More news you might have missed...

[Fairweather]

Frontline usually presents down the middle when appropriate. I'll watch it tonight, Matt. Let's see if we view it through the same glasses.

[mattp]

Allright then. Book reports due tomorrow.

[Jim]

As always with Frontline this was solid reporting. If you think Cheney and Rummy weren't planning for Iraq and used 911 opportunistically for a number of items you're not being objective.

 

My favorite quote of Cheney's to his staff (as best I remember) "Even if the worst outcome has only a 1% chance of probability, we must repeat it as if it is a certainty. It is not the justifications that matter but our response"

 

Kinda says it all. And there is no doubt who is running the show in the White House. It's not the wooden-headed puppet.

[Peter_Puget]

Of course if you read this ....

 

fter spending the past month retracing our steps and confirming facts, we've come full circle. Our sources continue to maintain that a grand jury has in fact returned an indictment. Our sources said that parts of the indictment were read to Karl Rove and his attorney on Friday, May 12, 2006. Last week, we pointed to a sealed federal indictment, case number "06 cr 128," which is still sealed and we are still pointing to it. During lengthy conversations with our sources over the past month, they reiterated that the substance of our report on May 13, 2006, was correct, and immediately following our report, Karl Rove's status in the CIA leak probe changed. In summary, as we press our investigation we find indicators that more of our key facts are correct, not less.

 

 

[Jim]

..which of course has nothing to do with Frontline. Nice feint.

[Peter_Puget]

feint?

 

I started this thread go read the first post....

 

[Jim]

feint?

 

I started this thread go read the first post....

 

 

Well given the latest topics discussed above and your Re:Jim reply I'd count that as off topic. Stay with the tread man.

[Stefan]

Rove is innocent.

 

But who outted Valerie Plame?

[archenemy]

feint?

 

I started this thread go read the first post....

 

 

Well given the latest topics discussed above and your Re:Jim reply I'd count that as off topic. Stay with the tread man.

who is this tread man you speak of?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

feint?

 

I started this thread go read the first post....

 

 

Well given the latest topics discussed above and your Re:Jim reply I'd count that as off topic. Stay with the tread man.

who is this tread man you speak of?

 

is the Tread Man like the Spoon Man?

 

The Spoon Man

[mattp]

The Spoon Man

 

Yes, but did he lie to take us into war?

 

I'm still waiting to hear what Fairweather thought of the TV show the other night. And, in a similar vein, has anybody here read this?

 

Vanity Fair

 

The liberal media has some rather detailed reporting about how BushCo were told over and over again that their "facts" were untrue before they reported them as "facts" to Congress and the U.N.

[willstrickland]

who is this tread man you speak of?

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The Spoon Man

 

Yes, but did he lie to take us into war?

 

[willstrickland]

Premature esnafflation.

[mattp]

PP -

Did you watch TV the other night? Do you STILL maintain I was wrong, three years ago, when I said Bush and company were lying?

[Fairweather]

The Spoon Man

 

Yes, but did he lie to take us into war?

 

I'm still waiting to hear what Fairweather thought of the TV show the other night. And, in a similar vein, has anybody here read this?

 

 

OK Matt.

 

I did watch the Frontline report (although I missed the first 15 minutes getting back late from my evening run). As I've said - I consider Frontline good, down-the-middle reporting - and I've been digesting what I saw this past day and a half. Sometimes our disgust for one's social ideology renders their message inaudible, and this has been a case where I did not clearly hear...until now. I have concluded that yes, we were lied to about the stated reason for the invasion of Iraq. And while the interviews with Joe Wilson and Richard Clarke were about what I expected, I was, frankly, stunned by the parade of corraberating interviewees from the political, military, and intelligence communities. I still can't believe many of these men have the balls to speak up. Again, I was stunned by the daily visits to CIA headquarters made by Cheyney's entourage to intimidate analysts. Analysts! What gall. What has me most bothered is the (apparently solid) allegation that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and to a lesser degree Rice - when they could not convince Bush to go along - badgered Tenet and Powell into joining the choir....and, sadly, that they did. The fabricated story about the Prague meeting between Atta and Iraqi intel...a lie. The virtual state of war (ongoing!) between the CIA and the administration is shocking - and terrifying. WTF is going on?

 

Matt, as I've stated before, I believe there were plenty of valid reasons to invade Iraq. Why the administration chose to pick a lie as the reason, I can only guess. But they obviously figured it would be easier to play on public fears about WMD's than to claim a violation of the cease-fire agreement/attempted assasination of GHWB/ongoing human rights violations. Hell, maybe they actually believed that Iraq was somehow complicit in 9/11! - something I have never subscribed to. The implication that administration claims of ongoing WMD production in Iraq was, in fact, a fabrication DOES mean that the invasion was not urgent - it means that it was an optional war. Yes.

 

Also exposed in this report, at least insomuch as it has changed my view of the history, is that we probably did sacrifice capturing Bin Laden at Tora Bora while men and materiel were being diverted to a build-up for an optional war in Iraq. The CIA ex-field chief in Afghanistan (I can't remember his name) is pretty clear about this. Bush took his eye off the ball.

 

Please spare me the Oil/Halliburton bullshit. I'm still not that cynical. And no, I'm not jumping on the peace train with you at this point! We need to stay and finish this....somehow. But I do now believe that both Cheney and Rumsfeld should be replaced. Maybe even investigated. Maybe even put on trial. Bush should finish out his term and try to make the best of this situation. Ammends. Yes, he is/was ultimately responsible for the actions of his subordinates...but it's not too late to save this thing and I still believe he is a good man. No longer do I Cheney and Rumsfeld.

[murraysovereign]

I haven't seen it yet, but I taped it and was going to watch it "some time". But now I'm thinking maybe I'll watch it tonight.

[mattp]

Fairweather, I'm impressed by your post.

 

Before we went into Iraq I argued that we should have been talking about something along the lines of this: Saddam is a bad guy, and he is only getting worse, so we may in fact find we have to invade or take other serious action sooner or later. We never had that discussion. I believe we should have a similarly frank discussion now, based on an honest analysis of how what is happening in Iraq is likely to play out, and how this or that possible intervention on our part may actually help or hurt our prospects for long term security or even prosperity (and we should similarly be discussing the reality in any number of other dangerous parts of the world).

 

Sadly, I don't think we'll ever see such discussion. Certainly the debates in Congress are nothing but a charade.

 

I actually DO believe some of the "oil/Halliburton bullshit," but that is neither here nor there. I would point out, however, that nearly all of the information that you saw in that piece the other night was available in the mainstream press at least three years ago if you were really watching.

[Ratboy]

It was a very goodshow, as Frontline usually is. For those that missed it, you can watch it online if you wish:

 

Frontline: The Dark Side

[Fairweather]

I would point out, however, that nearly all of the information that you saw in that piece the other night was available in the mainstream press at least three years ago if you were looking for it.

 

I don't believe this is true. Many of the ex-intel folks interviewed for the piece were just recently "retired" in 2004 and 2005, and it is/was their revelations that I found most damning of Cheyney & crew. Regardless, there were many pieces of this puzzle laying in a heap on the table - but until this Frontline story, nobody to put them all together in a manner that didn't smack of politics or outright hysteria. IMO.

[mattp]

The repeated visits to the CIA were definitely reported at the time. So too were claims that resources were diverted from trying to catch Bin Laden. And the fact that the meeting in Prague was denied by virtually everyone who had any real knowlege of the relevant events was pointed out almost as soon as they started talking about it. There were also reports about the special "pipeline" for "supporting" information, and the European press covered the repeated warnings from the analysists that the Uranium purchase documents were not trustworthy. Much of that other factual stuff, too, was available long ago.

 

It was all passed off as just more politically motivated spin, and maybe only now you are seeing someone that you actually trust saying these things, but it was all there.

[Fairweather]

OK Matt. Here it is:

 

Re: The invasion of Iraq

 

For the most part you were right and I was wrong.

 

Is that better? I suspect you've had problems at certain points in your life with this, so here it is...

 

Just graciously accept my acquiesence regarding this issue and move on. If you wish to discuss any aspect of the Frontline show in any greater detail I am more than happy to do it with you. Or, if you want to discuss future prospects for Iraq, the Bush Administration's ongoing duplicity, whatever, I'm OK with that. But your last two posts have been smarmy at best. Again; you were right, and I was wrong. Yes, I know, you told me so. I get it now.

[mattp]

Fairweather,

 

You've been calling me names and saying I've been smoking pot and whatever for four or five years. You gotta let me bask in a moment of glory - if only for ten minutes. I'm sure we'll be hard at it again tomorrow, OK?

 

More smarm:

Don't feel bad. Most Americans have been similarly fooled by all of this, and I'm afraid the spin and lies and fear mongering will continue. I'm seriously worried about the health of our "democracy."

[Fairweather]

Fair enough. But I think the republic will survive yet another crooked administration.

[foraker]

I always assume politicians are crooked. Even the ones I can tolerate (note, I did not say 'like' or 'support'. I can only think of one politician that I actually liked). If they aren't crooked, it makes me suspect that they are too stupid to be crooked, or lacking enough political acumen/power to be worth the trouble of corrupting.