Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>No, people on the left are simply arguing that Saddam should still be in power<< No, they aren't. Stop making stuff up.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy If people are saying Bush "misled" the country into war, or Saddam was " contained " or that the war was for oil... they by defaut are saying we should never have gone to war with Saddam and that he should still be in power. Leftist Ramsey Clark is even defending Saddam in his trial. Saddam is using left wing phrases like " unjust war " in his daily rants during his trial. The left by arguing against the war want Saddam in power. You can't have it both ways and it's just another reason the left isn't trusted with anything bigger than getting my Egg Nog latte served correctly at Starbucks.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The left by arguing against the war want Saddam in power.<< Somebody spiked your egg nog latte. Some people against the war are uncomfortable with the idea of preemptive wars. Also, they want to be sure all other avenues have been exhausted. And last but not least, they want us to be right about stuff like WMDs so that we don't end up with egg (nog latte) on our face when they can't be found after all the yelling about them.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<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.> Which intelligence agencies then? The CIA was one of the dissents I pointed to.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Which intelligence agencies then?> I'm not sure. I assume that although the CIA had some doubts about some information, most still pointed to the idea that Saddam was seeking to reconstitute his nuclear program. Here's a link to the NIE for 2002. <a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html" target="_blank">http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/pro duct/iraq-wmd.html</a> Here's what it said, in part, about the INR dissent - "The Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR) believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapons-related capabilities."
Originally Posted By ElKay "Here's what it said, in part, about the INR dissent -" Cherrypicking your arguments, just like Cheney and Rummy? Here's the rest of that INR dissent: >>The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment. Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program, INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result, INR is unable to predict when Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon. In INR's view Iraq's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes is central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors. INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose. INR considers it far more likely that the tubes are intended for another purpose, most likely the production of artillery rockets. The very large quantities being sought, the way the tubes were tested by the Iraqis, and the atypical lack of attention to operational security in the procurement efforts are among the factors, in addition to the DOE assessment, that lead INR to conclude that the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq's nuclear weapon program.<< It's quite telling the mindset of the Admin's "majority" view when the minority view got it 100% correct, while the majority got less than perhaps 20% correct--yeah, given half a chance Saddam would have liked to continue working on a nuke program. However, Saddam didn't really get a half a chance, so the alarmist rhetoric from the Admin was WRONG. IMO, even IF Saddam had access to tons of uranium ore (yellowcake), it would have only been useful to make yellow pottery glaze, unless he had the ability to process it into U238 fissional material. The most telling bit of intel was those aluminum tubes. Both State and Energy Depts. doubted that those tubes were anything but for a conventional rocketry program. However, the Admin. would hear nothing of that dissent. Even though the Energy Dept. has the expertise to evaluate the suitablity, Energy Dept. was overruled by the CIA. A couple of months ago, PBS's Frontline did an excellent documentary on the case against the WMD program and they interviewed the CIA's deputy director and he made the lamest excuse to discredit the dissent by claiming that the Energy Dept. didn't send the right person to a meeting, so the whole dissent was dismissed without further study. Essentially, the CIA didn't brook any contrary views, so nothing would change their minds, including the TRUTH. What strikes me is that the CIA and other US intel. agencies had at least enough evidence before them to go cautiously toward recommending that the country start a pre-emptive war. Prudent people would have given the UN inspectors reasonable time to verify IF there was evidence of stockpiles or labs producing any sort of WMDs, before going blindly into a war. Take for instance the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy aquired concrete evidence that the Soviets had begun to install short range ICBMs on Cuban soil and cargo ships were approaching with additional missiles. That was a clear and present danger to the country. Had Saddam test fired a research nuke or reliable human intel. had radiological evidence (as in the case of North Korea back in the late 1990s) that would have been truely a "slam dunk" evidence of a REAL threat to the region or even the US. This belittling the State Dept's dissent shows how little regard Powell held inside the Admin. Dispite his background in the military, Bush and the rest of the neocon Admin. totally ignored his warnings that there was no immediate threat. Again, Dougie, your position cannot be supported with documented evidence. Except for the fact that Saddam was a very, very bad guy, nothing you or the Admin. argues is based on facts, only wishful thinking and feelings of revenge.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 ElKay, what's even more amazing than Doug trying to get away with cutting and pasting just the one paragraph instead of the whole thing is the fact that I'd already posted the whole thing in #49. Unlike Doug, I included the portions that leaned in the opposite direction of my own view.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It's quite telling the mindset of the Admin's "majority" view when the minority view got it 100% correct, while the majority got less than perhaps 20% correct--yeah, given half a chance Saddam would have liked to continue working on a nuke program.> The INR said that, while they didn't believe all of the arguements, they still believed Iraq was "pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapons-related capabilities". They did not say that Saddam didn't have a nuclear program and wasn't pursuing nuclear weapons, so the fears were justified. <Both State and Energy Depts. doubted that those tubes were anything but for a conventional rocketry program.> But other intelligence agencies, including the French, were saying that those tubes had to be used for centrifuges. They were too sophisticated for conventional rocketry.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <ElKay, what's even more amazing than Doug trying to get away with cutting and pasting just the one paragraph instead of the whole thing is the fact that I'd already posted the whole thing in #49.> I don't need to "get away" with anything to make my case. I included a link, and I noted that I was quoting in part. You're the one arguing that the consensus was not the consensus when the document says otherwise.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer And they were not sophisticated enough to be used in nuclear weapons production. Regardless, there was a lot of disagreement about what these tubes were for, but the White House made it seem as though there was a consensus that they were for WMD production - which was untrue.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<ElKay, what's even more amazing than Doug trying to get away with cutting and pasting just the one paragraph instead of the whole thing is the fact that I'd already posted the whole thing in #49.>> <I don't need to "get away" with anything to make my case. I included a link,> You do to make a convincing one. <and I noted that I was quoting in part.> When the very next sentences contradict your jist, it's just good form to include them. <You're the one arguing that the consensus was not the consensus when the document says otherwise.> I noted three major dissents, including the CIA fercryinoutloud. You still insist it was a "consensus." And as Tom points out, for the tubes there was no consensus whatsoever.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And they were not sophisticated enough to be used in nuclear weapons production.> Some experts say otherwise. <Regardless, there was a lot of disagreement about what these tubes were for, but the White House made it seem as though there was a consensus that they were for WMD production - which was untrue.> No, it's not. The consensus was reported correctly.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <When the very next sentences contradict your jist, it's just good form to include them.> They don't contradict; they only qualify. <You still insist it was a "consensus."> That's what the NIE says.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<When the very next sentences contradict your jist, it's just good form to include them.>> <They don't contradict; they only qualify.> The other way around, really. The first paragraph qualifies the major points, which are made in the two much longer paragraphs that follow. If you're honest, even you must see that. <<You still insist it was a "consensus.">> <That's what the NIE says.> Do they use that word? Even if they do, Tom nailed it as usual.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The NIE may say it, but the agencies themselves didn't.> That's simply untrue.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If you're honest, even you must see that.> The honest interpretation is the one I've already given.
Originally Posted By ElKay Dougie really got this argument plain wrong. The opinion by State, backed up by Energy trashes the dominate (I think other agencies had similar doubts, but were overruled by Tennat sucking up to Cheney) opinion. Outside of the first paragraph, this dissent strongly makes a case that the nuke experts from the Energy Dept. all but ruled out the supposed evidence that Saddam was rebuilding his nuke program. Dougie, in his biased view is just incapable to read English and assess arguments that clash with those spoonfed to a neocon mindset. As I said earlier, any reasonable person reading this dissent has to conclude there were serious problems with the dominate view, given the opinion from the Energy Dept. Fair minded people would have concluded that additional evidence was needed to accurate evalute the dominate view as well as the points made by this dissent. Again, Dougie your contentions just aren't credible given the public information out on the Internet. Seemingly, no evidence nor logical thought will alter your views that Bush is infailable. Instead of facts, you operate on faith. That sort of faith in the honest assessment by the office of the President lowered too many people, including Congressional Dems, in giving Bush the benefit of the doubt that there was real evidence of a threat from Saddam. What the Bush Admin. has done is trashed the future credibility of all succeeding presidents, when critics can cite the purposeful mischaracterizations by Bush II in his messianic drive to oust Saddam on the most suspect of evidence possible.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Dougie, in his biased view is just incapable to read English and assess arguments that clash with those spoonfed to a neocon mindset.> Tell me how I'm misreading this sentence - "Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program." As usual, when confronted with facts, you produce bather.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>in the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."<< Most agencies - not all. Not a consensus.
