The Army and the CIA are 'unnamed sources'?


NOYB wrote:
You're being intentionally obtuse. Specifically, which members of the Army
and CIA?


Why do you want to know their names? Thinking of another Plame type
'outing'? Sorry.

The CIA and the Army (or, to be yet a little more specific, the Pentagon
and the DIA) have offices for disseminating information to the public.

One presumes that the info released is screened to as not to give away
important secrets, but then, sometimes mistakes are made (who *did*
release that Plame ID anyway?? Didn't President Bush vow to find &
punish them?). One also might assume that the info is often given some
political spin, but unless one assumes that all military, CIA, and State
Department counter-terrorist operatives are very strongly anti-Bush, why
would they contradict Bush & Cheney's rosy pronouncements?

And given the blatantly mendacious statements that Bush & Cheney have
both uttered in the past, who do you give more credibility to? Wait, I
already know...



Do you agree with his statement?


Yes. The "insurgency" was composed of the Saddam faithful who tried to get
the American forces out of there. The terrorists are a completely different
group.

Oh, I see... let's just make a new definition of 'terrorist.' That helps
a lot.



What about President Bush's statement... only last night... that the U.S.
military *will* withdraw from Iraq? Wanna revise your statement that we'll
be there forever?


Nope. We'll always have bases there. We just won't have a US troop
presence in the major cities.

In other words, you think President Bush is lying?



And how about President Bush linking Iraq with Sept 11th... again & again?
I was surprised to hear him mention Osama Bin Laden,


A lot of things surprise you. All along, Bush has spoken of Iraq's ties to
terrorists.

That's no surprise. But we're still waiting to see some proof of Iraq's
ties to anti-US terror, to Al-Queda, and to Sept 11th. So far, a couple
of years of intense investigation hasn't come up with any.


... I doubt there's a single American that doesn't believe we're
fighting al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq right now.

Are you saying that Al-Queda is the main terrorist organization
operating in Iraq?



why did Rumsfeld fire all those generals for saying we would need more
troops?


Which generals?


Got a short memory, eh?

There was a major falling out in the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs, most of
whom wanted a bigger invasion force and much bigger and better armored
occupation force. Of course, the FACT that they were right and Rumsfeld
was wrong would be embarassing if it had to be admitted, so let's just
pretend it never happened.



Why is the Army upset about missing recruiting goals if they don't need
more?



They don't need more in Iraq.


Really? Why have they been asking for more then? Why is the Army in such
a flap over recruiting shortfalls?


These little inconsistencies tend to make one believe that either Bush &
Cheney are seriously deluded, or else they are politically constrained
from admitting the truth. Maybe you can explain?


I already did.


Oh right... I meant in way that actually includes some facts. So far,
your delusions & fantasies don't seem to have much effect in the real world.


I wonder when it will occur to Bush & Cheney to announce that we never
invaded Iraq. Didn't happen, it's all a plot by those darn libby-rull
biased media types.

DSK

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

You're being intentionally obtuse. Specifically, which members of the
Army and CIA?


Which generals?


This tactic is getting old. You use it to deflate the value of what he
just said, but you're assuming one or more things:

1) He lying - totally fabricating the existence of what he read or heard
in the news. Not likely.

2) The personnel quoted are somehow not to be trusted, AND that YOU are
in the magical position of being able to determine who can be trusted.
This, of course, is bull****.

3) The person you're conversing with is your research assistant, and has
the time or inclination to dig into the news from a month or two ago and
present you with cut & pasted info. Sorry. No cigar.

Address what he said based on the assumption that the generals have
names, but those names are not important at the moment.

Why? The generals could just have an axe to grind. That is...if the
generals even exist.

How would YOU know the difference between the truth, and an axe to grind.
Would knowing a general's name tell you this?


Perhaps.




And I'm not choosing who to trust. I'm just choosing to trust people who
go "on the record" vs. those who don't.

There's no logical reason for the truth of a statement to be based on
whether a person gives his name or not.

Maybe not. But it doesn't allow for cross-examination of the accuser. If a
general made a claim that may or may not be true, he ought to be able to
(and required to) support that claim under close examination by the public.






As for me "addressing what he said", my response is this: The insurgency
has all but shriveled up and died...but now there's a cabal of terrorists
from other countries arbitrarily blowing people up so that it makes the
evening news...and gives people like you some ammunition to take pot
shots at our President.

That's not my opinion. That's the opinion of the PM of Iraq, and the VP
of the US...folks who are willing to "go on the record" with their
opinions.

Meanwhile, "some general" (whose name I've forgotten since I heard the
broadcast a month ago) said that the fighters he was encountering were
mostly locals. You will now say that yes, they could be locals, but hidden
somewhere in a dark basement is their boss, who's Syrian.

Nope. One boss is Jordanian, one is Egyptian, and one is a Saudi...and none
are Iraqi.

NOYB wrote:
Why? The generals could just have an axe to grind. That is...if the
generals even exist.


Yeah, like not wanting to get their men killed in a long pointless war
that they were thrown into with insufficient strength.



As for me "addressing what he said", my response is this: The insurgency has
all but shriveled up and died...but now there's a cabal of terrorists from
other countries arbitrarily blowing people up so that it makes the evening
news...and gives people like you some ammunition to take pot shots at our
President.

That's not my opinion. That's the opinion of the PM of Iraq, and the VP of
the US...folks who are willing to "go on the record" with their opinions.


And whose publicly stated opinions are based on no discernable fact.

Let's see, if Vice President Cheney says the sky is green, then it must
be green! He's on record!

See how easy it is? Why can't you darn America-hating libby-rull
traitors GET IT!

DSK

John H wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005 05:12:43 -0700, wrote:



John H wrote:

Doug, why do you find name-calling necessary? Do you feel it legitimizes your
argument?

John, how come you find it okay if YOU, JimH, Fritz and NOYB call
people names, but when someone who is debating you, as opposed to being
in your circle jerk does it, it's bad?

Have I called someone a name recently,
Yes.

or are you referring to the name calling
of Harry (who was telling lies about me) for which I apologized to the group
quite a while back?

Yes.

Have *you* ever apologized for your name calling?
No.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
The Army and the CIA are 'unnamed sources'?


NOYB wrote:
You're being intentionally obtuse. Specifically, which members of the
Army and CIA?


Why do you want to know their names? Thinking of another Plame type
'outing'? Sorry.

The CIA and the Army (or, to be yet a little more specific, the Pentagon
and the DIA) have offices for disseminating information to the public.

One presumes that the info released is screened to as not to give away
important secrets, but then, sometimes mistakes are made (who *did*
release that Plame ID anyway?? Didn't President Bush vow to find & punish
them?).

I just read that Newsweek is ready to release the name so that their
reporter doesn't sit in jail.


One also might assume that the info is often given some political spin, but
unless one assumes that all military, CIA, and State Department
counter-terrorist operatives are very strongly anti-Bush, why would they
contradict Bush & Cheney's rosy pronouncements?

The CIA is responsible for missing the warning signs before 9/11, and losing
track of what happened to large quantities of unaccounted for WMD's in Iraq.
Goss has been weeding out the bad apples and there are a lot with an axe to
grind. So, yes, it is likely that there are numerous anti-Bush folks in the
CIA.

BTW--generals work for the DoD. Why did you mention the State Dept. when we
have been talking about "generals and CIA operatives"?



And given the blatantly mendacious statements that Bush & Cheney have both
uttered in the past, who do you give more credibility to? Wait, I already
know...



Do you agree with his statement?


Yes. The "insurgency" was composed of the Saddam faithful who tried to
get the American forces out of there. The terrorists are a completely
different group.

Oh, I see... let's just make a new definition of 'terrorist.' That helps a
lot.



What about President Bush's statement... only last night... that the U.S.
military *will* withdraw from Iraq? Wanna revise your statement that
we'll be there forever?


Nope. We'll always have bases there. We just won't have a US troop
presence in the major cities.

In other words, you think President Bush is lying?



Bush never said that we'd withdraw. Go read the transcript of his speech
again:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS...sh.transcript/

Now tell me where he said that we'd withdraw from Iraq.


Here is how he addressed the question about how long we'll stay:

"Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will
stand down." (stand down doesn't mean withdraw)

" We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed and not a day longer. " (as
long as we are needed)


And you can bet that as long as we're reliant on oil, a US troop presence in
Iraq will be "needed". Get it, Doug?




And how about President Bush linking Iraq with Sept 11th... again &
again? I was surprised to hear him mention Osama Bin Laden,


A lot of things surprise you. All along, Bush has spoken of Iraq's ties
to terrorists.

That's no surprise. But we're still waiting to see some proof of Iraq's
ties to anti-US terror, to Al-Queda, and to Sept 11th. So far, a couple of
years of intense investigation hasn't come up with any.

It's come up with plenty. You just haven't been paying attention.



... I doubt there's a single American that doesn't believe we're
fighting al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq right now.

Are you saying that Al-Queda is the main terrorist organization operating
in Iraq?

Yes.





why did Rumsfeld fire all those generals for saying we would need more
troops?


Which generals?


Got a short memory, eh?

There was a major falling out in the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs, most of
whom wanted a bigger invasion force and much bigger and better armored
occupation force. Of course, the FACT that they were right and Rumsfeld
was wrong would be embarassing if it had to be admitted, so let's just
pretend it never happened.

Good. Then name the generals.




Why is the Army upset about missing recruiting goals if they don't need
more?



They don't need more in Iraq.


Really? Why have they been asking for more then? Why is the Army in such a
flap over recruiting shortfalls?

The army isn't requesting more troops in Iraq.

One presumes that the info released is screened to as not to give away
important secrets, but then, sometimes mistakes are made (who *did*
release that Plame ID anyway?? Didn't President Bush vow to find & punish
them?).


NOYB wrote:
I just read that Newsweek is ready to release the name so that their
reporter doesn't sit in jail.


Oh, you mean the folks that got jumped on because they reported
instances of abuse of Koran at Gitmo... which later turned out to be
correct? I'm still waiting for all the Bush/Cheney cheerleaders who
called Newsweek bad names to apologize.


One also might assume that the info is often given some political spin, but
unless one assumes that all military, CIA, and State Department
counter-terrorist operatives are very strongly anti-Bush, why would they
contradict Bush & Cheney's rosy pronouncements?


The CIA is responsible for missing the warning signs before 9/11, and losing
track of what happened to large quantities of unaccounted for WMD's in Iraq.
Goss has been weeding out the bad apples and there are a lot with an axe to
grind. So, yes, it is likely that there are numerous anti-Bush folks in the
CIA.

Oh, that explains it... the official news office of the CIA is made up
of bad apples who have been weeded out... from what, exactly?


BTW--generals work for the DoD. Why did you mention the State Dept. when we
have been talking about "generals and CIA operatives"?


Because shortly after Vice President Cheney made his statement, the
State Dept was one of the gov't branches saying they had given him no
information on which to base his "last legs" statement. In other words,
State is on the list of people going 'WTF??' after Cheney spoke.


Nope. We'll always have bases there. We just won't have a US troop
presence in the major cities.

In other words, you think President Bush is lying?




Bush never said that we'd withdraw.

No? Did he say "We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed and not a
day longer."



Now tell me where he said that we'd withdraw from Iraq.


Well, it's that wet/dry up/down black/white thing. Can our military not
stay in Iraq one day longer than needed, and yet stay in Iraq? Was this
President Bush's way of saying that this 'war' will go on forever?



And you can bet that as long as we're reliant on oil, a US troop presence in
Iraq will be "needed". Get it, Doug?


Oh, I got it long ago. President Bush tells pleasant sounding lies to
fool church people, who are uncomfortable with the truth and too
ignorant to spot the contradictions.


A... All along, Bush has spoken of Iraq's ties
to terrorists.

That's no surprise. But we're still waiting to see some proof of Iraq's
ties to anti-US terror, to Al-Queda, and to Sept 11th. So far, a couple of
years of intense investigation hasn't come up with any.


It's come up with plenty. You just haven't been paying attention.

Oh? In that case, let's review...

Sept 11th links to Iraq found by the CIA:
None

Sept 11th links to Iraq found by the Sept 11th Investigating Committee:
None

Sept 11th links to Iraq detailed by the President:
None

Sept 11th links to Iraq hinted at by the President:
many many many

Sept 11th links to Iraq detailed by the Vice President:
None

Sept 11th links to Iraq hinted at by the Vice President:
almost as many as President Bush

Requests made by the Sept 11th Investigating Committee, the DIA, the
FBI, the CIA, for details from the President & Vice President:
several

Number of times the President & Vice President refused to testify:
many

Number of times the President & Vice President did testify:
once

Number of times the President & Vice President testified under oath:
none




Are you saying that Al-Queda is the main terrorist organization operating
in Iraq?


Yes.


Oh.

Got any evidence at all? Hopefully more than you have for Iraqi
involvement in Sept 11th?



Really? Why have they been asking for more then? Why is the Army in such a
flap over recruiting shortfalls?


The army isn't requesting more troops in Iraq.


That's what President Bush says, but that's not what the Army says.

DSK

Congratulations on making a post that is a little more than just 'me too
me too.'

P. Fritz wrote:
While the majority of 'terrorists' may be from Iraq, almost all of the
suicide bombers are from other countries (mostly Saudi). Without the
suicide attacks, the other terrorists would be meaningless and quickly
disposed of.


I haven't seen that reported, but it may be true. Suicide bombing is a
specialty of Palestinians and other severaly depressed people mostly
brought up in refugee camps.

However, it's not just suicide attacks that are a problem. Increasingly
powerful & sophisticated IEDs, anti-air rockets, and kidnappings, are a
BIG problem. We can't even secure the Baghdad Airport. Is that 'winning'??

DSK

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:34:58 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:


Meanwhile, "some general" (whose name I've forgotten since I heard the
broadcast a month ago) said that the fighters he was encountering were
mostly locals. You will now say that yes, they could be locals, but hidden
somewhere in a dark basement is their boss, who's Syrian. Blah blah
blah.....

It's difficult wading through the BS to get an accurate estimate of the
foreign element in Iraq. The best estimate I have found is less than 10%,
actually 5-8%. It is a definite increase from the 2% encountered in
Fallujah, but would still qualify as "mostly locals." It is also
estimated that of the foreign element, 60% come from Saudi Arabia,
dwarfing the estimated 10% from Syria.

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/publi...?doc_id=268185

While the increase in foreign jihadists is troubling, it should be
expected from the new "terror breeding ground" we have created.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...


How would YOU know the difference between the truth, and an axe to grind.
Would knowing a general's name tell you this?


Perhaps.

OK. Name one or two whose comments you'd find questionable.



And I'm not choosing who to trust. I'm just choosing to trust people
who go "on the record" vs. those who don't.

There's no logical reason for the truth of a statement to be based on
whether a person gives his name or not.

Maybe not. But it doesn't allow for cross-examination of the accuser. If
a general made a claim that may or may not be true, he ought to be able to
(and required to) support that claim under close examination by the
public.

Exactly how would you determine whether a specific general's remarks were
accurate. Remember that he's in Iraq and you're in Florida.

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

So, yes, it is likely that there are numerous anti-Bush folks in the CIA.

Clue: CIA employees are not vetted for their political affiliations. You
probably WISH they were, but they are not.