WMD Stuff


PDA






Art Eatman
July 16, 2003, 06:50 PM
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsideco...003/7/16/164802

Note that the article says that it will take some months to really analyze and correlate the data. As we consider recent natterings and allegations against the Administration, I've again been reminded of the short attention span of this society, and the "I want my Instant Gratification, and I want it RIGHT NOW!" behavior of the carpers.

I guess my point, overall, is that we still have to wait a while before being able to make an intelligent and rational judgement about this one small part of the war's justification--or lack thereof.

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "WMD Stuff" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Preacherman
July 16, 2003, 06:58 PM
Art, I couldn't get your link to work, but I went to the Newsmax site, and I assume this is the article you were referring to? http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/7/16/164802.

Wednesday July 16, 2003; 4:41 p.m. EDT

Pentagon Bombshell: U.S. Uncovers WMD Document 'Mother Lode'

The Pentagon's chief weapons inspector David Kay has uncovered what is being described as a "mother lode" of documents in Iraq detailing Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program.

"I've already seen enough to convince me," said Kay, a former U.N. weapons inspector, in an interview aired Tuesday with "NBC Nightly News" anchorman Tom Brokaw.

"We're finding progress reports. [Iraqi scientists] also got financial rewards from Saddam Hussein by breakthroughs, indicating breakthroughs. They actually took--went to Saddam and said 'We have made this progress.'" the top WMD prober explained. "There are records, there are audiotapes of those interviews which give us that."

"According to Kay, the Iraqis seem to keep documents on even the most damning evidence," said Brokaw.

In assessing the scope of Kay's find, the NBC newsman proclaimed, "This is a mother lode, an estimated seven and a half miles of documents, many of them collected by U.S. military from [Iraq's] official buildings, but many others handed over by Iraqi civilians."

Iraq's WMD files are currently undergoing a painstaking analysis, said Brokaw, who explained, "Many of them [are] handwritten, have to be scanned onto a computer in this small, highly secure facility."

Working with Arabic translators, U.S. weapons experts look for certain clues, including personnel records, foreign purchases and lab results.

The Pentagon's chief weapons prober said he didn't want to go public with details of his find until the case is an indisputable lock. "I know if we can't explain the WMD program of Iraq we lose credibility with regard to other states like Iran, Syria and North Korea," he told NBC.

How long will it take before President Bush is able to reveal what could be smoking gun justification of his decision to make war on Iraq?

"I think we will have a substantial body of evidence before six months," Kay told NBC.

Brokaw ended his report on Kay's find with a clip of Tuesday's comment by Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.; a move the newsman apparently intended as a reminder to Democrats who continue to carp about the lack of WMD evidence, that they're liable to be humiliated when the full story is known.

"It's a disgrace that the case for war seems to have been based on shoddy intelligence, hyped intelligence, and even false intelligence," Kennedy complained.

Meanwhile back in Baghdad, Kay continues to pour over his treasure trove of WMD documents.

Waitone
July 16, 2003, 07:08 PM
It is no accident David Kaye is now doing the investigation.

NBC's report could also explain why Bush is taking such a hands off attitude toward the hyperventilating of democrats about uranium purchases. Democrats finally have something on Bush and the entire flap could well collapse with one 90 second news report.

fallingblock
July 16, 2003, 10:26 PM
on this whole rush to discredit "W". The opposition sees a window of opportunity for raising doubt and discrediting the Admin. before the election cycle. I believe that many if not most of the most strident critics know that the window may close on them, either through public disinterest with the passage of time or by the appearance of irrefutable evidence of the Iraqi WMD program.

After a couple turns at playing the 'circular argument game' here on THR, I
reckon the best policy is to wait and see. :)
Of course, It's O.K. if Ted Kennedy suffers another credibility disaster:D

Malone LaVeigh
July 17, 2003, 01:24 AM
I'm certainly willing to wait and see. But I have to comment on the selective hypocracy of certain moderators here. This subject was banned until you found this smidgen of evidence to support the prez. I really wouldn't be surprised to see it fade in embarrased silence like all of the other breathless "smoking gun" claims we've been subjected to since hostilities started. Then I suppose the subject will be banned again.

Al Norris
July 17, 2003, 01:55 AM
Malone, ya beat me too it!

It's just all too convenient that Preacherman's post disappeared and we find this WMD thread started by a mod. Hypocracy is not a strong enough word.

Preacherman
July 17, 2003, 03:02 AM
Malone, Al, I removed my post because after 500+ views, I think people have got the message. Also, it seems to have had the desired effect - we aren't having threads constantly re-hashing the same tired old accusations, allegations and disputations.

If somebody has something new and/or interesting to say, I'm sure all of us on THR would like to read it, and have the chance to comment. As moderators, we have to walk a fine line between encouraging open discussion, and stopping that discussion from descending into ad hominem attacks, disputes and discourtesy. Judging from the number of e-mails and PM's I received from our members before we shut down discussion on Iraq, WMD's, Bush's lies/truths, etc., most of our members were getting as tired of it as I was... Now that we've had a breathing space, let's see what happens. Again, if someone has something interesting and fresh to contribute, let's hear it. If it's the same tired old broken record, I'm not going to be pleased - and neither are most of our members, I suspect.

BTW, Al, I didn't know that Art was going to post this thread - he didn't consult me beforehand. Since his material was new, and sheds a rather different light on the situation with Iraq's alleged WMD's, I think it's appropriate that our members get to see it. Is there a problem with this?

fallingblock
July 17, 2003, 04:08 AM
It sounds good to me....

I don't mind seeing information presented as it develops, but the 'merry-go-round' threads tend to obscure rather than illuminate the issue.:)

The charges of hypocrisy might be a bit inappropriate:confused:

Art Eatman
July 17, 2003, 09:05 AM
Malone, Al, one thing I've rarely been accused of in the last half-century or so is hypocrisy. Go back and read my post. You'll see that my main gripe with the previous "circles" about WMD was the "rush to judgement" aspect.

What I see as a general societal problem is--IMO--substantiated in many of the threads in L&P and in General: Speculation about possible truths becomes Absolute Truth, instantly. A lot of folks don't seem to want to wait for "The Rest of the Story".

Thus I posted a reference to a news item that MAY provide some of that rest of the story. Note also that the article spoke of more time needed to assess the information--I did not say "The evidence is now in".

How, then, is that hypocritical?

And, by the way, if you wish to make accusations, at least learn how to spell the word(s) you would use. :D

Art

Al Norris
July 17, 2003, 09:23 AM
Just from the standpoint of an ordinary person who had last logged on at about noon MST; and then logs back on after work and sees the WMD post, by another Mod, posted a mere 3 hours after the last time I was on; gets curious and goes back and looks and finds your post gone.... Sorry. I have a suspicious nature. So I posted what I posted. It was an easy conclusion to come by.

This whole "War On Terror" has a lot of us worried about what this and future administrations will be doing and what new laws will be passed that may or may not further infringe upon the rights of Americans. From the posts on TFL to here, I think we can all agree that we disagree, in varying degrees, as to it's effect and usefulness.

Having said this, I did tend to agree with your thoughts, as you posted. Even should I not have agreed, I would have (and I did) abided by that decision. Your call and I won't second guess that. The fact that the info that Art reported, notwithstanding its newness, is still conjecture as much as anything else that has been posted of late. Afterall, you posted that no exceptions would be made.

Hence my reaction and response. It smacks of the old "do as I say, not as I do" addage. And that sir, is hypocrisy in its best definition.

Edited to add: Art, in any debating circle, attacking the grammer or spelling of your opponents is the last resort of someone who has nothing further to argue.

Art Eatman
July 17, 2003, 09:39 AM
:D:D:D

Seems to me that the debate, if any, would be with regard to the Rush to Judgement syndrome that I theorized. Given the comments here, so far, it seems I'm correct...

:D, Art

Al Norris
July 17, 2003, 09:53 AM
Art, I agree with the rush to judgement.

However I was specifically referring to the statement below:

Art Eatman wrote:
And, by the way, if you wish to make accusations, at least learn how to spell the word(s) you would use.

Call it what you will, ad hominem is what it is. It attacks the person and not the message.

Off to work....

Edited to fix spelling.

Gordon Fink
July 17, 2003, 03:29 PM
Before the war, I firmly believed that Iraq had biochemical weapons and was eager to develop nuclear weapons, but now I’m not so sure. (Regardless, I didn’t think “weapons of mass destruction” justified war.) If Iraq had the weapons, however, what has become of them? Why weren’t they used, especially if Saddam really is/was a “mad man”?

If these documents do, in fact, detail Iraq’s weapons program, I wonder if they will turn out to be current or six to 12 years old. In the end, though, the G. W. Bush administration will have to do more than find biochemical weapons to satisfy me that the war was necessary. “Weapons of mass destruction” alone will never be enough.

~G. Fink

bjengs
July 17, 2003, 05:52 PM
The hypocrisy comes from statements like these:As we consider recent natterings and allegations against the Administration"Allegation" is a legitimate critique, "nattering" implies a sort of peanut gallery of contrarianism. I've again been reminded of the short attention span of this societyGiving no credence to the opinions of others, in fact dismissing them offhand as not actually having opinions and speaking from behavior disorders rather than from a legitimate point of view.and the "I want my Instant Gratification, and I want it RIGHT NOW!" behavior of the carpers.More of the previous, plus a little name calling.And, by the way, if you wish to make accusations, at least learn how to spell the word(s) you would use. (smiley)A smiley doesn't retract a statement, and that's just low brow.(smiley)(smiley)(smiley)Seems to me that the debate, if any, would be with regard to the Rush to Judgement syndrome that I theorized. Given the comments here, so far, it seems I'm correct...(smiley)So the minority opinion is again relegated to "Rush to Judgement" syndrome?

I expect the Moderators to exemplify what is "the High Road." It's not like I'm some liberal softie whose feelings are hurt. It's simply that Art's comments were, in my opinion, disgraceful.

DRC
July 17, 2003, 06:29 PM
While I agree that as this information comes to light it is always nice to see and hey I'm all for it too, but I'm gonna call shinanigans on this thread as well.

Because of the content this thread will degredate into what we were told we couldn't do and if you do not understand that well...there's not much I can tell you. I was a little unnerved and appalled that even though the threads I had previously responded to, in defense of the administration, were repetitive on the oppositions side they were still an exchange of information and ideologies from differring vantage points (talking amongst ourselves so to speak)

I too find it hypocritical to say "Stop it!" and then turn around and not only allow a thread on the banned subject matter but have the very moderator that banned the subject fix the information link and post the contents of said banned material himself. IMO that's just plain wrong!

DRC

SkunkApe
July 17, 2003, 06:31 PM
Well said, DRC.

Monkeyleg
July 17, 2003, 06:42 PM
The old thread was so boring and repetitive that even some who posted in it just passed it by. Good riddance. This is "new" news, and so deserves a new thread.

If anyone has solid intelligence on the WMD's, please post it here. Unless your security clearance forbids you from doing so, of course. ;)

Hkmp5sd
July 17, 2003, 07:01 PM
The one question I'm dying to hear someone ask the presidential wannabes is how on earth can any democrat that stood behind and defended Clinton of repeatedly lying and even perjuring himself on a wide assortment of topics, even remotely consider attacking Bush for a possible inaccuracy in a speech, based on data he believed and the English PM still believes to be true, and accuse him of deceiving the American public?

bjengs
July 17, 2003, 07:39 PM
And then there are those who say both that Klinton was wrong on Monica/Kosovo/Serbia, and also that Bush is wrong on Iraq. There is such a thing as a principled, non-partisan stance against these wars.

faustulus
July 17, 2003, 08:01 PM
As moderators, we have to walk a fine line between encouraging open discussion, and stopping that discussion from descending into ad hominem attacks, disputes and discourtesy.

Shouldn't that be done on a case by case basis? Otherwise we are saying that because some abuse their ablity to post (or own a gun) then we must ban all posts (guns).
I will say that this looks bad even if the intention was otherwise. It presents an appearance of favoritism. I don't know why everyone was complaining about the threads, after all no one had to read them.

Now as for the information.
The reason we attacked was because Saddam had weapons (not plans for weapons but the actual weapon) and was about to give them to terrorists to use against America. If it was not the case then the weapons inspectors could have had more time. Remember he was an imminent threat.

I return to the three fold problem this war presents us with.
1. Bush lied.
2. Bush was given faulty intelligence.
3. The weapons have been moved and are no longer under anyone's control.

Why are not more people concerned? Either one of these scenerios should send a chill down our spines.
I honestly don't know which to believe, I tend to lean toward the lying one but that is more my general distrust of polticians. Either way our representatives need to address these issues and they need to do it quickly. The only one that can wait is the first one. If our Intel is that bad we need to know now. If someone else has the weapons we need to know now.
My main problem with this administration is their lack of trust of the public. I don't trust someone who tells me I can't be given that information for my own good. Most of the time secercy is bad. And much of the laws that are being passed allow the government to hide much more of its operations that it used to be able to do all in the name of security.
And no matter what you think of Bush he is only going to be in office a maximum of five more years. What if the person in their next (Hillary?) has these powers? Do you think for a minute she wouldn't declare second amendment proponents as 'enemy combatants'? And we would never know.
rant off.

Monkeyleg
July 18, 2003, 12:05 AM
Faustulus, this is Oleg's forum. He (and maybe Runt; she's never 'fessed up) own the whole thing. They delegate to the moderators. It's their show, and they call the rules. Get your own domain, get your own servers, buy all the software and you can be King, too.

Not knowing what the Bush administration did or did not know back in January, I will not commit to being a GW sycophant. But I do believe the man to be honest and sincere, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt. If, one year from now, it's proven that he lied, then I will eat your shoe (or at least a chocolate cake replica) right here on THR in front of however many webcam's are available.

What gives me confidence is that, for the most part, the administration isn't running around trying to deny anything. Yes, Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell were on the Sunday talk shows, but they're on every weekend (this being a war and all). If Bush were lying, the whole administration machine would be in full damage-control mode right now. They're not. There's no sense of immediacy or panic.

The only sense of immediacy and panic I see is on the part of Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, Sharpton, Gephardt, Graham, Dean, and the other two anonymous candidates. And, of course, Ted Kennedy--the only murderer to have served 39 years in the US Senate with full dinner and wine priveleges.

"Shrub" has always been very good at out-foxing his foes. Has it occurred to anyone that "Shrub" just might be letting his foes bark until they're hoarse, then drop the truth on them and make them look like rabid mutts?

Not saying this is what's true, but it would make for very good strategy going into 2004.

faustulus
July 18, 2003, 12:52 AM
Faustulus, this is Oleg's forum. He (and maybe Runt; she's never 'fessed up) own the whole thing. They delegate to the moderators. It's their show, and they call the rules. Get your own domain, get your own servers, buy all the software and you can be King, too.
Never said anything to the contrary. I just pointed out a possible conflict in logic. Didn't want to sound mean or petty.

Malone LaVeigh
July 18, 2003, 12:53 AM
"Hypocrisy"(thanks for the editing help) was probably too strong a word. It seemed to be to be an act of unfair favoritism to one side of the argument. But hypocrisy implies a pattern of behavior that I have not seen here, for the most part.

So, back to the debate. It's interesting how the admin. has been spinning the issue away from whether there were any WMDs (in other words any credible threat) to, "Did Saddam have plans or did he try to get WMDs?" You really have to hand it to these people. They're masters. They put those hillbillys from Arkansas to shame.

SodaPop
July 18, 2003, 12:56 AM
Is George W. Bush a complete idiot or does he have a plan to bury the Democrats in the next election?


I wonder if this has been some kind of game to get the Democrats to walk out on a limb.

Hkmp5sd
July 18, 2003, 01:21 AM
I wonder if this has been some kind of game to get the Democrats to walk out on a limb.

Sean Hannity implied the same thing on his radio show yesterday. It started with Tony Blair's speech and with them bringing Mary Matilin back to oversee the lynching. I think the democrats may have given themselves enough rope to get the job done successfully.

Malone LaVeigh
July 18, 2003, 01:25 AM
I wonder if this has been some kind of game to get the Democrats to walk out on a limb.Wouldn't surprise me either. After all, they can "find" evidence any time they want to...

DRC
July 18, 2003, 11:20 AM
I rest my case.

Yall have fun and wake me when it's over.

DRC

Gordon Fink
July 18, 2003, 03:47 PM
… Has it occurred to anyone that “Shrub” just might be letting his foes bark until they’re hoarse, then drop the truth on them and make them look like rabid mutts?

Why is that whenever President G. W. Bush does something unwise, his supporters always seem to assume that it is some kind of clever trick to put one over on his political opponents?

~G. Fink

Hkmp5sd
July 18, 2003, 04:05 PM
whenever President G. W. Bush does something unwise

Probably because in the context of the current democratic orgy, GWB hasn't done anything unwise. It has taken almost three years for democrats to find one possible erroneous quote made by Bush on information provided by a foreign intelligence agency and that is still the only thing they can whine about.

Sergeant Bob
July 18, 2003, 05:21 PM
Probably because in the context of the current democratic orgy, which has been going on since Bush took office. Remember the old democratic mantra "What did he know, and when did he know it?" Most of the democrat presidential "hopefuls" (what is there, nine? The phrase "throw it against the wall and see if anything sticks comes to mind") are so caught up in it they have forgotten to campaign against each other and are already campaigning against Bush.

Monkeyleg
July 18, 2003, 05:38 PM
"Why is that whenever President G. W. Bush does something unwise, his supporters always seem to assume that it is some kind of clever trick to put one over on his political opponents?"

Gordon, I'm not anywhere near as supportive of GW as I was even last year. He's done some things that really ticked me off--the prescription drug bill, the Patriot Act, among others. However, I see in most cases why he's doing what he is, even when I disagree.

However, the notion of giving someone enough rope to hang themselves isn't new in politics. I'm not saying that is what's going on, but it's certainly plausible. If that is his strategy, though, then he has to yank the rope soon, otherwise he'll be forced to dig himself out of low poll numbers for a year.

If you enjoyed reading about "WMD Stuff" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!