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 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: They said what?
livermeer kenmaile
Member
Member # 2855

 - posted      Profile for livermeer kenmaile   Email livermeer kenmaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As attempts at squaring circles go, this thread is as dismal a failure as the rest.

So Cheney didn't *lie* to the American people; he just believed what he wanted and sdpoke it as fact.

Ye olde insanity defense.

How poetically apt.

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


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jav,

IMO he didn't just mispeak. He may have been wrong due to faulty intelligence, and I can't hold that against him, but I don't think he mispoke. But, of course, opinions vary. Either way I think if you're selling a war to a country you should be dang sure about what you are claiming, and be very careful about using the word "fact" in any context.

And how do you explain that his "mispeaking" just happened to be complimentary to his cause? In fact, the very thing that enabled him to do what he wanted to do? And why would it take so long to correct? That's the kind of thing that is so important you make a retraction the next day. But then that would have hurt his cause.

KE

[ June 21, 2006, 01:37 AM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

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


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Original quote:
...
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.

I repeat, I did not now and have never changed a single word of the sources I have quoted. I can't be responsible for the intermediaries doing that, and I acknowledge that they did. Here are some alternate (wrong) versions of the quote:

From DailyHowler: “We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”
From US NewsWire: Cheney: "...And we believe (Saddam) has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." (NBC, "Meet The Press", 3/16/03)
From Sen. Kent Conrad (D) in the Congressional Record March 29 - April 2, 2004: "And, again, Vice President Cheney: We know he is out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons. We believe Saddam has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons. "

For Rummy, my version of the quote came from AmericanProgress. Here's another, just one among many variants floating around, all alleged quotes:
From SourceWatch: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." - March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.

My point remains that none of the substitutions changed the meaning of either quote, which you acknowledge:
quote:
That particular quote was not misleading about meaning... yet. Then again, it attributed words to a person that that person did not actually say.
I accept the goose/gander nature of the forum. It's fair to challenge the validity of my sourcing, but dwelling on admittedly contentless changes distracts from the discussion. Quibble if it changes the meaning.
quote:
[Jav:] you keep saying they later corrected themselves. Isn't it possible they mispoke?
I am the one who pointed out that they misspoke and only much later corrected themselves. As Warr is so keen to point out, it's important that you get the words right, otherwise there will be misunderstandings. Since they misspoke in a way that imputed false information that just so happened to support their militaristic point of view, that is reprehensible. "I know for a fact that he has a gun [Bang!]. Oops, I didn't mean has a gun, I meant that he wanted to get one. [Uh-oh!]"
quote:
"WMDs in Iraq" were clearly delinated as "imminent", not "existing". I may not be making this clear enough.
You're not, because the threat was portrayed as imminent, not the WMDs. The word "imminent" was used, as was "urgent" and other framings that more than implied that immediate action was necessary. You can start here if you want to pursue it.

I'm not going to bother quoting the SotU 2003 speech in which Bush made numerous references to the different kinds of WMD that Saddam had, was working hard to get and was hiding. I remain amazed that you don't think that repeated claims were made that Saddam already had such weapons. Sometimes you have to listen to the so-called "fringes" to avoid being overwhelmed by the noise, but I give up insisting that you look further. We're both frustrated at this point. The only way to fix this is with a few beers, but since Oregon is going to fall off the edge of the continent any Pastor Present Day now, you'll have to come here to collect. Meanwhile, I'll get started. Pace.

[ June 21, 2006, 01:49 AM: Message edited by: DaveS ]

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 remain amazed that you don't think that repeated claims were made that Saddam already had such weapons."

Cognitive dissonance is fairly reliable. Around here it's become thick enough to do a Veg-O-Matic commercial.

Banish not these cherished pretensions:
'tis all they've got.

Posts: 1449 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  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 clearly see that which I believe.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
quote:
on what we knew before hand was an impotent, harmless target.
Ah yes, Iraq was impotent and harmless....

Liberal, this is not DailyKos or DU. Iraq war may in fact be a mistaken strategy....but to say it was impotent and harmless is simply assinine and idiotic.

I can see a tactic you resort to is to label those you disagree with as extremist partisans.

Well, I can't recall how many reports (3,4,5?) from Bush's own inspectors, post-war, confirmed there were no WMD. There were no programs to make them. There were no plans to make programs to make them. There were no people to make plans to make programs to make them. You can be a denier like WarsawPact and hang onto that single shell with a trace of chemical weapons from the 80s that we gave Saddam as proof of all the magic WMD or you can face up to reality.

Now, I did make the claim that it was known before the war that Iraq was harmless. Let me specify, they were harmless, to us. They were. When Bush was subverting the CIA with that new special office in the pentagon and Douglas Feith was filing dissents in the circular filing bin, our intelligence agencies were trying to warn us Iraq was a fool's errand,it posed no threat. Tenet warned Bush before that fateful SotU that his speech was full of unconfirmed information, it was Bush's decision to purposefully lie and say it was absolutely, 100%, rock-solid, confirmed information.

Now, Iraq certainly was a threat, but not to the US. I could care less about using my tax dollars to defend Israel or Saudi Arabia, and I sure don't think we should have gone to war for them(and Bush agreed with me when he was campaigning 6 years ago), but it looks like that's what we did, as well as helping Iran get rid of its biggest rival and the only semblance to a balance of power that existed in the region. Well done!

Now where do we stand? We wasted our military capacity for several years to come, wasted untold amounts of money, and the enemies that were scared and willing to talk 3 years ago (don't even get me started on Iran's pro-US stance following 9-11 and how we pissed that away) are now both fully armed, or will be shortly, with nuclear weapons.

North Korea now knows we will never invade, and they are probably a pawn of China. Iran lost its only regional rival and is emboldened with newfound power that WE gave it the time to develop. If any Americans die at the hands of Iran or North Korean nukes, it is will be because of sentiments that thought either:
-Iraq was the "right thing to do,"
or
-Iraq was more important than holding out and maintaining pressure on the two real threats.
or
its just fine to blandly stand by and then support Bush and his Melville-esque quest for mad revenge.

[ June 21, 2006, 03:14 AM: Message edited by: Liberal ]

Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You left out Richard Clark.

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:
The only way to fix this is with a few beers, but since Oregon is going to fall off the edge of the continent any Pastor Present Day now, you'll have to come here to collect. Meanwhile, I'll get started. Pace.
I'll join you when I can. [Smile]

For the rest, Canadian, Kenmeer, etc. - snide remarks and poor analogies aside, there's nothing to argue against in your "assertions". Walk the line of direct insults, continue to repeat the "everyone ELSE is insane, everyone ELSE is insane" - and if you believe it, I hope it makes you comfortable. I haven't bothered addressing this passive aggressive crap in the past, and I'll go back to ignoring it after this, but please - you aren't making an argument, you aren't supporting "your side", and I'm certainly not impressed. I'd love to say that I'd be surprised if anyone else was, either, but, well, not anymore.

[ June 21, 2006, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: javelin ]

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:
Originally posted by KnightEnder:
Jav,

IMO he didn't just mispeak. He may have been wrong due to faulty intelligence, and I can't hold that against him, but I don't think he mispoke. But, of course, opinions vary. Either way I think if you're selling a war to a country you should be dang sure about what you are claiming, and be very careful about using the word "fact" in any context.

And how do you explain that his "mispeaking" just happened to be complimentary to his cause? In fact, the very thing that enabled him to do what he wanted to do? And why would it take so long to correct? That's the kind of thing that is so important you make a retraction the next day. But then that would have hurt his cause.

KE

Who is "he" in all this, KE? Bush? Cheney? Rumsfield?
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 
quote:
Originally posted by javelin:
quote:
The only way to fix this is with a few beers, but since Oregon is going to fall off the edge of the continent any Pastor Present Day now, you'll have to come here to collect. Meanwhile, I'll get started. Pace.
I'll join you when I can. [Smile]

For the rest, Canadian, Kenmeer, etc. - snide remarks and poor analogies aside, there's nothing to argue against in your "assertions". Walk the line of direct insults, continue to repeat the "everyone ELSE is insane, everyone ELSE is insane" - and if you believe it, I hope it makes you comfortable. I haven't bothered addressing this passive aggressive crap in the past, and I'll go back to ignoring it after this, but please - you aren't making an argument, you aren't supporting "your side", and I'm certainly not impressed. I'd love to say that I'd be surprised if anyone else was, either, but, well, not anymore.

You sunk my battleship!

Aw, jav...

I don't think I've ever been snide. I suppose it all falls down to how you 'hear' a comment in your head.

And I don't think you're insane. At least, no more so than anyone else.

If you haven't noticed yet, I don't really have a 'side' so much.

And the last thing you may not have noticed, I don't really go for the jabs until I see them happen first.

...but I don't really expect you to pay that much attention to my conversation!

Oh, and I think you might want to look up passive aggressive. Neither kenmeer nor myself engage in it. When we say something, we don't couch it or hide it behind a false veneer of civility, as far as I can recall. We pretty much say what we think.

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:
Oh, and I think you might want to look up passive aggressive. Neither kenmeer nor myself engage in it. When we say something, we don't couch it or hide it behind a false veneer of civility, as far as I can recall. We pretty much say what we think.
That is funny. [Big Grin]
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 
Perhaps you're confusing the meaning of 'false civility'.
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 
Anyway, I'm sure we can both agree that they should never have cancelled 'Firefly'.
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 canadian:
Anyway, I'm sure we can both agree that they should never have cancelled 'Firefly'.

Absolutely. I hope you understand that I have a great deal of respect for you Canadian - you and Kenmeer both. When you guys engage in the debate, it can be amazing, and so informative. I feel that you guys will post in unhelpful ways, however, and that bothers me. If you'd like to discuss this online, I'd be glad to make a thread that goes over my concern about the tone of this forum, and things I feel help/hurt it - and you can beat my argument/assertion down there. [Smile] Or, if you prefer, we could certainly discuss it offline. Or, of course, we could do neither.

[ June 21, 2006, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

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


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cheney, Jav.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Liberal:
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
quote:
on what we knew before hand was an impotent, harmless target.
Ah yes, Iraq was impotent and harmless....

Liberal, this is not DailyKos or DU. Iraq war may in fact be a mistaken strategy....but to say it was impotent and harmless is simply assinine and idiotic.

I can see a tactic you resort to is to label those you disagree with as extremist partisans.

Well, I can't recall how many reports (3,4,5?) from Bush's own inspectors, post-war, confirmed there were no WMD. There were no programs to make them. There were no plans to make programs to make them. There were no people to make plans to make programs to make them. You can be a denier like WarsawPact and hang onto that single shell with a trace of chemical weapons from the 80s that we gave Saddam as proof of all the magic WMD or you can face up to reality.

Now, I did make the claim that it was known before the war that Iraq was harmless. Let me specify, they were harmless, to us. They were. When Bush was subverting the CIA with that new special office in the pentagon and Douglas Feith was filing dissents in the circular filing bin, our intelligence agencies were trying to warn us Iraq was a fool's errand,it posed no threat. Tenet warned Bush before that fateful SotU that his speech was full of unconfirmed information, it was Bush's decision to purposefully lie and say it was absolutely, 100%, rock-solid, confirmed information.

Now, Iraq certainly was a threat, but not to the US. I could care less about using my tax dollars to defend Israel or Saudi Arabia, and I sure don't think we should have gone to war for them(and Bush agreed with me when he was campaigning 6 years ago), but it looks like that's what we did, as well as helping Iran get rid of its biggest rival and the only semblance to a balance of power that existed in the region. Well done!

Now where do we stand? We wasted our military capacity for several years to come, wasted untold amounts of money, and the enemies that were scared and willing to talk 3 years ago (don't even get me started on Iran's pro-US stance following 9-11 and how we pissed that away) are now both fully armed, or will be shortly, with nuclear weapons.

North Korea now knows we will never invade, and they are probably a pawn of China. Iran lost its only regional rival and is emboldened with newfound power that WE gave it the time to develop. If any Americans die at the hands of Iran or North Korean nukes, it is will be because of sentiments that thought either:
-Iraq was the "right thing to do,"
or
-Iraq was more important than holding out and maintaining pressure on the two real threats.
or
its just fine to blandly stand by and then support Bush and his Melville-esque quest for mad revenge.

This is why I said this is not DailyKos or DU - not to simply label you, but to point out that shibboleths are not accepted as factual without challenge here. If you feel insulted by the comparison, than at least even you, the self-proclaimed "Liberal" recognizes the conspiracy theory fever swamp of left wing radicalism that those sites represent....good for you! [Wink]

As for your arguments, I'm really tired of the shibboleths you cited in support of your argument. Harmless? Tell that to the Air Force Pilots who were fired upon almost daily enforcing the UN Mandated No-Fly zone.

No WMD's?

Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq

quote:
They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas.
Now I realize that when Liberal(s) say "there were NO WMD's EVER found, and then you point this out, they immediatley change ot that old shibboleth of "you mean that ONE shell with nerve agents that WE gave Saddam" bullcrap.

Is there some kind of new math that liberal's are using now? Because in basic math, one does not equal none... or 1>0. More importantly, it is confirmation that Saddam definitely did NOT destroy the WMD's he claimed he did.

You guys argue as if they never existed, it was all a lie...but if in fact they are found, well, WE gave them to him. So that means that when we gave him weapons to fight a common enemy at that time, and then he eventually becomes our enemy and we demand that he surrender the weapons we initially gave him, and he denies, lies and hides them...are you saying that it's excuasable because WE GAVE IT TO HIM in the first place?

So if you gave a gun to your neighbor to borrow for target practice....and he goes and holds up the neighborhood convenience store, you shouldn't demand that he return it to you or turn him into the police SINCE YOU GAVE IT TO HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE?!?!?

[Roll Eyes]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 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 
Jav,

I vote for neither. One day we'll visit in person and every misunderstanding will disappear over a drink on a patio where we can watch all the pretty girls walk by.

[ June 21, 2006, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: canadian ]

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 
Sounds good. [Big Grin]
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:
Originally posted by KnightEnder:
Cheney, Jav.

KE

Okay, so, now I gotta figure out which Cheney quote. Sorry, I'm just trying to follow.

[ June 21, 2006, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

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


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The one he said he mispoke; the "I believe, in fact,....reconstituted WMD's..."

But it could be any quote that mentions knowledge of WMD's when he says; "We never had any evidence that he had acquired a nuclear weapon."

Ahh, hell. I'll go find the exact quote.

This one:

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.

KE

[ June 21, 2006, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

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 
Okay, I'm guessing this is the quote:

quote:
We believe Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. - VP Cheney, 3/16/03
And here's where the correction was made (note that Cheney explains he felt it was clear in context of the original quote), slightly less than six months after the first statement (it was on "Meet the Press", 09/14/2003).

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.

Ready for this? It's pretty damn simple. Take a look at the question asked - Russert asks if you still feel that way, even though the IAEA says he doesn't have a nuclear program. The answer was in response to whether or not Saddam had a nuclear program. Not whether he had a working nuclear bomb. Not whether he had a working delivery system, prep'd and ready. Basically, add one noun to Cheney's response, and it's super clear:

quote:
And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted [a] nuclear weapons [program].
And this is what Cheney said he did - he omitted a word that would have kept his response perfectly clear - and the press took the quote out of context and went to town on it. Just like this thread has.

Can you see why people might be indignant about this? Why some people might think it was reasonable clear that he was talking about the program, not a weapon? And why Cheney admitted he made a wording mistake - by not being clear enough, though he may have felt he was at the time, given the context? Can you see and understand that viewpoint?

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  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 
.... didn't I just make this argument? Like, the exact same argument, in different words?

What isn't getting across?

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


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
...
No WMD's?

Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq...

Sarin gas has a short shelf life of weeks to months. Apparently this supply was sitting around for a longer time than that. The article says they only found this one shell with sarin and one IED with mustard gas that was "ineffective". Otherwise, the 80 tons was what was alleged that he had not destroyed because he didn't account for it. I don't want to start yet another food fight on this pristine thread, but are you saying that those two obsolete examples constitute actionable WMD and that he did, in fact, still have 80 tons of WMD?
quote:
So if you gave a gun to your neighbor to borrow for target practice.
Do you consider giving sarin and mustard gas to Iraq to use against Iran target practice? A better analogy would be to say you gave the gun to your neighbor to shoot the guy next door who wouldn't turn down his radio, which he then did, and discovering he had some bullets left over decided to shoot another neighbor whose garden offended him, and then he decided to shoot you for trespassing on his property....
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's getting across, some of us aren't as broad-minded as you when it comes to "mispeaks" that led us into an uneccesary war. And we are, especially with this administration, suspicious of "mispeaks" that further the administrations goal of war with Iraq. Convenient, neh? Now, what aren't you getting?

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Sarin gas has a short shelf life of weeks to months. Apparently this supply was sitting around for a longer time than that. The article says they only found this one shell with sarin and one IED with mustard gas that was "ineffective". Otherwise, the 80 tons was what was alleged that he had not destroyed because he didn't account for it. I don't want to start yet another food fight on this pristine thread, but are you saying that those two obsolete examples constitute actionable WMD and that he did, in fact, still have 80 tons of WMD?
TWO OBSOLETE EXAMPLES are still 2>0.

And "NO WMD's" is not the same as TWO OBSOLETE EXAMPLES.

I'm also not saying that two examples constitutes actionable WMD...I'm saying it demonstrates that when Saddam claimed to have destroyed all of the WMD's that were unaccounted for, these two examples are evidence plainly indicating he lied.

When a suspected bank robber is arrested for a robbery of $100,000, but only $100 identified by their serial numbers is found in his apartment, do we give him a pass and say "oh he only stole $100." Or do we say "Obviously he didn't rob the bank, because he didn't have ANY of the money!"

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 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:
Originally posted by KnightEnder:
It's getting across, some of us aren't as broad-minded as you when it comes to "mispeaks" that led us into an uneccesary war. And we are, especially with this administration, suspicious of "mispeaks" that further the administrations goal of war with Iraq. Convenient, neh? Now, what aren't you getting?

KE

No, I get that. I'm not buying that it was a mispeak that helped sell the war however. It was a fairly isolated mispeak - and it didn't have a huge audience. The State of the Union address emphasizes the fact that it's a program, and was more widely distributed, etc. - wouldn't that have been a better place for a mispeak? I mean, Bush, he's known for it! Also, Cheney's quote - that was after the invasion had been approved, right? Wouldn't it have been more effective if it had happened earlier, when they were trying to get everyone to line up behind the plan?

See, here's the thing - I get that people don't trust this administration. I have a lot of issues with them myself. But there are times when that mistrust is justified, and when it's not. I refuse to ignore this important fact - and therefore I give EVERYONE the benefit of the doubt, even if I strongly lean one way or another. And if it's important, I try to clear up the doubt - with the facts, and the truth - even if I don't like them.

In this case, I don't see a purposeful mispeak to be useful in any real way, and since it CANNOT override the context, unless it's removed from it, and since the press removed it from context, not the VP, I'd have to respectful suggest that turning this into a conspiracy theory is too much of a stretch.

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


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I see what your saying, I'm just saying that even if it was an honest mispeak, the VP should be more careful about what he says. Of course somebody should have made him clarify his statement at the time. If they were speaking about a program and all the sudden the VP says "nuclear weapon" somebody should say; what?

KE

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


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Basically, add one noun to Cheney's response, and it's super clear:..
Sorry, Jav, but you and Warr have both been super clear that we're not revising people's actual spoken words in this thread, because it can change their meaning. Goose, gander. The day after he said that we invaded Iraq. Six months later, after no WMD had been found and it was becoming abundantly clear that no WMD were likely ever to be found, he admitted he misspoke. I couldn't find a single version of the quote where someone stuck [program] on the end of it other than a tortured revisionist analysis in The National Review. If it's so clear, why did it take them 1414 words to clarify when only one word was needed?

Maybe he meant to say something different the first time around, but you don't really know that. Maybe his later recantation was sincere, but you can't know that either. I agree that the quote is out of alignment with the surrounding context, but Cheney is well known for dropping these pearls into his comments like a drama queen. The insurgency was in its last throes almost a year ago, according to him. He said that for a reason, only that wasn't true either. People have puzzled ever since what the reason was. Same as here.

Edited to add: " when only one word was needed"

[ June 21, 2006, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: DaveS ]

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


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KE said what I think more succinctly and less heatedly than I did or am likely to.

Daruma, I see where you're coming from. Do you think he still has 80 tons of WMD hidden, or do you think he may have destroyed it?

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 KnightEnder:
I see what your saying, I'm just saying that even if it was an honest mispeak, the VP should be more careful about what he says. Of course somebody should have made him clarify his statement at the time. If they were speaking about a program and all the sudden the VP says "nuclear weapon" somebody should say; what?

KE

I absolutely agree. I wonder why they didn't? I wonder why it took six months to ask the question?
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I absolutely agree. I wonder why they didn't? I wonder why it took six months to ask the question?
Thank you, thank you, thank you! Those are exactly the questions I have asked myself about it. Just allowing for that window of uncertainty is enough for me, even if we end up in different places.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't know what he did with all of the WMD's...but I certainly don't buy into the BS Liberal is saying that there were NO WMD's or that there was NO PROGRAM or NO INTENTIONS as he's trying to pass off here.

What I do know is this: before the war, we simply did not have any real idea what he did or did not have, nor what he was planning to do in the near future. Now we certainly know for sure that Saddam will never again run a WMD program, nor ever use them again.

It's that assurance that we were going for when we went to war. Just because our intelligence may have been wrong or mistaken does not mean that our goal of MAKING CERTAIN was wrong to begin with.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  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 
I want to get into this, but I'm not sure if this is the thread for it:

KE, you mentioned this being an unnecessary war.
What does a necessary war look like (necessity implying a specific end) and do you believe we should not get involved in wars that do not meet this criterion?

Posts: 7500 | 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:
Originally posted by DaveS:
quote:
I absolutely agree. I wonder why they didn't? I wonder why it took six months to ask the question?
Thank you, thank you, thank you! Those are exactly the questions I have asked myself about it. Just allowing for that window of uncertainty is enough for me, even if we end up in different places.
Well, if I ever come across as being completely certain, we are probably miscommunicating. [Smile]
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't realize daruma had replied here until I saw the other thread, I figured he'd post the same misinformation here.

An impotent, expired chemical weapon is not a WMD since it has no capacity to do damage any more. It's not as if knowledge of the chemical storage lifes of the agents we gave Saddam during the 80s were not known. Bush made the specific claim that real, new and usable WMDs were in Iraq. There were none. End of story.

Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma, shells from WWII are being found in France and England, etc., to this day. Does that mean that Germany is still at war with us? Liberal pegged it for what it is in this thread and the other. The shells are more like souvenirs than weapons. It's not worth working yourself up over this, and it doesn't help that Santorum is your star witness.

Find one weapon that was active, usable and deadly at the time of the war or leading up to it, and just maybe you might find someone to the left of the far right who will agree that they were in violation. But one weapon is like finding a marijuana seed on the floor of a car: illegal, yes; worth prosecuting, no.

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


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Isn't Santorum in the middle of a reelection bid? Coincodence?

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just in case anyone missed it in the other thread, the military has come out and stated that Santorum is wrong, and Daruma's information is wrong.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/dod-disavows-santorum/

Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm sorry, which part of the military has come out?

Alan Colmes quotes Jim Angle quoting an unnamed defense official?

Sounds like the kind of intelligence the Bush Administration would act on...

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 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 
So who got the bright idea to drag the other thread into this one? As pre-emption?

Liberal, looks like you started it. Dave and KE continued it.
Why?

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  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