Well, considering this is a democracy, that knowledge is absolutely critical. That's kinda the whole point of the political system.
Funny, democracy in America has worked quite well without 100% knowledge of the internal motivations of presidents or other high-level decision-makers.
Quote:
You can't BS your way out this time.
Again, does Fleischer's statement negate everything Bush and Blair had said before about Saddam? Is the WoMD issue not linked inextricably with Saddam?
According to you. Pardon me if I find the UN and UNMOVIC more credible than you.
Here's the lastest from Blix:
Quote:
?I am obviously very interested in the question of whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction, and I am beginning to suspect there possibly were none. ? The fact that [Iraqi Lt. Gen Amer] al-Saadi surrendered and said there were no weapons of mass destruction has led to me to ask myself whether there actually were any. ? I don't see why he would still be afraid of the regime, and other leading figures have said the same?
What he said about the evasiveness was interesting:
Quote:
If that were the case, he said, Iraq's evasive behaviour in recent years could be due to Saddam Hussein's fixation with Iraqi honour and a wish to dictate the conditions under which people could enter the country.
"For that reason, he said 'no' in many situations and gave the impression he was hiding something," he said.
....what about the tractor-trailers WMD labs? Doesn't that mitigate some of this alleged lying?
Hi ena!
No.
Quote:
Prior to the invasion, the Iraqis had conceded that they did in fact have mobile labs, but insisted that they were not used for the development of weapons. The mobile labs, the Iraqis had contended, were used for food analysis for disease outbreaks, mobile field hospitals, a military field bakery, food and medicine refrigeration trucks, a mobile military morgue and mobile ice making trucks. According to Ewen Buchanan, spokesman for the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, inspectors had examined several of mobile labs and had concluded, ?The outline and characteristics of these trucks that we inspected were all consistent with the declared purposes.?
perl was on the PBS news with Jim Lehrer discussing the 'information' prior to the war and the possibility that the WMD angle was politicized. There were other speakers, all of whom were right of center or maybe just center.
Perl got absurdly touchy when the mere pssibility of politicization was brought up . . . . but it was clearly obviouse that he had no idea what it meant that information could and wouldbe, of necessity, chosen from a particular perspective, and, when done so by politicians it would be used to serve a particular purpose = politicization.
He is such a major hypocrit . . . .
the speakers had to walk on eggshells rather than blare out: the war had ulterior motives!! Why? because he doth protest too much
Ulterior motives:
some of them having to do with your Pax Americana document
others having to do with profit for American Companies like yours Mr Perl (before its obviouseness made him quite his post)
others having to do with long term strategy as far as our position in the region and in relation to Saudi Arabia
and yes, some having to do with oil . . . .
There are also some of the real good (besides some listed above) benefits which were never really points of motivation with our government. If they had been then we would have never backed Saddam for the length of time that we did: namely, all the reasons that groverat backed teh war: the liberation of the Iraqi people. Not an issue in the realpolitik of the admin merely a propaganda tool . . . and its not my cynicism that says this its the cynicicm of politicians that says it.
They could have pushed more on all of these issues up front,
but no, they lied to us.
Now the debate spins the issue as a matter of the Integrity of Information.
but the real issue
is the integrity of our own government's relationship to truth.
(I love America and Americans (except scott and SDW) I hate to see us look like brutes who lie in order to take things and maintain power
when what we should have done is be straight forward and take things and maintain power and admit it)
You forgot one of the biggest ones, if not the driving force (though not decisive force): Israel. Hell, the hawks (along with every one else in Israeli politics) have written papers about it for years now.
So inspections and threat of force DO work. What's that, rummy? We actually didn't need to start a war?
I'm curious about some conservative views about this. I argued this in dozens of threads and was routinely called a ****** or whatever, but it's proven to be true.
EDIT: I am in no way trying to state that I am NOT a ******, but that those disagreeing with my point back then might be as well.
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), the media watch group, studied the coverage of six major nightly newscasts: ABC?s World News Tonight, CBS?s Evening News, NBC?s Nightly News, CNN?s Wolf Blitzer Reports, Fox?s Special Report with Brit Hume and PBS?s NewsHour With Jim Lehrer. FAIR examined 1,617 on-camera sources appearing on Iraq-related stories during the height of the war, from March 20 to April 9. Who were these sources?
63 percent were current or former government employees.
52 percent were Bush administration officials.
64 percent were pro-war.
10 percent were anti-war, and the majority of these were man-on-the street soundbites.
3 percent of all U.S. sources were anti-war.
0 percent of all sources who were invited to have a sit-down on camera interview were identified as being against the war.
(The prize for the most lopsided coverage goes to CBS Evening News: 75 percent of its sources were officials, and the single anti-war voice it aired was a snip from Michael Moore?s Oscar speech.)
I am no fan of Al Gore...but I do wonder how would the media (Fox, Clear Channel etc) be reacting right now if Al Gore was in the White House, and this deliberate "policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions" had happened under his watch?
Anyone recall Scott Ritter? He was the UN inspector who maintained "there are no more weapons of mass destruction in Iraq". He was vilified and scorned...for speaking the truth.
Jeez...re. WMD, even arch-scumbags like Tariq Aziz and Saddam Hussein are more truthful than the Bush gang.
with reference to the "Fake Persuaders" article posted by Giant: Im sure that some folks occasion sites like this one.
Even if they never actualy come here I'm sure that some of the Conservatives here-abouts probably get "talking points" from Conservative organizations on how to persuade the wily and lost Liberals amongst us . . the kind of organization that makes up the strangely interconnected web of well-funded policy groups (nobody is crying 'conspiracy' . . . nope. . . .not here ) or are just aggressive 'grass roots' ditto-head BBQ clubs . . and if they aren't getting there talking orders from these groups then they work for them as volunteers . . . . what? a little paranoid? who? me?
anyway, about this lying thing that so many seemed to know about but nobody in any sort of power acknowledged till now . . . . on with the scoop!!
There was plenty of time for the weapons to be destroyed. Again, a tip of the hat to France and Germany.
Why were the inspectors kicked out?
Why the obfuscation by Hussein when they were let back in? Why did it take the threat of invasion to get them back in? Why not put the demolitions of WMD on CNN, win the favor of the world, and get on the UN's human rights commission with Libya and Cuba?
HEEEELLLLLOOOOOOO?????
...but then....
Was it another Halliburton conspiracy? When DID Cheney cut the deal with the alien invasion force? Did he or did he not KNOW there was oil in IRAQ? It has to be a conspiracy---going to the highest levels of the shadow government!
IT'S THE ONLY EXPLANATION!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh dammit, he had opportunity and since we already know his motives HE'S GUILTY! BRING BACK THE GUILLOTINE.....OFF WITH HIS HEAD!
There was plenty of time for the weapons to be destroyed. Again, a tip of the hat to France and Germany.
I don't understand why they would be destroyed before the start of the war. Why wouldn't that be the time when he would use them? And why destroy them when it doesn't matter (when there was about to be a war) and not destroy them when it did matter (to prevent the war and the end of his regime)? It just doesn't make sense.
The only thing that makes sense to me, and it doesn't even make that much sense, is that they had no (or very few) WMD, but Sodom didn't want to fully cooperate because he felt it would make him look weak.
Like I say, "television journalism" is an oxymoron.
That's fine, but it's regulated by law be truthful. Time and again you show you don't care about law which makes your opinions laughable.
Are you now going to admit that when I was arguing that a credible thread was enough to get Iraq to destroy and/or give up its weapons, you were wrong to say war was the only way?
......Sodom didn't want to fully cooperate because he felt it would make him look weak.
That actually makes sense....but there is more going on here than meets the eye, I think alot of this will be unreadable at least in the short term.
It does kinda-sorta reduce this to one man's ego, too.......that's tough to do when you're dealing with the politics of an entire regime.
There are too many loose threads.......too many unanswered questions all around.
BUT
Quote:
In fact, one thing that I have noticed...is that all of these conspiracy theories depend on the perpetrators being endlessly clever. I think you'll find the facts also work if you assume everyone is endlessly stupid.
Brian E. Moore
And lastly
Quote:
"Do not mistake for conspiracy and intrigue what can best be explained by stupidity and incompetence."
Comments
Well, considering this is a democracy, that knowledge is absolutely critical. That's kinda the whole point of the political system.
Funny, democracy in America has worked quite well without 100% knowledge of the internal motivations of presidents or other high-level decision-makers.
You can't BS your way out this time.
Again, does Fleischer's statement negate everything Bush and Blair had said before about Saddam? Is the WoMD issue not linked inextricably with Saddam?
Originally posted by groverat
According to you. Pardon me if I find the UN and UNMOVIC more credible than you.
Here's the lastest from Blix:
?I am obviously very interested in the question of whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction, and I am beginning to suspect there possibly were none. ? The fact that [Iraqi Lt. Gen Amer] al-Saadi surrendered and said there were no weapons of mass destruction has led to me to ask myself whether there actually were any. ? I don't see why he would still be afraid of the regime, and other leading figures have said the same?
What he said about the evasiveness was interesting:
If that were the case, he said, Iraq's evasive behaviour in recent years could be due to Saddam Hussein's fixation with Iraqi honour and a wish to dictate the conditions under which people could enter the country.
"For that reason, he said 'no' in many situations and gave the impression he was hiding something," he said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...962405,00.html
moving on:
Originally posted by ena
....what about the tractor-trailers WMD labs? Doesn't that mitigate some of this alleged lying?
Hi ena!
No.
Prior to the invasion, the Iraqis had conceded that they did in fact have mobile labs, but insisted that they were not used for the development of weapons. The mobile labs, the Iraqis had contended, were used for food analysis for disease outbreaks, mobile field hospitals, a military field bakery, food and medicine refrigeration trucks, a mobile military morgue and mobile ice making trucks. According to Ewen Buchanan, spokesman for the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, inspectors had examined several of mobile labs and had concluded, ?The outline and characteristics of these trucks that we inspected were all consistent with the declared purposes.?
From ABC News via CCR
Read it here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2944298.stm
So inspections and threat of force DO work. What's that, rummy? We actually didn't need to start a war?
Perl got absurdly touchy when the mere pssibility of politicization was brought up . . . . but it was clearly obviouse that he had no idea what it meant that information could and wouldbe, of necessity, chosen from a particular perspective, and, when done so by politicians it would be used to serve a particular purpose = politicization.
He is such a major hypocrit . . . .
the speakers had to walk on eggshells rather than blare out: the war had ulterior motives!! Why? because he doth protest too much
Ulterior motives:
some of them having to do with your Pax Americana document
others having to do with profit for American Companies like yours Mr Perl (before its obviouseness made him quite his post)
others having to do with long term strategy as far as our position in the region and in relation to Saudi Arabia
and yes, some having to do with oil . . . .
There are also some of the real good (besides some listed above) benefits which were never really points of motivation with our government. If they had been then we would have never backed Saddam for the length of time that we did: namely, all the reasons that groverat backed teh war: the liberation of the Iraqi people. Not an issue in the realpolitik of the admin merely a propaganda tool . . . and its not my cynicism that says this its the cynicicm of politicians that says it.
They could have pushed more on all of these issues up front,
but no, they lied to us.
Now the debate spins the issue as a matter of the Integrity of Information.
but the real issue
is the integrity of our own government's relationship to truth.
(I love America and Americans (except scott and SDW) I hate to see us look like brutes who lie in order to take things and maintain power
when what we should have done is be straight forward and take things and maintain power and admit it)
Originally posted by pfflam
Ulterior motives:
You forgot one of the biggest ones, if not the driving force (though not decisive force): Israel. Hell, the hawks (along with every one else in Israeli politics) have written papers about it for years now.
Originally posted by giant
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2944298.stm
So inspections and threat of force DO work. What's that, rummy? We actually didn't need to start a war?
I'm curious about some conservative views about this. I argued this in dozens of threads and was routinely called a ****** or whatever, but it's proven to be true.
EDIT: I am in no way trying to state that I am NOT a ******, but that those disagreeing with my point back then might be as well.
US Intel 'Simply Wrong' on Chemical Attack says US General
also
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...177726615.html
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), the media watch group, studied the coverage of six major nightly newscasts: ABC?s World News Tonight, CBS?s Evening News, NBC?s Nightly News, CNN?s Wolf Blitzer Reports, Fox?s Special Report with Brit Hume and PBS?s NewsHour With Jim Lehrer. FAIR examined 1,617 on-camera sources appearing on Iraq-related stories during the height of the war, from March 20 to April 9. Who were these sources?
63 percent were current or former government employees.
52 percent were Bush administration officials.
64 percent were pro-war.
10 percent were anti-war, and the majority of these were man-on-the street soundbites.
3 percent of all U.S. sources were anti-war.
0 percent of all sources who were invited to have a sit-down on camera interview were identified as being against the war.
(The prize for the most lopsided coverage goes to CBS Evening News: 75 percent of its sources were officials, and the single anti-war voice it aired was a snip from Michael Moore?s Oscar speech.)
http://inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=203_0_3_0_C
Originally posted by bunge
I'm curious about some conservative views about this.
I'm curious if any of them were paid to come here
http://www.monbiot.com/dsp_article.cfm?article_id=510
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...elligence_dc_2
I am no fan of Al Gore...but I do wonder how would the media (Fox, Clear Channel etc) be reacting right now if Al Gore was in the White House, and this deliberate "policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions" had happened under his watch?
Anyone recall Scott Ritter? He was the UN inspector who maintained "there are no more weapons of mass destruction in Iraq". He was vilified and scorned...for speaking the truth.
Jeez...re. WMD, even arch-scumbags like Tariq Aziz and Saddam Hussein are more truthful than the Bush gang.
Even if they never actualy come here I'm sure that some of the Conservatives here-abouts probably get "talking points" from Conservative organizations on how to persuade the wily and lost Liberals amongst us . . the kind of organization that makes up the strangely interconnected web of well-funded policy groups (nobody is crying 'conspiracy' . . . nope. . . .not here
anyway, about this lying thing that so many seemed to know about but nobody in any sort of power acknowledged till now . . . . on with the scoop!!
Why were the inspectors kicked out?
Why the obfuscation by Hussein when they were let back in? Why did it take the threat of invasion to get them back in? Why not put the demolitions of WMD on CNN, win the favor of the world, and get on the UN's human rights commission with Libya and Cuba?
HEEEELLLLLOOOOOOO?????
...but then....
Was it another Halliburton conspiracy? When DID Cheney cut the deal with the alien invasion force? Did he or did he not KNOW there was oil in IRAQ? It has to be a conspiracy---going to the highest levels of the shadow government!
IT'S THE ONLY EXPLANATION!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh dammit, he had opportunity and since we already know his motives HE'S GUILTY! BRING BACK THE GUILLOTINE.....OFF WITH HIS HEAD!
Originally posted by ena
There was plenty of time for the weapons to be destroyed. Again, a tip of the hat to France and Germany.
I don't understand why they would be destroyed before the start of the war. Why wouldn't that be the time when he would use them? And why destroy them when it doesn't matter (when there was about to be a war) and not destroy them when it did matter (to prevent the war and the end of his regime)? It just doesn't make sense.
The only thing that makes sense to me, and it doesn't even make that much sense, is that they had no (or very few) WMD, but Sodom didn't want to fully cooperate because he felt it would make him look weak.
Originally posted by ena
Why not put the demolitions of WMD on CNN...?
Because the weapons were destroyed long ago?
Originally posted by groverat
Like I say, "television journalism" is an oxymoron.
That's fine, but it's regulated by law be truthful. Time and again you show you don't care about law which makes your opinions laughable.
Are you now going to admit that when I was arguing that a credible thread was enough to get Iraq to destroy and/or give up its weapons, you were wrong to say war was the only way?
Originally posted by BRussell
......Sodom didn't want to fully cooperate because he felt it would make him look weak.
That actually makes sense....but there is more going on here than meets the eye, I think alot of this will be unreadable at least in the short term.
It does kinda-sorta reduce this to one man's ego, too.......that's tough to do when you're dealing with the politics of an entire regime.
There are too many loose threads.......too many unanswered questions all around.
BUT
In fact, one thing that I have noticed...is that all of these conspiracy theories depend on the perpetrators being endlessly clever. I think you'll find the facts also work if you assume everyone is endlessly stupid.
Brian E. Moore
And lastly
"Do not mistake for conspiracy and intrigue what can best be explained by stupidity and incompetence."