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

[Randy Arabie]

On Monday, 13 October 2003 at 14:49:44 -0600, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier <jzb at dissociatedpress.net> wrote:
> 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. 

Why just read the report and make a judgement on your own?
I've read it, and there are enough facts there to make me
believe it's work reserving judgment until the FINAL report
comes out.

> *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. 

Are they REALLY that much different?  In what manner do you
mean.  

Mr. Kay's report makes my point -- According to the report,
"It is important to keep in mind that even the bulkiest
materials we are searching for, in the quantities we expect
to find, can be concealed in spaces not much larger than a
two car garage."

> 
> > > 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. 

Only Mr. Cheney knows.  I can't prove he DID believe it.
Likewise, I don't expect anyone to be able to prove he
DIDN'T.  Thus, I think it's a unreasonable to say it's a
lie.

> > > 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.

Are we?  The Kay report states that they have "discovered
dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant
amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United
Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002."

> > > 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. 

The UN had twelve years.  Why do you expect Mr. Kay's team
to get it done in 3-months.  If it takes a year, or even
two, that's much better than the unproductive twelve years
given the UN.
-- 

Allons Rouler!

Randy
http://www.arabie.org/