Grrr, some people have a singular understanding of the term “thumbnail sketch.” I simply don’t want to spend the time today.
Try the search function, I’d bet buckets it has been discussed at length before. However you do win, I went off and found a preliminary source for the Wolfowitz quote. Not a great one but it is a start.
Sorry, didn’t need the cite for Wolfowitz’s comment. Was already aware of it. That’s why I made sure to include my parenthetical clarification.
BTW, I’m unaware of the definition of thumbnail sketch that means, “brief post that I don’t need to support with fact.” Not trying to be contentious–just reacting to your “grr.” Here’s a “woof” right back at ya. And a “snarl,” no extra charge.
Woodwards value as a source is not the center to that point. The fact is that the WH was entirely happy to have the anecdote be accepted. They certainly took no great pains to contradict the story about the bold and decisive leader. No indeed.
As to your second point:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/18/woodward.book/
“This is the best we’ve got?” Does this sound like the man who later avers that he never had any doubt?
Consider also:
Imagine her suprise. Did anyone doubt it? Even as we argued here, amost none of us argued that we thought there wouldn’t be a war, after Saddam had spent the better part of ten years manuevering the US into a position as to make any other course impossible, the crafty devil. Everybody knew that war was the preferred outcome.
Did anyone really believe him when he said he hadn’t made up his mind? I guess somebody must have, but it is a wonder.
You can pretty straight to it by looking up Mr. Doug Feith, who seems to have been almost everywhere during this pooch-screwing festival, sort of a Zelig of Doom. That will take you straight to the sordid tale in question.
Aren’t you contradicting your argument, though? If Tenet assured W it was a slam dunk case, that doesn’t seem to support an assessment that Bush went to war without reason. And I may be confusing things, but aren’t you simultaneously saying no one in the Bush administration denies the charge that a decision was already made, when later you quote a denial of said assertion? Which is accurate?
Google took me straight to 98,300 cites for Doug Feith. Can you humor me and show me the one of the 98,300 that makes clear the undisputed fact that sevastopol introduced?
Stratocaster, the search term you need is “Office of Special Plans”.
You might find this thread illuminating, stratocaster:
Pentagon Office of Special Plans (OSP): What’s the Deal?
I’ll give that thread the attention it deserves when I can. A quick look reveals some troubling allegations.
There is still a non sequitur that is bothering me, though–if this agency was a necessity for building the case to invade Iraq (i.e., WMDs) because the other intelligence agencies could not, how can that be reconciled with Tenet’s assurance to W that WMDs in Iraq were a slam dunk case? On the surface the two thoughts seem contradictory; the OSP was superfluous, given Tenet’s position.
The CIA, by itself, seemed to strongly support the position that WMDs existed in Iraq, even if they did not strongly support every piece of evidence. Hell, that seemed to be the consensus in the intelligence community, in the U.S. and beyond.
Yes, we’ve heard that one. Everybody said so, the CIA, England, France, even!
Did the CIA sign the marching orders? Did England? France? Does this much vaunted “accountability” translate into “Take the credit if it goes well, blame everybody else if it doesn’t?”
The creation of the OSP was naked, transparent. The CIA had not, in fact, given over the desired result, otherwise, such an excercise wouldn’t have been necessary. They had doubt, The Leader had none. He should have. There was ample reason to have doubt.
Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary proofs. The justification for a pre-emptive war simply has to be iron-clad, going to war on “maybe” just doesn’t cut it. If those justifications prove to be false, and they have, the responsibility rests with GeeDubya, who insisted that he was right in spite of apparent doubt. And “Oopsy! Well, darn!” doesn’t get it.
If GeeDubya didn’t want to assume this burden of responsibility, he needn’t have run. He wasn’t drafted. He wasn’t thrust unwilling into the Presidency. And if demanding and insisting upon what proved to be an entirely needless war, at the cost of untold thousands of innocent Iraqi lives isn’t “screwing the pooch”, please advise what in Og’s name would be.
We’ve already been through these Golden Oldies, Strat. Many times. If you are determined to find a rationale to hold The Leader blameless, perhaps you should adopt the Chewbacca Defense. Its as good as anything so far.
Two things: I read both Kerry’s book and the Swiftvets book and have an informed opinion. Even if you haven’t read the book, you are free to have another, albeit less-informed opinion.
Logically, losing your cool and getting into a pissing contest and being insulting because you disagree with someone else’s viewpoint within the context of a message is proof of both stupidity and cowardice. I intend to start a thread on the subject one of these days demonstrating the proof. Probably you can reason it out for yourself, though.
But, it happens to the best of us from time to time and it’s usually a temporary thing.
What you’ve said, and what Redfury said is something different though. You are deliberately choosing the path of both cowardice and stupidity.
I would suggest that if you have lost your patience and have decided to be rude and unreasonable and seek pissing matches with people you strongly disagree with then you should not bother posting on this board. It’s supposed to be about something else.
You should go kick dogs, or burn cats or something.
Soince the Swiftie book does not contain any information it is not possible to become informed by reading it.
Propaganda is not information, Scylla. One naturally expects Kerry’s campaign bio, in book form, to be embellished in a manner to reflect as much credit as possible onto its subject. The same is true of GeeDubya’s campaign bio Born on Third Base (or some such).
The Swifties book is propaganda of an even purer form, it is a bubbling cauldron of horseshit. It is not “informative”, it is utter rot. Reading The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not informative relative to Judaism in Czarist Russia, one cannot suggest that one is better “informed” by reading it.
Sandwhiching pure drivel between two bookcovers and selling it at Amazon.com does not raise drivel to the level of citation and source. It remains drivel. I haven’t read any of Lyndon LaRouche’s books either, I haven’t any qualms about my opinion that he is batshit crazy.
Your claim to have a more valid opinion due to superior information is groundless.
Scylla: That you can’t see that you’re stance is dishonorable on top of being wrong is due to you’re being a fascist. I’m not surprised.
On this particular point, we seem to be going around in circles. I’m not blaming the CIA, nor am I suggesting W should. My point is simply that I can’t reconcile these three points:[ul][li] The OSP was plainly necessary because the CIA could not provide the foundation for an “Invade Iraq” rationale, not an WMD one or any other.[/li][li] CIA Director Tenet assured W that WMDs in Iraq was a slam dunk case.[/li][*]Albeit falsely in retrospect, virtually EVERYONE in the intelligence community, here and abroad, believed that Iraq possessed WMDs.[/ul]The first bullet at least appears to contradict the other two.
The mere possession of WMD by Iraq was not in itself a justification for an invasion. What virtually everyone thought was that Iraq still had some sarin shells or some mustard gas left over from the 80’s. That is a far cry from everyone believing that Iraq had either the stocks or the ballistic ability or the inclination to threaten the US. Reducing the issue to whether or not Iraq had a few rusted relics from before GW1 is an exercise in misdirection on the part of the Bushies.
I’m sure that Tenet was asked whether it was a “slam dunk” that we would find something in the way of banned weapons and Tenet said yes because that was clearly what he was expected to say (we know that W is congentially unable to hear or comprehend information which conflicts with reality as he would like it to be) but that’s not the same as saying he thought that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US.
Plainly not the case. Google on:
In summary: Men in a position to know, who didn’t believe and did things about it.
Also there have been strong suggestions from within Israel that their intelligence services knew the US case was bogus but didn’t want to rain on the administration’s parade.
Further I believe there were a number of resignations from the US diplomatic corp, prior to the invasion, that cited the unlikely claims the US administration was making.
If you have not read it, then how can you comment intelligently on its contents?
I’ve read the many and comprehensive dissections of the pamphlet such as this one ny eRiposte.
I’ve never read Mein Kampf either. If a piece of meat stinks from across the room you don’t have to actually taste it to know that it’s rotten.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t you’ve read either. So again, your opinion of the contents is, by definition, worthless.
It’s not that I have superior information. I have the information. Trying to debate someone who has not bothered to familiarize himself with the basic subject matter is like trying to debate someone, blind since birth, about what a sunset looks like.
Your opinion is invalid.
My opinion on Farenheit 911 would be invalid, if I had one. Seeing as I haven’t seen the movie, I’ve elected an intelligent standpoint, and do not have an opinion of it.
I certainly wouldn’t shout out an opinion of a movie I haven’t seen, or attempt to debate people about what it means who have seen it.
To do so, without having seen it would be stupid.