|
Grex > Agora47 > #195: Is that Air Force one? No. It's a Gulfstream. | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 101 responses total. |
mcnally
|
|
response 75 of 101:
| 
Dec 4 21:41 UTC 2003 |
Since the actual data was too super-secret to show us, lest it reveal the
identity of intelligence sources (which, of course, the administration
would never, never do..) I suppose it might be a bit of a misstatement to
say that "data" was misrepresented when most of the flagrant distortions
concerned second-hand analyses of data, for which the source material was
never publicly revealed.
Nevertheless claims about Saddam's alleged attempts to purchase uranium
from Niger and about the lack of non-nuclear applications for the aluminum
tubes purchased by the Iraqis were presented as fact by the administration
and have been widely and credibly debunked. Furthermore, in the aftermath
of the war, truth values of many of the claims made by Bush and his
advisors appear increasingly dubious although the claims themselves are
not (yet) provably false.
But hey, I'm drifting here. Let's hear more about Turkeygate.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 76 of 101:
|
Dec 4 23:04 UTC 2003 |
It took me two readings to grok that.
Definitely time for my morning coffee.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 77 of 101:
|
Dec 5 00:10 UTC 2003 |
re #76: I'd better tone it down a bit, then. If it was tough on you,
I can only imagine the effect on klg..
|
klg
|
|
response 78 of 101:
|
Dec 5 01:52 UTC 2003 |
Not to worry, Mr. mcnally. Evidently, you missed the news concerning
Saddam's payment to N. Korea for nuclear weapon technology. You
probably also missed the recent article in the Weekly Standard which
demonstrated the extensive cooperation among Saddam and al Quaeda.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 79 of 101:
|
Dec 5 02:05 UTC 2003 |
Yes, the turkey was a for-show-only centerpiece. That Bush chose to
have his picture taken with the pretty bird instead of a drab but edible
one is relevent to the extent that much of this item (as well as the
larger public commentary)has been devoted to discussing whether the Iraq
trip was out of concern "for the troops", or for the opportunity to
plaster America with pretty pictures of the president pretending to be
showing concern for the troops.
Good food--good for troops. Pretty picture--good for Bush, useless for
troops.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 80 of 101:
|
Dec 5 02:09 UTC 2003 |
re 78: Would that be this Weekly Standard article?
http://tinyurl.com/xsz4
(excerpt):
When the whole manipulated intelligence story started to blow up this
summer, Feith coyly told a gaggle of reporters at the Pentagon that his
group had come up ?some interesting observations about the linkages
between Iraq and al Qaeda.?
But the real analysts didn?t share his enthusiasm.
In August 2002, on instructions from Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld, the folks from Feith?s shop went out to Langley to brief the
CIA on what they?d come up with. And the professional analysts at CIA
(and subsequently those in other branches of the intelligence community)
didn?t think their work passed the laugh-test.
Feith?s shop?s findings turned out to a classic example of what Intel
professionals call ?cherry-picking? ? culling through the sheaves of raw
data to find the bits and pieces that confirm the desired conclusion
while ignoring everything that tends to refute it and all the while
turning a credulous eye to unreliable sources.
?If anybody doubted that there was such a thing as intelligence with a
[predetermined] purpose, this is a case study,? says retired CIA
intelligence analyst Larry Johnson. ?Just because someone says something
and it gets ?classified? stamped on it, doesn?t necessarily mean it?s true.?
Now, let?s go back and ask: What?s the background of this memo on which
the Standard piece is based? As the article reports, the memo, dated
Oct. 27, was sent from Feith to Sens. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Jay
Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) The article further says it was written in
response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation
into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration.
In other words, the committee asked Feith to back up his outlandish
claims about connections between Saddam and al Qaeda and he forwarded
them a copy of his shop?s dossier ? pretty much the same one the
professional analysts in the intelligence community decided more than a
year ago was barely worth the paper it was written on.
|
klg
|
|
response 81 of 101:
|
Dec 5 02:36 UTC 2003 |
No, sir. It would be the issue of approximately 3 weeks ago, based on
a report to the Joint Intelligence Committee which documented 50 cases
of substantial contact between the two parties.
|
bru
|
|
response 82 of 101:
|
Dec 5 03:54 UTC 2003 |
You forget that teh previous president and the United Nations all agreed that
the Iraqi's were workign adn had access to weapons of mass destruction. It
isn't just George Bush and his administration that got pulled in.
|
gull
|
|
response 83 of 101:
|
Dec 5 14:32 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 84 of 101:
|
Dec 5 14:33 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:82: Though it seems to me the UN inspectors asked us for more
time, and we denied it. Now Bush keeps telling us that we'll find the
weapons, we'll find evidence of links to terrorism, we just need more
time. How ironic.
|
klg
|
|
response 85 of 101:
|
Dec 5 17:24 UTC 2003 |
We cannot find Saddam. We cannot find WMD.
If we cannot find Saddam, If we cannot find WMD,
then he never existed. then WMD never existed.
Therefore, Saddam never existed. Therefore, WMD never existed.
Makes sense.
Mr. gull-
The links to terrorism have been found and documented.
|
slynne
|
|
response 86 of 101:
|
Dec 5 20:08 UTC 2003 |
Here is the difference. While we have not actually found Saddam, we
have found *evidence* that he existed. There were a bunch of statues
and lots of people who actually saw him. Not to mention countless
images on Iraqi TV up until the point where the US entered Bagdhad.
I think if there were similar evidence of WMD, no one would have issues
about this. It seems as if containment was working and this war (this
very expensive war) was not needed.
|
gull
|
|
response 87 of 101:
|
Dec 5 20:17 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:85: Nice try. But the question wasn't whether WMD *ever*
existed in Iraq. The question was whether they existed *at the time*.
The purpose of the war was to eliminate the threat from those weapons.
If they had already been dismantled, the justification for the war was
faulty.
|
klg
|
|
response 88 of 101:
|
Dec 5 20:41 UTC 2003 |
Ms. slynne,
There is LOADS AND LOADS of evidence that Saddam had WMD. (Where have
you been??)
re: "#87 (gull): . . . If they had already been dismantled, the
justification for the war was faulty. . . ."
Or, to be accurate, "a portion of the justification for the war may not
have been entirely correct."
|
gull
|
|
response 89 of 101:
|
Dec 5 20:53 UTC 2003 |
The portion that actually made sense. The other justification the
President gave was "he's an evil man," which while true is also true of
the leaders of any number of other countries -- some of which are our
allies. That makes the decision to invade Iraq look pretty arbitrary.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 90 of 101:
|
Dec 5 22:54 UTC 2003 |
we know that saddam exists because we have seen pictures of
vice chancellor rumsfeld eagerly shaking hands with him
|
mcnally
|
|
response 91 of 101:
|
Dec 5 23:56 UTC 2003 |
Hmmm.. In klg bizarro-logic, that ties Rumsfeld to al Qaeda!
|
happyboy
|
|
response 92 of 101:
|
Dec 6 00:14 UTC 2003 |
it's not so bizzare, this administration probably LOVES
al-qaeda in a political way.
|
willcome
|
|
response 93 of 101:
|
Dec 6 06:53 UTC 2003 |
i think i should try scientology for life experience; what do you think?
|
twenex
|
|
response 94 of 101:
|
Dec 6 10:02 UTC 2003 |
"Vice-chancellor" Rumsfeld???
|
klg
|
|
response 95 of 101:
|
Dec 7 03:30 UTC 2003 |
(A new term used by those with a pathological hatred of the current
president?)
re: "#89 (gull) The portion that actually made sense. The other
justification the President gave was "he's an evil man," which while
true is also true of the leaders of any number of other countries --
some of which are our allies. That makes the decision to invade Iraq
look pretty arbitrary."
Ah, yes. It is o.k. for President Clinton to send Gen. Weasley Clark
to protect the Albanians in Kosovo from Milosovec, but, of course, a
Republican president can't do the same in Iraq.
|
scott
|
|
response 96 of 101:
|
Dec 7 14:58 UTC 2003 |
Refresh our memory, klg... when did Clinton send hundreds of thousands of
troops into Albania? When did Clinton make false WMD claims agains Milosovec?
|
keesan
|
|
response 97 of 101:
|
Dec 7 15:10 UTC 2003 |
Milosevic, with a little v over the s and a short ' over the c.
Czech names end in -ec, not Serbian ones.
|
klg
|
|
response 98 of 101:
|
Dec 7 22:31 UTC 2003 |
(we beg your pardon)
|
gull
|
|
response 99 of 101:
|
Dec 9 15:24 UTC 2003 |
Here's an interesting poll taken by the Program on International Policy
Attitudes, Nov. 21-30:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/qnnaire_12_03.pdf
Some highlights:
- 55% think going to war with Iraq was the right decision. 41% think it
was the wrong decision. They also show results from the past six
months, and the gap has been narrowing.
- 75% think the most important thing for the U.S. to do as part of a war
on terrorism is to capture Osama Bin Laden and break up al-Qaeda. Only
21% think the most important thing is to capture Saddam Hussein and
establish democracy in Iraq.
- 71% think the UN should take the lead in building a democratic
government in Iraq. 26% think the US should take the lead.
- 56% don't think the war with Iraq will result in greater peace and
stability in the Middle East. 39% think it will. This just about
reverses the percentages from a 5/03 poll.
- Bush is trailing an unnamed Democratic nominee by six points in the
"if the election were held today" question.
There are a lot of other interesting tidbits in the full document,
including some comparisons between U.S. and world opinion.
|