U.S. ends search for WMD in Iraq having found none

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

02/17/2005 11:38:13 PM · #301

Nuanced indeed! RonB, you are more and more reminding me of Clinton when he made his now infamous statement: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." I've no doubt you didn't support his "nuanced" interpretation....

Message edited by author 2005-02-17 23:39:59.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

02/17/2005 11:55:32 PM · #302

Ron, I have been having trouble confirming your assertion below that 558 detainees have already had trials to determine their POW status according to the Geneva Conventions. Would you mind locating an article or web link that affirms this? I have found many articles referring to the 558 detainees at Guantanomo Bay and they have had no trials, as far as I can see.

With regards to federal Judge Robertson's decision I found this statement in this Washington Post article:

"The unusual coalition of defense lawyers and conservative military law experts who banded together to challenge the commissions hailed the decision as a major victory in efforts to level the playing field for the detainees, some of whom have been held for nearly three years.

Interesting that even conservative military lawyers are for the legal rights of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I'm wondering why you are not.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
1. Have any of the detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan or Guantanamo Bay had any tribunals to determine what their status is? If not, why such a long wait? We are talking 2-3 years after their capture. Some at Guantanamo Bay have been released after years of detention with no charges.

Actually, yes - 558 in fact. But one federal judge ruled that they were not in compliance with the US Supreme Court's earlier ruling on detainee rights. That ruling ( the judge's not the Supreme Courts' ) is under appeal.

02/18/2005 12:12:32 AM · #303

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Certainly, Olyuzi. The article is This One from the Washington Post, dated Jan. 31, this year. The paragraph reads:
"The Pentagon has completed 558 combatant status reviews since July and taken final action in 330 cases. Military officials have determined that 327 men were rightfully classified as enemy combatants and ordered the release of the other three."

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

With regards to federal Judge Robertson's decision I found this statement in this Washington Post article:

"The unusual coalition of defense lawyers and conservative military law experts who banded together to challenge the commissions hailed the decision as a major victory in efforts to level the playing field for the detainees, some of whom have been held for nearly three years.

Interesting that even conservative military lawyers are for the legal rights of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I'm wondering why you are not.

I would be more than happy to tell you why not "for the legal rights of the detainees", but I never said that I wasn't and, in fact, I am. I'm for the legal rights of the detainees just as soon as their legal rights are determined. As enemy combatants, it would appear that they do not fall under the protections inherent in the U.S. legal system. As a signatory to the Geneva Convention, the U.S. is bound to comply with its provisions, but again, the al-Qaeda combatants are limited in what protections are afforded under the Geneva Conventions, as well. I DO feel that the government has not provided timely determinations, but even since the problem has been made an issue in the public's eye and in our legal system, you can see that the wheels of justice grind exceedingly slowly. If our judicial system cannot respond very quickly I am not surprised that the pentagon has, likewise, not responded quickly - rather they have made use of the extra detention time.
FWIW, I condemn some of the actions that have occurred at Guantanamo - they are clearly violations - even against non-determinate combatants.

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

02/18/2005 12:25:18 AM · #304

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Clinton's nuance was not in the same class. But just to show that I'm fair, when you can show me evidence of Bush's lies that is of the same caliber as Clinton's "stain on the blue dress" ( i.e. irrefutable proof ), then I will stop differentiating between lies and misdirections.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

02/18/2005 12:54:12 AM · #305

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Ron, I have been having trouble confirming your assertion below that 558 detainees have already had trials to determine their POW status according to the Geneva Conventions. Would you mind locating an article or web link that affirms this? I have found many articles referring to the 558 detainees at Guantanomo Bay and they have had no trials, as far as I can see.

Certainly, Olyuzi. The article is This One from the Washington Post, dated Jan. 31, this year. The paragraph reads:
"The Pentagon has completed 558 combatant status reviews since July and taken final action in 330 cases. Military officials have determined that 327 men were rightfully classified as enemy combatants and ordered the release of the other three."

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
With regards to federal Judge Robertson's decision I found this statement in this Washington Post article:

"The unusual coalition of defense lawyers and conservative military law experts who banded together to challenge the commissions hailed the decision as a major victory in efforts to level the playing field for the detainees, some of whom have been held for nearly three years.

Interesting that even conservative military lawyers are for the legal rights of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I'm wondering why you are not.

I would be more than happy to tell you why not "for the legal rights of the detainees", but I never said that I wasn't and, in fact, I am. I'm for the legal rights of the detainees just as soon as their legal rights are determined. As enemy combatants, it would appear that they do not fall under the protections inherent in the U.S. legal system. As a signatory to the Geneva Convention, the U.S. is bound to comply with its provisions, but again, the al-Qaeda combatants are limited in what protections are afforded under the Geneva Conventions, as well. I DO feel that the government has not provided timely determinations, but even since the problem has been made an issue in the public's eye and in our legal system, you can see that the wheels of justice grind exceedingly slowly. If our judicial system cannot respond very quickly I am not surprised that the pentagon has, likewise, not responded quickly - rather they have made use of the extra detention time.
FWIW, I condemn some of the actions that have occurred at Guantanamo - they are clearly violations - even against non-determinate combatants.

02/18/2005 08:02:36 AM · #306

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Ron, I asked about trials...this article states that of the 550 prisoners at Guantanamo only 330 have had reviews and have not had access to lawyers, or the ability to confront the evidence against them. This to me sounds like they have not had any trials, which would be a violation, by the United States, of the Geneva Conventions. In addition, Judge Hens Green states (from the Washington Post article you posted): "Green went beyond the question of whether detainees had rights and found the "combatant status review tribunals" illegal.

If the justice system does indeed proceed exceedingly slow for the detainees, then the US government is required by law to treat them humanely and should be held accountable for abuses, torture, and deaths that have occurred there.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Ron, I have been having trouble confirming your assertion below that 558 detainees have already had trials to determine their POW status according to the Geneva Conventions. Would you mind locating an article or web link that affirms this? I have found many articles referring to the 558 detainees at Guantanomo Bay and they have had no trials, as far as I can see.

Certainly, Olyuzi. The article is This One from the Washington Post, dated Jan. 31, this year. The paragraph reads:
"The Pentagon has completed 558 combatant status reviews since July and taken final action in 330 cases. Military officials have determined that 327 men were rightfully classified as enemy combatants and ordered the release of the other three."

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
With regards to federal Judge Robertson's decision I found this statement in this Washington Post article:

"The unusual coalition of defense lawyers and conservative military law experts who banded together to challenge the commissions hailed the decision as a major victory in efforts to level the playing field for the detainees, some of whom have been held for nearly three years.

Interesting that even conservative military lawyers are for the legal rights of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I'm wondering why you are not.

I would be more than happy to tell you why not "for the legal rights of the detainees", but I never said that I wasn't and, in fact, I am. I'm for the legal rights of the detainees just as soon as their legal rights are determined. As enemy combatants, it would appear that they do not fall under the protections inherent in the U.S. legal system. As a signatory to the Geneva Convention, the U.S. is bound to comply with its provisions, but again, the al-Qaeda combatants are limited in what protections are afforded under the Geneva Conventions, as well. I DO feel that the government has not provided timely determinations, but even since the problem has been made an issue in the public's eye and in our legal system, you can see that the wheels of justice grind exceedingly slowly. If our judicial system cannot respond very quickly I am not surprised that the pentagon has, likewise, not responded quickly - rather they have made use of the extra detention time.
FWIW, I condemn some of the actions that have occurred at Guantanamo - they are clearly violations - even against non-determinate combatants.

Olyuzi, Your ORIGINAL question was whether any had had "tribunals". And I answered yes, 558 of them. Now, you ask for evidence of my original assertion and claim that I didn't provide it because you "asked about trials". Sorry, but no, you did NOT ask about "trials". You asked about "tribunals".
Regardless, if you look up the definition of tribunal you will find that a "review" qualifies as a "tribunal" , i.e. "something that has the power to determine or judge". If you look up "trial" you will also find "Examination of evidence and applicable law by a competent tribunal to determine the issue of specified charges or claims"
You are playing on the connotations of the words, and disregarding the legal interpretations. But to be a nit-picker, the Geneva Conventions do NOT specify that detainees are entitled to "trials", only to "tribunals". Obviously they were "tribunals" since the jucge held that the "combatant status review tribunals" illegal.
On another point, the Conventions do NOT stipulate that detainees are entitled access to lawyers, or that they be given the ability to confront the evidence against them. You are severely intermixing the provisions of the Geneva Conventions with U.S. Judicial Law, and implying that they are one and the same. They are NOT.

02/18/2005 01:44:18 PM · #307

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Nuanced indeed! RonB, you are more and more reminding me of Clinton when he made his now infamous statement: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." I've no doubt you didn't support his "nuanced" interpretation....

Clinton's nuance was not in the same class. But just to show that I'm fair, when you can show me evidence of Bush's lies that is of the same caliber as Clinton's "stain on the blue dress" (i.e. irrefutable proof), then I will stop differentiating between lies and misdirections.

RonB, I wasn't comparing Clinton's and Bush's lies; I was pointing out the similarity between the way in which YOU and Clinton play semantic games. Don't you find it peculiar that you've resorted to parsing the English language in that same manner in order to defend our president's behavior? I also find mighty peculiar the truth-telling standard you are applying to Bush, one which I doubt you'd apply to your wife, your children, your friends or co-workers. You also have chosen to treat the lies/false and/or misleading statments made by Bush's associates as though they're trivialities, when we all know that the five officials named in the report were working in concert to sell the Iraq war to the American public and U.S. Congress. Please do tell us what the difference is (in your fictional world where common sense has been banished) between a "lie" and a "misdirection" or "false statement."

02/18/2005 02:40:14 PM · #308

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Nuanced indeed! RonB, you are more and more reminding me of Clinton when he made his now infamous statement: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." I've no doubt you didn't support his "nuanced" interpretation....

Clinton's nuance was not in the same class. But just to show that I'm fair, when you can show me evidence of Bush's lies that is of the same caliber as Clinton's "stain on the blue dress" (i.e. irrefutable proof), then I will stop differentiating between lies and misdirections.

RonB, I wasn't comparing Clinton's and Bush's lies; I was pointing out the similarity between the way in which YOU and Clinton play semantic games. Don't you find it peculiar that you've resorted to parsing the English language in that same manner in order to defend our president's behavior? I also find mighty peculiar the truth-telling standard you are applying to Bush, one which I doubt you'd apply to your wife, your children, your friends or co-workers. You also have chosen to treat the lies/false and/or misleading statments made by Bush's associates as though they're trivialities, when we all know that the five officials named in the report were working in concert to sell the Iraq war to the American public and U.S. Congress. Please do tell us what the difference is (in your fictional world where common sense has been banished) between a "lie" and a "misdirection" or "false statement."

When you can PROVE that "the five officials named in the report were working in concert to sell the Iraq war to the American public and U.S. Congress" through deliberate "lies/false and/or misleading statments", then I will yield ( but I'll bet you can't prove it ).
In my "fictional world" the differences are
1) A LIE is a statement known to be false when it is made. For example: "I am a Liberal".
2) A MISDIRECTION is a statement ( or set of statements ), that, though factual, are crafted in such a way as to DELIBERATELY lead one into a certain frame of thinking beneficial to the speaker that would NOT be the case if the material were presented fully and completely. For example: My brother and I had a foot race. He came in first, and I finished second. When I told my close friend about the race the following day, I said "Both my brother and I were in a foot race yesterday. I finished in second place, but my brother came in next to last."
3) A FALSEHOOD or FALSE STATEMENT is one that is BELIEVED by the speaker to be true, but is later found to be false. For example, Charles H. Duell, Commissioner of the U.S. Patent Office said in 1899, "Everything that can be invented has been invented."

I will grant that President Bush, and high ranking individuals in his administration made false statements ( false in that they were later found to be untrue ), but I still maintain that they neither lied nor misled ( by my definitions, of course ).

Now that I've shared MY definitions, how about you show me yours?

As always you are entitled to your OPINION, but please exert some emotional restraint and make it clear when you are expressing OPINION as opposed to attempting to present opinion in the guise of FACTS. That courtesy alone would reduce the number of posting I must make by about 80%.

And, for what it's worth, yes - those are the same standards I apply to my wife, children, and friends ( and to myself, as well - hence, you should feel free to point out to me if I err based on my own criteria ).

02/19/2005 09:50:48 AM · #309

Ron, of course the five officials named in the report deliberately misled the public. The authors of the report, in the executive summary, state: "This Iraq on the Record database contains statements made by the five officials that were misleading at the time they were made. The database does not include statements that appear in hindsight to be erroneous but were accurate reflections of the views of intelligence officials at the time they were made." "Most of the statements in the database were misleading because they expressed certainty where none existed or failed to acknowledge the doubts of intelligence officials. Ten of the statements were simply false." Now, these misleading statements weren't uttered by accident. I think we can agree to that fact given the nature and sheer number of misleading statements that were made. It follows, then, that an intention was present by these five officials to deceive. And let's not get started down the road quibbling about the definition of the word "deceive." Here is the definition from my American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

deceivev. 1. To delude; mislead. 2. Archaic. To catch by guile; ensnare. To practice deceit.
Synonyms: betray, mislead, beguile, delude, dupe, hoodwink, bamboozle, outwit, double-cross. These verbs mean to victimize persons, for the most part by underhand means. Deceive involves falsehood or the deliberate concealment or misrepresentation of truth with intent to lead another into error or to disadvantage. Betray implies faithlessness or treachery that brings another to grave disadvantage or into danger. Mislead means to lead into error. Beguile suggests deceiving or misleading by means of allurement. Delude refers to deceiving or misleading to the point of rendering a person unable to detect falsehood or make sound judgment. Dupe means to delude by playing upon another's susceptibilities or naivete. Hoodwink refers to deluding by trickery such as mental blinding or dazzling. Bamboozle less formally means to delude by trickery such as hoaxing, befuddling, or artful persuasion. Outwit means to frustrate another person by ingenuity and cunning and is less forceful in its suggestion of bad faith. Double-cross, a slang term, implies betrayal of a confidence or the willful breaking of a pledge.

You see, Ron, it's quite simple, if you use your common sense and you have the facts before you, to determine whether you've been lied to.

Message edited by author 2005-02-19 09:51:55.

02/19/2005 10:06:26 AM · #310

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Actually, NO, we cannot "agree".
You choose to BELIEVE the charge leveled by the minority report that the statements were "misleading at the time they were made" - yet the minority report can offer no ironclad proof that there was an intent to mislead.
I, on the other hand, choose to BELIEVE that it is the minority report that has intent to mislead, by stating opinion as fact.
I will say this, they know their audience.

It's like this old saying:

Q. How do you keep a liberal uninformed?
A. Take away their access to the New York Times.

Q. How do you keep a liberal MISinformed?
A. Give it back.

02/19/2005 12:24:57 PM · #311

Ron, I'll say it again: The nature and sheer number of false and/or misleading statements -- or, as the report puts it, the "pattern of consistent misrepresentation" -- of Bush and his team on the matter of Iraq and the war leads overwhelmingly to one conclusion, that there was present an intention to deceive. If YOU can prove to ME that there is any other conclusion possible given this "pattern of consistent misrepresentation," then I will stop calling them liars.

02/19/2005 12:36:32 PM · #312

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

If what you say is true, then consider it proved. There IS another conclusion possible. The FACT that I conclude otherwise, IS the proof that another conclusion is possible.
But I'll bet that you will continue to call them liars just the same - and if you do, then that would make you a liar, since you said that if "any other conclusion" is possible then you would stop calling them liars.

bdobe

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

02/19/2005 12:39:25 PM · #313

Rumsfeld knew full well that he was intentionally misleading when he made this statement:

"No terror state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
â�� Donald Rumsfeld, September 18, 2002

You have to see the video.

02/19/2005 12:43:29 PM · #314

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Ron, I'll say it again: The nature and sheer number of false and/or misleading statements -- or, as the report puts it, the "pattern of consistent misrepresentation" -- of Bush and his team on the matter of Iraq and the war leads overwhelmingly to one conclusion, that there was present an intention to deceive. If YOU can prove to ME that there is any other conclusion possible given this "pattern of consistent misrepresentation," then I will stop calling them liars.

If what you say is true, then consider it proved. There IS another conclusion possible. The FACT that I conclude otherwise, IS the proof that another conclusion is possible.
But I'll bet that you will continue to call them liars just the same - and if you do, then that would make you a liar, since you said that if "any other conclusion" is possible then you would stop calling them liars.

Ron, you should always assume that I mean to say "rational" conclusion. lol!

02/19/2005 04:59:24 PM · #315

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Ron, I'll say it again: The nature and sheer number of false and/or misleading statements -- or, as the report puts it, the "pattern of consistent misrepresentation" -- of Bush and his team on the matter of Iraq and the war leads overwhelmingly to one conclusion, that there was present an intention to deceive. If YOU can prove to ME that there is any other conclusion possible given this "pattern of consistent misrepresentation," then I will stop calling them liars.

If what you say is true, then consider it proved. There IS another conclusion possible. The FACT that I conclude otherwise, IS the proof that another conclusion is possible.
But I'll bet that you will continue to call them liars just the same - and if you do, then that would make you a liar, since you said that if "any other conclusion" is possible then you would stop calling them liars.

Ron, you should always assume that I mean to say "rational" conclusion. lol!

Not at all. I always assume that you mean to say "anti-Bush" conclusion.

Much the same "HE LIED" arguments were leveled against Prime Minister Blair, who basically presented the same WMD evidence as Bush & Co. did. In fact, as I have previously shown, Blair upheld Bush's statement about Hussein seeking uranium from Africa. Well, after an extensive investigation by the British, Lord Butler reported:

"The clearest evidence that the British government hadn't got an intention to mislead is that it would have been a very foolish thing to do to say that these weapons were there, when as a result of the war the fact that whether they were or not was going to be established so soon."

Furthermore, he ( Lord Butler ) reported: "This was a collective operation in which there were the failures we have identified but there was no deliberate attempt on the part of the government to mislead."

Get that? NO . . . deliberate . . . attempt. . . to . . . mislead. NONE.

I assume that you hold that Lord Butler's conclusion is not "rational" ( meaning, of course, that it's not "anti-Bush", or, in this case, "anti-Blair" ).

For the record, the investigation on this side of the Atlantic is due out by the end of March. Should provide interesting reading.

bdobe

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

02/19/2005 09:23:34 PM · #316

Originally posted by RonB:

Much the same "HE LIED" arguments were leveled against Prime Minister Blair, who basically presented the same WMD evidence as Bush & Co. did. In fact, as I have previously shown, Blair upheld Bush's statement about Hussein seeking uranium from Africa. Well, after an extensive investigation by the British, Lord Butler reported:

"The clearest evidence that the British government hadn't got an intention to mislead is that it would have been a very foolish thing to do to say that these weapons were there, when as a result of the war the fact that whether they were or not was going to be established so soon."

Furthermore, he ( Lord Butler ) reported: "This was a collective operation in which there were the failures we have identified but there was no deliberate attempt on the part of the government to mislead."

Get that? NO . . . deliberate . . . attempt. . . to . . . mislead. NONE.

I assume that you hold that Lord Butler's conclusion is not "rational" ( meaning, of course, that it's not "anti-Bush", or, in this case, "anti-Blair" ).

For the record, the investigation on this side of the Atlantic is due out by the end of March. Should provide interesting reading.

02/20/2005 12:38:51 PM · #317

Originally posted by bdobe:

RonB,

After your intentional omission of those six lines from a BBC article that you mischaracterized as supporting your position, I now have an even harder time taking anything you present seriously. Therefore, unless you directly cite and link to your source, how can we be assured that you're not once more mis-characterizing another source?

Accordingly, please make it a habit to provide a direct link to the material you cite -- it would help your case out.

.......................................

Originally posted by RonB:
Much the same "HE LIED" arguments were leveled against Prime Minister Blair, who basically presented the same WMD evidence as Bush & Co. did. In fact, as I have previously shown, Blair upheld Bush's statement about Hussein seeking uranium from Africa. Well, after an extensive investigation by the British, Lord Butler reported:

"The clearest evidence that the British government hadn't got an intention to mislead is that it would have been a very foolish thing to do to say that these weapons were there, when as a result of the war the fact that whether they were or not was going to be established so soon."

Furthermore, he ( Lord Butler ) reported: "This was a collective operation in which there were the failures we have identified but there was no deliberate attempt on the part of the government to mislead."

Get that? NO . . . deliberate . . . attempt. . . to . . . mislead. NONE.

I assume that you hold that Lord Butler's conclusion is not "rational" ( meaning, of course, that it's not "anti-Bush", or, in this case, "anti-Blair" ).

For the record, the investigation on this side of the Atlantic is due out by the end of March. Should provide interesting reading.

Don't know how to use Google, eh? Well take your pick of these:

Politics.Co.UK

ABC.net.au

or the one I actually "lifted" quotes from, Newsmax.com

By the way, I notice that you didn't reprimand Judith for her "intentional ommission" of non-supportive statements contained in the Minority Report she "lifted" quotations from. Is that mere "oversight" on your part, or hypocrisy?

edited to correct link.

Message edited by author 2005-02-20 13:54:34.

02/20/2005 03:13:38 PM · #318

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Ron, I'll say it again: The nature and sheer number of false and/or misleading statements -- or, as the report puts it, the "pattern of consistent misrepresentation" -- of Bush and his team on the matter of Iraq and the war leads overwhelmingly to one conclusion, that there was present an intention to deceive. If YOU can prove to ME that there is any other conclusion possible given this "pattern of consistent misrepresentation," then I will stop calling them liars.

If what you say is true, then consider it proved. There IS another conclusion possible. The FACT that I conclude otherwise, IS the proof that another conclusion is possible.
But I'll bet that you will continue to call them liars just the same - and if you do, then that would make you a liar, since you said that if "any other conclusion" is possible then you would stop calling them liars.

Ron, you should always assume that I mean to say "rational" conclusion. lol!

Not at all. I always assume that you mean to say "anti-Bush" conclusion.

Much the same "HE LIED" arguments were leveled against Prime Minister Blair, who basically presented the same WMD evidence as Bush & Co. did. In fact, as I have previously shown, Blair upheld Bush's statement about Hussein seeking uranium from Africa. Well, after an extensive investigation by the British, Lord Butler reported:

"The clearest evidence that the British government hadn't got an intention to mislead is that it would have been a very foolish thing to do to say that these weapons were there, when as a result of the war the fact that whether they were or not was going to be established so soon."

Furthermore, he ( Lord Butler ) reported: "This was a collective operation in which there were the failures we have identified but there was no deliberate attempt on the part of the government to mislead."

Get that? NO . . . deliberate . . . attempt. . . to . . . mislead. NONE.

I assume that you hold that Lord Butler's conclusion is not "rational" ( meaning, of course, that it's not "anti-Bush", or, in this case, "anti-Blair" ).

For the record, the investigation on this side of the Atlantic is due out by the end of March. Should provide interesting reading.

Lord Butler's conclusion may be rational given the "plausible deniability" that it was possible for Mr. Blair to maintain due to the fact that, apparently, all contrary evidence and intelligence opinion on the state of Iraq's WMD were conveniently omitted from the "dossier" that was prepared for the British government by the British Joint Intelligence Committee. As Lord Butler's report puts it, "In translating material to the dossier, warnings in the JIC assessments were lost about the limited intelligence base on which some aspects of these assessments were being made. Language in the dossier, and used by the Prime Minister, may have left readers with the impression that there was fuller and firmer intelligence than was the case. It was a serious weakness that the JIC's warnings on the limitations of the intelligence were not made sufficiently clear in the dossier." How convenient for Mr. Blair that his intelligence committee "lost" that bit of information. lol!

Unfortunately for you, RonB, George Bush and associates were not far-sighted or smart enough to arrange the same "plausible deniability" excuse for themselves. So I guess in addition to being a bunch of damn liars (or deceivers, if you prefer that term), they're also the biggest bunch of damn incompetents the world has ever seen. Liars and idiots!

Message edited by author 2005-02-20 15:14:23.

02/20/2005 03:17:50 PM · #319

Oh, and here is my source document: Disarmament Documentation. Scroll down to paragraph 24.

Also see Opposition Leader Michael Howard's statement: Statement

Message edited by author 2005-02-20 15:21:23.

w24x192

Canon PowerShot S50

02/20/2005 03:27:36 PM · #320

You think you know something?!? Look at this!!!

SHOCKING!!!

02/20/2005 03:31:08 PM · #321

lol :)

02/20/2005 04:18:08 PM · #322

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Lord Butler's conclusion may be rational...

As might mine. Ergo, you were apparently lying when you said you would STOP calling them liars if I could prove that there was an "other conclusion possible". Stop playing CalvinBall and start honoring your promises. Or do you find that to be too difficult, as do most liberals?

02/20/2005 04:41:12 PM · #323

You're quoting me out of context, and not fooling anybody by so doing.

And this is just an observation. I've noticed, RonB, that whenever you're feeling cornered, you trot out the old liberal-bashing tactic. You might first want to consider whether the person you're bashing with that label actually considers herself a liberal or not.

Message edited by author 2005-02-20 16:48:55.