Iraqi WMD's non-existence still confounding some buggers!
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, September 14, 2007 17:16
VIEWED: 19028
PAGE 13 of 27
Quote:I believe that Bush was certain WMDs existed in Iraq because it makes sense and there’s no reason not to believe it. It explains why the administration pushed the WMD issue as the CB for the war. The difference is that I take a little more rational perspective I think – I’m not evaluating the decision made by the administration based on cynicism and mistrust. You can disagree with the war and still believe that Bush was certain WMDs existed in Iraq and that he was acting in what he believed was good faith with respect to the American people and national security. Instead you assume that he was either dishonest or that he was stupid and being lead around by someone who was dishonest. And then you make this illogical jump to the war. What was Bush’s motivation for going to war? Well, it doesn’t matter because he’s evil and evil people do stuff like that. I consider that to be pretty sophomoric, and superfluous. Bush told us why we went to war, and there’s no reason to believe that Bush’s explanation for why he went to war wasn’t his own honest explanation.
Originally posted by leadb:
I believe that the difference here is that Finn accepts Bush's position at face value; while others of us feel he was at least misdirecting if not out right lying.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And this is where you sound like AntiMason RE evolution. "Belief"? Where does "belief" fit into rationality? IT doesn't. It goes with the evidence.
there’s no reason not to believe it.
You stick to your beliefs then, if that's what makes you comfortable. I'll continue to refine my model. But don't expect me to take you seriously.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And we’re back square one – you made a guess. Insightful – maybe, but a guess nonetheless. That does not qualify as fact; that is belief. You believed, evidently with some conviction, that there were no WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion. As it turned out that belief may have been correct, and maybe we can call it a fact today, but not then – it was belief then.
Originally posted by SignyM:
No Finn. I watched Bush et al rather closely. I pursued data, a lot of which is new to you. I drew conclusions, and they were correct. And you were wrong. (And so was Bush but in a different way and for different reasons.) You might want to check back with your model/ assumption/ hypotheses to see what went wrong.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
my post above said:
Quote:You stick to your beliefs then, if that's what makes you comfortable. I'll continue to refine my model. But don't expect me to take you seriously.
there’s no reason not to believe it.-Finn
And this is where you sound like AntiMason RE evolution. "Belief"? Where does "belief" fit into rationality? IT doesn't. It goes with the evidence.-Signy
--------------
The difference between your beliefs and my models is that mine are subject to new information and correction, whereas yours (evidently) are not.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The dratted double strikes again!
Well, now I really AM outta here!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Subject to correction? Since when? You were as certain in 2003 as you are now. Sounds like conviction to me.
Originally posted by SignyM:
The difference between your beliefs and my models is that mine are subject to correction, whereas yours (evidently) are not.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Fletch2- the liquid anthrax that Saddam was a "bulk" form.Quote:
Consequently, it was also never explained that Iraq had been "fundamentally disarmed" by UN inspectors, in the words of former UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter, with "90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability…verifiably eliminated". It was never revealed to the American public by the Bush administration that even had Iraq managed to maintain "stockpiles" of the anthrax it had produced, it had a shelf life which would have rendered it useless many years prior. Iraq, Ritter explained, produced only "liquid bulk anthrax", which "even under ideal storage conditions, germinates in three years, becoming useless."
Y'all should read this:
www.yirmeyahureview.com/articles/iraq_anthrax.htm
ALSO, FLECTH2-The wiki article that you link to is NOT REPEAT NOT liquid anthrax. They refer to anthrax spores which are a dry powder. When they refer to a "brown aerosol" they're referring to a POWDERED aerosol.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
Well according to your earlier post then the liquid is a precursor to the intended product. It would seem reasonable then that if the research continued you would want to hunt for the final product and not just the precursor. Say Sadam had 3 tons of liquid and that made a ton of powder. If you show up six months later and the liquid is no longer there then there are 3 options.
1) he destroyed it
2) he's hidden 3 tons of liquid someplace
3) he has 1 ton of spores someplace.
I'm sure the UN didn't say "you know that 3 tons of liquid has probably gone off that's the end of it let's go home." There must have at least been some that wondered if 1 ton of the other stuff wasnt out there someplace.
I know it was spores in the article I posted I even said so in my posting. The point you keep missing is that in 1940 the UK while under austerity and nightly German bombing still produced a crude but working Anthrax bomb. Fifty years later the UN said that Saddam was trying to do the same. This isn't nuclear science, you don't need high speed trigger tubes or yellowcake or a working reactor to pull this off. I'm wondering why you think that it was technologically impossible for Iraq to do what Britain did in 1942? You keep on about things like antistatic coatings and optimum milling sizes which I am sure you are right in saying Saddam didn't have, but the British bomb didnt either and it still worked.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote::big bug-eyed emoticon we don't have here:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:Not Bush, the Republicans or the Neo-Conservative theory in general, that’s for sure.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Who's profiting the most from this war?
Friends...friends of friends....peeps we'll never know about...
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swi
ndle
...and I haven't tuned you out, just Battered Expired Equine Syndrome
.The clairvoyent Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I learned what I learned not by listening to Hussein or any 'secret' information source, but by reading technical reports and watching the Bush administration. That's how I know what they knew and that they lied. I only have time for a short post, but let us reason together for a bit.
Yellowcake.
When it came up in the SOTU there was an immediate but muted and limited reaction in Congress, among experts and even in some newspapers. Many of those people thought it was a questionable claim at best. But it wasn't until much later that a committee was formed to investigate, which then came up with the Senate Report.
From the Senate Report I learned that that claim had been previously eliminated from Bush's speeches by the CIA TWO TIMES already as being unsubstantiated. In order to have it in the SOTU, the administration made two changes to the speech (Africa/ Niger, uranium/ yellowcake) and submitted the speech late for CIA vetting.
The substance of the claim was already known to be false. But the administration delibertaly word-smithed and finagled it into the SOTU anyway in order to mislead - and stampede - the public into support for an attack on Iraq.
Now, what can we learn about watching the administration in this instance ? It's that the case for war didn't exist and the administration felt the need to create something.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't believe I said Bush was evil.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:I believe that Bush was certain WMDs existed in Iraq because it makes sense and there’s no reason not to believe it. It explains why the administration pushed the WMD issue as the CB for the war. The difference is that I take a little more rational perspective I think – I’m not evaluating the decision made by the administration based on cynicism and mistrust. You can disagree with the war and still believe that Bush was certain WMDs existed in Iraq and that he was acting in what he believed was good faith with respect to the American people and national security. Instead you assume that he was either dishonest or that he was stupid and being lead around by someone who was dishonest. And then you make this illogical jump to the war. What was Bush’s motivation for going to war? Well, it doesn’t matter because he’s evil and evil people do stuff like that. I consider that to be pretty sophomoric, and superfluous. Bush told us why we went to war, and there’s no reason to believe that Bush’s explanation for why he went to war wasn’t his own honest explanation.
Originally posted by leadb:
I believe that the difference here is that Finn accepts Bush's position at face value; while others of us feel he was at least misdirecting if not out right lying.
I believe two parties very badly miscalculated. The first was Sadam, who thought he could flout the US threat and keep Iran at bay. Clearly he underestimated Bush's determination to take war to Iraq.
Bush on the other hand, I believe wanted the war to give the far right a more permanent place in power, by drumming fear into the common man. By putting us on a longterm 'war footing'. It is clear that his cronies have well profited from the war financially. His miscalculation was assuming the Iraqies would welcome us, then pull together to form a cohesive government. Had that happened, while it still would not, IMHO, have justified the war, would have made him wildly popular and the right would have benefited greatly politically; and his wildest dreams would have come thru; a long term Republican majority. Sadly, his gamble did not pay off; the Iraqis are at each other throats, and it is questionable as to whether anything stable is going to come out of this. His legacy and the Republican party are, as you point out, suffering badly. Had his gamble paid off, it would have worked out very well for him. So, I will agree, his gamble didn't pay off politically.
Feel free to throw around terms like 'sophomoric' all you wish. You will notice the worst -I've- said about your position is that we disagree. If it helps, I do see your logic; I just think you are wrong, as clearly you see my position as wrong.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME