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

[Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier]

On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 14:20, Randy Arabie wrote:
> 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?

I'll direct you to this article on Slate:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2089471/

"Though the report doesn't say so explicitly, these exchanges reveal
fairly conclusively that, in 2001-02, Iraq had no ongoing CW program.
Just about any country, starting from scratch, could produce mustard gas
or Sarin along this timetable, given access to the materials. Nor does
the report cite any indication that, after posing the question, Saddam
or Odai ordered production to commence."

Essentially, Bush tried to spin Kay's report to justify the war. 

*snip*

> > "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.

There's a hefty difference between WMD stockpiles, WMD facilities and a
person, Randy. If they really existed, I think we could have at least
found enough incontravertable evidence that no one would be questioning
the Bush administration at this point. Maybe not all, but some. We
haven't found diddly. 

> > 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.

And I suppose you think Cheney really did believe it. I'm not buying it.
At least you could admit that Rumsfeld lied when he claimed no one ever
said that Iraq had nuclear weapons. 

> > 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.

Our government did not present the full picture, Randy. As I said
previously, they cherry-picked reports to support the position that Iraq
had WMD or WMD programs and refused to acknowledge questions about the
validity of those reports or any conflicting views. That's deception,
pure and simple. 

> > 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.

We're also short all of the materials that were supposedy available to
produce those things.

> > 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.

And in 6 to 9 months, we'll find out that the investigation will take
another 6 months. Wanna bet on it? The administration promised that
Kay's report would justify this action -- it didn't. Now they're saying
he needs more time. 

How convenient that Kay gets all the time in the world when the U.N.
inspectors were denied any additional time by the Bush administration. 

> > 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.

Ah, but the Bush administration has. That's the point. 

Zonker
-- 
Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier
jzb at dissociatedpress.net
http://www.dissociatedpress.net
http://www.corante.com/openmind