Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <DOE (the agency responsible for OUR nukes) said they almost certainly weren't meant for centrifuges.> According to the NIE, the DOE "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." I don't think that's the same as almost certain that they weren't used for that purpose. <Yet months and months after they said that, the admin. was still saying that they might have been acquired for centrifuges.> Which is true, apparently. <Again I ask, what in those paragraphs is contradicted by the official document?> The official document does not say that anyone was certain the tubes were not for nuclear use. Only that some people doubted they were. <Just can't shake the habit of insidiously trying to link Saddam and 9/11, can you?> They are linked. 9/11 was an act of terrorism; Saddam was a supporter of terrorism. <And yes, if the DOE and CIA and INR have all told them that Saddam is not going to have nukes any time soon, then yes it is unreasonable to imply to the public that he is.> I don't see where either VP Cheney or Sec Rice said anything that was not supported by intelligence reports. <The tubes weren't for a nuclear program. He might or might not have sent feelers to Niger to get yellowcake, but he already had tons of the stuff sitting unused, because he couldn't process it. And the sanctions and inspections and no-fly zones we had against him was not doing "nothing."> The tubes might have been for a nuclear program, and Saddam did send envoys to Niger. And he could have processed it. Remember the centrifuge in the garden? <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/ meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Sorry for the double post. I'm not exactly sure what happened. <Why couldn't they? If he continued to be in violation of UN agreements, why couldn't they have been extended?> Because critics of the sanctions would have minimized every violation, just as you're doing. <Unless they were ignorant of the positions of the INR, DOE, and CIA (and if they were, that's a dereliction of duty), they knew that nukes were not just around the corner for Saddam.> You're mischaracterizing their positions again.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Douglas, you're hanging on to some real chestnuts even the administration has walked away from. There was a Hardball special edition all about this stuff this afternoon, not sure if it will be repeated tonight, but it was packed with lots of info. Worth checking out and it directly addresses annd refutes many of the points you keep bringing up. I wish i had a transcript of it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<DOE (the agency responsible for OUR nukes) said they almost certainly weren't meant for centrifuges.>> <According to the NIE, the DOE "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." I don't think that's the same as almost certain that they weren't used for that purpose.> On the contrary, it's agency-speak for exactly that. It's the polite way of saying "Using these things for centrifuges? Ya' gotta be kidding me." <<Yet months and months after they said that, the admin. was still saying that they might have been acquired for centrifuges.>> <Which is true, apparently.> I'm amazed you still cling to this. <<Again I ask, what in those paragraphs is contradicted by the official document?>> <The official document does not say that anyone was certain the tubes were not for nuclear use. Only that some people doubted they were.> Not what I asked. I asked what in those paragraphs was contradicted by the official document. The answer is: nothing. <<Just can't shake the habit of insidiously trying to link Saddam and 9/11, can you?>> <They are linked. 9/11 was an act of terrorism; Saddam was a supporter of terrorism.> By that logic we should have invaded any of a dozen other countries. <<And yes, if the DOE and CIA and INR have all told them that Saddam is not going to have nukes any time soon, then yes it is unreasonable to imply to the public that he is.>> <I don't see where either VP Cheney or Sec Rice said anything that was not supported by intelligence reports.> The intelligence reports told them that Saddam was not going to be capable of producing mushroom clouds any time soon. Yet Cheney and Rice were talking about the necessity of war in the Spring of '03 and no later because "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." <<The tubes weren't for a nuclear program. He might or might not have sent feelers to Niger to get yellowcake, but he already had tons of the stuff sitting unused, because he couldn't process it. And the sanctions and inspections and no-fly zones we had against him was not doing "nothing.">> <The tubes might have been for a nuclear program,> Nope. <and Saddam did send envoys to Niger. And he could have processed it. Remember the centrifuge in the garden?> Then why the tons of unprocessed stuff that was still under seal in 2003? <<Why couldn't they? If he continued to be in violation of UN agreements, why couldn't they have been extended?>> <Because critics of the sanctions would have minimized every violation, just as you're doing.> First of all, I'm not minimizing the violations. I've conceded them many times. And I say they would be the justifcation for continuing the sanctions and Saddam's isolation. Second, when did Bush ever give a fig about what critics said? Wouldn't he have been tougher than that? Wasn't there something in between "nothing" and invasion and occupation? Of course there was. <<Unless they were ignorant of the positions of the INR, DOE, and CIA (and if they were, that's a dereliction of duty), they knew that nukes were not just around the corner for Saddam.>> <You're mischaracterizing their positions again.> I don't think so.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Douglas, you're hanging on to some real chestnuts even the administration has walked away from. There was a Hardball special edition all about this stuff this afternoon, not sure if it will be repeated tonight, but it was packed with lots of info. Worth checking out and it directly addresses annd refutes many of the points you keep bringing up.> No kidding. As usual, 2oony, you make your points more concisely than I do.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Worth checking out and it directly addresses annd refutes many of the points you keep bringing up. I wish i had a transcript of it.> It probably refutes them in the same way that Elkay's source and Dabob does, by saying things say things other than what they say.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <By that logic we should have invaded any of a dozen other countries.> We chose the one that was the worse violator; the one that Senator John Edwards said was the most imminent threat. <Wasn't there something in between "nothing" and invasion and occupation?> Not that hadn't already been tried, and failed to make Saddam comply.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Worth checking out and it directly addresses annd refutes many of the points you keep bringing up. I wish i had a transcript of it.>> <It probably refutes them in the same way that Elkay's source and Dabob does, by saying things say things other than what they say.> You've never seen it, but you know what it "probably" does anyway. Oh yeah, you're not biased. LOL. Plus, you never showed how I was "saying things say things other than what they say." You merely asserted it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<By that logic we should have invaded any of a dozen other countries.>> <We chose the one that was the worse violator; the one that Senator John Edwards said was the most imminent threat.> Since when do you quote Edwards. Oh, wait, I know. Since you think that somehow makes your point because Edwards is (how fiendishly clever!) a Democrat. Even though, of course, he was wrong here. <<Wasn't there something in between "nothing" and invasion and occupation?>> <Not that hadn't already been tried, and failed to make Saddam comply. > That's called a failure of imagination, to begin with. Plus, Saddam's failure to comply did not necessitate invasion and occupation. It was maddening that he failed to comply, but he was still in a box and could have been kept there.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>by saying things say things other than what they say<< It was, in my opinion, a fair piece. When things were ambiguous or open to interpretation, it said so. But it also showed footage of folks connected to this administration changing their wording over time on some of the chestnuts in question that you continue to bring forth. It's a simple fact, as uncomfortable as it may be, that many assumptions were proven wrong. Heck, the Hardball piece aside, in 2004 there was a comedic presentation created by the White House that had George Bush looking for WMDs under his sofa cusions, for Pete's sake... >>At Wednesday night's annual Radio and Television Correspondents Association dinner -- an event where presidents traditionally let down their hair -- the most guarded of presidents made an honest, though perhaps stale, attempt at humor. But the talking heads, the television powerful, the broadcast journalists, did laugh. Donning a tuxedo, looking very non-Texan, Mr. Bush quipped, "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere," as slides showed him looking outside White House windows and under furniture. There was applause from the assembled dignitaries, who included his former chief weapons inspector, David Kay (along with many of this writer's seniors at CBS News). "Nope, no weapons over there," said Mr. Bush, as another picture showed the leader of the free world looking under a couch. "Maybe under here," he continued to more laughter.<< (from www.cbsnews.com)
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Remember the centrifuge in the garden?<< Yes, one of my favorite stories as a child. Oh, wait, that was The Secret Garden. My bad.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You've never seen it, but you know what it "probably" does anyway.> That's been the MO of Hardball in the past. <Plus, you never showed how I was "saying things say things other than what they say."> You did that yourself. <Since you think that somehow makes your point because Edwards is (how fiendishly clever!) a Democrat.> I quoted him to show what almost everyone, both Republican and Democrat, thought at the time. <Even though, of course, he was wrong here.> I disagree. <That's called a failure of imagination, to begin with.> I haven't seen you propose anything than what we were doing, which wasn't working. <Plus, Saddam's failure to comply did not necessitate invasion and occupation.> No, it didn't necessitate it. It just made it the best option.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh So to summarize the last dozen pages, the consensus amongst our intelligence agencies and our politicians was that Saddam had WMD's, was trying to get more, and was a threat.
Originally Posted By ElKay It's so funny how some neocons cling desperately to the now apparent lies that the Bush Admin. use to take us to war. It's very reminiscent to the political theories of Joseph Gobbles, Reich's Marshall for Propaganda. His most famious dictum was that if you repeat a lie enough time, it becomes fact. Also the corollary was that don't tell little lies, because nobody will believe you, only tell big lies. Dougie, holds on to this aluminium tubes issue, maintaining that the "evidence" was not supported by a majority. The Energy Dept. conclusions are not a political determination, but a scientific conclusion. Ordinarliy, reasonable people would defer to scientific experts in fields like nuclear energy, however, having neoconservatives from the Religious Right, makes all science suspect and a preponderence in "faith." From that "Washington Monthly" factiod about the fact the State Dept's. dissenting view wasn't declassified for the Senate debate on Iraq is very telling. Nobody outside of the Admin. had the necessary information in order to make a reasoned decision. If the Admin. kept from the Senate and the American people the FACT that the Energy Dept. didn't believe that those intercepted aluminium tubes could be used for weapons productions, I would suspect that most of the support for the Senate's authorization for Bush to go to war, if necessary would have evaporated. What Bush did is like what a DA might do to get a conviction by not releasing exculpatory evidence that might give a reasonable doubt in favor of the defendant. By law, the DA is supposed to give the evidence that may harm it's case, because the DA is supposed to serve justice, not their re-election campaigns. Again, it the Admin or the CIA had doubts to the findings of the Energy Dept. it was their responsibility to disprove those findings with conclusive evidence, not wishful thinking that Energy was wrong.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If the Admin. kept from the Senate and the American people the FACT that the Energy Dept. didn't believe that those intercepted aluminium tubes could be used for weapons productions, I would suspect that most of the support for the Senate's authorization for Bush to go to war, if necessary would have evaporated.> Please present to me the official document that verifies that "fact".
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<You've never seen it, but you know what it "probably" does anyway.>> <That's been the MO of Hardball in the past.> Assertion without proof. <<Plus, you never showed how I was "saying things say things other than what they say.">> <You did that yourself.> Nice try at sophistry, but again, no. <<Since you think that somehow makes your point because Edwards is (how fiendishly clever!) a Democrat.>> <I quoted him to show what almost everyone, both Republican and Democrat, thought at the time.> As ElKay points out, the information Congress was given was slanted and incomplete. But BTW, I do partially fault Edwards, Kerry, et al - many Democrats, especially those running for president with the exception of Dean, were very conscious about not looking "weak" and so felt they had to sound "tough" about Iraq. <<Even though, of course, he was wrong here.>> <I disagree.> He said he thought Iraq was more dangerous than North Korea (which actually has nukes) or Iran (which is much closer than Iraq to getting them). You're free to agree with him there... <<That's called a failure of imagination, to begin with.>> <I haven't seen you propose anything than what we were doing, which wasn't working.> Once again, it WAS working. Saddam was boxed in, isolated internationally, and without WMD. <<Plus, Saddam's failure to comply did not necessitate invasion and occupation.>> <No, it didn't necessitate it. It just made it the best option.> Not the best option at all.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Assertion without proof.> It's my opinion. I never claimed it was a fact. <Nice try at sophistry, but again, no.> I quoted what the NIE said the INR said. You then claimed it meant something else. <As ElKay points out, the information Congress was given was slanted and incomplete.> You're both wrong. <Once again, it WAS working. Saddam was boxed in, isolated internationally, and without WMD.> He wasn't complying with the cease fire, so we didn't know he didn't have WMD's. <Not the best option at all.> I disagree, and I believe history will prove me right.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Gee, Douglas, I think you'd actually watch the Hardball show in question before forming an opinion of it. Oh well.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I think you'd actually watch the Hardball show in question before forming an opinion of it.> Well, since I don't have a time machine, that's a little difficult. I'm well aware of Chris Matthews' views on things, and I'm aware of times when his show has been less than accurate, so my opinion has not been formed in a vacuum.
