Well well well.....

[Natoma]

When you stop dodging the facts, then it won't be a joke anymore.

You can't be this clueless... Not only has your opinion been shown to be inconsistent (which dooms anything you say on the topic), but every fact concerning the North you've sent to me I've disputed.

My opinion, as clearly stated by me earlier this thread, is based on this administration's doctrine of pre-emption wrt Iraq and NK. So if you want to say that my little experiment into Bush Country is inconsistent, then you're definitely saying the same for the administration's stance.

You have disputed nothing wrt Iraq.

All those "facts" I'm "dodging" are irrelevent in light of Mahdi Obeidi's confession that placed Iraq in the same vein and mentality as the North Korean's. If you can't see this, then I'm sorry.

And yet that was not what was in the State of the Union address. That was not what was in Colin Powell's myriad speeches to the UN. That was not what was parroted by Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rice every day over the past year while building a case for war.

You can't seem to see the fact that much of what they were using to build the case for war was fabricated and/or badly mishandled. At the very least, someone needs to get fired over this.

 

[Natoma]

Now Natoma, you were doing fine until now......

My response to the iraqi scientist? I believe him. But that was not used to bring this country to war. Uranium purchase, Aluminum tubes, Links to Al-Qaeda. Those were the reasons used to get us into war. They were unequivocably wrong. If this iraqi scientist was true, why not use his statements in the State of the Union? At least that could be truly attributed to someone else without blame.

Maybe it wasn't true after all?

Now I recall numerous suggestions of Iraq being a future nuclear threat as one of the reasons to go to war. There were many reasons given to go to war. Also how can Bush use an Iraq scientist's statements in his State of the Union speech if the scientist statement happened in June 2003?

Maybe it's true after all?

Ah yes. President Bush stated that Iraq would have a nuclear bomb in a year, according to CIA intelligence, as incontrovertible evidence. Yet that CIA intelligence was given to the President as a worst case, almost unbelievable scenario. Their best estimates? A decade out, realistically.

There is a huge difference between definitely having a bomb in one year, and having a bomb, maybe, in 10 years.

Also, I did not read the date on the Iraqi scientist's statements. I read the quote. I assumed it was prior to the war.

 

[Vince]

I know I said I wouldn't post again, but this is too funny.

All those "facts" I'm "dodging" are irrelevent in light of Mahdi Obeidi's confession that placed Iraq in the same vein and mentality as the North Korean's. If you can't see this, then I'm sorry.

And yet that was not what was in the State of the Union address. That was not what was in Colin Powell's myriad speeches to the UN. That was not what was parroted by Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rice every day over the past year while building a case for war.

You can't seem to see the fact that much of what they were using to build the case for war was fabricated and/or badly mishandled. At the very least, someone needs to get fired over this.

Or perhaps you need to STFU before opening your mouth and making yourself look even worse (which is hard to comprehend at this particular point). It wasn't in said public speaches for a good reason:

http://us.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/27/sprj.irq.obeidi/[/url]]Despite those assurances, on June 3, two days after he turned the nuclear components and documents over to the CIA, the U.S. Army broke down the door of his home and took him away

That's June 3rd, of 2003. As in, 1 month and 13 days ago. Or put another way, +32 days after the War in Iraq Ended.

That whole casuality thing... <shrugs>

 

[Pete]

Still don't have the patience to rephrase my previous replies to rebut your repeat posts, Natoma--have you even read my replies?--but Tom Friedman has an editorial at the NYT this morning that applies to your fixation on the Niger uranium and corresponds with my view on the issue.

 

[Natoma]

And just so the facts that are in dispute are not buried:

--------------------------------------------------------

Don't expect me to even repond to your politically motivated and highly biased responce based solely on your belief system and not empiracal geo-political facts or common sence.

Your take on "culturally abrasive" is amusing, I can't quite understand why you fight these out. Because if the current regime change was "abrasive" to anyone it wasn't the now freed Iraqi people. Nor are the Palestinians, who finally have a competent PM and finally some semblance of structure, in the streets with pitchforks and rocks en masse at the American Embassy.

I have no futher need to argue with a man who is incapable of restraint and not embarking on long political tangents from the core topic so he may bitch - as this is the very modus operandi of a true zealot. Not that this is hard to comprehend considering your very lifestyle and history.

The sad part is that you still have not addressed the glaring holes in the administration's argument for thrusting this country into war. My post is politically motivated and indeed, highly biased, but completely, irrefutably, steeped in fact. Fact that the administration admits is true.

You still have not refuted the fact that the administration knew as early as last October that the Uranium Purchase from Niger was false. You still have not refuted the fact that Colin Powell came out last week and stated the reason for not using the Uranium Purchase in his UN speech was because he felt the evidence was not good enough to tell the public of the world, yet it was good enough for the President to tell the American People?

I didn’t use the uranium at that point because I didn’t think that was sufficiently strong as evidence to present before the world

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/eveningnews/main560449.shtml

8 friggin days after the State of the Union, Colin Powell said the evidence was not good enough to share with the world, but it was good enough for the President to share with the american people to build the case for war?

The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) requested the documents on the Niger Purchase so they could vet the information, and the Administration then went silent for 6 weeks while continuing to parrot the information to the American public in order to build the case for war.

The italian government came into possession of half a dozen letters and other documents that purported to show Iraqi officials attempting to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger government officials. In the '80s, Saddam Hussein bought several hundred tons of yellowcake, which can be enriched in gas centrifuges to produce weapons-grade uranium.

--2001

-------------------------------------

The italians' evidence about Iraq and the uranium yellowcake was shared with both the British and U.S. Intelligence officials.

--2001

-------------------------------------

The CIA hears from Dick Cheney's office; he wants to know more. The agency sends former ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate.

--February 2002

-------------------------------------

After an eight-day trip to Niger, Wilson returns and reports to CIA that he believes the allegations are "bogus and unrealistic."

--March 2002

-------------------------------------

After seeing the State Department's retort to the Iraqis, the International Atomic Energy Agency, headed by Mohamed ElBaradei, asks the Administration for proof of the Niger allegation so it can investigate the claim. The U.S. says little for six weeks -- a crucial period during which the Administration is making it's case for war.

--December 2002

-------------------------------------

White House officials prepare the President's State of the Union address. Sentence about Iraq trying to buy uranium is inserted. A CIA official objects, saying the language isn't backed by U.S. intelligence. But the decision is made to leave it in and attribute it to the British. CIA chief George Tenet now says his team should have pressed harder to have it deleted.

--January 2003

-------------------------------------

Condi Rice writes an op-ed calling Iraq's report "a 12,200-page lie" and asserts, "The declaration fails to account for or explain Iraq's efforts to get uranium abroad."

--Jan. 23, 2003

-------------------------------------

Bush delivers his State of the Union, including the allegation that Saddam is trying to get quantities of uranium from Africa. Intelligence experts question the claim.

--Jan. 28, 2003

-------------------------------------

Speaking before the U.N. Security Council, Powell drops the uranium allegation. Last week powell said he didn't repeat the charge before the United Nations beause he didn't think it was solid enough "to present to the world."

--February 5, 2003

[EDIT]Wanted to bring this timeline out from Time Magazine.

It's obvious that the administration knew well before October that the information was false. Hell, the person they dispatched to Niger to find out about it stated that it was "bogus and unrealistic".

And now this blame game in which they are saying "It's the brits fault!" doesn't hold water either. Why? Because in 2001 we got the same intelligence the Brits got, at the same time.[/EDIT]

Simple vetting of the information on the aluminum tubes shows that they were nowhere near the grade needed to reprocess uranium for making nuclear material, and yet it was still used by Colin Powell in the speech.

The Palestinian conflict has nothing to do with the falsified evidence used to bring this country to war with Iraq. And I'm quite happy that that situation is moving in the right direction. It's about time Bush pulled his head out of the sand and engaged that problem. Let's not forget that for the first 2 years of his presidency Bush all but ignored the entire situation.

And if we're going to talk about the happy Iraqi people, why not make that the happy Cuban people as well? They've got as much of a paper weight dictator in place as Iraq did, and he's been just as brutal to his people as Saddam has been.

You're damn right I'm politically biased in this situation. But there is a difference between being politically biased and having absolutely, positively no basis for your claims, and being politically biased, but backing those claims with cold hard fact.

You sir, are politically biased as well, but you refuse to see the truth staring you right in the face. This administration has admitted that it used false information in the biggest speech of the year a President gives. They admitted it. Yet it's me and my political agenda that is trying to crucify the administration. I use what they give me.

 

[Natoma]

That's June 3rd, of 2003. As in, 1 month and 13 days ago. Or put another way, +32 days after the War in Iraq Ended.

That whole casuality thing... <shrugs>

Again, not in the state of the union speech. Again, not used by the administration to build a case for war. Again, not used as fact by the administration to start this war.

What was used has turned out to be indeed false and/or fabricated. If this comment had never shown up it would still not change the fact that the evidence for starting the war was grossly misused.

 

[Fred]

ONE part of the Niger connection was discredited, since they were fraudulent papers that the Italians found. However, at this very moment the British secret service is furious at the American administration, since they firmly believe they have enough evidence of the connection from intercepted wiretaps, the actual paperwork though was never found. Not to mention Tony Blair was acquited of wrong doing by a panel of peers in closed sessions recently.

Moreover, Bush's aides left the intelligence in the state of the Union for this very reason. (forget for a second that its only one part of the evidence for WMD, discrediting 1 part does not entail discreting the entire argument) Namely there was other evidence supporting the link.

The CIA in retrospect should have axed this bit from the speech, though its hardly as big a deal as people make it out to be. Plenty of speeches throughout the ages are made with evidence that turns out to be sketchy or false, but in this instance enough additional supporting arguments were made such that one small link in the chain is irrelevant.

A small blunder, yes, proof of intent or malicious purpose: a resounding no.

 

[Natoma]

Still don't have the patience to rephrase my previous replies to rebut your repeat posts, Natoma--have you even read my replies?--but Tom Friedman has an editorial at the NYT this morning that applies to your fixation on the Niger uranium and corresponds with my view on the issue.

It's not just the Niger Uranium Purchase. It's the fact that we *knew* it was false before it was presented to the public.

It's also the tenuous links that the CIA eventually said were pretty much bogus, to Al-Qaeda.

It's also the misuse of the aluminum tube purchase intelligence, when it turned out that there was no way it could be used for reprocessing uranium because the quality wasn't high enough.

It's President Bush stating that Iraq would have a nuclear bomb within a year. It's Condi Rice stating that mushroom clouds would be hanging over american cities if we did not act now.

It's the White House pressuring the CIA to give them anything and everything they have on Iraq to make the case, even if it was slightly dubious in nature.

It's the White House and the CIA accepting the Niger Purchase information in the state of the union speech only if they said specifically "British Intelligence told us" so as to deflect any potential future criticism.

etc etc etc. If this was merely one little statement, that's one thing. But there has been a history and a trail of repeated lies, distortions, and half truths in order to sell this war.

That is what I take umbrage with. And apparently, I'm not the only one.

A recent poll was taken and reported on CNBC last night. 54% of the american public now believes the administration distorted, lied, or gave half truths about Iraq in order to sell this war.

 

[Vince]

First off all, I already responded to that rehash political argument based on an individual event and not the regime.

I've also shown how your comments concerning Korea are diametrically opposed to those of Iraq and that they're irrectifiable as your consistency has already been shown to politically motivated and not with concern for nation security.

I'd ask that you reread my posts, this time attempting to understand them.

Again, not in the state of the union speech. Again, not used by the administration to build a case for war. Again, not used as fact by the administration to start this war.

What was used has turned out to be indeed false and/or fabricated. If this comment had never shown up it would still not change the fact that the evidence for starting the war was grossly misused.

So, what your saying is that because it's physically impossible for this report to have been in the mentioned speeches you stated and that by Obeidi's own admission, these parts were lied about and hidden prior to the regime change - that the only thing you care about is politics.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0306/25/asb.00.html[/url]]It was being hidden. That was illegal. It was lied about and the government in Iraq was presumably holding it with plans to try again one day.

So, all you care about is that the government got a specific part of the evidence legitamitly wrong that concerns Niger. You seem to gloss over the fact they the Iraqi's were lying, and were in violation of the UNSCRs, and they they were preparing to revive their nuclear ambitions ASAP.

So, in summation - your going to criticize the government for providing intelligence concerning securing Uranium from Niger that's ultimatly incorrect (but was stated by our closest intelligence partner the British as correct), but yet forget that the Iraqi's did have protocol in place and were ready to restart the program? Both way's the Iraqi's were in blatent violation.

Fucking politics have blinded you to the underlying truth and sent you on a witchhunt to blame the current adminstration based on ideological grounds... obviously the ground your standing on isn't the same in which Iraqi centifuge parts were buried illegally.

 

[Natoma]

See my last post. The Niger Purchase is but one of the laundry list of issues I've had with this whole mess.

And as I stated before, my thoughts on the NK debacle stem directly from the Administration's train of thought wrt Iraq. You're right, it really is inconsistent. Nice to know that you see exactly what I saw months ago when the "case" was being built.

As I've also stated, I do not believe the ends justify the means. Saddam dug his own grave wrt this entire thing. He should have cooperated with the weapons inspectors completely from the get go. I personally understood that if this last weapons inspections process did not work, boom. He's got to go. But it was never given a chance by this administration without constant sniping and released every day.

We got rid of an awful tyrant who I do believe was interested in getting WMD someday. As ar probably every tyrant/tyrannical regimes around the world. And yet, the fact remains that the administration distorted the truth in order to push their agenda forward.

As I have stated time and time again, that is what I have an issue with.

[EDIT]
Historically, this country has been a country of reaction, not action. Historically we have held our power back and kept to ourselves whenever possible.

9/11 changed everything. We decided then to adopt a doctrine of pre-emption.

However, for pre-emption to work, the evidence used *must* be concrete and foolproof. If we're going to start wars, there can not be this much doubt. This much mishandling/bungling of evidence.

I don't care who did it. The administration or the CIA or the Brits or whoever. Our credibility is on the line the instant we went into Iraq, and right now our credibility is falling apart because of *all* of these issues I've raised. One line would not an issue make if that were the sole gaffe. But it turns out that there is a long history of gaffes wrt this.

This will most certainly not put any faith into our allies the next time we decide to say "Hey they've got WMD! We need to take them out!" You think Tony Blair is going to stick his neck out again for us if he weathers this storm? Very, very, doubtful.

I liken this situation to the OJ Trial. Everyone knew he was guilty. He has said so in recent years in no uncertain terms. Yet the way in which the evidence was gathered against almost invalidated the truth of the matter itself.

Why? Because credibility means everything. If you have no credibility, you can do squat to get people to believe you. And right now, our credibility in the world is taking a nose dive, even with our most ardent supporters, the british.

[/EDIT]

 

[Willmeister]

What do they say? Never cry wolf? And it's not really the lack of evidence, or the lying about the evidence, but the eagerness with which these exaggerations and lies were embraced by those calling for war.

This will most certainly not put any faith into our allies the next time we decide to say "Hey they've got WMD! We need to take them out!"

Sadly, the world will now REQUIRE an attack before they believe the CIA or the any future US administration. That's not what I would call a Good Thing(TM).

A recent poll was taken and reported on CNBC last night. 54% of the american public now believes the administration distorted, lied, or gave half truths about Iraq in order to sell this war.

I feel somewhat vindicated that people are finally going to see this whole mess about Iraqi WMD as nothing but a rehash of the Kuwaiti incubators story. Just another story cooked up by a Bush White House and their friends. To be fair, Clinton did the same (Racak massacre anyone?)

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Sadly, the world will now REQUIRE an attack before they believe the CIA or the any future US administration. That's not what I would call a Good Thing(TM).

And how exactly is this different from the past 50 years?

 

[Moffell]

Sadly, the world will now REQUIRE an attack before they believe the CIA or the any future US administration. That's not what I would call a Good Thing(TM).

And how exactly is this different from the past 50 years?

Now one really cared a whole lot when Clinton bombed a couple a medical factories? (or whatever the hell they were) Some meager protests here and there but the general opinion probably were that the administration did what it did for good reasons wouldn't you agree? Good luck getting away with something similar the next time, credibility can be destroyed so fast it makes nvidias 6 months releases seem slow.

 

[DemoCoder]

Actually, there was quite a lot of news coverage on the Sudanese factory that was blown up and the quality of the CIA evidence that it was producing chemical weapons.

Fact is, in the last 50 years, countries didn't bother justifying their wars at the UN with intelligence reports. Did you care at all for Soviet intelligence and arguments justifying their invasion of Afghanistan?

The only case that stands out, the exception, rather than the rule, of intelligence based action, is the Cuban missile crisis.

 

[RussSchultz]

Was that the aspirin factory? Or the baby milk factory?

One of my friends in the biomedical industry working on some defense stuff told me that powdered milk is a good suspension agent for weaponizing anthrax.

 

[Willmeister]

Did you care at all for Soviet intelligence and arguments justifying their invasion of Afghanistan?

That's because the new Afghani government at the time asked for Soviet troops to cement their hold on power. You can easily compare what Bush did to what the Soviets did in Afghanistan, except the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan didn't ask for American help. The populations of these countries didn't ask for kufr help. On the contrary, they're targetting foreign troops any chance they can.

I really suspect this whole business about 'Saddam loyalists' is a bunch of crap. It's a bunch of gangs in Iraq who want their Anglo-American occupiers out so they can get down and rule their little fiefdoms at gunpoint. Crime follows war like a shadow. And power, like nature, abhors a vacuum and no doubt they wish to fill that vacuum the first chance they get. I seriously doubt any of these gang leaders really have any concern or admiration for Saddam. They want to be the next Saddam in their own little territories and would kill Saddam himself, or laud Saddam depending on the makeup of the audience. These upcoming warlords may actually be the only ones who laud the overthrow of Saddam. I hope I'm just being overly cynical.

 

[Moffell]

Fact is, in the last 50 years, countries didn't bother justifying their wars at the UN with intelligence reports. Did you care at all for Soviet intelligence and arguments justifying their invasion of Afghanistan?

The only case that stands out, the exception, rather than the rule, of intelligence based action, is the Cuban missile crisis.

Of course not! Sovietunion was a communist dictatorship that sought world domination through any means necessary. I hold the US to much much higher standards. As it should be IMO and any American worth a damn should be insulted by anything else.

 

[notAFanB]

North Korea was not a nuclear power when we found out about them restarting their nuclear program last summer! They have only recently acquired enough nuclear material to build one or two bombs. In the past few days, they have acquired enough to make 3-6 more by the end of the year!

I beleieve the North claimed to be in possession of a couple of nuclear arms well in advance of the conflit.

the last part of that quote is a bit of a muddy area at the moment, we'll see.

 

[pax]

The ball will get rolling when they finally test one or 2 of their nukes. I think its a good thing. Will largely put to rest any ideas of military interventions or other overly aggressive postures by the west.

 

[pascal]

war is good for business: http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,997056,00.html

Outrage at US plan to mortgage Iraqi oil

Faisal Islam, economics correspondent
Sunday July 13, 2003
The Observer

American plans to mortgage Iraq's future oil supplies to pay for expensive postwar reconstruction work risk a repeat of mistakes made with Germany after the First World War, debt relief campaigners said this weekend.
Much of the revenue will be securitised over at least a decade under the proposals being pushed by the US Export Import Bank, the Bush administration's trade promotion body, and a lobbying group that includes key American contractors Bechtel and Halliburton.

Reports suggest that $30 billion of loans will be backed by Iraq's reserves, the second biggest in the world.

Anne Pettifor, head of the Jubilee Plus debt relief campaign, said 'It is outrageous that the poor people of Iraq will be lumbered with billions of dollars of debt that will be used to boost the share prices of Wall Street financiers and US construction giants.'

She warned against the coalition 'using the instrument of debt to control Iraq', after it leaves. Such a motive was behind the way Germany was treated after 1918, provoking resentment that eventually encouraged the rise of Adolf Hitler.

The World Bank has said such commitments should only be made by a sovereign Iraqi government. The plans will complicate a conference on Iraq's existing $120bn debt, which the US wants European powers to cancel.

The Department for International Development would not rule out British participation in the scheme.