Skip to comments.
SELECTIVE INTELLIGENCEDonald Rumsfeld has his own special sources. Are they reliable?
New Yorker ^
| -11/17/03
| by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Posted on 11/17/2003 3:30:56 PM PST by mgist
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
To: mgist
That's not going to help me debate my Bush hating euro friend.Why waste your time. If he hates Bush, he acts on emotions not reason. Arguing against emotion is a losing battle.
Ask my wife.
21
posted on
11/17/2003 7:32:57 PM PST
by
VRWC_minion
(Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
To: Burkeman1
Even if all the intel was pure unadulterated fiction, Bush did the right thing. Therefore proving that the intel was bogus is a strawdog argument. The issue is still, should we stick Saddam back in power ?
22
posted on
11/17/2003 7:35:01 PM PST
by
VRWC_minion
(Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
To: Burkeman1
If Clinton were running this war and had presented such evidence of a potential threat to us that still hadn't panned out and then changed the reason for the war to some Wilsonian fantasy in mid stream? I can't imagine the Freeper reacion that would have resulted! Personally, I would say he did the right thing.
23
posted on
11/17/2003 7:36:31 PM PST
by
VRWC_minion
(Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
To: VRWC_minion
Can I bookmark your replies?
24
posted on
11/17/2003 7:39:58 PM PST
by
Burkeman1
((If you see ten troubles comin down the road, Nine will run into the ditch before they reach you.))
To: billbears
LOL!
25
posted on
11/17/2003 7:41:33 PM PST
by
Burkeman1
((If you see ten troubles comin down the road, Nine will run into the ditch before they reach you.))
To: mgist
I'm debating a EU liberal in another forum.Wombats are burrowing herbivorous marsupials.
26
posted on
11/17/2003 7:44:34 PM PST
by
Consort
To: billbears; Burkeman1; seamole
Politicians of both parties are subject to the same impulses to show "the other side" they were wrong all along.
I wouldn't put a lot of stock in what a senator says, even if it came from "official sources," as there's always the possibility his sources had an ax to grind. Politicians make such wonderful grinding stones, too.
Read this more recent article by Seymour Hirsch and you'll appreciate the idea that multiple-source intelligence should exist before any action -- war, especially -- is contemplated.
Comment #28 Removed by Moderator
To: mgist
Sorry. Forgot to add you to the previous post, as you would be interested in it too.
Don't envy you trying to defend GW Bush's actions. Thankfully, Klintoon didn't get the Senate to ratify the nutty World Court treaty, so no one will have to defend Bush before a war crimes tribunal in The Hague, either. This time.
To: logician2u
I know what you are saying. But Hersh should come under suspicion as a known left winger and ideolugue. I am old enough to know that right wingers can embellish and lie just as easily as the Left (after witnessing some on this site defend Bush and this lying war my eyes have been opened)- but Hersh is just not a good source for me to stomach.
30
posted on
11/17/2003 7:50:46 PM PST
by
Burkeman1
((If you see ten troubles comin down the road, Nine will run into the ditch before they reach you.))
Comment #31 Removed by Moderator
To: Burkeman1
You think some neoconservative (Max Boot, possibly?) is going to be less an ideologue?
There's always a slant, which you have to take into account. What's upsetting is when some so-called journalist conveniently forgets to check primary sources and, instead, uses the "unnamed officials" ruse.
At least Hersh (sorry, I misspelled his name before) comes closer than most to naming names, which is, of course, a sure way to lose story sources when dealing with sensitive national security matters. And in his long career as a reporter, he must have a pretty good file of contacts by now.
To: seamole
It is pretending that there was some sort of neocon (a/k/a Israeli) subterfuge affecting the intelligence processContrary to the neocon view of slandering paleocons as anti-semitic, for me the neocon movement has nothing to do with the Israeli situation. I support the existence of Israel one hundred percent, and for the record, I also believe that this administration's 'road map' is selling the Israelis out
This has to do with kooks over at the PNAC, and the fact that many in this administration signed their letter of principle in 1997. Nowhere in the Constitution have I ever seen 'worldwide American leadership' as either a founding principle or a goal of this nation of states. However, it quite clearly states on their website that is exactly what they want
33
posted on
11/17/2003 8:28:14 PM PST
by
billbears
(Deo Vindice)
To: logician2u
I pretty much question the resolve on conservative cultural issues that NeoCons once said they had. They jettison those concerns pretty fast for WAR instead (Read Golberg and Frum of National Review on "gay" rights and abortion recently.)
I don't dismiss all Left wing writers as inherent liars. That would be the act of an ideolouge and to be conservative is to, above all things, not be an ideolouge! But I am skeptical of an author like Hersh who always seemed to defend a regime like the Soviet Union and their minions during the Cold War.
34
posted on
11/17/2003 8:32:01 PM PST
by
Burkeman1
((If you see ten troubles comin down the road, Nine will run into the ditch before they reach you.))
Comment #35 Removed by Moderator
To: billbears
Seymour Hersh is very much like Ambrose Evans Pritchard was to conservatives during the Clinton years. Completely unobstructed from personal and professional relationship in DC, he wrote a fairly sober outline of the Office of Special Plans.
The defenders of the OSP should be focused on the complete failure of the CIA and thus rationalize the politicization of intelligence (more or less shadow government) as a necessary evil rather than simply ignore the darker implications. I mean, wasn't it just 5 years ago that the country went to war on behalf of radical Islam based on charges of a phony genocide in Serbia?
36
posted on
11/18/2003 6:02:56 AM PST
by
JohnGalt
("Nothing happened on 9/11 to make the federal government more competent.")
To: seamole
Yes, and the mistake that most neo-cons make is that they think everybody wants what they want: freedom and democracy. The fact is that many countries & many people DON'T want that.
37
posted on
11/18/2003 6:06:26 AM PST
by
armadale
Comment #38 Removed by Moderator
To: seamole
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Afghanistan (under the Taliban)
39
posted on
11/18/2003 6:26:34 AM PST
by
armadale
To: seamole
Oh, and by "democracy" I mean full political participation.
40
posted on
11/18/2003 6:27:06 AM PST
by
armadale
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson