Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?

Page 7 of 13  


Eventually, maybe, yes. In the meantime, let's burn fuels that we can produce here - domestic oil, or better yet, biofuels.

I'd rather give money to the USA'n farmers than to the arabs, anyone else?
Dave Hinz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Problem is that US demand is quite a bit higher than US production, even when you factor in the biofuels. We *must* reduce demand -- our dependence on Middle East petroleum jeopardizes our national security.

Can't argue with you there. Not much, anyway. Trouble is, if we stop buying oil from the Arabs, we're gonna run out pretty quickly -- which raises *another* national security issue: the depletion of our own supplies. As long as our demand remains as high as it is, we're actually better off buying oil from the Middle East than consuming our own. If the oil is running out, better _for_us_ that we use up the Arabs' oil, than use up ours. If we use ours up first, before we've created technologies to replace the gasoline-fueled internal combustion engine, then we *must* buy from the Arabs, and they will be able to extort whatever they wish from us.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It seems unlikely that he lied about that. Mostly he says he remembers very little, booze does that.

As noted below, that was Niger, not Nigeria and if you know what one is supposed to call a citizen of Niger, please let us know.

Depends on the definition of links. Sort of like the definition of 'is' issue.

Misleading if not a lie. While it is true that he used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds and it is true that the had chemical weapons in the 1990s, he used chemical weapons agains the Kurds, and against Iran, in the 1980s.
Iraq admitted to producing VX after 1991. Iraq also claimed to have destroyed it. UNMOVIC found residues at the disposal site to confirm that VX was destroyed there, though the amount could not be determined.
There has been no evidence of continued production of WMDs after the mid-1990s.

We do not know what the intel organizations concluded, only what their governments said.
Even that statement while true as late as 2002 is false in reference to 2003 once UNMOVIC inspections resumed. At least some people, after getting the inspections they demanded, had the honesty and integrity to respect the conclusions of those inspectors.

Conspicuous by its absence is the date of that remark. Dunno if the quote is accurate but yes, as late as Fall 2002 he believed it. The 2003 UNMOVIC inspections showed otherwise whether Kerry accepted that or not.

Not according to the IAEA and UNMOVIC in 2003. Blix described the degree of Iraqi cooperation in 2003 as 'unprecedented'. They had no problems inspecting sites. That's not quite true, they had a major problem with interference by the US. We kept feeding UNMOVIC false informaition, keeping UNMOVIC on a wild goose chase and preventing them from getting on with their work. One UNMOVIC inspector refered to the US intelligence as 'shit'.
The IAEA certified that Iraq was in comliance with the ban on nuclear weapons programs, and also pointed out that the US had tried to foist forged documents on them. WHile it is true that the US did not forge those documents (just like CBS did not forge those memos) it is also true that no one who saw them has ever publicly climed that they thought the were anything but forgeries. There is no question that the US knew they were forgeries when Rice was publicly chiding IAEA for not acting on the information contained therein.
One of the most pernicious lies about the UNMOVIC inspections is the lie that Iraq resisted and interfered with the inspection. No inspector made any such claim. Whereas there was considerable resistance to the UN weapons inspection program prior to 2000 there was none in 2003. It is completely dishonest to claim Iraqi resistance prior to 2000 as justification for the 2003 invasion, given the Iraqi cooperation in 2003 with UNMOVIC.

I don't have access to those debriefings. I doubt that you do either. What is your source, please be specific, I'd like to check it out. ...

One sarin (note spelling) shell (singular). Another (one) mustard shell was discovered laying by the roadside. It would appear that both were mistaken for HE by the insurgents. It is reasonable to presume that there are more, not so reasonable to conclude that a tactically significant stockpile exists now or existed at the start of the invasion. the fact that these were used or evidently inteded for use as an IED indicates that they were stocked with ordinary HE shells. We've been told that Iraq did not mark their chemical munitions differently from conventional so these may have been lost in inventory, mistakenly stocked with HE. Not something I'd count on.
Had the insurgents used HE instead, they might have hurt someone with it.

Non Sequitor. A small amount of chemical munitions is tactically useless.
More noteworthy is that the sarin shell was a binary munition. I personally have never read anywhere that Iraq was suspected of having produced binary munitions. Could it have been Soviet or South African, like the Iraqi artillery? Could it have been American? The origins of that one sarin shell is a pretty important issue that appears to have been completely ignored, as well as the probablilty that it was not unique.
One of the reassurances that we had prior to the invasion, that Iraq had no chemical weapons was the widely held belief that Iraqi chemical munitions (aside from mustard) suffered from impurities that adversely affected their longevity so that any stockpiles that might have been hidden for 12 years were useless anyhow. However binary sarin is long-lived.

Great Britain was also caught changing the dates on information plagiarized from pre-1990 documents and rereleasing it as if it was new information.
It is pretty well established that Iraq did recently send envoys to Niger to discuss imports. Though thus far no evidence that yellow- cake was discussed, has surfaced it does seem unlikely, as others have noted, that Iraq was interested in importing Niger's number two export product, goats. But no one ever claimed that Saddam Hussein could be trusted or that Iraq could not resume WMD production if it could. That was one of Bush's lies. The claim was that Iraq had not and could not resume WMD production. That claim was validated by the UNMOVIC inspections in 2003 and had been further validated since then:
http://www.hindu.com/2004/09/20/stories/2004092001991400.htm

The commisson concluded that there were some number of meetings between Iraqi officials and Al Quaida. ISTR that number was three or less. There is a clear lack of evidence for cooperation, coordination or material support of either by the other. Calling a couple of meetings 'longstanding ties' with no evidence that the meetings led to any kind of cooperation strikes me as dishonest.
To claim that the Iraq/AL Quaida connection, such that is was, justified the invasion rather stongly implies more than just talk between them, no?
Talking with our enemies hardly justifies war.

I dunno how anyone can fix the mess that is now Iraq. Clearly the insurgency will continue as long as there are foreign troops on Iraqi soil and it remains to be seen if civil war will erupt if foreign troops leave. Changing those troops to French or German even those of another Muslim nation won't help.
What Kerry has going for him over Bush is that Bush made this particular mess, not Kerry. An incumbant either has an advantage or disadvantage based on what he has accomplished in his term.

I think the work being done on catalytic cracking of light alcohols for 2H2 O2 --> 2H2O fuel cells is promising. We can grow some of our fuel. But I suppose that makes me wild-eyed tree hugger or some such.
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Two points: 1. The UN never found the weapons hidden after the first Gulf War for something like 2 years? They had to rely on defectors to tell them where they were hidden. 2. What did they have to hide in 2000? What about Powell's testimony of all the audio clips showing the Iraqi generals trying to hide stuff from the inspectors? Is that just two Iraqi military personnel talking to each other for fun?
dwhite
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Iraqi resistance to the UN spections prior to 2000 is well-documented. Iraq was acting like a country with something to hide. Not so in 2003.
2. What did they have to hide in 2000?
Diddley squat.

Can you direct me to transcripts of those conversatios, preferreably translated by a neutral third party?
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

trying
You really think the admin would be so stupid, with all the Dan Rathers out there, to falsify the translation of the Iraqi conversations? You don't think by now we would have heard a firestorm if there were the least bit of suspicion there? Sheesh, you have to take some things as fact or you just get ridiculous. Didn't you see the testimony? It was all pretty clear.
dwhite
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

1) Obviously there is no danger of anyone challenging the administration's interpretation if neither the tapes nor a transcript are released. But IF the administration has thus far stonewalled on releasing the tapes or a transcripts then we do have prima facia evidence that the administration has something to hide. Obviously they may wish to hide anything on the tapes that would compromise US assets, but one supposes they could be expurgated to accompish that without losing the relevent evidentiary value assuming there was any in the first place.
2) If Powell does not speak fluent Iraqi-Arabic, then he maintains plausible deniability even if the conversation is found to be less imciminating than he claims.

His testimony on the Medusa (clone) missle tubes was very clear. It was also patently false to fact.
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What did he lie about? Bush filed his F180 that discloses his record. Where's Kerry's record? Oh yeah, he won't let us see it. Do you really know anything about Bush's TANG record? If you got past the political stuff you'd see that he had a good career over 6 years. They didn't even fly the planes he was trained on in Alabama, for one. Read up on it a little instead of just throwing out DNC talking points.

What did he lie about? Are you sure the book is closed on this issue? Last I heard Britain was still backing this intelligence, and other news has been leaking out that this did, in fact, happen. Since when does potentially faulty intel = lying? One guy says the intel wasn't strong enough to come out with and that automatically makes Bush a liar?

Huh? Who's in Iraq beheading Americans and Brits as we speak? Al Qaeda was all over Iraq. How can you not know this? The list of countries in which they were operating in that region reads like an atlas. Do you expect us to believe they were in just about every country except Iraq?
dwhite
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How many times do you recall Bush saying that those of us who were opposed to the 2003 invasion of Iraq thought that Saddam Hussein could be trusted? That was a lie. I did not think Saddam Hussein could be trusted, and I do not know anyone who did. Do you?
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

have
remember?)
In a way, you, for one. You just said they didn't resist the UN in 2003. The implication is that they had nothing to hide and so must not really have any WMDs. So you are trusting SH's word that they have nothing to hide. This is really moot because SH DID NOT provide unfettered access to the UN at any time. In a country where it is truly impossible to prove that there are no WMD's, you have to trust SH's word on it to believe that they don't exist.
I doubt Bush ever said that everybody opposed to the invasion necessarily trusts SH. Even if he did, this is not a lie. It is a point of view, an opinion. I think some people who think they do not trust SH really are doing so without even knowing it. If this is the best lie you can come up with you are stretching it.
dwhite
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, not I.

UNMOVIC says they met with no resistance. I simply accept that on its face. Your argument that Iraq had nothing to hide goes well beyond observable fact, because one cannot observe nothing. OTOH, if one searches for chemical weapons, polutant residues in the soil and water, manufacturing facilities, unused feedstocks, and byproducts and finds nothing it is reasonable to conclude that there are no significant stockpiles of WMD becuase the effort required to hide them was clearly beyond the capability of the available infrastructure.
That there were no stockpiles of WMDs was an implication of the UNMOVIC findings.

No. I refute the lie that Iraq resisted UNMOVIC in 2003. Can you show evidence that Iraq resisted UNMOVIC in 2003?

NOT according to IAEA or UNMOVIC. The reports by the IAEA and UNMOVIC to the UN back that up. Can you present anythig to back up your claim?

Non Sequitor.
You are confabulating separable issues. One is the false claim that Iraq resisted UNMOVIC in 2003. That is entirely separate from the claim that Iraq had WMDs.
I did not have to trust Saddam Hussein to argue against the invasion of Iraq.
I did not have to believe that Iraq was free of WMDs to argue against an invasion.
You can Google for my pre-invasion arguments. I'll summarize here:
Nuclear weapons are not in the same class as chemical or biological weapons. a single chemical or biological warhead making it through one's defenses can be expected to do no more harm than a single high explosive shell and is likely to do less. A sigle nuclear warhead making through one's defenses can destroy an entire city or division.
A nuclear weapons program has telltale signs that cannot be hidden. It is clear from Bush's pre-war rhetoric that he knew Iraq did not have nuclear weapons or an active nuclear weapons program.
If Saddam Hussein had chemical or biological weapons he would not dare to use them UNLESS he was invaded because to use them would unite the world against him, it would be a fatal error.
I 'trusted' Saddam Hussein only insomuch as I trusted he wanted to remain in power. The 'unprecedented cooperation' with UNMOVIC in 2003 is evidence to support the notion that he would do anything to stay in power.

You must not have listened to his prewar speeches. He said exactly that, multiple times.

I disagree. He lied about the reasons we had for opposing the invasion.

Agreed. That is because you do not understand the issues.

Supposing I wrote that you have defended Bush by claiming that anything the president says must be true by definition and therefor the President cannot tell a lie. Would I be expressing an opinion, or lying about you?
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

OTOH, someone more skeptical and less credulous than yourself would question whether UNMOVIC was looking in the right places. Obviously the Iraqis would not resist inspections of facilities that they themselves knew to be "clean".

Again, someone more skeptical and less credulous would question whether UNMOVIC was looking in the right places. Iraq's a pretty big place.

It could also be viewed as an indictment of the diligence (or lack thereof) with which UNMOVIC searched for these weapons. Remember, first, that certain UN members, chiefly France, Germany, and Russia, had strong economic interests in keeping Saddam in power, and thus there is some reason to question just how strongly the UN inspectors really wanted to find what they were supposedly looking for. Bear in mind, also, that "not found [not yet, not in Iraq]" is emphatically not the same as "never existed".
[snip]

While this is probably true of chemical agents, with respect to biological agents, you're clearly uninformed. Biological warfare agents can spread *far* beyond the immediate area of attack, and infect a large population. Read a bit about the spread of the black plague through Europe in the Middle Ages, or the 1918 flu epidemic -- then imagine how much farther and faster those diseases can spread, given modern high-speed transportation methods.

I disagree that this is so clear, but that's a question of opinion...

.. this, however, is a question of fact, and your statement is absolute nonsense -- he *already* used chemical weapons, against both the Kurds and the Iranians -- and that didn't "unite the world against him".

Did UNMOVIC search the right places? You and I are seeing the same thing, and attaching two radically different interpretations to it. I see that as evidence that UNMOVIC didn't know where, or how, to look. You see Saddam allowing inspectors to search a particular location, and assume that means he's cooperating with the inspection regime. I see that, and assume that it means he's allowing them to search that particular location because he knows that the stuff they're searching for is not there, because he knows that it's _somewhere_else_.
Which of these interpretations is correct?
I don't know -- but _you_don't_know_either_, and it does not appear to me that you have even considered my interpretation, let alone realized that it covers the observed facts just as well as yours does.
Time will tell -- Saddam had twelve years to hide all his toys, and I guess that if another twelve years of searching elapse without anybody finding them, I'll be ready to agree that they were never there. But for now, I think it's best to keep in mind that _apparent_ cooperation is not necessarily _actual_ cooperation, and that are other explanations that also fit the facts.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in message (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

No, someone better informed of the technological issues would understand their implications. What did Iraq do with all the soil and water they contaminated during the production process? Organics do not bind readily to soil particles, they travel longe distances through the environment.
What did Iraq do with all the people who know where the stockpiles are hidden? If they were all killed, what did Iraq do with all the people who killed them?

If you are to judge dilligence by result then you must first abandon logic because neither dilligence nor the lack therof can change the facts. If there are no WMDs then the most dilligent search possible cannot find them. Thus a failure to find them cannot tell us if the search was dilligent or not.

Your first argument cuts both ways. I have no delusions about our politicians being more honest than those in France, Germany, or Russia. Prior to 2003 the contracts for Iraqi oil reserves were owned by the French, Russians, and Chinese. Now they are owned by the US and the UK.
If you feel that the negative findings by UNMOVIC are an indictment of their dilligence then surely you must have an exceptionally poor opinion of the 1800 person US WMD search team that, in 18 months of unfettered access to all of Iraq found even less than UNMOVC did in three.
My opinion is that they both were highly competent.
Incidently, Hans Blix is not French, German, or Russian.

Clearly you have never been informed of the discovery of antibiotics which render the black plague ineffective as a military agent. But if you do not believe me, you will want to be sure to avoid the Southwestern United States where cases are routinely reported on an annual basis.
The Spanish flu, like all flu is caused by a virus. Unlike bacteria which often may be cultured in a nutrient media, and some of which will form spores that can survive for long periods outside of a host viruses will not reproduce outside of a living cell and most have a very short lifetime outside of a living host. One of the reasons the SARS virus is so virulent is that it has an exceptionally long lifetime outside of a host, but even that is (IIRC) a matter of hours not days. Long term preservation of viruses requires cryogenic freezing. Even if Iraq had the capacity to culture and preserve the Spanish Flu Saddam Hussein was also faced with the problem that there are no surviving reference strains.
The most commonly considered biological warfare agent, (though you didn't mention it) is anthrax. Anthrax is cultured realatively easily, it does form long-lived spores that require minimal preservation. But it anthrax does not spread from one infected person to another, only those directly exposed to the spores will be affected and they can be readliy treated with antibiotics. Soldiers exposed to anthrax can be treated and immediately returned to duty. Anthrax has less potential as a weapon than do chemical weapons if used against an army with any reasonable medical support.
You display precisely that technological ignorance that Bush used so effectively to his advantage in the run up to the invasion of Iraq.

It is my opinion that if the Bush administration had evidence that Iraq had fissile material GWB would have said so. Instead, all references to nuclear weapons involved words to the effect of "Saddam Hussein is x months away from have in nuclear weapons if only he had sufficient fissile material." That statement was absolutely true, not only for Iraq, but also for every other nation, most corporations and many individuals.
The issue of observability, is a matter of technological fact, not mere opinion.

At that time Saddam Hussein enjoyed the protection of the United States, both diplomatically in the UN Security council and militarily in theater. His WMD program had the enthusiastic support of the US Department of Commerce, it was good for the American Economy.
Because we have not reverted to that wholly evil Reagan/GHB era policy what I wrote was true of Iraq in 2003, though it was not in 1989.

As discussed above, your argument is a logical fallacy. One cannot judge the dilligence of UNMOVC or the extent of cooperation of Saddam Hussein by the outcome because neither the diligence of UNMOVIC nor cooperation of Saddam Hussein can change the fact of whether or not there were WMDS.
You are using the same argument that is used in the claims for the existance of the Loch Ness Monster, the Yeti, Big Foot, Alien Abductions, Satanic Cults and so on. I do not beleive in any of those.
You simply rephrase Bush's insultingly absurd argument that the failure to find WMDS is the proof they were hidden.

No. I see Saddam Hussein allowing UNMOVIC to search EVERY location they requested. Not 'a (singular) particular location.' Further, I see no evidence that they would have NOT been allowed to search any other location.
You advance from speculation that they might be hidden elsewhere to the conclusion that they are hidden elswehre, without the benefit of intervening evidence.

Your interpretation relies upon the impossibility of proof of a negative hypothesis. It can NEVER be disproven any more that I can prove there are no witches in Salem, Communists in the Pentagon or invisible monsters under your bed.
But it also ignores the forensic capability of modern technology or requires a collosal effort on the part of a decrepit Iraqi technological infrastructure.

The conventional wisdom was that Iraq's WMDs, aside from mustard, were too impure to have a long shelf life. After 12 years they would be worse than useless since firing a dud is worse than firing nothing at all. *I* do not think that Saddam Hussein scrapped whatever WMDs survived the 1991 war out of good will. I think the sanctions effectively prevented Iraq from replacing them.
I'll leave it to you to check back with me in 12 years.
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this, I guess. Our differences can be boiled down quite succinctly to this:
Saddam said he didn't have any WMDs. Bush, Blair, Powell, Clinton, Kerry, Feinstein, Kennedy, Lieberman, and a host of others said he did.
You believe that Saddam was telling the truth, and Bush et al were lying.
I believe the opposite.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in message (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

No. Now you deliberately lie about my views.
I do not base my belief on what Hussein, Bush, Blair, Powell Clinton, Kerry Feinstein, Kennedy, Lieberman, or a host of others said.
I believe the proven facts. I get those facts from the reports of people who went ot Iraq and looked for WMDs.
You believe speculation and proven lies.
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

Kerry,
lying.
Kerry
I've yet to see a credible, "non-fringe kook" explanation for why Bush would want to attack Iraq for no apparent reason. I, for one, don't care whether or not there were WMDs, though I believe they are/were there or in Syria etc. There were plenty of other reasons that this was the right thing to do, and more people agree with me than you. You know what those reasons are, you just choose not to accept them, which is your choice. People like Bush will continue to follow their convictions and do what they believe best for the country with or without the support of 100% of the electorate. It is called leadership, and I believe the country will respond with a resounding vote for reelection.
dwhite
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why do you persist in lying about my opinions?
I never said there were no good reasons to depose Saddam Hussein or invade Iraq. I said that the WMD issue did not provide a good reason to invade Iraq.
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

Let me make it a little more clear. You and I are *both* operating from certain a priori beliefs that color our interpretation of the facts. Your a priori assumption clearly is that there are not, and never were, WMDs in Iraq. My a priori assumption is that there were, and they're still around *somewhere*.
On the basis of your a priori belief that they never existed, you see UNMOVIC's failure to find them as confirmation of that belief.
On the basis of my a priori belief that they did exist and still do, I conclude that UNMOVIC has not looked in the right places -- including places to which those WMDs have been moved and hidden, e.g. Syria.

The only proven fact at this date with respect to Iraqi WMDs is that they have not been found. Yet.
There is no proof that they did not, exist. Nor, I admit, that they did.

And you believe Saddam. I believe that all the people who said Saddam had WMDs were right. The failure to find those WMDs thus far is not proof that they did not exist.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in message (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

That's a damn lie and I expected better from you. I never claimed there never were WMDs in Iraq.
In fact, until 2003 my presumption was that there were (non-nuclear) WMDs in Iraq. And I said so.
If you would have used Google to research what I wrote on the subject in early 2003, instead of making stuff up, you would have found that for yourself.
In the face of the evidence that became available in 2003 I changed my opinion to conform to that evidence. Some people call that flip-flopping. I call it being in touch with reality.

I presume that you are telling the truth here. I do not see why you refuse to extend the same courtesy to me.

Agreed though I am inclined to elaborate a bit. They were not found, nor was any evidence for them found WHERE the US said they were. This calls into question the quality of the information provided by the US.
We are not just talking about finished shells and bombs where it is conceivable that they could be moved without leaving evidence behind. What about the manufacturing facilites the administration claimed were rebuilt and active? What about the supposed manufacturing facilites at Fallujah, Ibn Sina, Tarmiyya, and al-Qa'qa'? Are we supposed to believe that Iraq suddenly unrebuilt them and destroyed all foresnic evidence in the surrounding soil and water?
It is not just UNMOVIC that failed to find evidence. The 1800 person Iraq Survey team that has had unfettered access to Iraq for the last 18 months has not turned up any manufacturing facilites either.

True. Further, there can be no proof that they did not exist.

No. That is a lie.
I do not even *know* what Saddam Hussein may have said about WMDs in Iraq.
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

All right then, remove the phrase "and never were", and my statement stands. You clearly have an a priori assumption that there are not WMDs in Iraq. The *facts* are: a) it was widely believed, prior to Feb '03, that there were; b) none have been found so far; and c) it is not presently known whether there are or were, or not. All else is opinion and assumption.

I'd call it changing your opinion without sufficient evidence. I think they're still around. Somewhere. Maybe Syria. Maybe Iran. Maybe buried in the desert somewhere. Iraq's a big place. They'll turn up eventually.
Or maybe they won't. But Saddam had a loooong time to hide them, and it's a bit premature to suppose that they aren't there, just because they haven't been found *yet*.

I likewise presume that you're telling the truth -- that is, that you believe what you say. I just think you're wrong.

Perhaps. Or maybe the Iraqis moved them before anyone got there to check.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.