Why would he hide them? Are you serious? Again, why WOULDN'T he?
Now, this nonsense that if they are hidden they can't be used. It sounds like a good argument, but it's disingenuous. Once again, we're not talking about a threat in the traditional sense. We are talking about Saddam giving such weapons to a terrorist organization. We're not talking about a field of ICBM's he dissassembled for hiding. Modern WMD can be execeptionally small. They could be hidden ANYWHERE. Think about it. Imagine trying to find, say, ten 52 gallon drums of material in perhaps the Boston Metro Area. Hard, right? Now, multiply this area by 10,000 times and tell me how much harder it is.That's what we are dealing with here. WMD don't have to take up parking lots full of space.
I don't have to prove they existed when such existence had been PREVIOSULY PROVEN. YOU have to prove he destroyed them. The burden was on Saddam. Now it's on you.
I already answered the threat quesiton. I'm not going to keep doing so. jimmac, you're right! I CAN'T explain why we haven't found them! I have never claimed to be able to do so! All I'm saying is that there are MANY possibilities WHY we haven't, not just your "Bush lied or is incompetent" duo of absurdity. When I list those possibilities, you tell me I'm "making excuses". Cute.
False! False! False! You can keep saying it, but it isn't going to make it any more true. WMD was the MAIN reason...NOT the only one. You are hearing what you'd like to be true.
WRONG! SO UNBELIEVABLY WRONG AND MISGUIDED!
Keep on pretending it's September 10th, 2001, jimmac. Keep on denying the possibility that Saddam would have given WMD to Al-Queda. Just promise me you'll never run for office anywhere...ever.
Say it with me!
PREEMPTION! PREEMPTION! PREMPTION!
Ok, preemption is one of the problems so many people have with this. It's not the way we operate.
" I don't have to prove they existed when such existence had been PREVIOUSLY PROVEN. YOU have to prove he destroyed them. The burden was on Saddam. Now it's on you. "
Should the US make preemptive strikes on Europe because Europe might make preemptive strikes on the US because the US might make preemptive strikes on countries formerly belonging to the USSR because they can't control the flow of cold war nuclear material which might end up in the hands of terrorists that might be packaged in suitcases and shipped to the US (which star wars will NOT protect us from)?
Should the US make preemptive strikes on Europe because Europe might make preemptive strikes on the US because the US might make preemptive strikes on countries formerly belonging to the USSR because they can't control the flow of cold war nuclear material which might end up in the hands of terrorists that might be packaged in suitcases and shipped to the US (which star wars will NOT protect us from)?
Don't know where else to post this: but Special Assistant of CounterTerror Staffer for the Bush admin, who also worked with the Reagan admin quit last week.
It seems he thinks that what the admnin does is very dangerous for our country: almost everything.
Quote:
Top NSC professional resigns to advise Kerry
Demonizing Rand Beers won't be easy for the Bush administration and its surrogates -- but they may well feel a powerful urge to try after reading today's extraordinary Washington Post portrait of the former National Security Council staffer.
At age 60, following 35 years of government service that includes stints on the staff of every White House since Ronald Reagan, Beers resigned last March as special assistant to the president for counterterror. Now he has signed on as a key advisor to John Kerry's presidential campaign.
In a front-page interview with Laura Blumenfeld, Beers strongly suggests that he joined the opposition because the Bush administration is dangerous to America's future. "The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism. They're making us less secure, not more secure. As an insider, I saw the things that weren't being done. And the longer I sat and watched, the more concerned I became, until I got up and walked out."
Of the need to change policy -- and obviously to replace the president -- Beers tells Blumenfeld that he "never felt so strongly about something in my life."
Wow . . .and someone who worked with admin from the inside?!
Don't know where else to post this: but Special Assistant of CounterTerror Staffer for the Bush admin, who also worked with the Reagan admin quit last week.
It seems he thinks that what the admnin does is very dangerous for our country: almost everything.
Wow . . .and someone who worked with admin from the inside?!
1. The "Bush Intel"? You mean the intel that was presented to him by the intel AGENCIES? How the **** can you call it "Bush Intel"?
Actually, most of the intelligence came from rumsfeld's Office of Special Plans. That was the whole point of setting up this group. So you are basically flat-out wrong on this one, buddy.
2. And are you saying his administration fabricated evidence? Or, are you saying the agencies did? Go ahead...show me the admin knew it was false when they released it. Please.
Again, gross incompetence is not a defense
Quote:
3. A totally unsupported claim. The White House was not told of the error very quickly if at all:
I fail to see how this article is relevant, especially to the example I used. The IAEA repeatedly told the Bush admin and powell's office itself that the tubes were likely not used for a nuclear program.
and again, gross incompetence is not a defense
Quote:
4. You don't know that. We are talking about 150,000 sq. miles and you are ready to close the book in 90 days ? Of course you are. Wait...weren't you and like thinkers arguing for more time for the inspectors? Hmmm.
I know that and you know that. More inspections would have been absolutely wonderful. Again, you are trying to make two things equal that aren't. We have total control of the country and have found no large scale chem plants. Every single facility that ccould possibly be used to make bulk chemical weapons (from swimming pools to vacuum warehouses) has been identified and searched by the US. WE HAVE RUN OUT OF POSSIBILITES ON THIS ONE. Sorry, but this is a dead end for you.
Quote:
5. ALL EVIDENCE!?!?!?! That is a totally, 100% incorrect statement. Lack of evidence does not constitute innocence here. This isn't The People's Court, giant. All evidence. My God.
If it's 100% incorrect, then prove it. If you can't, then you words are as good a jibberish.
Don't know where else to post this: but Special Assistant of CounterTerror Staffer for the Bush admin, who also worked with the Reagan admin quit last week.
It seems he thinks that what the admnin does is very dangerous for our country: almost everything.
Wow . . .and someone who worked with admin from the inside?!
Who'da figured?!
yeah, did you see what his wife said about the bush admin? --
"It's a very closed, small, controlled group. This is an administration that determines what it thinks and then sets about to prove it. There's almost a religious kind of certainty. There's no curiosity about opposing points of view. It's very scary. There's kind of a ghost agenda."
yeah, did you see what his wife said about the bush admin? --
"It's a very closed, small, controlled group. This is an administration that determines what it thinks and then sets about to prove it. There's almost a religious kind of certainty. There's no curiosity about opposing points of view. It's very scary. There's kind of a ghost agenda."
Bush is obviously a control freak. Why is people like that never figure out that kind of control is an illusion?
Ok, preemption is one of the problems so many people have with this. It's not the way we operate.
It is now.
Quote:
And this is core disagreement.
Should the US make preemptive strikes on Europe because Europe might make preemptive strikes on the US because the US might make preemptive strikes on countries formerly belonging to the USSR because they can't control the flow of cold war nuclear material which might end up in the hands of terrorists that might be packaged in suitcases and shipped to the US (which star wars will NOT protect us from)?
The last time I checked, there were no nations in Europe who used Chemical weapons on their own people and openly praised 9/11. Your trying the "slippery slope" argument, and it's not valid.
pfflam:
Quote:
It seems he thinks that what the admnin does is very dangerous for our country: almost everything.
Two words, pfflam: Self Parody.
The guy goes to work on an opponents campaign and you wonder why he makes a political statement that could benefit his new employer? Hmmm. .
giant:
Quote:
Actually, most of the intelligence came from rumsfeld's Office of Special Plans. That was the whole point of setting up this group. So you are basically flat-out wrong on this one, buddy.
How does the possibility of faulty intel make them incompetent? If our intelligence community colored evidence, why does your conclusion follow? They have to make decisions based on what information they have. If things were witheld from them, or some data was just completely wrong, how does that fault Bush? What a ridiculous statement on your part!
Quote:
I know that and you know that. More inspections would have been absolutely wonderful. Again, you are trying to make two things equal that aren't. We have total control of the country and have found no large scale chem plants. Every single facility that ccould possibly be used to make bulk chemical weapons (from swimming pools to vacuum warehouses) has been identified and searched by the US. WE HAVE RUN OUT OF POSSIBILITES ON THIS ONE. Sorry, but this is a dead end for you.
More inspections? No. You misunderstand. I didn't want more inspections. My position was that more inspections would have been utterly useless. All rhetoric aside, I really think they would have been pointless.
As far as "possibilities", I disagree. Don't go believing every headline you hear. There is no way we can come to the conclusion there was no program in just 3 months. There's just too much area to cover.
Quote:
If it's 100% incorrect, then prove it. If you can't, then you words are as good a jibberish
No, No, No! YOU are the one making the CLAIM Iraq was clean! Seriously, show ME when that conclusion was reached.
It never even crosses your mind that he had a job and left it for a particular reason.
And that the reason for his leaving is that the people he worked for no longer deserved his allegiance
he may have been like you at one time . . . refusing to allow a crack of doubt about Mr Glorious and Gang into his head, then the facts rebelled against his illusions.
The reasons for his leaving are what you take to be partisan chatter.
You forget HE WORKED FOR BUSH
he didn't have to leave
He left because he felt that something is wrong
Who else has worked for the admin and has left?
Jimmac:
Quote:
Why is people like that never figure out that kind of control is an illusion?
You never have to figure it out if you've had it all your life: the power of money keeps huge chunks of reality at bay.
remember Bush Sr. being amazed by check-out stand technologies when he was in office?!
I knew some very rich kids when I went to high school and many of them had major major world-view crisises when the had to graduate and found that the environment that they took for granted was not ubiquitous.
Some didn't ever experience it and they remain today very isolated and in a very real sense inexperienced . . . not all rich people are like this of course . . . but many are
same with many of the students I have now at this hoity-toity private school . .. arrogant and controling and think they deserve the silver spoon in their mouths . . .and ready to get slapped by reality.
The last time I checked, there were no nations in Europe who used Chemical weapons on their own people and openly praised 9/11. Your trying the "slippery slope" argument, and it's not valid.
Not all slippery slope arguments are invalid. Preemption is quite serious and extrapolating the possible future uses of it is important. Frankly, under preemption, Iran and Syria would be justified in launching an attack on us. It works both ways.
Of course, preemption could also justify India nuking Pakistan or vice versa. Great precedent for Bush to set. Real great.
The last time I checked, there were no nations in Europe who used Chemical weapons on their own people and openly praised 9/11. Your trying the "slippery slope" argument, and it's not valid.
pfflam:
Two words, pfflam: Self Parody.
The guy goes to work on an opponents campaign and you wonder why he makes a political statement that could benefit his new employer? Hmmm. .
giant:
The New Yorker? It just never ends with you.
How does the possibility of faulty intel make them incompetent? If our intelligence community colored evidence, why does your conclusion follow? They have to make decisions based on what information they have. If things were witheld from them, or some data was just completely wrong, how does that fault Bush? What a ridiculous statement on your part!
More inspections? No. You misunderstand. I didn't want more inspections. My position was that more inspections would have been utterly useless. All rhetoric aside, I really think they would have been pointless.
As far as "possibilities", I disagree. Don't go believing every headline you hear. There is no way we can come to the conclusion there was no program in just 3 months. There's just too much area to cover.
No, No, No! YOU are the one making the CLAIM Iraq was clean! Seriously, show ME when that conclusion was reached.
So why the hell is this missile thing such a big deal? Iraq didn't think these particular missiles were not allowed, and they had been reported to the UN.
And they were proscribed by the UN and their destruction was ordered by the UN. Not the US.
It doesn't matter if the missiles were tested to 94 miles, that's over the limit. Case closed. Iraq wasn't anywhere close to disarmed and they were making very little if any progress. FACT.
That you would nitpick to this degree is amazingly stupid and hypocritical considering your moral chest-pounding re:lying.
"What's the big deal?"
"Lying is never allowed! Except when it helps ME!"
Stick with your hypocritical moral arguments about Bush and his lying. If you want to start getting into disarmament and UN resolutions re:disarmament you're walking into a gunfight with a slinky.
And they were proscribed by the UN and their destruction was ordered by the UN. Not the US.
It doesn't matter if the missiles were tested to 94 miles, that's over the limit. Case closed. Iraq wasn't anywhere close to disarmed and they were making very little if any progress. FACT.
First, I thought Iraq destroyed them when asked. There wasn't a big deal. They said 'no', but ultimately did it anyway. Second, I thought the missles didn't fly past the limit, but the UN inspectors said some of them might because they were so close to the range. Either a strong wind, better fuel burn or whatever could potentially push some missles a few extra miles, and that's why they were ordered destroyed.
I don't know where this argument is coming from though, because I wasn't here to see it start.
And they were proscribed by the UN and their destruction was ordered by the UN. Not the US.
It doesn't matter if the missiles were tested to 94 miles, that's over the limit. Case closed. Iraq wasn't anywhere close to disarmed and they were making very little if any progress. FACT.
That you would nitpick to this degree is amazingly stupid and hypocritical considering your moral chest-pounding re:lying.
"What's the big deal?"
"Lying is never allowed! Except when it helps ME!"
Stick with your hypocritical moral arguments about Bush and his lying. If you want to start getting into disarmament and UN resolutions re:disarmament you're walking into a gunfight with a slinky.
Exactly. It's all semantics with ceratin posters here. There is no one person today that can say with a straight face that Iraq disarmed cooperatively and fully. That is the only real issue here. The UN didn't back its resolutions with any credibility. Iraq demonstrated clearly its contempt for inspectors and its lack of total cooperation. More time and/or more inspectors were therefore uttelry useless notions. The UN couldn't back its resolutions, so we did. This WAS a justification for the war. So was the imminent threat of Iraq giving WMD to al-Queda. So was the fact that Iraq targeted and fired upon our aircraft literally every single day. So was the brutality of the regime. Pfflam, giant, jimmac and tonton: You can try and paint the picture the way you'd like. All of these reasons were given. It wasn't just WMD.
Now this by BR:
Quote:
Not all slippery slope arguments are invalid. Preemption is quite serious and extrapolating the possible future uses of it is important. Frankly, under preemption, Iran and Syria would be justified in launching an attack on us. It works both ways.
Of course, preemption could also justify India nuking Pakistan or vice versa. Great precedent for Bush to set. Real great.
Some slippery arguments are valid. I don't feel yours is.
Your statement about Iran and Syria is pretty unbelievable. Essentially, you are comparing these nations to the US. That's insane. Iran and Syria are suspected, possibly even known to support terrorists which delibrately target civilians, national landmarks and treasures, etc in the United States. For all our faults, we don't do those things. We are not on the same moral level as these countries (specifically, the governments of these countries). You know as well as I do that if Iran and Syria were stable nations that didn't support international terrorism, we wouldn't be invoking the possibility of preemption. In other words, preemption on our part is a response to a significant threat. There has to be some reason (as in the case of Iraq), some provocative action on the part of the nation to be preempted in order to invoke the policy. But, I'm sure in your eyes the US is no better than those two nations. To you, we're on the same moral ground. That's where we disagree. Iran and Syria do NOT have the right to lauch an attack on us, because we are the ones responding to THEIR support of terror.
As far as the policy itself, I'd like to ask you to show us a better one. I'm not willing to let another 9/11 happen, are you? Despite what you may think, we weren't attacked because " a lot of the world doesn't like us right now". That's idiotic. We were attacked by a sect of Islam that would still attack us no matter what foreign policy we engaged in. The goal of this groups(s) is literally to destroy "the infidels". Guess who that is? These people cannot be appeased. No amount of negotiation or change in foreign policy is going to change that fact. They must be destroyed. Period. If it takes preemptive military action against governments who support these terror groups and/or seek to provide them with WMD, then so be it.
It's been fun fighting/talking with everyone, but I'm done now.
My support of the war isn't going to change. I still don't think the Administration lied. I still think we'll probably find WMD in Iraq. And, most importantly I say anyone who actually thinks Saddam didn't have any weapons within months of the war is forming a position which flies in the face of all logic and reason.
First, I thought Iraq destroyed them when asked. There wasn't a big deal. They said 'no', but ultimately did it anyway.
They started destroying them, very slowly. Just one of dozens of unresolved issues.
Quote:
Second, I thought the missles didn't fly past the limit, but the UN inspectors said some of them might because they were so close to the range. Either a strong wind, better fuel burn or whatever could potentially push some missles a few extra miles, and that's why they were ordered destroyed.
The missiles were tested by Iraq past the limits allowed and they were larger than allowed (large enough to allow additional engines to the missiles, increasing its range).
Quote:
I don't know where this argument is coming from though, because I wasn't here to see it start.
Then perhaps you shouldn't respond to every goddam thing I say as if it's directed at you. I'm not a moderator anymore, you can cut off your unhealthy obsession with me.
You see "tonton" above the last post? You're not tonton, tonton is.
the president and the administration are on the line to find WoMD's.
he did not equivocate in his state of the union. he didn't say maybe, or sources think.... he said they were there and they were an immediate threat to the united states.
in a short period of time he went from saying iraq was pursuing a program to having a program in place.
i'm beginning to think iraq was not about WoMD's, or oil, but a smokescreen or misdirection from the administrations failure to act on intelligence prior to 9/11.
There is no one person today that can say with a straight face that Iraq disarmed cooperatively and fully.
The argument is really if they were disarmed to the point of no longer being a threat. I think we're finding out that Iraq was not a threat, and thus, effectively disarmed.
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
jimmac:
Why would he hide them? Are you serious? Again, why WOULDN'T he?
Now, this nonsense that if they are hidden they can't be used. It sounds like a good argument, but it's disingenuous. Once again, we're not talking about a threat in the traditional sense. We are talking about Saddam giving such weapons to a terrorist organization. We're not talking about a field of ICBM's he dissassembled for hiding. Modern WMD can be execeptionally small. They could be hidden ANYWHERE. Think about it. Imagine trying to find, say, ten 52 gallon drums of material in perhaps the Boston Metro Area. Hard, right? Now, multiply this area by 10,000 times and tell me how much harder it is.That's what we are dealing with here. WMD don't have to take up parking lots full of space.
I don't have to prove they existed when such existence had been PREVIOSULY PROVEN. YOU have to prove he destroyed them. The burden was on Saddam. Now it's on you.
I already answered the threat quesiton. I'm not going to keep doing so. jimmac, you're right! I CAN'T explain why we haven't found them! I have never claimed to be able to do so! All I'm saying is that there are MANY possibilities WHY we haven't, not just your "Bush lied or is incompetent" duo of absurdity. When I list those possibilities, you tell me I'm "making excuses". Cute.
False! False! False! You can keep saying it, but it isn't going to make it any more true. WMD was the MAIN reason...NOT the only one. You are hearing what you'd like to be true.
WRONG! SO UNBELIEVABLY WRONG AND MISGUIDED!
Keep on pretending it's September 10th, 2001, jimmac. Keep on denying the possibility that Saddam would have given WMD to Al-Queda. Just promise me you'll never run for office anywhere...ever.
Say it with me!
PREEMPTION! PREEMPTION! PREMPTION!
Ok, preemption is one of the problems so many people have with this. It's not the way we operate.
-------------------------------------------------------------
" I don't have to prove they existed when such existence had been PREVIOUSLY PROVEN. YOU have to prove he destroyed them. The burden was on Saddam. Now it's on you. "
-------------------------------------------------------------
I said shortly before the war. That's all that's relevent here!
Since you can't answer the question with anything else other than speculation, obufuscation, and right wing rhetoric you are now in check!
Originally posted by SDW2001
Say it with me!
PREEMPTION! PREEMPTION! PREEMPTION!
And this is core disagreement.
Should the US make preemptive strikes on Europe because Europe might make preemptive strikes on the US because the US might make preemptive strikes on countries formerly belonging to the USSR because they can't control the flow of cold war nuclear material which might end up in the hands of terrorists that might be packaged in suitcases and shipped to the US (which star wars will NOT protect us from)?
Originally posted by BR
And this is core disagreement.
Should the US make preemptive strikes on Europe because Europe might make preemptive strikes on the US because the US might make preemptive strikes on countries formerly belonging to the USSR because they can't control the flow of cold war nuclear material which might end up in the hands of terrorists that might be packaged in suitcases and shipped to the US (which star wars will NOT protect us from)?
Exactly.
It seems he thinks that what the admnin does is very dangerous for our country: almost everything.
Top NSC professional resigns to advise Kerry
Demonizing Rand Beers won't be easy for the Bush administration and its surrogates -- but they may well feel a powerful urge to try after reading today's extraordinary Washington Post portrait of the former National Security Council staffer.
At age 60, following 35 years of government service that includes stints on the staff of every White House since Ronald Reagan, Beers resigned last March as special assistant to the president for counterterror. Now he has signed on as a key advisor to John Kerry's presidential campaign.
In a front-page interview with Laura Blumenfeld, Beers strongly suggests that he joined the opposition because the Bush administration is dangerous to America's future. "The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism. They're making us less secure, not more secure. As an insider, I saw the things that weren't being done. And the longer I sat and watched, the more concerned I became, until I got up and walked out."
Of the need to change policy -- and obviously to replace the president -- Beers tells Blumenfeld that he "never felt so strongly about something in my life."
Wow . . .and someone who worked with admin from the inside?!
Who'da figured?!
Originally posted by pfflam
Don't know where else to post this: but Special Assistant of CounterTerror Staffer for the Bush admin, who also worked with the Reagan admin quit last week.
It seems he thinks that what the admnin does is very dangerous for our country: almost everything.
Wow . . .and someone who worked with admin from the inside?!
Who'da figured?!
Well, that pretty much says it all.
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. The "Bush Intel"? You mean the intel that was presented to him by the intel AGENCIES? How the **** can you call it "Bush Intel"?
Actually, most of the intelligence came from rumsfeld's Office of Special Plans. That was the whole point of setting up this group. So you are basically flat-out wrong on this one, buddy.
you can start here: http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030512fa_fact
2. And are you saying his administration fabricated evidence? Or, are you saying the agencies did? Go ahead...show me the admin knew it was false when they released it. Please.
Again, gross incompetence is not a defense
3. A totally unsupported claim. The White House was not told of the error very quickly if at all:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Jun11.html
I fail to see how this article is relevant, especially to the example I used. The IAEA repeatedly told the Bush admin and powell's office itself that the tubes were likely not used for a nuclear program.
and again, gross incompetence is not a defense
4. You don't know that. We are talking about 150,000 sq. miles and you are ready to close the book in 90 days ? Of course you are. Wait...weren't you and like thinkers arguing for more time for the inspectors? Hmmm.
I know that and you know that. More inspections would have been absolutely wonderful. Again, you are trying to make two things equal that aren't. We have total control of the country and have found no large scale chem plants. Every single facility that ccould possibly be used to make bulk chemical weapons (from swimming pools to vacuum warehouses) has been identified and searched by the US. WE HAVE RUN OUT OF POSSIBILITES ON THIS ONE. Sorry, but this is a dead end for you.
5. ALL EVIDENCE!?!?!?! That is a totally, 100% incorrect statement. Lack of evidence does not constitute innocence here. This isn't The People's Court, giant. All evidence. My God.
If it's 100% incorrect, then prove it. If you can't, then you words are as good a jibberish.
Originally posted by pfflam
Don't know where else to post this: but Special Assistant of CounterTerror Staffer for the Bush admin, who also worked with the Reagan admin quit last week.
It seems he thinks that what the admnin does is very dangerous for our country: almost everything.
Wow . . .and someone who worked with admin from the inside?!
Who'da figured?!
yeah, did you see what his wife said about the bush admin? --
"It's a very closed, small, controlled group. This is an administration that determines what it thinks and then sets about to prove it. There's almost a religious kind of certainty. There's no curiosity about opposing points of view. It's very scary. There's kind of a ghost agenda."
Originally posted by giant
yeah, did you see what his wife said about the bush admin? --
"It's a very closed, small, controlled group. This is an administration that determines what it thinks and then sets about to prove it. There's almost a religious kind of certainty. There's no curiosity about opposing points of view. It's very scary. There's kind of a ghost agenda."
Bush is obviously a control freak. Why is people like that never figure out that kind of control is an illusion?
Ok, preemption is one of the problems so many people have with this. It's not the way we operate.
It is now.
And this is core disagreement.
Should the US make preemptive strikes on Europe because Europe might make preemptive strikes on the US because the US might make preemptive strikes on countries formerly belonging to the USSR because they can't control the flow of cold war nuclear material which might end up in the hands of terrorists that might be packaged in suitcases and shipped to the US (which star wars will NOT protect us from)?
The last time I checked, there were no nations in Europe who used Chemical weapons on their own people and openly praised 9/11. Your trying the "slippery slope" argument, and it's not valid.
pfflam:
It seems he thinks that what the admnin does is very dangerous for our country: almost everything.
The guy goes to work on an opponents campaign and you wonder why he makes a political statement that could benefit his new employer? Hmmm. .
giant:
Actually, most of the intelligence came from rumsfeld's Office of Special Plans. That was the whole point of setting up this group. So you are basically flat-out wrong on this one, buddy.
you can start here: http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030512fa_fact
The New Yorker? It just never ends with you.
Again, gross incompetence is not a defense
How does the possibility of faulty intel make them incompetent? If our intelligence community colored evidence, why does your conclusion follow? They have to make decisions based on what information they have. If things were witheld from them, or some data was just completely wrong, how does that fault Bush? What a ridiculous statement on your part!
I know that and you know that. More inspections would have been absolutely wonderful. Again, you are trying to make two things equal that aren't. We have total control of the country and have found no large scale chem plants. Every single facility that ccould possibly be used to make bulk chemical weapons (from swimming pools to vacuum warehouses) has been identified and searched by the US. WE HAVE RUN OUT OF POSSIBILITES ON THIS ONE. Sorry, but this is a dead end for you.
More inspections? No. You misunderstand. I didn't want more inspections. My position was that more inspections would have been utterly useless. All rhetoric aside, I really think they would have been pointless.
As far as "possibilities", I disagree. Don't go believing every headline you hear. There is no way we can come to the conclusion there was no program in just 3 months. There's just too much area to cover.
If it's 100% incorrect, then prove it. If you can't, then you words are as good a jibberish
No, No, No! YOU are the one making the CLAIM Iraq was clean! Seriously, show ME when that conclusion was reached.
And that the reason for his leaving is that the people he worked for no longer deserved his allegiance
he may have been like you at one time . . . refusing to allow a crack of doubt about Mr Glorious and Gang into his head, then the facts rebelled against his illusions.
The reasons for his leaving are what you take to be partisan chatter.
You forget HE WORKED FOR BUSH
he didn't have to leave
He left because he felt that something is wrong
Who else has worked for the admin and has left?
Jimmac:
Why is people like that never figure out that kind of control is an illusion?
You never have to figure it out if you've had it all your life: the power of money keeps huge chunks of reality at bay.
remember Bush Sr. being amazed by check-out stand technologies when he was in office?!
I knew some very rich kids when I went to high school and many of them had major major world-view crisises when the had to graduate and found that the environment that they took for granted was not ubiquitous.
Some didn't ever experience it and they remain today very isolated and in a very real sense inexperienced . . . not all rich people are like this of course . . . but many are
same with many of the students I have now at this hoity-toity private school . .. arrogant and controling and think they deserve the silver spoon in their mouths . . .and ready to get slapped by reality.
But everybody can use such a wake up call, no?!
Originally posted by SDW2001
jimmac:
The last time I checked, there were no nations in Europe who used Chemical weapons on their own people and openly praised 9/11. Your trying the "slippery slope" argument, and it's not valid.
Not all slippery slope arguments are invalid. Preemption is quite serious and extrapolating the possible future uses of it is important. Frankly, under preemption, Iran and Syria would be justified in launching an attack on us. It works both ways.
Of course, preemption could also justify India nuking Pakistan or vice versa. Great precedent for Bush to set. Real great.
Originally posted by SDW2001
jimmac:
It is now.
The last time I checked, there were no nations in Europe who used Chemical weapons on their own people and openly praised 9/11. Your trying the "slippery slope" argument, and it's not valid.
pfflam:
The guy goes to work on an opponents campaign and you wonder why he makes a political statement that could benefit his new employer? Hmmm. .
giant:
The New Yorker? It just never ends with you.
How does the possibility of faulty intel make them incompetent? If our intelligence community colored evidence, why does your conclusion follow? They have to make decisions based on what information they have. If things were witheld from them, or some data was just completely wrong, how does that fault Bush? What a ridiculous statement on your part!
More inspections? No. You misunderstand. I didn't want more inspections. My position was that more inspections would have been utterly useless. All rhetoric aside, I really think they would have been pointless.
As far as "possibilities", I disagree. Don't go believing every headline you hear. There is no way we can come to the conclusion there was no program in just 3 months. There's just too much area to cover.
No, No, No! YOU are the one making the CLAIM Iraq was clean! Seriously, show ME when that conclusion was reached.
-------------------------------------------------------------
" jimmac:
quote:
Ok, preemption is one of the problems so many people have with this. It's not the way we operate.
It is now. "
-------------------------------------------------------------
This just won't fly.
You're just moving your mouth now.
Still in check!
So why the hell is this missile thing such a big deal? Iraq didn't think these particular missiles were not allowed, and they had been reported to the UN.
And they were proscribed by the UN and their destruction was ordered by the UN. Not the US.
It doesn't matter if the missiles were tested to 94 miles, that's over the limit. Case closed. Iraq wasn't anywhere close to disarmed and they were making very little if any progress. FACT.
That you would nitpick to this degree is amazingly stupid and hypocritical considering your moral chest-pounding re:lying.
"What's the big deal?"
"Lying is never allowed! Except when it helps ME!"
Stick with your hypocritical moral arguments about Bush and his lying. If you want to start getting into disarmament and UN resolutions re:disarmament you're walking into a gunfight with a slinky.
Originally posted by SDW2001
No, No, No! YOU are the one making the CLAIM Iraq was clean! Seriously, show ME when that conclusion was reached.
No, genius. I'm stating two things:
a) that the Bush admin provided fictious and skewed information in order to take over Iraq
b) that Iraq was not a threat and, therefore, the war was unnecessary and unjustified.
Originally posted by groverat
tonton:
And they were proscribed by the UN and their destruction was ordered by the UN. Not the US.
It doesn't matter if the missiles were tested to 94 miles, that's over the limit. Case closed. Iraq wasn't anywhere close to disarmed and they were making very little if any progress. FACT.
First, I thought Iraq destroyed them when asked. There wasn't a big deal. They said 'no', but ultimately did it anyway. Second, I thought the missles didn't fly past the limit, but the UN inspectors said some of them might because they were so close to the range. Either a strong wind, better fuel burn or whatever could potentially push some missles a few extra miles, and that's why they were ordered destroyed.
I don't know where this argument is coming from though, because I wasn't here to see it start.
Originally posted by groverat
tonton:
And they were proscribed by the UN and their destruction was ordered by the UN. Not the US.
It doesn't matter if the missiles were tested to 94 miles, that's over the limit. Case closed. Iraq wasn't anywhere close to disarmed and they were making very little if any progress. FACT.
That you would nitpick to this degree is amazingly stupid and hypocritical considering your moral chest-pounding re:lying.
"What's the big deal?"
"Lying is never allowed! Except when it helps ME!"
Stick with your hypocritical moral arguments about Bush and his lying. If you want to start getting into disarmament and UN resolutions re:disarmament you're walking into a gunfight with a slinky.
Exactly. It's all semantics with ceratin posters here. There is no one person today that can say with a straight face that Iraq disarmed cooperatively and fully. That is the only real issue here. The UN didn't back its resolutions with any credibility. Iraq demonstrated clearly its contempt for inspectors and its lack of total cooperation. More time and/or more inspectors were therefore uttelry useless notions. The UN couldn't back its resolutions, so we did. This WAS a justification for the war. So was the imminent threat of Iraq giving WMD to al-Queda. So was the fact that Iraq targeted and fired upon our aircraft literally every single day. So was the brutality of the regime. Pfflam, giant, jimmac and tonton: You can try and paint the picture the way you'd like. All of these reasons were given. It wasn't just WMD.
Now this by BR:
Not all slippery slope arguments are invalid. Preemption is quite serious and extrapolating the possible future uses of it is important. Frankly, under preemption, Iran and Syria would be justified in launching an attack on us. It works both ways.
Of course, preemption could also justify India nuking Pakistan or vice versa. Great precedent for Bush to set. Real great.
Some slippery arguments are valid. I don't feel yours is.
Your statement about Iran and Syria is pretty unbelievable. Essentially, you are comparing these nations to the US. That's insane. Iran and Syria are suspected, possibly even known to support terrorists which delibrately target civilians, national landmarks and treasures, etc in the United States. For all our faults, we don't do those things. We are not on the same moral level as these countries (specifically, the governments of these countries). You know as well as I do that if Iran and Syria were stable nations that didn't support international terrorism, we wouldn't be invoking the possibility of preemption. In other words, preemption on our part is a response to a significant threat. There has to be some reason (as in the case of Iraq), some provocative action on the part of the nation to be preempted in order to invoke the policy. But, I'm sure in your eyes the US is no better than those two nations. To you, we're on the same moral ground. That's where we disagree. Iran and Syria do NOT have the right to lauch an attack on us, because we are the ones responding to THEIR support of terror.
As far as the policy itself, I'd like to ask you to show us a better one. I'm not willing to let another 9/11 happen, are you? Despite what you may think, we weren't attacked because " a lot of the world doesn't like us right now". That's idiotic. We were attacked by a sect of Islam that would still attack us no matter what foreign policy we engaged in. The goal of this groups(s) is literally to destroy "the infidels". Guess who that is? These people cannot be appeased. No amount of negotiation or change in foreign policy is going to change that fact. They must be destroyed. Period. If it takes preemptive military action against governments who support these terror groups and/or seek to provide them with WMD, then so be it.
It's been fun fighting/talking with everyone, but I'm done now.
My support of the war isn't going to change. I still don't think the Administration lied. I still think we'll probably find WMD in Iraq. And, most importantly I say anyone who actually thinks Saddam didn't have any weapons within months of the war is forming a position which flies in the face of all logic and reason.
Have fun all! It's break time for SDW!
First, I thought Iraq destroyed them when asked. There wasn't a big deal. They said 'no', but ultimately did it anyway.
They started destroying them, very slowly. Just one of dozens of unresolved issues.
Second, I thought the missles didn't fly past the limit, but the UN inspectors said some of them might because they were so close to the range. Either a strong wind, better fuel burn or whatever could potentially push some missles a few extra miles, and that's why they were ordered destroyed.
The missiles were tested by Iraq past the limits allowed and they were larger than allowed (large enough to allow additional engines to the missiles, increasing its range).
I don't know where this argument is coming from though, because I wasn't here to see it start.
Then perhaps you shouldn't respond to every goddam thing I say as if it's directed at you. I'm not a moderator anymore, you can cut off your unhealthy obsession with me.
You see "tonton" above the last post? You're not tonton, tonton is.
the president and the administration are on the line to find WoMD's.
he did not equivocate in his state of the union. he didn't say maybe, or sources think.... he said they were there and they were an immediate threat to the united states.
in a short period of time he went from saying iraq was pursuing a program to having a program in place.
i'm beginning to think iraq was not about WoMD's, or oil, but a smokescreen or misdirection from the administrations failure to act on intelligence prior to 9/11.
Originally posted by groverat
Then perhaps you shouldn't respond to every goddam thing I say as if it's directed at you.
I know it's not directed at me, but it's a public forum.
It's only when you're wrong that I respond, and I agree, that must feel like it's every goddamn thing you say.
Originally posted by SDW2001
There is no one person today that can say with a straight face that Iraq disarmed cooperatively and fully.
The argument is really if they were disarmed to the point of no longer being a threat. I think we're finding out that Iraq was not a threat, and thus, effectively disarmed.