Go to An Unfortunate Outburst of Intense Patriotism
- Add a comment
- Go to Surprise, surprise! Saddam tape confirms WMD intent and deceit!
Professor, thanks for the interest!
It is in one of two blogs. This one, or my Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness blog at http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/WriterofLight1342/ I'll give you a hint for the terasure hunt - it was posted last December. Enjoy!
posted by
WriterofLight
on February 19, 2006 at 7:03 PM
| link to this | reply
Writer
Where is your post on Joe Wilson "outing" his own wife? I'd like to read it.
posted by
Professor_Peabody
on February 19, 2006 at 12:34 PM
| link to this | reply
Blogflogger again!
"Inflammatory, irrelevant statements do nothing but falsely fan the flames."BINGO! Grand slam! Truer words were never written in Blogit! Tell me, wise one - does that also hold true for inflammatory, irrelevant statements form the left?
As for the second sentence, see my response to Scoop.
posted by
WriterofLight
on February 18, 2006 at 8:53 PM
| link to this | reply
Blanche, I love that line, "I will type slower if that helps . . ."
Very nice, but I don't think it does any good. I type plenty slow, but still run into lack of comprehension from some readers. 
Thanks for sharing the Negroponte quote, and your analysis of it illustrates why CIA jobs are on the line in light of what is being learned. If the CIA was so radically wrong, then some people need to be sacked. Your sentence about what is clearly shown raises a nasty problem: If Saddam is saying such things about WMDs, and Negroponte is saying that the tapes don't disclose anything new, then the pre-war intelligence that Saddam had WMDs and wanted to continue or resume their production was right. Otherwise, Saddam is lying.
posted by
WriterofLight
on February 18, 2006 at 8:50 PM
| link to this | reply
Blogflogger -
Get the facts straight. There is total agreement that Iraq had WMDs. The Bush administration has never said - here we go with a double negative
- that Iraq never had them. The issue is what happened to them.
posted by
WriterofLight
on February 18, 2006 at 8:44 PM
| link to this | reply
Okay, Professor, it's your turn!
Very nice try, but you'd have been better off dealing with the main thrust of the story. Your whole argument is shot by the fact that Ms. Plame's name had already been leaked - by her husband, no less, and a full year before the Plame name so-called scandal started.
And since you mention threats to national security: What is worse? The husband of a non-operative leaking her name, or a United States Senator leaking the name of an actual operative on the floor of the Senate chamber? What's worse? The husband of a non-operative leaking her name, or a major newspaper leaking the existence of a program designed to prevent another September 11 attack by intercepting the kinds of communications to terror cells overseas that preceded that attack?
Here's some homework for you: Go read an old post of mine called "Plame Leaves CIA – How the News Media Screws Up a Story." And check out the extensive list of links at the end of the post.
posted by
WriterofLight
on February 18, 2006 at 8:41 PM
| link to this | reply
Good discussion!
Scoop - thanks for adding on what I left out for sake of brevity. Yes, he also did discuss the threat of terrorist attacks against the U. S. Which makes me wonder - on what was he basing his statement? Could he have just possibly been in cahoots with al Qaeda, as has been alleged? Concerning WMDs, consider his record. He invaded Kuwait and Iran. He used WMDs on the Khurds of northern Iraq. He was historically a supporter of Palestinian terrorism. Training facilities for terrorists were found in Iraq. Links between his government and al Qaeda have been established. If a regime with an agenda of invasions and supporting, training, funding and sheltering terrorists like his has WMDs, what logical reason is there to assume he has no intention of making them available for use? That would be like allowing Hitler to complete development of a Nazi atomic bomb on the assumption that he wouldn't actually use the thing.
posted by
WriterofLight
on February 18, 2006 at 8:32 PM
| link to this | reply
Dear Corbin
Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Corbin: Thought police? Whatever does that mean? I think you're under too much stress.
posted by
Professor_Peabody
on February 16, 2006 at 10:13 PM
| link to this | reply
Blanche - I wasn't going to bother but thanks for addressing this.
Inflammatory, irrelevant statements do nothing but falsely fan the flames. The world knows Iraq had WMD 10-20 years ago. We can't justify war for what they "used to have" or what they "wanted to have".
posted by
blogflogger
on February 16, 2006 at 8:06 PM
| link to this | reply
The thought police have arrived........
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on February 16, 2006 at 8:04 PM
| link to this | reply
WriterofLight,
In debate, your subject line would be called "overclaiming", meaning your assertion is not backed by the evidence. I took this quote from your link to ABC News:
"A spokeswoman for John Negroponte, director of national intelligence, said information contained in the transcriptions of the tapes was already known to intelligence officials.
"Intelligence community analysts from the CIA, and the DIA reviewed the translations and found that, while fascinating, from a historical perspective the tapes do not reveal anything that changes their post-war analysis of Iraq's weapons programs nor do they change the findings contained in the comprehensive Iraq Survey group report," she said in a statement."
This quote clearly shows that the CIA did not consider Saddam Hussein to have WMD. But what do they know.
Corbin, I'm sorry this gets complicated and confusing for you, but, as I said, try to keep up. I'll type slower if it helps. 
posted by
Blanche.
on February 16, 2006 at 7:59 PM
| link to this | reply
Writer
Isn't it amazing the comments you sometimes get when people don't take the time to read your entire post including the links........
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on February 16, 2006 at 7:44 PM
| link to this | reply
WriterofLight - Beautiful. Your subject line is inaccurate, the contents of
... of your post are inaccurate, but just think how many will read this, and not investigate further. Does it not bother you when you mislead your readers? -- Even the Bush administration has admitted there were no pre-Iraq invasion WMDs. -- Disinformation programs are the worse possible abuse of the written word.
posted by
blogflogger
on February 16, 2006 at 6:51 PM
| link to this | reply
Just one comment...
I don't have the time or energy to address your entire post just one part of it...the "Plame Name"
Valerie Plame was a fairly high-ranking CIA employee. Reasonable people can argue whether she was an "agent" "operative" or NOC (non-official cover) or not, but she DID work for the CIA. There's a reason even deceased CIA people don't have their name on the wall; theirs is a secret operation.
Moreover, Valerie was working on the WMD issue in Iran, a country now presumed to have or are working on nuclear weapons. Pretty important issue, no?
So, please tell me how it helps US security to have her name disseminated in the media? Does it make her job, an admittedly important one, easier or harder? We're not arguing whether "Scooter" Libby should go to jail, or even if he broke any laws. But does it make this country any safer?
As a CIA employee, she's through. Her "cover", official or not, is blown. She's useless as a CIA agent. Plus, the brass plate company she set up, is useless. And all of the people she talked to or "groomed" are suspects...or marked for death.
And why did the White House reveal this person's name? Was there a legitimate national security interest in doing so? I repeat my question: How does this make this country safer?
I sincerely believe that her name was thrown to that traitor Bob Novak to stifle Joe Wilson's dissent. It was politics, of the most venal kind. Who's playing politics with national security? The White House, and they should be ashamed!
posted by
Professor_Peabody
on February 16, 2006 at 6:31 PM
| link to this | reply
Writer slow down you are losing it, I read the story it never said he would
use them;
"Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans a long time before Aug. 2 and told the British as well … that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction."
Saddam goes on to say such attacks would be difficult to stop. "In the future, what would prevent a booby-trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington or a germ or a chemical one?" But he adds that Iraq would never do such a thing. "This is coming, this story is coming but not from Iraq."
Well terrorism did come on 9/11 and not one Iraqi was involved.
And no one can still prove that they were there when the US invaded in 2003 nor have we found anything.
posted by
scoop
on February 16, 2006 at 6:30 PM
| link to this | reply