Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

Sort by newest Sort by date
phil said:
Let's see. The military forces of the Honduras stormed the Presidential palace, put the President on a plane. If he'd broken the law, shouldn't there be some sort of trial?

Also, not a SINGLE country has recognized the current government of Honduras. Maybe the rest of the world's attorneys, and their Foreign Offices might know something about this. No one from OAS, the European Union, the UN or the US has recognized the legitimacy of this military coup.

Please clarify. What do you know more than the rest of the world?

When Richard Nixon abrogated the Constitution, I don't remember our military forces putting him on a plane for some other country. If I'm not mistaken, there was a due process of law. This just doesn't match.

I can hardly wait for the explanation of pre-war intelligence.
Click to expand...

I do not pretend to know the intricacies of diplomatic recognition; who keep tabs of who; or who has not extended “recognition” to another country. I do know that this administration has refused to extend recognition to the interim Honduran government, and has even gone so far as to threaten continued non-recognition if Zelaya is not returned to power after the scheduled presidential elections on November 29.

Honduran president attempts a naked power grab; the rule of law prevails. And our current administration decides to go against one of its own tenets of ‘leadership’ and meddles in Honduran affairs – to the detriment of the rule of law that our country should be encouraging. A sad commentary, indeed.

The facts speak for themselves, Phil. You questioned the veracity of my accounting of the events in Honduras, yet no alternate version has been presented on your part. What am I missing here? Feel free to add some credible insight of the events in Honduras at any time.

Maybe you, the administration, the United Nations and the European Union, like the prospect of more anti-American sentiment in our hemisphere. Maybe your crowd likes the thought of more authoritarian governments down south. If so, good for you. Just don’t cheapen the discussion by implying someone lied or someone is ill-informed when the facts do not meld with your view of how things should be.

Iraq - Tomorrow I'll focus my response on what I take to be your two main charges (based on your posts on TSP Talk): that the Bush administration lied about WMD in Iraq as a means to manipulate the country into war, and that the Bush administration lied about a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. If there are any other charges you'd like me to address, feel free to let me know.
 
It was a military coup. Period. You say I haven't given an alternative view? I did. I'll say it again. The military stormed the Presidential Palace and put him on a plane. As far as the Honduran constitution is concerned: the constitution has been modified about 20 times already. It shouldn't cause a military coup. Why didn't they arrest him? That's rule of law. What is not the rule of law is using military force against a President. Any President.

I do know that this administration has refused to extend recognition to the interim Honduran government.

Or any other administration around the world. Interim Honduran government? That's a bit of a stretch. The Congress in Honduras was told that the President had resigned. I guess he resigned after he was put on a plane by a military unit.

Maybe you, the administration, the United Nations and the European Union, like the prospect of more anti-American sentiment in our hemisphere.

No. That's why no one is recognizing the current government.


Just don’t cheapen the discussion by implying someone lied or someone is ill-informed when the facts do not meld with your view of how things should be.

Okay. I won't if you won't.
 
Iraq - Tomorrow I'll focus my response on what I take to be your two main charges (based on your posts on TSP Talk): that the Bush administration lied about WMD in Iraq as a means to manipulate the country into war, and that the Bush administration lied about a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. If there are any other charges you'd like me to address, feel free to let me know.

Actually, I think you have misappropriated what I said. Maybe you just ignored it. Examine the post. What you said was that the overwhelming evidence indicated that there were WMDs. I said that an alternative view was offered. Be careful.

You might want to examine the 9/11 report as a starting point.
 
back on topic..... good cartoons.

largeimageta091011.gif

​
 
Honestly, who T F cares at this point. You have given me a wicked case of jock itch and I predict you will fade faster than you arrived. I've seen it happen over and over. Now, before you leave can you make any helpful comments regarding your investment style if you have one. TIA.
 
Thanks for getting us back on topic, James.

We do get sidetracked from the issue. President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize. Period.
I like that much better than the other topics where we've gone, and the point is to remain on topic.
 
phil said:
It was a military coup. Period. You say I haven't given an alternative view? I did. I'll say it again. The military stormed the Presidential Palace and put him on a plane. As far as the Honduran constitution is concerned: the constitution has been modified about 20 times already. It shouldn't cause a military coup. Why didn't they arrest him? That's rule of law. What is not the rule of law is using military force against a President. Any President.
Click to expand...

You say it was a military coup. I say the removal of Zelaya was legally carried out in accordance with Honduran law. As for the actual removal of Zelaya from the country, I never commented specifically in terms of making a judgement as to the legality of that action. It appears to be an illegal action to expatriate him. However, that is an issue totally separate from his removal from office. I can only surmise that the Honduran government kicked him out because he had the potential to incite violence.

In August 2009, the Law Library of Congress prepared a report on the removal of Zelaya. You might find their version does not square with your version of a "military coup." But then again, who cares? You've already decreed it was a military coup - "Period." Quick, somebody get me a stone tablet!

You can find the report here: http://schock.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Schock_CRS_Report_Honduras_FINAL.pdf

No more from me on the Honduran discussion.
 
phil said:
...Actually, I think you have misappropriated what I said. Maybe you just ignored it. Examine the post. What you said was that the overwhelming evidence indicated that there were WMDs. I said that an alternative view was offered. Be careful.

You might want to examine the 9/11 report as a starting point.
Click to expand...

“Actually,” this is what I said:

"...But let’s not forget that the vast majority of the U.S. intelligence community agreed with the intelligence presented by the Bush administration. Intelligence first developed and used by the previous administration. Let’s also not forget that every major and reputable intelligence agency around the world agreed with our assessments of Iraq’s WMD – the only differing points were not on the intelligence, but on the way to deal with Iraq (i.e., to invade or not to invade)..." (OBGibby Post #171 of “Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize”)

You, on the other hand, in Post #175 of “Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize,” stated:

"…Actually, no, the vast majority of the US intelligence community didn't agree. Yes, I do believe that some intelligence was created…"


Phil, maybe you should be the one to “be careful.”

At the time of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq there were 15 agencies responsible for gathering intelligence for the U.S. All 15 contributed and had a voice in the NIE; differing views were included in the report, as they always are in an NIE. In other words, the NIE is the collective conclusion of U.S. intelligence. But don’t just take my word for it. From the National Intelligence Council, their own description of the NIE, which they are responsible for producing: NIEs are the DNI's most authoritative written judgments concerning national security issues. They contain the coordinated judgments of the Intelligence Community regarding the likely course of future events. The NIC's goal is to provide policymakers with the best, unvarnished, and unbiased information—regardless of whether analytic judgments conform to US policy.

Let’s review the main points of that 2002 NIE on Iraq:


  • We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq’s WMD efforts, owing to Baghdad’s vigorous denial and deception efforts…
  • Iraq has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production…
  • If Baghdad acquires sufficient fissile material from abroad it could make a nuclear weapon with several months to a year. Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until 2007 to 2009…
  • Although we have little specific information on Iraq’s CW stockpile, Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents – much of it added in the last year…
  • We judge that all key aspects – R&D, production, and weaponization – of Iraq’s offensive BW program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf war.
  • We judge Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives.
  • Baghdad has established a large-scale, redundant, and concealed BW agent production capability.
  • Baghdad has mobile facilities for producing bacterial and toxin BW agents; these facilities can evade detection and are highly survivable. Within three to six months these units probably could produce an amount of agent equal to the total that Iraq produced in the years prior to the Gulf war.
Britain, Germany, Israel, Russia, France, etc., all shared our view that Iraq had WMD or retained the capability to quickly reconstitute production. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin explained his concerns to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003: "Right now, our attention has to be focused as a priority on the biological and chemical domains. It is there that our presumptions about Iraq are the most significant. Regarding the chemical domain, we have evidence of its capacity to produce VX and Yperite. In the biological domain, the evidence suggests the possible possession of significant stocks of anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly a production capability."

The German Ambassador to the United States, Wolfgang Ischinger, said on NBC’s “Today” of February 26, 2003, "I think all of our governments believe that Iraq has produced weapons of mass destruction and that we have to assume that they still have—that they continue to have weapons of mass destruction.”


You implied that U.S. intelligence was not in agreement as to WMD and Iraq. I’d say the 2002 NIE is hard to argue with. I also maintain that the world’s reputable intelligence services were of the same opinion we were.

Let’s do a short trip back in time, shall we? To a time that many of us remember well, but conveniently those on the Left all too often want to forget. Let’s go back to October 7, 2002, when then-CIA Director George Tenet released an unclassified letter addressed to the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee (at the time, Bob Graham, D-FL), wherein Tenet summarized the intelligence reporting on Iraq’s relationship with al Qaeda. Some quotes from Tenet’s letter:


  • Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al-Qa’ida is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.
  • We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa’ida going back a decade.
  • Credible information indicates Iraq and al-Qa’ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression.
  • Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qa’ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
  • We have credible reporting that al-Qa’ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated Iraq has provided training to al-Qa’ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.
  • Iraq’s increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al’Qa’ida, suggest that Baghdad’s links to terrorism will increase, even absent U.S. military action.
The 9/11 Commission Report, which you are so fond of referencing, stated there was no “collaborative operational relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda. An assertion that appears to imply that someone in the Bush administration had claimed such a relationship had existed, when in fact I do not believe that was the case at all. When did President Bush or his administration make the assertion that Iraq and al Qaeda had an “operational” relationship?

The typical straw man tactic employed by the Left is that the Bush administration “sold” the Iraq war based on the “lie” that Iraq aided al-Qaeda in the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks is nothing more than a myth. However much the opponents of President Bush and/or the Iraq war would love to believe that myth has merit, it just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
 
Citations? Anyway, though I dislike taking up everyone's time, I will respond.

There are 2 separate items that I use for this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/

is a PBS documentary on what was happening in the inner workings of the intelligence community. Many, many people are interviewed.

The second one is:
http://encarta.msn.com/sidebar_701675814/Documents_on_Iraq_and_WMD.html

which contains the summary of the NIE, in the expanded form.


Of particular note:

In making the case for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the administration of President George W. Bush argued that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and consequently represented a threat to the United States. The evidence came partly from the Central Intelligence Agency’s National Intelligence Estimate, drafted in October 2002 and declassified in July 2003. The documents below begin with excerpts from the CIA’s assessment, followed by the October 2003 congressional testimony of David Kay, leader of the Iraq Survey Group, a U.S. weapons inspection team that searched for Iraq’s alleged WMD after the war. In January 2004 Kay resigned, saying “we were all wrong, probably” about the existence of WMD in Iraq.

However, please note that tiny IRM got it right. They disagreed with the assumptions made by everyone else.

Britain, Germany, Israel, Russia, France, etc., all shared our view that Iraq had WMD or retained the capability to quickly reconstitute production.

Then why didn't Germany, France and Russia join us in our Iraq invasion?

You implied that U.S. intelligence was not in agreement as to WMD and Iraq. I’d say the 2002 NIE is hard to argue with. I also maintain that the world’s reputable intelligence services were of the same opinion we were.

Read INR's dissent. It is most revealing. On the PBS series, it is clear that raw intelligence was being stovepiped from the DOD's intelligence branch directly to the administration. Some was being leaked, then showing up the next day in the New York Times. Much of this was unvetted. Germany gave us Curveball, the Brits gave us Chalabi. They were both making things up, it seems.

I didn't include your citations for the NIE's. Instead of cherrypicking, let's take a look at everything in the NIE, particularly the dissenting voice that we would all like to ignore. After all, that's how we got into this, by not looking at all the intelligence, and vetting it.

Another source would be George Tenet's At the Center of the Storm. He resigned for personal reasons. Additionally, a lot of the top people resigned at the CIA right after he left. They took responsibility. A majority of the problem occured because of the infighting between the CIA and DOD. In the end, DOD set up an office to stovepipe raw intelligence to the administration. Yes, clearly the CIA got it wrong. They admitted it, at least on WMD.

The 9/11 Commission Report, which you are so fond of referencing, stated there was no “collaborative operational relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda. An assertion that appears to imply that someone in the Bush administration had claimed such a relationship had existed, when in fact I do not believe that was the case at all. When did President Bush or his administration make the assertion that Iraq and al Qaeda had an “operational” relationship?

Again, examine the PBS video. It is most revealing. Examine the video clips of what everyone is saying, and draw your own conclusions. The 9/11 report states that there were no operational ties between Iraq and OBL. Are you saying this was politically motivated? It was a bipartisan commission.

The typical straw man tactic employed by the Left is that the Bush administration “sold” the Iraq war based on the “lie” that Iraq aided al-Qaeda in the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks is nothing more than a myth. However much the opponents of President Bush and/or the Iraq war would love to believe that myth has merit, it just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Particularly damning here is the Plame incident, where she was outed by the administration, since her husband was looking into the yellowcake issue. There was an indictment in the case. This might have sent a chilling message to anyone trying to even remotely vet the intelligence, don't you think? It's as if the administration said that they were going to make a case, and anyone who even tried to vet their intelligence would be punished. Typical straw man? I don't think so. There are several citations for this, of course. It's also a felony case.

I had thought all of this had been resolved previously, several years ago. I guess not.
 
It is a military coup. I'm glad you agree. Let's see, you say his removal from the country is NOT related to his removal, then weakly say that he was removed for his potential to cause violence. That's really weird.

When the military invades the presidential palace, bundles the president on a plane and sends him out of the country, I and probably many many others would call that a military coup.

What would you call it? Enforced vacation of a leader? Is this a part of the due process of law? Thanks for the citation, but it clearly says that the Honduran authorities broke the law when they put him on the plane.

OBGibby said:
You say it was a military coup. I say the removal of Zelaya was legally carried out in accordance with Honduran law. As for the actual removal of Zelaya from the country, I never commented specifically in terms of making a judgement as to the legality of that action. It appears to be an illegal action to expatriate him. However, that is an issue totally separate from his removal from office. I can only surmise that the Honduran government kicked him out because he had the potential to incite violence.

In August 2009, the Law Library of Congress prepared a report on the removal of Zelaya. You might find their version does not square with your version of a "military coup." But then again, who cares? You've already decreed it was a military coup - "Period." Quick, somebody get me a stone tablet!

You can find the report here: http://schock.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Schock_CRS_Report_Honduras_FINAL.pdf

No more from me on the Honduran discussion.
Click to expand...
 
phil said:
It is a military coup. I'm glad you agree. Let's see, you say his removal from the country is NOT related to his removal, then weakly say that he was removed for his potential to cause violence. That's really weird.

When the military invades the presidential palace, bundles the president on a plane and sends him out of the country, I and probably many many others would call that a military coup.

What would you call it? Enforced vacation of a leader? Is this a part of the due process of law? Thanks for the citation, but it clearly says that the Honduran authorities broke the law when they put him on the plane.
Click to expand...

As much as it pains me to go back on my pledge to not discuss Honduras anymore, your blatant disregard of civil discourse compels me to respond.

Please show me where I "agreed" with your assessment that Zelaya was ousted as a result of a military coup. You can't, because I did nothing of the sort. Typical grousing from the Left. They can't win an argument on merit, so they go back and spread the disinformation. Repeat it often enough the rabble accepts it as the gospel. Nothing new - I should have expected it.

Perhaps you should read my comments more closely. I did not say the removal of Zelaya from office and his removal from Honduras were unrelated. I said Zelaya was legally removed from office; quite a different issue than his forced expatriation. However, once I did address the issue of his expatriation I did the honorable thing and recognized that his expatriation appeared illegal.

As for your characterization as "weak" of my assumption that Zelaya was forcibly exiled because of the potential for him to rouse his supporters towards violent ends - it was just that - an assumption. Plainly presented that way. It's unfortunate you can't seem to realize that.

Quite frankly, Phil, I don't give a rats ass if you or others would call Zelaya's removal from office a military coup. The fact of the matter is that Zelaya was legally removed from office by the Hondurans.
 
I assume you meant here that you were agreeing.

Quick, somebody get me a stone tablet! Or was this simple sarcasm? Blatant disregard of civil discourse could cut both ways, couldn't it?

As I've mentioned before, repeatedly, putting the president on a plane after the military stormed the presidential palace probably shows that it was a coup. What else should I call it? Forcible presidential vacation?

Now, wikipedia calls it a "constitutional crises" but their own article is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honduras_coup

Try typing in "Honduras coup" on any search engine. It reveals several hundred results, with lots of information. Thanks for the citation in your previous post, by the way, but it shows that the actions of the interim government were illegal.

Forcible exile of a sitting head of state because there could be trouble doesn't pass the smell test in any setting.

Grousing from the Left? My friend, I see myself here as being on the extreme far right.

The facts of the case don't bear out the reality. I don't think that every country in the OAS could be wrong here. Not a single one has recognized the interim government as legal.

Finally, if you don't care what I think, that's fine by me. I just call 'em like I see them. If he was removed from office legally as you maintain, why hasn't any country around the world recognized the fact?

OBGibby said:
As much as it pains me to go back on my pledge to not discuss Honduras anymore, your blatant disregard of civil discourse compels me to respond.

Please show me where I "agreed" with your assessment that Zelaya was ousted as a result of a military coup. You can't, because I did nothing of the sort. Typical grousing from the Left. They can't win an argument on merit, so they go back and spread the disinformation. Repeat it often enough the rabble accepts it as the gospel. Nothing new - I should have expected it.

Perhaps you should read my comments more closely. I did not say the removal of Zelaya from office and his removal from Honduras were unrelated. I said Zelaya was legally removed from office; quite a different issue than his forced expatriation. However, once I did address the issue of his expatriation I did the honorable thing and recognized that his expatriation appeared illegal.

As for your characterization as "weak" of my assumption that Zelaya was forcibly exiled because of the potential for him to rouse his supporters towards violent ends - it was just that - an assumption. Plainly presented that way. It's unfortunate you can't seem to realize that.

Quite frankly, Phil, I don't give a rats ass if you or others would call Zelaya's removal from office a military coup. The fact of the matter is that Zelaya was legally removed from office by the Hondurans.
Click to expand...
 
phil said:
I assume you meant here that you were agreeing.

Quick, somebody get me a stone tablet! Or was this simple sarcasm? Blatant disregard of civil discourse could cut both ways, couldn't it?

As I've mentioned before, repeatedly, putting the president on a plane after the military stormed the presidential palace probably shows that it was a coup. What else should I call it? Forcible presidential vacation?

Now, wikipedia calls it a "constitutional crises" but their own article is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honduras_coup

Try typing in "Honduras coup" on any search engine. It reveals several hundred results, with lots of information. Thanks for the citation in your previous post, by the way, but it shows that the actions of the interim government were illegal.

Forcible exile of a sitting head of state because there could be trouble doesn't pass the smell test in any setting.

Grousing from the Left? My friend, I see myself here as being on the extreme far right.

The facts of the case don't bear out the reality. I don't think that every country in the OAS could be wrong here. Not a single one has recognized the interim government as legal.

Finally, if you don't care what I think, that's fine by me. I just call 'em like I see them. If he was removed from office legally as you maintain, why hasn't any country around the world recognized the fact?
Click to expand...


First off, in my book civil discourse can include obvious sarcasm. If you are unable to discern what is and is not sarcasm, I can’t help you. Your outright distortions are what I called out. Either you intentionally distorted my comments or you didn’t even have the common courtesy to read what I wrote. (Just like your comment about the citation showing the actions of the interim government being illegal. The report you cite notes that the expatriation of Zelaya was illegal, not his actual removal from office.)

During this entire debate you’ve held to the notion that Zelaya was removed via a military coup. I have maintained he was legally removed. A military coup implies that the military, acting on their own accord, instigated and executed the coup. Not the case with Zelaya’s removal. The Honduran military acted on the legal orders of the Honduran Supreme Court and the other organs of the Honduran national government to remove Zelaya from office. This was not a military coup sprung from the hands of some disgruntled generals.

As I’ve stated before, I don’t pretend to know why other countries haven’t extended the Honduran interim government diplomatic recognition. Perhaps the world is waiting for the results of the scheduled election on November 29.

I would tend to agree with you that forcing the expatriation of an individual because he could foment violence is, on the face of it, troubling. However, I don’t pretend to have my pulse on the daily heartbeat of Honduras. Perhaps Zelaya’s exile was appropriate, perhaps not. But that has never been the crux of my debate with you.

I don’t know how to make this any simpler for you to understand, so I will stop trying. I could care less what your political leanings are or what you believe, but when you post things that are not based in reality, I’m going to continue to throw out the bullshit flag.
 
Well, it appears we also have disagreements about what is, and is not, civil discourse. Me, I'm just not passionate about either side in this conflict. I hope I can say the same of you.

A good definition:Kenneth J. Gergen describes civil discourse as "the language of dispassionate objectivity".

The simple truth is that if Zelaya were legally removed, then some nation would have recognized that as a fact. None has. You've said you don't understand why. Let's leave it at that. Let the legal people in other countries make that determination.

Here's the definition of a coup:

The sudden, forcible, and illegal removal of a government, usually by the military or some part thereof, often precipitated by more immediate grievances bearing directly on the military. The coup may be the prelude to some form of military rule, with a greater or lesser degree of civilian collaboration, perhaps requiring the collaboration of the civil service and members of the professional and middle classes, or involving the co-optation of sympathetic politicians and parties and of occupational groups, such as peasant and union leaders. While the focus of the coup is on the remedy of specific or immediate grievances, the outcome is unlikely to involve wide-ranging changes in the social order. More often a coup is seen as an effective means of pre-empting revolutionary change from below by imposing some measure of ‘reform’ from above. However, repeated military intervention has seldom contributed to a resolution of long-term social and economic problems.

This is the language of dispassionate objectivity. As far as definitions go, the Honduran coup fits perfectly. Is this clear enough?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top