In the final dogfight in the movie “Top Gun” the Captain of the US aircraft carrier Enterprise is alarmed when enemy fighters close to within 160 miles:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqfXXaOisKo[/youtube]
A couple of days ago Russian bombers buzzed the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan.
“There were two Russian Tu-142 Bear aircraft that approached the USS Ronald Reagan on the morning of Oct. 27 … while the Reagan was operating in the Sea of Japan,” said Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman.
Four F/A-18 jets were launched from the carrier to intercept and escort the Russian aircraft, he added.
“The interaction was characterized as safe,” Davis said, noting that prudent defensive action was taken by the carrier.
Asked whether the aircraft posed a threat, Davis said: “Anytime there are aircraft operating in close proximity to a U.S. Navy ship, particularly an aircraft carrier, we’re going to take action to launch and make sure we are tracking it very closely.”
“But there was nothing to indicate they were posing a direct threat,” he said.
During the incident, however, the Russian two aircraft, anti-submarine warfare versions of the Tu-95 Bear nuclear-capable bomber, were flying at a height of only 500 feet and came within a mile of the Reagan.
It’s not an isolated incident:
Earlier aerial activities by Moscow included flights by two Russian Tu-95 strategic bombers that circumnavigated the Pacific U.S. island of Guam twice, once in November and again in December. The island is a major U.S. military hub for the Obama administration’s pivot to Asia.
A Russian Su-27 fighter flew dangerously close to an RC-135 reconnaissance jets near the Sea of Okhotsk in April 2014.
The most recent Russian aircraft intrusion of U.S. air defense zones took place July 4 when two Tu-95 bombers flew within 40 miles of the California coast and communicated a message to U.S. jet interceptor pilots that escorted the bombers out of the area. The message from one of the Russians was “Happy birthday,” according to U.S. officials.
The California bomber incursion also took place the same day that President Obama held a telephone conversation with Putin.
A Russian Su-27 fighter jet conducted a dangerous aerial intercept of an RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft over the Black Sea earlier in May. Around the same time, a Russian Su-24 jet interceptor buzzed the destroyer USS Ross in the Black Sea, near occupied Crimea.
The response was as lame as one would expect from a subjugated President. The incident was described as “not unprecedented” but “not a regular occurrence.”
This is not just embarrassing, it’s dangerous to the military. Exactly what does it take for Obama to look like a President? Putin knows Obama is a flat out pussy. He knows that he can shove Obama around anywhere on the planet. He knows Obama is so risk inhibited that Obama would not likely respond to a bombing of New Jersey. Obama would probably call it “not unprecedented by not a regular event.”
I’d tell Putin in no uncertain terms that if you send bombers within 50 miles of one of our carriers it will be regarded as an act of aggression and those bombers will bs shot down.
Period.
But Obama won’t do that. He doesn’t have the stones. He’s too busy fighting the tough war against conservatives and patriotism here in the US. He’s a tough when he’s got the IRS and the DOJ to hammer domestic opposition. Outside the US borders he’s a pussy.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
HEY!! JUST BACK OFF A BIT, DR. JOHN!!
The administration “expressed concern”. Damnit, give credit when credit is due.
At least Hillary is used to confrontation and appropriate response. She is well-regarded among feminist circles for throwing lamps at her husband.
Thank goodness we only have a few more months of this wimp in the White House.
@Bill:
LOL. I guess i should have emphasized that more.
Obama just announced he’s sending 20 to 30 Special Forces (as advisers) to Syria!
Who, I wonder, will they be ”advising?”
The Russians?
Assad?
Al Qaeda? (They are our ”moderate” Islamist allies, after all.)
Who?
I’m more harsh to my aphids than Obama is to Russia!
Dr J is ignorant of the fact that the Russians have in the past flown DIRECTLY over one of our aircraft carriers. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/02/12/AR2008021202693.html
Obviously Skook and Dr J were both fearsome anti communist warriors in their youth.
Right guys?
Any battle stories for us?
@Nanny G: BUT they have strict orders to only go out in their sock feet… no boots on the ground.
Dealing with a T.H.U.G. (here a.k.a. “russian reset”) never ends in a good way.
But libtards, who obviously consider themselves too smart to learn anything, would prefer to promote thugs until the latter become strong enough to whack everyone. Including libtards.
No one could help ruskies in their zombified communism world domination campaign more than Obama and his politically correct EU colleagues.
I am seriously thinking we should swallow our pride, and really think it through….maybe, Assad is better than any one else to call the shots in Syria, and maybe we should get on the same path as Putin in dealing with the problem???
@Skookum:
14-1/2 months >> too dam long — review the happenings over the 14 months post Pearl Harbor!
@Nanny G: Smells like the typical demo-COMMUNIST prelude to another war! (Viet Nam come to mind?)
Am wondering if we should reassess our thinking about Syria, and maybe figure Putin is right about Assad being the preferred leader to keep control of a fractured nation in a fractured part of the world?
Do you sometime wonder If Saddam Hussein and Khadafy might should have been left in place, and perhaps Arabs are simply incapable of self rule?
The Reagan and the Tupolevs were in international waters and international airspace. Such close encounters are not all that unusual. It’s also worth noting that the Russian aircraft were relatively near the Russian coastline. The Sea of Japan is on the edge of their front yard. They likely perceived our carrier as a matter of concern and decided to make their presence known.
Proximity of Russian aircraft to California is simply a turnabout of the same situation. They remained outside our territorial waters, which extend 12 nautical miles from a nation’s coastline.
Tu-95s are Cold War Era bombers. They’re quite impressive. Here’s a video of one in flight, if you’re interested in military aircraft.
@William watson:
Didn’t you ever see ‘Lawrence of Arabia’?
@William watson: Syria does not threaten the US so we really have no interest there. The UN should be involved, if anything and the US could be a part of that.
However, the UN is a corrupt conglomeration of anti-Semitic bribe-whores that have completely lost the vision of what the UN was set up to do.
8 times Obama said there would be no ground troops or no combat mission in Syria, and now there will be. I understand the thinking:
Russia has concentrated military forces in western Syria. They’ll push ISIL east, straight into Iraq. Perhaps we can prevent that now, avoiding a much bigger problem in the future…
This is a totally screwed up situation. If we’re not careful we’ll be drawn back in, one small and seemingly-logical step at a time, until we suddenly find ourselves right back where we were, maintaining an enormously expensive and increasingly resented occupation force, with no end to our involvement anywhere in sight.
No outside power can solve this region’s problem.
@Greg: Greggie Greggie Greggie, wake up to NOW and stop changing the subject!! Your blame Republicans game is old and disgusting. Reagan carried 49 to of 50 states, nough said time for your to move on!!
Contrary to your traitorous assertions, Obama pretty much handed off the mess in the middle east to Russia. Brilliant move, I’d say!
@Greg: Obama is in a perpetual state of belated reaction to Putin’s actions. Putin is exerting force in the area and achieving his goals and success. Now, Obama has to put forces in harm’s way, under the worst of circumstances (under him as C in C and liberal politics determining every move and delaying every action).
Liberals create the mess, Republicans clean it up.
@Bill, #17:
The mess was created when we thoughtlessly eliminated the government and military power of Iraq, without giving a thought to the predicted long-term consequences. That monumental foreign policy screw up followed a neo-conservative republican administration taking the driver’s seat. Regime change in Iraq was already on their “to do” list.
What do people not understand about the George W. Bush administration turning into a total disaster?
@Greg:
A mess that Democrats voted for.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
Voted FOR by Joe Biden, John Kerry, Harry Reid AND Hillary Clinton.
What I understand is that you want to blame George Bush for a military actions that you refuse to lay at the feet of the Democrats who voted FOR it.
I told you a long time ago, Greggie Goebbels, I feel sorry for you. It must be sad to go through life being nothing more than a pawn for the DNC.
@Budvarakbar: Aye, good point, there was a time when we fought wars to win. Now, we waste lives to make political points for pathetic narcissists.
@Greg:
Let me introduce you to the Bill Clinton Iraqi Regime Change Act of 1998.
@drjohn:
Make no mistake; Greggie Goebbels is fully aware of the Bill Clinton Iraqi Regime Change Act of 1998.
Greggie Goebbels has but one purpose; to spin for his Socialist Democrats. He is, after all, a lock solid Socialist who has been brain washed (willfully, I would venture) into believing all the lies put out by the Democratic Party.
Fortunately, Greggie Goebbels sucks at his job.
@drjohn, #21:
I presume the reference is to The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which was sponsored by Rep. Benjamin A. Gilman (R-NY), co-sponsored by Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA), and passed by a republican-majority House and a republican-majority Senate. The Act directed President Clinton to provide non-military assistance to yet-to-be-determined Iraqi factions opposing Saddam Hussein. It specifically forbade Clinton from using U.S. military forces to effect regime change. Refer to Section 8:
This was back in the days when a republican-majority Congress actually participated in governance by taking clear positions and producing meaningful legislation that reflected those positions. When it seemed reasonable, as it did in this case, democrats also voted in favor of it.
The idea of the United States invading Iraq, removing its government by force, and setting up one we liked better hadn’t yet taken hold outside the confines of Project for a New American Century. The prevailing theory was still that the people of foreign nations should rid themselves of their own tyrants.
@retire05, #22:
You’re the one constantly spinning lies and distortions. You can’t even refer to the bill in question by its proper name, let alone acknowledge that it was the product of a republican-majority Congress. The right constantly revises history to maintain an illusion that all things wrong with the nation and the world are entirely the fault of somebody else.
@Greg:
I especially note the part about it being signed by Bill Clinton:
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.” This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq’s current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq’s weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security.
With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 31, 1998.
@Greg:
Remember when I wrote this?
Iraq Deja Vu
Feb. 25, 1998, Tom DASCHLE:
[ED. NOTE: After Kofi Annan secured one more useless “agreement” with Hussein, Daschle took the floor to gush like a schoolgirl about that “achievement.” The reader is advised to pay close attention to Daschle’s words here. This is a declarative statement. He does not use modifying words like “alleged” or “reported.” What we should demand is an answer to what intelligence Daschle relied on when he declared that Iraq had not only chemical and biological weapons, but nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them.]
If fully implemented, this commitment will allow UNSCOM to fulfill its mission: First, to find and destroy all of Iraq’s chemical, biological and nuclear weapons; second, to find and destroy the missiles that could deliver these weapons; and, third, to institute a system for long-term monitoring to make sure Iraq doesn’t do it again.
The United States remains resolved to secure, by whatever means necessary, Iraq’s full compliance with its commitment to destroy its weapons of mass destruction. So again, it will be diplomacy backed up by force. So long as diplomacy works, force will not be necessary. At the very moment diplomacy appears not to be working, force will be employed. So, let there be no mistake. This is not a question of breathing room. This is not a question of simply delaying and somehow, then, obviating the need for the use of force should it be required. It will be there.
So, Mr. President, we have made great progress on paper over the last 72 hours.
@Greg:
No, Greg, you are being intentionally stupid again.
It was anything but “thoughtless”. It was in full debate in Congress and a resolution was passed to authorize the use of force. The same happened in the UN. A great amount of thought was put into it. It had been long supported by Democrats.
Likewise, the risks of beheading the Iraqi government was seriously considered. Democrat and Republican like expressed the fear of creating a disastrous power vacuum. Our forces fought long and hard to stabilize Iraq and lay the groundwork to that stability to become permanent. Which is why it is so unbelievably amazing that Obama, one of the critics, would walk right in and destroy that stability.
All that was made possible by Bill Clinton, though he supposedly recognized the threats, refused to act against terror. Perhaps this can be excused up till such a horrendous act such as 9/11 were perpetrated (though this has not allowed the left to give Bush the benefit of the doubt) but, the fact is, Bill had multiple opportunities to head the attack off… and did nothing.
So, the inaction of the Clinton administration led to the attacks of 9/11 and, once Bush had worked to stabilize the areas where threats were determined to lurk, Obama came in and purposely DEstabilized it. THAT was my point.
The Russian ruble has lost 50% of its value against the dollar. The dollar is at a 4 or 5 year high. Russia is making the same mistake as Bush made intervening in the Mideast
Oil may well be headed for 20$ a barrel which would probable make the ruble which is now worth 1.3 cents worth about 1 penny. In 1993 it was worth a dollar.
Gas is under 2 bucks a gallon it may go close to 1 dollar when Iran pumps
Alberta oil guy is singing the blues
@Bill:
Actually – the lack of ‘cognitive reasoning’ skills is one of the main characteristics of the ‘liberal’ mind — when you are too ‘open minded’ a lot of pertinent facts tend to drop out of any attempt at a reasoned observation covering a range of time, geographical space, cultures, political philosophies and personalities!
The “Bush’s fault” syndrome which absolves any Klintoon or Obama involvement in any ‘negative’ goings on in the world over the last 28 years is a perfect example!
@Bill:
9-11, Bin Ladin, aspirin factories, etc come to mind
@Bill, #28:
There was a full debate of cooked intelligence. The Bush administration built its case for taking the nation to war on the testimony of sources and information that had already been widely discredited in U.S. and foreign intelligence communities, had anyone checked. Expert assessments critical of the Bush administration’s intentions were neither sought or heeded. They certainly weren’t presented for consideration. They were totally ignored.
In addition to suppressing unhelpful intelligence while cherry picking stories that supported war, a media blitz was mounted to sell the need for the war to the American public. There were frightening warnings about spreading mushroom clouds coming from the highest sources. Talking heads posing as experts were yammering away incessantly on news channels about the imminent danger Saddam Hussein posed to America—particularly on FOX. No doubt many were sincere, having been told the same thing as everybody else.
There were subsequent bipartisan Congressional investigations into pre-Iraq war intelligence clarifying had happened, should anyone care to read their findings. It’s worth noting that investigations were undertaken while Bush was still in the White House and republicans were still in control of Congress. They weren’t some political hatchet job orchestrated by democrats.
@Reem: Yeah, Obama was so brilliant that now he scrambles to put troops right back where he just pulled them out, causing this disaster in the first place. So brilliant that he took a success and turned it into a failure.
@Greg:
Who cooked it? The Clinton’s? For, that is where much of the intelligence came from. Furthermore, Clinton, both Bill and Hillary, Kerry… aw, f**k it. You’ve been shown this time after time and seen the facts repeatedly. Just keep on lying, if they makes you sleep better after supporting the failure that unleashed ISIS on the world.
@Greg:
@retire05, #22:
I didn’t refer to the bill by any name. I simple reprinted part of the bill that was passed with the aid of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Harry Reid.
On top of that, dimwit, post #22 is NOT mine.
But here is the bill that you want to ignore and pretend never happened and Democrats never voted for it:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/pdf/PLAW-107publ243.pdf
Get treatment for your analcranial disorder, Greggie. You are embarrassing yourself. Sad you sold your soul like you have.
@retire05, #32:
I stand corrected. It was post #23. You seem to have had no difficulty figuring out which post I was actually referring to.
Perhaps you missed the fact that the bill alluded to in post #22 specifically referenced President Clinton and the year 1998.
That would probably be something different from a bill that was signed by President Bush in 2002, wouldn’t it?
A little information on Paul A. Pillar, former CIA and darling of the left (as made obvious by Greggie Goebbels):
Guillermo Christensen, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations who served for 15 years as a CIA intelligence officer, responded to Pillar in the WSJ:
CIA officers on the cusp of retirement often enroll in a seminar that is supposed to help them adjust to life after the agency–teaching them, for example, how to write a resumé. I’ve begun to wonder if part of that program now includes a writing seminar on how to beat up on the Bush administration. The latest such blast comes from Paul Pillar, who, over the course of his long career, was arguably a central player in the CIA’s analysis of the Middle East, in particular Iraq. But now Mr. Pillar has decided to disclose to the world, in a recent article in Foreign Affairs, that he thought all along that the war was a bad idea, and that the president and his advisers ignored his intelligence.
Why Mr. Pillar would even attempt to argue that the White House ignored the CIA’s intelligence is beyond me–as innumerable investigations have demonstrated, all of the “intelligence” within his responsibility was 100% in agreement that Iraq posed a serious danger and that it had an active program for acquiring WMD. Over the course of a decade and a half, and thousands of pages of intelligence analysis, it is hard to think of anyone in the government who was more directly involved in reaching the wrong conclusions about what was going on in Iraq than Mr. Pillar himself.
Paul Pillar was right in the thick of the process and substance that reached those conclusions. Had he actually written a warning to the administration against going to war before the war, his conclusions could not have rested on any of the CIA’s intelligence analysis, but instead on his own political views against the administration–something which he has made no bones about in discussions with think-tank audiences long before he left the agency. This, incidentally, is prohibited behavior according to the professional practices of the CIA, the equivalent of betraying attorney-client confidentiality.
Not merely content to have played a leading role in the Iraq intelligence failure, Mr. Pillar is now following in the footsteps of others like Michael Scheuer, in undermining whatever credibility and access the CIA still may have with policymakers. By violating his confidences, Mr. Pillar is ensuring that those who succeed him–those who are, I hope, trying to fix the many problems facing the CIA–will be even less likely to see any real impact from their work because the president and his advisers will be loath to trust them.
For decades, there has been a common understanding that CIA analysts play a role roughly analogous, for policymakers, to experts whose opinions are sought in confidence, such as lawyers or accountants. Presidents and their advisers have felt comfortable in relying on analysts, in theory at least, for unbiased information and conclusions–and for keeping their mouths shut about what they learn. Presidents, secretaries of state, and others have given the CIA access into the inner sanctum of policymaking in the belief that the CIA would not use the media or leaks to influence the outcome.
For a CIA officer to discard this neutral role and to inject himself in the political realm is plain wrong. It will end up making the CIA even less relevant than it is today–if that is possible. ”
Pillar is just another Democrat hack much like Larry Johnson, member of the VIPs, and former CIA that are so in the tank for the Democrats they were more than happy to blame Bush for the failures of their party god, Bill Clinton. Johnson even made the comment just a month before 9-11-2001 that it was impossible to think that Islamic radicals could ever attack the U.S., much less do so using commercial airliners.
But Greggie has been suitably brainwashed (willfully, I’m sure) that he will continue to promote falsehoods, support those who violated the terms of the (CIA) employment and lied their asses off to discredit a Republican president.
Greggie is nothing more than the slimy slug in your garden that you pour salt on because he serves no good purpose.
@retire05:
So why is my post in response to Greggie Goebbels “awaiting moderation?”
Do the moderators object to my calling out Greggie Goebbels as a garden slug?
@retire05: I’ve had my posts in moderation as well. Don’t take it personal. It’s probably part of a filtering process given the crap the trolls post here. Greggie Goebbels’ and ‘garden slug’ are actually quite tame compared to what I’d call him. I don’t think Curt wouldn’t allow that type of language here.
@another vet:
I didn’t.
Greg is one of these guys who would have been demanding Orson Wells be convicted for a radio program that was clearly meant to be a spoof because he is too stupid to change the radio station to see if Martians were really invading the United States and did the U.S. military really cave after 30 minutes.
Some people will believe anything, mostly because they want to. Greg is stuck in liberal lies and he doesn’t want to believe anything else.
@another vet: A.V. 90% of the pejoratives here come from a couple of aged right wingers.
Of course when Aye or Mata called one ‘tired old 5″ she became righteously indignant.
She reminds me of Trump–if she feels insulted she comes back twice as nasty.
IMO Greg stays admirably calm against the onslaught of invectives directed at him.
FA seems more and more a place for people to blow off steam. “Tales told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
.
Another great day of college football.–.
.
@Rich Wheeler: Like I said before, you I get along with. I have ZERO tolerance for Greg anymore. I don’t bother reading his bullshit posts anymore. They are rabid left despite how he tries to comically pass himself off as being towards the center. He has been caught being dishonest in his arguments more than once by numerous people here including those you mention such as Aye, Mata, and Word. He came to the defense of Bowe Bergdahl. Not exactly the type of person you’d want watching your back now is it? He is also not the nice, restrained person you believe him to be. Go back and look at his bigoted tirades against Mitt Romney and his Mormon religion. He was also caught calling Retire a “peckerhead” I believe. The first time I’ve heard that one leveled at a female. If he wants to come to a conservative blog site and insult people be it through ignorance or name calling, he should be prepared to face the backlash. I would expect the same if I went to some left wing blog site which is why I don’t visit them.
I’m not into sports really except for the Blackhawks. If games are on where I’m at, I would prefer college to professional sports. I do like MMA etc.
@Rich Wheeler:
The operative word here being “righteously.” But what did you expect? Are conservatives just supposed to lay down and let you left wingers tromp all over them and then thank you for the abuse? And how hysterically funny that someone of your advanced years seems to take great pleasure in mocking someone for theirs.
Come after me and I will take heed of Obama’s words; you bring a knife, I bring a gun, figuratively speaking. For far too long, you on the left side of the aisle have felt free to mock, insult and belittle conservatives while we remained silent. No more. Exposing the lies of the left wing, such as Democrat p!mp Greggie spews, should be the goal of ever conservative. The left has become nothing more than a pack of rabid Socialists who are not willing to put their own money where their mouths are, but want to stick their hand in the pocket of everyone else with their legalized theft and then pat themselves on the back for being for “the common man.”
The hypocrisy is yours, RW. And the shame. You support the very party that would deny you the honor and respect you deserve as a veteran. You whine how veterans should be cared for, and helped, yet you donate your money to an animal “rights” grifter. You claim to be a religious, yet you march in gay parades supporting sodomists. You vote for those who seem hell bent on destroying what little is left of our Constitution. Admit it; you forfeited the high ground long ago.
No surprise that you would defend Greggie, the Goebbels of FA. It says all there is to be said about you.
@retire05, #36:
Paul A. Pillar had a 28-year career in the CIA, ending with his retirement in 2005. From 1993 until 1999 he was Chief of Analysis with the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center. After that he was the agency’s National Intelligence Officer for the Middle East. Pillar is considered to be exceptionally well informed on both topics. He’s not only critical of the Bush administration, but of Congress for failing to utilize the intelligence reports the CIA made available for examination. Specifically, he says that few members of Congress read any more than the 5-page summary of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate which appears on pages 5 through 9 of that document. This was essentially the same material that the Bush Administration was using to sell the war. Had they bothered to read the Alternate Views and Confidence Levels sections included in that same document, which became available for public review on September 12, 2014, they would have discovered that opinions within the CIA were divided, and that analysts who declined to endorse the views ordered up by the Bush administration had entirely sound reasons for refusing to do so. (The redacted version of the NIE released July 18, 2003 and presented by the White House had everything calling their arguments for war into question totally redacted. After the 5-page summary, the entire document consisted of blank pages.) It’s instructive to compare the two.
Obviously Pillar’s criticisms of the Bush administration’s deceitfulness and Congress’s inattentiveness are not without merit.
So who is Guillermo Christensen? A Bush apologist who for some reason left the CIA mid-career. The Council on Foreign Relations? It’s not governmental. Here’s a chart showing various organizations the Council is connected to. Figure it out. (I’m a little surprised that you’re pitching Guillermo Christensen’s credibility by associating him with an organization into which George Soros figures so prominently.)
@Greg: What is liberally inexplicable is the support lent by the Democrats in Congress based on the information that had been gathered, mostly under the Clinton Administration; remember, 9/11 happened 9 months into Bush’s term.
Though, predictably, when the global war on terror wasn’t over in 6 months, liberals forgot their prior support and turned on it, that in no way can be used a verification that going to war was due in any way to manipulation.
Certainly not as baseless as the campaign to depose Qaddafi or get involved in Syria’s civil war.
Neither of which resulted in 4, 486 U.S. military personnel killed, or a cost to U.S. taxpayers of $2 trillion…
@Greg: How many deaths have resulted in the power vacuum (something everyone knows is a “bad thing”, right?) in Libya or the open door policy to ISIS in Iraq and Syria? How many WILL die as we try to regain some authority in the region Obama abandoned for some headlines and talking points?
Regardless, the invasion of Iraq was to secure the WMD’s the intelligence, with bipartisan support, showed Iraq had since Hussein was violating UN resolutions mandating inspections. Iraq was authorized; Libya and Syria… NOT.
Sad that this administration just wasted the cost in blood and treasure. Sad Obama wasted a hard-won victory in Iraq and, now, more blood and treasure will have to be spent to root ISIS out. Sad.
@Greg:
Hold on there, bubba; 273 of those lives (the total for Iraq is really 4,494) were killed under Obama. And least we not forget Obama’s “good” war, the one you never want to talk about, under him we have lost 1,324 American lives in Afghanistan, or 59% of all American lives lost in Afghanistan.
Odd that the left wing was so quick to point out all the flagged draped caskets returning home under Bush, but nary a peep out of you, or any left winger, about over 1,500 flagged draped caskets returning home under Obama.
And you are such a slug, you will defend Hillary Clinton, and Obama, in spite of the fact that there are four dead Americans from her feckless actions regarding Benghazi, Libya.
When did you sell your soul, Greggie Goebbels?
@Greg #43: It’s the critics who have done the cherry-picking.
Paul Pillar, like Tyler Drumheller, was a political partisan. He was also an advocate for the noncooperation theory that could not conceive of a “secular” Saddam cooperating with religious fanatics; a loudmouth belligerent responsible for being close-minded to even the remote possibility of an al Qaeda/Saddam connection.
Excerpt from Kenneth Timmerman’s Shadow Warriors, pg 172-3:
The 2004 NIE offered up several scenarios on Iraq. As Bush described it, life in Iraq “could be lousy, life could be okay, or life could be better, and they were just guessing as to what the conditions might be like.”
Another Pillar classified intelligence assessment leaked to the NYTimes dated January 2003 also claimed to have forewarned the Bush Administration about the consequences of invading Iraq. The “predictions” were cherry-picked from an assessment that essentially covered all its bases and was a compendium of everything that could possibly go wrong. Some came true, others did not. Shadow Warriors pg 174-5:
@Greg: Greggie Greggie Greggie, you are always accusing Bush or his administration of cooking the flawed intel before the Iraq war. I have asked you to prove your accusation time and time again and get NO response!! There is real evidence linking Hilldabeast and Obola to lying about Benghazi and you ignore it!! Your partisan idiocy is remarkable and stupid!! Also still waiting for you to provide evidence that Romney cheated on his tax return as Reid accused him of on the floor of the Senate, of course you can’t!! All though Obola admitted he lied about his health insurance you can’t even admit that!! Your a fraud!!
@Wordsmith:
Thanks for that post.
Paul Pillar, like Larry C. Johnson, were not interested in our national security. They were interested in themselves and their Democrat buddies. Porter Goss was cleaning house at the CIA, and Pillar knew it.
Oddly, the VIPS were trying to encourage those still in the CIA to leak sensitive national defense information for no other reason than to harm the Bush administration. Pillar seemed more than happy to accommodate them, even if he had to violate laws to do so.