- Joined
- Nov 11, 2011
- Messages
- 12,895
- Reaction score
- 2,909
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
What exactly is it that you feel this administration has been concealing? And how could any of it rank alongside intentionally misleading the country into a war?
But to cite one particularly glaring example, you can look to their ongoing drone program, operations involving the targeting of US citizens within it, and their metrics for determining who those are.
Isn't it a rather large assumption to say the Bush administration intentionally mislead the public, as opposed to a bunch of extremely hawkish individuals misinterpreting intelligence?
What exactly is it that you feel this administration has been concealing? And how could any of it rank alongside intentionally misleading the country into a war?
See, and I'm wondering what part of that you didn't know about at the time. We've known about drone attacks for years, and even if the administration did not specifically say that it was targeting US citizens who were allegedly allied with terrorists, the moment it actually happened, everyone knew about it. I'm honestly unsure about what sort of transparency you were expecting here. Do you want the government to be posting its criteria to determine what terrorist training camps it will attack? Or a full dossier on its terrorist suspects?
You know, after contemplating this for a bit, I'm starting to think that "transparency" is just a buzzword. I really don't know what we expect our administrations to tell us, at least in terms of executive action. More transparency from the legislature I understand. Most congressional bills are written in dense legalese and often make tiny alterations to other laws. Discovering the effects of a single day's worth of Congressional acts can take weeks. In terms of the executive, I would want to know who the president and his staff are talking to, and the content of what they're saying. I'd want to know what promises he's making and to whom he's making them. And in that regard, Bush was substantially worse than Obama has been. But if we're discussing it, the policy of killing US citizens abroad with drones (or really by any means) is 100% wrong.
No, it's not. Richard Clarke, the man in charge of anti terrorist operations in 2001, has gone on record that on the day of 9/11, Bush personally ordered that a link between Iraq and the Twin Tower attacks be found. Not that Clarke discover the culprits, but that he find a way to pin it on Saddam.
And which administration would you claim intentionally misled the country into a war?
Woodrow Wilson with WW1 and Bush Jr with Iraq.
No, it's not. Richard Clarke, the man in charge of anti terrorist operations in 2001, has gone on record that on the day of 9/11, Bush personally ordered that a link between Iraq and the Twin Tower attacks be found. Not that Clarke discover the culprits, but that he find a way to pin it on Saddam.
Sangha said:And then there was Colin Powells calling the evidence of Iraqi WMD's "bull****" and another administration official (I think it was Wolfowitz) saying that they pushed the idea of Iraq having WMD's because it was the easiest to sell to the american public
See, and I'm wondering what part of that you didn't know about at the time. We've known about drone attacks for years, and even if the administration did not specifically say that it was targeting US citizens who were allegedly allied with terrorists, the moment it actually happened, everyone knew about it. I'm honestly unsure about what sort of transparency you were expecting here. Do you want the government to be posting its criteria to determine what terrorist training camps it will attack? Or a full dossier on its terrorist suspects?
You know, after contemplating this for a bit, I'm starting to think that "transparency" is just a buzzword. I really don't know what we expect our administrations to tell us, at least in terms of executive action. More transparency from the legislature I understand. Most congressional bills are written in dense legalese and often make tiny alterations to other laws. Discovering the effects of a single day's worth of Congressional acts can take weeks. In terms of the executive, I would want to know who the president and his staff are talking to, and the content of what they're saying. I'd want to know what promises he's making and to whom he's making them. And in that regard, Bush was substantially worse than Obama has been. But if we're discussing it, the policy of killing US citizens abroad with drones (or really by any means) is 100% wrong.
No, it's not. Richard Clarke, the man in charge of anti terrorist operations in 2001, has gone on record that on the day of 9/11, Bush personally ordered that a link between Iraq and the Twin Tower attacks be found. Not that Clarke discover the culprits, but that he find a way to pin it on Saddam.
No, it's not. Richard Clarke, the man in charge of anti terrorist operations in 2001, has gone on record that on the day of 9/11, Bush personally ordered that a link between Iraq and the Twin Tower attacks be found. Not that Clarke discover the culprits, but that he find a way to pin it on Saddam.
That's mostly attributable to a list of likely culprits and likely explanations. It was part of the group-think, cherry picking problem. The intentional misleading line people have been peddling is not really there. The biggest problem, and it is a massive problem, is that portions of the administration honestly believed certain ideas so much that they were looking for anything to confirm their suspicions. It's been a demonstrative problem with American foreign policy for generations.
this has always been my general impression of events, as well.
President Obama said recently his administration is the most transparent administration in [American] history. Do you agree or disagree?
Independent reporting on something isn't the same as the administration being open and transparent about it
The Obama administration was caught meeting with parties outside the white house to intentionally avoid them being named on the white house visitor logs
White House meets lobbyists off campus - Chris Frates - POLITICO.com
can you share the exact quote with us? Because I recall Clarke's claims more being along the line that they were already convinced there was a connection, and dismissed intelligence that went against this, as opposed to an order to manufacture intelligence
Why are conservatives and Beckites so afraid to include actual quotes with a nice link for context?
Then I'm really not sure what you're expecting the administration to actually do. I'm not sure what I would expect them to do, either. As I said, I'm far more concerned with transparency from the legislative branch.
And I don't like that.
It's in the first chapter of his first book, Against All Enemies. I don't know where else it is written. But he cites direct quotes from the president. Clarke was adamant at the time that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were responsible, while Bush directed him to find a way to blame Saddam. If it is not available online, I'm sure there are libraries that contain the book.
Because then it destroys the whole illusion of the strawman they try to make it out to be.
He deserves the cheap shots he gets on the issue, the same as the one's involving lobbyists. Clearly they don't amount to much politically, but he did paint his own bulls-eye here
Do you have a link to the quote? Do you know what he was talking about when he referred to transparency?
I am referring to the fact that he ran rather heavily on the transparency issue and removing lobbyists from Washington in 2004, and such has opened the entirety of his administration to various points of needling on those issues (cheap shots), that wouldn't be present without such campaigning
But on the point of the quote in question, if it's the one from the google "meet up", then he responds to the question by saying "on a number of fronts" and then stating "this is the most transparent administration in history" while naming various examples to highlight why this is so. In fact, one of his first examples he cites are the WH visitor logs, which are problematic on a number of fronts, and seem more about the illusion of transparency, as opposed to actual transparency
Obama: "This Is The Most Transparent Administration In History" | RealClearPolitics
am I thinking of the wrong quote, or wrong in my interpretation of it?
Going forward, anytime the American people want to know something that I or a former president wants to withhold, we will have to consult with the Attorney General and the white house counsel, whose business it is to ensure compliance with the rule of law. Information will not be withheld just because I say so; it will be withheld because a separate authority believes my request is well-grounded in the Constitution. Let me say it as simply as I can: transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency
Here is his original quote from 2008:
Powell's side was that he had wanted to give the U.N. a shot instead of dismissing it so readily, as many in the DOD were wanting to do (because they-the U.N. "wouldn't get it"). Basically he wanted to do what he considered the right thing, given the circumstances. He knew the administration was more willing to move forward, but he at least wanted to give the U.N. a shot at not only hearing the case, but possibly aiding it in whatever way possible. To him, that was better than just saying, "to hell with the world body." With Wolfowitz's remarks, his statement on that was actually that there was a laundry list of reasons why folks within the administration thought it justifiable to remove Saddam, but the people arguing about those points could only unify around the assumption that Saddam had WMDs. That was the one assumption the overwhelming majority agreed on. The democracy portion, perhaps any economic benefits after invasion, so on and so forth, those individual points would have less support across the board, as each camp was in favor of one thing, but not another.
You missed my point. I wasn't accusing Powell of being misleading. I'm saying that since even a supporter of the invasion such as Powell thought the evidence was BS, this is more evidence that the bush* admin intended to mislead.
And Wolfowitz also said that the evidence of Iraq having WMDs was not strong. He did not believe in all the reasons that were given and merely pushed on the strongest reason. His support for an invasion was completely different than the one he and the admin made; IOW, when he (and others) said we should invade because Iraq had WMD's they were misleading the public into war because they did not believe that
What they really believed was that we should invade Iraq because it would scare other nations into behaving, and because Iraq was acting contrary to our interests. Wolfowitz, Cheney, and several other highly placed bush* officials said this explicitely in a document they signed not long before bush* was elected.
Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but -- hold on one second --
(Pause)
[...]
there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again.
[...]
The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his UN presentation.
It's not black and white, yes transparency can be good, but some negotiations need to be done behind the curtain. For example, it is very likely we wouldn't be posting this right now, because nuclear war might have happened if the Cuban Missile Crisis couldn't be adverted with behind the scenes negotiations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?