So really, where are the WMD's? [Archive]

Desertrat

Jan 14, 2004, 07:08 PM

I've never really believed Saddam ever had nuclear go-bangs, although it's a matter of record that he was trying to acquire the technology.

Bugs and chemicals are relatively easy. Production equipment for nerve gas, for instance, is quite similar to that for bug spray. Anthrax and suchlike do not require large scale facilities.

The question I've yet to see answered is that of proven disposal of what was known to be possessed at the time of the Gulf War. I may have missed something, somewhere, but I recall reading of tons of chemical weapons material. And, I believe there were inventories of disease-organisms, although I'm not positive about that.

Anyhow, wha' hoppen to it?

My guess is that any WMD sort of stuff Saddam possessed in the late 1990s is tucked away somewhere in Syria, although that's just speculation on my part...

'Rat

Dont Hurt Me

Jan 14, 2004, 07:20 PM

we were snowed, i was snowed im sorry to anyone who has lost a son or daughter. i really thought he had the chemical and biologicals. I have become very disappointed by this President whom i voted for. Democracy is the way but not like this. Im glad a murdering selfish dictator has been removed but again not at the cost of our sons and daughters. a single bullet would have done the job. where are those weapons and where is Bin Laden?

bousozoku

Jan 14, 2004, 08:43 PM

Isn't the largest cache of WMDs under the U.S. in the Pacific northwest somewhere near Mount Hood?

zimv20

Jan 14, 2004, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
Hehe, you should have seen FAUX's website the other day. Banner headline screaming "Chemical Weapons Found in Iraq Mortar Shells".

cnn.com had a similar headline for two days (i.e. main story). i've yet to see the retraction or any mention anywhere on their site of the negative test.

zimv20

Jan 14, 2004, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by Desertrat

Anyhow, wha' hoppen to it?

fwiw, the iraqis claim their stocks were destroyed shortly after the gulf war.

what if (gasp!) they were telling the truth?

pseudobrit

Jan 14, 2004, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by zimv20
what if (gasp!) they were telling the truth?

But Bush told us Saddam was a liar and that he shouldn't be trusted. Plus he said there were WMD everywhere. Who do you trust, a murdering thug like Saddam or an honest, truthful Texas oilman?

3rdpath

Jan 15, 2004, 12:35 AM

yea, the media's preoccupation with using misleading headlines such as
"WMD Found in Iraq!" when the actual story admits that the details are unsubstantiated really chaps my pooper.

when the retractions are printed they're usually buried somewhere.

kinda like fox "news" going on for days about how the outgoing clinton administration had stripped air force one of silverware, ashtrays...you name it. when the story was proven false they talked about it for maybe 20 seconds total. nice ************ to fact ratio... :rolleyes:

Sayhey

Jan 15, 2004, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by pseudobrit
But Bush told us Saddam was a liar and that he shouldn't be trusted. Plus he said there were WMD everywhere. Who do you trust, a murdering thug like Saddam or an honest, truthful Texas oilman?

Can I pick door number 3, monty?

I see that the story says that more tests are to be done over the next few days to reach a conclusive judgment on the Danish discovered shells. I think whatever the outcome of the tests it is clear these are shells from over a decade ago, that don't fit Bush's reports of chemical warheads ready for use. These could be used on no one, regardless of their contents.

toontra

Jan 15, 2004, 04:50 AM

For me, the most depressing aspect to this whole business is, no matter how much evidence is uncovered implicating Bush and Blair in (at the very least) manipulating information to give a false impression of the threat of Iraq, the public don't appear too concerned.
A Channel 4 poll in the UK last night showed that a majority of people, though thinking Blair regularly lies, support him as PM and will vote for him again.
As I understand it, Bush is similarly unaffected by revelations of manipulation of intelligence and possible hidden agendas regarding his foreign policy.
What does this tell us about people's attitude towards their leaders? It would seem to suggest that, no matter what lies are told, as long as the domestic economy is doing OK, foreign adventurism will be tolerated.
Personally speaking, I can think of few worse accusations to be made against a leader than that he intentionally deceived his country and government in order to justify a pre-emptive war in which thousands of people died.
But few seems to care - oh well, what the hell!

g5man

Jan 15, 2004, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by toontra
For me, the most depressing aspect to this whole business is, no matter how much evidence is uncovered implicating Bush and Blair in (at the very least) manipulating information to give a false impression of the threat of Iraq, the public don't appear too concerned.
A Channel 4 poll in the UK last night showed that a majority of people, though thinking Blair regularly lies, support him as PM and will vote for him again.
As I understand it, Bush is similarly unaffected by revelations of manipulation of intelligence and possible hidden agendas regarding his foreign policy.
What does this tell us about people's attitude towards their leaders? It would seem to suggest that, no matter what lies are told, as long as the domestic economy is doing OK, foreign adventurism will be tolerated.
Personally speaking, I can think of few worse accusations to be made against a leader than that he intentionally deceived his country and government in order to justify a pre-emptive war in which thousands of people died.
But few seems to care - oh well, what the hell!

You are making a big leap in assuming everyone is willing to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt while throwing Bush and Blair to the wolfs.

Saddam had WMD and everyone in the US and UN said so for over 12 years. Lets just take a deep breath and stop salavating everytime a report showing that WMD have not been found comes up.

Not long ago many believed he had WMD but the UN was doing a good job in containing him and destroying his stockpiles. Now those same people get excited with each day that those WMD are now found ( or info given to the press). Don't get too excited because this and many other forums will simply become support groups for the left.

Taft

Jan 15, 2004, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by g5man
Don't get too excited because this and many other forums will simply become support groups for the left.

WTF???? So what if they did? Are you so averse to liberalism that you would deny any truth so long as the left believed it?

What if we found out that Saddam had destroyed all of his weapons shortly after the first Gulf War? Its a hypothetical, but certainly within the realm of possibility. That would mean that many (but not all) on the left had been right all along. Would you still deny the points that they had been making?

At what point does it stop being about hurting your political enemies and become an issue of what is best for the country and world?

Taft

mactastic

Jan 15, 2004, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by g5man
You are making a big leap in assuming everyone is willing to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt while throwing Bush and Blair to the wolfs.
He was saying his problem is that most people are giving Bush and Blair the benefit of the doubt and throwing Saddam to the wolves.

Saddam had WMD and everyone in the US and UN said so for over 12 years. Lets just take a deep breath and stop salavating everytime a report showing that WMD have not been found comes up.

Maybe everyone was wrong. Maybe Saddam was a paper tiger who's arsenal only existed on paper and in his mind. And you should be the last one to accuse people of salivating with some of the comments you've made.
Why do you choose to live in denial. The economy is improving, the Democrats are lost, and predicting a landslide is too easy. Just remember that I said it, and you do read it.

I am in a good mood today.

Not long ago many believed he had WMD but the UN was doing a good job in containing him and destroying his stockpiles. Now those same people get excited with each day that those WMD are now found ( or info given to the press). Don't get too excited because this and many other forums will simply become support groups for the left.

Is this a left leaning forum? Well I suppose it is if you believe the media is left wing also. But then everything is a left-wing conspiracy to you.

g5man

Jan 15, 2004, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by mactastic
He was saying his problem is that most people are giving Bush and Blair the benefit of the doubt and throwing Saddam to the wolves.

And you don't see a problem with giving Saddam the benefit of the doubt?

Originally posted by mactastic
Maybe everyone was wrong. Maybe Saddam was a paper tiger who's arsenal only existed on paper and in his mind. And you should be the last one to accuse people of salivating with some of the comments you've made.

I have no problem with admitting that I get excited with good economic news, and it appears you have no problem getting excited when Saddam is found not guilty by the press.

Originally posted by mactastic
Is this a left leaning forum? Well I suppose it is if you believe the media is left wing also. But then everything is a left-wing conspiracy to you.

Please take a good look and count how many posts there are from the left. There are topics that are only touched by a certain group and they sound like pitty parties or pep rallies.

But that is water under the bridge. Glad to see you are welcoming me back with open arms
:D

Taft

Jan 15, 2004, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by g5man
I have no problem with admitting that I get excited with good economic news, and it appears you have no problem getting excited when Saddam is found not guilty by the press.

I HATE THIS TACTIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ann Coulter and a lot of ***hole conservatives have been selling this line ever since 9/11. The unspoken message is: you disagree with what the president is doing, so you must support the enemy.

Saddam is guilty of a lot of really bad things. Anyone on this forum who says otherwise is seriously deluded. But that fact alone was never a good reason to go to war, IMO. So I believe that Saddam is a bad man and did bad things but I also believe that going to war was a bad idea.

What I am most interested in is the truth. I want to know if Saddam had WMDs. If he didn't, then that would refute a lot of what the Bush administration has said since 9/11. And if statements that the Bush administration made were deliberately false, the public should know and his administration should be held accountable.

The press is not finding Saddam not guilty. They are just reporting on the fact that there are apparently no WMDs in Iraq. That casts serious doubts on this administration's character and intentions. What it does not do is paint Saddam in a favorable light or give him a free pass.

Saddam will be tried. Everyone on the left that I know thinks that is the right thing to do.

Once again your tactics are disingenuous and sleazy.

Taft

g5man

Jan 15, 2004, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Taft
I HATE THIS TACTIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Once again your tactics are disingenuous and sleazy.

Taft

Sorry you feel that way. Starting threads only with news that make the Adminstration look guilty can also be characterized as sleazy and disingenuous.

All of you support democratic candidates. Most of those candidates have stated that Bush has lied. Not one of you took them to task for such statements.

So please spare me the story that you are open minded and willing to wait for all the evidence to be presented.

Your back-up plan if WMD were found was that inspections were working. Now that Saddam managed to hide them really really well, you all hope you were right and he never had WMD in the first place.

I know it is very frustrated to believe so much in a cause and yet see it falter and not get anywhere. In other words everyone should believe you since it makes perfect sense and yet everyone does not and decides to believe the Adminstration instead.

Oh and I don't believe for one second any of you like and want Saddam back. It is just that your hatred for Bush has clouded your judgment so much that very few people take you seriously when you support all the trash that is thrown at Bush.

A radical is one who upon seeing that he has failed redoubles his efforts.

Taft

Jan 15, 2004, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by g5man
Sorry you feel that way. Starting threads only with news that make the Adminstration look guilty can also be characterized as sleazy and disingenuous.

I was referring to a specific tactic of equating Bush detractors as anti-American or pro-Terrorism/Saddam. And you did use that tactic in your last post.

Selective reporting to support a bias is most certainly a sleazy tactic. However, you would be hard pressed to find evidence of me doing that. That last anti-Bush thread I started was a satire of your posts, in case you missed it.

All of you support democratic candidates. Most of those candidates have stated that Bush has lied. Not one of you took them to task for such statements.

I don't take them to task because I agree with them. Do you remember when Colon Powell presented asministration evidence to the U.N.? It was a freakin' joke. At the time, even if you believed Powell, they weren't positive about the veracity of any of the evidence they presented. Subsequently, we found out that most of it was bunk. The "terrorist training camps" Saddam was supposedly running were actually in Kurdish territories outside the control of Saddam.

The reason I don't take them to tasks is because I too think the administration has been less than completely truthful in the runup to war.

As far as exaggerated rhetoric is concerned, I'll take on any politician who is sleazy enough to spin facts to their own agenda. spinsanity.com takes both parties to task, and I very much enjoy hearing about the spin from both sides. It makes me that much more aware how the majority of politicians are cynical creeps.

So please spare me the story that you are open minded and willing to wait for all the evidence to be presented.

Your back-up plan if WMD were found was that inspections were working. Now that Saddam managed to hide them really really well, you all hope you were right and he never had WMD in the first place.

You are sitting here painting liberals as Saddam lovers and you have the balls to say you know my inner thoughts and intentions? Provide basis for your assertion or shut up.

As for the rest of your post: I am not a radical. I have seen a pattern of lies, exaggerations and clever and cynical marketing streaming out of this administration. Just because the "Average American" doesn't see it, doesn't mean it isn't real. The "Average American" also believes that Saddam was personally involved in 9/11 and that we have found WMDs in Iraq. Why the heck should we assume that anything the average American has to say is at all relevent.

To some people, our country is run on the concept of a popularity contest. Many people equate popular opinion with the right opinion and you are one of them. Popular opinion is only one factor in this country's founding principles. To use it as justification in a debate is ludicrous.

Taft

[mod. edit - Keep it clean, please.]

g5man

Jan 15, 2004, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by Taft

I don't take them to task because I agree with them.

The reason I don't take them to tasks is because I too think the administration has been less than completely truthful in the runup to war.

You are contradicting yourself compared to what you posted earlier, but since you don't see that I can not persuade you either.

Originally posted by Taft

You are sitting here painting liberals as Saddam lovers and you have the balls to say you know my inner thoughts and intentions? Provide basis for your assertion or shut up.

As for the rest of your post: I am not a radical. To use it as justification in a debate is ludicrous.

Taft

I am not doing anything, it is your actions that make many see it as simply angry radical left wingers. Look how quickly Dean if falling apart.

I just point this out just to make sure you understand why so many do not agree with your partisan attacks. Don't assume that repeating the same old lines will eventually persuade people. WMD may not be found for years. This does not mean Bush lied.

Can you imagine how stupid it would be for Bush to start a war in order to be re-elected knowing that there were not WMD the whole time. That is what all the democrats are saying. I refer you to Kennedy from yesterday. That would not be a very smart move from Carl Rove. It makes no sense, but the democrats see it as crystal clear.:rolleyes:

Taft

Jan 15, 2004, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by g5man
You are contradicting yourself compared to what you posted earlier, but since you don't see that I can not persuade you either.

Show me. I am not above admitting I was wrong, but you have given me no evidence of contradiction. If you can point it out to me, I'll gladly own up to it.

Can you imagine how stupid it would be for Bush to start a war in order to be re-elected knowing that there were not WMD the whole time.

The amount of assumptions and stereotypes you can pack into a post is amazing. And that wasn't a compliment.

"Can you imagine how stupid it would be for Bush to start a war in order to be re-elected..."

Assuming that all liberals think that's why Bush started the war is just crazy. I personally don't think Bush started the war as a popularity ploy. In fact, I have trouble seeing why Bush was so bent on starting the war. His motivations are a mystery to me. However, I do see that he had a desire to go to war, for whatever reason.

You constantly strive to paint liberalism in broad strokes. I am sick of it. I am not a cookie cutter copy of every Democrat and liberal out there. In fact, my ideals are very different than the ideals of the Democratic party and almost all politicians. It is a tactic designed to attack a person's credibility and individuality and it sucks.

Also, to the mods: sorry 'bout the language. Just got a little worked up.

Taft

IJ Reilly

Jan 15, 2004, 02:19 PM

Taft,

Since you'll never escape the ad hominem, I suggest you accept it for what it is: clear evidence of a bankrupt argument; eg, an act of desperation. That might help your blood pressure, at least.

Taft

Jan 15, 2004, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Taft,

Since you'll never escape the ad hominem, I suggest you accept it for what it is: clear evidence of a bankrupt argument; eg, an act of desperation.

Historically, my refusal to drop arguments has been the source of some of my biggest troubles. I know its not worth it, but I can rarely pull away.

Oh well...

Taft

IJ Reilly

Jan 15, 2004, 02:32 PM

I know, it can be like eating salted peanuts, or worse. I find that the judicious use of the ignore list really helps. I don't mind having a lively debate with people who have something interesting to say, and can maintain a civil tone generally -- but those who don't and can't, for me fall under the heading "life is too short."

mactastic

Jan 15, 2004, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by g5man
And you don't see a problem with giving Saddam the benefit of the doubt?

Show me where I said I give Saddam the benefit of the doubt! I double-dog-dare you.

I want to see him AND Bush held accountable for their decisions. And therein lies the difference between you and I.

I have no problem with admitting that I get excited with good economic news, and it appears you have no problem getting excited when Saddam is found not guilty by the press.

Now this is truly hilarious. Saddam has been found not guilty of what? And by whom? All the press has been reporting (outside of the occasional "WMD FOUND IN IRAQ" claim) is that the assertions made by Bush in the run-up to the war are thus-far unproven. Please stop with your constant "anyone against the war is for Saddam" rhetoric, it's crap and you know it.

Please take a good look and count how many posts there are from the left. There are topics that are only touched by a certain group and they sound like pitty parties or pep rallies.

Have you seen the NRA Madness thread lately? Would you like to count the posts from the right and the left there? And all your evidence points to an edge for conservatives country-wide. Should I start whining that the whole country is a pity party or a pep rally for conservatives? Or should I simply engage in debate and try to convince people with the merits of my arguments?

But that is water under the bridge. Glad to see you are welcoming me back with open arms
:D

Welcome back. Didn't realize you were in need of love.

g5man

Jan 15, 2004, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Taft

What I am most interested in is the truth. I want to know if Saddam had WMDs. If he didn't, then that would refute a lot of what the Bush administration has said since 9/11. And if statements that the Bush administration made were deliberately false, the public should know and his administration should be held accountable.

Taft

Given Saddam's history which does not need to be repeated, the truth even in the UN was that he had WMD and did not account for them. The UN destroyed some but not all.

Now if you are willing to believe that the Adminstration lied and agree with those who make the same statments, why would you still be interested in the truth. The truth for you is that Bush lied.

You can not state you want the truth in the same breath you are accusing the same people of lying and agreeing with those who have already decided that the Adminstration was lying.

Taft

Jan 15, 2004, 03:20 PM

g5man

Jan 15, 2004, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Taft
You most certainly can. With the information I currently have, I believe the Bush administration was lying (or at least misrepresenting the truth) in the build-up to war. At the same time, I understand that more information is coming in about Saddam's activities from a variety of sources. I remain open to hearing that evidence and then changing my opinion based on that evidence if need dictates.

Your assertion is basically that you cannot hold an opinion if you are interested in the truth. That couldn't be more false.

Taft

No if you and your buddies were actually intellectually honest you should say the following.

We believe the UN and the Clinton Administration along with a majority of Congress are all a bunch of liars.

The UN voted in favor a dozen resolutions in regards to his WMD programs and stockpiles and his lack of dismantling them. The Clinton Administration not only stated he had WMD and he was threat, but a majority of congress voted to make it the official policy of this country to get rid of Saddam in 1998. A majority of congress (actually 87 Senators) all voted in the fall of 2002 agreeing with a resolution giving the president authority to get rid of Saddam and found him to be a threat to the UNITED STATES.

So I want you to call them all liars not just Bush. I want you to accuse them all of being in BED with BUSH in misleading us. But you won’t because you are a partisan and it is much too hard being honest regardless of what history shows simply because there is an R behind the president's name.

You can hold that backward and incredible opinion that we were misled all you want, but I still believe that you have no integrity with it. This is why most of the population sees it very clearly but you guys choose not to.

In regards to Al Queda once again you choose not believe the evidence put forth to the Intelligence Committee which pointed out over 50 different connections.

The fact that the Administration does not have to defend itself and still gets a 60% approval for its actions in Iraq shows that no matter how much the left screams they are only making themselves angrier and angrier with no results in changing public opinion.

Sayhey

Jan 15, 2004, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by g5man
Given Saddam's history which does not need to be repeated, the truth even in the UN was that he had WMD and did not account for them. The UN destroyed some but not all.

Now if you are willing to believe that the Adminstration lied and agree with those who make the same statments, why would you still be interested in the truth. The truth for you is that Bush lied.

You can not state you want the truth in the same breath you are accusing the same people of lying and agreeing with those who have already decided that the Adminstration was lying.

The support our President or support Saddam argument just doesn't work. Saddam was and is a Fascist. He is an evil man who for decades did horrible things to the Iraqi people. He had WMDs that he used against his opponents in the Iran-Iraq War and most likely intentionally used against his own people. The fact our leaders supported him during this time in no way lessens his crimes. However, none of that is relevant to whether or not George W. Bush mislead or lied to the American people or the world in his build up to the invasion of Iraq.

I will quote to you an article by Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker and his assessment of Bush’s actions.

The point is not that the President and his senior aides were consciously lying. What was taking place was much more systematic—and potentially just as troublesome. Kenneth Pollack, a former National Security Council expert on Iraq, whose book “The Threatening Storm” generally supported the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein, told me that what the Bush people did was “dismantle the existing filtering process that for fifty years had been preventing the policymakers from getting bad information. They created stovepipes to get the information they wanted directly to the top leadership. Their position is that the professional bureaucracy is deliberately and maliciously keeping information from them.

The full article (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact) is long but an important read for anyone who wishes to know something about how the decision to invade Iraq was reached.

The question of whether the ideologues who run this war really believe the nonsense they told the American people is not a inconsequential question, but even if they did not consciously lie they manipulated the facts to get our nation into war. It is not the first administration to do so. TheTonkin Gulf incident and the explosion on the USS Maine are other examples in our history. That does not mean we should accept these distortions or lies because it was done before. There is too much information out there not to draw the conclusion we, as a nation, were mislead. You need to take your blinders off and look at it.

g5man

Jan 15, 2004, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
The support our President or support Saddam argument just doesn't work.

I never said those who don't support the President are those who support Saddam. However actions against the war simply meant that Saddam would be in power for 12 more years.

Since WMD are the issue, everyone before BUSH said he had them. Now I know many of you do not support war and would like to avoid it for as long as possible. Every generation has groups that feel that way. The labor party in England in the 1930's and the republican party here in the US at the same time.

Personally I would have supported Clinton if he had decided to go into Iraq. Given the position of the democratic party on the issues of wars (Vietnam comes to mind) he choose for political reasons to simply throw a few cruise missiles instead of getting rid of Saddam with real military power.

Pollack is spinning since he was one of those who advised Clinton against full invasion of Iraq. Once he is out of the loop all he is left with is speculating about actions. Bush took the bold step in carrying out the wishes of the Clinton Adminstration. He saw a growing threat and acted upon it. As a result he is being rewarded with a second term.

You still did not address why congress and the UN is not accountable for misleading us about the WMD with their votes.

Now you can arrive at the conclusion that despite a possible presence of WMD Iraq was not a threat worthy of going to war for. This position is one that I do not hear. All I hear is that there are no WMD so we were lied to. That type of argument is one I hear from a teenager who has unprotected sex a few times and claims you lied because she had not gotten pregnant or contracted any diseases yet.

Most of the US pubic was not confident that we were safe with Saddam around after Sept 11.

Sayhey

Jan 16, 2004, 12:45 AM

It's obvious from your response you didn't read the article I posted. Pollack is only one of many people who support the view of the administration manipulating intelligence. Here is another, this time from PBS's Frontline (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/interviews/thielmann.html), about an interview with a top State Dept. intelligence analyst Greg Thielmann's view of the same subject.

So for seven years, you were doing intelligence analysis?

Right.

You had access to the full panoply of U.S. intelligence?

Yes.

In those seven years, did you see any other times when intelligence was being used so selectively?

The only other thing that seems comparable to me is discussions of the foreign ballistic missile threat in the 1990s. There was, in my opinion, an exaggeration of the speed with which other countries could develop ballistic missiles and an exaggeration of the significance of those developments for U.S. security.

But all things considered, it's very hard for me to think of any example of systematic, across-the-board exaggeration and misleading statements about an important war and peace subject. Nothing quite matches what I've seen in the Iraqi WMD area in the last couple of years.

Even Richard Perle acknowledges that his fellow neoconservatives set up a special operation within the Pentagon to review intelligence. You should really read something on the subject before you make such categorical judgments.

edit: the reference to the exaggeration of ballistic missle threats is to another Rumsfeld operation.

g5man

Jan 16, 2004, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by Sayhey
You should really read something on the subject before you make such categorical judgments.

Mr. Hersh and Mr. Pollack have an agenda. And Mr. Thielmann has so many holes in that totally bias interview he should have been fired long ago. He is only quoted in all the left wing web sites. All they have is one former employee backing up the claims of so called imminent threat argument no one in the Administration ever used.

We can take a look at some of what Mr. Hersh said recently.

http://www.tuftsdaily.com/articleDisplay.jsp?a_id=2615

Mr. Pollack is a member of the Brookings Institute, once of the most liberal think tanks in DC. Not once have I seen a paper or heard a scholar from this group praising anything in the foreign policy of this Administration.

It may make you feel better reading some of their opinions with a few facts thrown in for effect. But the bias they show takes away from the credibility you want to give them.

And when it comes to intelligence work or clearence there is much you know little about and will never know. Mr. Pollack left NSC sometime ago and he never accused the Administration of lying when it comes to Iraq. The book he wrote on Iraq I could have put together just by reading the papers or the CIA website.

Now I just point this out just to make sure that you understand liberals have lost all credibility with me when it comes to national security.

toontra

Jan 16, 2004, 03:26 AM

Originally posted by g5man
Mr. Hersh and Mr. Pollack have an agenda.
Now I just point this out just to make sure that you understand liberals have lost all credibility with me when it comes to national security.

g5man,

This is not the way to have a credible debate (as I'm sure you know all too well); that being the case, posts like the one above amount to flame-bait IMHO.

As has been pointed out to you MANY times before in this forum, you can't simply dismiss someone's argument because they have an agenda - EVERYONE has an agenda (including you).

Also, if you write off everything said or written by those whom you label "liberals" (which in your book seems to be anyone you disagree with), you have obviously denied yourself access to a sufficient breadth of information to reach valid conclusions.

That being the case, why should your posts be treated in any other way than as ill-informed, tautological, semantic and finally irrelevant.

Interesting to see that the first mod. intervention for a while here was as a result of exactly such a "contribution" from you yesterday!

Sayhey

Jan 16, 2004, 08:53 AM

Every fact that doesn't support your agenda of total support for George Bush is just biased opinion? I could keep going with many sources, but what's the point? you wouldn’t read them -you don't want to be disturbed in your own little fantasy world. What's your point in posting any way? Just to annoy people who actually want to have a real debate? I'm done; I should of listened to IJ - life is to short for wasting my time with your silliness.

Taft

Jan 16, 2004, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by g5man
No if you and your buddies were actually intellectually honest you should say the following.

We believe the UN and the Clinton Administration along with a majority of Congress are all a bunch of liars.

The UN voted in favor a dozen resolutions in regards to his WMD programs and stockpiles and his lack of dismantling them. The Clinton Administration not only stated he had WMD and he was threat, but a majority of congress voted to make it the official policy of this country to get rid of Saddam in 1998. A majority of congress (actually 87 Senators) all voted in the fall of 2002 agreeing with a resolution giving the president authority to get rid of Saddam and found him to be a threat to the UNITED STATES.

You claim to know my positions on issues without ever asking me what my real position is. Quit it.

If you knew anything about my politics, you would know that I'm no great supporter of the Democratic party. In fact, I have previously mentioned (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=604548#post604548) on several occasions that I think the Democrats shamefully rolled over and accepted Bush's lies during the buildup to war. They did so because they thought it would be politically dangerous to disagree with the administration on "National Security" issues in the wake of 9/11. They lost a lot of my support due to those acts.

I am also not a die hard fan of Clinton. As far as I'm concerned, he made some foreign policy/national security decisions that went a little too far during his tenure.

And you are right that many circles suspected that Iraq had WMDs and was trying to acquire them. However, there is a difference in how Clinton handled Iraq during his tenure vs. Bush: he didn't pre-emptively start a war with Iraq on the basis of uncertain information. Bush did. Clinton was willing to back UN inspectors with tactical force to stunt/destroy/find their weapons programs rather than start a unilateral war against the will of the international community. Bush wasn't.

Now when we see those facts against O'Neill's claims that Bush was actively looking for an excuse to attack Iraq, I start to form the opinion that the motivations of the two white houses was very different. Its not that I'm saying Clinton is perfect, but on a relative scale, judged against Bush, I believe his actions to be much more honorable.

So I want you to call them all liars not just Bush. I want you to accuse them all of being in BED with BUSH in misleading us. But you won’t because you are a partisan and it is much too hard being honest regardless of what history shows simply because there is an R behind the president's name.

I'm a partisan! I'm a partisan! I'm a partisan! I'm a partisan!

It seems like the louder you scream that, the more truth that statement has...NOT! Just because you say I'm a partisan, doesn't mean I am. Attacking my character rather than my opinions is such a crappy was to argue.

Clinton and Bush likely saw the same information about Saddam and his WMDs. Congress (both Dems. and Reps.) likely saw much of that same information. Bush chose to go to war over that information, and Clinton did not. That is an important distinction and shows a fundamental difference in each administration's level of trust in the information they were receiving. However, I agree with you that many in congress rolled over to Bush's will very quickly. And I do consider many (but not all) of them complicit in our going to war in Iraq.

The bottom line is that I don't support the actions of all Democrats. But at the same time, the situation isn't nearly as black and white as you paint it. Claiming I'm an irrational partisan only works if I don't have arguments backing my opinions. That is clearly not the case.

Rest of post: left is lying. they are bankrupt. america is turning on them. the right is just and true. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

All invective with no factual backing. Blah.

Taft

mactastic

Jan 16, 2004, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by g5man
Mr. Hersh and Mr. Pollack have an agenda.

This is laughable. So liberals have an evil 'agenda' while conservatives are just and true. I suppose you don't think Pearle, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and yes even Bush have agendas?

Thanks for my laugh of the day though!

g5man

Jan 16, 2004, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Taft
Rest of post: left is lying. they are bankrupt. america is turning on them. the right is just and true. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

All invective with no factual backing. Blah.

Taft

I refer you to my other threads indicating that the liberals and the democratic party will be creamed in Nov. not only because of their backward view of this war, but because the tax cuts work and the economy is kicking some real butt. I will post some new data when I have time, since you are all in denial about what will happen to your party.

In the mean time I point out that I also get very entertained by many of your comments:D

toontra

Jan 16, 2004, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by g5man
you are all in denial about what will happen to your party.

Point proven! You don't have the faintest idea what my party of choice is - how can you!

Any denial here is coming from your direction, I'm afraid!

g5man

Jan 16, 2004, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by toontra
Point proven! You don't have the faintest idea what my party of choice is - how can you!

Any denial here is coming from your direction, I'm afraid!

I don't follow all the politics in England, but I am assuming you are labor.

The conservative do have a decent shot of kicking Blair out next year (I think that is when the next election will be).

I was only refering to the Democratic party in the US. And no I am not in denail since I am very much in tune with how people feel about the various parties here.

Taft

Jan 16, 2004, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by g5man
And no I am not in denail since I am very much in tune with how people feel about the various parties here.

Because it is so very easy to quantify exactly how the American people about any given issue. And polls are always extremely accurate. And an average or a poll number will tell you exactly how the American people will vote in 10 months. :rolleyes:

Puh-lease! The kind of predictions/gereralizations you are trying to make are very complicated problems to solve. A simple poll or average is almost never sufficient in predicting future behavior (or party identification, etc.). You form grossly inaccurate generalizations from selective evidence and pass it off as a highly researched opinion with basis in statistics. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Also, I'd like to point out that you have not answered my post concerning my lack of party identification and lack of hypocrisy in dealing with politicians involved in Iraq policy. I'm notting letting you off the hook that easily. You called me a hypocrite. Back it up!

Its the only fair way to debate.

Taft

zimv20

Jan 16, 2004, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by g5man
I don't follow all the politics in England, but I am assuming you are labor.

toontra -

the GOP is gonna kick so much ass in november that they'll end up beating Labor, too!

vniow

Jan 16, 2004, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by g5man

In the mean time I point out that I also get very entertained by many of your comments:D

This forum is not for your own personal entertainment, if you see it as such I suggest you should leave.

Aren't you due for another screenname soon?

g5man

Jan 16, 2004, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by vniow
This forum is not for your own personal entertainment, if you see it as such I suggest you should leave.

Aren't you due for another screenname soon?

lol:D :D :D :D

toontra

Jan 16, 2004, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by zimv20
toontra -

the GOP is gonna kick so much ass in november that they'll end up beating Labor, too!

If g5man says so, so it must be!!;)

pseudobrit

Jan 16, 2004, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by g5man
Now I just point this out just to make sure that you understand liberals have lost all credibility with me when it comes to national security.

Only because you're $10,000 sure we jump for joy at terrorist attacks, right?

IJ Reilly

Jan 16, 2004, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by Sayhey
The support our President or support Saddam argument just doesn't work. Saddam was and is a Fascist. He is an evil man who for decades did horrible things to the Iraqi people. He had WMDs that he used against his opponents in the Iran-Iraq War and most likely intentionally used against his own people. The fact our leaders supported him during this time in no way lessens his crimes. However, none of that is relevant to whether or not George W. Bush mislead or lied to the American people or the world in his build up to the invasion of Iraq.

Interested in masticating on another factoid? Back when Bill Clinton was pitching his Kosovo intervention policy, it was subjected to strenuous objections by Republicans on the grounds that it was not in US interests to intervene in Serbian affairs simply because Milosovic was engaging in a systematic campaign of genocide smack-dab in the middle of Europe. Clinton ultimately sold this as a NATO operation (which is far more then Mr. Bush did in Iraq, incidentally), but that did nothing to quell the grumbling from Republicans. No US soldiers died in combat in Kosovo, as it happens, but once again, that did nothing to stop Republicans from claiming that not one member of the US military should be put "in harm's way" to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.

Now, we are being treated to the sight of Republicans clinging to the humanitarian rationalization for invading Iraq (with NATO decidedly not on board, and at great cost to the United States) like their last political life-preserver, having had the previous justification evaporate like so many Iraqi chemical weapons. Then we find the party loyalists singing the Greek chorus of agreement, without even a moment of revelation about how hypocritical and opportunistic it all appears.

Sayhey

Jan 16, 2004, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Interested in masticating on another factoid? Back when Bill Clinton was pitching his Kosovo intervention policy, it was subjected to strenuous objections by Republicans on the grounds that it was not in US interests to intervene in Serbian affairs simply because Milosovic was engaging in a systematic campaign of genocide smack-dab in the middle of Europe. Clinton ultimately sold this as a NATO operation (which is far more then Mr. Bush did in Iraq, incidentally), but that did nothing to quell the grumbling from Republicans. No US soldiers died in combat in Kosovo, as it happens, but once again, that did nothing to stop Republicans from claiming that not one member of the US military should be put "in harm's way" to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.

Now, we are being treated to the sight of Republicans clinging to the humanitarian rationalization for invading Iraq (with NATO decidedly not on board, and at great cost to the United States) like their last political life-preserver, having had the previous justification evaporate like so many Iraqi chemical weapons. Then we find the party loyalists singing the Greek chorus of agreement, without even a moment of revelation about how hypocritical and opportunistic it all appears.

The hypocrisy is amazing on the part of most of the Congressional Republicans and Republicans leaders like Kissinger. However, to be fair, the neocons if anything wanted US troops in Belgrade to topple Milosevic first hand. They are consistent in their utter disregard for diplomacy. Personally, I think it worked much better to have the Serbian opposition run him out and then put him on trial in the International Court at the Hague for his crimes.