The Existence of WMD's and Media Silence...
I continue to scratch my head at both the White House's and the Media's response to the discovery of WMD's in Iraq. If you care go to Proving Saddam's WMD's you'll find and interesting discussion about why the "too little, too late response."
Oh, and this is for the open minded. That would include many liberals, based on their own self-claims for open-mindedness.
posted by Underground Logician @ 10:59 AM
39 comments
39 Comments:
Only an idiot would doubt they were there. The whole world knew it. Back to the idiot, maybe thats why they haven't won an election in ummmmmmm hell a lonnnnnng time.
jsull28fl
Thanks for jumping on board, JS! I don't think people really want to know what's in Iraq, and I think the Bush Admin. doesn't want a fight.
Oh my God.
The clutching at straws is so utterly desperate that it amazes me, anything to justify the war, right?
Sorry UL but these shells were first announced by the US military in 2004, their statement read: "several crates of old shells have been uncovered and they contain a blister agent that was no longer active." [Can I also mention that mustard gas degrades so rapidly after being made that it has a shelf life of 6 months max] they also said the shells "had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988."
CLUTCHING AT STRAWS UL!
Oh and the other reason that tey wouldn't make a big deal about a crate of crap is that the US government supplied them with the weapons in the first place.
HA HA HA!
Absolutely not true about the mustard gas. It does degrade but it is still deadly. It was always apparant that he had them. The Bush administration has no need to be happy about finding them, why should they care what a select few idiots think? I mean really if said idiots were a threat to actually win an election then maybe the Reps would be more worried and leak info but why pat their own backs when there is no need? The americans might have supplied them that I don't know, they probably did it for them to fight the Russian backed Iranians, the US needed someone to fight them because of the limp wristers in the US and europe would have cried like 11 year old girls if we had done it.
jsull
Jsull: you get worse as I present facts...the US military, wo are clearly experts on such matters, realised that the few shells found were over 15 years old and there is no doubt that the US supplied them as Saddam Hussein was a friend of the US government, as was Iran until its people overran the US installed puppet regime and installed a government that they wanted.
The rest of your stuff about limp wristers only exposes your ignorance, carry on.
DHG:
Thanks for jumping on so quickly. Since you are so into "facts", are you also ready to state that 9/11 was a conspiracy where the towers collapsed in a manner compared to a controled demolition?
JS:
Don't get too ruffled with DHG. He's a blog terrorist where he sends in rhetorical missles to try to upset the commentors. Like a terrorist, he has no desire to carry on a dialogue and any attempt at argument will be a waste of time.
Underground Logician said...
DHG:
Thanks for jumping on so quickly. Since you are so into "facts", are you also ready to state that 9/11 was a conspiracy where the towers collapsed in a manner compared to a controled demolition?
UL,
Why are you setting up a strawman argument here? Where does DHG even remotely suggest what you have stated above? If DHG states his reasons for believing that WMDs were not found, it does not follow that he "is ready to state that 9/11 was a conspiracy."
I thought you promoted yourself as a logician. Where's the logical progression in what you posted? Huh?
JS:
Don't get too ruffled with DHG. He's a blog terrorist where he sends in rhetorical missles to try to upset the commentors.--Underground L.
Good Goddess, UL. You've just described yourself, not DHG! It is you not DHG who lobbed the "rhetorical missle" about the 9/11 conspiracy theory.
Like a terrorist, he has no desire to carry on a dialogue and any attempt at argument will be a waste of time. --Underground L.
Really, UL. DHG is carrying on a dialogue. You don't agree with what he says. You don't like what he presents. You've decided he has no merit. And so you label him a terrorist. Oy.
When you can't answer DHG with an intelligent argument or supporting facts about the supposed new-found WMDs, you call him names.
This is exactly the behavior of an adolescent who, having been exposed as a bully and as someone who can't support his claims, shoves the kid who can in the chest, calls him names and threatens him with violence. Same thing.
If you had any evidence to support your claims that WMDs have truly been found in Iraq, you would present it and not call people who challenge you "terrorists."
If the Bush Administration actually had discovered WMDs in Iraq that could have been used to imminently attack the US [nuclear WMDs and biological weapons] Karl Rove would have had Bush and Rummy and Rice hold a joint press conference and given the world the evidence.
You and your friend js are puzzled by the fact that the WMD story isn't being spread all over the media. Here's what I would call an Occam's Razor reason for that:
There were no WMDs.
PS.
Someone in the comments section of your blog, UL, equates losing elections with idiocy, therefore, if one continuously wins elections, one must be a genius.
Wow!
By that reasoning, Ted Kennedy is a friggin' Einstein!
And just so you don't jump in with the claim that Massachusetts is a heavily Democratic state, for your information, Massachusetts has had more Republican governors in its history than Democrats. It votes Republican and Democratic.
Shaw: thank you for articulating a sound response, I particularly liked it when you highlighted the failure to deal with the facts I present.
Shaw:
I would agree with you, if that is JS's point. How 'bout we let him speak for himself in the spirit of true dialogue. It is the "troll spirit" that reads into what others say in order to attack.
Uh, JS, your on man. Is it due to idiocy that "they" haven't won an election in a long time? And could you articulate who "they" would be?
UL, deal with my rebuttal of the useless WMD story and stop slinging mud.
Kathleen said...
DHG said "...stop slinging mud."
Did you type that with a straight face?
I do appreciate the laugh.
kathleen,
What are you laughing at?
Please show me where UL actually addresses Daniel's points.
UL and js attacked Daniel and offered no rebuttal to the points he posted. All UL did was call Daniel a terrorist. And js calls people who don't win elections idiots.
Apparently you find that hilarious.
I find it pathetic.
People who can't respond with a cogent argument often resort to name-calling and trying to change the subject. Or just laughing, because they have nothing of value to add.
You can't reason with trolls.
Troll?
Oh my God.
Is that how you justify not answering my points?
How do you sleep?
Shaw: thanks again for articulating the facts to Kathleen, she needs 'em.
DHG:
Yes...Troll. The only way to deal with trolls is to butt them in the ass and knock them off the bridge.
You and I exchange words but I don't try to do logical counter-argument with you. That is an impossibility, for there must exist a valid argument for their to be any logical exchange. As for you, your attempt in the past to disprove the law of non-contradiction was a hilarious display of your ILL-logic and contempt for logic. So, I let you trollificate and wear yourself out while I relax and sip on a pint.
Kathleen:
Thank you. I appreciate a good laugh as well!
Shaw:
I said Daniel is a blog terrorist. He enjoys lobbing indescriminate and often fallacious rhetorical missles to disrupt a post. He's on a Nietzsche-esque jihad and has no desire for dialogue.
You are also correct that I have no argument since I do not intend to engage in logical argument with him.
As to JS' "idiot" remark, until we hear from him to clarify what he meant, I will suspend discussion on it.
Right...
This is how it works, you make a post, I then leave a comment that highlights the flaw in the post but instead of arguing the point you call me a troll and refuse to enter in debate.
It's because once again I uncover the lies and present facts.
YAY!
In your own mind, you are the winner!
No one says Saddam Hussein did not possess WMD. The opposition, including me - a former Dash-2 qualified Special Operator - knew he did not possess them in a current state or capability which compromised any threat to the USA or his neighbors for that matter.
This is the silliest argument and isn't even taken seriously by any military members.
These 500 munitions they found were left overs from 1991.
As someone who used to handle these type of weapons I can tell you these type of munitions were not a danger to America and were definitely not a cause for war. They were dangerous at one time. The vx found was in trace amounts and Mustard gas is not a weapon of MASS destruction. It is a weapon of harassment and force degradation. It is a blister agent that has to be directly applied to the skin. Dispersed as an aerosol it can be inhaled and is quite deadly. But remains lethal in only 1% of cases. This method of delivery was not employed by Iraq and has not been discovered.
The is a red herring argument. Once again it is an example of the right wing semantic truth and essential lies. Go back and read the rhetoric from the $hrubbists in the run up to the war.
Quoting Rick Santorum??? Talk about the sign of a lost argument.
Ul,
My bad for not being available. I take a vacation a week of every month and I was on it with my bride in NYC.
The only they who have been purely abused in recent elections are Democrats. Why you ask? Because they have nothing to bring to the table. They hate bush, thats it. They should hate him he treated them like they were his bitch twice. If the Democrats had a clue and had any plan they would have won in 04 with Kerry (he fought in Vietnam) but since they had nothing to contribute they sit on the sidelines again. If they don't win the house and senate in 08 then surely they will try to support something other than sucking the brains from a half born child, labor unions, conspiricy theorists and the hollywierd left. The environment for a Democratic takeover is right right now, I think they will take at least one house if they have absolutely anything to bring to the debate, they havent for 8 years maybe they will actuall get some people with enough sense to pour piss from a boot before they put it on to run for office this time. Yes I did say that anyone who didn't believe that Saddam didn't have WMD's pre war was an idiot. I never lower myself to personal attacks against specific people that would group me with the left, that is what they do when they can't attack the message. I am for free speech, so bring it, but the whole time you type know that the majority of presidential voters favored bush twice and the congress since ummmmm most of my lifetime.
jsull28fl
jsull28fl,
You and your 30 percenters can all have a nice circle jerk on your "leader."
He's the most hated president worldwide in US history. And if he doesn't get his numbers above 50% in the next few months, he'll have the dubious honor of being the most unpopular president we've have since WWII.
BTW: The majority of voters most certainly DID NOT vote for Bush in 2000. Gore won the popularity vote.
And Diebold won it for Bush in 2004.
You and your Bush supporters are 30 percenters. A majority of Americans think he sucks.
Shaw,
do you mean to tell me that the Dems couldn't even get the majority of the vote when 30% won?????????
thank god i didnt vote for the Dems.
I know that you all are used to being abused in the polls and that all of you have come to terms that your message is a losing one but damn man if any of you had any self respect you would kill yourself if you didn't get any more of the vote than that. Whew, I'm glad i was smart enough to vote for the winner at 30%. Do you understand what you are saying??????????????????
Your saying very few voted, and of those that voted the majority liked bush. That means, by default that the democrat candidate was horseshit. But then again y'all are used to smelling that. You have nominated that same stench for 8 years in the pres election and ummmmmmm most of my lifetime in all other elections.
Bic makes good razors, just a little advice for all those self respecting people that consistantly end up on the wrong side of history.
jsull (you know me the one with the facts on his side)
js,
You're being deliberately disingenuous. You know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm talking about now. NOW. Bush has a 36% approval rating. And has been in the toilet since last November after his disasterous non-response to the Katrina catastrophe.
Remember? He was playing guitar while Americans were drowning? Then he told Brownie that he was doin' a heckava job? Remember that FUBAR?
He's never recovered since then.
And the civil war in Iraq and now the disaster in Lebanon has not been exactly a triumph for his administration either. Nor has his complete failure to "overhaul" Social Security. And his administration's cynical Medicare Prescription scam really pleased the old and infirm.
All of those and many other incompetent policy blunders have kept Bush in the negative numbers and will assure him his place in history as one of the most unpopular presidents, post WWII.
It doesn't matter that he got appointed the first time and Diebolded into office the second.
A majority of Americans and the rest of the civilized world think he sucks. And that's happening now.
Who cares who voted in 2004 for whom.
Look at where Bush is now.
Look at all the people in his administration that have been convicted or charged with criminal offenses.
Forget about what happened in 2004.
Right now, at this moment, Bush is a LOSER. And the American people don't like him or his party.
Shaw,
I am married to neither party, I am one of the ones that is in the middle. I could care less who wins as long as neither raises my taxes. I wasn't being disingenuous at all. I was simply sighting the facts. It does disturb me when folks say diebold and chads etc. I mean come on now, the democratic party could easily win if they would act like they had sense. The polls might show Bush is in the cellar now, but just for the record I can take a poll right now consistiing 100% of registerd Democrats (which I am) that shows Bush is one rung under Jesus. And thats the truth. Not even the Democratic party really looks at polls. Anyway, i do appreciate the way you didn't personally attack my view that proves that you have sense and that you are a thinker. Really think about it.
If only 30% voted and the Dems didnt get the majority then what does that say about them?
what it says is that they haven't convinced the people that they have a plan, thats all I ever contended. I never said one was right or wrong all I ever said was that one won and the other lost. Does it ever make you think that when the Dems continuously babble about how dumb W is that it reflects poorly on the Dems because he beat them twice?? I mean when clinton was in office the reps said he was bad and wrong but they always, always said he was an excellent politicion. See the difference? The Dems should be saying that bush is wrong on policy but he sure does relate with Americans. That wouldn't make them look so damn foolish. I could care less who is n power I will thrive in any environment. Good debate, I don't know the numbers but I bel;ieve your s are right.
jsull
I guess no one is challenging my demoltion of the GOP WMD Red Herring.
Cranky:
I missed something. Are you saying I created a "red herring?" I don't think I did.
I am asking why is there silence on a subject as important as these 500 munitions of WMD. Is it embarrassment? Why does this administration drag its feet in investigating only 10% of the WMD sites? Even if the WMD's are old (post-91), don't we have a right to know it?
Read the article that I have linked and you'll understand more what I'm questioning. You're too busy looking for a fight.
Having been on the ground in Iraq, I can tell you for certain there are artillery shells, like the ones found, scattered all over the country from our bombing in 1991. I'm sure there are hundreds more. The point is that Saddam's weapons and/or weapons programs did not pose a threat to us or his neighbors to the extent the administration led us to believe. The threat was a manufactured lie based on scintillas of fact that was used to con the American public to accept this illegal and immoral war.
That is the story. The article you cite brings up some interesting points but it is the red herring, in that it is a distraction from the main point of the WMD story.
JS:
I'm thinking that you are misinterpereting what shaw was referring to by "30%". She was not saying 30% of the population voted or some such thing, but was referring to the poll whereas Bush got 30% approval and 70% disapproval from those that took the poll. I don't know how many participated in it, but I'm sure we can find out. Not that it really matters.
Personally, I don't care about polls anyway. It is quite easy to make the outcome appear one way or another just by how the questions are phrased.
Shaw:
"Appointed"? "Diebolded"?
(I'm pretty sure that the latter is not a word, at least not in any dictionary I could find. Please expound the definition for me. I like learning new words.)
Tsk Tsk. I would have thought this would be old news by now.
I guess I was wrong.
There is a reason why we have this thing called the "Electoral College." It is the outcome of the Connecticut Compromise of 1787. (I'm not really wanting to go into some sort of history lesson. I'm guessing it's something you already know, but choose not to care.)
It's there so that smaller communities still have a voice, rather than the main political battles fighting over big cities, who have a clear advantage in numbers.
So you can hardly say Bush was "appointed"? Well, not in the way I assume you meant it. He was indeed appointed by the American people. That I have no problem with. By whom were you meaning he was appointed? I'm just curious.
His victory over Kerry (who got 3 purple hearts) in 2004 was a landslide. I don't think there was much to dispute there. Only hurt feelings maybe.
Yet, I know what you're probably going to say again, since you said it already. "What about NOW? Who cares about what happened in 2000 and 2004?"
alright then. I'll move on. I just had to have a few words about that though.
So you say that most of the civilized world thinks bush sucks. okay. Well, of course, all of the socialists and marxists in the world have a predetermined hate for him. So it's no surprise that they think he sucks. He's a horrible socialist, being that he's not really one anyway. Good reason, I'd say.
Here's my point. I'm proud that I have a President who is willing to stick to his guns and actually fight (*gasp*) - yes, FIGHT and even DESTROY our enemies. We are not living in a time where sipping tea with the French will solve anything worth while. This is a new era. Our enemies seek our total and utter annihilation. I will not wave the white flag or welcome them into a position to destroy all that I have strived to live for. Our nation is better than that.
(sorry DHG. I've never been to England, so I can't honestly say anything from experience about your country.)
A defeatist attitude never saves lives, but rather takes them.
Cranky:
You think I forgot that Democrats and Republicans prior to the Bush administration were calling for Saddam's head since he was such a danger to humanity? NOPE.
Repeating the same mantro over and over doesn't make it true. The State department, CIA etc had Clinton, Pelosi, Kerry et al convinced that Saddam had accumulated WMD's. Don't try the old tired argument again. It's boring.
Jsull: I appreciate your diplomacy on this site. However, Shaw bloviates to tire out her opponents. Let her go like a balloon that runs out of air.
Shaw: You sound agitated. Remember, when you speak to people of principle, public opinion is not a consideration. Kinda befuddling isn't it? Bush just plods on with the world hating him and he doesn't change. Gee, I wonder if they would love him if he did what they wanted? Probably not. See? Poll numbers are immaterial. I still think you hate Bush.
Innocent: Hey! It's been a while. Glad you're on board. I appreciate your historical perspective although I don't if it will be appreciated by others. Americans have short attention spans...which works great for sophisticated power seekers.
Uh...The congress only saw what the executive branch gave them..... You can't argue that. If so you don't understand how our government works.
Yes, everyone said Saddam was a bad man and should go, but no one other than the $hrubco concocted a bogus threat and moved illegally against him.
The is fact and must be repeated for the sake of truth itself.
Uh...I know how the government works. And these helpless hapless congressmen had the same intel as did Clinton. The Senate intel committee is privy to classified info.
You are grabbing at straws again. Your entire hate-Bush enterprise is a castle built on the sand.
To go back to the beginning of this whole post:
This evidence is not evidence at all, still no WMD.
Arguement over.
Sorry, chum. You aint the Common Master. Remember, you thought you disproved the law of non-contradiction? I thought you'd forget.
Next.
My "straws" are the facts as they have been proven out over the past 5 years. Cite some evidence that disproves them. Syaing they are straws does not make them so.
Would you like me to quote the entire David Kay report? In a nutshell, "We were all wrong."
Clinton was wrong too, but Clinton never manipulated questionable evidence to drive the nation to an illegla and immoral invasion that has done nothing excpet make the world more dangerour. That is the difference. fyi - I never voted for Clinton, he was far too conservative for me.
Since your so into "facts", I'm assuming you have the hard facts that Bush manipulated the questionable WMD evidence. That would be more interesting to me than David Kay's report.
As to the Iraq War being immoral, you and I may agree more than you think.
As to your not voting for Clinton...thank you.
And, as odd as this statement may seem, due to the polemics that erupt between you and me, thank you for your service to our country. I mean it.
I have a question rolling around in my mind...is our State department on the up and up? It seemed to work against both Clinton and Bush.
I'd like to clarify a statement I made. I never voted for Clinton and in hindsight he proved to be too conservative for my liking.
You are very welcome.
13 years in the military turned me into the raving left winger you see before you. The world is a far different place then what most Americans are taught to believe. Spending time in Africa, Central America or the Philipines seeing the abject poverty these disposable people are left in and seeing death and destruction of war left me questioning everything I thought I knew. It was around 1991 when I admitted to myself that the oinly thing I know is that I know nothing. It was a gestalt moment that I consider my rebirth. It has been a wonderful trip. I have a reawakened passion. I submit to no authority. I reject established dogma. It's not enough to just disagree with something. The key is understanding why. It isn't easy and I find myself quite often very angry, but I guess those would be the birth pangs of being born again.
Sorry for rambling.
As to proof $hrubco manipulated the intel, well let's say, Bush the man probably wasn't too involved, but the cabal that is collectively $hrubco certainly did and Dick Cheney is at the core of it. There is ample evidence that he pressured the CIA to focus on intel, good or bad, that supported his predispostion to a gathering threat posed by Iraq's WMD. He was around back in 1991 when we saw exactly what Saddam had. He definitely knew better. Then there is the Niger Uranium SOTU issue. They knew it was bogus but left it in Bush's speech even though the national intelligence estimate questioned it and as a result Colin Powell left it out of his infamous UN speech.
In fact that assertion was not part of the NIE Key Judgments. It was a footnote, a "minor element," based on unreliable sourcing. The NIE noted on page 24 the there existed information that "Iraq had vigorously attempted to obtain uranium from Africa." But it also noted that State Department Intelligence deemed it highly doubtful because it was based on information of dubious origin.
In an interview with The Times in 2004, a senior intelligence official involved in drafting the estimate said the uranium allegations were excluded from the key judgments because the drafters knew there were serious doubts about their accuracy.
As a result, the official said, the drafters cast the uranium allegations as a minor element in the overall assessment of Iraq's nuclear capabilities. The assertion that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium was mentioned on the bottom of Page 24 of the 90-page document. The drafters also noted, in an annex attached to the end of the document, that State Department intelligence officials considered the uranium allegation "highly dubious."
Source
Post a Comment
<< Home