Breaking: White House Will Declassify ‘Key Judgments’ of NIE
Breaking: White House Will Declassify ‘Key Judgments’ of NIE
President Bush, moments ago:
Once again, there’s a leak out of our government, coming right down the stretch in this campaign, you know, to trade confusion in the minds of the American people, in my judgement, is why they leaked it. So I told the DNI to declassify this document. You can read it for yourself. We’ll stop all of the speculation, all the politics, about someone saying something about Iraq, you know, somebody trying to confuse the American people about the nature of this enemy. And so John Negroponte, the DNI, is going to declassify the document as quickly as possible, declassify the key judgments for you to read yourself and he’ll do so in such a way that he’ll be able to protect sources and methods that our intelligence community uses. And then everybody can draw their own conclusions about what the report says. Thank you.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Bush use big word “naive” still does not know what it means, Karl said to use it anyway.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:04 pmSomeone had to leak NIE before Bush release. That someone is a force against evil. I’m sure Bush planned to release it all along (yeah right).
September 26th, 2006 at 12:06 pmRead:
We will declassify the report in such a manner as to make it sound like it came out to the complete opposite conclusion as to what the full report stated. We expect you to swallow this, because shit you swallowed it when we did it before in the run-up to Iraq.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:07 pmYesterday pat roberts said they….would declassify PARTS of it….let’s see…
September 26th, 2006 at 12:07 pmBush will be wondering silently for weeks why 2 sets of 2 commas had to be used for “naiveâ€
September 26th, 2006 at 12:10 pmHandy Bush->English translation guide for the above statement:
“declassify” – redact all portions of the document which show incompetence and gross negligence
“key judgments” – parts of the NIE which focus on successes
“as quickly as possible” – as soon as is politically expedient to provide a bounce in the polls , probably within a week or two of the election
September 26th, 2006 at 12:10 pm“Key Judgements”
September 26th, 2006 at 12:10 pmThat means that the administration will selectively release what is ‘key’ to advancing their view that Iraq isn’t creating terrorists. We’re not going to see a release that is representative of the report.
timeo danaos et dona ferentes…
September 26th, 2006 at 12:11 pmI fear that this whole NIE has been a Rove trick and the Dems have been set up. See Robert Dreyfuss’s piece at TomPaine.com: “Beware the NIE”
September 26th, 2006 at 12:11 pmNo doubt, after redaction, the report will be made available. As early as Nov. 8.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:13 pmNext word goes to Georgie Bush…
Spell “redact”…
Georgie pauses with that keen look in his eye, and that trademark smirk…”Redact…C..O..V..E..R..U..P…redact”
Styve
September 26th, 2006 at 12:13 pm“Key Judgements” – In other words, they’re going to cherry pick.
After sitting on it for five months, for fear that it might embarass the administration, Negroponte is finally going to share the few parts that might help Bush’s cause. Three cheers for Big Brother!
September 26th, 2006 at 12:13 pmThe fact is Terrorism has escalated around the world since 9/11
September 26th, 2006 at 12:14 pmBush to declassify ‘key judgements’…
LOL, come on bush, if you’re gonna manipulate your sheeple, don’t tell us before hand.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:15 pmHow can the “progressives†call the President an idiot and yet still be the head of all the evil conspiracies you believe are going on? If you disagree with him, state a valid point. Not “he’s a liar.†Unless you have real proof.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:16 pmOf course they will change the report to suit them. The Neocons lie, lie, lie.
What do you expect from the right wing nuts?
September 26th, 2006 at 12:17 pmLet’s not have us be Naive.
If you think there is ANY CHANCE AT ALL that Bush would release a document damaging his party’s chances to maintain their griip on power this November, you haven’t been paying much attention the last six years.
Listen carefully to what he said, “Key Judgements” will be released AFTER Negroponte scrubs it.
In other words Bush is saying, “We’re going to release the part that makes us look good, and the stuff that makes us look bad? Well, that’ll be a matter of national security.”
(’cause anything that damages the GOP is a threat to national security)
THAT’S WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN
September 26th, 2006 at 12:20 pmYou want to know how Kevin?
Because we stay current. It’s easy, all you need to do is compare what bush says, with reality.
Try it yourself, make a game out of it, practice by using bushes pre-Iraq rhetoric and compare it with current events.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:21 pm“How can the “progressives†call the President an idiot and yet still be the head of all the evil conspiracies you believe are going on?”
Progressives are a diverse group, not one monolithic group. There are those who believe that 9/11 occurred because of a vast, government conspiracy, and there is the other group that believes that it was the result of sheer, mind boggling incompetence starting from the top.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:24 pmIf you disagree with him, state a valid point. Not “he’s a liar.†Unless you have real proof.
Comment by Kevin
Kevin, you’re going to be very dissappointed in your president when he actually has to tell the truth under oath, and we then will have “proof.”
Sadly, they’ve been ducking accoutability so long, you think its the normal state of affairs.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:24 pmChaos is an effective means of hiding the truth.
The Bush Cabal is well practiced at the use and distribution of chaos.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:26 pmYOU ARE 100% CORRECT CHRISTIAN
and the sheeple will buy it… so sad..
September 26th, 2006 at 12:27 pmGood move by the president. Now we can see what the NIE really says, rather than having to rely on the “creative” interpretations of the report by the liberal, anti-Bush reporters from The New York Times and The Washington Post.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:31 pm#15. The small, small man is a liar. Every time he says that Social Security is going broke, he is lying.
Please don’t try and argue the Social Security issue with me. I did extensive research and know the details of the program’s finances which are sound.
That is only one lie of the numberless he’s told.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:31 pmWait wait wait wait wait!
Is he going to declassify the whole document or just parts of it?
“…to declassify this document.” sweet!
“…to declassify the document…” sweet!
“…declassify the key judgments for you…” doh!
I hope I’m not reading too much into this…
September 26th, 2006 at 12:32 pmRove has decided that this is a win/win for Bushco. The Senators who have seen the entire document, can’t say anything about what they know it says, thus the controlled release of some key passages meets the bipartisan call for doing just that. Next, either the edited NEI will state that there are more terrorists or less. If more, then Bushco can claim we need to really be worried, and need to upgrade and strengthen our national security and expand our efforts by attacking Iran. If there are less, then Bushco can claim that their efforts in Iraq are containing the problem and that as a nation we are ready to move on to attacking Iran.
This is lose/lose for the Democrats who will be left either trying to say we don’t need to increase our efforts to stop terrorists in Iraq (either because there are more or there are less), or trying to claim that the indefinite and infinite war on terror is not wise even though the NEI shows more terrorists.
We need to get the entire NEI document, with its many appendages, and as originally written two years ago.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:34 pmMore Handy Bush->English translation guide:
to trade confusion -> meaningless gibberish that only his own drug addled brain can decipher.
“got me some confusion here, got some wood? wanna trade?”
September 26th, 2006 at 12:37 pmA question – will the representatives of these agencies grow a set and come forward to provide context for these cherrypicked “key findings” once they are made public? [crickets]
September 26th, 2006 at 12:37 pmAnything damaging to Bush will be blacked out, of course….
September 26th, 2006 at 12:41 pm“The anti-Bush reporters of the NYT and the WaPO?”
Right, the newspapers that colluded in rushing us into a war based on lies, and papers that still cover up the truth, or offer readers Hallmark cards like the WaPo’s sob story about Bush’s private anguish over the war. Anyone anguishing about a war does not call it “a comma.”
September 26th, 2006 at 12:41 pmIt won’t be worth lookng at by the time they are done with it. And it will not come out before the election. We will be told that it’s coming any day now, but it won’t. The lack of actual information will raise alot of questions, ones they will not want to answer before the election. This is just to ‘pacify’ us, to look like they are being open. They are not fooling me.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:41 pm#15….
September 26th, 2006 at 12:42 pmHe is an idiot, and perhaps even more of an idiot than the persons behind the curtain (who are at the root of the conspiracies, corruption and war crimes) thought he was when they wired him up for the puppet show.
For those who think that George W. Bush is a man of honesty and integerity, I invite you to go to your local library and check out David Corn’s “The Lies of George W. Bush”. You can also, while you’re there, check out “The Book on Bush” by Mark Green and Eric Alterman. Then you’ll understand why, for us, that Bush lies is a given.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:43 pm#5
Bush will be wondering silently for weeks why 2 sets of 2 commas had to be used for “naiveâ€
Comment by Tobey+Tall
Does that equal four Iraqs?
September 26th, 2006 at 12:45 pmExley, whether or not NYT reporters are “anti-Bush” (um, can you say “Judith Miller”?), I presume they can read. What I’ve read of the declassified portions of the report are, purportedly, direct quotations … that say Iraq has fueled Islamic extremism. So, I’m not sure what “‘creative’ interpretation” is needed. Sometimes, words is words, ya know?
September 26th, 2006 at 12:47 pm27-You’re a riot!! I was wondering myself what to “trade confusion” meant. Thanks!
September 26th, 2006 at 12:49 pmMy son made sock puppets at school yesterday, really. I told him they were great, and the president is a sock puppet too.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:52 pmThe NIE will squarely blame Clinton.
Bush will respond by saying “we all tried to save him the personal embarrassment.”
Anyway, the WH stopped listening to the intelligence community long ago. That’s why they haven’t “read” or “seen’ this document.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:53 pmMore of the same old tricks… let’s not allow this dictatorship to continue… VOTE Democrat on November 7 and bring some balance to this madness…this country can’t take another 2 years of unchecked power!
September 26th, 2006 at 12:54 pmAhhhhh using the power of classification/declassification to selectively reveal information to help elect members of his party. I’m wondering how many times the founding fathers are rolling over in their graves on this one…
September 26th, 2006 at 12:56 pm#33….Wayne, David Corn???? The man who conspired with Lyin’ Joe Wilson and Valerie “Vanity Fair” Plame to concoct a series of lies about the now-discredited plot by a vengeful White House to “out” a “covert” (Well, actually, no) agent????
That’s your source? Yeah, well, Wayne, sorry….If you are going to try and convince people that Dubya is a liar, you really should cite a better source than a proven liar and dishonest “reporter” like David Corn.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:01 pmNow we can see what the NIE really says, rather than having to rely on the “creative†interpretations of the report by the liberal, anti-Bush reporters from The New York Times and The Washington Post.
Comment by Exley
As compared to relying on the intrepretations by John Negroponte? The same Negroponte was Bush’s US Ambassador to Iraq (June 2004-Feb 2005) who replaced another loser, L. Paul Bremer, as the U.S.’s highest ranking American civilian in Iraq?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the same Negroponte who has been criticized because of his involvement in the covert funding of the Contras and the allegations that he was in involved in a coverup of human rights abuses carried out by CIA-trained operatives in Honduras?
The same Negroponte who has sat on the translation and release of 35,000 boxes of documents and tapes seized in Iraq after the 2003 invasion that might shed some light on where there were really WMD’s or what happened to them?
Yeah, Exley. I really trust that guy not to do a little creative intrepretation of his own.
You need to get a clue, man.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:05 pmIf this thing comes out and winds up being a complete and honest assessment (meaning, it’s not just “look how good we’re doing” when reality proves otherwise), then I’ll give everyone who posts on this thread a dollar (even the trolls).
That’s just how confident I am that what we’ll get will have nothing in it based in any kind of rational reality whatsoever.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:06 pmThat President Bush stymies your “arguments” sooo easily……too precious!!!! The funniest thing: Progs think he’s such an idiot, but he keeps out-foxing you every step of the way – - this must mean the terminally prog-wacked are brain dead….
Have fun on the playground, kids…..
September 26th, 2006 at 1:06 pm#35, Hi Dave…Actually, The Times and Post stories do not contain any direct quotes from the NIE
By Robert Kagan
Tuesday, September 26, 2006; Page A21
Washington Post
It’s too bad we won’t get to see the full National Intelligence Estimate on “Trends in Global Terrorism” selectively leaked to The Post and the New York Times last week. The Times headline read “Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat.” But there were no quotations from the NIE itself, so all we have are journalists’ characterizations of anonymous comments by government officials, whose motives and reliability we can’t judge, about intelligence assessments whose logic and argument, as well as factual basis, we have no way of knowing or gauging. Based on the press coverage alone, the NIE’s judgment seems both impressionistic and imprecise.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092500912.html
Let’s see the NIE and decide for ourselves….My trust in the media to portray such reports truthfully and without bias is just about nil…Who can forget in the days leading up to the release of the 9/11 Commission report headlines blared that the Commission found no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, only to have Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton come out and say, “Uh, no….That is not what we found at all” and then the Report was released and lo and behold! the press had lied and in fact the Commission confirmed Iraq’s ties with Al Qaeda.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:08 pm#42, Joe
“Correct me if I’m wrong, but the same Negroponte who has been criticized because of his involvement in the covert funding of the Contras “
I know I certainly never criticized Negroponte for his efforts to assist the Contra freedom fighters in Nicaragua, who were battling the communist Sandinista dictatorship back in the 1980s.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:11 pm“key judgments” is the operative word here….this means it will be totally edited…do they really think the people are as stupid as they are????
September 26th, 2006 at 1:12 pmDear Wayne – Asking me to rely on David Corn as a source would be as absurd if I asked you to rely on Ann Coulter.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:12 pmbut he keeps out-foxing you every step of the way – -
he is not outsmarting anyone. everyone knows that he is NOT going to release the WHOLE damn thing like he should. why NOT if he has nothing to hide? why just ‘key’ judgements? let’s be real, i know that is a big word for you bushite lovers.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:16 pmThank you Goebbels. Good point. Yes mistakes were made pre 9/11 by the Clinton and Bush administrations. The common misstate was to underestimate a very determined and crafty enemy. Instead of wasting time on “who’s fault it is†we should focus on how to prevent the enemy from attacking again. And part of that is finding OBL and punishing him for his actions. The thing to remember is that this is a WAR and not a police action.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:18 pmWe’ll stop all of the speculation, all the politics, about someone saying something about Iraq, you know, somebody trying to confuse the American people about the nature of this enemy.
You mean like how you and Cheney and Wolfie and Rummy and Condi all tried to confuse the American people about Hussein and 9/11 and al Qaeda?
September 26th, 2006 at 1:21 pmI guess what MA means is that bush has been so successful in stymieing the liberals that the conservatives are tripping over themselves to get him to appear at their campaign rallies.
Or that his administration is on an offensive Iraq/War on Terror speech tour because it has nothing to do with the way the public currently sees his incompetence.
tell you what mighty, you get all the republicans currently in close races to embrace bush and make him a part of their campaigns, and then maybe you can bleat how he’s still kicking liberal ass.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:22 pmone last footnote…
it’s amusing how a President needs to ‘out-fox’ his constituents.
Thanks for that laugh, MA
September 26th, 2006 at 1:24 pm“We’ll stop all of the speculation, all the politics, about someone saying something about Iraq, you know, somebody trying to confuse the American people about the nature of this enemy.”
When it comes to somebody trying to confuse the American people about the nature of the enemy in Iraq, Bush is an expert.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:25 pmIf you are going to try and convince people that Dubya is a liar, you really should cite a better source….
Comment by Exley
OK. Lets use Dubya himself as a source. On Oct. 11, 2000, then-Texas Gov. Bush said: “I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I’m missing something here. I mean, we’re going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not.”
Case closed on that liar, now back to your hole, Exlax.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:27 pmhahahahah! Like anyone with more than a room temperature IQ really believes that we will ever see the unedited version?? If you believe that one, I’ve got some prime swampland to sell you in Arizona.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:29 pmmighty+aphrodite STFU. You too EXLEY. Lying pricks both.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:29 pmI’ve been away for a while — hope you guys didn’t miss me too much!
I was kind of hoping for some new material here, but I guess you’re still stuck on “Bush is stupid”. So if he’s stupid, what does that say about Al “the world is turning into a fireball” Gore?
September 26th, 2006 at 1:29 pmThe report they will release will either be completey fabricated, or it will look like this:
“President Bush *********** is *********** great. [He] is increasing *********** fight for ************ right. Opponents of war are ************ explode.”
September 26th, 2006 at 1:29 pm# 60, I don’t think stupidity is contagious, so I doubt if Gore was infected.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:38 pm#59, MParker,
What a rapier-like wit you have! You’re a veritable Oscar Wilde!(You can Google him to find out who he was)
Heh.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:39 pmHere ya go Kevin….”We do not torture”……is that a big enough lie for you,It’s on video!….now get back in line,we must shave your WOOL.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:42 pm#59 – “mighty+aphrodite STFU. You too EXLEY. Lying pricks both.”
Comment by mparker
*******Well, M, you certainly have made a “colourful” contribution to the discussion……your Mom may want to switch to Lava soap when she washes your mouth out – you’re not a very good reflection on your fine family upbringing…..
P.S. Any relation to Bonnie Parker?
Play nicely – I’ll check on you later…..
September 26th, 2006 at 1:44 pmExley – My mom said to ALWAYS be patient with kids on the playground – especially the “short bus” riders….
Am running>>>>>>>>>>>
September 26th, 2006 at 1:53 pm“The war in Iraq has made the United States less safe.”
“OK now redact ‘less’ for national security purposes.” “The war in Iraq has made the United States safe.” “Nay, nobody will believe that. Add ‘more’ for national security purposes.” The war in Iraq has made the United states more safe.” “Good, now let’s go torture some faggots and brown people.”
September 26th, 2006 at 1:54 pm*******Well, M, you certainly have made a “colourful†contribution to the discussion……your Mom may want to switch to Lava soap when she washes your mouth out – you’re not a very good reflection on your fine family upbringing…..
P.S. Any relation to Bonnie Parker?
Play nicely – I’ll check on you later…..
Comment by mighty+aphrodite — September 26, 2006
Ha! This from the evil love child of Hitler and Satan? you’ve got a lot of room to talk, and I’m not talking about your fat ass. You who condone torture, murder, and depriving Americans of civil rights are the last person ( and I use that term euphamistically ) who can lecture anyone on appropriate civil behaviour.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:58 pmHere is a breif look at the “declassified” document:
We are winng, Terrists losing, World betterer now that we spread democratizating things to freedom hungerers. Evil doers go back to Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan..no wait, Iran and Syria. Freedom is on the march. Islamodefeatocrats are not good. (He’s from Connecticut….not Texas!)
God bless Ann Richards
September 26th, 2006 at 2:00 pmComment by mighty+aphrodite — September 26, 2006 @ 1:53 pm
Lying evil piece of trash.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:03 pmpost
September 26th, 2006 at 2:08 pmExley is an intellectual half-wit. I’ve punked him before, and now he runs away whenever I ask him a question.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:09 pmProgressives. some of you are beginning to see this NIE issue beginning to backfire. It may be happen stance or a deliberate plot by rove to discredit the left. Regardless, it should be a reminder not jump too quickly on something to discredit bush. It calls to question your objectivity and hurts your credibility.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:11 pmLiets see it.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:11 pm#75 It’s kind of like how some people show up here, get their butts kicked, claim victory, and start over the next day.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:11 pmLets see it.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:12 pmOh, how cleverly worded.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:13 pmI think the decider will release any portions that will contradict the Bubba interview, and vindicate the decider.
W and condi will dance the night away.
Comment by Exley — September 26, 2006 @ 2:06 pm
Et tu, exley? You prefer killing instead of understanding. Your love of violence is so great that you do all violence to logic and truth to justify the horrific deaths of tens of thousands of innocent children, women, and men. You refuse to understand and accept that the same ends you wish for others will be visited upon youself.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:16 pmThis is not new – but it is relevant to review it again:
Two French intelligence analysts claim that at the behest of U.S. oil companies, the Bush administration initially blocked FBI investigations into terrorism, while it bargained with the Taliban for the delivery of Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and economic aid.
In the book “Bin Laden, la verite interdite” (”Bin Laden, the forbidden truth”), the authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, claim that FBI deputy director John O’Neill resigned in July to protest the policy.
Brisard claims O’Neill told him that “the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia.” The authors say the U.S. government’s main objective in Afghanistan was to consolidate the position of the Taliban regime and thereby obtain access to the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia. They say that until August 2001, the U.S. government saw the Taliban regime “as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia,” from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. ..But confronted with the Taliban’s refusal to accept U.S. conditions, “this rationale of energy security changed into a military one,” the authors claim.
“At one moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives told the Taliban, either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs,” Brisard said in an interview in Paris. According to the book, the Bush administration began to negotiate with the Taliban shortly after taking power in January. U.S. and Taliban diplomatic representatives met several times in February in Washington, Berlin and Islamabad.
The taliban even hired a PR representative in Washington, Laila Helms. The authors say that Helms was well-versed in the arcana of U.S. intelligence agencies because her uncle, Richard Helms, is a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The last meeting between U.S. and Taliban representatives took place in August, five weeks before the attacks on New York and Washington, the analysts maintain. On that occasion, Christina Rocca, at the time head of Central Asian affairs for the State Department, met the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan in Islamabad. Brisard and Dasquie have long experience in intelligence analysis.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:19 pmSo, did Bush trade terrorism for the oil pipeline?
I will wait and see the redacted document. Will it be a clear and accurate picture, or a re-writing of history in the best Orwellian style?
I continue to pray that individuals continue to come forward with testimony and evidence of the criminal wrongdoings of this administration.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:20 pmSen. Roberts said yesterday that they would release the NIE — we’re speaking of Sen. Roberts, don’t forget. He will open up NOTHING.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:21 pmIf he releases anything, it will be redacted, edited, and pieced together to make it seem like it says what it doesn’t.
Do NOT trust that man – he is an arm of the White House.
#77 Hey Barfly! I see you’ve come back after your humiliation at my hands the other day….Good for you! It takes a big man to show his face again after the beating you took…In case anyone wants to know what we are talking about, the other day I — citing New York Times reporter John Burns — said Saddam Hussein’s regime was a uniquely horrific regime on the world stage from 1979-2003 when he was in power….Barfly got confused and thought we were discussing dictators throughout history and started saying “Well, Hitler, Stalin and Ghengis Khan were worse.”
When I again explained to Barfly that we were talking about the period 1979-2003 when Saddam was in power, Barfly refused to admit he had gotten confused and then ran away….
Didn’t think we’d see him back so soon. Welcome back, junior!
September 26th, 2006 at 2:33 pmSo according to Bush leaking classified information is wrong.
What about the Valerie Plame leak ?? Have you already forgotten about that Mr. President ??
September 26th, 2006 at 2:35 pmWhat Bush really meant was the leak wasn’t prepared to “trick the stupid”. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:36 pmOh, sure, Exley … go ahead ‘n get all literal on me! (Re: No. 45). I went back and looked at the TP post regarding the NIE report, and, oops – I saw a block quote that I took to be a quote from the report itself. Okay, well, you win this round, my friend …
Seriously, though – I can’t agree with you about the Contras. Sure, the Sandinistas were repressive (though, I note that the original opposition movement was a broad coalition which included the Sandinistas, business leaders, church leaders, the press, all of whom opposed Somoza, who was a genuinely bad son-of-a-gun). When the opposition deposed Somoza, they formed a provisional government that consisted of representatives from all of the major opposition groups, not just the Sandanistas. The new government, which included any number of business people from the private sector, several priests, and prominent journalists and publishers, turned to the U.S. first for aid, and the Carter administration was cautiously working with the government to help it get back on its feet. Also during this timeframe – 1979-80 – Amnesty International and other human rights organizations were reporting that the human rights situation in Nicaragua had improved considerably after the fall of Somoza.
So, there was a brief period following the revolution where it appeared that Nicaragua had a chance to become a real democracy.
When Ronald Reagan took office, however, the U.S. refused to recognize the rebel government, cut off all aid, imposed sanctions on Nicaragua, and overtly supported the Contras. But the Contras were run, primarily, by former National Guard officers of the old Somoza regime – the guys who’d operated death squads and committed crimes against humanity in the decades before Somoza was thrown out. And, under the “Contra” label, they continued to terrorize the Nicaraguan countryside, committing the same kinds of war crimes they had committed while operating under Somoza. Only, the Contras were doing it with the support of (and, it turned out, arms supplied by) the Reagan administration.
All of this began in 1981-82, and, not surprisingly, this is the same period during which the hard-line leftists in the Sanidista movement essentially took over the government. The Sandinista-led government then began to restrict freedom of the press, forcibly relocate indigenous peoples, crack down on dissent, and so forth. Not that there is any excuse for curtailing liberties in the face of a threat (ahem), but is it really all that surprising that the government reacted that way when the Contras – who were primarily made up of former Somocistas, after all – were waging war in the countryside, with the active support of the U.S.?
Anyway, the Contras were some really bad folks who did really bad things. And I have to wonder what might have happened if the Reagan administration had continued to work with the provisional government in Nicaragua, as Carter had done, to encourage it to move towards democracy and real reform.
I mean, I’m just sayin’ …
September 26th, 2006 at 2:39 pmI don’t believe him and I don’t trust him. Something smells fishy here. “Key elements” means “what I want you to believe.”
September 26th, 2006 at 2:51 pm92…Hey Dave….I didn’t see it as “winning a round.” Just wanted to clarify :)
Man, that’s a long post on the Contras! I’ll need time to digest it and give you a in-depth response. But I will start off saying the Contras and the fight for freedom in Nicaragua against the communist Sandinistas was one of the main reasons I became (and still am) a Republican. They weren’t “bad guys,” as you put it. Except for a few former Somocistas who were there in the early days of the anti-communist insurgency (and who were later drummed out), the Contras were — as the Great Ronald Reagan once said — the moral equivalent of our founding fathers. Thanks to the contras, Nicaragua is today a democratic, free nation.
On a completely unrelated topic — Just checked the upcoming NHL schedule in my city…The Blackhawks don’t play here at all this season! I hate the NHL expansion!
September 26th, 2006 at 3:01 pmhere is more
http://www.rawstory.com/comments/20277.html
September 26th, 2006 at 3:01 pmHey Barfly! I see you’ve come back after your humiliation at my hands the other day….Good for you! It takes a big man to show his face again after the beating you took…In case anyone wants to know what we are talking about, the other day I — citing New York Times reporter John Burns — ….Barfly got confused and thought we were discussing dictators throughout history and started saying “Well, Hitler, Stalin and Ghengis Khan were worse.â€
When I again explained to Barfly that we were talking about the period 1979-2003 when Saddam was in power,
Didn’t think we’d see him back so soon. Welcome back, junior!
Comment by Exley —
Exley, first off you lie when you say you beat me. Want me to post your concession?
Second lie, we did not discuss “the period between 1979-2003,” you are constructing strawmen again. The terms you used then was “the past thirty years” which covers PolPot, does it not?
You tried to claim “Saddam was a uniquely brutal dictator” – an easily refuted claim, which you openly acknowledged at the time.
Barfly refused to admit he had gotten confused and then ran away…. Actually you ran away, remember?
When I again explained to Barfly that we were talking about the period 1979-2003 when Saddam was in power,Post your “explanation” – or be branded a liar!
I said Saddam Hussein’s regime was a uniquely horrific regime
Boloney. You said nothing about “on the world stage from when he was in power.”
Lie number three, which you can easily refute, by posting the exchange.
Your “gee I’m sure smart” attitude was given a sound thrashing, and you left the thread in frustration, remember? You were so frustrated, I believe your words were “OK, now I need a drink” and them you admitted I was correct. Post the exchange and prove me wrong, you sad, confused child.
You have no credibility, and you prove why on a daily basis. Now go take another imaginary victory lap (like the other day) – its seems all you know how to do. I can easily punk you anytime. Wanna see?
September 26th, 2006 at 4:01 pmBut I will start off saying the Contras and the fight for freedom in Nicaragua against the communist Sandinistas was one of the main reasons I became (and still am) a Republican. Exley
And all those dead priests and nuns that the Contras killed, you accept responsibility for those, Mr. Republican?
September 26th, 2006 at 4:04 pmHere’s a question for Exley, if he isn’t too scared to answer (again): Do you admit that republicans come to the terrorism debate with bloody hands? Reagan supplied weapons to both sides of the Iran/Iraq war, so republicans credibility on this issue is nil, and when they talk of Saddam’s brutalities, they point the finger of blame back at themselves. Clinton never armed terrorists, nor made deals with them. Clinton never armed brutal dictators. Clinton never lied to the American people about trading arms for hostage. Clinton never covertly disobeyed congressional statutes, and then claimed “plausible deniability” by dint of Alzheimers.
Reagan must make you real proud – to be a terrorist-arming, dictator-empowering, nun-killing republican.
September 26th, 2006 at 4:21 pmThe only leaks the decider approves are the leaks that the decider leaks.
September 26th, 2006 at 4:31 pmDoncha all know the difference between leaks and leaks?
Hey, Kevin (post #79 and 81)–
You might wann check this out.
There are those darn facts again …
September 26th, 2006 at 4:31 pmIf you are going to try and convince people that Dubya is a liar, you really should cite a better source than a proven liar and dishonest “reporter†like David Corn.
Comment by Exley
He said he talks to God. He said Saddam had WMDs. He said he didnt approve torture. Does that fall into the definition of a lie for you? He is a liar, but thats ok, I had lied too (although I dont receive any money for doing that) He is a murderer. Thats the important thing about your liberator.
So, there was a brief period following the revolution where it appeared that Nicaragua had a chance to become a real democracy.
September 26th, 2006 at 4:53 pmCommenyt by Dave von Elbers
A guy had to do with that not happening, Dave. The same guy who is running the DNI. Surprise! Great post, man.
But I will start off saying the Contras and the fight for freedom in Nicaragua against the communist Sandinistas was one of the main reasons I became (and still am) a Republican. Comment by Exley
Good, we have a chance to bring you back. You were lied, there was no freedom fight over there. I lived there. The Contras were assassins supported by US throught the Proconsul Negroponte. They killed, maimed and tortured children, women and men for supporting a democratic elected government. Wake up.
September 26th, 2006 at 5:05 pm#96, Wow, barfly…Still living in a world of delusion, I see. I feel bad for you, skippy. As you well know, we certainly were discussing whether Saddam’s regime was a uniquely horrific regime at the time he was in power….And, of course, that was backed up by New York Times reporter John Burns, who spent 30 years covering some of the worst, most horrific nations on earth….Of course, you ignored those remarks by Burns because you knew that it blew you out of the water and all you could do was flail about, saying, “B..B…But, what about Hitler????? He was pretty bad too, wasn’t he????”
When I patiently explained to you — as a grownup needs to explain things to a small child — that we were only talking about the time frame when Saddam was in power — as Burns said. Yet bizarrely, you couldn’t wrap your mind around that relatively simple concept and kept on talking about Hitler (You DO know Hitler died in 1945, don’cha, sport????)….I again tried to explain to you, saying “Yes, Hitler was also a very evil and horrific dictator, but that is not the time period we are discussing…”
And with tha, barfly conjured up a victory for himself, saying, “Aha! You said Hitler was bad too!!!! I win!!!!” and then Barfly went crying off into the night…Very amusing…Yet also quite sad.
Anyway, skippy, like I said before, if that is what you want to hang your “victory” on, go right ahead. You need all the help you can get, pardner…
Hey, everybody! Barfly said Hitler was evil! He wins!
September 26th, 2006 at 5:15 pm#103 – so did I get that right? Overthrow a dictatorship, hold an election, install a new government and still any opposition to said government can be called ‘freedom fighters’? Seems clear to me. Let’s get Muqtada Al Sadr on the phone – he’ll be happy to learn that he’s a ‘freedom fighter’.
September 26th, 2006 at 5:21 pmI just saw Wolf on CNN say that of the 3 pages that have been declassified, NONE of the “key assesments were included. 3 pages? wow. I’m underwhelmed.
September 26th, 2006 at 5:22 pm#103, Juan, You are confusing the Contras with the Sandinistas — It was the communist Sandinistas who were the torturers and oppressors. The Contras were the fighters for freedom and democracy…That is why when legitimate and free elections were finally held in Nicaragua in 1990 (Thanks to the United States’ aid to the Contras and the brave sacrifice of so many of the Contras), the Nicaraguan people overwhelming rejected the Sandinistas communist rule and elected Violetta Chamorro the nation’s president and kicked little Danny Ortega onto the ash heap of history, where he belonged. A glorious victory for the Contras, the United States, Ronald Reagan, and democracy.
The only shame is that Ortega was never tried for his crimes against the Nicaraguan people…
Or maybe you are mistaking the Contras in Nicaragua with the brutal Communist rebels in El Salvador at the time, who were indeed the assassins who killed, maimed and tortured children, women and men you describe…
In either case the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and the communist rebels in El Salvador were both ultimately defeated, thanks to Ronald Reagan and the United States, and today both nations are free.
September 26th, 2006 at 5:39 pmAs you well know, we certainly CAnd, of course, that was backed up by New York Times reporter John Burns, who spent 30 years covering some of the worst, most horrific nations on earth…. Exley
Two words. PolPot. I se it was the two words you ignored to contruct your strawman. Was PolPot in power during Saddam’s regime?
As you well know, we certainly were discussing whether Saddam’s regime was a uniquely horrific regime at the time he was in power….
You can’t refute me that way, little one. Post the exchange, coward.
And, of course, that was backed up by New York Times reporter John Burns, who spent 30 years covering some of the worst, most horrific nations on earth….
Thirty years – PolPot.
You are such a fraud. When did I say anything about Gengis Khan? Lie number four. They’re really stacking up. I can see why Reagan was your hero – he also lied a lot.
Your strawmen are exceptionally weak today; did your supplier go tits up?
September 26th, 2006 at 5:48 pmHere’s another great Bush lie:
“Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.”
September 26th, 2006 at 5:50 pm- pResident Bush, April 20, 2004
When I patiently explained to you — as a grownup needs to explain things to a small child — that we were only talking about the time frame when Saddam was in power — as Burns said.Exley
PolPot. C’mon silly, admit you were wrong. And answer my question, coward.
September 26th, 2006 at 5:50 pm#115,
Get another drink, barfly….Numb yourself and maybe you will forget the humiliation you suffered today at my hands…..again. Or better yet, go to the library and learn some history. That might spare you some additional embarassment…Okay, sport? Good for you!
September 26th, 2006 at 5:53 pmSo to review: I once again proved Exley wrong. He said “As you well know, we certainly were discussing whether Saddam’s regime was a uniquely horrific regime at the time he was in power….
And I blew him away by demonstrating that indeed Polpot was every bit as nasty as Saddam, while Saddam was in power! Next!
September 26th, 2006 at 5:56 pm#33….Wayne, David Corn???? The man who conspired with Lyin’ Joe Wilson and Valerie “Vanity Fair†Plame to concoct a series of lies about the now-discredited plot by a vengeful White House to “out†a “covert†(Well, actually, no) agent????
That’s your source? Yeah, well, Wayne, sorry….If you are going to try and convince people that Dubya is a liar, you really should cite a better source than a proven liar and dishonest “reporter†like David Corn.
Comment by Exley — September 26, 2006 @ 1:01 pm
That’s the only reason you think David Corn is a liar? Because of the Joe Wilson saga? Okay, why not read the book and tell me what in the book is factually incorrect. Otherwise, it gives you a whole bunch of areas where Bush either out-and-out lied or deliberately attempted to mislead people. I suppose you won’t bother with the other book I recommended, either? Why woulod that book be factually unreliable?
September 26th, 2006 at 5:58 pmFrom the history of El Salvador:
Thou shalt not bear false witness….
September 26th, 2006 at 6:05 pmAs I said before, Exley is a half-wit, and quite easy to chump. I’ve done it twice now. And a coward; notice how Exley ran from my question?
September 26th, 2006 at 7:57 pmExley is a fine example of what I call debate resonance; whatever topic she ignores is the topic that resonates, and as such, the one most damaging to her debate points. That’s why I’ve been hammering Reagan lately – the stuff is powerful, and I can see it rattles Exley, that’s why it goes unrefuted.
September 26th, 2006 at 9:13 pmHeh! Barfly..Look, junior, once you admit you did not know about the unique horrors perpetrated by Saddam Hussein’s regime on the Iraqi people, we can tackle other topics….Until you stop defending Saddam Hussein, there is as much point talking to you as there is to a Holocaust-denier.
September 26th, 2006 at 9:26 pm#120….Hey Wayne,
Yeah…David Corn is a proven liar, so it is useless to cite him as a source. There is a maxim in the law that if a fact-finder (either a judge or a jury) discovers that a witness has lied about one matter, the fact-finder is free to determine that the witness has lied about everything else.
Thus, since we all know that Corn lied about the Vanity Fair Valerie saga (And Wayne, you now know that he did), we are free to disregard all his other claims as being untruthful.
September 26th, 2006 at 9:31 pmRun away again Exley – it’s your style.
Or answer my question – your choice. Do you really want to get thumped again?
So far, you’re 0-2.
Heh! Barfly..Look, junior, once you admit you did not know about the unique horrors perpetrated by Saddam Hussein’s regime on the Iraqi people, we can tackle other topics….
I already slapped that one down. Remember Polpot?
September 26th, 2006 at 9:40 pm#130,
Hey! Look! Barfly is still out there trying…Still defending Saddam Hussein and still ignoring John Burns’ reporting from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the 1980s, 1990s, thu 2003.
And I LOVE how Barfly is now out there condemning Pol Pot…So, Barfly, are you now arguing that the United States should have done more in the 1970s to prevent the Khmer Rogue from carrying out their atrocities in Cambodia??? Heh! I love it! I now have Barfly admitting that Richard Nixon was right and that the Communists ib Cambodia and Vietnam were genocidal animals….Guess what, Barfly? We agree…Nixon was right and the communists were genocidal. Good for you, Barfly! You are growing up.
September 26th, 2006 at 9:47 pmFrom Wiki:
Saloth Sar (May 19, 1925 – April 15, 1998), better known as Pol Pot, was the ruler of the Khmer Rouge and the Prime Minister of Cambodia (officially Democratic Kampuchea during his rule) from 1976 to 1979, having been de facto leader since mid-1975. During his time in power Pol Pot instigated an aggressive policy of relocating people to the countryside in an attempt to purify the Cambodian people as a step toward a communist future. The means to this end included the extermination of intellectuals and other “bourgeois enemies”. Today the excesses of his government are widely blamed for causing the deaths of up to three million Cambodians. In 1979, he led Cambodia into a disastrous war with Vietnam which led to the collapse of the Khmer Rouge government.
So Exley, Polpot was in power at the same time as Saddam, in 1979, which also blows away your other contention. So we have established that you still do not know history. Your record is now 0-2. Pretty pathetic.
September 26th, 2006 at 9:47 pmSo, Barfly, are you now arguing that the United States should have done more in the 1970s to prevent the Khmer Rogue from carrying out their atrocities in Cambodia??? Exley
Do you want to borrow some straw? I could check the wingnut website’s and ask if you could buy some, cause that last one is so poorly constructed, it keeps falling over. Clean, dry, straw next time, and you won’t look so incompetent. Cowardly Exley still won’t answer my question.
Debate resonance, as I said.
You’re still 0-2.
And if you answer my question, it will be 0-3.
See how easy it is, eveyone?
September 26th, 2006 at 9:53 pmGuess what, Barfly? We agree…
Comment by Exley — September 26, 2006 @ 9:47
We agree that Saddam was neither unique historically nor for his time?
Perhaps I went too hard on you, old Ex . . .
September 26th, 2006 at 9:56 pm#134, Heh! Actually, Barfly, 1979, which was when Pol Pot was removed from power (as per your own post) was when Saddam Hussein came into power in Iraq…Saddam became president of Iraq in July 1979 ( July 16, 1979 At the age of 42, Saddam forces Al-Bakr to retire and is sworn in as President of the Republic of Iraq.)….Pol Pot was driven from power in January 1979 (On January 7, 1979, Phnom Penh fell and Pol Pot was deposed.)….So, ONCE again, Barfly, your embarassing ignorance of history humiliates you! …. Wait a second….What was that I wanted to say? Oh, that’s right! “HAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!” Barfly, you truly are an amusing little nitwit.
But, I will give you credit for one thing, Barfly. By rightly condemning the communist Pol Pot, you have shown a willingness to buck your liberal soulmates and say, YES! Richard Nixon was right and the U.S should have done all it can to prevent a communist takeover of SE Asia. Hey, Barfly! You learned something! Good for you, Skippy!
September 26th, 2006 at 10:02 pmOh! I think I understand : The cowardly Exley, who, with a poorly constructed strawman, and an argument made of tin, goes in search of a rationale for atrocities his party is responsible for, down the Yellowstained road of republican fear . . .
0-2.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:03 pmThe Rest of the Story: The NIE Reflects Previous Statements About the War on Terror
The office of intelligence director John Negroponte released a 3-1/2 page section of the April report “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States” compiled by the 16 U.S. spy agencies hours after Bush ordered it declassified.
Find it here
September 26th, 2006 at 10:03 pm#141…*sigh* The contras were in Nicaragua….The passage you quote (without citation) is about El Salvador. Once again, you have confused two different nations. Try again.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:08 pmOh, boy, you’re not going to like this, but your original assertion was thirty years Exley, remember? That would have been ‘76 (you can count backwards I assume? Good). You then tried to move the goal posts by specifiying ‘79. I merely pointed out Pol pot was in power in ‘79, blowing away your assertion. That he was in power a few days is an attempt by you to split hairs.
0-3, now Exley.
Still won’t answer my question, coward. C’mon make it 0-4.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:15 pmDid someone say Contras? How about those episodes of the “freedom-fighters” who would enter villages and shoot those who refused to join up?
Be all you can be – or I’ll put a bullet in you!
September 26th, 2006 at 10:18 pmHeh! Barfly, I can tell your humiliated that once again you were proven wrong when you embarassingly claimed that the reigns of Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein coincided, when we all see that Pol Pot was NOT in power when Saddam Hussein became dictator of Iraq….I feel bad for you, partner….But again, I am impressed that you were big enough to admit that the communist dictator Pol Pot was evil. Alas, for you, that is irrelevant to our discussion.
Better luck next time. sport.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:20 pm#152,,,,Hello? Barfly???? Hellooooooooooo????? Where did you go, amateur???? Did you run away after I once AGAIN humiliated you by pointing out your embarassing ignorance of history, as manifested by your buffoonish (and easily disproven) claim that the reign’s of Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein coincided?????
Well, that’s probably for the best, chief. I think you have endured enough humiliation for one ma. Take a few days off and do your best to pick up whatever remaining pieces of dignity that you may have left.
Good luck, Barfly…We’re all pullin’ for ya, big guy!
September 26th, 2006 at 10:37 pmI had to care for my wife, but I’m back 0-3.
You said ‘79. Polpot was in power in ‘79, 0-3.
Still won’t answer my question, coward?
September 26th, 2006 at 10:47 pmOkay, Barfly, now that you have been man enough to admit you were wrong and I was correct, I am willing to allow you to ask me a question….So, go ahead. What is this question to which your refer?
September 26th, 2006 at 10:52 pmDid you do that in school, 0-3?
Y’know; after the teacher had handed you your “f,” did you try to convince her that the right answers were, in fact, wrong?
Do you deny the Contras killed those who would not join?
C’mon 0-3, prove me wrong. And not by simply saying “you’re wrong.” Post a link.
The question 0-3 runs from is: Do you admit that republicans come to the terrorism debate with bloody hands?
Reagan supplied weapons to both sides of the Iran/Iraq war, so republicans credibility on this issue is nil, and when they talk of Saddam’s brutalities, they point the finger of blame back at themselves.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:57 pmOkay, Barfly, now that you have been man enough to admit you were wrong and I was correct,
Comment by Exley
Please show me were I said this. How Reaganish of you – will you now also plead alzheimers?
September 26th, 2006 at 11:00 pmWhat’s the matter, 0-3? No snappy rejoinder?
I have to make a trip to the store for my wife. Collect your thoughts, and we’ll debate in a few minutes.
I can smell 0-4 coming, don’t disappoint me!
September 26th, 2006 at 11:04 pmAs I said, Barfly, since you were man enough to admit you were wrong and I was right in our previous discussion, I will do you the honor of responding to your supposed point:
Reagan supplied weapons to both sides of the Iran/Iraq war, so republicans credibility on this issue is nil, and when they talk of Saddam’s brutalities, they point the finger of blame back at themselves.
Your naivete bespeaks an ignorance of history. To criticize the United States for giving limited aid to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq War in the 1980s is like saying the U.S. was wrong to supply aid to the Soviet Union in World War II against Nazi Germany….As you correctly stated, Stalin and Hitler were both monstrous, evil dictators (Indeed, Stalin killed more people than Hitler). Yet, the more immediate and dangerous threat to the world in the late 1930s into the 1940s was Nazi Germany. Thus, the US and other allies held their proverbial nose and supplied the Soviet Union as the Soviets fought against the Nazis. Once the Nazis were defeated, the West turned its resources and attention to defeat the next immediate threat — that posed by the USSR.
Such was the case in the 1980s…Both Iraq and Iran were despicable regimes led by a monstrous dictatorship. When they went to war, the more immediate and deadlier debate was Iran and the possibility of radical Shiite Islamic fundamentalism throughout the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. Thus, once again, as in World War II, the U.S. was forced to aid a loathsome dictatorship (USSR in WWII and then Iraq in the 1980s) in order to defeat the more immediate threat. of Iran…Once the Iranian threat subsided, the U.S was able to turn its attention to Iraq and the threat posed by Saddam Hussein….The parellels between US aid to the USSR in WWII against the Nazis and US aid to Iraq in the 1980s to defeat Iran are striking and unassailable.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:24 pmA lot of words, proves nothing.
When they went to war, the more immediate and deadlier debate was Iran and the possibility of radical Shiite Islamic fundamentalism throughout the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. Thus, once again, as in World War II, the U.S. was forced to aid a loathsome dictatorship (USSR in WWII and then Iraq in the 1980s) in order to defeat the more immediate threat. of Iran…Once the Iranian threat subsided, the U.S was able to turn its attention to Iraq and the threat posed by Saddam Hussein….The parellels between US aid to the USSR in WWII against the Nazis and US aid to Iraq in the 1980s to defeat Iran are striking and unassailable.
Comment by Exley
You still didn’t post my saying that “I agreed with you” – because it didn’t happen. Every time you lose, you change the terms of debate – from the initial “past thirty years,” to “since ‘79,” and when both of those were shot down, you retreated to “But Saddam and Polpot weren’t in power at the same time” because Polpot was deposed in’Jan. 79, although he obviously was “in power in ‘79,” and Saddam wasn’t formally made leader until months later, also in ‘79. Your intellectual dishonesty is staggering to behold – in all its rancid glory.
Here are the facts of the Iran/Iraq war:
1. We armed Saddam, and gave him technical assistance.
2. We (meaning Reagan) sold weapons to the Iranians to get the release of hostages.
3. After the Iranians and others saw how easily Reagan could be rolled, they took more hostages – to be bartered with the Reagans’ for more weapons. His policy actually spurred the terrorists into a further round of hostage-taking, to get more weapons with which to kill Iraqis.
4. After they had killed a sufficient number of each others’ forces with weapons supplied by Reagan, they called a weary truce, and began totalling the cost.
5. Saddam, reacting to Bush administration representative April Glaspie’s stated assurances that America would not interfere if Saddam invaded Kuwait in response to Kuwaiti slant-drilling into Iraqi oil fields, retaliated, and the Gulf War soon began. Fake stories surfaced (infants pulled from incubators and slammed to the floor, etc.), planted to propagandize Americans into accepting the invasion.
6. After Saddam’s defeat, and the country’s apportionment, the Bush 1 administration, knowing the consequences of the Pottery Barn Rule (you break it you own it) encouraged Iraqis to rise up, and overthrow Hussein. Bush provided no resources to aid them, and they were slaughtered by weapons the Bush administration allowed Hussein to keep after the war.
As I have shown, republicans are responsible for the terrorist world in which we live, as much responsible as those they empower.
I call that 0-4. I knew you could do it.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:25 amThanks for holding him down, b. Kin I whack 0-4 a’gin? I can’t resist – it’s better’n Canadian whisky!
September 27th, 2006 at 12:29 amAnd I haven’t even touched on the Boland amendment yet.
Care to make it 0-5, 0-4?
September 27th, 2006 at 12:33 amAnother ruthless dictator deposed in January ‘79, the Shah of Iran.
Wiki speaks of his secret police, SAVAK:
SAVAK had virtually unlimited powers of arrest and detention. It operated its own detention centres, like the notorious Evin Prison. It is universally accepted that SAVAK routinely subjected detainees to physical torture. In addition to domestic security the service’s tasks extended to the surveillance of Iranians (especially students on government stipends) abroad, notably in the United States, France, and the United Kingdom.
SAVAK agents often carried out operations against each other. Teymur Bakhtiar was assassinated by SAVAK agents in 1970, and Mansur Rafizadeh, SAVAK’s United States director during the 1970s, reported that General Nassiri’s phone was tapped. Hussein Fardust, a former classmate of the Shah, was a deputy director of SAVAK until he was appointed head of the Imperial Inspectorate, also known as the Special Intelligence Bureau, to watch over high-level government officials, including SAVAK directors. Fardust later became director of SAVAMA, the post-revolution carbon copy of the original SAVAK organization. Also, SAVAK planned and executed Black Friday (1978), although the role of PLO agents in Black Friday has not been disproven. The CIA closely watched over SAVAK and provided them with intelligence on possible targets for assassination, many of whom were Communists. Many Communists were imprisoned or mysteriously disappeared as a result of this relationship. It is believed that the last director of SAVAK was on the payroll of the CIA.
Saddam seems less and less “unique.”
September 27th, 2006 at 12:50 am#167, 168….Heh! Keep swingin’ and missin’, Barfly. I already have you conceding you were wrong once (for which I give you credit). I love seeing you go down that same path.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:50 amMy wife calls – I must obey.
Goodnite, 0-4.
See you tomorrow.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:51 amHere’s a prime example of Exley’s perfidy. He admits defeat, and debunks his own spin.
Barfly,
Now I am on MY way to the bar.
*Sigh* Fine…Saddam was not unique in among the dictators of all time.
But as John Burns explains in posting #125, he was a uniquely monstrous dictator in the modern world covering the last 30 years
Happy?
Good night everybody!!!! Don’t forget to tip the waitresses. They’ve been good to you, so please be good to them! Comment by Exley — September 22, 2006 @ 5:56 pm
Do I take my imaginary victory lap now, Exley?
Or as you would say:
“mission accomplished.â€
Comment by barfly — September
he was a uniquely monstrous dictator in the modern world covering the last 30 years Exley
And so was Polpot . . .
Comment by barfly
0-4, you’re busted – you did say “thirty years” – which encompasses Polpot, and the Shah of Iran. Ready to concede again? It doesn’t hurt as much the second time. How’s it feel to get pantsed by your own strawman?
September 27th, 2006 at 3:44 amIf you don’t come by this post before tomorrow, don’t worry. I’ll be hanging it around your lying neck on every thread you post on today, and every day.
Sweet dreams, 0-4.
September 27th, 2006 at 3:47 amPlease 0-4, post my concession to you. Or are you scared?
September 27th, 2006 at 3:51 am0-4 is such a narcissist, I’m sure she’ll check this thread. When she sees what’s awaiting her tomorrow (or I should say today), I wouldn’t be surprised if suddenly she has “other priorities” than commenting on TP. I hope not [he says, rubbing hands in wicked glee].
September 27th, 2006 at 4:01 amExley (sorry, friend, I’ve plum run outa insults and names to call you), I have to side with Juan C on this one. The human rights record of the Somoza regime and the Contras was awful; and the human rights record of the rebels and the government they installed was actually quite good – until, as I said, the U.S.-backed Contras began thier insurgency and the hard-liners within the Sandanista movement came to dominate the new government. And Ortega, though he was a Sandanista, was part of the “third way” group within the Sandanista umbrella – they were the ones who were willing to work with moderates, conservatives and pro-business politicians. He was, in fact, supported by the non-communist elements of the rebels in the early stages of the provisional government.
Which, of course, goes to my original point – the anti-Somoza rebellion was supported by a wide range of groups, including business people, trade unions, journalists, religious groups, moderates, even conservatives who had had it with Somoza’s brutality and corruption. When the provisional government came into power, they were not hard-line communists; in fact, they were a coalition of Sandanistas (including people like Ortega, who were in the “third way” faction), moderates, conservatives, etc. Originally, their policies were fairly moderate – they called on business leaders to lead government agencies dealing with economic issues, the worked hard to negotiate forgiveness or reduction in Nicaragua’s foreign debt, and, as I said above, they reached out to the U.S. The provisional government also restructured and reformed the country’s police and military forces (which had been under Somoza’s control). They did break up the Somoza’s land holdings and distributed some of his land to poor farmers and the like, but they did not otherwise try to “collectivize” agriculture in those early days. And, while they nationalized banks and financial institutions, those institutions were already in bankrupcty, and the nationalization plan was a part of an overall strategy to re-stabilize the Nicaraguan economy (including debt relief, etc.).
Again, I never argued that the hard-line Sandanistas were good guys (though, as Juan says, they were democratically elected). Rather, I argued that Reagan’s misguided support of the Contras (and his imposition of economic sanctions, which crippled the country just as it was trying to fix its economic problems) had the unfortunate effect of playing into the hardliner’s hands. Reagan contributed to the radicalization of the Nicaraguan government.
Finally, your characterization of the 1990 elections is way off. As I said, the Contra movement had the opposite effect of its apparent intent – it pushed the government to the radical left and largely contributed to the Sandanista’s supression of dissent. Moreover, the Contras never were able to oust the Sandanista government – though they did succeed in causing untold death and destruction and forcing the government to spend more and more on defense. Ultimately, the Contras realized they could not defeat the Sandanistas, and so they agreed to a peace agreement negotiated by Costa Rica – NOT the U.S. – under which the government agreed to hold elections, the Contras agreed to put down their arms, and the government granted amnesty to the rank and file Contras. And, while Ortega lost the upcoming election (note that the Sandanistas kept their end of the bargain, including pushing for elections as soon as they were practical; only a few months after the peace deal was reached, as I recall), it was not as one-sided as you claim. The Sandanistas did win seats in the legislature, but, as you say, the moderate/conservative party won.
As far as the El Salvador situation is concerned, you really have it backwards. Take a look at the U.N Truth Commission reports. You can get them online. The El Salvadoran government was one of the most brutal in all of Central America – and, as the truth commission makes clear, was responsible for nearly all of the brutality and attrocities committed during the civil war. (By the way, I presume you know who Archbishop Ramirez was, don’t you?)
Dave
September 27th, 2006 at 4:26 pm