"Is this what amounts to debate in A2K?" Finn d'Abuzz
Well Finn, if able2know doesn't meet your high standards, Abuzz always awaits your gracious presence. LOL!!!!!
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Is this what amounts to debate in A2K?
Someone posts a report of what is a significant story, if for no other reason than those who, in general, oppose the war have been telling us no one else in the world believed Saddam had WMDs,
Debate on threads suffer when someone simply posts excerpts from articles without offering a point of contention with which posters can engage. Perhaps a point of contention or a question has now been provided that will draw out true discourse, rather than banal one liners.
I agree that excerpts posted without comments or questions can lead to anarchy, and useless gibberish. I have been active on other boards and I have come to the realization that the existence of WMDs has divided America. Whenever I have tried to start meaningful discussions on other boards both pro and con sides of WMDs have blasted me. I have found that throwing a media report out first and checking the water has lead to more useful debate after the Bush supporters or Kerry supporters have already passed on the subject.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:cavfancier wrote:
That is a loaded question, and doesn't really deserve a reply. Some liberals (your words) do agree with the current administration. The terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' are so nebulous these days to not even warrant attention.
Not surprisingly, I disagree. It seems to me to be a very logical question. Paul Martin is the head of The Liberal Party (Canada's term, not mine), and yet when he is referenced on A2K as being in agreement with a contention (WMDs in Iraq) which has given liberals (progessives, leftists, non-conservatives, even saints - take your pick) fits he receives a lambasting by A2K posters who are routinely associated with "liberal" positions.
Much the same happened in forums like A2K when Christopher Hinchen had the audacity to take on Noam Chomsky after 9/11, or when Thomas Friedman came out in favor of the war in Iraq. Both were labeled, not liberals, but sellouts and hacks, by their progressive brethern. Interestingly enough, both have been working overtime of late to get back into the good graces of the Left.
Well, Paul Martin is not just an ass for making those comments regarding WMDs. In fact, I couldn't care less about that. There are many more reasons to dislike the way he is running things in Canada. Now, Finn, you are not suggesting that we, as people, not liberal or conservative, but merely 'free' in a democratic society should not have the right to air our grievances about an administration despite our perceived partisan leanings?
Fedral wrote:The Canadians weren't the ONLY ones who believed it:
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998: "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMDs and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998: "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's WMD program."
- Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998: "What happens in (Iraq) matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Letter to Clinton signed by Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, etc., Oct. 9, 1998: "We urge you ... to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspected Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs."
- Congressman (now House Minority Leader) Nancy Pelosi, Dec. 16, 1998: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Sen. Bob Graham and other Democratic senators in a letter to President Bush, Dec. 5, 2001: "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status."
- Sen. Levin, Sept. 19, 2002: "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building WMDs and the means of delivering them."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002: "We know that (Saddam) has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2002: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing WMDs."
- Sen. Robert Byrd, Oct. 3, 2002: "We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Kerry, Oct. 9, 2002: "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of WMDs in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton, Oct. 10, 2002: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Kerry, Jan. 23, 2003: "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
Even with a breakdown of the U.S. Intelligence gathering agencies, both foreign and domestic & further complicated by the Iraqi Baath Party running an excellent counter - intelligence operation against the U.N., how can so many knowledgeable people been wrong about WMDs? Why do so many Americans point blank say the Dubya lied to us and used WMDs as a thin excuse to finish is father's war? Am I the only American that believes taking out Saddam was a good idea?
FederalistUSA, I don't think that taking out Saddam was a bad idea, I just feel that the USA has been there too long already. The question of WMDs may remain unanswered for some time.
Sometimes, it is forgotten how many people pre-Bush believed that Saddam was packing.
It is possible they are in Syria.
FederalistUSA wrote:I have found that throwing a media report out first and checking the water has lead to more useful debate after the Bush supporters or Kerry supporters have already passed on the subject.
A chancy strategy, but I guess we'll see how it works.
cavfancier wrote:Well, Paul Martin is not just an ass for making those comments regarding WMDs. In fact, I couldn't care less about that. There are many more reasons to dislike the way he is running things in Canada. Now, Finn, you are not suggesting that we, as people, not liberal or conservative, but merely 'free' in a democratic society should not have the right to air our grievances about an administration despite our perceived partisan leanings?
Of course not, but let's not pretend that the original posting was not specific to Martin's opinion on Iraqi WMDs but instead, "What do you think of Paul Martin?"
[quote="FederalistUSA] Am I the only American that believes taking out Saddam was a good idea?[/quote]
Clearly, no.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:cavfancier wrote:Well, Paul Martin is not just an ass for making those comments regarding WMDs. In fact, I couldn't care less about that. There are many more reasons to dislike the way he is running things in Canada. Now, Finn, you are not suggesting that we, as people, not liberal or conservative, but merely 'free' in a democratic society should not have the right to air our grievances about an administration despite our perceived partisan leanings?
Of course not, but let's not pretend that the original posting was not specific to Martin's opinion on Iraqi WMDs but instead, "What do you think of Paul Martin?"
Point taken. As for the WMDs, I am not taking sides at the moment, as it seems equally plausible that they could exist or not exist. However, materials to make 'dirty bombs' have been recovered in the hands of some terrorists, Eastern block terrorists, I believe. Sorry, no source.
Iraqi WMDs, Now in Syria
By Larry Elder
Townhall.com | May 6, 2004
"Week after week after week after week," said Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., about President Bush's rationale for going to war with Iraq, "we were told lie after lie after lie after lie." Were we?
Jordan recently seized 20 tons of chemicals trucked in by confessed al-Qaeda members who brought the stuff in from Syria. The chemicals included VX, Sarin and 70 others. But the media seems curiously incurious about whether one could reasonably trace this stuff back to Iraq. Had the terrorists released a "toxic cloud," Jordanian officials say 80,000 would have died!
So, I interviewed terrorism expert John Loftus, who once held some of the highest security clearances in the world. Loftus, a former Army officer, served as a Justice Department prosecutor. He investigated CIA cases of Nazi war criminals for the U.S. attorney general. Author of several books, Loftus once received a Pulitzer Prize nomination.
John Loftus: There's a lot of reason to think (the source of the chemicals) might be Iraq. We captured Iraqi members of al-Qaeda, who've been trained in Iraq, planned for the mission in Iraq, and now they're in Jordan with nerve gas. That's not the kind of thing you buy in a grocery store. You have to have obtained it from someplace.
Larry Elder: They couldn't have obtained it from Syria?
Loftus: Syria does have the ability to produce certain kinds of nerve gasses, but in small quantities. The large stockpiles were known to be in Iraq. The best U.S. and allied intelligence say that in the 10 weeks before the Iraq war, Saddam's Russian adviser told him to get rid of all the nerve gas. It would be useless against U.S. troops; the rubber suits were immune to it. So they shipped it across the border to Syria and Lebanon and buried it. Now, in the last few weeks, there's a controversy that Syria has been trying to get rid of this stuff.
They're selling it to al-Qaeda is one supposition. We know the Sudanese government demanded that the Syrian government empty its warehouse in Khartoum where they've been hiding illegal missiles along with components of Weapons of Mass Destruction. But there's no doubt these guys confessed on Jordanian television that they received the training for this mission in Iraq. . . And from the description it appears this is the form of nerve gas known as VX. It's very rare, and very tough to manufacture . . . one of the most destructive chemical mass-production weapons that you can use. . . They wanted to build three clouds, a mile across, of toxic gas. A whole witch's brew of nasty chemicals that were going to go into this poison cloud, and this would have gone over shopping malls, hospitals . . . .
Elder: You said that the Russians told Saddam, "There is going to be an invasion. Get rid of your chemical and biological weapons."
Loftus: Sure. It would only bring the United Nations down on their heads if they were shown to really have Weapons of Mass Destruction. It's not generally known, but the CIA has found 41 different material breaches where Saddam did have a weapons of mass destruction program of various types. It was completely illegal. But no one could find the stockpiles. And the liberal press seems to be focusing on that.
Elder: It seems to me that this is a huge, huge story.
Loftus: It's embarrassing to the (press). They've staked their reputations that this stuff wasn't there. And now all of a sudden we have al Qaeda agents from Iraq showing up with Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Elder: David Kay said, in an interim report, that there was a possibility that WMD components were shipped to Syria.
Loftus: A possibility? We had a Syrian journalist who defected to Paris in January. The guy is dying of cancer, and he said, "Look, my friends in Syrian intelligence told me exactly where the stuff is buried." He named three sites in Syria, and the Israelis have confirmed the three sites. They know where the stuff is, but the problem is that the United States can't just go around invading Arab countries. . . We know from Israeli and defectors' intelligence that the son of the Syrian defense minister was paid 50 million bucks to bring the stuff across the border and bury it.
Elder: Why would al-Qaeda attack Jordan?
Loftus: Jordan is an ally of the United States. It's at peace with Israel. And Jordan has a long history of trying to prosecute terrorists. . . There are a lot of reasons. . . They want to make an example of them. They want to terrorize as many of the Arab states as possible. This is sort of a political dream for the president. The worst nightmare is al-Qaeda gets Weapons of Mass Destruction from Iraq. And it looks like it's coming true.
A Syria/Iraq/al Qaeda/WMD connection? Why, this calls for a congressional investigation.
-------------
I thought I'd stick this here.
I really think that Finn D' Abuzz is jumping to conclusions. We haven't heard from Mr. Blatham yet. I consider him one of the most erudite and thoughtful thinkers on Able2know. I am sure that he will contribute a definitive comment.
Here's another article along these lines. I'm not famliar with the source, however, so have no impressions of its reliability:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213
Perhaps, PM Martim was provided the same sexed up and inaccurate intel on the matter of WMDs that Bush and Blair used to justify the war and subsequent invasion?
Looks like Blair will have an interesting summer..
A lot of argument filling these two pages about whether phlogistan is blue or green. Please read the following.
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040511.wxterr11/BNStory/Front/
I'm going to place this piece here, though it may seem thematically out of place. However, the piece relates to the press and what we ought to consider its proper role, and there have been a number of arguments made by folks on this thread regarding the killing of Berg and what our response to THAT act ought to have been - by the press and by us. We'll recall an earlier case, that of Daniel Pearl.
Quote:BERKELEY, Calif. (AP) -- The widow of slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl told a group of graduating journalists that the Iraq war and its aftermath will challenge the news media to maintain its role as government watchdogs.
Mariane Pearl warned the 43 graduates of the University of California, Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism on Saturday that official manipulation, nationalist sentiments and ideology all will make it difficult for news organizations to maintain the public's trust.
`Truth and honesty after the war are going to become very rare commodities,'' said Pearl, 38...
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Pearls-Widow.html
Mariane Pearl is a wise woman.
Martin is the new PM, previous PM thought what everyone else who can think believed, it was a load of sheeit. Martin is a King George I a** kisser, I wouldn't be surprised to see him sending troops off to help his buddy.
Now, what do the liberals say about WMD's?
They were planted by the CIA?
It was only one or two shells?
There was no sarin chemical in the shell.
Or, do we use the principle of Occam's razor?
