The argument made at the web site is that a drone with a range of 300 miles is not threat to a country 6000 miles away. Obviously if you had such a drone and you wanted to attack a country with it you would LAUNCH IT FROM A MUCH CLOSER DISTANCE. So their argument is bullshit.
So if my neighbour hates Bush and you believe he has made a gun out of a piece of wood he is a obvious threath to your prez? Don´t you need to show what he would benefit from it? How he plans to get it into short distance of him?And show he actually know how to fire the gun?. And show it actually works? And exists? Or are presidents above argumentation like that?
#2 is wrong mainly because the brits still stand by their claim that Iraq was trying to by stuff from Africa.
from ccr:
Quote:
(C)_ Statements.
(1)__ On July 14, 2003, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Britain?s evidence was not based on the forged documents, contending that it had come from another country. He also claimed that U.S. intelligence had not yet seen it. [Reuters, 7/14/03]
(2)__ In a late July 2003 statement, Britain?s Foreign office said that it had intelligence ?from more than one source.? [BBC, 7/30/03]
(D)_ Evidence suggesting that such evidence did not exist
(1)___ Reports.
(a)___ Reuters reported in late March 2003: ?The IAEA asked the U.S. and Britain if they had any other evidence backing the claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium. The answer was no.? [Reuters, 3/26/03]
(b)__ The Washington Post reported, ?An informed U.N. official said the United States and Britain were repeatedly asked for all information they had to support the charge. Neither government, the official said, ?ever indicated that they had any information on any other country?.? [Washington Post, 3/22/03]
(c)___ When the IAEA asked Britain to supply evidence to back its claims, Blair?s government refused, arguing that it had come from a third country which had requested anonymity. But according to the international legislation which had sent the agency?s inspectors to investigate Iraq's nuclear capabilities, all signatory countries were required to cooperate with the IAEA. And as critics have noted, there was ?no exemption for countries that claim evidence was provided by a third party?. [Independent, 7/17/03]
(2)__ Statements
(a)___ Melissa Fleming, spokesperson for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
(i)_________________ In mid-July 2003, she told Reuters that the IAEA suspected that London?s assertions had been entirely based on the alleged transaction referred to in the forged documents. [Reuters, 7/14/03]
(b)__ Unnamed Western diplomat.
(i)_________________ Reuters reported: ?A Western diplomat close to the IAEA said the agency had the impression the evidence that Britain said was genuine was ultimately referring to the same alleged transaction described in a series of fake documents.? The news agency quoted the diplomat explaining, ?I understand that it concerned the same group of documents and the same transaction.? [Reuters, 7/14/03]
(c)___ Unnamed Western diplomat
(i)_________________ ?Despite requests, the British Government has provided no such evidence. Senior officials at the agency think it is involved in an information black-out.? [Independent, 7/17/03]
#2 is wrong mainly because the brits still stand by their claim that Iraq was trying to by stuff from Africa.
So if I claimed the earth was flat and sat on the shield of a turtle it would not be wrong unless I changed my mind?
Give it up Scott. Uran from Niger is useless because there is no refinement process done in Niger on Uran. So what they would have gotten was a lot of stones with a bit of Uranium in it. Would not be useful for Iraq for anything but perhaps gravel.
Give it up Scott. Uran from Niger is useless because there is no refinement process done in Niger on Uran. So what they would have gotten was a lot of stones with a bit of Uranium in it. Would not be useful for Iraq for anything but perhaps gravel.
Or as ammo in a slingshot - another deadly WoMD from Saddams satanic skunkworks - the nuclear slingshot
Uran from Niger is useless because there is no refinement process done in Niger on Uran. So what they would have gotten was a lot of stones with a bit of Uranium in it. Would not be useful for Iraq for anything but perhaps gravel.
Obviously they were going to drop radioactive gravel from the unmanned aeroplanes thus causing a 'slow burn' cancer effect on Bush and the rest of his clan.
Or as ammo in a slingshot - another deadly WoMD from Saddams satanic skunkworks - the nuclear slingshot
"Through the intelligens network we have formed among the Coalition of the Willing we have learned that the Iraqis have been developing a high tech weapon that use mechanical propulsion__to launch nuclear attacks that target individuals like high ranking individuals in US. Our sattelites can´t track it because of its small size and it can be smuggled through airport security becuase no metals have been used in its production. In other words: They are threatening the life of our president directly"
The argument made at the web site is that a drone with a range of 300 miles is not threat to a country 6000 miles away. Obviously if you had such a drone and you wanted to attack a country with it you would LAUNCH IT FROM A MUCH CLOSER DISTANCE. So their argument is bullshit.
Well, OK!
So. Where are the drones, then? Or the 'manned air vee-hickles?'
Or the evidence that they were either intending to make them or use them?
(Don't mind me. I'm just warming up a bit. I take my work as a dancer and choreographer seriously.)
"Through the intelligens network we have formed among the Coalition of the Willing we have learned that the Iraqis have been developing a high tech weapon that use mechanical propulsion__to launch nuclear attacks that target individuals like high ranking individuals in US. Our sattelites can´t track it because of its small size and it can be smuggled through airport security becuase no metals have been used in its production. In other words: They are threatening the life of our president directly"
#3 takes Cheney out of context. If I remember several times in the interview he said "nuclear weapons program". But the one time out of 6 he doesn't finish the thought and put the "program" on it become a "lie".
Isn't it lying when you quote someone out of context?
And how does the absence of the word 'program' in a Cheney proclamation make a difference here? I quote from the article: "CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program."
Uhm even Condo Rice has publicly acknowledged (around the 23rd of july) that this was false information...
Well, that's all right then. Anyway, how *could* she have known? It's not her job now, is it?
And apart from anything else, what are you all on about, now that the Iraq scenario is going so well? As we all knew it would
I cannot hide a certain satisfaction that the Scotts and groverats of this world will be paying the bill for this fiasco for some time to come. Talk about gullibility
Uhm even Condo Rice has publicly acknowledged (around the 23rd of july) that this was false information...
Bush's statement was and I quote from the site so let's hope they got it right, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.". That has always been and remains to this day 100% true. The British information is not dependent on the forged documents. As giant posted below they have alternate sources of information that they used to come to that conclusion. So Bush did not lie when he said that.
Also the web site linked to is lying when they say "This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA." That FALSE! The statement was based on information that the Brits could not show because they had agreed to keep it under wraps.
So if I claimed the earth was flat and sat on the shield of a turtle it would not be wrong unless I changed my mind?
No but if the Brits claimed the earth was flat, had proof of it that they couldn't show you, then later you said, "The British have evidence that the earth is flat" you'd be correct. It's not rocket science. It's just unbias analysis of the statement.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Give it up Scott. Uran from Niger is useless because there is no refinement process done in Niger on Uran. So what they would have gotten was a lot of stones with a bit of Uranium in it. Would not be useful for Iraq for anything but perhaps gravel.
Refinement is irrelevant to the argument. In that one statement Bush made no claim about refinement. So why bring it up here?
So. Where are the drones, then? Or the 'manned air vee-hickles?'
Or the evidence that they were either intending to make them or use them?
(Don't mind me. I'm just warming up a bit. I take my work as a dancer and choreographer seriously.)
Um? THEY WERE FOUND! Here's one news link I found. Not an impressive one. After finding them we may not think they are that impressive but we don't know what they are before we see them. I don't remember them being shown to Blix.
And how does the absence of the word 'program' in a Cheney proclamation make a difference here? I quote from the article: "CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program."
Cheney is stating what the admin believes, "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.". He didn't say, "We have solid proof [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." The only way he could be lying is if he didn't believe it and then later said that he did.
No but if the Brits claimed the earth was flat, had proof of it that they couldn't show you, then later you said, "The British have evidence that the earth is flat" you'd be correct. It's not rocket science. It's just unbias analysis of the statement.
Wow. Just, wow. I don't usually get into this sort of thing, but this statement just blew me away.
"I" have proof you're grasping at straws, but I can't show you.
Can somebody here back me with an unbiased, correct analysis?
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
The argument made at the web site is that a drone with a range of 300 miles is not threat to a country 6000 miles away. Obviously if you had such a drone and you wanted to attack a country with it you would LAUNCH IT FROM A MUCH CLOSER DISTANCE. So their argument is bullshit.
So if my neighbour hates Bush and you believe he has made a gun out of a piece of wood he is a obvious threath to your prez? Don´t you need to show what he would benefit from it? How he plans to get it into short distance of him?And show he actually know how to fire the gun?. And show it actually works? And exists? Or are presidents above argumentation like that?
Originally posted by Scott
#2 is wrong mainly because the brits still stand by their claim that Iraq was trying to by stuff from Africa.
Uhm even Condo Rice has publicly acknowledged (around the 23rd of july) that this was false information...
Originally posted by Scott
#2 is wrong mainly because the brits still stand by their claim that Iraq was trying to by stuff from Africa.
from ccr:
(C)_ Statements.
(1)__ On July 14, 2003, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Britain?s evidence was not based on the forged documents, contending that it had come from another country. He also claimed that U.S. intelligence had not yet seen it. [Reuters, 7/14/03]
(2)__ In a late July 2003 statement, Britain?s Foreign office said that it had intelligence ?from more than one source.? [BBC, 7/30/03]
(D)_ Evidence suggesting that such evidence did not exist
(1)___ Reports.
(a)___ Reuters reported in late March 2003: ?The IAEA asked the U.S. and Britain if they had any other evidence backing the claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium. The answer was no.? [Reuters, 3/26/03]
(b)__ The Washington Post reported, ?An informed U.N. official said the United States and Britain were repeatedly asked for all information they had to support the charge. Neither government, the official said, ?ever indicated that they had any information on any other country?.? [Washington Post, 3/22/03]
(c)___ When the IAEA asked Britain to supply evidence to back its claims, Blair?s government refused, arguing that it had come from a third country which had requested anonymity. But according to the international legislation which had sent the agency?s inspectors to investigate Iraq's nuclear capabilities, all signatory countries were required to cooperate with the IAEA. And as critics have noted, there was ?no exemption for countries that claim evidence was provided by a third party?. [Independent, 7/17/03]
(2)__ Statements
(a)___ Melissa Fleming, spokesperson for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
(i)_________________ In mid-July 2003, she told Reuters that the IAEA suspected that London?s assertions had been entirely based on the alleged transaction referred to in the forged documents. [Reuters, 7/14/03]
(b)__ Unnamed Western diplomat.
(i)_________________ Reuters reported: ?A Western diplomat close to the IAEA said the agency had the impression the evidence that Britain said was genuine was ultimately referring to the same alleged transaction described in a series of fake documents.? The news agency quoted the diplomat explaining, ?I understand that it concerned the same group of documents and the same transaction.? [Reuters, 7/14/03]
(c)___ Unnamed Western diplomat
(i)_________________ ?Despite requests, the British Government has provided no such evidence. Senior officials at the agency think it is involved in an information black-out.? [Independent, 7/17/03]
Originally posted by Scott
#2 is wrong mainly because the brits still stand by their claim that Iraq was trying to by stuff from Africa.
So if I claimed the earth was flat and sat on the shield of a turtle it would not be wrong unless I changed my mind?
Give it up Scott. Uran from Niger is useless because there is no refinement process done in Niger on Uran. So what they would have gotten was a lot of stones with a bit of Uranium in it. Would not be useful for Iraq for anything but perhaps gravel.
Originally posted by Anders
Give it up Scott. Uran from Niger is useless because there is no refinement process done in Niger on Uran. So what they would have gotten was a lot of stones with a bit of Uranium in it. Would not be useful for Iraq for anything but perhaps gravel.
Or as ammo in a slingshot - another deadly WoMD from Saddams satanic skunkworks - the nuclear slingshot
Originally posted by Anders
Uran from Niger is useless because there is no refinement process done in Niger on Uran. So what they would have gotten was a lot of stones with a bit of Uranium in it. Would not be useful for Iraq for anything but perhaps gravel.
Obviously they were going to drop radioactive gravel from the unmanned aeroplanes thus causing a 'slow burn' cancer effect on Bush and the rest of his clan.
Originally posted by Smircle
Or as ammo in a slingshot - another deadly WoMD from Saddams satanic skunkworks - the nuclear slingshot
"Through the intelligens network we have formed among the Coalition of the Willing we have learned that the Iraqis have been developing a high tech weapon that use mechanical propulsion__to launch nuclear attacks that target individuals like high ranking individuals in US. Our sattelites can´t track it because of its small size and it can be smuggled through airport security becuase no metals have been used in its production. In other words: They are threatening the life of our president directly"
Originally posted by Scott
The argument made at the web site is that a drone with a range of 300 miles is not threat to a country 6000 miles away. Obviously if you had such a drone and you wanted to attack a country with it you would LAUNCH IT FROM A MUCH CLOSER DISTANCE. So their argument is bullshit.
Well, OK!
So. Where are the drones, then? Or the 'manned air vee-hickles?'
Or the evidence that they were either intending to make them or use them?
(Don't mind me. I'm just warming up a bit. I take my work as a dancer and choreographer seriously.)
Originally posted by Anders
"Through the intelligens network we have formed among the Coalition of the Willing we have learned that the Iraqis have been developing a high tech weapon that use mechanical propulsion__to launch nuclear attacks that target individuals like high ranking individuals in US. Our sattelites can´t track it because of its small size and it can be smuggled through airport security becuase no metals have been used in its production. In other words: They are threatening the life of our president directly"
There's a wholelotta gloatin' goin' on.
Originally posted by Scott
#3 takes Cheney out of context. If I remember several times in the interview he said "nuclear weapons program". But the one time out of 6 he doesn't finish the thought and put the "program" on it become a "lie".
Isn't it lying when you quote someone out of context?
And how does the absence of the word 'program' in a Cheney proclamation make a difference here? I quote from the article: "CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program."
Originally posted by The Blue Meanie
And how does the absence of the word 'program' in a Cheney proclamation make a difference here?
Because Scott say so.
Originally posted by Smircle
Uhm even Condo Rice has publicly acknowledged (around the 23rd of july) that this was false information...
Well, that's all right then. Anyway, how *could* she have known? It's not her job now, is it?
And apart from anything else, what are you all on about, now that the Iraq scenario is going so well? As we all knew it would
I cannot hide a certain satisfaction that the Scotts and groverats of this world will be paying the bill for this fiasco for some time to come. Talk about gullibility
- T.I.
Originally posted by The Blue Meanie
And how does the absence of the word 'program' in a Cheney proclamation make a difference here?
It doesn't.
Originally posted by Smircle
Uhm even Condo Rice has publicly acknowledged (around the 23rd of july) that this was false information...
Bush's statement was and I quote from the site so let's hope they got it right, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.". That has always been and remains to this day 100% true. The British information is not dependent on the forged documents. As giant posted below they have alternate sources of information that they used to come to that conclusion. So Bush did not lie when he said that.
Also the web site linked to is lying when they say "This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA." That FALSE! The statement was based on information that the Brits could not show because they had agreed to keep it under wraps.
Originally posted by Anders
So if I claimed the earth was flat and sat on the shield of a turtle it would not be wrong unless I changed my mind?
No but if the Brits claimed the earth was flat, had proof of it that they couldn't show you, then later you said, "The British have evidence that the earth is flat" you'd be correct. It's not rocket science. It's just unbias analysis of the statement.
Originally posted by Anders
Give it up Scott. Uran from Niger is useless because there is no refinement process done in Niger on Uran. So what they would have gotten was a lot of stones with a bit of Uranium in it. Would not be useful for Iraq for anything but perhaps gravel.
Refinement is irrelevant to the argument. In that one statement Bush made no claim about refinement. So why bring it up here?
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Well, OK!
So. Where are the drones, then? Or the 'manned air vee-hickles?'
Or the evidence that they were either intending to make them or use them?
(Don't mind me. I'm just warming up a bit. I take my work as a dancer and choreographer seriously.)
Um? THEY WERE FOUND! Here's one news link I found. Not an impressive one. After finding them we may not think they are that impressive but we don't know what they are before we see them. I don't remember them being shown to Blix.
Originally posted by The Blue Meanie
And how does the absence of the word 'program' in a Cheney proclamation make a difference here? I quote from the article: "CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program."
Cheney is stating what the admin believes, "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.". He didn't say, "We have solid proof [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." The only way he could be lying is if he didn't believe it and then later said that he did.
Originally posted by Scott
No but if the Brits claimed the earth was flat, had proof of it that they couldn't show you, then later you said, "The British have evidence that the earth is flat" you'd be correct. It's not rocket science. It's just unbias analysis of the statement.
Wow. Just, wow. I don't usually get into this sort of thing, but this statement just blew me away.
"I" have proof you're grasping at straws, but I can't show you.
Can somebody here back me with an unbiased, correct analysis?