Originally Posted By cape cod joe Hundreds of millions of people care RT if the President of the U.S. lied as they cared when Clinton was impeached for lying. Now with O'Reilly putting the heat on all the people who said George lied (last night on the factor) it is going to very interesting to us millions of people who care to see what happens next. This is very intriguing.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You know, I've done a headline search at Reuters, ABC News, and the Wall Street Journal in all of their current news feeds and there is zero mention of this supposed news topic.> It was in the NY Times. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/international/middleeast/12saddam.html?_r=1&n=Top" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03 /12/international/middleeast/12saddam.html?_r=1&n=Top</a>%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fG%2fGordon%2c%20Michael%20R%2e&oref=slogin
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Douglas ---Isn't it interesting how I make these irrefutable posts, and now backed by you, and mele, rt, tom, mrich, just do the evanescent routine? One day ---------------admissions? yeah right!
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>So where have all of these documents been?<< Asked and answered, in the original article: >>House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Peter Hoekstra told the Washington Times that about 500 hours of Saddam audiotape is still being translated and analyzed by the U.S. And U.S. Central Command has 48,000 boxes of Iraqi documents, of which the military has delivered just 68 pages to his committee so far.<< Rather than try to explain away new information, why not respond to its content?
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Dug--read my post from yesterday--To answer your question--It wouldn't be palatable with people's already made up minds is the ONLY reason I can think of?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Douglas ---Isn't it interesting how I make these irrefutable posts, and now backed by you, and mele, rt, tom, mrich, just do the evanescent routine?>> CCJ... 1) I never made a statement on these boards that Bush lied. 2) I never made a statement on these boards that this story had not been picked up by 'legitimate' media. I just said that I think the issue of whether Bush lied or not is pretty irrelevant. Just like I thought the issue of whether Clinton lied or not was irrelevant. I think it is more important to look at performance/results, and so far Bush's second term, for whatever reason, has been dismal. Don’t put words/positions in my mouth. I’m plenty capable of expressing my own opinions.
Originally Posted By DlandDug The NYT has an interesting (not to say creative) take on the new information. Since they have committed fully to the "Bush lied" thesis, they have to find some way to discount this. Hence, this statement, early in the article: >>The Iraqi dictator was so secretive and kept information so compartmentalized that his top military leaders were stunned when he told them three months before the war that he had no weapons of mass destruction, and they were demoralized because they had counted on hidden stocks of poison gas or germ weapons for the nation's defense.<< But then buried deeper in the article we read this: >>In December 2002, he told his top commanders that Iraq did not possess unconventional arms, like nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, according to the Iraq Survey Group, a task force established by the C.I.A. to investigate what happened to Iraq's weapons programs. Mr. Hussein wanted his officers to know they could not rely on poison gas or germ weapons if war broke out. The disclosure that the cupboard was bare, Mr. Aziz said, sent morale plummeting. To ensure that Iraq would pass scrutiny by United Nations arms inspectors, Mr. Hussein ordered that they be given the access that they wanted. And he ordered a crash effort to scrub the country so the inspectors would not discover any vestiges of old unconventional weapons, no small concern in a nation that had once amassed an arsenal of chemical weapons, biological agents and Scud missiles, the Iraq survey group report said. Mr. Hussein's compliance was not complete, though. Iraq's declarations to the United Nations covering what stocks of illicit weapons it had possessed and how it had disposed of them were old and had gaps. And Mr. Hussein would not allow his weapons scientists to leave the country, where United Nations officials could interview them outside the government's control. Seeking to deter Iran and even enemies at home, the Iraqi dictator's goal was to cooperate with the inspectors while preserving some ambiguity about its unconventional weapons — a strategy General Hamdani, the Republican Guard commander, later dubbed in a television interview "deterrence by doubt." That strategy led to mutual misperception.<< So the Times makes sure to mention prominently that Saddam denied he had WMD, even to his own generals. But when it comes to saying that he still retained them, the Times must skirt the issue. (>>Mr. Hussein's compliance was not complete, though. Iraq's declarations to the United Nations covering what stocks of illicit weapons it had possessed and how it had disposed of them were old and had gaps.<<) As more of these documents come to light, I believe we will see far more fascinating parsing going on. Perhaps the NYT could get a guest editorialist to explain to their readers what the meaning of "is" is...
Originally Posted By JeffG Douglas, thanks for the NY Times link. It casts quite a bit of light on this story, without the clear spin that the right wing editorial pages and broadcasters seem to be putting on it. Basically, it sounds like the papers shed quite a bit of light on how Hussein approached the war, his thought processes in defying the UN (and starting to cooperate towards the end), and how the intelligence was misinterpreted. The article also indicates that the papers make it very clear that he did not have WMDs and how demoralizing it was when that fact was revealed fairly late even to the leaders of his own armies. -Jeff
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Trip 1) I never said you did 2) I never said you did I lumped you in with people who disappear but read my post 57--I never said which post applied to you. The exact post that applies to you is obviously post 55 as hundreds of millions of people do care trip--It IS irrefutable! If you don't that's fine but let's not be arrogant to the HUNDREDS of MILLIONS who do care enough that they IMPEACHED a U.S. President for the first time in history. If George lied about this, he should be impeached as I think it is way more serious than lying about sex. I AGREE with you RT that performance is more important than this bs.. but if the pols are going to try to make hay out of this, they have to be accountable if George did NOT lie. As far as I can see, the votes are not even close to being in, so it should be very interesting. Thanks for not disappearing and I take back lumping you in All I ask for you trip, me, anyone is accountability, not getting in little digs and running for cover. I think that's fair and balanced. How are you feeling? I'm still sick but better. At least I xrayed negative for the pneumonia. The whole cape is sick this winter. I need Fla!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Originally Posted By JeffG DlandDug was apparently posting at the same time I was writing my post. Interesting spin of the NYT article, although it seems like you were really stretching to find bias there... -Jeff
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Douglas, thanks for the NY Times link. It casts quite a bit of light on this story, without the clear spin that the right wing editorial pages and broadcasters seem to be putting on it.<< Alas, the spinning here is by the august editorial board of the gray lady. Post #61 covers this. >>The article also indicates that the papers make it very clear that he did not have WMDs and how demoralizing it was when that fact was revealed fairly late even to the leaders of his own armies.<< No, the article makes it clear that Saddam was even lying to his own generals, as he was playing shell ganmes with the very real WMDs that he did possess. But why take my word for it? Let's hear it from the Times: >>Mr. Hussein's compliance was not complete, though. Iraq's declarations to the United Nations covering what stocks of illicit weapons it had possessed and how it had disposed of them were old and had gaps.<<
Originally Posted By DlandDug Jeff, we seem to be conducting a psychic debate here... (And no, I don't take it personally. Glad to see you apparently don't either.)
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>I lumped you in with people who disappear << People don't spend 24/7 on the boards, ccj - don't make false accusations like that. And I've said I was wrong about a number of issues here. (And part of me hopes that we do find a giant hidden WMD program just so America doesn't have to deal with the political repercussions of this enormous mistake.) Now, everyone should read the article that DouglasDub posted a link to. It explains exactly how we wound up being so wrong about WMDs, and how Saddam did open up his country to inspections to try to stave off the war. The president already admitted that our pre-war intelligence about Iraq's WMD programs was wrong. It's time that some of his followers agreed with him.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Mr. Hussein's compliance was not complete, though. Iraq's declarations to the United Nations covering what stocks of illicit weapons it had possessed and how it had disposed of them were old and had gaps<< The declarations may have been old and there may have been gaps, but that doesn't mean that Saddam had WMD stockpiles or an ongoing WMD program. You can't draw that conclusion.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Now, everyone should read the article that DouglasDub posted a link to. It explains exactly how we wound up being so wrong about WMDs, and how Saddam did open up his country to inspections to try to stave off the war.<< And the spin... goes on! The Washington Post has cautiously dipped it's toe into this story: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/13/AR2006031301451.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/13/AR2006031301451.html</a> >>The news was greeted with enthusiasm by U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, Republican chairman of the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, who has strongly urged the administration to release the material. He suggested some of the information could shed light on prewar U.S. intelligence reports that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.<<
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>The declarations may have been old and there may have been gaps, but that doesn't mean that Saddam had WMD stockpiles or an ongoing WMD program. You can't draw that conclusion.<< Unlike some here, I haven't drawn any conclusions.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Finally found the original WashTimes article (the first post was commentary on the article). <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060313-123146-7380r.htm" target="_blank">http://www.washingtontimes.com /national/20060313-123146-7380r.htm</a>','news',700,400,'TR',0,5,0'resizable Interestingly, this thread has morphed from a discussion about whether Bush did or did not lie when he asserted that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa, and into the usual arguments over WMDs. There are a lot of these documents that still haven't been translated. As they are released, it will be interesting to see how EVERYONE digests the information...
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Did anyone really say Bush lied about Saddam seeking uranium from Niger? I thought the contention was that he was wrong, but not that he lied.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Did anyone really say Bush lied about Saddam seeking uranium from Niger?> Yes. Lots of people did, including some posters here.
