NYT and State Secrets

[George Gervin's Afro]

So, while they were in office nad privvy to the information they believed Iraq had WMD's and a relationship with al Qaeda? But, after they no longer had access to the intelligence they were certain that no WMD's existed and that there never was a relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq? Wow, that's some logic you're employing there.


He said that.


No, not funny -- since he's already said it.


Huh?

Yeah actually things can change/.. The UN Inspectors also said he did not have wmds after Clinton left.. oh wait that does not benefit your argument..



OH I see now your going to play stupid.. please find me any link that says bush gave congress everything he had ..save your time because you won't

[Yonivore]

Yeah actually things can change/.. The UN Inspectors also said he did not have wmds after Clinton left.. oh wait that does not benefit your argument..

How would the inspectors know if they had been absent from Iraq since before Clinton left office?

OH I see now your going to play stupid.. please find me any link that says bush gave congress everything he had ..save your time because you won't

From a November 11, 2005 speech:

"While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: 'When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.' That's why more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.”

But seriously, explain to me the nuance of your statement...

Please take notice that when he comments on the intel he goes out of his way to say congress saw what he saw.. not that they saw everything he did.. very nuanced..

How is congress seeing what he saw not the same as congress seeing everything he saw?

I don't get it.

[George Gervin's Afro]

"While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: 'When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.' That's why more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.”



One problem with this statement which proves he's a liar or stupid:

The first phase of the Senate Intelligence report determined, by the unanimous 17-0 vote that Garrett referenced, that intelligence assessments were not tainted by "pressure" that analysts received from policymakers, but it did not investigate whether the Bush administration misused that intelligence. The committee postponed analysis of the latter, more volatile question until after the 2004 presidential election, pledging to include it in phase two of the report. The Robb-Silberman report similarly excluded examination of the use of intelligence, noting: "[W]e were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community."

[Yonivore]

"While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: 'When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.' That's why more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.”



One problem with this statement which proves he's a liar or stupid:

In his March 3 Wall Street Journal opinion column, deputy editorial page editor Daniel Henninger asserted, "nothing has been more destructive to Washington's current ability to function than the belief that 'Bush lied' about WMD" in Iraq, then claimed that the notion "was refuted by the Robb-Silberman Commission." In fact, the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction -- co-chaired by former Sen. Charles Robb (D-VA) and Republican attorney and former judge Laurence H. Silberman -- did not investigate whether President Bush or members of his administration misled the public about Iraq intelligence. Nor, for that matter, has any other governmental en y to date. Rather, as Media Matters for America has previously noted (here and here), the Robb-Silberman Commission concluded that "[t]he Intelligence Community did not make or change any analytic judgments in response to political pressure" in the buildup to the Iraq war, though even that conclusion has been disputed by some senior intelligence officials.

Do you want to explain how that proves anything other than the Robb-Silberman Commission concluded that "[t]he Intelligence Community did not make or change any analytic judgments in response to political pressure" in the buildup to the Iraq war and that your source disputes that conclusion?

And, seriously, I really would like an explanation to your "nuanced" view of the President's claim that Congress saw the intelligence he saw.

That begs for an explanation because, in my reading of it, you appear to be saying the same thing in both ends of the sentence.

[George Gervin's Afro]

"While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: 'When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.' That's why more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.”



One problem with this statement which proves he's a liar or stupid:

The first phase of the Senate Intelligence report determined, by the unanimous 17-0 vote that Garrett referenced, that intelligence assessments were not tainted by "pressure" that analysts received from policymakers, but it did not investigate whether the Bush administration misused that intelligence. The committee postponed analysis of the latter, more volatile question until after the 2004 presidential election, pledging to include it in phase two of the report. The Robb-Silberman report similarly excluded examination of the use of intelligence, noting: "[W]e were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community."

what congressional investigation cleared bush? bush was referring to a bi-partisan investiagtion that cleared him of misusing intel? which one?

[Yonivore]

One problem with this statement which proves he's a liar or stupid:

The first phase of the Senate Intelligence report determined, by the unanimous 17-0 vote that Garrett referenced, that intelligence assessments were not tainted by "pressure" that analysts received from policymakers, but it did not investigate whether the Bush administration misused that intelligence. The committee postponed analysis of the latter, more volatile question until after the 2004 presidential election, pledging to include it in phase two of the report. The Robb-Silberman report similarly excluded examination of the use of intelligence, noting: "[W]e were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community."

Ooops, you changed your last paragraph.

So, now, you're basing your opinion on whether or not the President lied on information not available to you?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Ooops, you changed your last paragraph.

So, now, you're basing your opinion on whether or not the President lied on information not available to you?

That has been my point! He did not release all of the information he had.. hence he lied!
Bush stated that he was cleared of this when he was never investigated... that's wierd?

This goes back to my statement saying that Bush has not once stated that He gave congress all he had...

[Yonivore]

what congressional investigation cleared bush? bush was referring to a bi-partisan investiagtion that cleared him of misusing intel? which one?

Okay, let's connect some dots, shall we? Just two -- I like to keep it simple for the simpletons in here.

Dot #1) Congress, including more than 100 Democrats voted in favor of using force in Iraq based on the same intelligence the President had.

Dot #2) Robb-Silberman concluded the President didn't exert any political pressure on the intelligence community to make the intelligence appear a certain way.

So, if Congress concluded force was warranted and the President didn't influence the presentation of the intelligence used to draw that conclusion, my guess is that the intelligence said that Iraq posed a thread.

[Yonivore]

That has been my point! He did not release all of the information he had.. hence he lied!

That would suggest you're a member of Congress. Who ever said the American People saw the intelligence upon which Congress and the Administration acted?

Bush stated that he was cleared of this when he was never investigated... that's wierd?

No, he said the commission found the administration hadn't tried to influence the intelligence community. Which they did find.

This goes back to my statement saying that Bush has not once stated that He gave congress all he had...

I'm still waiting for you to nuance that statement.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Okay, let's connect some dots, shall we? Just two -- I like to keep it simple for the simpletons in here.

Dot #1) Congress, including more than 100 Democrats voted in favor of using force in Iraq based on the same intelligence the President had.

Dot #2) Robb-Silberman concluded the President didn't exert any political pressure on the intelligence community to make the intelligence appear a certain way.

So, if Congress concluded force was warranted and the President didn't influence the presentation of the intelligence used to draw that conclusion, my guess is that the intelligence said that Iraq posed a thread.

or he simply withheld info that would undercut his his rationale rushing into the unecessary war... information that he did not release to congress...

maybe he found more up to date intel and not the 1998 stuff you keep whoring..and he did not want to release it..if you omit information consciously then that would amount to not elling the whole truth..

[Yonivore]

or he simply withheld info that would undercut his his rationale rushing into the unecessary war... information that he did not release to congress...

maybe he found more up to date intel and not the 1998 stuff you keep whoring..and he did not want to release it..if you omit information consciously then that would amount to not elling the whole truth..

Your premise is conjecture without support.

[George Gervin's Afro]

That would suggest you're a member of Congress. Who ever said the American People saw the intelligence upon which Congress and the Administration acted?


No, he said the commission found the administration hadn't tried to influence the intelligence community. Which they did find.


I'm still waiting for you to nuance that statement.

is there a difference in the following statements

Congress saw what I saw when they made their decision.. meaning we both saw the same stuff..but i didn't release all of it..so they saw what he saw...

as opposed to stating congress had everything i had to make this decision.. 2 similar statements but both mean 2 different things..

he wasn't lying when he made the first comment becuase they did see what he saw however it does not mean they saw everything he had to show.. meaning he could have withheld info...

please don't tell me this administration is not very careful what they say and how they say it.. as i mentioned before if he makes the second comment he puts his neck on the line and basically says he gave them everything..end of story..non-issue

[George Gervin's Afro]

Your premise is conjecture without support.

well then i guess we have to assume he gave congress the latest intel and info he had at has his disposal..but he won't publicly say it

humor me.. if he did willfully withheld info that would under cut his rationale for war would you have a problem with it?

[Yonivore]

is there a difference in the following statements

Congress saw what I saw when they made their decision.. meaning we both saw the same stuff..but i didn't release all of it..so they saw what he saw...

as opposed to stating congress had everything i had to make this decision.. 2 similar statements but both mean 2 different things..

he wasn't lying when he made the first comment becuase they did see what he saw however it does not mean they saw everything he had to show.. meaning he could have withheld info...

Maybe in George Gervin's Afro World because, I still don't seen the difference except for your extraordinary inference that he withheld information. That would necessarily mean he saw something that Congress did not and would therefore make the statement false.

But, you have fun in semantic world because there are George W. Bush critics that make better arguments than you and, on stuff that is relevant...such as the legitimacy of the war and such.

please don't tell me this administration is not very careful what they say and how they say it.. as i mentioned before if he makes the second comment he puts his neck on the line and basically says he gave them everything..end of story..non-issue

Tell me an administration that isn't careful what they say...particularly when economic and physical security, not to mention geopolitical equilibrium, often hang on the words of world leaders, particularly the President of the United States.

But, if you're applying the Clinton "that would depend on what the meaning of 'is' is" model, then no, I disagree that this administration parses its language that way.

He said that Congress saw what he saw and came to the same conclusion he did. I don't see how you wiggle that into an admission of witholding information.

[Phil E.Buster]

the NYT didn't publish anything that wasn't already known.

[Yonivore]

well then i guess we have to assume he gave congress the latest intel and info he had at has his disposal..but he won't publicly say it

As I've already stated, he did say exactly that...on numerous occassions. Are you re ed? Seriously, I'm growing impatient. You can join the ranks of Random Guy and Bouton on my ignore list and it won't give me one minute of heartburn.

humor me.. if he did willfully withheld info that would under cut his rationale for war would you have a problem with it?

That's a no win hypothetical. Anyone should have a problem if the President withheld information from Congress that was relevant to the passage of use of force legislation.

Where we differ is that you're predisposed to believe he did -- absent any evidence to the contrary -- and I'm predisposed to believe he didn't with all known facts supporting my position.

[Yonivore]

the NYT didn't publish anything that wasn't already known.

Really? How come the author of the article called it secret and, further, showed no hint of knowing about it in November of 2005? How come many in Congress were not aware of SWIFT? And, why did its existence have to be leaked by traitors?

That's a lame cop out.

Did they know we were attempting to track their finances? Sure. Did they know how we were doing it? No...not until last week.

[George Gervin's Afro]

[QUOTE=Yonivore]As I've already stated, he did say exactly that...on numerous occassions. Are you re ed? Seriously, I'm growing impatient. You can join the ranks of Random Guy and Bouton on my ignore list and it won't give me one minute of heartburn.


That's a no win hypothetical. Anyone should have a problem if the President withheld information from Congress that was relevant to the passage of use of force legislation.

Where we differ is that you're predisposed to believe he did -- absent any evidence to the contrary -- and I'm predisposed to believe he didn't with all known facts supporting my position.

Well why then did bush use information that he knew was ruled , at the minimum, not reliable? I mean all I hear is that we did not go into Iraq for wmds alone there were other reasons... one was aluminum tubes that the white house was told flat out they could not be used in a nuclear capicity..they simply were not big enough... ok most people would say ok well this fell through..Bush used the intel anyway as part of his justification for the need to go to war... he was told the tubes COULD NOT be used yet he decided to anyway..so that would beg the question if the case was so solidd why use knowingly bad info... please don't tell me that i'm wrong.. you choose to ignore all of the obvious contradicions about why we went to war..

DO I have proof he withheld information? No but that does make you right ? Hey if you are going to believe Bush gave them all of the information without proof then I can assume he did not.

[Yonivore]

[QUOTE=George Gervin's Afro]

As I've already stated, he did say exactly that...on numerous occassions. Are you re ed? Seriously, I'm growing impatient. You can join the ranks of Random Guy and Bouton on my ignore list and it won't give me one minute of heartburn.


That's a no win hypothetical. Anyone should have a problem if the President withheld information from Congress that was relevant to the passage of use of force legislation.

Where we differ is that you're predisposed to believe he did -- absent any evidence to the contrary -- and I'm predisposed to believe he didn't with all known facts supporting my position.

Well why then did bush use information that he knew was ruled , at the minimum, not reliable? I mean all I hear is that we did not go into Iraq for wmds alone there were other reasons... one was aluminum tubes that the white house was told flat out they could not be used in a nuclear capicity..they simply were not big enough... ok most people would say ok well this fell through..Bush used the intel anyway as part of his justification for the need to go to war... he was told the tubes COULD NOT be used yet he decided to anyway..so that would beg the question if the case was so solidd why use knowingly bad info... please don't tell me that i'm wrong.. you choose to ignore all of the obvious contradicions about why we went to war..

DO I have proof he withheld information? No but that does make you right ? Hey if you are going to believe Bush gave them all of the information without proof then I can assume he did not.

d'okie dokie. Have fun.

[Yonivore]

Now, back to reality

The American Spectator interviewed officials from the Treasury and Judiciary Departments on the SWIFT terrorist finance tracking leak. Here are some highlights:

"We thought that once the reporters and editors understood that one, these were not warrantless searches, and two, that this was a successful program that had netted real bad guys, and three, that it was a program that was helping us with current, ongoing cases, they would agree to hold off or just not do a story," says the U.S. Treasury official. "But it became clear that nothing we said was going sway them. Whomever they were talking to, whoever was leaking the stuff, had them sold on this story."

To that end, the Justice Department has quietly and unofficially begun looking into possible sources for the leak. "We don't think it's someone currently employed by the government or involved in law enforcement or the intelligence community," says another Justice source. "That stuff about 'current and former' sources just doesn't wash. No one currently working on terrorism investigations that use SWIFT data would want to leak this or see it leaked by others. We think we're looking at fairly high-ranking, former officials who want to make life difficult for us and what we do for whatever reasons."

Sounds like another case of Democrat holdovers in the federal bureaucracy putting party ahead of country. Here's more:

As for the ongoing investigations that the two Times papers were told of, only time will tell if they have been damaged by the reporting. "Let's put it this way, some of these folks probably aren't using their banks anymore, so who knows," says the Treasury source. "Using banks for transfers was easier for them to move funds faster, especially if it was in a part of the world that was heavily Muslim and they thought the money wouldn't draw as much attention there. But groups like al Qaeda aren't about to put expediency before their goals of destroying us, so they will do what they have to do to protect their financing and their operatives. We know that, we just wish the New York Times and Los Angeles Times cared, too."

Democrats in the federal bureaucracy collude with Democrats in the press to undermine American foreign policy, hoping thereby to benefit their party. It's one of the most important stories of the last four years, and so far, at least, there isn't a single Democrat of national stature who has spoken out against this unholy alliance.

[boutons_]

bull .

Any terrorist charged wth moving funds knows about SWIFT. Only participant banks and member orgs can move funds through SWIFT. Anybody/terrorist can't do it by himself. The SWIFT address of the recipient bank and the recipient account must be given, as anybody who wired funds overseas knows. SWIFT has been cooperating for tracking drug money, funds hiding/tax evasion/offshore since the inception of SWIFT.

The NYT/WSJ/LAT revealed nothing that any terrorist wouldn't already know and/or suspect was the case.

For the "evidence" for the Repug war in Iraq, the WH suppressed serious doubts by the intelligence community about the evidence showed to Congress.

The situation was very much "The Repug WH has decided it is going to invade Iraq. Congress, there is no doubt about the evidence we choose to show you. Slam dunk, cakewalk, etc"

There were serious doubts in the intelligence community about:

1. the African yellowcake

2. the aluminum tubes as nuclear centrifuges

3. the mobile bio labs (Powell slimed his own career with his trip to the UN with this lie)

4. that Saddam was behind/involved in the WTC attack

5. no WMD had been found the inspectors, and that was the case after the invasion, so the inspectors were giving the correct, true story.

head went viciously after Wilson because Wilson dared to expose the yellowcake bull .

[RandomGuy]

I would further point out that the Bush administration itself trumpeted its efforts in tracking terrorist finances. Kind of hard to "leak" public information...

[RandomGuy]

Democrats in the federal bureaucracy collude with Democrats in the press to undermine American foreign policy, hoping thereby to benefit their party. It's one of the most important stories of the last four years, and so far, at least, there isn't a single Democrat of national stature who has spoken out against this unholy alliance.

A grand conspiracy theory if I ever saw one.

[RandomGuy]

Here again, we have very quick use of the word "traitor" and such.

The vitriol leveled at anybody who dares question the administrations/GOP motives or actions is very troubling.

I would have some amount of respect for Yoni's demagogery if it were tempered by the admitting that maybe, just maybe, it is possible to have principled reasons for opposing the administration.

In Yoni's imaginary world, only traitors with malice in their hearts could/would be troubled by an administration's ever-increasing police powers, and immoral policies.

To be truly patriotic, we have to trust unreservedly the executive branch with no checks on each new usurped power, and no consequences for willfully ignoring laws duly passed by the legislative branch.

If a Democrat had done anything similar, everyone here can know for a 100% certainty that Yoni would be screaming bloody murder about it, and blaming Democrats for "covering up" these programs.

The interests of good government should call for the american public to know ANYTIME our government is collecting information on us.

I would pose the question to Yoni (who I know has me on "ignore" because he knows he can't win an argument with me):

Where DO you draw the line on the executive branchs' powers?

Unlimited detention without trials of US citizens deemed "enemy combatants"?
Torture?

These things harm us much more in the long run than any modi of information that might escape us by their use.

[DarkReign]

Here again, we have very quick use of the word "traitor" and such.

The vitriol leveled at anybody who dares question the administrations/GOP motives or actions is very troubling.

I would have some amount of respect for Yoni's demagogery if it were tempered by the admitting that maybe, just maybe, it is possible to have principled reasons for opposing the administration.

In Yoni's imaginary world, only traitors with malice in their hearts could/would be troubled by an administration's ever-increasing police powers, and immoral policies.

To be truly patriotic, we have to trust unreservedly the executive branch with no checks on each new usurped power, and no consequences for willfully ignoring laws duly passed by the legislative branch.

If a Democrat had done anything similar, everyone here can know for a 100% certainty that Yoni would be screaming bloody murder about it, and blaming Democrats for "covering up" these programs.

The interests of good government should call for the american public to know ANYTIME our government is collecting information on us.

I would pose the question to Yoni (who I know has me on "ignore" because he knows he can't win an argument with me):

Where DO you draw the line on the executive branchs' powers?

Unlimited detention without trials of US citizens deemed "enemy combatants"?
Torture?

These things harm us much more in the long run than any modi of information that might escape us by their use.

-RandomGuy
__________________________________________________ _

No more ignore.

EDITED for clarity