What an awful name!!! Especially to match that last name. One has to wonder what some parents think when naming their baby
Hi everyone. I am not back; I have been and will remain in a... (that's right, wait for it...) Undisclosed Location. Actually new kind of job; my schedule is less my own, and it's less cool for me to spend time here now that I have... different responsibilities. Also, I am sitting out the pre-election nuttiness, which actually doesn't seem so awful around here now that I skim it. I miss everyone and will launch a wacky thread or two in the non-political Hangout sometime soon. Cheers.
where have you been in holland? i always like it when people have been in Holland. you are right it is the netherlands. But alot of people do not know it so i always say holland(and it is shorter). holland is the part of the netherlands were most people life. Amsterdam is in holland.
Technically and following that absurd logic, most 3rd world countries are a thread to the US. Only a stupid person would follow that logic for supporting the war. I say it again only an acutely stupid person would do so. Do you know how many countries in Africa alone that fall within that scope? That is dictatorship, plus poverty (one criterium for breeding terror) and detest for certain western policies? Talk less of the middle east or Asia. Please lets refraon from using stupid logic because it is insulting to a few of us here that know more that what is going on just within our four walls.
Well, that stupid person is the very guy that wrote the report. I heard his testimony on the radio. I'll look for the link. BTW, stop being so full of yourself and just go save the world...
Home > News & Opinion > Columnists -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/columnists/view.bg?articleid=79980 Freedman: The media spins issue of Iraqi weapons By Ilana Freedman / Local Columnist Friday, October 8, 2004 On Wednesday morning, Charles Duelfer, special adviser to the CIA on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee in Washington. His testimony was a thoughtful and enlightening supplement to his 19-page report on the search for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. It was also a far cry from the screaming bulletins that appeared in the Wednesday evening news reports: "No Iraqi WMD." <b>What Duelfer said presented a very different picture from that painted by the media. It was a detailed, complex, and highly professional analysis of the search for WMD in Iraq and what the lack of evidence means. It was important testimony.</b> A key to his point of view is found in the very first sentence of his report. "Saddam Husayn (sic) so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. <b>He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted." </b> Duelfer went on to write, <b>"Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability -- which was essentially destroyed in 1991 -- after sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized... Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability -- in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks." </b> When asked about biological weapons, Duelfer stopped short of stating categorically that none existed in Iraq. <b>He explained how little space biological agents take and how easy they are to hide. He also declined to confirm that none had been transferred out of the country to Syria just prior to the war. </b> He expressed concern that new evidence may emerge that could change the conclusions of his report. "I personally am not convinced that we have explored all of the avenues in that regard," he said. About Saddam Hussein himself he said, <b>"He clearly had ambitions regarding WMD."</b> When asked whether he believed there was a benefit from eliminating Saddam Hussein's regime, he responded, <b>"The world is better off... He was enormously susceptible to making dangerous decisions." </b> Clearly, both the testimony and the report itself reflected the complex nature of the mission and the conclusions drawn by the team. <b>One can only surmise that the media was suffering from collective laziness and the need to oversimplify the findings of the report for a simple-minded American viewing public. The problem is that there was no simple message here and the bulletins and reports that reduced it to a sound-byte were misleading and, one could argue, highly political. </b> Putting such blatant spin on a report of such significance is questionable at any time. But a month before a presidential election, when the findings of this report could be a deciding issue, is unconscionable. <b>History is always easier to understand in retrospect. It can be reduced down to its essential elements and distilled to a sequence that is relatively easy to grasp.</b> But history-in-the-making is much harder to deal with. Our vision is clouded by the swirl of events around us, our lack of objectivity, and the confusion of multiple currents and the interconnected threads of the countless events that constitute our lives. Reducing current events to the lowest common denominator is foolish at best, because it deprives us of the colors and flavors that shape our news and therefore our lives. At worst, it is insulting, because it assumes that we the people are not bright enough to understand anything more complex than a simple declarative headline, and it deprives us of information that would otherwise help us draw our own informed conclusions. Listening to the testimony in its entirety brought several things into clear focus. <b>Duelfer made it abundantly clear that whatever evidence we now lack regarding the presence of WMD in Iraq, virtually all intelligence that we had prior to the war -- from France, Germany, Russia, Israel, and our own resources -- indicated that Saddam had both the WMD and the will to use them. </b> Duelfer explained this in part by <b>Saddam's own deviousness and his posturing that was both threatening and believable. This combined with the failing sanctions, what the "Economist" called the "leaking box," and the launching of the corrupt Food for Oil program that enabled Saddam to amass enormous personal wealth, were sufficient to make his threats highly credible. </b> In the increasingly hostile climate of the presidential campaign, the Bush administration is being accused of having lied to the American people. It would be well for us to consider that it is misguided to pass judgment on a year old administration decision based on knowledge that we have only recently acquired. Prior to the war, the administration was relying on intelligence that was fresh, confirmed by our allies, and not suspected of being faulty. <b>Is it absolutely certain that there were no WMD in Iraq before the war? No, it is not. Is it clear that none have been found? Absolutely. Is this conclusive? According to Charles Duelfer it is not. He is convinced that Saddam would have begun rebuilding his WMD programs following the end of sanctions.</b> This issue is far from black-and-white and we would do far better to consider it in its complexity than to try to reduce it to a simple statement that is both misleading and wrong. Ilana Freedman is a specialist in counter-terrorism and Managing Partner of Gerard Group International in Tyngsborough. She welcomes your comments at ilana@gerardgroup.com mailto:ilana@gerardgroup.com.
Wonder what kind of contracts Gerard Group International has with the government? giddy from what I understand about the report, all this is speculation by Duelfer. He has even stated that he has no written confirmation on any of this. It's all conjecture
The facts ARE the facts. That part of the report you are talking about is completely subjective. Stop being so gullible Don't you worry about me saving the world cos my God Jehova has taken care of it. You will see it in a few weeks - I freaking guarantee it (yes you know what I mean)!!!
Originally posted by Fegwu The facts ARE the facts. That part of the report you are talking about is completely subjective. Stop being so gullible <b>So you are one of those headline-readers. You want the simple version that justifies your opposition to Bush. I'll opt for the comlex version which is more practically valuable-- not to mention realistic.</b> Don't you worry about me saving the world cos my God Jehova has taken care of it. You will see it in a few weeks - I freaking guarantee it (yes you know what I mean)!!! <b>Are you predicting The Rapture? Are you still taking donations?</b>
this is pretty hilarious. makes you wonder if they even read their own paper... "Sanctions worked. Weapons inspectors worked. That is the bottom line of the long-awaited report on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, written by President Bush's handpicked investigator. . . . As the war continues to bog down, the power of nonviolent international sanctions looks more muscular every day."--editorial, New York Times, Oct. 7 "The report suggests that Mr. Hussein was justified when, speaking at a gathering of leaders of the Iraqi armed forces in January 2000, he boasted that despite efforts by the United States and the United Nations to isolate Iraq, he would still be able to buy just about whatever he wanted."--news story, New York Times, Oct. 8
