For those with military background

[Mr_Perceptive]

and Oprah Winfrey and Tiger Woods?

[crocat]

I suggest that Black Americans have a perfect right to suggest whichever role model they wish.

Clarence Thomas is the least dynamic justice the Supreme Court has seen in over 100 years, He speaks little or not at all, he participates in only a minimal fashion, and he adds nothing to any debate. He has done nothing to advance the Black cause other than to serve as a bland token of the Black guy who attained his fortune and sealed a deal with Massa Charley.

Condi Rice was National Security Advisor when the worst security breeach in the history of the US occurred. Now she is a rather unsuccessful diplomat in the Middle East. The US is more unpopular than it has been since the Vietnam period.

To many Blacks, Rice and Thomas seem to be role models who could've made a difference and blew it bigtime.



and one might also wonder why all conservative blacks are called uncle tom's and yet when the dnc get out the vote...and put on all the pomp and circumstance... the vote don't show.

I would love to see the ratio of voting blacks.

[Michael Tee]

sirs:  <<So everything of yours has to be rationalized into that template....EVERYTHING, including the blatant ignoring of so many official reports and conclusions to the contrary, including by Dems and folks in the Clinton administration, that have no support for Bush or the war.  Like Pollack  Sad, but at least consistent>>

Like Pollack, eh?  You want to talk about Pollack?  Fair enough, but first of all you should know a little something about Haim Saban and the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, where Pollack works, and its Director, Martin Indyk.

from Wikipedia:
Haim Saban  . . . is a television and media proprietor. With an estimated current net worth of around $2.8 billion, he is ranked by Forbes as the 98th richest person in America.  Saban and his family, along with much of the Egyptian Jewish community, fled Egypt for Israel after the 1956 Suez War. He currently resides in Beverly Hills, California, and in Israel. . . .  Saban summarized his politics in a 2004 New York Times interview with the statement, "I'm a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel." . . . Saban has donated to the US Democratic Party and the Israeli Labor Party, he has also donated to Republicans including George W. Bush, and has business affiliations with Rupert Murdoch. In the 2001-2002 election cycle, his Saban Capital group donated over $10 million to the Democratic National Committee[3], the largest donation from a single source up to that time.  He also founded the Saban Center for Middle East Policy[4] at the Brookings Institution, installing Martin Indyk as its director.

Who is Martin Indyk?
from http://www.la.utexas.edu/chenry/usme/sp2000/roles/msg00034.html (University of Texas)
<<In 1982, he [Indyk] became
affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), an
organization that is a registered lobbying group, promoting Israel and
its causes. However in 1985, Indyk co-founded the Washington Institute
for Near East Policy (WINEP) to emphasize a more objective, academic
research on Israel and the Middle East, thus separating himself from the
increasingly partisan members of AIPAC.>>

(How far he actually "separated" himself from AIPAC will be seen in the following paragraphs.)

<< . . . the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which he [Indyk] co-founded in February 1985 with Barbi Weinberg of Los Angeles, a former president of the Jewish Federation in Los Angeles and wife of AIPAC Chairman Emeritus Lawrence Weinberg.
<<Barbi Weinberg, who was an AIPAC director herself, became the Washington Institute's president and Indyk, an Australian by birth who was AIPAC deputy director of research, became the Washington Institute's executive director. >>
http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0393/9303009.htm

What does any of this have to do with Kenneth Pollack? 
Not much, except that Pollack too is involved with Martin Indyk's and Haim Saban's Saban Center.  He's their Director of Research.  http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/overview.htm  But that's not the extent of Pollack's involvement as a paid Israeli propagandist.  Far from it.

<<As a scholar at the liberal Brookings Institution, whatever liberal means these days, he [Pollack] advocated invasion of Iraq in the book The Threatening Storm, back in 2002, thereby giving crucial centrist support to the neocons. Pollack argued that the way to peace in the Middle East lay through Baghdad. I.e., convert the Arabs to democracy there and everything else will fall into place.>>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-weiss/kenneth-pollack-iran-exp_b_20248.html

and then there was this . . .
<<A U.S. government indictment alleges that Pollack provided information to former American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) employees Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman during the AIPAC espionage scandal>>
from the Wikipedia article on Pollack

Now then, what were you saying about POLLACK finding no evidence that Bush lied the country into war in Iraq?  He didn't find any evidence, eh?  Are you really surprised, now?

[sirs]

sirs:  <<So everything of yours has to be rationalized into that template....EVERYTHING, including the blatant ignoring of so many official reports and conclusions to the contrary, including by Dems and folks in the Clinton administration, that have no support for Bush or the war.  Like Pollack  Sad, but at least consistent>>

Now then, what were you saying about POLLACK finding no evidence that Bush lied the country into war in Iraq?  He didn't find any evidence, eh? 

Precisely that, that the global intel community concluded he (Saddam) had stockpiles of WMD, and that there was no cooerciion or manipulation of the intel.  What he found was simply intel that Bush focused more so on those credible sources that made those conclusions, vs other sources that raised questions, but by no means any conclusivity.  You can keep ignoring the official reports and conclusions made by the various intel agencies, but them there the facts, Tee.  Try not to choke on them

[Michael Tee]

MT:  <<Now then, what were you saying about POLLACK finding no evidence that Bush lied the country into war in Iraq?  He didn't find any evidence, eh? >>

sirs:  <<Precisely that, that the global intel community concluded he (Saddam) had stockpiles of WMD, and that there was no cooerciion or manipulation of the intel.  What he found was simply intel that Bush focused more so on those credible sources that made those conclusions, vs other sources that raised questions, but by no means any conclusivity. >>

LMFAO.  You answered a question that I did not ask.  You did this by editing out my real question, which allowed you to simply repeat what you had already said before.

Let's try it again.  THIS TIME, I will post the question as I actually posed it, not as you altered it.  Here's my original question to you:

<<Now then, what were you saying about POLLACK finding no evidence that Bush lied the country into war in Iraq?  He didn't find any evidence, eh?  Are you really surprised, now?>>

You had already told us that Pollack found no evidence of doctored intelligence.  We already knew that's what you had been referring to Pollack for.  So - - to put my real question in context - - I showed you how Kenneth Pollack is nothing more than a paid political propagandist for Israel, and that he himself had previously advocated (in his book) the invasion of Iraq.  And then I recapped your claim that Pollack had found no evidence that Bush lied the country into a war and simply asked you now (i.e., AFTER Pollack's association with Israeli interest groups had been exposed) whether you were surprised by Pollack's findings.

Why did you go to such lengths so as not to have to answer my simple question? 

And knowing, as you do now, of Pollack's close association with Israeli propaganda groups, ARE you surprised now that he found no evidence of Bush lies or manipulation of intelligence?


<<You can keep ignoring the official reports and conclusions made by the various intel agencies, but them there the facts, Tee.  >>

I don't actually ignore them.  I compare them with other facts - - the Downing Street memo, Richard A. Clarke's recollections, Vincent Cannistraro's recollections, Paul O'Neill's recollections, John Prados' recollections, the recollections of other insiders, the utter improbability of Iraq menacing the U.S. in any way, despite the ingenious but unconvincing fantasies dreamed up by sirs, the PNAC report recommendations, the migration of many of the PNAC founders and principals into the Bush White House, the obvious forgeries found in the evidence for war, and the "President's" refusal to remove the lies from his State of the Union address when the dubiousness of the evidence was pointed out to him, the general lack of integrity in Bush personally (his previous lies to the S.E.C.) and numerous other factors, and when I compared them (the official reports) with the actual facts, it was easier to dismiss the official reports as a bullshit whitewash than to fit the known facts into the official report.

As far as the conclusions of "various intel agencies," we already know the British report was cooked, and we know virtually nothing of other intelligence agencies except your mindlessly repeated mantra, "They believed.  They believed.  They believed."  Actually, we have no way of knowing what they really believed and we never will.  Personally, I think most of them believed it was a crock of shit simply by their failure to follow up by endorsing invasion at the Security Council.

[sirs]

What We Thought We Knew & The Perils of Prediction

Facts to a BDS Lib, like Kryptonite to Superman
which includes "found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs,"

[Michael Tee]

<<Intelligence officers who presented analyses that were at odds with the pre-existing views of senior Administration officials were subjected to barrages of questions and requests for additional information. They were asked to justify their work sentence by sentence . . . >>

<<Seymour Hersh, among others, has reported, Bush Administration officials also took some actions that arguably crossed the line between rigorous oversight of the intelligence community and an attempt to manipulate intelligence. They set up their own shop in the Pentagon, called the Office of Special Plans, in order to sift through the information on Iraq themselves. To a great extent OSP personnel "cherry-picked" the intelligence they passed on, selecting reports that supported the Administration's pre-existing position and ignoring all the rest.>>

the above from YOUR Kenneth Pollack article.  Later Pollack goes on to say that there was no manipulation of intelligence.  He obviously can't deny Seymour Hersh without destroying his own reputation, because Hersh is an experienced reporter with excellent sources and many scoops to his credit, whereas Pollack is just an ex-academic working in a think tank, which is just a bunch of flacks assembled by well-heeled pressure groups to back up their special agendas with pseudo-academic opinions.  So the way he neutralizes Hersh is to quote some of his suff, qualify it where possible ("arguably crossed a line."  arguably) 

The other source you quoted was worthless garbage.  Just reiterates how tough it is to get a picture of what's going on in Iraq, but doesn't even attempt to deal with Hersh's allegations, Richard A. Clarke's allegations, and all the rest of them.  Total waste of time reading it.

[sirs]

"Later Pollack goes on to say that there was no manipulation of intelligence.  He obviously can't deny Seymour Hersh without destroying his own reputation

Obviously he CAN.  MUST fit that template.

Hersh is an experienced reporter with excellent sources

Which of course trumps a man who actually is connected and KNOWS 1st hand the situational intelligence.  Obviously MUST go with the reporter and his "sources" vs the fella that actually IS a primary source.  Gotta stick with that template

The other source you quoted was worthless garbage.

Yea, a reference to the official report on whether intel was manipulated or agents coerced.  Yea, just garbage.  Gotta stick with that template, ya know   

[Michael Tee]

<<Obviously he CAN.[deny Hersh]  MUST fit that template.>>

Well, the fact is that he did not.

<<[Hersh being a seasoned reporter with excellent sources]  of course trumps a man who actually is connected and KNOWS 1st hand the situational intelligence. >> [sarcasm]

The situational intelligence was not the issue to which my remarks about Hersh were directed.  The issue there was whether pressure had been put on the intelligence analysts by the Bush administration to cook the intel in favour of their preconceived plans.  Hersh's "excellent sources" to which I referred were obviously NOT sources of foreign intelligence, but sources within the U.S. intelligence establishment who could testify as to administration pressure.  THAT is why I said that Pollack would not take Hersh on directly over this issue.


<<Yea, a reference to the official report on whether intel was manipulated or agents coerced.  Yea, just garbage.  Gotta stick with that template, ya know >>

No, it's worthless garbage becuase it makes absolutely no attempt to deal with the specific allegations of specific people that pressure was put on agents to cook their reports

[sirs]

The situational intelligence was not the issue to which my remarks about Hersh were directed.  The issue there was whether pressure had been put on the intelligence analysts by the Bush administration to cook the intel in favour of their preconceived plans.  

Which of course had been concluded officially as having not, corroborated by one of Bush's biggest critics on the war, Kevin Pollack.  Not that those facts matter.....must fit template, must fit template

[Michael Tee]

sirs:  <<Which of course [Bush admin pressure on analysts to cook their intel] had been concluded offcially as having not, corroborated by one of Bush's biggest critics on the war, Kevin Pollack.  Not that those facts matter.....must fit template, must fit template>>

Can't you fucking READ?  Once again here's the Pollack quote, from the very link YOU posted:


<<Seymour Hersh, among others, has reported, Bush Administration officials also took some actions that arguably crossed the line between rigorous oversight of the intelligence community and an attempt to manipulate intelligence. They set up their own shop in the Pentagon, called the Office of Special Plans, in order to sift through the information on Iraq themselves. To a great extent OSP personnel "cherry-picked" the intelligence they passed on, selecting reports that supported the Administration's pre-existing position and ignoring all the rest.>>

[sirs]

sirs:  <<Which of course [Bush admin pressure on analysts to cook their intel] had been concluded offcially as having not, corroborated by one of Bush's biggest critics on the war, Kevin Pollack.  Not that those facts matter.....must fit template, must fit template>>

Can't you fucking READ?  Seymour Hersh, among others, has reported.....

Apparently someone can't, since I coulda swore I was referring to Pollack, you know the fella who IS a source, not just some reporter, who you yourself referenced as pretty much cooroborating the Robb-Silverman report.  Apparently you can't read anything contrary to your preconceived made up mind.

Must fit template....must fit template

[Michael Tee]

sirs:  <<Apparently someone can't [read]  since I coulda swore I was referring to Pollack, you know the fella who IS a source, not just some reporter, who you yourself referenced as pretty much cooroborating the Robb-Silverman report.  Apparently you can't read anything contrary to your preconceived made up mind.>>

I'll put this as simply as I can.  READ WHAT I QUOTED FROM POLLACK.  Pollack is usually a source of nothing more than endless bullshit, but where I quoted Pollack, he was AGREEING WITH what Hersh had reported, i.e. that the Bush administration was cooking the intelligence.

You can't make it into something different just because you don't like what it says.  What part of "To a great extent OSP personnel cherry-picked the intelligence they passed on" do you not understand?  OSP was organized by the Bush administration to produce intelligence for them because they refused to rely on the traditional sources of intelligence such as the CIA.

[sirs]

sirs:  <<Apparently someone can't [read]  since I coulda swore I was referring to Pollack, you know the fella who IS a source, not just some reporter, who you yourself referenced as pretty much cooroborating the Robb-Silverman report.  Apparently you can't read anything contrary to your preconceived made up mind.>>

Pollack is usually a source of nothing more than endless bullshit,

Well, of course, he doesn't believe Bush lied, so he has to be full of BS     

...but where I quoted Pollack, he was AGREEING WITH what Hersh had reported, i.e. that the Bush administration was cooking the intelligence.

Well at least it's offical, you're the one that can't read.  The reference was in what Hersh was reporting, NOT that which Pollack was agreeing with.  As I've already referenced, Pollack's biggest criticism was that Bush focused on the plethora of intel that most all other intel sources had also concluded, while ignoring the intel that had questionable conclusions as to Saddam's WMD disposition.  QUOTE: "As best I can tell, these officials were guilty not of lying but of creative omission. They discussed only those elements of intelligence estimates that served their cause"  

MUST fit template, MUST fit template

[_JS]

For someone supposedly not so bright, he sure had a massive amount of folks fooled into believing his WMD cover.  Even all those before he took office.  Pretty impressive indeed, for a dunce

What I don't understand is why they didn't take some WMD in there with them.

Do people not read Sun Tzu or Machiavelli any more?