DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> U.S. ends search for WMD in Iraq having found none
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 176 - 200 of 367, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/03/2005 08:20:16 PM · #176
Originally posted by RonB:

3) Do you think that the recorded phone conversations that Powell provided in his speech before the UN were fake?


This is a loaded question. First, there is absolutly NO way for ANYONE to EVER prove that these are real or fake conversations between Iraqi army officers. The specifics that were pointed out to the UN are "modified vehical" "Forbidden ammo" and the expression "nerve agents" and there is no way to accertain if any of this is true, because no context was ever provided. (videos of this meeting are available) And if the Iraqi forces were searching for "forbidden ammo", it makes perfect sense for them to use these terms, because they told the UN inspectors they would conduct those exact searches. So who knows if those tapes are real. You? Me? Colin Powell? Even IF they were real, is that the "Smoking Gun" to go to war? I think not.
02/03/2005 08:46:24 PM · #177
Originally posted by RonB:

1) Do you think that Bush coerced his intelligence agencies to provide false documents about Iraq's WMD programs? Documents that were sufficient to convince the UN to impose further Sanctions, and sufficient to convince members of the Senate and House to authorize the use of military force to enforce those sanctions? If so, what leads you to believe that?


I think Bush and colin powell were played by some people in the administration. I think they truely believed (at least at one time) that Sadam was a threat. But I think the intelligence WAS doctored. First, the US relied on intelligence from the British. Just a few days after Powells speech to the UN, the british foreign service admitted that a considerable portion of it's Iraq dossier (which powell relied on heavily) had been lifted from dated sources, and even included a portion that was copied verbatim from a 12 year old college dissertation. They were using OLD intelligence, even though Paul Wolfowitz said in a speech to the counsel on foreign relations " This is a case grounded in current intelligence, current intelligence that comes not only from sophisticated overhead satellites and our ability to intercept communications, but from brave people who told us the truth at the risk of their lives"

Then there are the nuclear claims, which scare everyone for good reason. all of the claims that were made by the US have proven to be false. There is a whole bunch of info on this, but i don't have time right now. So i'll just leave you with this:
On Meet the Press in March 2002 Dick Cheney said this:

"Now, the more recent developments have to do with our now being able to conclude, based on intelligence thatís becoming available, some of it has been made public, more of it hopefully will be, that he has indeed stepped up his capacity to produce and deliver biological weapons, that he has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon, that there are efforts under way inside Iraq to significantly expand his capability."

a little bit later, he says:

"But we do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon." (we all know that the "uranium from niger story was forged and we also no the "tubes" were not for nukes)

More "honest" mistakes?

Message edited by author 2005-02-03 22:07:28.
02/03/2005 10:06:47 PM · #178
Another reason I don't trust the administration:

How about the "outing" of CIA agent Valerie Plame?

She is the wife of former US diplomat Joseph C. Wilson, the same man who investigated the supposed Iraq/Niger uranium deal, and returned in february 2002 with the news that no such transactions took place.

Did you know that identifying an intelligence agent is a crime under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982? Not only is it illegal, but information like that can get people killed.

At a Congressional Hearing, the former Director of Counterterrorism Operations and Analysis (CIA) Vincent Cannistraro charged "She was outed as a vindictive act because the agency was not providing support for policy statements that Saddam Hussein was reviving his nuclear program"

Someone up top was mad, and they played a very dangerous game with human lives.

Message edited by author 2005-02-03 22:08:05.
02/03/2005 11:14:43 PM · #179
More on the Niger uranium deal...
02/03/2005 11:14:51 PM · #180
bbower (and others who may be interested) -- the only edit I did to your post was to insert hyperlinks and to divide the longest search in "half" (anyone wanting to check it out needs to copy the whole thing) so that it wouldn't make some users have to scroll left/right.

Thank you.

Back to your regularly scheduled rant.
02/04/2005 12:01:03 AM · #181
RonB, here is an overall approach to what to do next in Iraq, since you were asking for concrete suggestions to that effect, an approach you might be more inclined to listen to with an open mind.
02/04/2005 12:38:44 AM · #182
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

here is an overall approach


Thanks for the link; great read.
02/04/2005 07:56:05 AM · #183
Originally posted by ericlimon:

Originally posted by RonB:

3) Do you think that the recorded phone conversations that Powell provided in his speech before the UN were fake?


This is a loaded question. First, there is absolutly NO way for ANYONE to EVER prove that these are real or fake conversations between Iraqi army officers. The specifics that were pointed out to the UN are "modified vehical" "Forbidden ammo" and the expression "nerve agents" and there is no way to accertain if any of this is true, because no context was ever provided. (videos of this meeting are available) And if the Iraqi forces were searching for "forbidden ammo", it makes perfect sense for them to use these terms, because they told the UN inspectors they would conduct those exact searches. So who knows if those tapes are real. You? Me? Colin Powell? Even IF they were real, is that the "Smoking Gun" to go to war? I think not.

It's not a loaded question at all, Eric. If you will observe, I haven't asked for PROOF in response to any of the questions posed. I merely asked if you THOUGHT that the recordings were fake/manipulated, etc. And for your rationale if you did think that. I certainly don't KNOW and I wouldn't expect you to KNOW either. I just wanted to see your response to one of the items of evidence provided by the administration. And, to answer your last question, no it is NOT the "smoking gun" to go to war. None of the evidence was individually. As I said earlier it was a "preponderance" of evidence not any individual piece.
02/04/2005 08:36:56 AM · #184
Originally posted by ericlimon:

Originally posted by RonB:

1) Do you think that Bush coerced his intelligence agencies to provide false documents about Iraq's WMD programs? Documents that were sufficient to convince the UN to impose further Sanctions, and sufficient to convince members of the Senate and House to authorize the use of military force to enforce those sanctions? If so, what leads you to believe that?


I think Bush and colin powell were played by some people in the administration. I think they truely believed (at least at one time) that Sadam was a threat. But I think the intelligence WAS doctored. First, the US relied on intelligence from the British.

The last statement is too broad. It implys that the entire case relied on intelligence from the British. But that just isn't true. The US didn't RELY on British intelligence, though it certainly gave it weight.

Originally posted by ericlimon:

Just a few days after Powells speech to the UN, the british foreign service admitted that a considerable portion of it's Iraq dossier (which powell relied on heavily) had been lifted from dated sources, and even included a portion that was copied verbatim from a 12 year old college dissertation. They were using OLD intelligence

I just want to interrupt this to point out that the "they" in the last phrase refers to the British foreign service ( if my interpretation of your grammatical structure is accurate )[/quote]
Originally posted by ericlimon:

... even though Paul Wolfowitz said in a speech to the counsel on foreign relations " This is a case grounded in current intelligence, current intelligence that comes not only from sophisticated overhead satellites and our ability to intercept communications, but from brave people who told us the truth at the risk of their lives"

Now I point out that, even though you tried to tie Wolfowitz's statement to the British confession there is no such tie. Wolfowitz uses the term "our" not "their" when referring to the intercepted communications.

Originally posted by ericlomon:

Then there are the nuclear claims, which scare everyone for good reason. all of the claims that were made by the US have proven to be false.

Once again, let me point out that I am not, nor have I ever, denied that much of the evidence was found IN HINDSIGHT to be false. But that is not the point. The point of THIS discussion is whether the evidence was a PRETEXT, that is it was MANUFACTURED as part of a CONSPIRACY. You continue to point out the hindsight findings but have still not presented a persuasive argument that the evidence was fabricated as a PRETEXT.

Originally posted by ericlimon:

There is a whole bunch of info on this, but i don't have time right now. So i'll just leave you with this:
On Meet the Press in March 2002 Dick Cheney said this:

"Now, the more recent developments have to do with our now being able to conclude, based on intelligence thatís becoming available, some of it has been made public, more of it hopefully will be, that he has indeed stepped up his capacity to produce and deliver biological weapons, that he has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon, that there are efforts under way inside Iraq to significantly expand his capability."

a little bit later, he says:

"But we do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon." (we all know that the "uranium from niger story was forged and we also no the "tubes" were not for nukes)

You keep falling into the same trap - you defend your assertion that the evidence offered was a pretext by pointing out things that were only found to be false in hindsight. To support the charge of it being a PRETEXT, you need to support the argument that the evidence was either fabricated or manipulated. The same intelligence about the niger uranium connection and the aluminum tubes was made available to the Senate intelligence committee and they came to the same conclusion as Cheney.
Originally posted by ericlimon:

More "honest" mistakes?

Yep.

Message edited by author 2005-02-04 08:37:23.
02/04/2005 08:48:52 AM · #185
Originally posted by ericlimon:

Another reason I don't trust the administration:

How about the "outing" of CIA agent Valerie Plame?

She is the wife of former US diplomat Joseph C. Wilson, the same man who investigated the supposed Iraq/Niger uranium deal, and returned in february 2002 with the news that no such transactions took place.

Did you know that identifying an intelligence agent is a crime under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982? Not only is it illegal, but information like that can get people killed.

At a Congressional Hearing, the former Director of Counterterrorism Operations and Analysis (CIA) Vincent Cannistraro charged "She was outed as a vindictive act because the agency was not providing support for policy statements that Saddam Hussein was reviving his nuclear program"

Someone up top was mad, and they played a very dangerous game with human lives.

Yes, how about it?
Do you have any evidence to connect the "outing" of Valerie Plame to the administration? If you do, then the Justice Department wants to hear from you. Apparently Vincent Cannistraro couldn't provide any "smoking gun" evidence otherwise the investigation would have ended. Easy to CHARGE, not so easy to PROVE.

You have fallen back into your old habits, Eric: innuendo, and accusations without factual foundation ( maybe you just forgot the "I think" that would have shown us that it was just your OPINION?
02/04/2005 09:18:10 AM · #186
Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by ericlimon:

Another reason I don't trust the administration:

How about the "outing" of CIA agent Valerie Plame?

She is the wife of former US diplomat Joseph C. Wilson, the same man who investigated the supposed Iraq/Niger uranium deal, and returned in february 2002 with the news that no such transactions took place.

Did you know that identifying an intelligence agent is a crime under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982? Not only is it illegal, but information like that can get people killed.

At a Congressional Hearing, the former Director of Counterterrorism Operations and Analysis (CIA) Vincent Cannistraro charged "She was outed as a vindictive act because the agency was not providing support for policy statements that Saddam Hussein was reviving his nuclear program"

Someone up top was mad, and they played a very dangerous game with human lives.

Yes, how about it?
Do you have any evidence to connect the "outing" of Valerie Plame to the administration? If you do, then the Justice Department wants to hear from you. Apparently Vincent Cannistraro couldn't provide any "smoking gun" evidence otherwise the investigation would have ended. Easy to CHARGE, not so easy to PROVE.

You have fallen back into your old habits, Eric: innuendo, and accusations without factual foundation ( maybe you just forgot the "I think" that would have shown us that it was just your OPINION?


Every single thing i wrote here is fact ron, not just my opinion. Someone in the administration outed her, they told Bob Novak and 5 other journalists (who wouldn't run the story) who she is.
Bob Novak himself said that "someone in the administration" leaked the information to him.
I think the reporter who wrote the story, the right wing conservative reporter Bob Novak's word on the issue is the "smoking gun" you are refering to.

Who's using innuedo? I think you ron. check the facts for yourself, and think a little bit more before pointing a finger at me.

maybe the justice dept. might want to talk to Bob Novak, he can provide them with the info they want.

Message edited by author 2005-02-04 09:19:26.
02/04/2005 09:21:54 AM · #187
Originally posted by RonB:

I think Bush and colin powell were played by some people in the administration. I think they truely believed (at least at one time) that Sadam was a threat. But I think the intelligence WAS doctored. First, the US relied on intelligence from the British.


I just want to interrupt this to point out that the "they" in the last phrase refers to the British foreign service ( if my interpretation of your grammatical structure is accurate )[/quote]

No, they "they" i refer to is GW bush and Colin Powell
02/04/2005 09:45:04 AM · #188
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

RonB, here is an overall approach to what to do next in Iraq, since you were asking for concrete suggestions to that effect, an approach you might be more inclined to listen to with an open mind.

I believe that if you closely look at what the author proposes as option three, you will see that much of the administration's current strategy nicely aligns with what he proposes.
02/04/2005 10:07:23 AM · #189
Originally posted by ericlimon:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by ericlimon:

Another reason I don't trust the administration:

How about the "outing" of CIA agent Valerie Plame?

She is the wife of former US diplomat Joseph C. Wilson, the same man who investigated the supposed Iraq/Niger uranium deal, and returned in february 2002 with the news that no such transactions took place.

Did you know that identifying an intelligence agent is a crime under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982? Not only is it illegal, but information like that can get people killed.

At a Congressional Hearing, the former Director of Counterterrorism Operations and Analysis (CIA) Vincent Cannistraro charged "She was outed as a vindictive act because the agency was not providing support for policy statements that Saddam Hussein was reviving his nuclear program"

Someone up top was mad, and they played a very dangerous game with human lives.

Yes, how about it?
Do you have any evidence to connect the "outing" of Valerie Plame to the administration? If you do, then the Justice Department wants to hear from you. Apparently Vincent Cannistraro couldn't provide any "smoking gun" evidence otherwise the investigation would have ended. Easy to CHARGE, not so easy to PROVE.

You have fallen back into your old habits, Eric: innuendo, and accusations without factual foundation ( maybe you just forgot the "I think" that would have shown us that it was just your OPINION?


Every single thing i wrote here is fact ron, not just my opinion. Someone in the administration outed her, they told Bob Novak and 5 other journalists (who wouldn't run the story) who she is.
Bob Novak himself said that "someone in the administration" leaked the information to him.
I think the reporter who wrote the story, the right wing conservative reporter Bob Novak's word on the issue is the "smoking gun" you are refering to.

Who's using innuedo? I think you ron. check the facts for yourself, and think a little bit more before pointing a finger at me.

maybe the justice dept. might want to talk to Bob Novak, he can provide them with the info they want.

In other words, you are chosing to IGNORE any evidence/testimony that does NOT support your theory, and giving FULL CREDENCE to evidence/testimony that DOES support your theory, just as you accuse the administration of doing. Don't you view that as being somewhat hypocritical?
Perhaps I should wait until the Justice Department releases its findings and then come back and accuse some folks of pretext, if it turns out that it was NOT a top administration official?
02/04/2005 10:26:01 AM · #190
Originally posted by RonB:

In other words, you are chosing to IGNORE any evidence/testimony that does NOT support your theory, and giving FULL CREDENCE to evidence/testimony that DOES support your theory, just as you accuse the administration of doing. Don't you view that as being somewhat hypocritical?
Perhaps I should wait until the Justice Department releases its findings and then come back and accuse some folks of pretext, if it turns out that it was NOT a top administration official?


What evidence/testimony can you provide to denounce my "theory"? (which it's not my theory, but a simple statement of the facts) I've never seen or heard of any evidence contridicting what i just put forth. Where is it? give me something. I think your grasping at straws at this point. So, is Bob Novak lying? Is the same person who wrote the story lying to us about the information coming from someone in the administration? I sure hope he was lying! That's what you seem to be saying here. I'm accusing an administration official based on Bob Novaks claim that that is where the info he published came from.
02/04/2005 10:46:03 AM · #191
Just eavesdropping, eric...you did in fact quote facts, but then you ended your paragraph with an opinion:

Someone up top was mad, and they played a very dangerous game with human lives.

I think this the statement that Ron is objecting to, as it is the only statement that hasn't been substantiated with fact.
02/04/2005 10:56:31 AM · #192
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

Just eavesdropping, eric...you did in fact quote facts, but then you ended your paragraph with an opinion:

Someone up top was mad, and they played a very dangerous game with human lives.

I think this the statement that Ron is objecting to, as it is the only statement that hasn't been substantiated with fact.


Wouldn't you agree that exposing an agent for the CIA is dangerous? That is why there is a law against it.

yeah, i can't "prove" that someone was "mad". IMO, they were probably more than happy to put the lives of people at risk.

But it was definately someone at the top, if we are to believe Bob Novak's claims that his information came from "someone in the administration"

Unless ron can make some claim that the people in the administration are not somewhere at the top..

02/04/2005 11:02:14 AM · #193
Ron, my post on page 31 has been corrected as you requested.
02/04/2005 11:03:14 AM · #194
Originally posted by ericlimon:

Originally posted by RonB:

In other words, you are chosing to IGNORE any evidence/testimony that does NOT support your theory, and giving FULL CREDENCE to evidence/testimony that DOES support your theory, just as you accuse the administration of doing. Don't you view that as being somewhat hypocritical?
Perhaps I should wait until the Justice Department releases its findings and then come back and accuse some folks of pretext, if it turns out that it was NOT a top administration official?


"What evidence/testimony can you provide to denounce my "theory"? (which it's not my theory, but a simple statement of the facts) I've never seen or heard of any evidence contridicting what i just put forth. Where is it? give me something. I think your grasping at straws at this point. So, is Bob Novak lying? Is the same person who wrote the story lying to us about the information coming from someone in the administration? I sure hope he was lying! That's what you seem to be saying here. I'm accusing an administration official based on Bob Novaks claim that that is where the info he published came from.


I will grant that apart from 1) the introductory rhetorical question "How about the "outing" of CIA agent Valerie Plame?" and 2) the last statement "Someone up top was mad, and they played a very dangerous game with human lives." that the remainder of what you posted was factual.
That being said, the "facts" coupled with the "rhetoric" amounts to innuendo - a derogatory implication of guilt by association.

Even so, I will answer your question - Is Bob Novak lying? I don't know. I don't believe he lied, but I have no way of knowing at this juncture.

You provided the "facts" about Valeria Plame to support your statement "Another reason I don't trust the admnistration". By that introduction, I was led to believe that you were implying that the Valerie Plame "outing" ( as you call it ) was illegal. I believe that that is why you stated ( as fact ) that "identifying an intelligence agent is a crime". You asked for contradictory evidence to that "theory". I give you THIS RECENT ARTICLEfrom your beloved Washington Post, in which Victoria Toensing ( former chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee and former Attorney General ), and Bruce Sanford ( prominent Washington first amendment lawyer ) state:

"The law also requires that the disclosure be made intentionally, with the knowledge that the government is taking "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the United States. Merely knowing that Plame works for the CIA does not provide the knowledge that the government is keeping her relationship secret. In fact, just the opposite is the case. If it were known on the Washington cocktail circuit, as has been alleged, that Wilson's wife is with the agency, a possessor of that gossip would have no reason to believe that information is classified -- or that "affirmative measures" were being taken to protect her cover."

02/04/2005 11:05:17 AM · #195
The reason why one can't dispute facts is just that: they're facts. They can be used to serve an agenda, though. Being as doubtful a person as you are, you should know that. "Someone in the administration" could mean the NSA, but it could also mean the first floor janitor.

That's a clever use of the phrase "simple statement of the facts." By clever, I really mean "Bullshit." Why would you simply spout (onesided) facts if it didn't serve some purpose? I'm also not saying that I believe one way or the other. I'm just saying I am not falling hook, line, and sinker for what is obviously not an unbiased representation of a situation.
02/04/2005 11:05:24 AM · #196
Originally posted by ericlimon:

yeah, i can't "prove" that someone was "mad". IMO, they were probably more than happy to put the lives of people at risk.


Well, this would be the issue, I guess...if it was done purely out of stupidity or ineptness, it would be a mistake but not a conspiracy. Your statement implies that this 'outing' was a retaliation against the agent...this is what Ron is claiming as an opinion, which it is.


02/04/2005 11:05:43 AM · #197
The administration went to all this trouble to concoct a lie (a statement or statements with the intent to deceive) but somehow forgot to actually plant any WMDs when we got there.

That makes sense.

Not to mention that Clinton and other Dems including Kerry and AlGore uttered these same statements. They obviously were in on the lies too.
02/04/2005 11:28:37 AM · #198
OK ron, i played your game:
"if you actually believe that Bush engineered a pretext to invade Iraq, as it seems you are implying, then come out and say so. If you dare. And if you don't dare...then I wouldn'd be surprised in the least."

Why don't you tell me what your beliefs are about the administration bringing us to war in iraq. Providing, if you would - any evidence can you offer to support your thinking, and any evidence that justifies a war. I'd be interested to know if you believe what was told to us, and why.
02/04/2005 11:39:09 AM · #199
Originally posted by ericlimon:

OK ron, i played your game:
"if you actually believe that Bush engineered a pretext to invade Iraq, as it seems you are implying, then come out and say so. If you dare. And if you don't dare...then I wouldn'd be surprised in the least."

Why don't you tell me what your beliefs are about the administration bringing us to war in iraq. Providing, if you would - any evidence can you offer to support your thinking, and any evidence that justifies a war. I'd be interested to know if you believe what was told to us, and why.

You aren't playing "the game" properly. First, you would only ask me to state unequivocally whether I believed a specific statement to be true ( as I was implying ). Then, if/when I did state it, just as you requested, YOU would post some specific, discrete questions pertaining to my statement, offering me the opportunity to respond to those specific questions. Instead, you ask a very broad question, then demand proof for all of it. Hey, even the Senate intelligence committee couldn't meet your criteria. But, to get you started here's my statement.

I believe that the President and his top advisors believed that Sadaam Hussein posed a serious, credible threat to the national security of the United States, based on the evidence provided by US and foreign intelligence gathering agencies. Furthermore, I don't believe that Bush or any of his top advisors lied ( made statement know to be false at the time they were made ) about any of the evidence that was presented to support the decision to use miltary force against the Hussein regime.

Go for it. But don't try to engage us in a game of Calvin Ball.

(edited to add the statement about Bush not lying ).

Message edited by author 2005-02-04 11:56:32.
02/04/2005 11:57:52 AM · #200
Originally posted by ericlimon:

Why don't you tell me what your beliefs are about the administration bringing us to war in iraq. Providing, if you would - any evidence can you offer to support your thinking, and any evidence that justifies a war. I'd be interested to know if you believe what was told to us, and why.


what's so "broad" about asking what your beliefs are? and asking to provide any evidence you can to support your beliefs? Or providing any evidence to support a war? Just answer the question if you can, so you can help me understand where you are coming from. Who knows, you might be able to provide the "smoking gun".

Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 09/26/2021 03:05:50 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/26/2021 03:05:50 AM EDT.