Sarah Palin, Republican Vice Presidential Candidate

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

he was reacting to bush's bluster about wmds, sure saddam could've had some. gore wanted the international community blah blah blah.

however his main point in a speech given in 2002 was that al-qaeda and OBL are the targets that america should be persuing.

I think it's reliable to say any other american president would have persued OBL/AQ instead of invading iraq to get vengeance for daddy

I don't about a speech he gave in 2002. I was referring to when he was VP.

And global warming is no longer a theory, it's a religion.

[aurik]

The Earth's temperature has gone in cycles of cooling and heating back up for as long as the planet has existed.

We're on a natural upswing of the Earth's temperature. Is pollution increasing the temperature? Sure it is, but it's not to the cataclysmic degree propaganda wants us to think.

No, it's to the cataclysmic degree that scientific studies would lead us to conclude. Dismissing these studies due to "oh temperature periodicity this that" is missing the fact that these studies account for these and the other buzzword factors that the denial cabal love to throw around.

[Maxxthepenguin]

I don't about a speech he gave in 2002. I was referring to when he was VP.

And global warming is no longer a theory, it's a religion.

Like evolution

And the earth being round

And the idea that America should dominate the world

[Maxxthepenguin]

Holy shit I just realized why Republicans want to ignore Global Warming: Coastal cities tend to vote for Democrats.

It all makes sense now.

(Note to jumpy republicans: that was a joke)

[aurik]

I don't about a speech he gave in 2002. I was referring to when he was VP.

And global warming is no longer a theory, it's a religion.

Sure, if you define religion as a theory that is extremely well supported by scientific trials. Much like the word "regressive", if you redefine its meaning to something completely different, it's easy to slap a label on anything.

[Churchill]

Please call me wrong some more on intelligence related matters, it's obviously what you do for a living.

I'm right, the Congress had the ability to look at accurate intelligence that indicated everything we know now. The analysis by the Executive Branch was wrong, but not because intelligence lead it that way.

The difference between information and intelligence is that intelligence is vetted and sourced, however the opinions and comments from those who review it do nothing to change the actual hard data; their thoughts are a footnote.

Also, an alibi, the Iraq war was wrong, mishandled at times, but I wouldn't say it's the quagmire it's demonized into - there have been numerous articles lately that are open source that talk about the successes and why America is actually winning, I'll look for the authors and link them.

Also, like I said, the UNSCR for US forces in Iraq ends in 2009, barring any cataclysmic change in status, troop withdrawal will begin then, there are already reports from the White House talking about moving 8000 soldiers back home and shifting new deployments to Afghanistan for some units. McCain, nor Obama, have anything to do with this, but it will likely evolve into a "I corrected the Iraq war" talking point for whoever is elected I'm sure.

[aurik]

Please call me wrong some more on intelligence related matters, it's obviously what you do for a living.

I'm right, the Congress had the ability to look at accurate intelligence that indicated everything we know now. The analysis by the Executive Branch was wrong, but not because intelligence lead it that way.

The difference between information and intelligence is that intelligence is vetted and sourced, however the opinions and comments from those who review it do nothing to change the actual hard data; their thoughts are a footnote.

You're wrong, but what I do for a living has no bearing on that, much like being a grunt in the army has no bearing on that either.

Fact of the matter is that the top-down approach of the current administration lead to a complete failure of the intelligence.

No congressman is going to have the expertise to wade through the raw signal: that is the CIA's job, to take the raw signal and process it and present their findings so that the management can make informed decisions.

However, when the signal processing is improperly influenced because pressure from the top, guess what? You end up with bad analysis, and then the management can't help but make poor decisions.

[Churchill]

I'm right, because what I do for a living has a large amount of bearing on that.

You don't need expertise, you need to do your job as a Congressman, which in this situation is learn everything you can about this proposed war in Iraq so that you can do your job and authorize a declaration of war.

If I get a document, and I read through it and it says there is all this evidence of training camps and because in the Gulf War we found nuclear facilities we suspect Iraq is still operating them and has to be distributing weapons to Al Queda because Hussein is Sunni and AQ is Sunni and I'm reading this and I say to myself, "Well gee, doesn't AQ hate Hussein for his atrocities against Muslims and complete avoidance of Sharia?"

I think at that point I'd probably look at the bottom of this document that got handed to me, look at the sources, and ask for those documents so I could do my job as a representative of the people of the United States.

[Kirin]

Gore never said the world is going to meltdown in 10 years, not 8 years ago, not 3 years ago, and not today. This must be a round-about tactic to demonstrate your stereotype of the uninformed electorate making voting choices based on soundbites.

From some "An Inconvenient Truth" media:

The heart of Gore’s message is that the way to prevent the potential catastrophe global warming represents is for each of us to make a personal commitment to bring about lasting change—in our own lives, our communities and the world. According to the science Gore presents so expertly, the world has 10 years or less to turn things around before it is too late. But Gore sees that as a reason for urgency, not despair.

“We no longer have much time left to change,” he says, “but we do have time.”

http://environment.about.com/od/anin...oremovie_2.htm The quote i took is from down near the bottom.

And FYI, the crisis is real. Significant scientific studies have concluded that climate change is human caused, and that the amount of inertia in the system means that if we don't start decelerating now, we won't be able to stop in time to avert disaster in the future.

And theres just as much scientific study stating that the planet is doing nothing more than simply being a planet and living as any organism does. Heating? For sure. Actually getting colder in some areas? Check. And yea, the problem posed is with oceans flooding over, coastal plains and below sea level areas being in trouble. But I still tend to see it as something the planet would have done anyways regardless of our presence here...it just sucks for it to happen now BECAUSE we are here.

So what is roundabout about this again?

[Correction]

I can't read.

The 10 year limit is the time we have to stop the current processes argued to be driving cataclysmic global warming effects, not the time limit before we reach said cataclysm.

Uninformed voters lawl.

[quannum]

I don't about a speech he gave in 2002. I was referring to when he was VP.

fine, it's your job to connect the dots between
1) as vp believing saddam had wmd ( plz source this kthx)
2) ...
3) invade iraq

plz 2 be filling in number 2 kindly.

[aurik]

I'm right, because what I do for a living has a large amount of bearing on that.

If you were really involved in intelligence, you wouldn't be arguing about it OVER THE INTERNET, due to national security issues. Aren't you just a footsoldier? Which means you have absolutely no part in intelligence analysis and decision making.

You don't need expertise, you need to do your job as a Congressman, which in this situation is learn everything you can about this proposed war in Iraq so that you can do your job and authorize a declaration of war.

If I get a document, and I read through it and it says there is all this evidence of training camps and because in the Gulf War we found nuclear facilities we suspect Iraq is still operating them and has to be distributing weapons to Al Queda because Hussein is Sunni and AQ is Sunni and I'm reading this and I say to myself, "Well gee, doesn't AQ hate Hussein for his atrocities against Muslims and complete avoidance of Sharia?"

I think at that point I'd probably look at the bottom of this document that got handed to me, look at the sources, and ask for those documents so I could do my job as a representative of the people of the United States.

As I said, no congressman has the expertise necessary to parse the raw information. It's stupid to assume that congress reps are even theoretically capable of doing this, let alone question how many have been properly trained for this kind of work.

That's why the CIA exists: there is too much information that requires specialized knowledge than a congressman could ever be expected to acquire. Congress is reliant on the CIA and other intelligence agencies to collect relevant raw data, process it, and present a readable analysis.

If, at the end of the day, you end up with a document that lies by omission, you have a faulty intelligence process, and any ill consequences due to decisions made based on that document can be attributed to the failure in intelligence.

Once you accept that, then you begin asking what caused the failure in intelligence. Hmm...

[Kirin]

The 10 year limit is the time we have to stop the current processes argued to be driving cataclysmic global warming effects, not the time limit before we reach said cataclysm.

Uninformed voters lawl.

Oh, you. I see what you did there. How clever.

I dont want to speak for everyone, but my perception of common phrases like "before it is too late" kinda has an impending doom sound to it, apprently you dont agree. I would think that if you place the events on a 10 year timeline, once you hit the 10 year mark on that line then that means its over and our fate is sealed.

But you're right, I can't read.

I find a really hard time believing that people honestly believe that humans are the catalyst for this end result when billions of years of platery lifecycles tell us otherwise.

Again, Climate Change is a legit stop on a planetary lifecycle. 'Global Warming' is bent truths about how evil we are as humans for destroying our tiny little rock in space.

[Neosutra]

While I agree with you aurik on congress's heavy reliance on the intelligence agency's words, I would also have to state that the executive branch was pushing pretty hard for this evidence, regardless of wether it was there.

If you look hard enough for what you want, you will always start seeing it. And in the event that you dont see it, just tell people you did.

I dont blame congress for following faulty evidence, I blame the executive branch for pushing for faulty evidence and pushing congress to go after it.

[Olo401]

I will bring the argument back around to the same point I've been trying to make and I guess you keep forgetting:

Everyone in Congress can see all the related intelligence to any given subject that concerns them, and more. No one was mislead in the Congress, they were derelict, or complicate.

Absolutely INCORRECT - only the members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees are allowed to see most intelligence reports ebcause they are marked classified or higher. And even then if you're not on a particular subcommittee that handles a particular area or subject, you're restricted from seeing anything that doesn't relate to that area or subject.

In addition, the Bush Administration has restricted exposure of intelligence reports to ONLY the chairman and ranking member of the lead Intelligence committee or the related subcommittee.

So in regards to intelligence on say.. Iraq's WMD status before the war. At a maximum 4 SENATORS AND 4 REPRESENTATIVES saw everything, and they were restricted by law from speaking about it with anyone else, even their Senate or House colleagues.

Misled? No, uninformed. Complicit? Yes, if they voted for the war without reservation. Derelict? yes, if they voted for the war despite the lack of facts available to them.

[aurik]

And theres just as much scientific study stating that the planet is doing nothing more than simply being a planet and living as any organism does. Heating? For sure. Actually getting colder in some areas? Check. And yea, the problem posed is with oceans flooding over, coastal plains and below sea level areas being in trouble. But I still tend to see it as something the planet would have done anyways regardless of our presence here...it just sucks for it to happen now BECAUSE we are here.

So what is roundabout about this again?

Basically, you're repeating myths from the Climate Change Denial. In reality, there's scientific consensus is that
1) climate change is real
2) climate change is human caused
3) climate change will have severe negative effects in the near-term future (next 50-100 years) if we don't alter our current behavior patterns.

[Churchill]

I can argue all day about information I can find with Google.

And as I said, you don't need expertise to look at information and decide if it makes sense. You need a brain and the ability to problem solve. If all you do is take what is fed to you at face value, then you are the first option I presented: derelict.

The CIA exists because there is too much information that requires specialized knowledge that a Congressman can get the opinion of to make his decisions but not rely on to run US Foreign Policy.

Your third bullet is correct, but all of the information that is analyzed is sourced, and the ability to look deeper always exists. By not doing that, and "relying" as you put it, the Congress basically allowed a non-elected entity with no Constitutional power to spearhead US Policy. The argument can be made that the Executive Branch influenced the CIA, or vice-versa, either way, neither of those entities have the ability to declare war. The Congress was derelict, or complicate.

Olo, they have the ability to see intelligence related to their duties, and more if in the positions you mentioned.

[aurik]

While I agree with you aurik on congress's heavy reliance on the intelligence agency's words, I would also have to state that the executive branch was pushing pretty hard for this evidence, regardless of wether it was there.

If you look hard enough for what you want, you will always start seeing it. And in the event that you dont see it, just tell people you did.

I dont blame congress for following faulty evidence, I blame the executive branch for pushing for faulty evidence and pushing congress to go after it.

This reckless push for evidence is exactly what I'm referring to when I said the "top-down" approach of the exec. So I think we're in agreement here.

[Beckwin]

Churchill drop and give me 20. The point about the CIA not being in the Constitution is fucking asinine, because without the CIA, Congressmen would have zero information (good like the stuff that wasn't pushed by the Bush admin, or bad like the stuff that was) to go off of.

[aurik]

I can argue all day about information I can find with Google.

So can I and that puts us on an even ground, so stop trying to play the authority card.

And as I said, you don't need expertise to look at information and decide if it makes sense. You need a brain and the ability to problem solve. If all you do is take what is fed to you at face value, then you are the first option I presented: derelict.

The CIA exists because there is too much information that requires specialized knowledge that a Congressman can get the opinion of to make his decisions but not rely on to run US Foreign Policy.

Your third bullet is correct, but all of the information that is analyzed is sourced, and the ability to look deeper always exists. By not doing that, and "relying" as you put it, the Congress basically allowed a non-elected entity with no Constitutional power to spearhead US Policy. The argument can be made that the Executive Branch influenced the CIA, or vice-versa, either way, neither of those entities have the ability to declare war. The Congress was derelict, or complicate.

Olo, they have the ability to see intelligence related to their duties, and more if in the positions you mentioned.

The problem is that for most congressmen, looking deeper is meaningless because they would quickly lose the ability to understand the deeper data.

To make an analogy, it's like running a computer program. Most people can run computer programs. And, for anyone who wants to know how the program works, you can always open up the program in your favourite hex editor to see the source--every last instruction necessary to run the program is there.

But unless you know exactly what you're looking for and how to make sense of the hexdump, you're not going to get any better of an understanding of how the program works.

So really, it's a bit of a canard when you say "oh they could have dug deeper and discovered that somewhere, exculpatory information is being inhibited".