WMDs

[ElevatioN]

we found them.. or something that could be used to make them! weeee first post of avoiding this internationa embrassment.

[[RiCE]cancer]

Article? Link?

Remember, if we did find "them" (or "things that could be used to make them") then that's the reason we went to war. And it was justified.

If not, we were liberating the Iraqi people. Just like the Bush administration said.

[Esoteric_Illuminati]

Originally posted by [RiCE]cancer
Article? Link?

Remember, if we did find "them" (or "things that could be used to make them") then that's the reason we went to war. And it was justified.

If not, we were liberating the Iraqi people. Just like the Bush administration said.

Yes, because it has to be one or the other...there is no "big picture" when debating this topic. :rolleyes:

[resyeK]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/index.html

front page of cnn.com, i havent read it yet however, but Im guessing that this is what is being dicussed

[Obscure]

(CNN) -- The CIA has in its hands the critical parts of a key piece of Iraqi nuclear technology -- parts needed to develop a bomb program -- that were dug up in a back yard in Baghdad, CNN has learned.

The parts were unearthed by Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi who had hidden them in his back yard under a rose bush 12 years ago under orders from Qusay Hussein and Saddam Hussein's then son-in-law, Hussein Kamel.

Obeidi told CNN the parts of a gas centrifuge system for enriching uranium were part of a highly sophisticated system he was ordered to hide to be ready to rebuild the bomb program.

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

[Cain]

Don't forget MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.com/news/931304.asp?0cm=c10

This article discusses the CNN stuff and then notes: _"The more significant discoveries were related to Saddam’s attempts to rebuild chemical and biological arsenals like those he was known to have used during the Iran-Iraq War of the late 1980s, when he was supported by the U.S. government."

This is one of only a few articles that has actually mentioned our past relationship to Iraq.

Clearly we were in imminent danger. But wait, now I'm terrified of what we could possibly dig up in Syria. Hold me, Rummy.

[motang]

rofl...i just knew that if we found something some liberal genius would still try to pretend that it was unimportant, or to throw some ridiculous slant on the situation...we are far from finished with our search, so if i were a liberal, i'd be holding my tongue somewhat in light of the fact that i had been shouting with glee that there was no evidence of wmd's over there/bush is a liar blah blah blah...our past relationship with iraq is no secret, and certainly no one is attempting to cover it up...

it is already completely apparant that iraq was less than truthful...i certainly don't know what we are and aren't going to find, but i will, as i always do, reserve judgement until we actually know something, rather than spouting off about the situation as it relates to my own political agenda...on the other hand, i am definitely surprised that i'm not hearing more premature conservative blather about bush's 'vindication,' which would be equally annoying

[Cain]

rofl...i just knew that if we found something some liberal genius would still try to pretend that it was unimportant, or to throw some ridiculous slant on the situation...

What do you mean "if"? There is no "if".

we are far from finished with our search, so if i were a liberal, i'd be holding my tongue somewhat in light of the fact that i had been shouting with glee that there was no evidence of wmd's over there/bush is a liar blah blah blah...

Who is "shouting with glee"? No evidence was presented, of course. Just as Rumsfeld's "bullet proof" evidence for Saddam's ties to Osama has never been substantiated. There's, um, a major problem with a retrospective justification for war. Colin Powell had no problem producing satellite images to show how stupid those silly weapon's inspectors were. That wily dictator just kept fooling them by transporting the WMDs before they came on site.

On March 19 Bush told us that we were in "grave danger" and that we needed to unleash an army of soldiers on Iraq before an army of fire fighters, policemen, and doctors descend on a major American city. In another speech: "Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time; "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual."

Bush told us that Saddam was possibly six months away from building a nuke.

our past relationship with iraq is no secret, and certainly no one is attempting to cover it up...

It's an open secret. No one bothers to mention how we aided and supported this wannabe "Hitler." Those "more significant discoveries of biological and chemcial weapons, for example, were known when Rumsfeld, as Ronald Reagan's Special Ambassador to the Middle East, was visiting Ol' Saddam. Human rights groups had compiled compelling evidence that Saddam used chemcial weapons in the border war with Iran. Rumsfeld had an opportunity to condemn these actions, and he didn't. Well, I guess we could say he just waited 15 years.

But wait, back to the main story, the impetus for war. Cheney had this exchange with Tim Russert on Meet the Press:

NBC: "And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree?"
_
Cheney: "I disagree, yes. And you'll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of our intelligence community disagree. Let's talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. … We know that based on intelligence, that [Saddam] has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong."

But who knows, maybe a component buried in a rose garden for 12 years means Saddam has suddenly become very serious about building up nukes. *shrug*

[motang]

i have no idea what the relevance of 'if' is in your post...there are most certainly still many 'ifs' involving the search for weapons...

second, i have doubts that you really are unable to grasp exactly who has been 'shouting with glee'...in national columns liberals have been almost joyously bashing bush and screaming about how we weren't finding anything, and it's really just the same old name-calling game...nothing new there

by no means does your assertion that we're trying to justify the war in retrospect mean that this is actually the case...you would have a very tough time convincing a conservative that this was true, and a very easy time convincing a liberal...it's a debatable claim, although i am certainly not interested in debating it with you or anyone else...my opinion thus far is probably closest to 'maybe we are, and maybe we aren't...it's difficult to determine at this time...'

i have no idea why you chose to detail a bit of our past relationship with hussein...i am more than aware of our dealings with him...i do, however, understand perfectly what your object was when you originally brought it up, and it's simply more of your incessant, and less than objective, liberal prattling...it's absolutely comical watching these reactions...we find evidence of dangerous and illegal weapons, and you respond with 'BUT WAIT WE USED TO BE FRIENDS WITH HIM WAIT THE WEAPONS ARE OLD WAIT WE'RE JUSTIFYING IN RETROSPECT WAIT CHENEY CONTRADICTS HIMSELF,' whereas when i hear something like this i say, 'hmmm...that's interesting...i wonder what else we'll find, if anything at all'...i simply don't have some big agenda that colors my views and prevents me from an attempt at objectivity

i'm grateful for the last line of your post, as it perfectly illustrates a point i made previously...i agree that finding something buried in a back yard does not evidence a rebuilt weapons program...further findings would be needed to illustrate such a fact, and it's entirely possible, even likely, that we will be finding more weapons...perhaps we will, perhaps we won't...as i said before, if i were you, i'd reserve judgement until we know more...

i'm certainly not a liberal, and definitely not a conservative...i choose not to attack the president at present because all of the facts are not in, and it's absolutely ridiculous to rush to judegement when dealing with issues such as these...the entire situation has thus far been extremely clouded, as is usually the case, by propaganda being spit in our face by both sides of the political coin...at this time, i choose not to fall victim to bullshit, to the extent that it's possible...

[Cain]

i have no idea what the relevance of 'if' is in your post...there are most certainly still many 'ifs' involving the search for weapons...

See Blix quote in sig. The justification for this war was Iraq's immediate danger to the world in the form of possessing weapons of mass destruction. We're in "grave danger"; Iraq poses a "significant danger" etc. Since you perceptively picked up on my insidious "agenda", I feel no shame quoting directly from the Talking Points Memo Fed-exed to me moments ago from my masters at the DNC:

"We have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction - that is what this war was about, and is about - and we have high confidence it will be found." -- Ari Fleischer http://heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,6268665%255E1702,00.html

second, i have doubts that you really are unable to grasp exactly who has been 'shouting with glee'...in national columns liberals have been almost joyously bashing bush and screaming about how we weren't finding anything, and it's really just the same old name-calling game...nothing new there

Yes, when Dennis Kucinich shouts "Where are the weapons of mass destruction?" He's gleeful; euphoric even. Oh guru, my political god that transcends "liberal" and "conservative" labels, maybe -- just maybe -- that glee is eclipsed by -- I dunno -- outrage. The "liberal" (whatever that means) columnists I read aren't laughing haha, they're saying, "Hey, this is some serious shit."

by no means does your assertion that we're trying to justify the war in retrospect mean that this is actually the case...

No, it's an incontestable observation. Where's the smoking gun? We haven't found one. We bomb Iraq, go in, hope to find one (that's where the "ifs" pop up), and then a declare an "aha!" followed by thousands of "I told you so's," and concluding with a big "Fuck You!"

you would have a very tough time convincing a conservative that this was true, and a very easy time convincing a liberal...it's a debatable claim, although i am certainly not interested in debating it with you or anyone else...my opinion thus far is probably closest to 'maybe we are, and maybe we aren't...it's difficult to determine at this time...'

More meaningless terms. I've determined that "liberal" is a nonsense word, grossly molested in the last 20 years especially. You hurl the liberal epithet at me, fine, whatever. I don't know how many times I've said I'm not a fucking liberal. I guess muddying the terms of debate helps cover your thinly disguised apologetics for the war.

i have no idea why you chose to detail a bit of our past relationship with hussein...i am more than aware of our dealings with him...

Yes, maybe I should make the point crystal clear, since it works on two levels: you see, as Cancer hinted earlier, if the whole W.M.D. claim comes to fruition then we we were there to "liberate the Iraqi people." We supported Saddam in the past when he wasn't any less of an oppressive, brutal dictator (Iraqi people be damned). Saddam possessed WMDs in the past, but we did nothing. That relationship is kinda important. (Or at least that's what the "agenda" setting document from high command orders me to say).

i do, however, understand perfectly what your object was when you originally brought it up, and it's simply more of your incessant, and less than objective, liberal prattling...it's absolutely comical watching these reactions...we find evidence of dangerous and illegal weapons, and you respond with 'BUT WAIT WE USED TO BE FRIENDS WITH HIM WAIT THE WEAPONS ARE OLD WAIT WE'RE JUSTIFYING IN RETROSPECT WAIT CHENEY CONTRADICTS HIMSELF,' whereas when i hear something like this i say, 'hmmm...that's interesting...i wonder what else we'll find, if anything at all'...i simply don't have some big agenda that colors my views and prevents me from an attempt at objectivity

I guess slinging the word "liberal" around isn't enough so that now you must resort to "objectivity." You do, um, realize that anyone with a differing opinion can always accuse the other party of lacking objectivity, right? I could just as easily pepper my parapraphs with such meaningless recriminations: "No, YOU'RE not being objective!" What does that mean? Nothing.

Perhaps you just don't understand, or refuse to acknowledge, that the administration made the case for invasion as a matter of urgency: we had to go in immediately because Saddam was resurrecting his weapons program. Again, I'm not sure how a buried component figures into that program, especially since no one bothered to dig it up after the inspectors left four and a half years ago.

i'm grateful for the last line of your post, as it perfectly illustrates a point i made previously...i agree that finding something buried in a back yard does not evidence a rebuilt weapons program...further findings would be needed to illustrate such a fact, and it's entirely possible, even likely, that we will be finding more weapons...

Wait a second, but in the paragraph up above you say,

.it's absolutely comical watching these [liberal] reactions...we find evidence of dangerous and illegal weapons, and you respond with 'BUT WAIT WE USED TO BE FRIENDS WITH HIM WAIT THE WEAPONS ARE OLD WAIT WE'RE JUSTIFYING IN RETROSPECT WAIT CHENEY CONTRADICTS HIMSELF,'

My response: hmmm...that's interesting...i wonder what else you'll say, if anything at all.

i'm certainly not a liberal, and definitely not a conservative...i choose not to attack the president at present because all of the facts are not in, and it's absolutely ridiculous to rush to judegement when dealing with issues such as these...the entire situation has thus far been extremely clouded, as is usually the case, by propaganda being spit in our face by both sides of the political coin...at this time, i choose not to fall victim to bullshit, to the extent that it's possible...

More of those conveniently silly words that possess zero meaning. Look: There's a burden of proof bear when you move to invade another country; a very demanding burden of proof. This isn't comparable to walking out of the recent Matrix movie with a mixed feelings, questions surrounding an esoteric plot point or confusing dialog. This is serious shit, any cloudiness a direct result of the Bush adminsitration's inability (or unwillingness) to offer a coherent argument supported by evidence.

What does it matter though? Most people are perfectly fine if we discover nothing at all. We liberated the Iraqis (we love freedom). Other polls indicate that a third of the population believes we already found weapons of mass destruction (just as nearly half believe Saddam was directly involved in the 9/11 atrocities).

[motang]

i knew your response would be convoluted, but i had no idea we were going to be addressing the very meaning of 'liberal' and 'conservative,' or discussing the bastardization of the term 'objective'...absolutely ridiculous

you're having a one-sided argument...you can argue about what the impetus to war was with someone else...i challenge you to show me where i have given any opinion whatsoever...and your blix quote means nothing, considering it doesn't preclude future findings...

now, as always, you are making assumptions about my viewpoint which simply aren't true...evidently someone told you that i agreed with our actions, or that i feel that we went in for the right reasons, or some similar nonsense...why are you pasting me ari quotes like i don't sense the irony? why can't i say 'if?' you're trying to prove to me that, for the conservative, there is no if, but good god, don't act as though i share this viewpoint...there are HUGE 'ifs' in my mind, and if we don't ever find anything else i will of course have huge problems with our actions...i simply find it a bit early to jump to conclusions...

i never mentioned dennis kucinich, you did, and thus your example based around him is completely irrelevant and invalid...i have no idea why you are seemingly unaware of the inordinate amount of bush bashing that has taken place lately, with insults being tossed around shamefully...perhaps you dislike my somewhat colorful wording?

repeating yourself does not make something true...you ask where the smoking gun is, and it is true we haven't found one...my sole point here is, what the hell makes you so sure we aren't going to find one in the future? cain, it's completely possible that we might, and i have no idea what you will do if that happens...now, it's also possible we will not find anything, and then i will of course have problems with our actions...at this time, however, the topic remains debatable, an thus i will reserve judgement until it becomes absolutely clear whether or not wmd's presented a threat...

now, i don't give a shit what you call yourself, but your claim that i'm hurling the liberal 'epithet' at you is just so many more words you're putting in my mouth...i never once called you a liberal...i made reference to your 'liberal prattling,' as the opinion you presented was most certainly a liberal one...everything i'm saying here about liberals and conservatives doesn't relate directly to you ;P

so, let me be very clear about my point, since it seems to have eluded you for a second time...i think it's absolutely hilarious to watch liberals trying to confuse the issue here...we find part of an illegal weapon, and instead of people reacting with 'wow i wonder what else they'll find,' people are immediately reverting back to a debate about whether we were right to go in and whether the government was less than forthcoming with it's information...now, these are, of course, very grave issues, and issues which concern me greatly...however, when i see that we've found weapons it doesn't give me this urge to bring up all this crap...it makes me think about the weapons and what else we will find...

as for my 'thinly disguised apologetics for the war'...this made me smile, because you're blatantly talking out of your ass here...show me anywhere where i tried to justify anything about the war in iraq...who the hell told you i was pro-war? now, i don't usually state my opinions on this board, but i guess it's necessary here...it scared me to death when i heard we were going to war...i wanted no part of it, and no part of iraq...it confused the hell out of me how we jumped from the taliban to hussein...now look, guy, you either quit attributing opinions to me or prove how i'm trying to justify a war that i was against in the first place :P

i'll just throw out a few of your random quotes which have been completely irrelevant:
Yes, maybe I should make the point crystal clear, since it works on two levels: you see, as Cancer hinted earlier, if the whole W.M.D. claim comes to fruition then we we were there to "liberate the Iraqi people." We supported Saddam in the past when he wasn't any less of an oppressive, brutal dictator (Iraqi people be damned). Saddam possessed WMDs in the past, but we did nothing. That relationship is kinda important.
yep, i don't disagree in the slightest...who are you arguing with here?
Perhaps you just don't understand, or refuse to acknowledge, that the administration made the case for invasion as a matter of urgency: we had to go in immediately because Saddam was resurrecting his weapons program.
where exactly do i refuse to acknowledge this as fact? i would just love for you to show me anywhere i even remotely disagreed with this...
Look: There's a burden of proof bear when you move to invade another country; a very demanding burden of proof.
yeah, no shit guy...i agree completely...here's the kicker though...the possibility exists that wmd's may, in fact, be found...i am not in a position to speculate on the likelihood of this occurring, but what are you going to say if they find biochemical weapons, or evidence that hussein could have indeed been close to completion of a nuclear device?

the entire point is that i will wait until we know if these exist before i spout off about how we lied...if we did, then shame on bush, and shame on our government...if we didn't, and hussein presented a real and immediate threat, then shame on everyone who jumped the gun and condemned him...i, for one, will wait...

[Tripwire]

ok, question?

The items were reported to have been used for a development during the Iraq-Iran war right? That means the USA sent them the parts! (probably since we backed Iraq then and hated Iran).

[VeeKaChu]

Originally posted by Tripwire
ok, question?

The items were reported to have been used for a development during the Iraq-Iran war right? That means the USA sent them the parts! (probably since we backed Iraq then and hated Iran).
Hence, we knew they had them- just didn't know where they'd been buried for 12 years....

[Soulcrusher]

I would offer an opinion, but I'd probably get banned again.

I am a victim of Lich's anti-Canadian movement. :(

He hates freedom. He refuses to love his neighbor like he loves himself.

<-- Frostbyte

Hopefully a few people will get to read this post before it is deleted and this account is banned too.

It isn't difficult to avoid a ban, but it is more than a little annoying that I couldn't even say 'goodbye' to everyone.

So, here it is.

GG and see ya around.

[freeo]

Beware: Iraqis would have soon been launching 12 year old pieces of junk metal at the United States. The impact of these 12 year old pieces of junk metal would have undoubtedly left cities in ruins. After dropping these 12 year old pieces of junk metal from a height of 10 feet, they left a significant crater in the sand. Clearly, the war was justified.

Sarcasm aside, they're 12 years old... Come on now. We all knew he had WMD way back when. The question isn't whether he had them then, it's whether or not he has them now. Sorry, but a few 12 year old pieces of junk metal isn't proof enough for an invasion for me--and I doubt it's enough for any who are anti-war. I remember many pro-war people bashing the U.N. inspectors for not finding anything in Iraq in the few weeks they had. All the United States can dig up in the many (virtually) unrestricted months is 12 year old pieces of junk metal? Please.

[Moniker]

I got confused by all the big words and non-capitolization --

Is the argument here about how liberals should be reacting?

..or is it that we might find something sometime in the future someday?

[[RTL]N-SaNe]

Sane > Esoteric_Illuminati

Long time no see bro.
:cool:

[philly]

lmao....I don't understand why everybody is trying to pee on each others legs over the discovery of 12 year old machine parts. Nothing has been resolved by this discovery. There is still no justifiable evidence of WMD for our invasion and there is till alot more searching to be done (although we were told the evidence was there plain as day :rolleyes: ). This find does not prove or disprove anything, we're still at the same point we were a week ago.

[snaggle]

Honestly, I saw those pictures last night and thought, "Oh, so we finally bit the bullet and buried some stuff to dig up and prove our war was right." I hate to say it, but those are too convieniently placed, and the "solution" to find them was too easy. So some scientist came forward with information...why didn't he do this months ago? Probably because he didn't know he was going to be a political tool for the US War Machine.

[Cain]

Frostbyte- why were you banned? It was probably just a phase. Lich can be moody sometimes. Other admins have banned me twice.

__________________________________________________ _
Motang-

You elevate misunderstanding and poor argumentation to a Jerry Bruckheimer film -- long on words (budget), quick on opinions (cut scenes), and completely lacking in meaningful content.

i knew your response would be convoluted, but i had no idea we were going to be addressing the very meaning of 'liberal' and 'conservative,' or discussing the bastardization of the term 'objective'...absolutely ridiculous

Well, yeah, it's kinda important to know what these words mean given their numerous appearances in your posts. Of course, they mean nothing, and only serve as a shallow meta-opinion above mere "opinion."

you're having a one-sided argument...you can argue about what the impetus to war was with someone else...i challenge you to show me where i have given any opinion whatsoever...and your blix quote means nothing, considering it doesn't preclude future findings...

No; again, the argument for war was the immediate danger posed by Iraq. You wouldn't be making this statement if you really believed, as you say later on:

where exactly do i refuse to acknowledge [the administration's argument from urgency] as fact? i would just love for you to show me anywhere i even remotely disagreed with this...

I'm going to address the following two quotes taken together (they're out of order, but related)

now, as always, you are making assumptions about my viewpoint which simply aren't true...evidently someone told you that i agreed with our actions, or that i feel that we went in for the right reasons, or some similar nonsense...why are you pasting me ari quotes like i don't sense the irony? why can't i say 'if?' you're trying to prove to me that, for the conservative, there is no if, but good god, don't act as though i share this viewpoint...there are HUGE 'ifs' in my mind, and if we don't ever find anything else i will of course have huge problems with our actions...i simply find it a bit early to jump to conclusions...

as for my 'thinly disguised apologetics for the war'...this made me smile, because you're blatantly talking out of your ass here...show me anywhere where i tried to justify anything about the war in iraq...who the hell told you i was pro-war?

*Sigh* There are many people today on this board who would not *support* our actions in Vietnam, but make excuses for the government (they just wanted to protect our lifestyle by stopping the spread of communism; civilians were not purposely attacked etc). That makes this person an apologist for the war and, more importantly, the institutions behind the war. As you do now with unctuous condemnations of those who dare to press the President or ask serious questions ("bashing", right?). I never called you pro-war; you're a Bush apologist.

You can't be neutral on a moving train.

i never mentioned dennis kucinich, you did, and thus your example based around him is completely irrelevant and invalid...

*sigh* 1) I never said you did. I only used him as an example since -- oh my god! -- you didn't bother to mention anyone. It's just an amorphous liberal opinion that invades the public consciousness, right? The "gleeful" description was wrong.

i have no idea why you are seemingly unaware of the inordinate amount of bush bashing that has taken place lately, with insults being tossed around shamefully...perhaps you dislike my somewhat colorful wording?

Where is all this Bush bashing taking place? I don't watch cable television, but I try to read a few papers. People are asking questions, perfectly justified questions: What did he know and when did he know it?

repeating yourself does not make something true...you ask where the smoking gun is, and it is true we haven't found one...my sole point here is, what the hell makes you so sure we aren't going to find one in the future?

Funny. Where again did I say we weren't going to find anything? If the search function was working properly right now I could cite instances where I said things to the effect: "Even I'm surprised we haven't found anything yet." I authorize any admin to tell you exactly how I've voted in every poll on the war that has appeared on this board since before the war. Oh, but I'm the one who is supposed to be making unsupported assumptions :rolleyes:

cain, it's completely possible that we might, and i have no idea what you will do if that happens...now, it's also possible we will not find anything, and then i will of course have problems with our actions...at this time, however, the topic remains debatable, an thus i will reserve judgement until it becomes absolutely clear whether or not wmd's presented a threat...

Let me say again: I'd be surprised if we didn't find anything at all (this is where the past relationship to Saddam becomes important). However, the administration said we needed to go to war right now. It's urgent they said. Bush exploited the 9/11 atrocities and instilled fear in the public. In order for these claims to become justified he needs to present an ACTIVE weapons program. Otherwise we could've left the job to inspectors...

now, i don't give a shit what you call yourself, but your claim that i'm hurling the liberal 'epithet' at you is just so many more words you're putting in my mouth...i never once called you a liberal...i made reference to your 'liberal prattling,' as the opinion you presented was most certainly a liberal one...

Still more nonsense. Support for or against the war transcends simplistic liberal-conservative distinctions. Has Christopher Hitchens taken the "conservative" position? Tony Blair? Mary McGordy?

Or look at Snaggle's post: he speculates that the evidence may have been inauthentically produced by a "political tool" to support the "US war machine." I guess that makes him some type of liberal.

(compare and contrast this paragraph with the risible outburst on "apologetics for the war"; in this instance you say that I'm not really a liberal, just taking a liberal position; in the latter you say that I really called you "pro-war") :rolleyes:

so, let me be very clear about my point, since it seems to have eluded you for a second time...i think it's absolutely hilarious to watch liberals trying to confuse the issue here...

Hold up, cowboy. Am I trying to confuse the position here? If so, does that make me a liberal? Just checking. (compare with your first post where you expressed similar sentiments:

rofl...i just knew that if we found something some liberal genius would still try to pretend that it was unimportant, or to throw some ridiculous slant on the situation...we are far from finished with our search, so if i were a liberal, i'd be holding my tongue somewhat in light of the fact that i had been shouting with glee that there was no evidence of wmd's over there/bush is a liar blah blah blah...our past relationship with iraq is no secret, and certainly no one is attempting to cover it up...

I wasn't sure at the time if you were referring to me or the MSNBC article. If that's true then you're lying. If you're referring to the article then you have an even more warped understanding of "liberal" than I ever suspected. Both, it seems, are very real possibilities.

we find part of an illegal weapon, and instead of people reacting with 'wow i wonder what else they'll find,' people are immediately reverting back to a debate about whether we were right to go in and whether the government was less than forthcoming with it's information...

And this is precisely what makes you an apologist. The administration needs to present that supported the rationale for our invasion. At first we found anonymous barrels containing evil chemicals. Then it was a couple of trailers. Now it's a component buried in a backyard for twelve years. Sorry if I do not share your enthusiasim.

You claim to understand the "imminent danger" argument, but cannot seem to figure how this latest finding doesn't quite fit...

blah blah blah

Yeah, that's nice.

[othell]

Originally posted by snaggle
Honestly, I saw those pictures last night and thought, "Oh, so we finally bit the bullet and buried some stuff to dig up and prove our war was right." I hate to say it, but those are too convieniently placed, and the "solution" to find them was too easy. So some scientist came forward with information...why didn't he do this months ago? Probably because he didn't know he was going to be a political tool for the US War Machine.

I can sorta understand his not wanting to come forward "months ago". I mean... The war was officially declared to be over only on May 1st, less than 2 months ago. Since that time the US forces have not exactly brought as much stability and order to the country as was planned. There's still no telling how many supports Saddam has lurking about the country... Or even watching any WMD sites (that is, if there actually are WMD sites).

So a nuclear scientist would still have much to worry about in my mind.

[motang]

still harping on my use of the term liberal...this isn't a new concept by any means, and although i'm happy you 'decided' the term is meaningless, i will continue to use it where i deem it apt...the term 'normal' is also supposedly outdated in psychiatry, yet we find it indispensible when describing conditions as they relate to disease states...it's a completely different debate, and i won't allow it to distract from the main issue...you can bring it up every time you post if you wish, but it's certainly not a concept i am unfamiliar with, and it will certainly not stop me or the rest of the world from making use of it when necessary...

now, i commend you on your ability to make large repetitive posts under the guise of presenting new information...it's a real talent...however, you continue to attribute opinions to me that simply are not true, and you have yet to challenge my argument...

i'll start with your thinly stretched attempt to once again tell me what i really think...
again, i have never once disputed that the 'argument from urgency' was employed, and my characterization of the blix quote holds up perfectly...i said that the blix quote doesn't preclude future findings...make the next logical step...if we do, in fact, find that hussein had an active weapons program, or was planning an imminent attack on the u.s., then the argument from urgency was valid...i can still see the possibility that the president, or our government, had 100% confirmation of wmd's, since that information would not have been released to the public, and may not be for some time...i can also picture the possibility that they have been moved somewhere difficult to track, be it out of the country/underground or whatever...again, can i speculate on the likelihood of this? of course not...i am not privy to classified information, and i will thus reserve judgement...is this becoming clear? the argument from urgency has not been proven invalid at this point, and this is the full extent of my claim...at this time i do not say it was bs, and i do not say it was accurate...

next, you continue to blather about the smoking gun argument, and tell me how you never claimed that more weapons could not possibly be found, but immediately turn around and once again try to assert that the smoking gun argument somehow proves the argument from urgency invalid...i can't make it any more clear: it's still possible that there was in fact clear and present danger, and i won't jump to conclusions at this time...

let's see if your statements on apologetics hold up...you say that you never claimed i was for the war in iraq, and yet you have stated that i am a war apologist...you are aware of what an apologist does? how could you claim that i was justifying a war (which is pretty damn impossible since i was against our insertion) and then claim you never said that i was for the war? next you again try to attribute opinions to me by calling me a bush apologist...where have i once said anything positive about the president? i am claiming a position of neutrality which hinges upon future findings...again, if he is a liar, i will have huge problems with him...if he presented information in concordance with the information he had at the time, then he's been getting a lot of shit for nothing...show me evidence of how i am a bush apologist, or a war apologist...i think it will be increasingly difficult for you to debate this topic if your argument continues to rest upon attributing opinions to me which i do not hold...

now we'll move to the second major point i made, which involves what i see to be people who have allowed their politics to overshadow objectivity (and good god, if you want to debate objectivity again...you can't eliminate the term from debate just because it can be used for ill purposes)...i see reactions, on this board and elsewhere, which amaze me...it's almost as though our finding a weapon has become some negative instance which further proves our actions were wrong, when it simply means that we found something, and might find even more...it's distasteful to me, and i think that rather than using it as a springboard for further attacks upon the president, it should be taken for what it is, which is not much...it warrants further investigation...this doesn't make me a bush apologist by any stretch of the imagination...i have already told you several times that if he is proven to have lied, or to have been less than truthful, i will be the first in line to condemn him...it's almost as though you take a position of neutrality as a personal affront...refusing to attack someone until all the information is in simply does not make you an apologist for that person...

and now for part II of irrelevant quotes:
The administration needs to present [information] that supported the rationale for our invasion. At first we found anonymous barrels containing evil chemicals. Then it was a couple of trailers. Now it's a component buried in a backyard for twelve years. Sorry if I do not share your enthusiasim.
yes cain, once again, i agree...but wait, 'enthusiasm?' here we go again...i have no enthusiasm for what we've found, and i have already directly stated that it has no bearing on whether an active weapons program existed...i don't think this finding means much of anything at present, but wait...the search isn't over (wasn't that my point all along?), so i ask you to cease claims that i'm apologizing for bush and the war because i'm trying to be prudent about rushing to judgement...we'll either find evidence of an imminent threat or we won't, and my opinion will be formed accordingly, no more, no less...
You claim to understand the "imminent danger" argument, but cannot seem to figure how this latest finding doesn't quite fit...
eh? what's this? good god man, you're throwing my so-called opinions at me with clock-like regularity...show me where i've made anything resembling a claim that this finding has any effect on the agument from urgency...i am beginning to question more than your reading comprehension...i don't think it figures in much at all, if any, to that argument...the possibility of finding an active weapons program is still available to us, and that fact, and only that fact, makes me hesitate to condemn the president...perhaps my amusement concerning how certain people have reacted to the finding confused you? that reaction doesn't assume 'enthusiasm' for a finding that i'm not particularly impressed with...my reaction to the finding, as i've said before, is closest to 'hmmm...interesting...i wonder if they'll find anything else'...
*Sigh* There are many people today on this board who would not *support* our actions in Vietnam, but make excuses for the government (they just wanted to protect our lifestyle by stopping the spread of communism; civilians were not purposely attacked etc). That makes this person an apologist for the war and, more importantly, the institutions behind the war.
ah yes, i agree with your basic logic...but hold up, is your analogy relevant to this situation? i haven't made any excuses for the government whatsoever (feel free to show me otherwise)...i haven't said that bush was acting in our best interests (indeed, it is possible that he was not, and may be a llar), nor have i made mention of our war methods...hmm, so how exactly am i an apologist for the war again, since this analogy doesn't apply to my argument? my argument is, again, that if we find evidence of a threat that the administration had evidence of, then we are justified...if we do not, we are not...i challenge you to provide any instances where i have attempted to justify our actions or our president...i simply find it imprudent to rush to judgement...

lastly, citing specific examples of so-called liberals who weren't against the war has no bearing on liberal reactions, that are, in my opinion, imprudent and brash...i already told you that not everything i've said concerning liberals applies to you...i'm speaking in generalities...try to confine your characterizations of my opinions as they pertain to you to statements i make concerning you...novel idea, eh?

oh, and btw, i see you've returned to your old habits of attacking my arguing style, and just as it has before, it makes me smile...i will refrain from returning the favor at this time...

[Cain]

It's almost funny because the last line of your reply nicely encapsulates the discussion so far: oh, and btw, i see you've returned to your old habits of attacking my arguing style, and just as it has before, it makes me smile...i will refrain from returning the favor at this time...

The person who trumpets his "no position" approach criticizes my "old habit" of attacking the "arguing style." Well, um, yeah.

I often wonder if a devious censor has substituted ellipses in place of your real arguments appear.

A point by point reply seems unncessary at this point. Go ahead and use "liberal" where you "deem it apt," fine. Didn't you call me a liberal earlier and then deny doing so? Oh, feel free to just ignore that. Ignore everything, so that when I repeat -- which I acknowledge I've done ad nauseum -- criticize the repitition. I'll simply point to your brickwall non-responses and shrug. (I made no pretense at presenting "new information," as you claim, but go ahead and say so. I use words like "again" and constantly refer to previous posts. But if it makes you feel better believing otherwise, great.)

Re: the Blix quote:

Of course Blix's observations do not preclude the possibility of future findings. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, the President's spokesman claimed we had "high confidence." The point is that we needed a reason, a justification to go in. You could have a brain tumor right now. That doesn't mean doctors can go ahead and open you up. They'd need compelling evidence. Maybe an X-ray, or a folder containing your posts to the Catacombs. Bush never offered compelling evidence in the case for war.

As I've mentioned earlier, and you still don't understand, the burden of proof rests with the administration. They have to a make a convincing case. Instead we see you offering pathetic possibilities:

i can still see the possibility that the president, or our government, had 100% confirmation of wmd's, since that information would not have been released to the public, and may not be for some time...

This is apologetics. Besides, Condolezza Rice's statements flatly contradict you here as she makes her real argument: "There will always be some uncertainty about how quickly [Saddam] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Indeed.

Just to make this clearer, to demonstrate once and for all your poor understanding of argument and reason, I quote: "the argument from urgency has not been proven invalid at this point, and this is the full extent of my claim...at this time i do not say it was bs, and i do not say it was accurate..."

The argument from urgency was never made. The administration failed. I don't have to prove it wrong, they have to prove it right. If you cannot grasp this elementary point of logic, then there's no point discussing these matters any further. There are many possibilities, but I want hard evidence rather than your worthless armchair speculation.

Delving into minutia.

let's see if your statements on apologetics hold up...you say that you never claimed i was for the war in iraq, and yet you have stated that i am a war apologist...you are aware of what an apologist does? how could you claim that i was justifying a war (which is pretty damn impossible since i was against our insertion) and then claim you never said that i was for the war? next you again try to attribute opinions to me by calling me a bush apologist...where have i once said anything positive about the president? i am claiming a position of neutrality which hinges upon future findings...again, if he is a liar, i will have huge problems with him...if he presented information in concordance with the information he had at the time, then he's been getting a lot of shit for nothing...show me evidence of how i am a bush apologist, or a war apologist...i think it will be increasingly difficult for you to debate this topic if your argument continues to rest upon attributing opinions to me which i do not hold...

Here's an idea: before telling me what I said, why don't you just quote what I've said. We could then trim this discussion down by a factor of ten. You're making excuses for the administrations "They could have had this or seen this or done this" without ever presenting any facts. Yep, they could've done that, Garth. And monkeys could fly out of my butt. (Go back and re-read the exchange: you said something like "who the hell told you I was pro-war?" "I never called you pro-war; I called you a Bush apologist." Now you're throwing in the word "justifying." You do realize that someone could be, oh say, pro-choice and still oppose abortion, right? The only difference between you and such people is that they hold an intellectually and morally responsible position. You make excuses and speculate.

The long paragraph following the one quoted will go without comment.

yes cain, once again, i agree...but wait, 'enthusiasm?' here we go again...i have no enthusiasm for what we've found, and i have already directly stated that it has no bearing on whether an active weapons program existed...i don't think this finding means much of anything at present, but wait...the search isn't over (wasn't that my point all along?), so i ask you to cease claims that i'm apologizing for bush and the war because i'm trying to be prudent about rushing to judgement...we'll either find evidence of an imminent threat or we won't, and my opinion will be formed accordingly, no more, no less...

This paragraph and the one that follows it unfairly bifurcates a connected thought. No matter, my descritpion of your "enthusiasm" referred to what you judged as the proper reaction of a good citizen:

Unnecessarily quoted again, and bolded for your viewing pleasure:
we find part of an illegal weapon, and instead of people reacting with 'wow i wonder what else they'll find,' people are immediately reverting back to a debate about whether we were right to go in and whether the government was less than forthcoming with it's information...

The point(s) above about burden of proof, and the section you so kindly quoted also addresses these claims (but only for the 15th time).

The next paragraph (relating to apologetics) has also been addressed. If you want to insist that you have not been making excuses for the government, fine. Stalin described the Soviet Union as "socialist" and a "democracy."

Speaking of warped definitions and misunderstandings, the penultimate paragraph is an exercise in idiocy.

The final paragraph, of course, was commented upon at the very begininng.

[scopes]

Bush, as Cain said, led us into the war on the assumption that Hussein and Iraq presented an IMMINENT threat, hitting Iraq with a preemptive strike (relating Blix quote in Cain's sig) because if not then we'd be fighting his terror in the streets of America with firefighters and police officers.

Knowing this, why does a part buried in a back yard 12 years ago deserve the outcry of justification for the war? '

[j88]

Obeidi said he was told the materials should remain buried in his backyard until sanctions against Iraq ended, when they would be dug up and used to reconstitute a program to enrich uranium to make a nuclear weapon.

[PwN]

Before I read the rest of the thread,

we are far from finished with our search, so if i were a liberal, i'd be holding my tongue somewhat in light of the fact that i had been shouting with glee that there was no evidence of wmd's over there/bush is a liar blah blah blah

Irony is so ironic.

Anyone else see this?

Let me explain. All the weapons inspectors wanted was more time, because inspections had just resumed. Bush had only given them a few months. Thanks, Im done.

[motang]

ok, i think we're trimming this down a bit

first of all, i'm not 'trumpeting' a no-position approach...my approach involves waiting until all the evidence is in, which is evidently grating to some...what you assert my opinion is of the reaction of a 'good citizen' is also less than true...it has nothing to do with citizenship, rather involving prudence and patience

no on to the heart:
As I've mentioned earlier, and you still don't understand, the burden of proof rests with the administration. They have to a make a convincing case.
yet again, i do not disagree...however, you seem to be claiming that a government must furnish it's intel to it's citizens before any actions are taken...who told you this? there is an ultimate responsibility to make good on your claims, and it's entirely possible that we have photos of chemical test sites, or documentation detailing work on nuclear devices (i certainly do not believe this to be any more likely than the possibility of a dishonest president, i'm just throwing out suggestions for the purposes of debate)...now, why on earth are you sure that this doesn't exist as classified material? why, if the administration has indeed claimed 100% knowledge of wmd's, are you positive that they do not have it? again, you are claiming this because the evidence has not been presented as of yet to the american public, which is an indefensible position...
As I've mentioned earlier, and you still don't understand, the burden of proof rests with the administration. They have to a make a convincing case.
is there some made-up time constraint in your head involving when evidence may and may not be presented? you either admit that the possibility exists that bush had confirmation of wmd's that hasn't been brought forth yet, or you do not...if you do not admit this possibility, then tell me why it is impossible...
The argument from urgency was never made. The administration failed. I don't have to prove it wrong, they have to prove it right. If you cannot grasp this elementary point of logic, then there's no point discussing these matters any further. There are many possibilities, but I want hard evidence rather than your worthless armchair speculation.
always amusing when people question your logic, while ignoring the holes in their own reasoning...of COURSE they have to prove it right...again, you insult my ability to reason, ignore my point, and repeat yourself...my 'speculation' isn't meant to be taken as evidence, and how you've made this connection escapes me...i am not trying to provide any evidence whatsoever, and i am not saying anything remotely pro-bush or attempting to defend our actions (i'm still waiting for you show me where i have done so)...i want hard evidence of the preexisting knowledge of wmd's as much as everyone else...

it's fairly amusing that you're still trying to call me an apologist, even when you're faced with the fact that i am more than prepared to denounce the administration if they fail to produce this evidence...how could i be defending the actions of a man while freely admitting that he may be a liar, and stating that i opposed his actions in the first place...your analogy is silly and irrelevant, since you present the case of a pro-choice person being against abortion: i am not this 'pro-choice' person with the arguments i have presented, and i am not 'against' a particular side here...perhaps another more convoluted analogy would serve you better)

...the question is, once again, and i would really like a response here, how is it that you are so completely convinced that the administration is not going to make good on the argument?...now, i'm going to need more evidence from you as to why this is impossible than simply calling it 'pathetic,' or saying something about monkeys and asses...why exactly is it impossible that classified evidence has not been released to the public?...for that matter, why is it even unlikely? because it wasn't presented in a timely manner? (again, i am not saying it is, in fact, likely...only asking why it is unlikely)

you claim that the argument from urgency was never made, and i reply, the argument is nowhere near over, and this certainly does not imply that i believe the argument WILL be made, only that it MAY be
The point is that we needed a reason, a justification to go in.
and i repeat...tell me how you know that the reason doesn't exist...you seem fully aware that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and at the same time fully prepared to deny any possibility that the government may know a lot more about this than they have shown us at this point...

as to my ignoring you...you don't feel the slightest bit awkward speaking about this when you ignore two entire paragraphs of my post? it makes very little difference to me whether you bother to respond to them or not, but something smells hypocritical here...
oh, and nice analogy between my insistence that i am not an apologist and stalin's insistence that russia was a democracy...you're either getting frustrated or just feeling silly

[motang]

oh god, and 'pwn,' i am startled by your ability to misread something, misunderstand it, and produce something so shockingly irrelevant that people in south america are caught scratching their heads...it's almost superhuman sir, and i congratulate you

my post involved what i believe to be an amusing reaction, and had nothing to do with justifying our behavior in light of the u.n., or weapons inspectors...i recommend you finish your reading

[BluRRPy]

Did any of you see the report on CNN?

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/story.cemtrifuge.iraq.jpg

The reporter picked up the gold circular thing and says to the expert "You know, this really doesn't look like much." The expert responds "But it's really hard to make!"

Watching the perplexed look on the reporter as he fiddled with the gold ring was hysterical. You could read his mind: "Ok we went to war for weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION, and this is what you hand me to report on? What am I supposed to say here?"

[SUICIDAL]

This reverse Justification program isn't working, and Bush should just own up to it. He should say, "We thought he was going to attack us with Weapons of Mass Destruction, but we haven't found any. Oh well, we still freed the Iraqi people from a Tyrannt, and that was the main goal. <looks off stage> yeah thats what we did."

We also helped those people get medical suppliesand now they can sell thier oil LEGALLY and for good prices. They also have the world's largest Army in thier country, pretty good insurance agianst an outside attack. The way i see it, Iraq owes us. Now give us oil.

[Cain]

And the hits just coming.

why, if the administration has indeed claimed 100% knowledge of wmd's, are you positive that they do not have it? again, you are claiming this because the evidence has not been presented as of yet to the american public, which is an indefensible position...

Remember how the administration claimed Iraq had aluminum tubes to make nuclear weapons? Yeah, whatever with those tubes? Or how Bush's State of the Union address claimed that Saddam was acquiring Uranium from Niger?

I quote from a recent article in The New Republic (a publication extremly hawkish on the war):

As Powell cited U.S. intelligence supporting his claim of a reconstituted nuclear weapons program in Iraq, Jacques Baute listened intently. Baute, the head of the IAEA's Iraq inspections unit, had been pestering the U.S. and British governments for months to share their intelligence with his office. Despite repeated assurances of cooperation, TNR has learned that Baute's office received nothing until the day before Powell's presentation, when the U.S. mission in Vienna provided the IAEA with an oral briefing while Baute was en route to New York, leaving no printed material with the nuclear inspectors. As IAEA officials recount, an astonished Baute told his aides, "That won't do. I want the actual documentary evidence." He had to register his complaints through a United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) channel before receiving the documents the day Powell spoke. It was an incident that would characterize America's intelligence-sharing with the IAEA.

After a few weeks of traveling back and forth between Baghdad and Vienna, Baute sat down with the dozen or so pages of U.S. intelligence on Saddam's supposed nuclear procurements--the aluminum tubes, the Niger uranium, and the magnets. In the course of a day, Baute determined, like the ambassador before him, that the Niger document was fraudulent. Though the "president" of Niger made reference to his powers under the constitution of 1965, Baute performed a quick Google search to learn that Niger's latest constitution was drafted in 1999. There were other obvious mistakes--improper letterhead, an obviously forged signature, a letter from a foreign minister who had not been in office for eleven years. Baute also made quick work of the aluminum tubes. He assembled a team of experts--two Americans, two Britons, and a German--with 120 years of collective experience with centrifuges. After reviewing tens of thousands of Iraqi transaction records and inspecting Iraqi front companies and military production facilities with the rest of the IAEA unit, they concluded, according to a senior IAEA official, that "all evidence points to that this is for the rockets"--the same conclusion reached by the State and Energy Departments. As for the magnets, the IAEA cross-referenced Iraq's declarations with intelligence from various member states and determined that nothing in Iraq's magnet procurements "pointed to centrifuge enrichment," in the words of an IAEA official with direct knowledge of the effort. Rather, the magnets were for projects as disparate as telephones and short-range missiles. Baute, who according to a senior IAEA official was in "almost daily" contact with the American diplomatic mission in Vienna, was surprised at the weakness of the U.S. evidence. In one instance, Baute contacted the mission after discovering the Niger document forgeries and asked, as this official described it, "Can your people help me understand if I'm wrong? I'm not ready to close the book on this file. If you've got any other evidence that might be authentic, I need to see it, and I'll follow up." Eventually, a response came: The Americans and the British were not disputing the IAEA's conclusions; no more evidence would be provided.

The administration used these documents as hard evidence, but once other agencies outside the White House had a look, they were easily refuted forgeries. I'm certainly not the only one suspicious of the White House's handling of intelligence: the Republican Senate has created a committee, operating behind closed doors of course, inquiring into whether or not Bush's war was waged on solid evidence.

What about Rumsfeld's "bullet-proof" evidence on a links between Al Qaeda and Saddam? Oh sure, that's possible. Almost anything is posssible, but we must adopt a disposition of unbelief (or even disbelief) until something is presented.

I have heard no one tout as a real possibility that Bush could be in possession of 100% intelligence on an active WMD program. No one (except you, obviously). For Christ's sake everyone has criticized this administration for its handling of intelligence. Recall Colin Powell's praise for the "fine" British report (plagiarized off a ten year old grad paper).

I'm sorry if these gaffes do not inspire confidence...

All of this goes to answering this: "...the question is, once again, and i would really like a response here, how is it that you are so completely convinced that the administration is not going to make good on the argument?"

There's absolutely no reason to believe they will. (Anything is possible. It's possible that Saddam could return to power. Something can still be possible and un-bloodly-likely at the same time.) They have to prove it. Cheney, Rice, Bush, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Powell need(ed) to make a convincing case.

you claim that the argument from urgency was never made, and i reply, the argument is nowhere near over, and this certainly does not imply that i believe the argument WILL be made, only that it MAY be

No, I claim the argument from urgecy was made, constantly. It was just never supported.

and i repeat...tell me how you know that the reason doesn't exist...you seem fully aware that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and at the same time fully prepared to deny any possibility that the government may know a lot more about this than they have shown us at this point...

*Sigh* This is more apologetics. Who is even saying things across these lines in government? The administration right now is having a difficult time supporting the things that it has said. I heard Tony Blair a few weeks ago cite "secret evidence," but little talk followed. Maybe we'll hear all of this around the same time Rumsfeld discloses those indisputable links between Iraq and Osama.

as to my ignoring you...you don't feel the slightest bit awkward speaking about this when you ignore two entire paragraphs of my post? it makes very little difference to me whether you bother to respond to them or not, but something smells hypocritical here...

The two paragraphs near the end? You see, my time is limited; I did mention them, and pointed to other sections of the post that addresses them. I'm sorry if you think there's any worthwhile content there.

As for the analogy I only admit that it was lazy. Still perfectly correct and right, but more of an auto-pilot response.

[motang]

I'm certainly not the only one suspicious of the White House's handling of intelligence:
certainly you are not the only one, as i am suspicious as well...i am suspicious in the sense that i recognize the possibility that the president may have lied, yet i am not ready to claim this as fact at this time...
the Republican Senate has created a committee, operating behind closed doors of course, inquiring into whether or not Bush's war was waged on solid evidence.
and, as yet, have they decided that it was not? what if they decide it was in fact waged on solid evidence? this seems to me to remain a potentiality at this time...
Almost anything is posssible, but we must adopt a disposition of unbelief (or even disbelief) until something is presented.
i'm not sure why we 'must' do this...perhaps some law i've overlooked somewhere? i would claim that we 'must' adopt a disposition of prudence as it pertains to the future gathering of information (or, of course, as it relates to a future lack of information...
For Christ's sake everyone has criticized this administration for its handling of intelligence.
i find this less than compelling evidence for making a claim that bush lied, and i certainly don't agree with such a broad generality in the first place...
I'm sorry if these gaffes do not inspire confidence...
why told you they were supposed to? i certainly did not, as i have absolutely no confidence myself...i can only repeat the fact that i have never once claimed that the current findings point to future findings, rather i choose to merely point out possibilities...
(Anything is possible. It's possible that Saddam could return to power. Something can still be possible and un-bloodly-likely at the same time.)
i was afraid of this...now the argument is being shunted to the realm of likelihood...i'm pretty damn sure i made myself abundantly clear when i twice mentioned that i wasn't about to speculate on probability...your characterization of what is likely in this instance is probably a fairly uneducated one, as you simply don't have access to our intel...yet, at the same time, it may be completely correct; i cannot say...however, i can say, yet again, that the possibility still exists, and that it's likelihood is probably not comparable to the chances of hussein's return...
Cheney, Rice, Bush, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Powell need(ed) to make a convincing case.
ah? what's this? have you have finally changed your verb tense to reflect my argument? (if i am incorrect in this assumption then tell me why)...by inserting the present tense you now allow for the possibility that the argument may still be proven, or at least that's how i'm reading your statement...i.e. if you say they 'need' to present it, then you admit they still have the freedom to do so
No, I claim the argument from urgecy was made, constantly. It was just never supported.
this of course refers to my statement that you quoted, and i just wanted to clarify...you did, in fact, directly say that the argument wasn't 'made,' though you meant by this that the administration had failed to make good on it...i was using the word in the same context, and i of course do not claim that the argument was not employed...only that it has not been disproven at present...
I heard Tony Blair a few weeks ago cite "secret evidence," but little talk followed.
i am not in a position to comment on the truthfulness of his statement, and i can completely understand why many, including you, would instinctively mistrust this claim (indeed, i am somewhat mistrustful myself)...i simply differentiate between the absolute denial of possibility and mere distrust...blair may very well have some 'secret' evidence...i have absolutely no idea if he does or not, and thus i will reserve judgement at this time...

i'll sum up my view of the debate to this point:
Person A: "Bush is a liar."
Person B: "Bush is not a liar."
Person C: "Wait and see if he is a liar."
Person A: "Person C, your 'wait and see' tactics presuppose a defense of Bush."
Person C: "I disagree."

regretfully, this must be my last post for a bit, as i will be leaving the country for a couple of weeks...if the thread is still hot when i return, then i will of course continue, though i doubt there is enough meat here to keep it going that long...

[freeo]

motang: How much longer?

[motang]

haha
i leave in a couple of hours and return on the 14th...freeo, why don't you say something ultra inflammatory to ensure the thread's survival? :P
adios

Good to see the neo conservatives jizzing their pants when we find a bottle of windex buried in a back yard.

[BluRRPy]

http://www.socialworker.org.uk/images/headbang.gif

[Cain]

You're replying in non-sequiturs again and it's getting to be very annoying. Go ahead and scan this entire thread for anyone using the words "lied," "lie," or "liar" and they appear exclusively in your posts (though I did once use the word "lying"- in reference to you). That said, where are the weapons of mass destruction? Even a plurality (http://www.thecatacombs.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13676) of people on this board has come to the conclusion that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction.Cheney's (www.counterpunch.org/) role in the forged documents from Niger is another kind of lie. We were told that Iraq presented an immediate danger. Officials conjured up images of mushrooms clouds, and used the memory of 9/11.

i'm not sure why we 'must' do this...perhaps some law i've overlooked somewhere? i would claim that we 'must' adopt a disposition of prudence as it pertains to the future gathering of information (or, of course, as it relates to a future lack of information...

This is saying nothing at all. In so far that "prudence" is applicable, adopting the positions mentioned, unbelief or disbelief, are in perfect accordance.

i was afraid of this...now the argument is being shunted to the realm of likelihood...i'm pretty damn sure i made myself abundantly clear when i twice mentioned that i wasn't about to speculate on probability...your characterization of what is likely in this instance is probably a fairly uneducated one, as you simply don't have access to our intel...yet, at the same time, it may be completely correct; i cannot say...however, i can say, yet again, that the possibility still exists, and that it's likelihood is probably not comparable to the chances of hussein's return...

You don't want to speculate on likelihood and then the very last sentence of this post betrays that position. Nice. The reasons for believing a devious admin censors these posts with ellipses only grows... Just about every major pronouncement by the administration has subsequently turned out to be lacking. Oh, but I shall never discount the possibility (likelihood: unknown) that the administration is in possession of foolproof evidence. Nevermind what the CIA has been saying, the poor to terrible record so far, or even the fact the administration has not touted this alleged secret evidence.

ah? what's this? have you have finally changed your verb tense to reflect my argument? (if i am incorrect in this assumption then tell me why)...by inserting the present tense you now allow for the possibility that the argument may still be proven, or at least that's how i'm reading your statement...i.e. if you say they 'need' to present it, then you admit they still have the freedom to do so

Calm down, Skippy. Remember, "What did he know and when did he know it?" What did he know at the time that caused him to act? If it was anything grand, he never bothered presenting it, hence never making the case for war (which hinged on the significant danger Mighty Iraq posed at the moment).

this of course refers to my statement that you quoted, and i just wanted to clarify...you did, in fact, directly say that the argument wasn't 'made,' though you meant by this that the administration had failed to make good on it...i was using the word in the same context, and i of course do not claim that the argument was not employed...only that it has not been disproven at present...

I traced back the first part of this paragraph dealing with the "made" business. The sentence I took issue with never quoted me and appears as an isolated comment. The context, therefore, is unknown, at least to me. And it's not worth investigating further. So, fine, whatever, I don't care, sure. The final sentence here has been commented on and then commented upon again and again and again and again: Bush has the burden of proof; Bush has to prove Iraq is presents an immediate danger to the world and the American people. We can only "disprove" what he puts forth... but convenient is it that he (possibly) has this (potentially) wonderful evidence pointing directly to Iraq's active W.M.D. program. I'd be reistent to share as well. Who knows how quickly an enterprising skeptic might completely refute their claims using Google.

The second to last paragraph, a hypothetical exchange, drops the red-herring discussed at the beginning of my post. I'd also take issue with the word "presuppose" because it's a poor fit.

A closer reading:

Person A: The Bush administration has not presented any compelling evidence to support our urgent invasion of Iraq. [Fact]

Person B: Big deal! We went in to liberate the Iraqi people [disputable]... unless we find an active weapons program, then that's the reason for why we acted again. [Twisted fact]

Person C: Hold up. Stop calling Bush a liar. [ass-talk] How do we know he doesn't have irrefutable evidence.
Person A: What makes you believe he does?
Person C: No reason. But he could, and we should be prudent and not say anything one way or the other.
A: Has he said he possesses this information?
C: In the those exact words, no. And I'm not saying that he does. Indeed, I'm not saying anything, just that he might have this information.
A: Yes, it's possible. Many things are possible. But how possible?
C: Not gonna say, that wouldn't be prudent (falling victim to an unwitting Dana Carvey caricature of Bush père).
A: I've seen the errors of my ways. Thank you for clearing up my muddle-headed thinking. Oh, and what is it that you're smoking? I want some.
C: *shaking head* That wouldn't be prudent. [fact]

It's all a moot point because the Bush team had to justify our response (invasion). They failed to do so before going in and now hope to find a retrospective justification (aha!). If we don't find anything, then we freed the poor Iraqis from the chains of an evil dictator. Blow shit up now, ask questions later is terrible policy. Anyone who doesn't the incriminating details up front is an apologist.


Edit to add:
"We've found the weapons of mass destruction. You know, we found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations' resolutions and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on." -- Bush quoted in an article exploring the "did he lie?" theme http://slate.msn.com/id/2084730/

[freeo]

Originally posted by motang
haha
i leave in a couple of hours and return on the 14th...freeo, why don't you say something ultra inflammatory to ensure the thread's survival? :P
adios

What was so inflammatory about that three word question? It was a fair question and I'm sure most of the people on this board would agree. You summed up your own posts when you said: "Wait and see if he is a liar." You need a timeline for this "waiting" business--that is unless you plan on waiting forever.

So, how much longer?

[motang]

i've got to hit the airport in a few minutes but i wanted to clear up the misunderstanding with freo (it's actually pretty amusing)...the last line of my post was talking about how i wasn't sure that there was enough meat in this post to keep it going long enough for me to return to america in time to respond, as i'm leaving for amsterdam imminently...
when you asked, 'how much longer?' i took you to mean 'how much longer do you need us posters to keep the thread going for you?'...i then actually gave you my travel dates, and jokingly asked you to make up something ultra-inflammatory so that the thread could be kept going until my return...i think we set some sort of record for lack of communication...
as to your question, of course it's a fair question, and i don't have an exact answer...i would suggest no further information will emerge after the search starts winding down, and about the time claims of 'secret evidence' cease from political leaders like blair...if there is nothing else found, i will have grave issues with our president and his motives...i simply don't see why it's so supposedly impossible (indeed, cain likened the possibility to monkeys emerging from his ass) that a nuclear or biological lab may be found tomorrow, or a month down the road...the gist of my posts didn't really concern exactly when i was going to pass my 'final judgement,' they referred to the fact that in my opinion we're still at the very beginning of our search, and the government is still reading million page documents, so i find it a bit early to judge...

cain, i simply lack the time to respond as i'd like...the biggest problem i saw during my cursory examination of your post involved your characterization of your argument (Person A), namely that your argument was merely that bush hasn't justified himself, when you have directly, and most plainly, claimed that it's an 'incontestable observation' that the administration is trying to justify the war in retrospect...this quite obviously implies that the administration was less than truthful (see my use of the word 'lie'...red herring my ass) when it decried an imminent threat...therein lies my problem with the argument...i still see the possibility of many pieces of intel that we, the public, don't know about...

anyway, i'm already making myself late...i will return on the 14th to continue chiding the hasty among you...

[freeo]

Have fun! :)

[brett]

The parts were unearthed by Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi who had hidden them in his back yard under a rose bush 12 years ago under orders from Qusay Hussein and Saddam Hussein's then son-in-law, Hussein Kamel.

Okay, so he buries them, 12 years go by, and the U.S. says "lets get those WMDs they buried 12 years ago?"

If they've been underground for 12 fucking years, how the hell is that a 'threat'?

[Obscure]

Originally posted by brett
Okay, so he buries them, 12 years go by, and the U.S. says "lets get those WMDs they buried 12 years ago?"

If they've been underground for 12 fucking years, how the hell is that a 'threat'?

How long would it take to unbury them and start using them again?

[Moniker]

Just a little less time than it would take to get em to Syria.

[Cain]

Motang wrote: (indeed, cain likened the possibility to monkeys emerging from his ass) that a nuclear or biological lab may be found tomorrow, or a month down the road...

Cain originally wrote: "You're making excuses for the administrations "They could have had this or seen this or done this" without ever presenting any facts. Yep, they could've done that, Garth. And monkeys could fly out of my butt."

I'm not sure how I could even compare likelihoods given that -- oh yes, you never stated in those terms. Just those nagging possibilities.

cain, i simply lack the time to respond as i'd like...the biggest problem i saw during my cursory examination of your post involved your characterization of your argument (Person A), namely that your argument was merely that bush hasn't justified himself, when you have directly, and most plainly, claimed that it's an 'incontestable observation' that the administration is trying to justify the war in retrospect...this quite obviously implies that the administration was less than truthful (see my use of the word 'lie'...red herring my ass) when it decried an imminent threat...therein lies my problem with the argument...i still see the possibility of many pieces of intel that we, the public, don't know about...

I'm sorry, this is a non-sequitur. First, I claimed that the Bush administration did not justify the war on the grounds of imminent danger (unless someone wants to support their claims involving aluminum tubes, uranium from Niger, or solid -- indeed "bulletproof" -- links to Al Qaeda). Okay, so that argument failed. The administration quite clearly wants (wanted) to go in and find that "smoking gun" so they'd be vindicated (because the rationale was that Iraq posed an immediate and significant threat to the United States). We can haggle over the definition of lying, but he certainly exaggerated, and throughout my posts I use the convenient phrase "threat inflation." What, eight out ten Americans were afraid of Saddam at one point? Those numbers were, as I repeated over a half a dozen times, higher than either Kuwait (whom he invaded) and Iran (with whom he fought a bloody border war).

All this "wait and see" as "prudence" is just the most offensive kind of Bush apologia. The rest of the world made that exact same argument but on far more rational grounds: remember the weapons inspectors? Let's see what they find? Nope, Bush brushed them aside. Now he wants to have his cake and eat it too. You should be outraged -- outraged! -- that we went in without allowing Blix and co. to finish their job. But no. Conduct an illegal invasion based on easily refuted intelligence; frighten one American public; add next to nothing in terms of finding an active weapons program months later; declare a moratorium on pointed questions at the establishment; liberally sprinkle "possibilities" utterly unsupported by fact; stir rapidly for two days. Bullshit Excuses serves approximately one message-board.

[Soulcrusher]

Originally posted by Cain
Frostbyte- why were you banned? It was probably just a phase. Lich can be moody sometimes. Other admins have banned me twice.

I was banned for flaming in the Cesspool. Go figure. :rolleyes:

My post was edited/deleted by Lich, so you can't see what I said to set him off.

It was either when I called your government a bunch of assmongrels or when I told him to "bury his head in the sand and keep humming that his country is the greatest in the world, and he might drown out the rest of us telling him otherwise". *shrug*

Originally posted by Cain
remember the weapons inspectors? Let's see what they find? Nope, Bush brushed them aside. Now he wants to have his cake and eat it too. You should be outraged -- outraged! -- that we went in without allowing Blix and co. to finish their job.

I believe you hit it square on the head right there.

Un-frickin-believable that people aren't more upset.

Let's stretch our imagination for a minute, and suppose that Bush and the others had concrete evidence of an "imminent threat" from Iraq. Why not share it with the rest of the world? Present your evidence?

Well, the only reason I can think of (and it has been offered by others on this board) is that by showing their proof, Hussein would be able to react (move them, launch them, etc). So, secrecy could be understood to a certain extent.

I would assume that they would simply present the evidence to Blix, so that he could catch Hussein red-handed, but let's ignore that rational response.

So at this point we have:

1> Solid evidence linking Hussein to Bin Laden and evidence of an imminent threat from Iraq.
2> They can't show anyone the evidence because Hussein could respond.

Now, they bomb the shit out of Iraq and set up camp.

Time to show how solid the proof was. Seriously though... It is time to make good with the claims.

Ok now. They don't find anything right away. Or a month later. Or 2 months.

The evidence was either WRONG, DATED, or NONEXISTENT.

WRONG=> Ok, they screwed up. They had bad information. Present it and, if it appears to be an honest mistake, maybe people will understand.

DATED=> Obviously there is no reason to hide dated intelligence. Got records/pictures of activity that was moved somewhere else? Fine, cough it up. What harm is there now?

NONEXISTENT=> Oops. Made it up. Sorry about that. We needed someone to punish for 9/11 and we couldn't find Bin Laden. All Arabs look the same anyway, so our people feel better. We'll try to clean up while we're here.

[PwN]

my post involved what i believe to be an amusing reaction, and had nothing to do with justifying our behavior in light of the u.n., or weapons inspectors...i recommend you finish your reading

It really wasn't funny and it didn't come off as sarcastic. It didn't even look like it could have came off as that, 'motang'.

[VeeKaChu]

Dunno if anyone mentioned this article yet, but "YAWN". (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/26/sprj.irq.iaea/index.html)

[16Valve]

Originally posted by VeeKaChu
Hence, we knew they had them- just didn't know where they'd been buried for 12 years....

Therein lies the crux of our invasion. Of course we knew they had them. We gave the parts to Iraq.

Did we say "stockpiles" of biological and chemical weapons? Oh, we meant "trace evidence". Sorry for the confusion.