[CLUE-Talk] The military takes a cue from Microsoft

[Randy Arabie]

On Monday, 13 October 2003 at 13:09:53 -0600, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier <jzb at dissociatedpress.net> wrote:

  <---snip--->

> "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used
> for the production of biological weapons." -- Bush to the U.N. on Sept.
> 12th, 2002.
>
> No evidence of this has been presented to date. If we had evidence of
> this, why have we not been able to find it since?

Didn't David Kay, just last week, report to Congress that
his inspectors had discovered evidence of Hussein's intent
to develop WMD and evidence that they had retained the
capacity to develop WMD?

> There is no room for fudging here -- "Iraq *is* expanding and
> improving..." -- that's not a "we think" or "maybe" or "evidence
> suggests" -- "Iraq is" -- couldn't get much clearer than that. And yet,
> they weren't. 

See above.

> "Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding
> the facilities used to make more of those weapons." -- A radio address
> on Oct. 5, 2002. 
> 
> Same thing.

Per your comments below...Iraq has.  Without stipulating a
time, you can't call that a lie.  Sure it's a technicality,
but you know...I'll say anything to inflame the Bush Bashers.

> "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt
> that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most
> lethal weapons ever devised." -- Address on March 17, 2003
> 
> The evidence leaves PLENTY of doubt, thank you very much. 

Do you now doubt the existence of Bin Laden and Saddam, too.
Seein' how neither one have been found, perhaps they were
government fabrications, too.

> How about this from Cheney: 
> 
> "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
> (NBC's Meet the Press -- March 16, 2003)

Perhaps they did believe it.  IF so, then that isn't a lie.

I used to believe in Santa Clause.  As it turns out, there
is no Santa Clause.  Does that make me a liar, too?

> Then Rumsfeld backtracked later:
> 
> "I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that
> Iraq had nuclear weapons."
> 
> (Hearing of the Senate's appropriations committee, May 14, 2003)
> 
> (Both from here: http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm)
> 
> Many of Bush's statements were qualified statements designed to scare
> the public without being easily nailed down, for example "We know that
> the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including
> mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas." -- Of course, that doesn't
> say WHEN or whether the regime still has them. Just that they have at
> some point. So later, when none of those things are found, they can just
> say "well, they had done so in the past.." 

I'll agree with you there.  The problem is, people have gone
off saying that this was all done to decieve the public.  I
don't think it was.  Our government took action based on the
best intelligence available.

Iraq had tons of WMD post Gulf War I. They refused to
present evidence of their disarmament, and refused to
cooperate with UN Inspectors.  Those actions, coupled with
the best intellengence available lead to our course of
action.

> Bush also cited "evidence" claiming that Iraq had "enough materials to
> produce more than 38,000 litres of botulinum toxin and as much as 500
> tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents." 
> 
> Thus far, we've come up exactly 38,000 litres short of botulinum toxin
> and 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents. If we truly had this
> evidence, shouldn't we have been able to find something? Hmmmm? Maybe
> just a few litres of botulinum or maybe a few POUNDS of sarin? 
> 
> (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/02/1054406134772.html)

They have found facilities that could be used for the
production of both chemical and biological weapons.  That
quote didn't say that Iraq HAD those quantities.

According to Kays report, they have found evidence of WMD
equipment and activities that were NEVER declared to the UN
inspectors.  They HAVE found evidence of research and
development involving biological warefare agents, evidence
that Hussein had recently explored chemical weapons
production, and evidence that Hussein was interested in
aquiring nuclear weapons.

> If our "evidence" was so substantial and truly indicated a need to move
> without U.N. approval and without any further diplomacy, why have we
> been unable to uncover any conclusive proof of WMD? If our intelligence
> was so infallible before the war, what has happened that has rendered it
> useless since the war?

What makes you so certain that we won't find anything?
According to David Kay, his investigation may take another 6
to 9 months.

> The administration cherry-picked "evidence" from reports and buried any
> assertion that Iraq wasn't a threat. That's not a wild assertion, Randy,
> it's a FACT. Deal with it. They did it knowingly, they did it
> deliberately, and they did so with intent to deceive the American
> public. 
> 
> Here's another page citing the lies from the Bush administration:
> http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_lies.html
> 
> Sorry that you can't admit that you were snookered, Randy, but you and a
> lot of other people were. Don't feel bad, it happened with Vietnam, the
> Korean war and many other military actions -- but the fact (and yes, it
> is a fact) is that the Bush administration and Bush himself lied
> deliberately to push this war. They also fudged, hedged, mislead, and
> told half-truths to build this case. C'mon, Randy, can you not admit
> that Bush lied -- even to yourself? After all these months and deaths,
> you can't admit that Bush was dishonest? 

I still disagree with your assessment.  I'll take a look at
the links you've sent when I get in front of a box with a
GUI.  Maybe there is something there more substantial than
the rhetoric you've shared with me.

> As far as the terrorism -> Iraq link, even The New Republic admits that
> Hussein had no ties to 9/11. Ties to terrorist groups in the region, yes
> -- but not groups that were moving against the U.S.:
> 
> http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml/etc.mhtml?pid=698

I've never believed in an Iraqi link to 9/11, nor have I
ever stated there was.

> Again, I'm not going to defend Saddam Hussein, that's not possible --
> but I don't think the American public would have been behind this action
> if the Bush administration's case had been "Saddam is a very, very bad
> man who kills Iraqis and doesn't really pose a threat to the United
> States, but we should spend billions of dollars and risk American lives
> to remove him from power." 
> 
> Previously you said "I'm willing to bet my rat bitten ass that Saddam
> already has weapons of mass destruction..." 
> http://clue.denver.co.us/pipermail/clue-talk/2002-December/004643.html
> 
> Looks like you lose, Randy. 

Not yet.  I'll hold out for Mr. Kay's final report.

> And, it does look as if I were wrong about motives to an extent and I'll
> admit it: I said it was "about oil" when it looks like that may not have
> been the motive after all.
> 
> Another thing the Bush administration lied about was the ability of Iraq
> to pay for reconstruction with oil money:
> http://ogj.pennnet.com/articles/web_article_display.cfm?ARTICLE_CATEGORY=GenIn&ARTICLE_ID=189244
> http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/955afmqa.asp

Without reading those articles, I'll make this comment
regarding that issue.  Rather than call it a lie, I would
call it an overestimate on how long it would take to get
their infrastructure back into production mode.  I heard
this discussed on NPR a week or two ago.  The
administration's claim was that assuming Iraq could start
producing XXX bbls of oil/day on such-and-such a date, then
they would be able to use the proceeds from oil production
to pay for reconstruction.  As it turns out, the bbls/day
estimate was wrong because Iraq's oil producing
infrastructure turned out to be in much poorer condition
than anyone had believed.
-- 

Allons Rouler!

Randy
http://www.arabie.org/