THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Truth is the bottom line; whether it supports the right or left.

Timberlandko,
I'd like you to know that I for one know that the two statements are not contradictory.

I infer that you in the first quote were asserting that you did not claim the allegations you reported were true.

I infer that you in the second quote were asserting that you did claim the allegations you reported were an accurate representation of information in known files.

In short, you don't know whether the subject allegations you reported are true or not; all you know is that the allegations you reported are an accurate representation of what some files imply the allegations are.

Yeah, I remember those words ... in context:

Now it was my intent, and I thought, my accomplished effect, to convey my impression that "The List" appeared to be an accurate representation of information obtained from disparate sources, not that the allegations therein levelled were themselves accurate; I was refering to sources, not to substance. I'm sure any misunderstanding inferred from my implication was due to my own imprecision. Anyhow, the immediateness and currency of the investigations at discussion not at dispute, I'm more than willing to consign this nitpicking diversion to the category of finished business.

Well, ican that's two of us, anyway, who caught my drift.

No wonder very few people understand what you're saying. Drift language is understood only by neocons.

LOL, c.i. ... here all along I thought you disagreed with me ... now I see you just misunderstood me

A point of question, though: By what basis do you assert " ... very few people understand what (I'm) saying ... "? I won't dispute lots of folks frequently disagree with what I say, but I don't think too many have any difficulty understanding what I say, whether they accept it or not.

Timber, so basically you claim to have been saying that the list is an accurate summary of allegations whose accuracy you make no claim to?

I personally don't buy it for a minute. That would be a meaningless claim and earlier you were using rhetoric like "the joke's on you" and such, which to me implies that you'd not been thinking of a meaningless position.

Unless of course what you were saying to Steve when he brought examples of forgery:

"The joke's on you Steve, there is a list that accurately collates accusations whose accuracy (against forgery and the like) I make no claim to."

Just not buying it.

No! Oldencons understand drift language just as well as neocons. I'm an oldencon (circa 1776), so I speak from experience.

Actually, that is what I was saying, CdK. The whole point was the current flap has nought but coincident charges to do with the previous flap. Like I said, any misunderstanding was likely due to my own imprecision, and perhaps a bit due to my having been unprepared (foolishly so, I know ) to have met with such spirited opposition to my proposition. Anyhow, I'm over it. If you or someone else wants to "Last Word" the issue, go right ahead. I'm more than willing to let it die where I left it.

timber, Must admit that most people understand your writing style, but if I remember correctly, somebody not long ago criticised your writing. Forgot who it was.

Been a buncha folks criticize both my style and my content, c.i. ... I don't remember the specifics of most of that myself, so don't feel bad. Most recently, I did sorta get a kick outta This One though ... mebbe that's one you were thinkin' of.

And I thought, you'd solved the problems over (our European) night by now :wink:

Walter, You're either a early riser or having problems with sleep.

Mother

Ooops, sorry. My mother in law stayed in our home during the last years of her life, so I understand whet you're going through. Take care of yourself too!

Ican there has to be more about the Truth and Lie twins conundrum because surely you just ask them a simple question like Are you brothers? As you've already stipulated that they are identical twins, the one who ALWAYS lies says no.

Who Lost Iraq?
June 29, 2004
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The formal occupation of Iraq came to an ignominious end
yesterday with a furtive ceremony, held two days early to
foil insurgent attacks, and a swift airborne exit for the
chief administrator. In reality, the occupation will
continue under another name, most likely until a hostile
Iraqi populace demands that we leave. But it's already
worth asking why things went so wrong.

The Iraq venture may have been doomed from the start - but
we'll never know for sure because the Bush administration
made such a mess of the occupation. Future historians will
view it as a case study of how not to run a country.

Up to a point, the numbers in the Brookings Institution's
invaluable Iraq Index tell the tale. Figures on the
electricity supply and oil production show a pattern of
fitful recovery and frequent reversals; figures on
insurgent attacks and civilian casualties show a security
situation that got progressively worse, not better; public
opinion polls show an occupation that squandered the
initial good will.

What the figures don't describe is the toxic mix of
ideological obsession and cronyism that lie behind that
dismal performance.

The insurgency took root during the occupation's first few
months, when the Coalition Provisional Authority seemed
oddly disengaged from the problems of postwar anarchy. But
what was Paul Bremer III, the head of the C.P.A., focused
on? According to a Washington Post reporter who shared a
flight with him last June, "Bremer discussed the need to
privatize government-run factories with such fervor that
his voice cut through the din of the cargo hold."

Plans for privatization were eventually put on hold. But as
he prepared to leave Iraq, Mr. Bremer listed reduced tax
rates, reduced tariffs and the liberalization of
foreign-investment laws as among his major accomplishments.
Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police stations,
geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the
electricity is off most of the time - but we've given Iraq
the gift of supply-side economics.

If the occupiers often seemed oblivious to reality, one
reason was that many jobs at the C.P.A. went to people
whose qualifications seemed to lie mainly in their personal
and political connections - people like Simone Ledeen,
whose father, Michael Ledeen, a prominent neoconservative,
told a forum that "the level of casualties is secondary"
because "we are a warlike people" and "we love war."

Still, given Mr. Bremer's economic focus, you might at
least have expected his top aide for private-sector
development to be an expert on privatization and
liberalization in such countries as Russia or Argentina.
But the job initially went to Thomas Foley, a Connecticut
businessman and Republican fund-raiser with no obviously
relevant expertise. In March, Michael Fleischer, a New
Jersey businessman, took over. Yes, he's Ari Fleischer's
brother. Mr. Fleischer told The Chicago Tribune that part
of his job was educating Iraqi businessmen: "The only
paradigm they know is cronyism. We are teaching them that
there is an alternative system with built-in checks and
built-in review."

Checks and review? Yesterday a leading British charity,
Christian Aid, released a scathing report, "Fueling
Suspicion," on the use of Iraqi oil revenue. It points out
that the May 2003 U.N. resolution giving the C.P.A. the
right to spend that revenue required the creation of an
international oversight board, which would appoint an
auditor to ensure that the funds were spent to benefit the
Iraqi people.

Instead, the U.S. stalled, and the auditor didn't begin
work until April 2004. Even then, according to an interim
report, it faced "resistance from C.P.A. staff." And now,
with the audit still unpublished, the C.P.A. has been
dissolved.

Defenders of the administration will no doubt say that
Christian Aid and other critics have no proof that the
unaccounted-for billions were ill spent. But think of it
this way: given the Arab world's suspicion that we came to
steal Iraq's oil, the occupation authorities had every
incentive to expedite an independent audit that would clear
Halliburton and other U.S. corporations of charges that
they were profiteering at Iraq's expense. Unless, that is,
the charges are true.

Let's say the obvious. By making Iraq a playground for
right-wing economic theorists, an employment agency for
friends and family, and a source of lucrative contracts for
corporate donors, the administration did terrorist
recruiters a very big favor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/29/opinion/29KRUG.html?ex=1089514579&ei=1&en=7224ecb80b28d21d

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Source

Source

The point of the T-twin/F-twin conundrum is that all one has to do is ask both twins a question to which one knows for certain the correct answer and one knows for certain both twins know the correct answer. The question you proposed assumes it is certain that both twins know they are the twin of the other. Twins in general probably know of whom they are a twin. But I bet you are aware of twins separated at an early age who do not even know they are a twin let alone of whom they are a twin.

Here's another example. Ask both twins the color of the other twin's eyes. Again. generally speaking it is probably valid to assume neither twin is color blind and probably each twin knows the correct name of each color. But that assumption may or may not be actually valid in the case of a specific set of twins.

Now let's jump to the ultimate question: Do you exist in the form you perceive you exist? Both twins ought to admit to themselves that their individual perceptions are fallible. Depending on how fallible each twin perceives his/her perceptions to be, the true answer for each is difficult to predict.

The best one can do is discern which twin is probably the T-twin and which is probably the F-twin.

That was an easy question. Here's a harder one. Given that one of two reporters/commentators/politicians always tells truths and the other always tells falsities, how does one tell which reporter/commentator/politician always tells truths? :wink:

Please note that this column was written in October, 2002: