelligence that may have been in the President's hands that supported the claims of the informant, so you can only judge the decision in hindsight, which is not relevant.

And Bush and Powell are making the decisions, that's what they are paid to do, so they can ignore skeptics if they deem their skepticism, like your skepticism, to be invalid and based on ideological bias rather than hard facts.

Indeed. But they cannot escape criticism for their fuck-ups.

This falsely presumes that they "fucked up" at the time.

The Constitution and the authority of our Congress to declare war (or authorize the invasion as in this case) supersedes UN agreements. The reference you cite is regarding actions by UN forces, and it does not restrict the US from going to war if it has what it considers causus belli, which we did, and which Congress duly acknowledged and for which it gave the President authority to take military action.

That's not what's under discussion. We were talking about international law. Stick to the topic, eh?

No, you're trying to strawman your way to that end, but it's not going to work. I'm not talking about international law, I'm talking about our sovereign rights as a nation and our Constitution, which supersede and override international law in this respect. No treaty can disparage or limit the power of Congress to declare war. Period. While treaties may be "the law of the land," the Constitution, and it's authorities, is not bound by treaties, it is superior to treaties and neither the authorities it grants to Congress, nor the rights of US citizens it protects can be infringed upon by any treaty. This is why, for example, no treaty can infringe upon or disparage our unalienable right to keep and bear arms.

Communism is not a "differing political view," it's a poisonous ideology that has as its core purpose the enslavement of populations to collectivism and the destruction of capitalism and democracy worldwide, by design and specific intent.

Anyone who doesn't understand that is terminally stupid.

That's your opinion. I have to say that your last little bon mot devalues it greatly.

That's okay, I still know what to do with Communists. That's all that matters.

If and when the Communist Chinese present "open hostilities" as I suspect you intend, you will be a collection of loosely associated atoms in a high-temperature plasma and your oath will be meaningless. We must stop Communism BEFORE it engages in open hostilities, and we must recognize when it's engaging in COVERT hostilities with the intent to destroy our nation, which Communist China absolutely is doing right this very minute. Just today a Chinese national living in the US was arrested for illegally exporting computer chips used in satellites manufactured right here in Colorado Springs. He's undoubtedly an agent of the Chinese military.

Yes, I'm pretty sure I didn't say they were innocent. However, you advocate for the killing of hundreds of millions of people on the basis that their government engages in the statecraft that we do as well -- after all, where do you think the "actionable intelligence" you keep blathering about above came from? Did Iraq tweet it? No. We spied. We did the same thing that you think justifies the killing of hundreds of millions.

Our cause is just, theirs is not. Moral and political equivalency do not exist between the United States and Communist China. The Communists in China are inherently evil, so whatever is done to oppose and destroy them is justified because they are inherently evil and immoral. We are not, and therefore we have the moral right and authority to oppose such evil, just exactly the same as we had the moral right to oppose Hitler and the Nazis. You may not believe in right and wrong, but that's a failure of your intellect, nothing more.

The you're a fool because they mean to subjugate you or kill you. I won't let them do that to me.

You're operating under the impression that I regard your good opinion as meaningful. It isn't.

It matters not at all what you think. You're just a useful tool in my campaign against Communism.

That policy is a fine one when the country involved doesn't have thermonuclear weapons, the world's largest military, and ICBM's capable of delivering nuclear warheads to the US.

Nukes change the parameters of the game substantially.

I look forward to your enlistment. You are going to enlist and fight this war you're so eager to see happen, right?

Indeed. If they'll have me, which I doubt because I'm old and decrepit. Otherwise I'll remain here as part of the Home Guard and will support our troops in extirpating Communism from the face of the earth however I can, including through rhetoric, persuasion and if necessary propaganda.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Ah, I see. You're very willing to spend the blood of others.

Each post you make on this topic confirms my initial impression of you. Fucking chickenhawk.

[Clinton Huxley]

"Communists are inherently evil"

Hahahahaha.

Oh, please.

[Seth]

"Communists are inherently evil"

Hahahahaha.

Oh, please.

You haven't spent much time in the killing fields of Cambodia or the gulags of Russia, have you?

[Seth]

Ah, I see. You're very willing to spend the blood of others.

You shouldn't presume to opine on whose blood I am, am not, or have been willing to spend in defense of liberty and opposition to Communism. You don't know nearly enough about me to do so without being a fool.

Each post you make on this topic confirms my initial impression of you. Fucking chickenhawk.

Reported.

You've lost the debate by resorting to ad hominem.

[Animavore]

"Communists are inherently evil"

Hahahahaha.

Oh, please.

You haven't spent much time in the killing fields of Cambodia or the gulags of Russia, have you?

Way back fallacy.

[Seth]

"Communists are inherently evil"

Hahahahaha.

Oh, please.

You haven't spent much time in the killing fields of Cambodia or the gulags of Russia, have you?

Way back fallacy.

Then let's get contemporary: You haven't spent much time in China as an anti-communist activist recently, have you? Nor have you spent much time in Cuba recently as a dissident, I expect. Nor have you spent much time in Venezuela as an anti-Marxist rebel, have you?

Because if you had, you would be in prison or in a shallow grave somewhere with a bullet in the back of your head.

Shall I go on?

[Svartalf]

Not to mention broadening single instances into globally applicable truths.

[Seth]

Not to mention broadening single instances into globally applicable truths.

Marxists and Communists have been operating from the same playbook since the beginning and they show no signs of changing their approach, which makes it a rational inference to assume the worst about Communists, because their ideology is inherently evil.

[Animavore]

"Communists are inherently evil"

Hahahahaha.

Oh, please.

You haven't spent much time in the killing fields of Cambodia or the gulags of Russia, have you?

Way back fallacy.

Then let's get contemporary: You haven't spent much time in China as an anti-communist activist recently, have you? Nor have you spent much time in Cuba recently as a dissident, I expect. Nor have you spent much time in Venezuela as an anti-Marxist rebel, have you?

Because if you had, you would be in prison or in a shallow grave somewhere with a bullet in the back of your head.

Shall I go on?

Knock yourself out. Communism doesn't interest me though. As long as it stays on the other side of the planet to me.

[Seth]

"Communists are inherently evil"

Hahahahaha.

Oh, please.

You haven't spent much time in the killing fields of Cambodia or the gulags of Russia, have you?

Way back fallacy.

Then let's get contemporary: You haven't spent much time in China as an anti-communist activist recently, have you? Nor have you spent much time in Cuba recently as a dissident, I expect. Nor have you spent much time in Venezuela as an anti-Marxist rebel, have you?

Because if you had, you would be in prison or in a shallow grave somewhere with a bullet in the back of your head.

Shall I go on?

Knock yourself out. Communism doesn't interest me though. As long as it stays on the other side of the planet to me.

Problem is, it won't unless it's physically held in check by people determined not to allow it to spread like the cancer it is. So, you're trading in cowardice by ignoring your duty to personally oppose an evil ideology and by expecting other people to shed their blood to keep it on the other side of the planet from you.

But when the Communists come for you in your home, which they will eventually do if left unopposed, who will come and save you?

[Animavore]

Then let's get contemporary: You haven't spent much time in China as an anti-communist activist recently, have you? Nor have you spent much time in Cuba recently as a dissident, I expect. Nor have you spent much time in Venezuela as an anti-Marxist rebel, have you?

Because if you had, you would be in prison or in a shallow grave somewhere with a bullet in the back of your head.

Shall I go on?

Knock yourself out. Communism doesn't interest me though. As long as it stays on the other side of the planet to me.

Problem is, it won't unless it's physically held in check by people determined not to allow it to spread like the cancer it is. So, you're trading in cowardice by ignoring your duty to personally oppose an evil ideology and by expecting other people to shed their blood to keep it on the other side of the planet from you.

But when the Communists come for you in your home, which they will eventually do if left unopposed, who will come and save you?

Is this supposed to scare me? Sounds like something Republicans tell their kids around the camp fire while shining torches under face at a deerhunt/ coming-of-age initiation weekend.