Comments on: Interesting Times http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/09/interesting-times/ Making the World Safe for Liberalism Fri, 19 Mar 2010 18:38:46 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: QrazyQat http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/09/interesting-times/comment-page-1/#comment-6271 QrazyQat Sun, 09 Apr 2006 21:07:39 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/?p=593#comment-6271 This is so bittersweet (like Sarah Silverman's doctor story). On the one hand, it's great that the media has finally gotten around to reporting this, just as it's great that they finally started to do some (limited) reporting on the Downing Street memo. But it's been so long -- all this stuff was so known. I knew the aluminum tube and Wilson stuff before the Iraq war, before the SOTU then, and I'm not super plugged in -- I have no secret contacts. I can just read is all. And the info that was widely and readily available on leftish blogs then wasn't, mostly, original reporting, just reporting from sources readily available to anyone. BBC, CBC, and some US news sources -- nothing weird, conspiracy theory-ish, just solid, stolid, news organizations. Why can't news people making anywhere from 2X to 50X what I've ever made as a salary -- why can't people who are presumably, supposedly, competent enough to earn those salaries do as well as a guy like me -- a "just a guy"? Can we get some remedial reading/comprehension courses for our news media? We need it -- they need it rather -- more than our kids do. This is so bittersweet (like Sarah Silverman’s doctor story). On the one hand, it’s great that the media has finally gotten around to reporting this, just as it’s great that they finally started to do some (limited) reporting on the Downing Street memo. But it’s been so long — all this stuff was so known. I knew the aluminum tube and Wilson stuff before the Iraq war, before the SOTU then, and I’m not super plugged in — I have no secret contacts. I can just read is all. And the info that was widely and readily available on leftish blogs then wasn’t, mostly, original reporting, just reporting from sources readily available to anyone. BBC, CBC, and some US news sources — nothing weird, conspiracy theory-ish, just solid, stolid, news organizations. Why can’t news people making anywhere from 2X to 50X what I’ve ever made as a salary — why can’t people who are presumably, supposedly, competent enough to earn those salaries do as well as a guy like me — a “just a guy”?

Can we get some remedial reading/comprehension courses for our news media? We need it — they need it rather — more than our kids do.

]]> By: maha http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/09/interesting-times/comment-page-1/#comment-6269 maha Sun, 09 Apr 2006 18:34:54 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/?p=593#comment-6269 I did some more googling and it seems we're all talking about the same NIE, which is from October 2002. There's a lot more that needs to be clarified about this. I did some more googling and it seems we’re all talking about the same NIE, which is from October 2002. There’s a lot more that needs to be clarified about this.

]]> By: emel http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/09/interesting-times/comment-page-1/#comment-6267 emel Sun, 09 Apr 2006 18:22:12 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/?p=593#comment-6267 The NIE concocted in about 6 weeks and "released" to intelligence committees redacted in October. 'Making a case' for war powers. So if they wanted to bring the public around they should have released it in November 2002 and not july 2003 trying to cover their collective asses. You know since Nov 2000 I've seen a lot of lawyers on my tv screen making cases so to speak. I've seen politicians parsing words in legalese obviously coached on what to say so as to not be illegal but able to squeeze through a court of law by the skin of their teeth. If you're acting in "good faith" you do not approach every statement and act with an eye to how it will sound in court when they drag you in there later. That behavior in and of itself tells me all I need to know about everything they have said and done since 2000. The NIE concocted in about 6 weeks and “released” to intelligence committees redacted in October. ‘Making a case’ for war powers. So if they wanted to bring the public around they should have released it in November 2002 and not july 2003 trying to cover their collective asses. You know since Nov 2000 I’ve seen a lot of lawyers on my tv screen making cases so to speak. I’ve seen politicians parsing words in legalese obviously coached on what to say so as to not be illegal but able to squeeze through a court of law by the skin of their teeth. If you’re acting in “good faith” you do not approach every statement and act with an eye to how it will sound in court when they drag you in there later. That behavior in and of itself tells me all I need to know about everything they have said and done since 2000.

]]> By: Swami http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/09/interesting-times/comment-page-1/#comment-6266 Swami Sun, 09 Apr 2006 18:21:01 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/?p=593#comment-6266 http://www.pipeline.com/~rougeforum/ciablackedout.html http://www.pipeline.com/~rougeforum/ciablackedout.html

]]> By: Swami http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/09/interesting-times/comment-page-1/#comment-6265 Swami Sun, 09 Apr 2006 18:02:36 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/?p=593#comment-6265 Maha, the NIE that I am refering to is the same one that is in discussion with the leak. The original contained caveats of uncertainty that weren't consistant with Bush's scheme and the wording was changed in the unclassified version to allow for ambiguity, The changes were slight but significant...enough to allow Cheney to employ his," you can't prove by the intelligence that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction.". They sculpted the text to serve as a foundation for their lies. Maha, the NIE that I am refering to is the same one that is in discussion with the leak. The original contained caveats of uncertainty that weren’t consistant with Bush’s scheme and the wording was changed in the unclassified version to allow for ambiguity, The changes were slight but significant…enough to allow Cheney to employ his,” you can’t prove by the intelligence that Saddam didn’t have weapons of mass destruction.”. They sculpted the text to serve as a foundation for their lies.

]]> By: maha http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/09/interesting-times/comment-page-1/#comment-6262 maha Sun, 09 Apr 2006 17:11:13 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/?p=593#comment-6262 Swami -- my understanding is that there are lots of NIEs. They are intelligence assessments written by the Director of National Intelligence and reviewed by the National Intelligence Board. You can read about them <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Intelligence_Estimate" rel="nofollow">here</a>. The government may crank out several of these every year, for all I know. It's not always clear to me that news stories talking about "the NIE" are all talking about the same one, or not. In <a href="http://www.thehill.com/marshall/102903.aspx" rel="nofollow">October 2003 Josh Marshall wrote</a> about an NIE that seemed to have been written around Bush's war policy, which is probably the one you are thinking of. On the other hand, <a href="http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/007321.php" rel="nofollow">eriposte writes today</a> about the NIE that was selectively leaked in Plamegate, and this NIE does not seem to support the Sixteen Words or other excuses to invade Iraq. Libby's 2003 leak selectively used information from the NIE to imply the report said things it didn't actually say. The same NIE, or two different NIEs? I'm not sure. Swami — my understanding is that there are lots of NIEs. They are intelligence assessments written by the Director of National Intelligence and reviewed by the National Intelligence Board. You can read about them here. The government may crank out several of these every year, for all I know. It’s not always clear to me that news stories talking about “the NIE” are all talking about the same one, or not.

In October 2003 Josh Marshall wrote about an NIE that seemed to have been written around Bush’s war policy, which is probably the one you are thinking of.

On the other hand, eriposte writes today about the NIE that was selectively leaked in Plamegate, and this NIE does not seem to support the Sixteen Words or other excuses to invade Iraq. Libby’s 2003 leak selectively used information from the NIE to imply the report said things it didn’t actually say.

The same NIE, or two different NIEs? I’m not sure.

]]> By: NewCenturyProf http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/09/interesting-times/comment-page-1/#comment-6261 NewCenturyProf Sun, 09 Apr 2006 16:49:17 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/?p=593#comment-6261 What is it going to take the public to wake up and throw the rascals out? Just do this mind experiment. Some other country ( I dont wish to single any out, but lets say China) has 800 bases in the world, of which 75 are in South America, and 10 in Cuba. They have invaded Brazil because of suspected WMDs there and are engaged in an insurgency, 200,000 troops tied down. .They now threaten Mexico for the same reason and put out the possibility of using tactical nukes. You get the picture ..... Is the American population so weened on violence that they just cannot comprehend another way of looking at the world? God help us all. What is it going to take the public to wake up and throw the rascals out?
Just do this mind experiment. Some other country ( I dont wish to single any out, but lets say China) has 800 bases in the world, of which 75 are in South America, and 10 in Cuba. They have invaded Brazil because of suspected WMDs there and are engaged in an insurgency, 200,000 troops tied down.
.They now threaten Mexico for the same reason and put out the possibility of using tactical nukes.
You get the picture …..
Is the American population so weened on violence that they just cannot comprehend another way of looking at the world? God help us all.

]]> By: Swami http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/09/interesting-times/comment-page-1/#comment-6260 Swami Sun, 09 Apr 2006 16:10:07 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/?p=593#comment-6260 Which NIE are we talking about?. If I remember correctly, there were two NIE's. One version was designed to fix the the facts around the policy. Which NIE are we talking about?. If I remember correctly, there were two NIE’s. One version was designed to fix the the facts around the policy.

]]>