Colin Powell’s Establishment Endorsement
If you’ve been watching CNN, you’d think the only election news is Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama. For the better part of the hour I spent doing cardio last night and the forty-five minutes today, that “news” network featured stories of the endorsement and its impact on the campaign.
Perhaps, because I had long heard (at least since August) that such an endorsement was imminent, I dismissed the newsworthiness of the announcement. But, to those who had not been expecting it, well, I guess it was pretty significant.
There’s no doubt it will help Obama, the only question will be how much.
But, it does something else which, if my party had nominated a different candidate, one from outside Washington, might have backfired on the Democrat.
First, it’s important to note the absence of substance in the Powell endorsement. It’s as if someone had briefed him on Democratic talking points in the limo as he drove to NBC to tape Meet the Press and he just repeated them in front of the cameras.
He was, in Claudia Rosett’s words, “short on specifics.” He couldn’t flesh out why two more conservative justices on the Supreme Court would be a bad thing for the country. Nor name Republican officials spreading lies about the Democratic nominee. He basically did little more than articulate the conventional wisdom.
He is, as James Taranto put it, “a man of the establishment.” And the Washington establishment has coalesced around Obama in the same manner they coalesced against the one truly transformational president on the past half-century, Ronald Reagan.
This endorsement merely reinforces Barack Obama as the candidate of permanent establishment in our nation’s capital. While the former Secretary of State called the Democrat a “transformational figure,” his endorsement suggests Obama is anything but.
If Obama really had plans to change Washington, Powell and other Beltway luminaries would not so eagerly embrace his candidacy. With the American people increasingly uncomfortable with the way things are run in our nationa’s capital, it’s too bad the Republicans don’t have a presidential nominee who can more effectively run against the Beltway establishment.
Like, say, a Governor who stepped on some toes in cleaning up the corruption in her own state — and her own state party.
UPDATE: Roger Kimball contends that Obama is a transformational figure, just not in the way the Gipper was. (Via Instapundit.)
52 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
As others have pointed out: The Colin Powell, Christopher Hitchens and Christopher Buckley endorsements of Obama all represent a triumph of emotion (false hope) over reason. When you read their reasons, well, their reasons are somewhere between “thin” and “invalid”.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 20, 2008 @ 7:31 pm - October 20, 2008
Powell has a legitimate reason to poke a stick in the eyes of Republicans - Feb 5, 2003. He has long regretted his speech in front of the U.N. a speech based on shoddy intelligence that, point by point, was either later proven to be wrong, or worse, later shown to be fabrications. It is a stain on his record. I would venture to guess Powell made up his mind to endorse Obama the moment McCain set aside his campaign staff in favor of Bush / Rove acolyte Steve Schmidt and company.
Comment by sonicfrog — October 20, 2008 @ 7:56 pm - October 20, 2008
I don’t see how Powell’s endorsement can have any great effect.
Powell is, to be blunt, a first-class RINO (Republican In Name Only). To conservatives, right-leaning centrists, and most Republicans his endorsement has to mean very little.
Also, Powell’s endorsement contrary to his party affiliation gives the (probably true) appearance of a black man voting for Obama simply because Obama is partly black.
Just where is Powell’s ability to make a big difference with this endorsement?
Comment by Dave — October 20, 2008 @ 8:06 pm - October 20, 2008
Sonicfrog,
If giving a speech at the UN based on faulty intelligence, which is to say being embarassed in public by the US intelligence apparatus is “a legitimate reason to poke a stick in the eyes of Republicans,” then the moon really is made of green cheese!
In future I’d advise you refrain from commenting unless you have something intelligent to say.
Comment by Dave — October 20, 2008 @ 8:10 pm - October 20, 2008
<blockquote.“It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong, and in some cases deliberately misleading, and for that I am disappointed and I regret it,â€
Colin Powell.
Dave, you may want to google “CIA Curveball” then get back to me.
Comment by sonicfrog — October 20, 2008 @ 8:26 pm - October 20, 2008
“It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases deliberately misleading”
That seems like a perfectly good reason to hold a grudge.
Comment by sonicfrog — October 20, 2008 @ 8:39 pm - October 20, 2008
I have been reading on the Internet for a couple of weeks and was not surprised by the Powell endorsement of Obama. I am disappointed. I think what Biden said in his Sunday gaffe was far more accurate about what will happen if Obama is elected.
Comment by Swampfox — October 20, 2008 @ 8:45 pm - October 20, 2008
The idea that there was anything deliberately misleading about the Iraq pre-war intelligence has long since been debunked. Commission after commission studied the issue, here and in the UK, and found there was nothing deliberately misleading about it. (Note: Incomplete / mistaken is different from deliberately misleading, as fair-minded people acknowledge.)
If Powell wants to claim there is: Shame on him. And it goes to the point people have made about him basically being a creature of the Washington establishment, playing to Bob Woodward’s typewriter and a possible Obama administration.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 20, 2008 @ 8:48 pm - October 20, 2008
ILC, links please.
And deliberately misleading are his word, not mine.
Comment by sonicfrog — October 20, 2008 @ 8:51 pm - October 20, 2008
CIA reliance on Curveball goes to the issue of the CIA’s lack of humint (human intelligence) at the Near East bureau in the run-up to the war. If Curveball was so bad, then certainly, the CIA should not have relied on him. In other words, it goes to the issues of incomplete or downright mistaken intelligence. Hindsight is 20-20. The CIA was trying to do its incompetent best. They were not trying to be deliberately misleading, nor were other American officials.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 20, 2008 @ 8:54 pm - October 20, 2008
sonicfrog, I don’t care if deliberately misleading is your phrase, or Powell’s: it’s still wrong. As for Curveball, I have a follow-up comment caught in spamfilter. As for links: I provided three years of them on GayPatriot, I am not going to spend a ton of time on it for you now. Forget about me, just look at the archives of any conservative-ish blog in 2005, 2006 and 2007, including this blog. GPW wrote on it many times. Ed Morrissey wrote on it tons. Naturally so did Malkin, Instapundit, Gateway Pundit, Powerline and the rest. Google “Butler Commission”, “sixteen words”, and so forth, and read the conservative blogs (you apparently know the left-liberal claims already). Etc.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 20, 2008 @ 9:01 pm - October 20, 2008
I have to got to band practice.
This isn’t about the “sixteen words” - not relevant, since they were not uttered by Powell. I think Colin Powell has a better grasp of what went on than Malkin, Morressy, Gateway or even our humble hosts at Gay Pat. HE WAS THERE!!! He nows more of the inside details than any report or inquiry will ever be permitted to print (national security). And the aftermath of that speech damaged his reputation.
Comment by sonicfrog — October 20, 2008 @ 9:17 pm - October 20, 2008
Sonic, even the French thought that Iraq had WMDs. I think that says it all. But, then, I did learn today that the French President has had his bank acccount hacked into and lost a sum of money.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/attacks/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=211300006
Comment by Swampfox — October 20, 2008 @ 9:34 pm - October 20, 2008
Actually, no - He wasn’t. He wasn’t there for the intelligence gathering. He wasn’t there for the intelligence processing. He wasn’t there for many key decisions. Read Feith’s book. Powell is, and has been, just another bureaucratic player trying to make himself look good. When, in fact, his staff (Armitage et. al.) was responsible for many of the decisions that bungled the war.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 20, 2008 @ 9:37 pm - October 20, 2008
I brought them up in the context of Google. Googling them would be one of many possible different gateways into the mass of data and analysis and commission studies showing there was nothing deliberately misleading on the part of any American or British officials. I understand about band practice, but I don’t get a strong sense that you’re honestly interested in learning the other side of the story, a further reason for me not to sweat and labor over this.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 20, 2008 @ 9:43 pm - October 20, 2008
(P.S., Apology for bad choice of words, I should have said “strongly” interested. Not questioning anybody’s honesty.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 20, 2008 @ 9:48 pm - October 20, 2008
No apology needed.
No, i have not read Feith’s book. But I understand he puts much of the blame of the intelligence failure at the State Departments feet, read Colin Powell. As I said, Powell may have an axe to grind, and what a better way to do that than to endorse Obama.
Also, lets be clear. I am not torpentine (or whatever he calls himself), or raj (where did he run off to), or sean a, or erik. I supported the war, and I still do. I also recognize that the intel was flawed long before Bush came to office. But, unless the German security agency was lying about it, they told the administration that the guy giving the intell could not be trusted. That intel should never have been given to Powell to present.
I’ll discuss more tomorrow.
Comment by sonicfrog — October 21, 2008 @ 1:57 am - October 21, 2008
#17: “Also, lets be clear. I am not torpentine (or whatever he calls himself), or raj (where did he run off to), or sean a, or erik. I supported the war, and I still do.”
Whoa! Hold it right there, sonicfrog. Now you’re the one peddling bad intelligence. I don’t know who “raj” is, but what on Earth did I do to land in a group with Erik and torrentprime?! Those two Obama tea-baggers?! When it comes to what is best for this country, Erik and torrentprime and I agree on exactly one thing, and one thing only: that this is a country.
Comment by Sean A — October 21, 2008 @ 6:06 am - October 21, 2008
Haha. Lowercase ’sean’ I believe is the one sonic meant. Our ‘Sean A’ rocks!
I agree. It still doesn’t mean any American or British official was deliberately misleading; see #10 which has appeared.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 21, 2008 @ 7:37 am - October 21, 2008
I mean, the Czechs showed that Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi agents in Prague. And they stand by it to this day. And our intel agencies *didn’t* rely on it. When a bureaucracy tries to discern the truth… well it practically can’t. It makes mistakes all over the place. I explain it by human incompetence and ego, rather than a desire to deliberately mislead. I include Powell (along with many others) in the category of “incompetent with ego”.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 21, 2008 @ 7:41 am - October 21, 2008
Ooops! Sorry Sean A, I was thinking of someone else. I will go sit in a corner and say “I am a dummy” forty times.
Comment by sonicfrog — October 21, 2008 @ 10:13 am - October 21, 2008
#21: No problem, sonicfrog.
Comment by Sean A — October 21, 2008 @ 10:34 am - October 21, 2008
Uhm, no they don’t. The DIA had rejected this intel in mid 2002, BEFORE Cheney used it. More confirmation here, - the Czech Pres. Vaclav Havel told the White House the link was not confirmed. Note the date was from Oct 2002. Yet Cheney was still repeating this claim well into 2003.
Comment by sonicfrog — October 21, 2008 @ 11:07 am - October 21, 2008
Yes sonic, and in years after that article (2002), other Czech sources - closer to the intelligence - said no, they stand by it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 21, 2008 @ 11:45 am - October 21, 2008
Why aren’t the gayLeft leaders inside the Democrat Party screaming that Barack Obama is now “honored and humbled” to have the endorsement of the “Father of DADT”? I mean it’s bad enough that Obama doesn’t care that he’s against gay marriage –the #1 issue of the gayLeft and gayDemocrats– and he thumbs it in the eye of the gayLeft.
But now Obama is trumpeting the endorsement of a man who was responsible for DADT becoming law? I guess when you’ve already accepted that the one thing Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden share is that each has friends who bombed the Pentagon, having the Father of DADT endorse your campaign isn’t all that bad by comparison.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 21, 2008 @ 12:21 pm - October 21, 2008
sonic, to provide a link - You cited a NYT article from 2002 quoting official statements made for public consumption. This CIA internal memo from 2003 gives a more balanced picture of the intelligence known/believed at that time:
That’s from the CIA memo. For the record, Interior Minister is closer to the intelligence sources and methods than Prime Minister. So, if we’re going to play the game in this fashion, Stanislav Gross’ comments trump Havel’s. Gross was a Social Democrat and later bowed out of Czech politics because of corruption, but those matters are unrelated and anyway, a commentator on the CIA memo points out that Gross wasn’t the only Czech official to continue insisting that the reports were true:
I’m sorry but that’s all the time I have. I know I could find more (about the Czech position / insistence factor; I personally don’t know or care if the meeting took place) if I had more time. Peace!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 21, 2008 @ 12:45 pm - October 21, 2008
Who? What sources? Do they stand by it today?
There are no credible reports of anyone on the record saying that, indeed , they still stand by it. The “they still stand by it” line is repeated in the echo chamber, but there is no link to any credible source to support it. There are two pieces on NRO, both from 2004, that try to make the case. But Andrew McCarthy’s piece only answers questions with question, a clever debating technique, frequently used by ufo believers, bigfoot hunters and 9/11 truthers, but he does not provide evidence that disproves the 9/11 Commission’s conclusion that Atta did not go to Prague to meet with the Iraqi official. Deroy Murdock does have a source, Edward J. Epstein. He provides one Czech official who has knowledge of the intel, Hynek Kmonicek. Epstein wrote this when the 9/11 Commission was still known as the Kissinger Commission. Dated info. So has Hynek Kmonicek continued to draw attention to this subject to prove the original Czech report was correct? No. Does Epstein have some smashing new evidence that proves the connection? No. It’s still all the same rehash regurgitated over and over again. But, repeat something over and over again, well you know the rest.
Look, I’m a skeptic by nature. There is an old saying - Extraordinary Claims need Extraordinary Proof. There is not one bit of reliable, solid evidence that shows that Atta, indeed, was in Prague meeting with Samir al-Ani. Much of the evidenced used in Powell’s report comes out the same way. You never get more than the claim, then the claim becomes proof itself. This is how the 9/11 Truthers operate. At the time, there were serious doubts throughout the intelligence community about the evidence used in the report, but the Bush administration chose to give it to Powell anyway. Powell was played the fool. And now Powell is giving it right back, in the form of the Obama endorsement.
Comment by sonicfrog — October 21, 2008 @ 1:30 pm - October 21, 2008
You’re the one who brought up the years 2002 and 2003. Move those goalposts! ;-).
Hopefully it is clear, from the little that I did have time to google-and-quote, that my claim from #24 is hardly extraordinary. To repeat: “Yes sonic, and in years after that article (2002), other Czech sources - closer to the intelligence - said no, they stand by it.”
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 21, 2008 @ 1:51 pm - October 21, 2008
P.S. Not proven… But not extraordinary, either.
As for this:
Please permit me the liberty of correcting it
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 21, 2008 @ 1:54 pm - October 21, 2008
Thank you for the link to the CIA memo…. CIA memo??? No, it’s NOT from the CIA, it’s from your one great source of all things Iraq War Doug Feith, who took a smattering of details out of context, then presented a conclusion not reached by the CIA - that Saddam and Osama has a working relationship.
This type of report is similar to a Meta study, often used in the field of medical research, but more often by junk science peddlers. It takes facts from several studies, mashes them together to present a stronger case. It’s used a lot in the “cell phones cause cancer” industry. They’ll say something like “We have compiled several studies that show a strong case that cell phones cause cancer. What they don’t tell you (and clueless reporters don’t understand) is that the studies that are grouped together are more often than not unreliable (sample group to small), they have methodological problems (it wasn’t a blind test study)or, as is the case with the Feith memo, cherrypicked to prove a desired outcome (see global warmings “Hockey Stick” for that one).
And here’s the best thing, Hayes and Feith are now at odds over the memo. From Steven Hayes, the author of the Weekly Standard piece you just presented:
Ladies and Gentlemen Steven Hayes.
In 2002, the Czech Government officially backed away from the Atta claim. Here. and from Here:
.
As Hayes said, Case Closed.
Comment by sonicfrog — October 21, 2008 @ 2:37 pm - October 21, 2008
Dang It Spam Filter.
Comment by sonicfrog — October 21, 2008 @ 2:52 pm - October 21, 2008
I asked, in relation to the Czech’s intel on Atta:
ILC answered:
But you brought the topic into the conversation with this:
No, they don’t. And there is no need to move goal poasts anyway. The Czech’s Foreign Intel Service had already cast doubt on the matter. From Oct 2002:
Getting back to Powell, you write:
Score one for them.
And yet, miraculously Feith, Cheney, Bush, Rummey, et al. are immune to that same error. Feith admits that they had already decided to go to war, which opens the door to cherry picking evidence to support your goal, just like so many of the Global Warming Fanatics do. This whole intelligence fiasco within the administration is no different than Al Gore’s distortion of evidence presented in his “Inconvenient Truth”.
Comment by sonicfrog — October 21, 2008 @ 4:05 pm - October 21, 2008
“In future I’d advise you refrain from commenting unless you have something intelligent to say.”
Perhaps you should take your own advise instead of parroting the ignorant yet predictable idea that Powell would just endorse Obama because they are both black.
Comment by a different Dave — October 21, 2008 @ 8:56 pm - October 21, 2008
Dang, I blew that. The surfing that led me to it had framed it as something else and - as I’ve said several times now - I was operating on a hurried time budget. Thanks for the correction.
Hayes described the memo this way:
So much for your claim that it’s a few details out of context, blah blah blah. And it wasn’t just drawn from the CIA, but also the FBI, DIA and NSA’s work, which Feith quoted or closely summarized at length in the 16-page memo.
This whole discussion is beside the point, sonic. Let’s reset.
(1) I claimed that the Colin Powell, Christopher Hitchens and Christopher Buckley endorsements of Obama all represent a triumph of emotion (false hope) over reason. That claim stands, and indeed you’ve hardly touched it. (Perhaps you agree?)
(2) I claimed that the idea that there was anything deliberately misleading about the Iraq pre-war intelligence has long since been debunked. Commission after commission studied the issue, here and in the UK, and found there was nothing deliberately misleading about it. That claim stands, and indeed you’ve hardly touched it.
(3) I claimed that Powell is a creature of the Washington establishment, playing to Bob Woodward’s typewriter and a possible Obama administration, and in many ways a fool who can’t take responsibility for his mistakes. That claim stands. Indeed, you’ve hardly touched it.
(4) I claimed Powell *wasn’t* there (i.e., close to and therefore authoritative on) the intelligence gathering, the intelligence vetting, and many key decisions. That claim stands. Indeed, you’ve hardly touched it.
(5) In a complete aside, unimportant to any of the above, I claimed that Czech intelligence officials (more than one) still stand by their claim that Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi agents in Prague. Of that he visited Prague in 1994 and 2000, there is no doubt. Of that he visited in 2001, and/or that he met specifically with Iraqi agents to discuss matters yet unknown, a lively debate has raged over the years - in which some Czech officials have stood by their claims, while being contradicted by others. You’ve written on that aside. And proven only that when I’m in a hurry, I can’t tell the difference between quotations of direct CIA product and quotations of someone closely summarizing CIA product.
Long story short, sonic: You’ve progressively drawn the discussion into arguments over trivia… for what?
As your own 2008 article citation points out:
As for this, addressed to me:
Not at all. I merely mentioned his book as a counterweight to Powell’s innumerable Iraq War books written under the alias “Bob Woodward”. (joke with an important kernel of truth) Could you be projecting, sonic? I mean, given what you’ve written in this thread, it’s legitimate to ask if perhaps Powell is your one source.
Going in circles. *sigh*
Ditto. The cellular record intelligence was always inconclusive, just like the rest of this stuff. As has already been discussed in articles we’ve cited.
According to whom? *Not I.”
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 21, 2008 @ 9:47 pm - October 21, 2008
sonic, if it makes you happy - From Respekt, an independent weekly in the Czech Republic, Nov. 2003:
Also - Buried in your own citation that is supposedly *against* the idea of Czech officials standing by their claims about Atta, are quotations from Czech officials *defending* their claims, including this tidbit:
And what is more: The most that Bublan could manage to say against the idea, and the source of your citation’s rather overblown and slanted headline, was that:
He “doubted” - repeat, “doubted” - that FIVE months was enough time for Atta to get back to America? Sounds like a lame denial, to me!
OK? Enough on the asides?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 21, 2008 @ 10:26 pm - October 21, 2008
Before I go home here - This report from 2005 is also well worth reading:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=DF7F563F-A83F-4261-940E-C819A580B082
The two authors focus on Able Danger and the lameness of the 9-11 Commission, but include this relevant tidbit:
Yes, I wish they’d named names. Yes, I’m sorry that I don’t personally know them or any Czech official who served as their source, so that I could personally call the official each Christmas to find out if he still held to his opinion in 2006, 2007 and 2008.
OK, I really can’t spend any more time on this. You’re welcome.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 21, 2008 @ 10:40 pm - October 21, 2008
And, if this discussion thread goes on tomorrow, let’s please get back to Colin Powell. Or at least to my actual points:
(1) Colin Powell, Christopher Hitchens and Christopher Buckley endorsements of Obama all represent a triumph of emotion (false hope) over reason.
(2) The idea that there was anything deliberately misleading about the Iraq pre-war intelligence has long since been debunked. Commission after commission studied the issue, here and in the UK, and found there was nothing deliberately misleading about it.
(3) Powell is a creature of the Washington establishment, playing to Bob Woodward’s typewriter and a possible Obama administration, and in many ways a fool who can’t take responsibility for his mistakes.
(4) Powell *wasn’t* there (i.e., close to and therefore authoritative on) the intelligence gathering, the intelligence vetting, and many key decisions.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 21, 2008 @ 11:03 pm - October 21, 2008
Good grief, sonicfrog! How obtuse can you be?
Bad intelligence is a reason for a grudge (if Powell must hold grudges) against the intelligence agencies that provided it. It is no reason for wanting to “to poke a stick in the eyes” of his own political party.
Anyone who thinks the intelligence debacle has anything to do with Powell’s endorsement of Obama is just plain stupid. Powell is a black Washington insider and social lefty. He endorsed Obama because Obama is a black lefty. That’s all there is to it.
Comment by Dave — October 22, 2008 @ 12:48 am - October 22, 2008
Boy, what was I thinking. Thanks for the insightful analysis Dave.
Comment by sonicfrog — October 22, 2008 @ 1:23 am - October 22, 2008
Please tell me you didn’t just use “Able Danger” as a source.
Able Danger = Crap. according to the DoD. Or are they lying too?
And then, you had stupid Rick Santorum peddling HOT EXPLOSIVE new evidence proving that Saddam had WMD’s, Except not. The document was already known, and it details munitions that had already been destroyed. Santorum and Weldon made a fool of the Republicans, and these back to back to back false claims looked ridiculous and desperate, which they were. I was one of those Republicans, and it was about this time I left the party.
Comment by sonicfrog — October 22, 2008 @ 2:33 am - October 22, 2008
OR is Powell just covering his ass for the promised war crimes investigations?
Comment by American Elephant — October 22, 2008 @ 3:16 am - October 22, 2008
Further and further afield… into “crap” as you put it. Can’t answer my main points, eh?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 22, 2008 @ 9:47 am - October 22, 2008
And please tell me you didn’t just implicitly endorse the ‘findings’ of the 9-11 Commission.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 22, 2008 @ 9:49 am - October 22, 2008
Finally, sonic, once more you and your cites bury the lead. Let’s read:
Please tell me you didn’t just take the testimony of 2 whistle-blowers, backed by 3 more witnesses, and proclaim it “crap” on the basis of your own bitterness as an ex-Republican.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 22, 2008 @ 9:56 am - October 22, 2008
Oh, yeah - and on the basis of a Joint Chiefs press release in a matter where they’re motivated to cover their asses. I thought you were supposed to be, um, a skeptic? Remember, each of the five witnesses “WAS THERE!!!”, as you shout if you think it defends Powell.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 22, 2008 @ 10:11 am - October 22, 2008
#40: “Santorum and Weldon made a fool of the Republicans, and these back to back to back false claims looked ridiculous and desperate, which they were. I was one of those Republicans, and it was about this time I left the party.”
So, basically you left the Republican Party because you felt that Saddam Hussein was being railroaded? It doesn’t sound like you were very committed to begin with to me.
Comment by Sean A — October 22, 2008 @ 10:59 am - October 22, 2008
Correction - sonic didn’t cite a JCS press release, but an “American Forces Press Service” press release. Apologies for the error, and my point remains.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 22, 2008 @ 11:24 am - October 22, 2008
LOL - Seeing as I’m the resident ex-Democrat - who, even now, still can’t bring myself to register Republican and have only gone as far as registering Independent - I had better not touch that one.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 22, 2008 @ 11:56 am - October 22, 2008
Sean: said:
Ah-wha?????? This is cool. So I disagree with ILC on a point, and now i’m a “Saddam Sympathizer”????
Ok, let’s take Able Danger off the table. It doesn’t have anything to do with Atta and Prague. The quote you cited says, if I’m reading it right, that AD gives weight to the Czech aligations. How would that be, since AD was shut down long before Atta made the trip in question. Again, the author of the piece, without giving any new info or links, seems to be repeating the same regurgitated info that the Czechs had already retraced.
We’re never going to concede to each others points (but I’m right and your wrong), so continuing with this is fruitless. I say we drop it and find something else to disagrees on.
Comment by sonicfrog — October 22, 2008 @ 12:59 pm - October 22, 2008
Yes, because Atta made several visits to Prague, and AD in some fashion (that I’m not too clear on) supported the visits that had occurred by AD’s time. Please note, however, that I don’t much care about AD, one way or the other; I only gave the quote as a later-dated example (2005 rather than 2003) of how some Czech officials have continued to stand by their original allegations. Again, I wish the article’s authors had cited or named their Czech sources. But I presume they had some, or they wouldn’t have said what they said. The alternative would be to believe that the authors made it up or, to coin a phrase, were deliberately misleading. By now, you know my basic position on that: *usually* (not alwayws), people get things wrong honestly, not dishonestly.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 22, 2008 @ 9:08 pm - October 22, 2008
Correction: that *some* Czechs retraced. Others said, no, the retracing was political bull that shouldn’t have been done. And do you seriously think that these authors, Ben Johnson and Lt. Col. Gordon Cucullu, hadn’t heard of the earlier retracement and weren’t more familiar with the whole saga than either you or I? And you haven’t addressed the Czech reporting I cited at #35. (Sorry for the bad link; here is the correct one.)
And, once more, all this is well beside the point. Colin Powell’s mistakes, including his endorsement of Obama, are the point; see #37.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 22, 2008 @ 9:25 pm - October 22, 2008
By the way, anyone remember not long ago when it was “Bush, Dick, and Colon?’
now he’s their fave.
Comment by American Elephant — October 23, 2008 @ 7:43 am - October 23, 2008