The Axis of Embarrassment
"I Found Saddam's WMD Bunkers"
Hat tip to Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters for this article written by Melanie Phillips on her blog who writes for the Daily Mail. It's a story of Dave Gaubatz, who served for 12 years as an agent in the US Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations. Phillips interviews Gaubatz and has information that is compelling though circumstancial and makes sense when you look at the the last four years and scratch your heads. Phillips calls the revelations the Axis of Embarrassment, for it explains the apparent gutless response and deafening silence of Republicans and the continuous attack by Democrats on the Bush Administration's mishandling of intel. As it stands, the WMD's were lost to the Syrians, which points to gross mismanagement at the DoD, and the presence of WMDs as a slam to the Democrats who decry Bush as lying to the American people. Egg seamingly is on the faces of both parties. Now that seems to fit the scenario better and explain the stupendous amount of sophistry and inaction!
Read the article; you'll find it most interesting. I'd like your comments and those of you expert in the field.
posted by Underground Logician @ 7:51 PM
13 comments
13 Comments:
Are you kidding? Unsubstantiated allegation? Reports mysteriously "gone missing." Bunker buried? This is nuts.
I'm sorry I wasted my time reading the article.
This guy Gaubatz is a nut. Read this.
There is an old adage that says, "consider the source."
More from you boy Gaubatz
White Christians were at the founding of this nation a distinct people and privileged as such. Men of means among this people were given the opportunity for representative government. This is, for those of you flinching, not a thesis or “viewpoint”; this is historical fact.
After the Civil War, this changed; with the move into the 20th century this change became a wholesale reformation. Today, you cannot speak of Christianity in the public sphere and if you mention “white” and “Christians” in the same sentence you will be set upon as a despicable racist by every “fair-minded” public person. And, this phenomenon extends far beyond race.
Is it really your intention to use racist whack jobs as sources?
Next time spend the 15 minutes Googling your sources before you emabrress yourself.
From the artcile you link
This was, in the first place, because of the massive size of these sites and the extreme lengths to which the Iraqis had gone to conceal them. Three of them were bunkers buried 20 to 30 feet beneath the Euphrates. They had been constructed through building dams which were removed after the huge subterranean vaults had been excavated so that these were concealed beneath the river bed. The bunker walls were made of reinforced concrete five feet thick.
Not like no one would have noticed the damning and redirecting the Euphrates river or anything like that.
Well, I've had my fun. Is that the response you wanted? I have to get back to work.
Gee, does this mean you disagree? Shocker.
Quite, frankly it's not a question of disagreeing. To disagree would give this bullshit dignity it doesn't deserve. Bring a real argument.
No Soup for you. Next!
Next?
Sorry, but I'm the only one here, baby, and you're not the one serving the soup. So settle.
So, let's put our logic to work. Plainly, this is not a point of argument, but of knowledge. So I cannot bring another argument. It is a point of putting together evidence, facts and testimony in an inductive process. I don't have a conclusion, though I have speculated. But that's all it is.
You say it is highly implausible since making such a bunker would require the damming of the Euphrates. Very good! I confess, I have no knowledge about Iraq. So you know that the only way to build a bunker like this is by damming the Euphrates? I know it is impossible to prove something didn't occur, so I guess the only way to find out is either to go there with the map he provides and see, or find other expert testimony to the contrary.
Also, I don't know how the bunkers were built, and I don't know how the large sewer lines mentioned fit the location. So I would like more information here as well.
I put the article in to see just what you would do and you came through as I thought you would. You obviously googled the man to see what kind of credibility he has, and you found him to be nuts. Well, that may be, or he's really, really motivated given the shit he's been through with the DoD.
If you find this article and topic to odious for you, I understand. I'm not going to write the man off unless I find information that corroborates or contradicts what he's saying.
So let's dig deeper, unless you really want this man to be the nutjob you have declared him to be.
CY:
I read the articles you post more thoroughly and I see what you mean by a nut, given your history. However, I don't see him as insane. I see him ideologically different from you . That doesn't make him a nut, nor does it dismiss the information from the article I posted.
Man, don't get lazy on me. Stick to the facts, wherever and whatever they may be and don't poison the well.
Injecting this person of dubious credibility into the discussion is what poisoned that well. I could just as easily have trooted out some left wing nut that claims bush has all the wmd and is selling them to bin laden.
The AF OSI is an investigative arm of the AF security police. They spend most of their time chasing pot smokers and wife beaters inside the AF. Good for them... We use to call them "rats." During the first Gulf War we had one of these geniuses trying to sell us contraban anti-arab t-shirts. So his military experience lends little if any credibilty to this insane story.
My point, as backed up by the Kay report, is that the weapons and programs did not exist to the extent they were claimed to have existed. For the sake of this argument I'll say the intel was wrong.
Well, if you would have touted a "left-wing nut" that claimed Bush sold WMD's to Bin Ladin, I would've wanted proof, evidence, etc. Saying the man is a nut skirts the issue, as you have done with the info. in my post.
"Poisoning the well" is a lazy way to write off information and insult someone at the same time.
I offer the Kay Report in refutation of the claim you put forth.
The problem with the guy you tout is that he offers no proof. He is feeding the 27 percenters. He just makes a wild claim and says "prove me wrong." Have you asked yourself where are all his copies of these reports he claims to have made? Something so important you would surely keep a copy for your own records.
That is what poisons the well.
Read the Kay Report and put this madness away. If you really want to argue this subject you would be better served working against my stance on the extent of the threat.
Your statement that this is madness says a lot more about you than Mr. Gaubatz. In addition, I don't think you still get my meaning of what "poisoning the well" is, but no matter. However, you are wrong in stating I am making a claim. I am bringing it up to see how it is handled, and as I said before, your temperment and polemics against me are getting in the way. I don't want to discuss your temperment any further here, but stick to the issue at hand.
The David Kay Report is a good report. Thanks for the link. I think he was prudent in not jumping to conclusions, but was clear several times that he cannot make any final judgment until the work on the ground is done, meaning after major combat ops were completed. However, his report does not deny what Mr. Gaubatz has stated. Much of what Mr. Kay reports is inconclusive, but it looks like he had done a thorough job considering the point in time of his work.
In keeping with scientific method and reasoned thinking, one must go about the information Mr. Gaubatz gives us very carefully. And as my post clearly states, his statements are very interesting, and would explain the quirky political situation we are in. However, this doesn't prove true what Mr. Gaubatz describes. Do you have the objectivity to look at this, or is your Bush hatred getting in the way? If so, then you are not capable of making a reasoned analysis of this.
1. What Mr. Gaubatz states must be established by him. You are correct that he cannot get away with others trying to disprove him. Excellent observation by you.
2. If there are no copies or any electronic trail, then Gaubatz made a huge mistake. This does NOT, however, disprove his statements. It shows clearly that he wasn't sharp enough to back up his findings, which ruins his credibility. The burden is still his to prove his claims, which he doesn't do in the article.
3. If he refuses to put up or shut up, then, of course, we can suspect he's either inventing something, or he's in a position where he is incapable of establishing his findings. If he's incapable of establishing his claims, then why is that?
4. If in fact he can put the facts forward, or lead us to those who can, then of course we DO have a different situation at hand.
It would seem that Ms. Phillips would need to pursue this if this story is to be credible to bring us to a conclusion, and not just let it hang there. And, if it turns out to be true, it would difficult to be a Republican or a Democrat. I think the jury is still out.
The inflammatory nature of your rhetoric, Cranky, get's in the way of the good things you say. Drop the heat, and I'm sure you and I can have a great discussion. I think you have good things to say but your emotions become a distraction.
Here is a link to the Duelfer Report. He is the guy that replaced David Kay.
He concludes that there is no evidence that anything was moved to Syria or anywhere else.
Post a Comment
<< Home