Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » They said what? (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: They said what?
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, DaveS, that says exactly what I said.

quote:
arge stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated
People use WMD to describe chemical weapons too, but in general and especially in response to the North Korea thing, we mean NUKES. Intelligence said that they had programs to develop biological and nuclear weapons. Intelligence said they had programs to develop long range missiles. Intelligence said they STILL had large amounts of chemical weapons that they had programs in place to develop means to deliver.

This is what I SAID.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Uh, uh. WMD is not just nukular, but Cheney did say this:
quote:
We believe Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. - VP Cheney, 3/16/03
and this shouldn't be construed to not mean nukes:
quote:
We know where the [WMD] are. - Don Rumsfeld, 3/30/03
and there are a host of other inflammatory and excited statements that you can find for yourself. FWIW, there are plenty of suspicions that NK has chemical and biological WMD, too. This is from the State Department.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DaveS, as I mentioned before, you can misquote officials, you can even find the odd mistake from various officials, but you just pointed to the damn authoritive document. Why are you arguing this? Do you honestly think that the government believed, beyond a doubt, that Saddam had nuclear weapons when we attacked? Are you ignoring the fact that all the intelligence reports were saying that he had a program going - not that he had them - but that he'd have them soon? That the speeches that Bush gave (you know, the nationally televised ones?) all said that it was an imminent threat - not that he had them now?

I'm perplexed that we are even discussing this. I don't know if you really believe that the administration felt that Saddam had working nuclear weapons when they started their campaign against Iraq, or what.

quote:
FWIW, there are plenty of suspicions that NK has chemical and biological WMD, too. This is from the State Department.
And gee, they also have the ability to deploy them.

There are two things that are required to have usable WMD's: actually having the weapon developed and ready in suitable quantities, and having the ability to deploy them.

According to intelligence at the time, Saddam had neither for biological or nuclear. He had the first (weapon developed and ready in suitable quanities) for chemical. This was WIDELY reported at the time, and wasn't contradicted in the vast majority of public speeches. That fact that it was most likely WRONG is yet another subject.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
livermeer kenmaile
Member
Member # 2855

 - posted      Profile for livermeer kenmaile   Email livermeer kenmaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What various national intelligence agencies believed to be true about Saddam and nukes and WMDs is one thing; the irresponsible and (to quote DaveS) "inflammatory" statements made on this subject by Bush and his high-ranking cabinet members, are another.

We can cite the 'reasonablly reliable at the time' assessments made by intelligence agencies as supporting evidence for the belief held by the Bush administration in the existence of Saddamic WMDs/nukes, but those assessments do not justify the hyperbole by which those assessments were translated in public speeches.

In the case of Rummy, a kowledge of his history regarding WMD assessments and foreign military capacities in general (google Team B if ye seek substantiation), itself made it wise to disbelieve anything he said about Saddam's weapons capacities. History has since confirmed that wisdom yet again.

[ June 20, 2006, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: livermeer kenmaile ]

Posts: 1449 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We're discussing it because Warr made the assertion that we aren't invading NK because they have WMD, specifically because "Actually having significant WMD capability (including nuclear weapons) already is a deterrent to US force." He made that claim about NK, but we have no proof that they have WMD any more than we had about Iraq. Yes? And he didn't say just nukes, and neither did I. You did. If he wants to clarify that he only meant nukes, then I'll challenge him to back up the claim that they have them. Does he know where they are?

I don't understand your parsing of the fine print on the whole WMD thing. It's a damned slam dunk that they had them and we know they were going to use them, if not today, then tomorrow. RIGHT?

When I do the spadework to come up with statements by our VP, Secretary of Defense and an official State Department spokesman (posted on an official SD site), you shift to challenging my credibility. What greater authority do I need to give you? If you're going to be picky, you should put both elbows on the table, not just the right one.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DaveS - One of the many reasons that we didn't invade NK first is we believed they already had nukes. There was no point to me making a general WMD comment when the threat is far more explicit: NK was able to kill many more of our troops than Saddam could have.

Oh, and the SecDef quote is totally out of context, and I can prove it, slam-dunk. Wanna test me?

[ June 20, 2006, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: WarrsawPact ]

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
livermeer kenmaile
Member
Member # 2855

 - posted      Profile for livermeer kenmaile   Email livermeer kenmaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house down....

I dare ye to cross this line. I DARE ye!

I like the internet, don't you?

Posts: 1449 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, I do. So that I can produce quotes in their full context and prove that little snippets from Dick Cheney, Condi Rice and Rumsfeld are not at all what they're made out to be by critics of the war looking for a quick hit.

edit - Yes, that means I'm also challenging the Dick Cheney quote, which came from Meet the Press. Your quote isn't even fully correct, DaveS -- there are supposed to be brackets around Saddam's name -- and besides, it's also totally out of context. Looking at his comments during the show, it's obvious Cheney meant a nuclear weapons program.

[ June 20, 2006, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: WarrsawPact ]

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
livermeer kenmaile
Member
Member # 2855

 - posted      Profile for livermeer kenmaile   Email livermeer kenmaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well blow me down!
Posts: 1449 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, I'm late back, but WP has handled it clearly enough.

And DaveS - I'm going to be picky about what trumps what - as are you, and you have already been. You throw me an out of context "Meet the Press" quote, I return with the State of the Union address and the Resolution for the Authorization of Force.

You are going to have to put a LOT more on the table to trump that.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
DaveS - One of the many reasons that we didn't invade NK first is we believed they already had nukes. There was no point to me making a general WMD comment when the threat is far more explicit: NK was able to kill many more of our troops than Saddam could have.
So, what did you mean when you said NK has WMD including nukes? Your exact statement was in reference to whether we should have invaded NK instead of Iraq. You said it was a worse option because:
quote:
"Actually having significant WMD capability (including nuclear weapons) already is a deterrent to US force."
Did you, like Cheney and Rumsfeld, misspeak?
quote:
edit - Yes, that means I'm also challenging the Dick Cheney quote, which came from Meet the Press. Your quote isn't even fully correct, DaveS -- there are supposed to be brackets around Saddam's name -- and besides, it's also totally out of context. Looking at his comments during the show, it's obvious Cheney meant a nuclear weapons program.

Nonsense. He eventually corrected himself (6 months later) by saying that he misspoke when he made that remark, but his meaning was crystal clear the first time around. I've read both the transcript and the correction, so give it your best shot. And, are you implying that I'm playing fast and loose because the MTP website transcript has Cheney saying "he" and my clip (from a different source) said "Saddam"? Are you challenging the accuracy of the intended meaning, or is that just meretricious ankle-biting?
quote:
Oh, and the SecDef quote is totally out of context, and I can prove it, slam-dunk. Wanna test me?
Yes, because I've read the transcript. The quote is completely consistent with the context of Stephanopoulos' question. To save you time, here's the exchange from a DoD site. Note that Rumsfeld has recently tried to say that what he meant is that we suspected that we knew where they were. In other words, he misspoke.
quote:
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, weapons of mass destruction. Key goal of the military campaign is finding those weapons of mass destruction. None have been found yet. There was a raid on the Answar Al-Islam Camp up in the north last night. A lot of people expected to find ricin there. None was found. How big of a problem is that? And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven't found any weapons of mass destruction?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think -- let me take that, both pieces -- the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Jav,
quote:
"FWIW, there are plenty of suspicions that NK has chemical and biological WMD, too. This is from the State Department."

And gee, they also have the ability to deploy them.

There are two things that are required to have usable WMD's: actually having the weapon developed and ready in suitable quantities, and having the ability to deploy them.

According to intelligence at the time, Saddam had neither for biological or nuclear. He had the first (weapon developed and ready in suitable quanities) for chemical.

Are you forgetting the British assertion that Saddam could deliver WMD within 45 minutes? What about the "imminent" threat assertions? What about the Congressional Research Service claims that the Saddam had Al Hussein missiles that could deliver chemical or biological warheads into Israel? Iraq admitted to putting such things into SCUDS during Iraq I. What about the House report as far back as 1998 describing Iraq's drones? How high a bar do you need? You say that our Intelligence said otherwise, so now it's your turn to back up your statements with sources.

As for Boucher's statement that we assumed in 2002 that NK "is capable of producing and delivering via munitions a wide variety of chemical and biological agents," how do you conclude from that statement that they couldn't in fact deliver such weapons?

[ June 20, 2006, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: DaveS ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Are you forgetting the British assertion that Saddam could deliver WMD within 45 minutes?
This wasn't a general consensus. This wasn't agreed upon outside the British. This statement has been, and was, trashed endlessly.

quote:
What about the "imminent" threat assertions?
Yes, what about them? The "imminent" threat stuff supports my arguement - they can't be "imminent" if they've already arrived.

quote:
What about the Congressional Research Service claims that the Saddam had Al Hussein missiles that could deliver chemical or biological warheads into Israel?
Yes, this is the research project on delivery I already referred to. The first test firing of this missile happened what, three to six months before we invaded? Again, this supports my statement that they had a program in place to develop delivery systems - not that they had those systems available.

quote:
What about the House report as far back as 1998 describing Iraq's drones?
Again, a problem with consensus here. Also, a problem that this didn't become public knowledge until after the invasion happened.

quote:
How high a bar do you need?
I need you to understand that, during the time we were leading up to invasion, the clear and accepted "version" was that "Iraq had programs developing the weapons and the delivery systems for WMDs.", and that this statement is different then "Iraq had the weapons and delivery systems for WMDs." This seems perfectly obvious, and so far, everything you've said has pretty much confirmed this.

quote:
You say that our Intelligence said otherwise, so now it's your turn to back up your statements with sources.
I've given two major sources - the biggest: the State of the Union address, and the Resolution for Authorization of Force. Other than that, I don't know what you need. So far, you've yet to provide a source that contradicts what I've said, outside of a bad Cheney quote, which you've already admitted was a mistake.

quote:
As for Boucher's statement that we assumed in 2002 that NK "is capable of producing and delivering via munitions a wide variety of chemical and biological agents," how do you conclude from that statement that they couldn't in fact deliver such weapons?
I never said that NK couldn't deliver the weapons, nor that they didn't and don't have them. I think it's likely that they both can deliver the weapons, and also that they possess them. And I never said otherwise.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
livermeer kenmaile
Member
Member # 2855

 - posted      Profile for livermeer kenmaile   Email livermeer kenmaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I need you to understand that, during the time we were leading up to invasion, the clear and accepted "version" was that "Iraq had programs developing the weapons and the delivery systems for WMDs."

Unless one considers the word of the central authority encharged with the responsibility of finding and destroying Saddam's WMD programs: Clever Hans and UNSCOM.

The guys actually there on the ground protested both the allegations made by the USA and Brits (among others) that Saddam was swarming with deployable or near-deployable WMD that presented an imminenent threat.

(We pause now while our sponsors equivocate on the *precise* meaning of imminent, all against the background of a totally objective and politically detached image of a mushroom cloud over NYC.)

[ June 20, 2006, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: livermeer kenmaile ]

Posts: 1449 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dave -

You generally seem like an intelligent person. When I say "there was no point" to saying one of the things I said, and state a more explicit reason, why do you need me to also say I misspoke? It's frikkin' obvious I misspoke. But I wasn't mistaken.

quote:
Yes, that means I'm also challenging the Dick Cheney quote, which came from Meet the Press. Your quote isn't even fully correct, DaveS -- there are supposed to be brackets around Saddam's name -- and besides, it's also totally out of context. Looking at his comments during the show, it's obvious Cheney meant a nuclear weapons program.

Nonsense. He eventually corrected himself (6 months later) by saying that he misspoke when he made that remark, but his meaning was crystal clear the first time around. I've read both the transcript and the correction, so give it your best shot.

Post the correction, please, and we'll sort this right out. The transcript of the show looks pretty clear to me.

quote:
And, are you implying that I'm playing fast and loose because the MTP website transcript has Cheney saying "he" and my clip (from a different source) said "Saddam"? Are you challenging the accuracy of the intended meaning, or is that just meretricious ankle-biting?
I'm merely pointing out that the quote has been through the wash cycle one too many times. When you quote someone, you generally should match them word-for-word and use brackets where you've replaced their words. This is elementary stuff.

It went something like this:
he -> [Saddam] -> Saddam

Is the meaning the same? Yeah, no sh*t. But not only was the quote incorrect, but it was taken out of context.
That's what I said, and that's what I meant.

quote:
Oh, and the SecDef quote is totally out of context, and I can prove it, slam-dunk. Wanna test me?

Yes, because I've read the transcript. The quote is completely consistent with the context of Stephanopoulos' question. To save you time, here's the exchange from a DoD site. Note that Rumsfeld has recently tried to say that what he meant is that we suspected that we knew where they were. In other words, he misspoke.

No, he didn't. And even your use of brackets is misleading, in addition to the fact that you once again modified the quote outside of brackets!

"they" /= the [WMD]

[ June 20, 2006, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: WarrsawPact ]

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This thread has become a remarkable display of prestidigitation.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
1. Actually having significant WMD capability (including nuclear weapons) already is a deterrent to US force. We've invaded Iraq and Afghanistan with, what, a little over 2,500 deaths? North Korea would be much more difficult.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uh, didn't we insist that that was why we had to invade Iraq? The reason for our (relatively) low casualties is that they didn't have WMD. A better reason not to invade NK is their million soldier army (plus 5 million available backup) and their crazed, if not crazy, Emperor.

[Smile] [Cool]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I never said that NK couldn't deliver the weapons, nor that they didn't and don't have them. I think it's likely that they both can deliver the weapons, and also that they possess them. And I never said otherwise.
If I misunderstood when you said (somewhat dismissively): "And gee, they also have the ability to deploy them," then I apologize.

Otherwise, Jav, this is like bobbing for apples. I'm unable to come up with the kind of proof you require. Suffice it to say that I think my references make clear the intent of the Administration. Rather than disprove anything that I said, you counter with an assertion that A) people in authority who much later retracted or revised misleading or untrue statements and B) a lack of complete consensus resisting the disinformation at the time damages my points. Well, that more than works the other way, too. You have brought forward nothing but a factually flawed political speech and a hyperbolic statement in favor of war based partly on false information and ulterior motives.

I'll complete my reply in response to Warr's response.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
DaveS: Nonsense. He eventually corrected himself (6 months later) by saying that he misspoke when he made that remark, but his meaning was crystal clear the first time around. I've read both the transcript and the correction, so give it your best shot.

Warr: Post the correction, please, and we'll sort this right out. The transcript of the show looks pretty clear to me.

From MTP:
quote:
Eight days after that, you were on MEET THE PRESS, and we...

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...talked about that specifically. Let’s watch:

(Videotape, March 16, 2003):

MR. RUSSERT: And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree, yes. And you’ll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of our intelligence community, disagree.

And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong. And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency and this kind of issue, especially where Iraq is concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don’t have any reason to believe they’re any more valid this time than they’ve been in the past.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Reconstituted nuclear weapons. You misspoke.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yeah. I did misspeak. I said repeatedly during the show weapons capability. We never had any evidence that he had acquired a nuclear weapon.

That's not just a slip of the tongue, he went beyond what the CIA supposedly believed ("And we believe...") to make that claim. He may have regretted it later, but there's no mistaking the meaning of what he said.

As for the Rummy business:
quote:
No, he didn't. And even your use of brackets is misleading, in addition to the fact that you once again modified the quote outside of brackets!

"they" /= the [WMD]

I read your "No, he didn't" reference. That was about the most contorted escape since Houdini. First he inflates the power of Ray McGovern as an adversary ("Watching the video I fully expected Rummy to be massacred inside of McGovern's kill-zone since McGovern had the ability to choose the very specific ground on which to challenge Rumsfeld."), ties him to Daniel Ellsburg (why, if not to villainize him?), and then somehow manages to insert the words "suspect sites" into the atmosphere of Rumsfeld's remark, as if he meant something altogether different from what he actually said. Even Andrew Sullivan, no liberal wimp, says that Rummy got caught in a lie:
quote:
Not some crazed lefty. The man who demanded that Rumsfeld answer the questions we all want to have answered turns out to be the man who gave former president George H. W. Bush his daily intelligence briefing. And he was right in the exchange; and Rummy was factually wrong. Yep: Rumsfeld lied. Quelle surprise.
Yes, "they" == [WMD]. That is clear from the context.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Vice President Cheney: And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong.

We never had any evidence that he had acquired a nuclear weapon.

"In fact"? That's not misspeaking, that's lying. Saying you know something for a fact when in fact you don't know anything of the kind is lying. There must be some punishment for this? Can't the VP be censured?

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dave - Well, I still see an out for Cheney in his remarks, but that's just my talent for semantics. The "and" needs not indicate anything more than that the administration agreed with the CIA.

You can call this misspeaking, but given his "admission," it seems he's saying exactly what I said: that he meant "capability" and not the weapons themselves. I watched that show when it aired, and in context he didn't seem to be making the claim that Iraq actually had the weapons themselves.

But to the extent that my assertion of him meaning something else overlaps with you saying he misspoke, yes, you are correct.

As for the Belmont Club post: have you ever spoken to someone, y'know, in conversation? Can you seriously not see why Wretchard is right? Rumsfeld explained exactly what he meant within about eight seconds of the paragraphs you saw fit to quote.

And finally, no, you're wrong about the quote. Are you deliberately changing the wording?

You substituted "the [WMD]" in for "they". You should have, in fact, typed "[the WMD]" all in brackets, since the word "the" did not appar in the original quote. It's little misquotes like that that create those subtle changes that snowball like a game of Telephone... like the he/[Saddam]/Saddam thing. Sometimes those misquotes create changes in meaning. So be careful how you quote.
-=-=-=-=-=-
KE - He said "We believe he has, in fact..."

Unless you can prove that he didn't believe Saddam had weapons capability, it's a no-go.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, I guess believing things without evidence is par for the course for Republicans.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well now, KE, that's a tad unfair. If you wait until the evidence proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that something is true, you're a follower, not a leader. What kind of statesman waits until everyone agrees with him before he takes a stand? A cowardly one, one without backbone, that's who.
Sometimes -- especially if you believe danger is imminent -- action is demanded even though the evidence is incomplete or imperfect.

The question here is whether they exercised a reasonable degree of judgment given the exact circumstances. You're free to think they didn't, but Republicans are hardly alone on this front.

[ June 20, 2006, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: WarrsawPact ]

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How many times do you have to be wrong before it becomes obvious that you aren't a good leader and people stop following you?

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Apparently a lot.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DaveS:
quote:
I never said that NK couldn't deliver the weapons, nor that they didn't and don't have them. I think it's likely that they both can deliver the weapons, and also that they possess them. And I never said otherwise.
If I misunderstood when you said (somewhat dismissively): "And gee, they also have the ability to deploy them," then I apologize.

Otherwise, Jav, this is like bobbing for apples. I'm unable to come up with the kind of proof you require. Suffice it to say that I think my references make clear the intent of the Administration. Rather than disprove anything that I said, you counter with an assertion that A) people in authority who much later retracted or revised misleading or untrue statements and B) a lack of complete consensus resisting the disinformation at the time damages my points. Well, that more than works the other way, too. You have brought forward nothing but a factually flawed political speech and a hyperbolic statement in favor of war based partly on false information and ulterior motives.

I'll complete my reply in response to Warr's response.

Huh. So we both read the same things, and I see a clear and obvious support of what I've been asserting, and you see the same - only it's what you've been asserting. I find that strange and disconcerting. I also find your mistatements of the things I've said to be scary too. I know miscommunication happens, but every post?

quote:
A) people in authority who much later retracted or revised misleading or untrue statements
You've listed one quote. From Cheney. Taken out of context, and absolutely wrong. That was later even clarified. How does this prove your point? I've listed the State of the Union address, that repeats exactly what I've said about eighty times. I've pointed to the Authorization bill that you posted text from, that supports my point. How are you not getting this?

quote:
B) a lack of complete consensus resisting the disinformation at the time damages my points.
I'm saying that you can always find the fringe mistaken quote (whether the person saying it, or the person quoting it made the mistake, it doesn't matter). When the VAST MAJORITY of the things being said doesn't match up to your assertion, then you get to be wrong. And when the VAST MAJORITY of the things being said match up to my assertion, I get to be right. It's really that simple. And I've shown it, and inadvertently, you've shown it too.

You can believe what you want, but I'd suggest that believing something that isn't true is unhealthy.

quote:
You have brought forward nothing but a factually flawed political speech and a hyperbolic statement in favor of war based partly on false information and ulterior motives.
Wrong, I brought up the official record, and the official statements of those most involved in the situation we are discussing. I didn't bother bringing up all the fringe evidence - because it doesn't matter. When the core record baldly agrees with my assertion, and you can come up with one flawed quote that agrees with yours, then what more do I need?
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I read your "No, he didn't" reference. That was about the most contorted escape since Houdini. First he inflates the power of Ray McGovern as an adversary ("Watching the video I fully expected Rummy to be massacred inside of McGovern's kill-zone since McGovern had the ability to choose the very specific ground on which to challenge Rumsfeld."), ties him to Daniel Ellsburg (why, if not to villainize him?), and then somehow manages to insert the words "suspect sites" into the atmosphere of Rumsfeld's remark, as if he meant something altogether different from what he actually said. Even Andrew Sullivan, no liberal wimp, says that Rummy got caught in a lie
I'd like to suggest everyone else read this too. This "review" of the comments is very interesting - hit the peripheral, ignore the core.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And War,

I didn't say anything about "within a shadow of a doubt", those were your words. A far cry from "we never had ANY EVIDENCE".

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is a long post, and I apologize to those who have given up on this thread, but I am pissed.
quote:
And finally, no, you're wrong about the quote. Are you deliberately changing the wording?

Absolutely not. Any time I give a quote, it is verbatim from the source. I usually supply a link to the source, if there is one and I think there is more value than I choose to snip. If I ever clip the head or tail surrounding the quote, it is because I believe it is not necessary, but I never clip anything that would change the context. You've challenged me three times on this in this thread, and I'm not happy about it.

If you have other sources that contradict or reword what I have provided, fine. Show them and let's compare provenance. It is common practice to supply a proper or antecedent noun for a pronoun to clarify a quote. It's clear that that is what was done (not by me) in these cases. If it doesn't change the meaning, you shouldn't get hung up about it. Do you really think that he -> [Saddam] -> Saddam is misleading, since "he" obviously meant Saddam? More at the end of this post.
quote:
[Jav:] You've listed one quote. From Cheney. Taken out of context, and absolutely wrong.
I cited Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell as having made statements that they later retracted, clarified or corrected. It's not just one, Jav. Go back and look at my earlier posts. And as for my interpretation of the Cheney quote being "absolutely wrong", I'm amazed that you can say that with a straight face. If I am, why did Cheney later admit that he misspoke? You haven't provided your own analysis, just nitpicked at mine. Even Warr (grudgingly) sees how Cheney's words work against him, even if he doesn't completely yield the point.
quote:
DaveS, as I mentioned before, you can misquote officials, you can even find the odd mistake from various officials,...
Jav, this is very troublesome for me. In rereading some of your comments about sourcing, as well as Warr's nitpicking on pronoun substitutions, I think I'm seeing a challenge to the authenticity of my citations. I need to think about the way you are making these challenges. I think it's fair to say that I provide links to references far more than you do. Honest challenge and correction is expected and even welcome, but I'm not comfortable with the implication that I'm misquoting or otherwise manipulating sources. If I'm misreading you, I'd appreciate a clarification. If you don't like my interpretations, well, that's par for the course on Ornery.
quote:
[About the McGovern questions to Rummy:]I'd like to suggest everyone else read this too.
I hope many readers of this thread (if there are any left) check the various sources and counter claims made by the more active (and opinionated) posters on this thread. I've given up trying to straighten out any of the mess I or the others have made. What do you think?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KnightEnder -

No evidence? At all? Of Saddam reconstituting his nuclear weapons program?
-=-=-=-=-=-
DaveS -
quote:
And finally, no, you're wrong about the quote. Are you deliberately changing the wording?

Absolutely not. Any time I give a quote, it is verbatim from the source.

Well, you've made two mistakes on the original quotes so far. Two instances in which the original quote was not copied verbatim.

quote:
I usually supply a link to the source, if there is one and I think there is more value than I choose to snip. If I ever clip the head or tail surrounding the quote, it is because I believe it is not necessary, but I never clip anything that would change the context.
You did with the WMD thing, as has been established.

quote:
You've challenged me three times on this in this thread, and I'm not happy about it.
Then back yourself up, and I'll gladly stop. But if you followed your current habits with quoting at my university, you'd be called on it.

quote:
If you have other sources that contradict or reword what I have provided, fine. Show them and let's compare provenance.
Are you joking?

Here you have them:

Original quote:
And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
Your modification (note lack of brackets to indicate that wording is not original):
We believe Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.

In fact, you even capitalized "we" as if it were the first word of the sentence. No brackets.

The original Rumsfeld quote:
We know where they are.
Your modification (note how brackets do not encompass your original material):
We know where the [WMD] are.

You didn't just substitute [WMD] in for another noun. You added in the word "the" outside of brackets as if it were part of the original quote.

quote:
It is common practice to supply a proper or antecedent noun for a pronoun to clarify a quote.
Yes... but always in brackets whenever you change any word, period.
quote:
It's clear that that is what was done (not by me) in these cases. If it doesn't change the meaning, you shouldn't get hung up about it. Do you really think that he -> [Saddam] -> Saddam is misleading, since "he" obviously meant Saddam? More at the end of this post.
That particular quote was not misleading about meaning... yet. Then again, it attributed words to a person that that person did not actually say. This does lead to changes in meaning over time, though the first few variations may not be misleading.

You want a good example of how small changes start messing with meaning in subtle ways, check out these two pages on one of my favorite quotes (this quote by Edmund Burke):
‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ (or words to that effect)
A study of a Web quotation

and
Four Principles of Quotation

[ June 21, 2006, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: WarrsawPact ]

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey, I'm just quoting Cheney.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I cited Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell as having made statements that they later retracted, clarified or corrected. It's not just one, Jav. Go back and look at my earlier posts. And as for my interpretation of the Cheney quote being "absolutely wrong", I'm amazed that you can say that with a straight face. If I am, why did Cheney later admit that he misspoke? You haven't provided your own analysis, just nitpicked at mine. Even Warr (grudgingly) sees how Cheney's words work against him, even if he doesn't completely yield the point.
This is because I feel that WP's analysis was clear enough. I will look for the other quotes and see what they say. Regardless - even if they don't make it explicitly clear they are talking about projects attempting to make viable WMDs, and instead make it sound like they are talking about existing viable WMDs - you keep saying they later corrected themselves. Isn't it possible they mispoke? Especially consider the sources I've pointed out that go to great lengths to point out this difference?

quote:
Jav, this is very troublesome for me. In rereading some of your comments about sourcing, as well as Warr's nitpicking on pronoun substitutions, I think I'm seeing a challenge to the authenticity of my citations. I need to think about the way you are making these challenges. I think it's fair to say that I provide links to references far more than you do. Honest challenge and correction is expected and even welcome, but I'm not comfortable with the implication that I'm misquoting or otherwise manipulating sources. If I'm misreading you, I'd appreciate a clarification. If you don't like my interpretations, well, that's par for the course on Ornery.
1. I don't think I'm challenging your sources (though WP is challenging one or two of them, and I'm leaning towards agreeing with the challenge) as much as I'm challenging their usefulness in the niche portion of this discussion - my assertion that the "WMDs in Iraq" were clearly delinated as "imminent", not "existing". I may not be making this clear enough.

2. I hope you know that I hold you in the highest respect. I think you are a great guy, even though we've clearly got some core differences in the way we view certain things. I trust that you are attempting to honestly analyze this issue. This is why I'm confused to the point of annoyance. With everything brought to the table, I honestly see this as an open and shut case: the government warned that Iraq was attempting to develop WMDs, were likely to have them "very soon", but not that they "already have them" - though in some cases, it was said "may already have them".

3. When I make an assertion, I do my best to cite sources, enumerate the "facts" that support my assertion, and respond to any challenges of those sources and facts, or lack thereof. However, I don't often make assertions. I may agree with other assertions, I may support other people's assertions, and I may challenge assertions, but it's actually rare that I make them. That's because I feel that if I make an assertion, I've got to defend it, and back it up - and I often don't have that much time, in a single sitting. So I try to not do the forum a disservice by making an assertion I'm unwilling to support and defend. So, yes - it's a given that someone such as yourself, who makes more assertions than I do, is going to end up backing up, citing, etc. more often then I. Again, in this thread, I've marshalled all the required evidence to support my assertion - it hasn't been challenged. I refer to the State of the Union address right before the invasion, and Congress' Authorization to use Force, which you already cited.

If you'd like to challenge my sources, or my facts, I'll gladly respond. If they are discredited, I'll look for more. Until then, I'm sticking with what we've got.

I am trying to be carefully civil about this, but as I said, I'm so confused that I too, am getting annoyed. If I get out of line, please let me know - I'll take a step back and try to get a grip. Not to mention apologize for being an idiot.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is too funny, or is it frightening?

Either way, I find it disturbing on a very deep level. How deep? Spelunking deep.

By the way, by using "it" I didn't mean this thread, that should be obvious.

By "that" I didn't mean my statement, how could you substitute anything in to that? You obviously just want to misquote me.

By you, I am obviously talking to my shoes, which are, as ever preparing to recieve the contents of by stomach through the process of reverse peristalsis.

Anyway, at the end, I think we can safely say that I know that Jav is developing weapons of mass destruction and I know where he is hiding them. I know where they are.

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by canadian:

Anyway, at the end, I think we can safely say that I know that Jav is developing weapons of mass destruction and I know where he is hiding them. I know where they are.

Oops. I mispoke. I'm glad I wasn't trying to sell a fearful nation on a war or anything with that statement!
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Me too canadian. But then, nobody's expecting you to add anything substantial to the conversation, so I think we're safe.
Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think somebody needs a huu-ug!

There there....there there...

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Most people only see what they want to see anyway.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sure, I'd love a million dollars! Thanks canadian!

[ June 21, 2006, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: WarrsawPact ]

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The problem is, I don't have it on me...but then I don't see 'race', I only see pawns...
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Reducto ad absurdum only works if it's something close to accurate, Canadian. This seems to be a pattern of yours - try to make other people's argument look ridiculous by completely mischaracterizing what they said.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I only see the truth."

Okayyyy....

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1