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

Page 8 of 13  
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in message (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote: ...

I clearly told you the opposite.

Agreed. It was also widely believed that, except for mustard, any materials left over from befor 1991 would no longer be effect. It was also widely believed that at most, 500 aerial mustard bombs remained unaccountd for from prior ot the 1991 war.

Almost none.

Yes with an important caveat. The 2002 Iraqi declaration to UNMOVIC has been kept confidential as public release would be "intensly embarassing" (ISTR that was the term used) to the companies who provided the material to Iraq.
So we do not know what was in that declaration. We do not know what UNMOVIC had inventoried and tagged befor the US advised them that the invasion was imminent and they left. Since the US has taken over Iraq material previously inventoried and tagged by UNMOVIC has been found abroad. It is conceivable that Iraq did declare WMDs not previously disclosed, such as the binary sarin shell later used in an IED, that these materials were inventoried by UNMOVIC and then passed into the hands of the insurgents during or after the invasion.
Note that the US has refused to allow UNMOVIC and IAEA to reinventory the materials they had tagged. IIRC, that includes some mustard munitions that were originally discovered and inventoried by UNSCOM prior to 1999.

1) What evidence do you have that they were there in the first place? Have you considered testing your a priori assumption?
2) What evidence do you have that they were moved to another country? That hypothesis did not emerge until after the invasion.

According to the US, he was manufacturing WMDs in the Fall of 2002. How does that give him a long time to hide them? Your argument does not agree with the implications made by the Bush administration that Iraq had been busy making new WMDs since UNSCOM left.

I encourage you to test that a priori. Don't trust me, check it out for yourself.

Moved the factories too? The soil, the water, the byproducts, the unused feedstock the people involved in the manufacture, etc etc?
That is an awful lot to accept without evidence.

Look around the room where you are sitting now. Do you see evidence of a giant pink elephant? Are you telling me that you do not consider the absence of that evidence to be evidence that there is no giant pink elephant in the room with you?
--

FF

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

Then you're contradicting yourself, because you continue to argue that there are no WMDs there. Since it is not yet known or proven whether there are or not, you are clearly articulating an assumption. [large snip]

Numerous people who presumably know more about it than I (e.g. Presidents Bush *and* Clinton, Sens. Kerry, Kennedy, Feinstein, & Liebermann, and two consecutive Sec'ys of State) stated unequivocally that Saddam had WMDs. I presume that they know what they're talking about.

I'm doing so -- by waiting for the US military, and the new Iraqi government, to find them.

I didn't state that they were moved, only that they may have been. That, of course, is one of several plausible explanations for the failure to find them in Iraq to this point.

Actually, it was reported prior to the invasion that they had been loaded onto container ships and sent to sea. That report later proved to be false, but the hypothesis did exist before the invasion.

Mobile labs, later taken to Syria, would be one explanation.

Yep, just waiting. They'll be found someday.
[more snippage]

Spurious analogy, at several points. First, it's considerably easier to hide munitions, even a munitions factory, in a hundred million acres of desert than it is to hide an elephant in a twelve-foot-wide room. Second, the absence of evidence of an elephant in the room *now* is not evidence that there was no elephant present two weeks, or two years, in the past. Finally, pink elephants do 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:

Regarding proof, what would you consider to be the minimal necessary proof that there are no WMDs in Iraq?
Perhaps you aren't using the term _a prior_ the way it would be used numerically. That is one's first _a priori_ in the absence of any data at all, is arbitrary excepting only those values that result in a degeneracy, singularity or other mathematical condition that prevents convergence. However once one has processed any data then one can use whatever conclusion resulted from the earlier analysis as the new _a priori_.
So I started somewhere back in antebellum times knowing nothing at all. By 2003 I had enough information to conclude that there were (non-nuclear) WMDs in Iraq. That became my next _a priori_. Subsequent analysis moved the next conclusion further toward acceptance of the null hypothesis.
Understand?

I made the same mistake as you, prior to 2003. Then I began to check on the basis for what was being said.

If there is a null result, How long will you wait befor concluding that test?

OK, what evidence do you have that they may have been moved?

Please feel free to enunciate some others and cite the supporting evidence for each.

Can you cite something to support that?

No they would not. Please read those two paragraphs again. You wrote "Saddam had a loooong time to hide them". Please do not change the subject befor addressing the issue at hand.

Is your assumption based on anything other than the logical impossibility of proof of a negative hypothesis?

I think if an elephant had been in that room for two years or twelve there would be plenty of dung left behind. Indeed, while preparing to leave Iraq one of the UNMOVIC inspectors used _precisely_ that analogy for the the US intelligence though he chose a somewhat less delicate synonym

It would appear that analogy is apt.
More to the point, logic requires that the existance of a thing be proven by evidence of that thing, and not by the absence of evidence that the thing in question does not exist.
If that is what you meant by my _a priori_ being that WMDs do not exist in Iraq then yes, that is my _a priori_. But that also means that if your _a priori_ is that they did exist then your approach is fundamantally illogical.
You appear to be citing the absence of evidence of nonexistance as evidence of existance.
--

FF

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

I already described a standard that I would accept: the SOB had twelve years to hide them. If twelve more go by without anyone finding them, I'll admit that they were never there to begin with.

The only data available regarding the existence (or lack thereof) of WMDs in Iraq is that none have been found so far. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Thus a belief that there are no WMDs in Iraq is a belief that is not supported by proof.

As I've said repeatedly -- the same 12 years that Saddam had to hide them.

They have not been found in the places that have been searched so far. Logic provides only a limited set of possible explanations for that fact: 1) They never existed at all. 2) They did exist, but not in the places which have been searched. 3) They did exist, in those places, and are still there, but were not found. 4) They did exist, in those places, and are no longer there because they were moved to some other place(s). 5) They did exist, in those places, and are no longer there because they were destroyed.

I think if you search CNN's web site, you might find something about it. I remember hearing Limbaugh talking about the report one week, and then a couple of weeks later stating that the report had been shown to be a hoax. There were stories on the CNN web site at the time.

One explanation, that is, of what happened to the WMDs that he was making in the fall of '02. Obviously he had much more time to hide what had been made earlier.

Yes, it's based on my confidence that Saddam is a scoundrel. He already used WMDs on the Kurds and the Iranians, so it's very clear that he had them at one time. To suppose that he abandoned them is optimistic at best, and possibly a dangerous fantasy at worst.

Not if somebody's been shoveling it out regularly.

Again, we disagree.

Indeed, that would be illogical -- if I were doing so. But I have not maintained that, ever. I have pointed out that the failure to find them _so_far_ is *not* proof that they do not (or did not) exist. I never claimed that it was proof that they do 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

Was that Sarin shell not there then, or was it not WMD-ish enough? None is an absolute...

Exactly. We gave him over a decade to hide the stuff in a very big place, and let him jerk around the inspectors coming to check on him.

Seems reasonable, but I think proof enough that they were there has already been found. And why aren't we hearing about the binary precursors which are being found?

We know that to be false, of course, what with that we sold 'em a bunch, and the dead Kurds and stuff.

Likely.
Likely.
Also likely.

Possible.

Well, maybe he became all nicy-nice all the sudden, did you consider that? (thinks)...naah, prolly not, you're right.

Right. And besides, it's interesting that you have all of this Elephant Chow, books on "care and feeding of your elephant", subscriptions to "Elephant quarterly", and a history of being seen with your elephant, yet your elephant pens are suspiciously empty of everything but elephant tracks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Okay, okay -- I shoulda said "almost none". There's no evidence [yet] of a stockpile, and it's possible that that Sarin shell was a leftover that they somehow missed destroying. I think, though, that it's much more likely that it simply fell off the back of a truck headed to Syria.
-- 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
<< Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense? >>
No, but off topic posting political crap to a woodworking newsgroup should be.
It isn't even a board in any parties platform.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(John213a) wrote:

Perhaps you should explore the filtering and killfile capabilities built into your newsreader.
Or else learn to ignore _obviously_ off-topic threads.
-- 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 wrote:

There was also one (1) mustard gas shell found. But keep in mind that UNSCOM had discovered and inventoried a cache of mustard gas shells (or bombs, is don't remember which) that were reinventoried by UNMOVIC. It is not clear why they weren't destroyed, perhaps do to lack of a proper disposoal faciltiy as mustard is harder to destroy than VX and some other agents.
Since the US has not allowed UNMOVIC back in to reinventory anything since the invasion, we do not know if that cache of mustard is still there or not.
Prior to the discovery of the binary sarin shell the conventional wisdom was that Iraq did not have any long-lived chemical munitions other than mustard. That is why it was important to account for all of the pre-1991 mustard (and most was accounted for) but relatively unimportant to account for other munitions since they would have long ago become impotent.
That is why the essential issue was what, if anything, the Iraqis has made recently, NOT what they had in 1989 and certainly not what they had used.
As I said, previously there had been no indication on the part of anyone, including the Bush administration, that Iraq had developed binary munitions. This calls into question the true origin of that shell. Was it really manufactured in Iraq, or was it imported from the former Soviet Union, or even the US?
Also keep in mind that the Fall 2002 Iraqi declaration has never been publicly released because to do so would be 'intensely embarassing' to the companies who supplied Iraq with proscribed materials. So we do not know if Iraq declared any binary sarin shells or not.
--

FF

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. As a consequence of the null result of the inspections process I went back to see what justification there was to my pre-2003 assumptions. I found that the justifications were slim and none, IOW I was wrong to make those assumptions.
But you are right, I cannot logically conclude in some abstractly absolute sense that there are no WMDs in Iraq for the same reason that I cannot similarly conclude that there are no passenger pigeons, no Spanish Armada off the New Jersey Coast, and no 57 communists in the Pentagon. Negative hypotheses are not falsifiable.

Is that what you want for proof? Twelve years? "the SOB had twelve years to hide them." is both factually incorrect and rhetorical. Can you state any reasonable basis for your twelve-year standard of proof? Offhand, it looks like you simply want to defer a conclusion until long after GWB is no longer in office.

You state that there is no evidence that there are WMDs in Iraq. But you conclude that there are WMDs in Iraq. You aren't making any sense.

Well, you didn't answer so I don't know if you understand or not.

I rephrase: Have you considered re-examing the reasons you had for adopting those a prioris?

Saddam Hussein did not have 12 years to hide the WMDs the US claimed he was making post-1999.
IRT any weapons that may have survived the 1991 war, which is itself unlikely, the standard you present seems to be entirely arbitrary, without any factual reasoning behind it. What do you expect to be done in the next decade that was not done in the previous two years?

What evidence have you seen for: 1) 2) 3) 4) or 5) ?

Where's the evidence?

OK, I'll take your word that there was a hoax.
I'll remind you that even after Bahgdad fell Rumsfeld insisted that there were WMDs in Iraq and he knew where they were--in the Sunni Triangle.

No. Mobile facilites CANNOT explain the administrations claims about al-Qaim [1], Tuwaitha and numerous other permanant (non-mobile) facilities the Bush administration claimes were in operation.
US Department of Defense, "Iraqi Denial and Deception for Weapons of Mass Destruction & Ballistic Missile Programs" (8 October 2002) [hereafter, "Department of Defense, 8 October 2002"].
And what about those mobile facilities? What evidence is there that they ever existed?
Every falsifiable claim about Iraqi WMDs made by the Bush administration has been falsified. All that remain, are the non-falsifiable claims.

But also consistant with all available observables and also consistant with a plan to lay low in the hope that the sanctions and inspections will be relaxed allowing a resumption of ilicit activities.
--

FF

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

1991 to 2003 = twelve years. Prior to 1991, he was under no obligation to declare them, and presumably had no reason to hide them; post-1991, clearly he did. Post-2003, he was no longer in position to hide anything, even his own sorry behind.

I "concluded" nothing of the sort. I stated explicitly that it is my a priori *assumption* that they existed. This assumption is not completely unfounded, you know: Saddam claimed to have them, and threatened to use them. [...]

Not sure what your point is here... at least ONE of those five circumstances *must* be the truth. MY point was that we don't know, yet, which one(s).
[...]

Illicit activities including the construction of WMDs ?
-- 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:

You're evading the question. What reasoning serves as the basis for 12 years of searching to be the standard? In particular, how can you enunciate that standard when you have no idea as to what searching may or may not be done during that time? What is it about twelve years that makes it significantly better than ten but not significantly worse than fifteen?
How do you explain the negative findings at al-Qaim, and Tuwaitha? According to the Bush administration these facilities had been rebuilt and had resumed operation?
Here's a description by people who actually visited the site:
"The remains of the three reactors destroyed in 1981 by the Israelis, and then a decade later in the Gulf War, by the Americans, have been left by the Iraqis. [....] Officials were keen to show the supposedly clandestine construction which so alarmed Mr Blair. They appeared to be no more than a few sheds. Nor were there overt signs of the infrastructure needed to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. "
"Inspectors Find Only Mushrooms Amid Ruins Of Bombed Reactor", The Independent (5 December 2002), at: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story58616
Do you really thing something will be found there in 10 years?
As you will recall, Tuwaitha (aka Osirak) was one of the sites severely looted after the fall of Baghdad. Three weeks after the fall of Baghdad the US had still not sent a single person to the site. If the Bush administration REALLY thought there was clandestine WMD activity at Tuwaitha don't you think that they might have made some effort to secure it?
In 1991, among the priority targets in Iraq, perhaps second in importance only to the Iraqi air defense systems, were nuclear and chemical weapons facilities like Al Muthanna. The reasons for bombing such facilites while US troops are in the field fighting the Iraqi army are rather obvious.
Conspicuously absent from the 2003 invasion was any comparable action against the facilities where the US alleged Iraq was manufacturing or stockpiling WMDs. Even after the fall of Baghdad the US did not bother to seize or secure those sites.
A reasonable inference, indeed the only resonable inference, is that the Bush adminstration considered it highly unlikely that there were any WMD materials at those sites. In many respects, that lack of alacrity in attempting to seize and secure the claimed WMDs is the best evidecne we have for deception. Even if the administration thought that the WMDs ahd been shipped to Syria, you'd think they'd have wanted to check to be sure they didn't leave some behind.
While the bush administration did allege (without presenting supporting evidence) the existance of mobile facilities, it also alleged active programs at a dozen or more fixed manufactuirng sites-- stating in each case the location of the sites and the sort of activity there. The allegations were quite specific. The Bush administration never alleged factories hidden out in the desert, that is your speculation. Every allegation by the Bush administration that could be falsified was falsified. At some point one has to say "Fool me once, shame on you... and we won't be fooled again."

When and when, respectively? There were reports FROM THE US that Iraq had moved chemical weapons to forward postitions and that field commanders had been authorized to use them. I am not aware of any such statement by Saddam Hussein. The closest I recall was the warning that if we invaded we would be 'incinerated'. Assuming that was an accurate translation, that hardly implies what you are saying. So what is the basis for your statement? Are you misattributing statments to Saddam Hussein that were actually made by the bush administration?

My point is that you are presenting nothing but naked speculation.
There is no doubt that Iraq had chemical weapons prior to 1991 and that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program prior to and after 1991.
Between using its stockpiles furing the Iran-Iraq war and against the Kurds, considering the bombing dampaign in 1991 agains the Iraqi stockpiles and production facilites and taking into account teh destruction fo the Iraqi calutrons and seizure of enriched Uranium by UNSCOM in the 1990s there was scant reason to believe that Iraq had stockpiles or production facilites in 2003.

Exactly. No one ever said that Iraq would not resume WMD production if it could, that was one of Bush's lies. No one ever said that Saddam Hussein could be trusted, that is another of Bush's lies.
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
But Fred, you cannot impeach Kerry, he isn't president.
Deb
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net says...

Great stuff. I don't think that it's *ever* come to pass that voters had such a choice, though.
- Al
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

1996 comes to mind immediately. Unfortunately the honest one didn't articulate (and presumably didn't have) any real explanation of *why* he wanted to be President, or why anyone should vote for him. And so we got stuck with another four years of a lying philanderer (or is that a philandering liar) in the White House.
-- 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 says...

Nah, if it's Dole you're talking about, his political history was riddled with creative campaign financing from inappropriate sources. On top of that, he was Big Tobacco's talking dummy. Nothing that in my book would rule him out as a viable candidate, mind you, but certainly enough for me to recognize his measure of honesty where the rubber meets the road. I'll take somebody willing to lie about their nocturnal cigar activity over someone who circumvents the rules in campaign financing and is in the pocket of reprehensible special interest groups any day.
- Al
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

As I noted in an earlier post, though, Slick Willie is a *much* more skillful liar than Kerry. His lies are harder to spot, and he tells them with such sincerity that people *want* to believe him.
-- 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

Please stop confusing us with the facts!

[Raises hand] I do! I do! He stands for getting John Kerry elected.
dwhite
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Hinz wrote: <SNIP>

Not only did he vote for it, but he stated the following:
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
I know there are a plethora of John Kerrys out there, but I can agree with what this John Kerry says.
Glen
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

... and therein lies the problem, *which* John Kerry are people voting for?

... and which John Kerry will they get should (heaven forbid) he is actually elected?

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.