Ex-cia Official Says Bush 'cherry-picked'

Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
2
3
4
5

Ex-cia Official Says Bush 'cherry-picked'; intelligence
Tweet Topic Started: Feb 10 2006, 06:25 PM (1,098 Views)
cmoehle	Feb 11 2006, 11:04 AM Post #16
Chris - San Antonio TX Posts: 36,959 Group: Members Member #1 Joined: June 6, 2004	justme "Pillar has an opinion that the war can not be won-- some in the government believe that it can and must be won, but will take some time and the time spent would be worth it." Just a question. Which war? Bear with me, I'm serious, and will get to the real question. If we're talking the Iraq War, then I would say it is winnable with the cooperation of the Iraqi people, call the measure of victory a relative level of democratic stability--that's the way some of the generals put it. The Terror War, though, while in political speeches it's said we are winning and will win, I question that tactically, realistically, for, as there always has been, there will always be terror from another terrorist. We may defeat Bin Laden and Al Queda, but terror, no. Now you may link the two more directly than I do, and even frame it differently, no matter, my question is, you seem well informed, so who is saying we will win, and how do they say we will? Your own opinion tossed in the mix would be interesting as well. It's genuine interest, not disagreement.
	Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater


Colo_Crawdad	Feb 12 2006, 09:04 AM Post #17
Lowell Posts: 1,808 Group: Members Member #15 Joined: June 21, 2004	justme Feb 11 2006, 09:06 AM Colo_Crawdad Feb 11 2006, 08:15 AM BTW, what he really said in that earlier article was not that the terrorists were no threat, but rather that we can never "win" a war on terror, what we can do is contain them. My final comment this morning is that folks like justme might want to examine their own "agendas." So every one who disagrees with you are right wingers? Now, just where did I say anything such thing? That may make for a nice sound bite of a personal attack, but it is blatantly false. (Another technique often used by those on the right wing against those with which they disagree.)
	"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo


cmoehle	Feb 12 2006, 09:45 AM Post #18
Chris - San Antonio TX Posts: 36,959 Group: Members Member #1 Joined: June 6, 2004	It's something that comes from both sides. comes in the form of a false dichotomy, you don't agree with me therefore you disagree with me. IOW, it mistakes a relative judgment of value for an absolute judgment of truth.
	Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater


justme	Feb 12 2006, 12:11 PM Post #19
Member Posts: 434 Group: Members Member #55 Joined: July 18, 2004	cmoehle Feb 11 2006, 12:04 PM justme "Pillar has an opinion that the war can not be won-- Just a question. Which war? Bear with me, I'm serious, and will get to the real question. If we're talking the Iraq War, then I would say it is winnable with the cooperation of the Iraqi people, call the measure of victory a relative level of democratic stability--that's the way some of the generals put it. The Terror War, though, while in political speeches it's said we are winning and will win, I question that tactically, realistically, for, as there always has been, there will always be terror from another terrorist. We may defeat Bin Laden and Al Queda, but terror, no. Now you may link the two more directly than I do, and even frame it differently, no matter, my question is, you seem well informed, so who is saying we will win, and how do they say we will? Your own opinion tossed in the mix would be interesting as well. It's genuine interest, not disagreement. I am talking about Pillar-- the left media and DNC have built this guy up as an expert on Terror and I and others (right wingers according to Colo crawdad) are simply pointing out that his credibility should be questioned and not accepted as some kind of guru. Paul Pillar has a career interest and preference for negotiations as the way to solve conflicts. From his earliest book, he focused on situations where the outcome was not victory. Time and again, he has said that military solutions are not solutions. With regard to Iraq, whether it goes well or poorly, it goes poorly � if terrorism is the question. Clearly Mr. Pillar is not on board with George Bush�s fundamental premises in the Global War on Terror, so it should be no surprise that he is having secret meetings around the country criticizing US policy while stabbing the president in the back doing it. Why did this fellow have a job at the CIA? There is plenty of material on the web and in his books that one can easily see that he has an agenda-- and therefore should not be considered prima facia as an expert. No wonder the president was not quick to accept his imputs.



cmoehle	Feb 12 2006, 12:19 PM Post #20
Chris - San Antonio TX Posts: 36,959 Group: Members Member #1 Joined: June 6, 2004	Certainly no one source is suffient, and everyone comes with their bias. You would think, if his bias is toward diplomacy, he would align himself with Bush's current approach. But his argument is with the past, so perhaps he can't see that.
	Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater


5thwheeler	Feb 12 2006, 01:10 PM Post #21
Get the message? Posts: 1,018 Group: Members Member #161 Joined: March 16, 2005	cmoehle Feb 11 2006, 11:04 AM justme "Pillar has an opinion that the war can not be won-- some in the government believe that it can and must be won, but will take some time and the time spent would be worth it." Just a question. Which war? Bear with me, I'm serious, and will get to the real question. If we're talking the Iraq War, then I would say it is winnable with the cooperation of the Iraqi people, call the measure of victory a relative level of democratic stability--that's the way some of the generals put it. The Terror War, though, while in political speeches it's said we are winning and will win, I question that tactically, realistically, for, as there always has been, there will always be terror from another terrorist. We may defeat Bin Laden and Al Queda, but terror, no. Now you may link the two more directly than I do, and even frame it differently, no matter, my question is, you seem well informed, so who is saying we will win, and how do they say we will? Your own opinion tossed in the mix would be interesting as well. It's genuine interest, not disagreement. Iraqi war won??? What will a won war look like? Will it be declared won after the Iranian backed Shiites take over and the Sunnis roll over and die? Or maybe after the civil war that will come when the Kurds set up their own homeland? The Iraq war won.... none of us will live to see it, god help our grandkids.
	History 101: When a popular myth is believed to be factual, teach the myth. Its not possible to underestimate the intelligence of the voting populous. Hummm, after seeing the results of the 06 election, I may have to modify my perception of the voting populous and refer to them as "Late Bloomers".


cmoehle	Feb 12 2006, 01:17 PM Post #22
Chris - San Antonio TX Posts: 36,959 Group: Members Member #1 Joined: June 6, 2004	"What will a won war look like?" As I said, some measure of democratic security. As some of the generals over there say it cannot be won by us alone but only with Iraqi involvement in their future. I imagine they will take the measure and decide.
	Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater


justme	Feb 12 2006, 01:18 PM Post #23
Member Posts: 434 Group: Members Member #55 Joined: July 18, 2004	cmoehle Feb 12 2006, 01:19 PM Certainly no one source is suffient, and everyone comes with their bias. You would think, if his bias is toward diplomacy, he would align himself with Bush's current approach. But his argument is with the past, so perhaps he can't see that. Yes, but he would be against Bush if diplomacy failed-- I believe. We did try diplomacy on Iraq, but as I recall the French were against our efforts and would not force Saddam to allow the Arms Inspectors the do their job fully. If the French, Germany and Russia would have been more in line with our diplomatic efforts, I doubt we would have invaded Iraq. Can you say oil for food



cascade	Feb 12 2006, 02:01 PM Post #24
Lloyd...Michie,Tennesse Posts: 351 Group: Members Member #45 Joined: July 12, 2004	Is he selling diplomacy or books? There is nothing wrong with making a profit and adding to the corporate bottom line, but I wouldn't confuse that with real policy. Why doesen't he continue his Government service and run for office, and install his own policy.
	"[Do not] suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberty [to publish] by any pretenses of politeness, delicacy or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice." --John Adams


cmoehle	Feb 12 2006, 02:35 PM Post #25
Chris - San Antonio TX Posts: 36,959 Group: Members Member #1 Joined: June 6, 2004	justme, what I meant is subsequent diplomatic efforts with North Korea and recently depending on the EU's diplomatic efforts to deal with Iran. Seems things are lining up now.
	Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater


CalRed	Feb 12 2006, 03:57 PM Post #26
Member Posts: 1,087 Group: Members Member #128 Joined: November 30, 2004	Quote: The Bush administration, Pillar wrote, "repeatedly called on the intelligence community to uncover more material that would contribute to the case for war," including information on the "supposed connection" between Hussein and Al-Qaeda, which analysts had discounted. Makes you wonder why Bill Clinton convinced everyone that there was a definite proven link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq when he struck against the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant but no one wants to belive George Bush several years later when he says the same thing has been proven... Al the simple people...If it isn't on CNN they don't want to believe it. Besides it takes a little effort to "prove" things, most just want to "go with the flow"...that's why they stay politically ignorant. If this guy Pillar was in charge of the Intelligence, why did we get such bad intelligence??? Guess he is one of the reasons. Sounds like a little cya to me.
	Something instead of Nothing? "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Alan Sandage


Colo_Crawdad	Feb 12 2006, 04:08 PM Post #27
Lowell Posts: 1,808 Group: Members Member #15 Joined: June 21, 2004	cruiser Feb 10 2006, 07:32 PM Colo, you were right on with your statement below. It sure did not take very long to smoke them out of the woods. I wonder how long it will take the Right to begin their usual character assassination of Mr. Pillar? Let's see, do you suppose he is a "leftist," a "disgruntled former employee," just "looking to make money," or maybe an "American hater," or just a "Bush hater?" It sure didn't take long, did it? Now, it seems they are out in force. I wonder if they can find another Libby to "leak" something about Pillar's wife? Some are even attempting to claim that the "liberal press" is "making up" his credentials. Wow! Unbelievable! There are apparently no depths to which some of the right will not go to assassinate the character that doesn't spew the "Bush line."
	"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo


campingken	Feb 12 2006, 06:02 PM Post #28
Member Posts: 1,332 Group: Members Member #56 Joined: July 18, 2004	Colo, Fear causes people to do desperate acts. The Cons have gone from the "Thousand Year Party" to things don't look so very rosy come November. Power is hard to give up so the mud slinging has just begun. Besides as Cal pointed out "it's all Clinton's fault anyway.." Ken



silverfox	Feb 12 2006, 06:32 PM Post #29
Member Posts: 252 Group: Members Member #227 Joined: December 11, 2005	Colo_Crawdad Feb 12 2006, 04:08 PM cruiser Feb 10 2006, 07:32 PM Colo, you were right on with your statement below. It sure did not take very long to smoke them out of the woods. I wonder how long it will take the Right to begin their usual character assassination of Mr. Pillar? Let's see, do you suppose he is a "leftist," a "disgruntled former employee," just "looking to make money," or maybe an "American hater," or just a "Bush hater?" It sure didn't take long, did it? Now, it seems they are out in force. I wonder if they can find another Libby to "leak" something about Pillar's wife? Some are even attempting to claim that the "liberal press" is "making up" his credentials. Wow! Unbelievable! There are apparently no depths to which some of the right will not go to assassinate the character that doesn't spew the "Bush line." Colo-- I have been reading this thread with interest and found it rather interesting. However could you clarify character assassination or where it was suggested that Pillar was an American Hater, leftest or the liberal press was making things up? I do not read those accusations or assertions. What I read is that Pillar has an agenda that the press has not clarified that seems to be clearly demonstrated and therefore one should allow that into consideration while reading your initial post. Please clarify you posts because they don't seem to be in the full context of this tread. Also, why do you consider people "of the right" that challange Pillar's motives?



justme	Feb 13 2006, 09:34 AM Post #30
Member Posts: 434 Group: Members Member #55 Joined: July 18, 2004	Colo_Crawdad Feb 12 2006, 05:08 PM It sure didn't take long, did it? Now, it seems they are out in force. I wonder if they can find another Libby to "leak" something about Pillar's wife? Some are even attempting to claim that the "liberal press" is "making up" his credentials. Wow! Unbelievable! There are apparently no depths to which some of the right will not go to assassinate the character that doesn't spew the "Bush line." I would like cleaification of your post-- who is out in force and who is assasinating the charactor of Pillar and spewing the Bush line. And who is attempting to claim the liberal press is making things up?

Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience. Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3
4
5