Originally Posted By ElKay Dalmations! I always wanted to say that. . . Dougie, or just Duh: "Tell me how I'm misreading this sentence" If you insist. Let me quote part of the State Dept.'s rebuttal to the link that you cherrypicked: >>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.<< While this exclusively referrs to the ONLY REAL WMD--nukes, it can also be used in the case of the chem and bio weapons. The FACT of the matter that you and the Admin. conveniently forget is the FACT that State was essentially correct in their ignored assessment before and after the fall of Baghdad. Even their concession that Saddam probably desired to have WMDs there was little credible evidence that he had them without a more comprehensive inspection. Both the Dems in Congress and the rest of the members of the Security Council were in favor of completing the then recently resumed inspections to determine whether or not Saddam was the threat that Bush and Blair claimed him to be. IF the inspectors did find serious breaches, then chances were Bush would have gotten grudging authority to attack. Going off to war half-cocked has pretty much wrecked US credibility in most of the World. It has confirmed the lies that bin Laden has used to whip up anti-American terror campaign and confirmed the "cowboy" image that Russia, China and--yes France held of the US and Bush in particular. Your most recent quote here actually turns out to have been dead wrong in light of our nearly complete access to Saddam's military assets. However, you keep missing the most basic facts that Bush's arguments for war were totally wrong and he's either a fool or a liar for making those arguments.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Going off to war half-cocked has pretty much wrecked US credibility in most of the World.>> OMG Elkay, your still using the silly liberal talking point. I see this slogan didn't get your man Kerry elected. Ok, please tell us... what countries have we lost credibility with? I assume these countries ( France ) are so upset with us that they will never have their hands out when they need anything? <<However, you keep missing the most basic facts that Bush's arguments for war were totally wrong and he's either a fool or a liar for making those arguments.>> All 20 arguments Elkay? You guys had your chance with your BS to get Bush booted out of office last year. America told you to stick it because they don't trust liberals with national security... for great reason as we can see. Let me translate once again what you really want to say... " Saddam should be in power right now and BushMchitler needs to be impeached for screwing over a good man like Saddam! " Give Saddam back his country now!! "
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Beau, give that Saddam argument a rest. It simply isn't true, and you know it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The FACT of the matter that you and the Admin. conveniently forget is the FACT that State was essentially correct in their ignored assessment before and after the fall of Baghdad.> No one is forgetting any facts. The assessment of INR was that they didn't know. As Beaumandy points out, there were over 20 reasons given in the resolution that authorized military action against Iraq. Even if Saddam didn't have stockpiles of WMD's like many intelligence agencies believed he did, the rest of those 20 reasons are still valid.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh "Beau, give that Saddam argument a rest. It simply isn't true, and you know it." It's more accurate than most of Elkay's arguments, but you never tell him to give it a rest.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<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.>> <The honest interpretation is the one I've already given.> Okay, I gave you too much credit. Oh well.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I actually meant that. Snide, maybe. But true. I really thought that even you would admit that the first shorter paragraph was meant to qualify the larger points of the two much longer paragraphs that followed. That's simply an honest reading. I'm disappointed that you either don't see that, or won't.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Oh brother. Talk about "intellectual onanism". Whether the second two paragraphs qualify the first (which is standard construction) or whether the first paragraph qualifies the next two (which I guess is how they do things in Dabobworld) is irrelevant. Either way, the INR still believed that Saddam was pursuing nuclear weapons, but didn't think he was as far along as the rest of the agencies. If you were honest, you'd admit that.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Oh brother indeed. In "realpeopleworld" one can place qualifiers either before or after one's main point. Either "basically I believe this, with the following caveats" or "with the following caveats, basically I believe this." What is very much standard, and not at all irrelevant, is that qualifiers by definition will be shorter than the main point. And indeed, here we see one short paragraph saying that Iraq may WANT nukes, but then two long paragraphs saying they didn't think he was all that close to having them. "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. " Pretty clear. If you're honest about it.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "If you were honest, you'd admit that." Every time I see a phrase like this, it makes me cringe. As if anyone who disagrees with the person who wrote it is being dishonest. How arrogant. It is possible for people to look at the same set of facts and information and come up with entirely different sets of conclusions. The whole reasonable minds can differ thing. Back to your bickering.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Pretty clear. If you're honest about it.> Sure. It means the INR believed Iraq was pursuing a disjointed and ad hoc approach to acquiring nuclear weapons.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Every time I see a phrase like this, it makes me cringe.> I agree, but I can only take so much arrogance, and then I start giving it back.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh See, like that. You point out one of the few times that I have editorialized lately, and ignore the half dozen examples of Dabob doing it recently. And then you editorialize. I don't need your pity or your arrogance.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "And then you editorialize. I don't need your pity or your arrogance." When I wrote the original comment, did it ever occur to you that it wasn't directly addressed to you, that others do it as well? I wrote "every time I see a phrase like this". You were just the latest. And you didn't get any of my pity, so don't worry.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <When I wrote the original comment, did it ever occur to you that it wasn't directly addressed to you, that others do it as well?> Yes, it did. Did it ever occur to you that your "Really pitiful, Doug" comment was arrogant?
Originally Posted By ElKay Duh: "Either way, the INR still believed that Saddam was pursuing nuclear weapons, but didn't think he was as far along as the rest of the agencies." That's not a completely accurate representation of the State Dept.'s views. It's more than likely they were countering the "dominate" position of a breakneck speed program to build a nuke program. Otherwise they wouldn't cite as their primary evidence the less than compelling argument of those aluminum tubes (that Judith Miller was given the leak to write about in the NYT). From the INR dissent: >>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.<< Again, a reasonable reading is that the INR and Energy Dept. had serious questions about the most damning evidence cited by the CIA and the DoD for their conclusion that Saddam was in fact building nukes. If the CIA and the Admin. were honest about their beliefs that Saddam was building nukes, they would have at minimum directly addressed those concerns about the usefulness of those tubes, since they were the cornerstone of ANY nuke program. No means to process the yellowcake, means no bomb grade explosives for nukes. Again, the fact of the matter isn't solely that the MAJORITY of the Intel. Community made a tiny mistake, thinking Saddam had nukes, it's the FACT that every argument the MAJORITY used to incite this war was WRONG. This fact questions if the Bush Admin was looking for an excuse for war instead of objectively gathering intel. and acting upon it in an honest manner. Powell and the INR, being the odd man out, were able to objectively assess the evidence and managed to GET IT RIGHT.
