Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bruce L who wrote (147509)	10/10/2004 6:39:56 PM
From: Tom C	Respond to of 281500

IF PRESIDENT BUSH REASONABLY RELIED ON... The buck stops here. Apparently not this time.

To: Bruce L who wrote (147509)	10/10/2004 7:05:53 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Your examination of my posting somehow associating veracity with the length of time between postings is quite comical. I regret to inform you that the only factor which governs posting interval is whether I have time and inclination to visit the discussion thread. Spending time with my family and enjoying work and all that life has to offer come way before chiming in here. Although it is certainly true that engaging in stimulating discussion, especially on topics as important as face the world these days, is part of life. As for your conclusion that somehow I have replaced religious faith with ideological faith, this is a non-starter. For one, political ideology is not a thing to have faith in, despite some neoconservatives forgetting this point. Frequently. The two major points you raise: Michael Watkins accuses President Bush of lying based on carefully selected and distorted excerpts from a NY Times article, yet he ignores the really big question we all should be asking in this connection. I accuse the entire senior administration of distorting facts. - Did the US Nuclear "A-Team" conclude that the materials in question were suitable for centrifuge use, or not? No -- they concluded that they were not suitable. - Did Bush, Rice, Cheney, and for the coupe de grace, Powell despite this evidence and testimony by the experts go ahead and claim "they could really only be used for nuclear weapons production"? Yes, they did. On national TV no less. Whether the facts were presented in the NY Times article or elsewhere, they remain facts. How the Times used them did not distort the facts. How I used them did not distort the facts. Therefore I accused the administration based on facts, not distortion, as you protested. And secondly, you stated: IF PRESIDENT BUSH REASONABLY RELIED ON CIA DIRECTOR TENET (KEPT ON FROM CLINTON) - WHO TOLD HIM THAT IT WAS A "SLAM DUNK" THAT SADDAM HAD WMDs - HOW CAN ANY REASONABLE PERSON CLAIM THAT HE WAS LYING? Recently it has been reported and confirmed by those who worked in the Pentagon at the time that Vice President Cheney requested that an "Office of Special Plans" be set up. This group worked directly with Cheney on intelligence matters. Quote: Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski worked at the Pentagon along side the 'Office of Special Plans' a group that worked with Cheney on intelligence matters. "When I heard those (President Bush's) speeches I recognized many of the anecdotes. Having seen the intelligence I knew this was a manipulation of the information. It was cherry picked information, out of context information. [MW: I would like to state here that the words "cherry picked" are words I've used recently; I was not aware of this specific quotation until today. Why am I not surprised to see this insider with specific knowledge state that which I have surmised?] "It bothered me a great deal because I saw it to be conscious manipulation. Not an oversight but consciously done." "If you don't tell Dick Cheney what he wants to hear, you're out of a job." -- Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski worked at the Pentagon along side the 'Office of Special Plans' In conclusion -- you are going to find, Bruce, that more and more pieces of the puzzle start to fit as time goes on. If you've ever enjoyed putting puzzles together, you know that the first going is tough, but suddenly there comes a time when enough of the puzzle has been completed that the rest starts coming together more quickly and the resulting picture becomes clearer and more distinct rapidly. Its my sense that we are now at that tipping point - the information will come to the fore more rapidly than ever - in part because there is more access, and in part because some see the writing on the wall and will come forward to protect their own skins. Try to deny this if you will, but you won't convince anyone that isn't already acting with blinders full on. In the end, the truth has a nasty way of leaking out and its clearly not benefiting the president.

To: Bruce L who wrote (147509)	10/11/2004 8:07:52 AM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 281500

In his first response, Michael Watkins (who claims "Spockian" cool) denied the profile as 'not true.' It was in that connection that I tauntingly asked the QUESTION.... and then I added, "I didn't think so!" Not a unique accusation, I've seen it made of other persons from time to time. It's always been a puzzle to me. And I've never understood why the accused person cares. IF you know yourself that's all that matters. Particularly in a 2D world. IF PRESIDENT BUSH REASONABLY RELIED ON CIA DIRECTOR TENET (KEPT ON FROM CLINTON) - WHO TOLD HIM THAT IT WAS A "SLAM DUNK" THAT SADDAM HAD WMDs - HOW CAN ANY REASONABLE PERSON CLAIM THAT HE WAS LYING? There are many IF questions in the world. Another is...if it was a slam dunk and we knew exactly where those weapons were, why didn't we take up Saddams offer to bring in all the CIA personnel that we desired and find those weapons. If Bush really believed Tenet and Rumsfeld, it's a no brainer. You go in, point to the WMD and it's case closed. In addition to the "Slam Dunk" there were many specific claims. The aluminum tubes, the Niger documents, the mobile vans. At every turn, when the "evidence" was given to the UN inspectors, none of it panned out. It was always wrong. IF the specifics that led to the conclusion that it was a Slam Dunk were repeatedly shown to be wrong, why didn't the President question the conclusion? jttmab

To: Bruce L who wrote (147509)	10/11/2004 8:45:25 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Another question... Why would Bush doubt the word of Gen Shinshecki [sp?] who thought that several hundred thousand troops would be needed over that of Paul Wolfowitz [Gen Shinshecki is wildly off the mark] who may not be able to find the trigger on a grenade launcher let alone plan an occupation? Beyond being a career military officer, Gen Shinshecki had direct applicable experience in Bosnia. Bush answers that question with a question of his own.... During the debate, Bush said that he remembers going into the basement and asking Gen Tommy Franks...Is this the right plan with the right number of troops? What is Gen Franks going to say?...No sir, this is not the right plan...we decided to not use the right plan because we felt it would be unfair to the Iraqi army. ... No sir, this is not the right number of troops, we won't have enough troops to keep the peace. But what the hell, we decided to go with it anyway. It will keep the military busy during the occupation. The very question ... Is this the right plan with the right number of troops? illustrates the incompetence of Bush. Any competent manager would know that when he's given a plan by his subordinates, of course, they're going to say it's the right plan. If it wasn't the "right plan" they wouldn't be proposing it. A competent manager knows what questions to ask to ascertain whether it's the right plan. jttmab