Originally Posted By TomSawyer Douglas (and most of the rest of us) is just doing what the White House did. He knows what he believes, and he shapes the information he looks at to fit that belief and to make his point. The White House did the same thing.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I can't believe you'd actually say that.>> <I say it because it's true. The majority of intelligence agencies, both ours and that of other countries, believed that Saddam's Iraq had WMD's.> Ah, but you're moving the goalposts again. We were talking about there being a consensus, which you said was "true" about nuclear, not about WMD in general. Don't think we don't notice when you move the posts like that. The INR and the DOE both noted major reservations to the nuclear claims, giving the lie to your "consensus" claim.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I'm disappointed, though not entirely surprised, by your response. How different your response would be if this were a Democratic administration.> Gee, 2oony... ya' think??
Originally Posted By cmpaley Right wing debating tactics: Step 1: Make right-wing political statement. If everyone agrees, you win! If someone disagrees, go to step 2 Step 2: Demand proof. If no proof is provided, you win! If someone provides proof, go to step 3 Step 3: Discredit proof. Demand more proof, preferably from a right-wing source. If no proof is provided, you win! If the proof is provided, go to step 4 Step 4: Tell the dissident that they are hate American for bringing up the facts and they are for the terrorists. You win!
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <To this point, we've found zero.> That's not accurate. We've found programs and equipment that were supposed to be destroyed that weren't. And we found plenty of evidence of a willful plan to deceive the weapons inspectors. <How different your response would be if this were a Democratic administration.> There were intelligence failures under the Clintons - for example, the mass graves in Bosnia that failed to materialize in projected numbers, but I didn't spend hours on an internet site trying to minimize the evils of Milosevic.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <He knows what he believes, and he shapes the information he looks at to fit that belief and to make his point.> And you don't? Please.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <We were talking about there being a consensus, which you said was "true" about nuclear, not about WMD in general. Don't think we don't notice when you move the posts like that. The INR and the DOE both noted major reservations to the nuclear claims, giving the lie to your "consensus" claim.> A consensus means that most people agreed with it, not that everybody did. The consensus amongst the intelligence agencies was that Saddam was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>but I didn't spend hours on an internet site trying to minimize the evils of Milosevic.<< Mmm hmmm. And no one is minimizing the evils of Saddam Hussein, but that is leaning towards playbook technique #4 above.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<The INR and the DOE both noted major reservations to the nuclear claims, giving the lie to your "consensus" claim.>> <A consensus means that most people agreed with it, not that everybody did. The consensus amongst the intelligence agencies was that Saddam was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program.> I don't think it's correct to say that. In addition to the two dissents noted above, the CIA got Bush to delete reference to the Niger uranium in a speech in Cincinnati because they told him the evidence for that was weak (more detail in another thread here). That's three major dissents (hardly the "relatively minor" dissent you claim). And I notice the moving goalposts again - following the admin. playbook on this one - from actual nukes and "mushroom clouds" to nuclear "program."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That's three major dissents (hardly the "relatively minor" dissent you claim).> No, those were minor dissents. The consensus was still that Saddam had WMD's and was trying to get more. <And I notice the moving goalposts again - following the admin. playbook on this one - from actual nukes and "mushroom clouds" to nuclear "program."> I've never claimed that Saddam had actual nukes.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<That's three major dissents (hardly the "relatively minor" dissent you claim).>> <No, those were minor dissents. The consensus was still that Saddam had WMD's and was trying to get more.> Moving the goalposts AGAIN. I noted three major dissents on nuclear specifically, not WMD in general. And when those dissents are coming from the CIA, the INR and the DOE, those are not "minor" dissents. <<And I notice the moving goalposts again - following the admin. playbook on this one - from actual nukes and "mushroom clouds" to nuclear "program.">> <I've never claimed that Saddam had actual nukes.> The administration certainly implied it, or that he was just months away from doing so, when their own intell was telling them otherwise.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Moving the goalposts AGAIN.> I'm not sure why you keep saying I'm moving the goalposts when I'm consistantly saying the same thing. The National Intelligence Estimate stated the consensus of the intelligence communities, and the consensus was that Iraq had WMD's, and was attempting to acquire more. Sure, not every piece of evidence was believed by everyone, but not one agency the big picture. <The administration certainly implied it, or that he was just months away from doing so, when their own intell was telling them otherwise.> That statement is simply unsupportable.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Moving the goalposts AGAIN.>> <I'm not sure why you keep saying I'm moving the goalposts when I'm consistantly saying the same thing.> I said it because once again you moved the discussion from nuclear specifically to WMD in general. <The National Intelligence Estimate stated the consensus of the intelligence communities, and the consensus was that Iraq had WMD's, and was attempting to acquire more.> See above. And I presented 3 major dissents to nuclear specifically. <<The administration certainly implied it, or that he was just months away from doing so, when their own intell was telling them otherwise.>> <That statement is simply unsupportable.> Do you really need the Rice statements about "mushroom clouds" or Cheney talking about how close Saddam was to getting nukes quoted AGAIN?
Originally Posted By ElKay Toony: "I guess what I find amazing is that Douglas will argue ad nauseum for more "facts" and more "proof" of any statement made by posters here. That's all well and good, but when it comes to building a case for war, he seems to be okay with loose sketches and collective opinion as good enough." Whew, I thought I was the only one here who saw what Dougie was trying to argue in the the weakest way. Hey, did you hear about the Pentagon's "payola" scandal where they were paying to put "happy news" into Iraqi newspapers? Maybe there's someone HERE who's on the Pentagon's payroll to argue the Admin's excuses. Anyone know where I can get some of that Pentagon/taxpayer $$? Gimme $500 and I'll sing the praises of the Admin, 24/7.
Originally Posted By ElKay Dougie: "We've found programs and equipment that were supposed to be destroyed that weren't. And we found plenty of evidence of a willful plan to deceive the weapons inspectors." Those arguments are just so weak and intellectually thread bare. If Bush whined about the uncooperativeness of the Iraqis I seriously doubt either the Security Council or a GOP Congress would vote for an attack. It was the imminent threat of a nuke attack on the US or other UN member states that paved the way for Bush's "Shock and Awe" attack. Sure, Saddam's behavior was troubling and needed serious attention. However, those violations were relatively minor in nature, the most damning finding was that Saddam had hidden rockets that had a range in excess of the UN's limits. IF the UN inspectors found clear evidence of a WMD production plant or hidden stockpiles that would have been concrete evidence of MAJOR violations. It was a foregone conclusion that given half a chance, Saddam would have tried to rebuild his capacity to possess and possibly use WMDs. The FACT remains that the NATO quarantine of Iraq, proved VERY effective in preventing just that contingency. Even scamming more than a couple of billion of $$ from the UN Oil for Food program, didn't give Saddam the ability to reconstitute his WMD dreams. The reason why the UN inspectors forced their way back into Iraq was to determine for sure IF he had the ability to stockpile or create those banned WMDs. Given a few months of inspections, there could have been a determination if Bush was right and France the rest of the Security Council was wrong. But of course after the fall of Baghdad, Bush now has all of the evidence he needs to finally know the threat level of Saddam's WMD programs. LOL!
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << Mmm hmmm. And no one is minimizing the evils of Saddam Hussein, >> No, people on the left are simply arguing that Saddam should still be in power because Bush " misled " us into war by " duping " the hapless democrats in congress. <<Hey, did you hear about the Pentagon's "payola" scandal where they were paying to put "happy news" into Iraqi newspapers?>> God forbid we put factual news in the Iraqi paper that helps us win the war. I was waiting for some lib to trot this out as a bad thing. Of course they fall right into the pit every single time. <<Anyone know where I can get some of that Pentagon/taxpayer $$? Gimme $500 and I'll sing the praises of the Admin, 24/7.>> The liberal media slams and lies about Bush for free. You should be happy Elkay that your bogus propaganda keeps getting out. Of course it's always eventually debunked and you clowns lose, but that's just a small detail.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <See above. And I presented 3 major dissents to nuclear specifically.> You haven't shown that those dissents were the consensus. Again, the consensus amongst the intelligence agencies was that Saddam was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program. <Do you really need the Rice statements about "mushroom clouds" or Cheney talking about how close Saddam was to getting nukes quoted AGAIN?> I agree that Sec Rice and VP Cheney expressed fears about Saddam acquiring nuclear weapons. However, they said those things because the consensus of our intelligence agencies was that Saddam was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy If Saddam was still in power the chances of him having a nuclear program either now or in the near future are certain. This much has been reported in pretty much every report that has come out of our liberation of Iraq.
