THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Sorry, Dlowan already posted it and I figgered you would have seen it.

Here ya go

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?ex=1254456000&en=e1cdc9aa366e0336&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt

Cheers

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What a weak and hollow justification for lying to the American people. Lying!

"Justification for lying to the American people" Question

That is not only a false characterization of what I wrote, it is a preposturous characterization of what I wrote. It is so preposturous that I have great difficulty believing you actually believe this assertion.

The probability that you are lying here (i.e., are knowingly stating a falsity) is far greater than the probability that the Bush administration lied (i.e., knowingly stated falsities). We know only that the Bush administration stated falsities they subsequently discovered and admitted were falsities. We also know the Bush administration stated truths, we subsequently verified were truths.

I'm guessing you lack any valid evidence that the Bush Administration lied. Lacking such evidence while claiming they lied, as if you did have such evidence, is itself a lie.

WHAT MATTERS NOW IS WHETHER OUR INVASIONS OF AGHANISTAN AND IRAQ CAN BE VALIDLY JUSTIFIED NOW.

If they can, then let's do what it takes to make those invasions succeed. If not, then let's quit.

0 Replies

Quote:

I'm guessing you lack any valid evidence that the Bush Administration lied. Lacking such evidence while claiming they lied, as if you did have such evidence, is itself a lie.

Ah ah ah. The Bush admin were the one's making the claim; the burden of proof lies upon them to prove that the intelligence supported their unbelievably false assumptions about Iraq WMD (which have been convincingly bourne out as false, as I'm sure you know.)

I would not hesitate to point you to the NYT link I provided above about the evidence that the Bush admin knew claims they were calling 'definately' were presented to them as 'maybes.' That's a lie, no matter how you want to spin it.

Quote:

WHAT MATTERS NOW IS WHETHER OUR INVASIONS OF AGHANISTAN AND IRAQ CAN BE VALIDLY JUSTIFIED NOW.

If they can, then let's do what it takes to make those invasions succeed. If not, then let's quit.

IMHO, the invasion of Afghanistan in Iraq shouldn't even be considered in the same conversation. They are that different, from a moral and an international standpoint.

Afghanistan? Yes. Not only did they not deny attacking us and harboring Bin Laden, but we went thru the UN to get the job done the right way.

Iraq? It's hard to find justification now, given that we didn't find any WMD and connections to AQ aren't even as strong as US connections to AQ...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

... Ah ah ah. The Bush admin were the one's making the claim; the burden of proof lies upon them to prove that the intelligence supported their unbelievably false assumptions about Iraq WMD (which have been convincingly bourne out as false, as I'm sure you know.)

I'm not buying your dodge. You are the one who is accusing the Bush Administration of lying. Therefore, you are the one who is responsible for proving they lied; B]you [/B]are the one who is responsible for proving they did knowingly state falsities.

We do know the Bush Administration stated falsities. We (including the NYT) do not know they did not believe those falsities at the time they stated them.

0 Replies

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/

0 Replies

Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties

0 Replies

Quote:

U.S. officials emphasized this was not evidence Iraq had a nuclear weapon -- but it was evidence the Iraqis concealed plans to reconstitute their nuclear program as soon as the world was no longer looking.

That's from the article you linked to, McG, which specifically quotes US officials saying that this doesn't constitue a 'smoking gun.'

There is no reason the world had to stop looking at Saddam. If us 'looking' at him worked before, then what is the conclusive evidence that we would have stopped, or that it would have stopped working?

Although I hate to go after sources W.H., I think I will wait a little while and see if this is confirmed elsewhere - cns has had problems in the past with accuracy, iirc.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets.

That's from the NYT article. It's not surprising to me that people requested anonymity, as it has been shown that anyone who speaks out against the admin will quickly get the ax. But it sure seems to me that if our officials are informed that intelligence is suspect (which the article clearly claims they were) and they present it as truth, that is a lie. The fact that there WERE no WMD found only bolsters this position - it is much, much more likely that a little intelligence massaging went on than every piece of intelligence being unbelievably wrong.

But, if that is the case, Icann, can one claim that the admin used incredibly poor judgement? Because (and note that in my mind there is little doubt they knew they were massaging information) if that is the case, isn't such incompetence almost as bad?

No matter who they want to blame intelligence failures on, the buck stops at the top, and in this case the top screwed the pooch big time.

Were they lying, or were they incompetent? One of the two answers is true.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Poland Says It's Gettin' the Hell Out of Iraq

Directly contradicting Kwasniewski's earlier announcements, Polish Defense Minister makes an announcement that for the first time defines specifics of Poland leaving Iraq.

The reason this is interesting is because the same guy parroted Kwasniewski line not so long ago that we will not leave till Iraq is stabilized. Reality is such that the currently ruling SLD party is a political corpse on life support and that all other parties are 100% against Polish presence in Iraq and for prosecuting Kwasniewski for sending Polish troops to Iraq in violation of Polish Constitution.

Directly contradicting Kwasniewski's earlier announcements, Polish Defense Minister makes an announcement that for the first time defines specifics of Poland leaving Iraq.

Highlights:

1. He stated that there is lack of support for any Polish presence and huge pressure to leave not only from all opposition parties but also from their (his and Kwasniewski's) own party

2. "Under no circumstances, regardless of situation in Iraq" Poles will stay in Iraq past the time when the current UN mandate expires. - December 2005.

3. Immediate reduction of soldiers by half will take place and be completed no later than January 2005

4. Poles will leave the region of Karbala and be stationed in relatively quieter region of Diwanija (sp?).

The reason this is interesting is because the same guy parroted Kwasniewski line not so long ago that we will not leave till Iraq is stabilized. Reality is such that the currently ruling SLD party is a political corpse on life support and that all other parties are 100% against Polish presence in Iraq and for prosecuting Kwasniewski for sending Polish troops to Iraq in violation of Polish Constitution.

copied from LibertyForum
Source: Polish Press (intl-news)

0 Replies

TRUTHS THAT JUSTIFY THE INVASIONS OF AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ.

Al Qaeda declared war on Americans and others.
Sheltered al Qaeda murdered innocent Americans and innocent others.

The Taliban sheltered al Qaeda.
The Saddam's sheltered al Qaeda.

The Taliban murdered innocent Afghanistanis.
The Saddams murdered innocent Iraqis.

0 Replies

Apparently Kerry didn't forget Poland, heh...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Whether they were lying or incompetent, it was the responsibility of this administration to confirm the verasity of that info. They didn't.

0 Replies

Quote:

TRUTHS THAT JUSTIFY THE INVASIONS OF AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ.

Really? Let's see.

Quote:

Al Qaeda declared war on Americans and others.

This part is right.

Quote:

Sheltered al Qaeda murdered innocent Americans and innocent others.

Um, yeah, this part is right too.

Quote:

The Taliban sheltered al Qaeda.
The Saddam's sheltered al Qaeda.

This part isn't. Because to compare the Taliban's sheltering and support of AQ to Iraq's non-existent support of AQ is ridiculous. NOONE is claiming this besides you, Icann!

Quote:

The Taliban murdered innocent Afghanistanis.
The Saddams murdered innocent Iraqis.

This part is true as well.

3/4 ain't bad, but it also ain't justified without that crucial one.... especially seeing as we don't seem to spend much attention stopping other countries from murdering their own innocent citizens, that tack seems somewhat hollow in the face of our actions, yaknow?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

Today, 18 months after the invasion of Iraq, investigators there have found no evidence of hidden centrifuges or a revived nuclear weapons program.

From your article you linked to.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

But it sure seems to me that if ...

...

But, if that is the case, ...

Icann, can one claim that the admin used incredibly poor judgement?

...

Were they lying, or were they incompetent? One of the two answers is true.

if???? If ... then ....... Laughing

Yes, "the administration (and I think it's predcesssors) used incredibly poor judgment."

Yes, the administration (and I think it's predecessors) was "incompetent."

Yes, perhaps inspite of all that, the administration lucked out and did the right thing when they invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

Bottom line: If a competent person knew prior to these invasions what we know now, then a competent person would have had to conclude those invasions are the right thing to do.

Which of the presidential candidates is competent enough to realize this?

0 Replies

Quote:

Bottom line: If a competent person knew prior to these invasions what we know now, then a competent person would have had to conclude those invasions are the right thing to do.

My argument is that this is false. My argument is also that if WMD were not presented as an issue, time and time again by the Admin, the American public would never have gone for an invasion.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Bottom line: If a competent person knew prior to these invasions what we know now, then a competent person would have had to conclude those invasions are the right thing to do.

My argument is that this is false. My argument is also that if WMD were not presented as an issue, time and time again by the Admin, the American public would never have gone for an invasion.

That's not your argument! That is your allegation!

All I and all my acquaintenances, too, needed to know to be convinced we must invade Afghanistan and Iraq, is that al Qaeda were sheltered by those governing those countries. You see, my focus was on preventing additional American murders like those on 9/11/2001. Those murders were accomplished without WMD. The were accomplished with people, money and box cutters. So we all said repeatedly, to hell with the alleged WMD. Exterminate the al Qaeda and their shelterers, WMD or no WMD.

By the way, money and box cutters don't have to be exterminated. Nothing inherently evil about money and box cutters. Smile

The problem consists only of certain people who have both.

0 Replies

It is an allegation right now, true, b/c I don't want to go into the reasons I've previously posted that would support a fully-fleshed argument (it would take a while and I doubt you or I are going to change our opinions based upon it). But I will write a more complete argument tonight if you really want to see it.

I don't think there is evidence of systematic sheltering of AQ by Iraq.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This part isn't. Because to compare the Taliban's sheltering and support of AQ to Iraq's non-existent support of AQ is ridiculous. NOONE is claiming this besides you, Icann!

That's another allegation of yours that's simply not true.

As I have previously posted more than once:
Osama implied it 2/28/98.
Powell claimed it 2/5/2003.
NBC claimed it 3/20/2004.
9-11 Commission's Notes claimed it 8/12/2004.

Also, Debra Burlingame (the sister of the pilot of the airliner that was crashed into the Pentagon) in her WSJ Op-ed claimed it, with specific references to the 9-11 Commission Notes, 9/29/2004.

Yeah right, "NOONE."

Oh, just this minute as I type this, Limbaugh is reading on the air an article summarizing 42 pages of copies of documents, recently obtained from an Iraqi official, claims it. Rush stated he doesn't know whether the documents are true copies or forgeries (Hay, Dan!)

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

... I will write a more complete argument tonight if you really want to see it. ...I don't think there is evidence of systematic sheltering of AQ by Iraq.

You bet I do! Please, please, please write a more complete argument why you think there is not any evidence of ... sheltering AQ in Iraq. Also, replace the word systematic with the word useful. I doubt that kind of sheltering was systematic even in Afghanistan: chaotic but useful, yes; systematic, no.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know