Oh, blah, blah, blah, blah. Don't give me that BS, you know damn well that I only care about us agreeing on facts - we can differ on opinion and still have a rational discussion, but when we cannot even agree on facts, no rational discussion is possible. Every time you feel like ignoring an obvious fact you throw out this "Oh, everyone just has to agree with you" garbage. Stop it. My only response is - boo-fu*king-hoo, suck it up and start admitting fact when you see it. We can argue opinion and speculate all you want if we can just agree on obvious facts. I am only insulting when people start throwing ridiculous ideas around or they just refuse to admit the obvious. Otherwise I am perfectly capable of being civil, as you well know. What article? I offered a CIA report, not a f*ing op-ed from the Washington Times. And they appear to be very certain about their conclusions. Despite the lack of confirmatory samples, we nevertheless are confident that this trailer is a mobile BW production plant because of the source's description, equipment, and design would seem to indicate that, don't you think? Those other possibilities are discussed in the report, and are discounted by the analysts as extremely unlikely. Have you even read the fu*king report yet? Right on this one? What the hell does that mean? If the CIA report is correct, then this one amounts to a biological warfare production facility. What else exactly was the administration supposed to be right about? Finding a biowarfare production facility is too insignificant to count that much? The program began in the 1990s and ran until weeks before the war. What time frame are you talking about, exactly, if not that one? Again, you have apparently still not read the report. Uh, setting in motion an active biological warfare program was not in contravention to anything Saddam agreed to? Are you crystal sure n that one sporto? I would advise you to either back up that silly statement with supporting evidence or retract it before I get worked up enough to visit the UN's website and start pulling Gulf War ceasefire resolutions... See, this is the problem with discussing this with you. You are more interested in defending you antiwar position than you are in being objective and analyzing evidence in an open minded manner. Your blinders are on, and you're not going to budge. I suspect that if we found a cache of alfatoxin tomorrow you'd still refuse to adm,it the obvious by stating that since no anthrax has been found yet, your "position" is still viable... I have only avoided engaging in silly speculation about lies and conspiracies, nothing more. Yes they did, and these trailers would appear to support that claim. Whether you wish to admit it or not. Based upon prewar intelligence that still has not been proven incorrect, it just has not been confirmed yet. For at least the 23rd time, the administration never - not once - made that claim. It has been attributed to the admin by antiwar zealots who are out to prove the admin wrong on anything they can, and are not above lying to try to do that. I challenge you to find one single quote from Bush or Fliescher stating their belief that Saddam was behind 9/11. Yes, that is a challenge. You cannot do it, because that particular antiwar accusation has absolutely no basis in fact. All evidence points to their being accurate, whether you admit it or not. Like it or not. Be honest about it or not. I would say that this discovery is egg on the face of everyone who said that our evidence was speculative. The actual trailers look an awful lot like the trailers Powell presented in his prewar speech. In fact they are nearly identical. How speculative was that evidence again? Actually that particular Wolfowitz "quote" was a misquote and taken out of context, and that was addressed in another thread, but as we are not interested in reality here I will concede your point (please note sarcasm)... My, we sure are throwing around alot of misquotes today... Please show me the post where I said that it was always about freeing the Iraqi people? I challenge you to show me that. Yes, that is a challenge... I have always maintained that the main reason was always the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime, but that there were a multitude of reasons to go to war. WMD was one of them. Freeing the Iraqi people was another. But those were all just welcome side effects of the ouster of Saddam and his cronies. I have maintained that position from day one, and you damn well know it, so stop putting bulls*it in my mouth. Another misquote, another challenge... I did state that it was my *personal belief* that Saddam had something to do with it, and I also noted that until and unless more evidence to support that idea arose then it would remain in the realm of pure speculation. You can find that one, just do a search with the terms "707 fuselage" and Salman Pak" in it. How often do you state that your ideas about things are speculation? You seem to somehow know that Bush lied... Dude, this is a message board. I demand nothing. I only ask that we all agree on obvious facts and those facts that are a matter of historical record. That is not too much to ask, and if it is then there is no point in trying to carry on a rational dialogue. OK, so not only am I not being objective, but I have misled you before? Are you seriously saying that? You can't even admit that those trailers are most likely what the CIA says they are, ramble on about defending your antiwar position as if that is more important than what is happening on the other side of the globe, and I'm the one who's failing the objectivity test? And when have I misled you? Be specific, and yes, that is another challenge... Yes, I know why you opposed the war. You did not believe that it was possible that Saddam could or would give terrorists WMD. You did not believe the evidence of the Al Qaeda-Saddam link (even though it was corroborated by documents found after the war and with the elimination of the Ansar group). You were not sure of Iraq's WMD programs (thought the trailers would seem to discount your ideas there, too), but most importantly you did not want to see the US exercise its power and right to preemptively defend itself from strategic threats. I know why you opposed the war - we have discussed it before, and I understand your position, or at least the gist of it. We can disagree on that, I have no problem with dissenting opinion. Hell, I like arguing about that... I really don't see why. I would think it more likely that the documents found in Iraq relating to Al Qaeda, the BW trailers, and the failure of our "unilateral" action to have any real damaging effect upon anybody except for Saddam would serve more to disprove that point than anything else... We've searched fewer than a third of the sites on our original list. And - gee, it just couldn't be possible that the Iraqis moved anything before the tanks got to Baghdad, could it? So in other words, even if I and the CIA are correct about this find - it just doesn't matter??? You are saying that us finding a biological warfare production facility does not matter. Is that what you are saying? Please correct me if I am wrong and that is not what you are saying, because that is just too... well, if that is what you're saying, then I am just shocked. So, nothing less than a ton of anthrax will suffice? Anything short of that is not proof of a WMD program? OK, whatever. We have just crossed into the Twilight Zone... Of course, if it turns out that the CIA is right, then the adminstration was not misleading the nation, and you are wrong. Which is of course why you either A) cannot believe that these trailers are what the CIA says they are, or B) believe that they are irrelevant if they are what the CIA says they are. In other words, you are incapable of admitting that you are probably wrong. All of the false alarms originated with media sources inaccurately or prematurely reporting a "find" - none of them originated from CENTCOM or the CIA. This one comes from the CIA. They would not have released the report had they not been pretty damn sure about their conclusions, and they are not into crying wolf. I would not be doing thias unless I was reasonably sure, and the CIA would not have released the report unless they were reasonably sure. I am incensed that you apparently refuse to even read the f*cking report. I posted it here so you would be able to read it without any excuses, and you apparently just glanced at the pictures without even reading it (at best, you glanced at the text and caught a few words). Had you actually read it you would not have asked several of the questions that you have. Yes, I am incensed about that. I can't speak for the other guys, but exactly what do you want me to apologize for? Please, be specific. Has it ever occurred to you that I actually believe in what we are doing there? That I may really support it 100%? That I do not believe that the administration intentionally misled anyone? And that I truly believe that the administration decided to undertake the effort because it truly believed that it was necessary for the country's security? Has any of that ever occurred to you? I suspect not, since you are incapable of believing any of those things, and apparently incapable of understanding how anyone else possibly could. How often have I been wrong? I've been right about more than a few things since those planes flew into those buildings, and you damn well know it. Yes, I am wrong about details sometimes. But the big picture... still on target. What have you been right about? I've got a post-it note if you care to make a list... I am being lectured on objectivity by someone who A) refuses to admit that a spade is a spade, and B) thinks its irrelevant even if the spade is a spade? A person who refuses to admit that POWs have been beaten or executed, even though their beaten faces and bloody bodies are shown on global TV? You have no right to lecture anyone at all about objectivity, JAG.
The investigations begin. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, under fire for allegedly hyping up evidence of Iraq's weapons, said Wednesday a parliamentary committee would investigate the role of the intelligence services in the Iraq war. Blair's government has been accused of pressuring the intelligence services to exaggerate the threat from Saddam Hussein in order to justify going to war. That probe will run alongside a public inquiry by the House of Commons' foreign affairs committee, although that committee may not have access to all the intelligence. Blair Announces Inquiry Into Iraqi Weapons LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair, under fire for allegedly hyping up evidence of Iraq's weapons, said Wednesday a parliamentary committee would investigate the role of the intelligence services in the Iraq war. Blair's government has been accused of pressuring the intelligence services to exaggerate the threat from Saddam Hussein in order to justify going to war. He told parliament the Intelligence and Security Committee, which comprises members from both chambers, contacted his office in early May about launching an inquiry. "I welcome this and I assure the House (of Commons) that the government will cooperate fully with it," Blair said, pledging to publish the report afterwards. But the announcement did not silence his critics. The committee's proceedings are closed to the public and it reports to Blair, who can omit extracts of the report deemed sensitive. That probe will run alongside a public inquiry by the House of Commons' foreign affairs committee, although that committee may not have access to all the intelligence. While the inquiries keep the heat on Blair, they fall short of the full independent inquiry demanded by many in Blair's Labor Party and the opposition. Blair also shot down allegations -- made by the BBC last week citing an anonymous intelligence source -- that his office asked the intelligence services to "sex up" evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to strengthen the case for war. "I want to make it clear to the House that there was no attempt at any time by any official or minister or member of Downing Street staff to override the intelligence or the judgment of the Joint Intelligence Committee," he said.
Thanks for the link mc mark, the investigations begin in the US as well----Republicans and Democrates are joining to put the pressure on the Bush administration to tell the truth. People are challenging the credibility of the use of this intelligence, and particularly its use by the president, the secretaries of State and Defense, the CIA director and others, said Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Warner said in an interview that his panel and the Senate Intelligence Committee will convene a joint public hearing, probably this month, to look into the intelligence methodology, how it was gathered and assessed. He said he also wants to find out ''how that was passed on -- in what form -- to the policymakers, who then extrapolated what they wanted and put the emphasis on certain parts. he said hearings are needed because of ''the depth and seriousness of this issue.'' His announcement was a clear sign that unease over possible manipulation of intelligence has grown in Congress. Hearings will mean tough questions before TV cameras for some of the president's top officials -- not just from Democrats, but from their fellow Republicans, who control the Capitol. The administration's credibility could rest on the responses. Senate to probe use of Iraq arms data Jim Drinkard and Tom Squitieri USA TODAY WASHINGTON -- Two Senate committees will investigate whether the Bush administration misused intelligence to make the case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and justify a war to depose Saddam Hussein. People are challenging the credibility of the use of this intelligence, and particularly its use by the president, the secretaries of State and Defense, the CIA director and others, said Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Warner said in an interview that his panel and the Senate Intelligence Committee will convene a joint public hearing, probably this month, to look into the intelligence methodology, how it was gathered and assessed. He said he also wants to find out ''how that was passed on -- in what form -- to the policymakers, who then extrapolated what they wanted and put the emphasis on certain parts.'' Warner emphasized that he has not come to any conclusions and wants to give the administration time to exhaust its search for banned weapons inside Iraq. But he said hearings are needed because of ''the depth and seriousness of this issue.'' His announcement was a clear sign that unease over possible manipulation of intelligence has grown in Congress. Hearings will mean tough questions before TV cameras for some of the president's top officials -- not just from Democrats, but from their fellow Republicans, who control the Capitol. The administration's credibility could rest on the responses. The concern has been fueled, in part, by the failure of U.S. troops to find weapons of mass destruction at the sites considered most likely by intelligence analysts. Two mobile labs that could be used to produce biological weapons have been found, but no trace of the germ weapons themselves have. White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said the administration has been cooperating with congressional inquiries and will continue to do so. The CIA is conducting an internal review of the accuracy of its prewar intelligence. The administration's contention that Iraq possessed nuclear, chemical and biological weapons or programs to produce them became the basis of a congressional vote last year approving the use of force against Iraq. Bush's doctrine of striking first to pre-empt threats from abroad put a particular burden on the accuracy of intelligence reports. Warner recalled questioning Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and CIA Director George Tenet at a hearing in February about whether evidence would be found after the war to show the world that the weapons programs existed. ''Both unequivocally said yes,'' Warner said. Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination and former Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, has questioned the administration's targeting of Iraq. A group of retired intelligence officers has raised similar questions. On Sunday, Graham said on CNN's Late Edition that the war in Iraq was ''a diversion'' of intelligence and military resources from the war on terrorism. He said that allowed the resurgence of al-Qaeda and a suicide bombing May 12 in Saudi Arabia, which killed 35.
1) No, I don't know that. I know that you think you do, but I can point to several occassions where you based your argument on your interpretation of the facts, on what you considered faultless logic, anbd all i can suggest is I am glad you're not a D.A. Time and again you have stated that I nand others were not reading the material you posted simply because after reading it we still did not agree on your interpretaiton. Case in point: the POWs. You stated that it was 'clear to a blind man' that they had been executed and tortured...based on the fact that several were victimes of headshots, and that they were bruised and without their flak. I NEVER said that they weren't, merely that what you called proof, I called supposition. There were alternate interpretations which explained the facts. You still go on about this as if you won the argument. What you said wasn't just asking me to agree with the facts, but your interpretation...I never said that your interpretation was innacurate, just distinguished it for what it was. You feel that if your interpretation ends up being correct, that means that it was always. That is absolutely contrary to the rules of evidence, logic, and common sense. If I go outside, think it feels humid and damp, and walk around stating that it's a proven fact that it's going to rain,I am asserting an interpretation of the facts, not a fact itself. If it rains later that day, it does not in any way change the nature of what I said. From now on when you call your interpretaion of things 'fact' or 'proof', I'll merely say "did it again" rather than go through the whole concept again. BTW, can you post a link to where it was proven that the PWs in question were executed and tortured? I honestly haven't read that anywhere.. 2) See what I mean. You feel that if people don't jump to and agree with your interpretation, they are being foolish and that it excuses your being insulting. Same reasoning. 3) You still don't get it. Please look up 'fact' and/or 'evidence'. 4) Yes, I read the report. Unlikely and not factual are NOT the same thing, and especially when coming from a biased source...or do you feel that our INTEL has been both accurate and objective throughout this period. And when that intel itself says that things are open to interpretation...well, think about it. 5) NO, this does not amount to what you suggest. I stated that it amounts to , if you are correct, proof that someone in Iraq at some time, etc...already stated this. To paraphrase you, didnt; you read my f*cking post!?!? 6) How, exactly, do these trucks prove that the program ran up to just before the war? Or that they came from the latter period? 7) Sporto...re-read my post. I was stating that AS we don't know when/where/if these trucks were ever used, even if we asume that they were at some point designed to be used as you said, then thir existence proves nothing in terms of justifying the invasion. What if A) They were never used...B) They are from 5 or 10 years ago...C) They were used for another purpose altogether? Are you beginning to see the difference between supposition built on 'facts' and evidence? Didn't think so. 8) What!?!? I am more intersted...YOU are the one who equated this to a war justification argument..repeatedly. So when I suggest differently, I am the one with blinerds on?!?! Man, you're unbelievable...but I'll mention this again later in the discussion where...once again...you equate this to a justification of the war...ie doing what you here usggest shows I am biased...again. 9) Quote: You have yourself side-stepped other revalations about this war which go a hell of a lot further to undermining the pro-war position than this. I have only avoided engaging in silly speculation about lies and conspiracies, nothing more. Lol..this one I just had to repost...this is classic. I swear, in a psych. course about perspective in terms of people's belief in themselves as objective, this is damned near a parallel used for the obviousness of people's ability to delude themselves. You don't see...just a little...that your statement is constructed on that little thing we like to call " YOUR OPINION."? 10) did it again. 11) Ok..I'll grant you that it hasn't been proven false. Of course, prving a negative is a virtual impossibility in this case, so you can still be saying this at 65. Honestly, tree, do you have NAY niggling doubts about the nuke program? Not the easiest thing in the world to hide, you'll agree? Not proof, but are you standing by this statement you made earlier, as equal to your others? Not that I see a distinction, but for the sake of your other arguments, you might want to reconsider... 12) The admin never, not one made a connection between 9-11 and Hussein!?!?!? Ok, I don't have time to do research here, but I remember Bush himself talking about 9-11 several times as reason to go to war with Iraq. I'll get back to you on this one. 13) did it again. 14) did it again. 15) did it again. 16) You siad" My, we sure are throwing around alot of misquotes today... Please show me the post where I said that it was always about freeing the Iraqi people? I challenge you to show me that. Yes, that is a challenge... " Okay, tree...here you go... " Toppling Saddam's regime was always the main goal - mission accomplished. The WMD are not really relevant if he is not in power. This is what many Americans failed to understand - that the Iraqi leadership was the problem, not necessarily the WMD. They were just a symptom. But most Americans couldn't get that, so the admin talked up something they could understand..." Uh...challenge answered. There are others, this was just the first. Have to run...will respond to rest later.
Bush vows to 'reveal the truth' on Iraqi weapons WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Facing questions about his administration's pre-war assertions about the threat posed by Iraq, President Bush vowed Thursday to "reveal the truth" about what he has described as former leader Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/05/sprj.irq.wmd.controversy/index.html Doesn't this statement imply that, by his own admission, he lied?
His grammar and English are so poor, it's hard to jump on that one. He probably meant a different metaphor but is too stupid to remember it.
f*@#! I just spent about 45 minutes responding to your post, MacBeth, and lost my connection when I sent it...F*ing AOL! I will try again later, I don't have much phone time left right now (we have to keep the phone lines open during QRF).
Forty-five minutes responding to a post on the BBS----AND you have AOL----ouch How do you guys find the time?
No dount, it is those who were against the war who are desperately trying to spin things in light of our confusion over the lack of WMDs...clearly.
Prolly just borrowed the money from Anne Richards !! DD You know I have to be fair to both sides....heheh
Levity! LEVITY???? We'll have none of that around here boys! as you were... Except for woofer, I noticed noone answered my question.
The truth dribbles out: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory2/1940245 June 6, 2003, 12:17PM Pentagon report found no evidence of Iraq chemical weapons Associated Press WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon's intelligence service reported last September that it had no reliable evidence that Iraq had chemical agents in weaponized form, officials said today. The time frame is notable because it coincided with Bush administration efforts to mount a public case for the urgency of disarming Iraq, by force if necessary. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others argued that Saddam Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons and was hiding them. Two months after major fighting in Iraq ended, U.S. officials have yet to find any chemical or other mass-killing weapons, although they still express confidence that some will turn up. Rumsfeld recently raised the possibility that Iraq destroyed the weapons before the war started March 20. He also has said he believes some remain and will be discovered when U.S. search teams find knowledgeable Iraqis who are willing to disclose the locations. In making its case for invading Iraq, the administration also argued that Iraq was seeking to develop nuclear weapons and that it might provide some of its mass-killing weapons to terrorists. . . .
