Wow. And there you have it: Moral Relativism in the making. Oh, the a case can be made for your statement, but not without one hell of a lot of semantics. Are you also one of the people who wonders what the definition of "is" is?
Looks like Powell's speech has yet more dodgy sources, all reported in the regular media:
There's Hans Blix denying the mobile labs claims...
then both US (CIA, NSA) and UK (MI-6) intelligence deny the al' Qaida link.
Next some of the suspect sites presented in Powell's graphics have already been inspected and cleared
Yesterday on KPFK and others re. the communications "intercept": UN officials who understand the Iraqi Arabic dialect likened it to a Saturday Night Live "Amateur Hour" and regard it as an obvious fabrication...mistranslated words, blah blah
Now there's this rumpus over plagiarized material:
That news is a few days old, SJO. Are you aware that an explanation exists for this? Do you really think you've presented a clear view of the situation with your post, or just one side? Answer seriously.
It's funny, too, that you would complain why doesn't the intelligence group share its information with Hans Blinx et al (since there seems to be better info there to act upon), but then you side with Hans Blinx when it comes to using their findings to challenge that of the intelligence group (as presented by Powell). Who do you really think has the better resources to gather information? Some group of guys who drive around the desert with pre-announced destinations and always under heavy surveillance or an established intelligence gathering organization with sophisticated satellite observation resources and secret operatives working deep in-country?
Well apparently all that intelligence really doesn't matter much if it doesn't guide your actions.
[quote]WASHINGTON --Secretary of State Colin L. Powell spent a significant part of his presentation to the United Nations this week describing a terrorist camp in northern Iraq where Al Qaeda affiliates are said to be training to carry out attacks with explosives and poisons.
But neither Powell nor other administration officials answered the question: What is the United States doing about it?
Lawmakers who have attended classified briefings on the camp say that they have been stymied for months in their efforts to get an explanation for why the United States has not launched a military strike on the compound near the village of Khurmal. Powell cited its ongoing operation as one of the key reasons for suspecting ties between Baghdad and the Al Qaeda terror network.
The lawmakers put new pressure on the Bush administration to explain its decision to leave the facility, which it has known about for months, unharmed.
"Why have we not taken it out?" Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) asked Powell during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing Thursday. "Why have we let it sit there if it's such a dangerous plant producing these toxins?"
Powell declined to answer, saying he could not discuss the matter in open session.
"I can assure you that it is a place that has been very much in our minds. And we have been tracing individuals who have gone in there and come out of there," Powell said.
Absent an explanation from the White House, some officials suggested that the administration has refrained from striking the compound in part to preserve a key piece of its case against Iraq.
"This is it, this is their compelling evidence for use of force," said one intelligence official, who asked not to be identified. "If you take it out, you can't use it as justification for war."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a member of the intelligence committee, said she and other members have been frustrated in their attempts to get an explanation from administration officials in closed-door briefings.
"We've been asking this question and have not been given an answer," Feinstein said. Officials have replied that "they'll have to get back to us."
A White House spokesman said Thursday he had no comment on the matter.
The administration's handling of the issue has emerged as one of the more curious recent elements of the war on terrorism. Failing to intervene appears to be at odds with President Bush's stated policy of preempting terrorist threats, and the facility is in an area where the United States already has a considerable presence.
U.S. intelligence agents are said to be operating among the Kurdish population nearby, and U.S. and British warplanes patrol much of northern Iraq as part of their enforcement of a "no-fly" zone.
<strong>Well apparently all that intelligence really doesn't matter much if it doesn't guide your actions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you that "high-up" in the military chain to decide what should and should not be done in response to intelligence data? Essentially, do you claim to have the "full" account of information to make a decision on what actions take place, or just what the news tells ya? If not, then what basis do you draw from to second-guess the actions of those that do?
<strong>That news is a few days old, SJO. Are you aware that an explanation exists for this? Do you really think you've presented a clear view of the situation with your post, or just one side? Answer seriously.<hr></blockquote>
Seriously now. I am not siding with the Bush Admin. viewpoint. I am presenting a biased set of links and articles. I don't think the Bush point of view is lacking in coverage (!)....just watch the "liberal media" (CNN, NBC, CBS, FOX, ABC, etc ...etc) for the White House/Pentagon angle.
[quote]It's funny, too, that you would complain why doesn't the intelligence group share its information with Hans Blinx et al (since there seems to be better info there to act upon), but then you side with Hans Blinx when it comes to using their findings to challenge that of the intelligence group (as presented by Powell). Who do you really think has the better resources to gather information? Some group of guys who drive around the desert with pre-announced destinations and always under heavy surveillance or an established intelligence gathering organization with sophisticated satellite observation resources and secret operatives working deep in-country?
Since the issue hasn't yet come up in this topic, then it's relevant. And....the plagiarizing scandal made the papers here in the US today. The UN inspector's name is Blix, btw. And, no, the UN team can show up at places unnanounced..and they have done just that during this bout of inspections.
That is what I meant by useful intelligence sharing. Give them the info...and then they get in a helicopter and go there unnanounced.
Believe me, I *want* them to find this stuff....who doesn't? Inspectors are far more efficient at rooting out WMD than bombing, as was the case during and after Gulf War #1...
Whether the success/failure of these inspections averts a war or not is another matter...the Bush team needs this war like a junkie craves his fix. As with Saddam, they stand to lose face if they opt for the political/diplomatic route...and that's a definite no go area for politicians.
You deny there is another side to the plagerism story.
You believe the words if they only come out of Blix's mouth. There are no other sources, and if there are, they are secondary to Blix.
Never mind the fact you keep ignoring that the inspectors are not there to "hunt" for unsanctioned weapons. They are there to interact with Saddam who is supposedly freely disclosing his weapons/facilities. You can see how far that is going.
[quote]Are you that "high-up" in the military chain to decide what should and should not be done in response to intelligence data? Essentially, do you claim to have the "full" account of information to make a decision on what actions take place, or just what the news tells ya? If not, then what basis do you draw from to second-guess the actions of those that do?<hr></blockquote>Well, why not read the story and tell us what you think about the article. Its very easy to say "your post is crap because the X authority knows more", but try to have an opinion about a piece of news rather than just denying everything before you. If you think the story doesn't matter then say so and say why.
Comments
Wow. And there you have it: Moral Relativism in the making. Oh, the a case can be made for your statement, but not without one hell of a lot of semantics. Are you also one of the people who wonders what the definition of "is" is?
Facts:
I'm not black
I am male
I live in a house, not an apartment
There is snow on my lawn
I am typing this on an Apple Computer
---all facts.
Thank you.
There's Hans Blix denying the mobile labs claims...
then both US (CIA, NSA) and UK (MI-6) intelligence deny the al' Qaida link.
Next some of the suspect sites presented in Powell's graphics have already been inspected and cleared
Yesterday on KPFK and others re. the communications "intercept": UN officials who understand the Iraqi Arabic dialect likened it to a Saturday Night Live "Amateur Hour" and regard it as an obvious fabrication...mistranslated words, blah blah
Now there's this rumpus over plagiarized material:
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,891577,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,891577,00.html</a>;
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,890916,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,890916,00.html</a>;
They gotta be short of material to use those kind of tactics.
It's funny, too, that you would complain why doesn't the intelligence group share its information with Hans Blinx et al (since there seems to be better info there to act upon), but then you side with Hans Blinx when it comes to using their findings to challenge that of the intelligence group (as presented by Powell). Who do you really think has the better resources to gather information? Some group of guys who drive around the desert with pre-announced destinations and always under heavy surveillance or an established intelligence gathering organization with sophisticated satellite observation resources and secret operatives working deep in-country?
[ 02-08-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
[quote]WASHINGTON --Secretary of State Colin L. Powell spent a significant part of his presentation to the United Nations this week describing a terrorist camp in northern Iraq where Al Qaeda affiliates are said to be training to carry out attacks with explosives and poisons.
But neither Powell nor other administration officials answered the question: What is the United States doing about it?
Lawmakers who have attended classified briefings on the camp say that they have been stymied for months in their efforts to get an explanation for why the United States has not launched a military strike on the compound near the village of Khurmal. Powell cited its ongoing operation as one of the key reasons for suspecting ties between Baghdad and the Al Qaeda terror network.
The lawmakers put new pressure on the Bush administration to explain its decision to leave the facility, which it has known about for months, unharmed.
"Why have we not taken it out?" Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) asked Powell during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing Thursday. "Why have we let it sit there if it's such a dangerous plant producing these toxins?"
Powell declined to answer, saying he could not discuss the matter in open session.
"I can assure you that it is a place that has been very much in our minds. And we have been tracing individuals who have gone in there and come out of there," Powell said.
Absent an explanation from the White House, some officials suggested that the administration has refrained from striking the compound in part to preserve a key piece of its case against Iraq.
"This is it, this is their compelling evidence for use of force," said one intelligence official, who asked not to be identified. "If you take it out, you can't use it as justification for war."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a member of the intelligence committee, said she and other members have been frustrated in their attempts to get an explanation from administration officials in closed-door briefings.
"We've been asking this question and have not been given an answer," Feinstein said. Officials have replied that "they'll have to get back to us."
A White House spokesman said Thursday he had no comment on the matter.
The administration's handling of the issue has emerged as one of the more curious recent elements of the war on terrorism. Failing to intervene appears to be at odds with President Bush's stated policy of preempting terrorist threats, and the facility is in an area where the United States already has a considerable presence.
U.S. intelligence agents are said to be operating among the Kurdish population nearby, and U.S. and British warplanes patrol much of northern Iraq as part of their enforcement of a "no-fly" zone.
Several lawmakers and intelligence experts expressed concern that Powell's presentation Wednesday might have cost the United States an opportunity to prevent the spread of toxins.<hr></blockquote><a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-intel7feb07004433,1,2928485.story?coll=la-headli nes%2Dworld" target="_blank">LA Times</a>
Fighting terrorism?
<strong>Well apparently all that intelligence really doesn't matter much if it doesn't guide your actions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you that "high-up" in the military chain to decide what should and should not be done in response to intelligence data? Essentially, do you claim to have the "full" account of information to make a decision on what actions take place, or just what the news tells ya? If not, then what basis do you draw from to second-guess the actions of those that do?
[ 02-08-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong>That news is a few days old, SJO. Are you aware that an explanation exists for this? Do you really think you've presented a clear view of the situation with your post, or just one side? Answer seriously.<hr></blockquote>
Seriously now. I am not siding with the Bush Admin. viewpoint. I am presenting a biased set of links and articles. I don't think the Bush point of view is lacking in coverage (!)....just watch the "liberal media" (CNN, NBC, CBS, FOX, ABC, etc ...etc) for the White House/Pentagon angle.
[quote]It's funny, too, that you would complain why doesn't the intelligence group share its information with Hans Blinx et al (since there seems to be better info there to act upon), but then you side with Hans Blinx when it comes to using their findings to challenge that of the intelligence group (as presented by Powell). Who do you really think has the better resources to gather information? Some group of guys who drive around the desert with pre-announced destinations and always under heavy surveillance or an established intelligence gathering organization with sophisticated satellite observation resources and secret operatives working deep in-country?
[ 02-08-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since the issue hasn't yet come up in this topic, then it's relevant. And....the plagiarizing scandal made the papers here in the US today. The UN inspector's name is Blix, btw. And, no, the UN team can show up at places unnanounced..and they have done just that during this bout of inspections.
That is what I meant by useful intelligence sharing. Give them the info...and then they get in a helicopter and go there unnanounced.
Believe me, I *want* them to find this stuff....who doesn't? Inspectors are far more efficient at rooting out WMD than bombing, as was the case during and after Gulf War #1...
Whether the success/failure of these inspections averts a war or not is another matter...the Bush team needs this war like a junkie craves his fix. As with Saddam, they stand to lose face if they opt for the political/diplomatic route...and that's a definite no go area for politicians.
[ 02-08-2003: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
You deny there is another side to the plagerism story.
You believe the words if they only come out of Blix's mouth. There are no other sources, and if there are, they are secondary to Blix.
Never mind the fact you keep ignoring that the inspectors are not there to "hunt" for unsanctioned weapons. They are there to interact with Saddam who is supposedly freely disclosing his weapons/facilities. You can see how far that is going.
<strong>Kick:
Don't feed the trolls! No more executive AI bathroom for 2 weeks!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Buuuuut I gotta peeeee nowwwwwwww.....