Interesting People mailing list archives
more on Congressman Conyers calls for select committee tostudy impeachment
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 07:25:57 -0500
Begin forwarded message: From: Marc <marcaniballi () hotmail com> Date: December 24, 2005 6:03:53 AM EST To: dave () farber netSubject: RE: [IP] more on Congressman Conyers calls for select committee tostudy impeachment
Dave;Bob has brought up the primary disconnect in the entire mess, as I see it. There was, somewhere in the intelligence community, a belief/ assumption that "rogue states" were the most likely places to find and eliminate WMDs. This may have been the case during the cold war, but it has long since ceased to
be true. The price of a WMD is dropping almost as fast as the price of aMIP. In addition, the range of options for WMDs is growing exponentially.
(Remember when it was just nuclear bombs?) One could agree that the actions of the last few years are not onlyjustifiable, but rational, under the "rogue states" assumption. Given the reality that; any sufficiently smart and motivated group with access to a reasonable amount of funding could accomplish any number of WMD objectives, we now have an entirely different problem to deal with - one that doesn't
respond at all to current tactics. It is actually aggravated by them! Following Kurzweil logic, while we may be on the brink of a humanevolutionary leap, we are also on the brink of a different evolution - one
where the capacity to seriously injure, or even destroy humanity will beattainable by a large number of individuals, each capable of acting alone.
How do we deal with such a threat? Certainly not by cutting education and increasing military spending/activity. Oh, and please don't get me started on justifying one's actions based on divine intervention - That's the form of logic (or more properly "willful suspension of logic") that brought down
the two towers. -----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net] Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2005 1:58 AM To: ip () v2 listbox comSubject: [IP] more on Congressman Conyers calls for select committee tostudy
impeachment Begin forwarded message: From: "Atkinson, Robert" <rca53 () columbia edu> Date: December 23, 2005 11:22:00 PM EST To: dave () farber net Subject: RE: [IP] more on Congressman Conyers calls for select committee tostudy impeachment Dave: As I understand it, the "real objective" of our involvement in Iraq was and still is to minimize the risk to this country (and allies) that unstable, hostile countries or terrorists could acquire weapons of mass destruction. After 9/11, even the slightest possibility of terrorists or rogue states having WMDs became intolerable. Period. Is "no WMDs in hostile hands" a necessary and worthwhile national security objective? It's hard to think that it isn't; certainly nuclear proliferation isn't good. So, with "no WMDs in hostile hands" as the principal national security objective, the thinking was and is that the invasion of Iraq could help achieve the objective in three ways: 1) By making sure that Saddam Hussein's Iraq didn't have WMDs or the capability of developing them (this mission was accomplished quickly: despite expectations to the contrary, no WMDs were found and it is unlikely that the "new Iraq" will ever have WMD capability); 2) By making it clear to other rogue states (such as Libya, Iran, North Korea) that the United States will never permit them to have WMDs, and that they will suffer Iraq's fate (ruination) if they try (this mission was accomplished with respect to Libya; success is less assured with respect to Iran and North Korea and the "lack of will" currently being shown in the United States may mislead Iran and North Korea into thinking they have nothing to fear); and, 3) By establishing a stable, civilized, democratic society in the Middle East in the hope that it will minimize the need for the United States to police the region for the foreseeable future (this mission has not yet been accomplished and might be the most difficult; it will be a long time before any judgment can be made). The Afghan/Iraq actions seem to have reduced the possibility of nuclear war between India andPakistan and they helped to expose the dissemination of nuclear bomb-making know-how to rogue states by A.Q. Khan. These unintended consequences can help achieve the objective of "no WMDs in hostile hands" and are a "bonus." Was the invasion of Iraq the best way or only way to achieve a critical national security objective? Could different things be done? Obviously, there is a lot of debate about that now. But you asked about what is the "real objective," not the means of achieving it. Bob -----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net] Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 6:15 PM To: ip () v2 listbox com Subject: [IP] more on Congressman Conyers calls for select committee tostudy impeachment
Frankly they don't give a damn whether we succeed in our
objectives in either Afghanistan or Iraq
I may give a damn if someone would explain to me what the real objectives of our involment in Iraq? Dave Begin forwarded message: From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com> Date: December 23, 2005 10:47:55 AM EST To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net () warpspeed com> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] re: Congressman Conyers calls for select committee tostudy impeachment Reply-To: dewayne () warpspeed com [Note: This comment comes from reader Dave Hughes. DLH]
From: "Dave Hughes" <dave () oldcolo com>
Date: December 21, 2005 8:51:52 AM PST
To: <dewayne () warpspeed com>
Subject: Re: [Dewayne-Net] re: Congressman Conyers calls for select
committee tostudy impeachment
My source of information did not come from Drudge. I don't read or
use his trash.
What angers me is that Congressional antagonists (I don't call them
'critics' any more - they are far more interested in political
advantage for the next election and media grandstanding than
serious or responsible critique of how this war is being waged)
don't have a clue, and could care less, what it takes to cope with
the militant 100 year Islamic war aimed at the United States being
waged by Al Quaeda and its global wanna-be's. Which is based on
subversion, clandestine communications, the use of ever more deadly
and miniaturized weaponry and related technologies (which I warned
Secretary of Defense McNamara of 40 years ago would be the future
nature of war) now including encrypted internet, fleeting telephone
calls and coded messaging many of whose signals between agents in
two foreign countries technically route through switches in the US.
Resulting in singular acts of terrorism far more calculated to
break the will of naive American people through their chosen weapon
of television than the amount of real destruction.
Frankly they don't give a damn whether we succeed in our objectives
in either Afghanistan or Iraq and are perfectly willing, starting
with what is printed in the New York Times in blatantly revealing
the details of every classified operation the US undertakes.
Whether or not that directly contributes to the death of more
Americans or more terrorist strikes or not, either in Iraq or New
York.
As for my crack about Clinton's use of executive powers, just don't
forget that the botched intelligence about Iraq and the degree to
which it had, or was making, WMD, was provided a new President,
Rumsfeld and Powell, after 9/11 by the incompetent CIA Director
George 'slam dunk' Tennant whom Clinton selected and over whose
agency he presided for 8 preceding years, while Al Quaeda grew and
laid down its long range plans to destroy the infidel - the United
States.
Clinton and his cabinet was utterly asleep at the foreign
intelligence and terrorist threat switch, even after Al Quaeda
started blowing up embassies. And even blew the opportunity to grab
or kill Osama Bin Laden, who had been identified by the previous,
Reagan, administration, when he was offered up on a silver plate by
another country.
Dave Hughes
dave () oldcolo com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dewayne Hendricks"
<dewayne () warpspeed com>
To: "Dewayne-Net Technology List" <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 1:35 AM
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] re: Congressman Conyers calls for select
committee tostudy impeachment
[Note: This comment comes from reader Dave Hughes. This blog
item might provide some clarity to Dave's comment: <http://
thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/>. DLH]
From: "Dave Hughes" <dave () oldcolo com>
Date: December 20, 2005 5:11:56 PM PST
To: <dewayne () warpspeed com>
Subject: Re: [Dewayne-Net] Congressman Conyers calls for select
committee tostudy impeachment
Gee, I wonder why the Republicans overlooked the opportunity to
add counts to Clinton's impeachment hearings, since he too
authorized warrentless wiretapping of Americans in the US during
his 8 years.
Dave Hughes
Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com> ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as rca53 () columbia edu To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- people/ ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as marcaniballi () hotmail com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ipArchives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- people/
------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on Congressman Conyers calls for select committee tostudy impeachment David Farber (Dec 23)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- more on Congressman Conyers calls for select committee tostudy impeachment David Farber (Dec 23)
- more on Congressman Conyers calls for select committee tostudy impeachment David Farber (Dec 23)
- more on Congressman Conyers calls for select committee tostudy impeachment David Farber (Dec 24)
- more on Congressman Conyers calls for select committee tostudy impeachment David Farber (Dec 24)