The B-team: Exaggerating The Threats

Respectfully, I must disagree Walter.

They did not, in my opinion, exaggerate.

THEY LIED!

Frank

What can you know, Walter? You're only Old Europe. If you can access the New York Times for Firday, the 13th, the lead editorial is interesting. It doesn't mince words. Calls lying for what it is - lying. And the interesting part of that is that the Times is being very cautious these days, fully aware of the damage done to it by an unscrupulous reporter and lack of follow-up on their side.

Well, Mama the New York Times is well enough versed in the art of lying.

We haven't found Saddam either. Do you suppose he didn't exist?

The entire world called Bush a liar before the war. Thus far there have been no retractions.

Good heavens, george. I'll read the Times over many another newspaper any day of the week. And you're somewhat confused - they didn't lie. The story is quite a bit different from that, as you well know.

So far as Saddam goes - they seem to have quite a bit of difficulty when it comes to finding things, don't they? The mullahs, WMD, Osama binLaden, unlooted oil fields, grateful liberated Iraqis, compassion (although I hear they're sending Laura Bush out to talk to show there is compassion among conservatives)........they all exist. Where are they?

Area of Iraq is approximately 170 thousand sq. miles. It is possible to hide there anything you want. And we must not forget that the allegations exist that the WMDs were smuggled to another country before the war started.

george over the last few days your arguments have lived and died on the old "We haven't found Saddam either. Do you suppose he didn't exist?" argument.

It's convenient but a red herring. Many do not contend that the WMDs did not or do not exist but rather that the administration overstated their case for war.

That Iraq posessed WMDs at some point is without doubt, that the "smoking gun" might have come in the form of a "mushroom cloud" was hyperbolic.

But do go on.

steissd,

The theory about another country receiving the WMDs was never presented with a shred of evidence. Neither was the evidence alluded to at all.

Sharon simply speculated that the WMDs were moved to Syria and it was such a weak argument that it got no play.

You seem to mention it as a hail mary. You don't seem to buy it yourself.

Steissd - again I have to ask if the intelligence about where the weapons were before the war was so good, why is it so bad now when it comes to finding them - or KNOWING if they have been smuggled somewhere?

snap...

So, the war better had started with the smugglers?

Walter

The above sentence has words in it, thus it is possibly an appropriate subject for editing.

Steissd

How's it going over there? Have Sharon's cameramen taken down any more empty rusting hilltop trailers?

blatham



Thanks! :wink:

Bookmark

the make up of this b team contained members of the one set up in the '70s to question the statements by the cia on soviet strength. this B team was of the opinion that the soviets were stronger than the cia analysis showed. oddly enough, the cia was castigated a few years later by the rapid fall of the soviet union because they has miscalculated and were caught unawares of how really weak were the soviets. what would this imply as to the powers of acumen of this B team then or now?

only a self serving fool starts with a conclusion then works backwards thru the evidence, disregarding contradictory facts to prove his case.

this is what the bush administration did.

it was voo doo foreign policy, it was blind ideology. it has no place in foreign policy decison-making because it turns upside down what mankind refers to as logic and common sense.

You got that right, kuvasz.