Did Rumsfeld Lie?

[thaiboxerken]

Rumsfeld claimed that he never said he knew where WMD's were.


http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t03302003_t0330sdabcsteph.html

Here is a transcript of the entire interview, for those that want to read it. Here is the relevant data:

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, weapons of mass destruction. Key goal of the military campaign is finding those weapons of mass destruction. None have been found yet. There was a raid on the Answar Al-Islam Camp up in the north last night. A lot of people expected to find ricin there. None was found. How big of a problem is that? And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven't found any weapons of mass destruction?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think -- let me take that, both pieces -- the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

[thaiboxerken]

http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/27808/The_Daily_Show_The_War_at_Home.html?autoplay=true

A humorous look.

[Grammatron]

We don't know that he lied with his original statement.


You could make a case about him lying now about making that statement, or at the very least seriously dodging the issue.

[Rob Lister]

More argument ad populum?

Given this demographic, you'll no doubt find they agree. Can any of those that do answer yes provide the evidence that you don't seem to be able to provide? I've read every post written in "that other thread" but not once did you back up your claims. You fabricated several claims, though I don't think you did it intentionally; you're just too, too biased to see the forest for the trees.

I wish you luck in this, and perhaps Clause will help by once again trying to change the subject to...well, to anything other than Rumsfeld.

[thaiboxerken]

The evidence was provided in the links I gave. People can read the entire transcript of the interview.

When the former CIA guy says "You said you knew where they were." Rumsfeld reply is an outright lie.

"I did not." Is the lie.


I do agree that the demograph of the forum will greatly affect the poll, since the forum is mostly made up of intelligent freethinkers.

[Rob Lister]

The evidence was provided in the links I gave. People can read the entire transcript of the interview.


Which paragraphs?

Paragraphs 2 and 3 or 4 and 5?

Clearly the transcript leaves a little to be desired in terms of accuracy. Many posters have pointed this out to you. Your solution seems to be to ignore the context altogether.

Address the clear context. You refused to do so after many, many, many attempts to get you to do so. Why?

[Ziggurat]

You could make a case about him lying now about making that statement, or at the very least seriously dodging the issue.

Actually, he tried in another thread and got thrashed rather badly in the attempt. Short summary: selective quotations and some poor phrasing make a non-story appear to be more than it really is. I will just note his dishonesty in cutting Rumsfeld's response short, despite the fact that I pointed out to him repeatedly that the counterargument comes from what Rumsfeld says after the point at which he cuts the quote short.

That's why he's started a new thread with this poll: he's hoping to reaffirm his delusions via a popularity contest, because hey, if everyone SAYS that's the way it happened, maybe the mass of collective delusions can warp space-time and turn belief into reality. Or more charitably, maybe he thought I'd leave him alone here, and that nobody would check out the other thread which demolishes his argument.

[thaiboxerken]

It's funny how you bushites think that Rummy is talking about something else when answering a question about WMD's. Oh well, whatever keeps your heros on a pedestal.

[Rob Lister]

It's funny how you bushites think that Rummy is talking about something else when answering a question about WMD's. Oh well, whatever keeps your heros on a pedestal.

It's even funnier when you revert to ad homs when asked for evidence.
Just address the points and questions raised about YOUR assertions and YOUR sources. That's all you have to do. No ad homs needed.

[thaiboxerken]

Wait, you don't like my source for the interview? Do you have a problem with the DoD's information?

[thaiboxerken]

Perhaps you'll prefer a transcript from the US Embassy instead.

http://www.usembassy.it/file2003_03/alia/A3032803.htm

[andyandy]

whenever challenged, rummy just drags the argument into semantics until everyone's forgotten what it was they were really talking about....:D


"I would not say that the future is necessarily less predictable than the past. I think the past was not predictable when it started"

"I believe what I said yesterday. I don't know what I said, but I know what I think, and, well, I assume it's what I said."


he's also a master of never commiting himself.....

"We do know of certain knowledge that he [Osama Bin Laden] is either in Afghanistan, or in some other country, or dead."

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." –on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction

but sometimes he can be quite honest.....

"If I know the answer I'll tell you the answer, and if I don't, I'll just respond, cleverly."


everyone knows rummy lies....he's just pretty damn good at it....:D

quotes from http://politicalhumor.about.com/cs/quotethis/a/rumsfeldquotes.htm

[Ziggurat]

Wait, you don't like my source for the interview? Do you have a problem with the DoD's information?

Actually, Thai, the DoD website was my source. I'm the one who originally found that transcript and posted it, not you. Rob is blasting your pathetic inability to defend your arguments in that previous thread, and I guess you're allowed to abandon those claims when starting another thread. But your deliberate decision to crop off what I already told you was a critical part of Rumsfeld's response is dishonest. But don't worry, I won't call you a lair for it, or your head might pop.

[Rob Lister]

Wait, you don't like my source for the interview? Do you have a problem with the DoD's information?

Do you reallly want to raise a strawman this early in the thread?

There is clearly, clearly a problem with the transcript. And you are clearly clearly using it to make x look like z.

That's okay...we know.

[Ryokan]

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

With a description like that, how can you be wrong? I'm sure there are some WMD's east, west, south or north of Tikrit and Baghdad, if you're willing to go far enough east, west, south or north :p

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, there is a problem with the transcript, it repeats two paragraphs of the interview. It doesn't change Rumsfeld's claim of knowing where the WMD's were.

[Rob Lister]

Problem is, he didn't claim that.

That's point you refuse to address. Why?

[thaiboxerken]

Yes he did, it's in my signature.

[Jocko]

Yes he did, it's in my signature.

Oh, well, then that settles it.

So I see you've tired of building strawmen... and moving the goalposts... and appealing to authority... now you're working on argumentum ad populam. Seriously, Ken, you're officially a texbook troll. If I looked closer, I'd bet you're laying out fallacies in alphabetical order, just to feel clever.

I'm just gonna sit back and watch your spiky little head explode, in between your posts to the Dragonball Z erotic fan fiction site, of course. :rolleyes:

[thaiboxerken]

It's nice to see that the majority of people in the forum can spot a lie when they see it. ;-)

[Tony]

Rumsfeld claimed that he never said he knew where WMD's were.


http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t03302003_t0330sdabcsteph.html

Here is a transcript of the entire interview, for those that want to read it. Here is the relevant data:

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, weapons of mass destruction. Key goal of the military campaign is finding those weapons of mass destruction. None have been found yet. There was a raid on the Answar Al-Islam Camp up in the north last night. A lot of people expected to find ricin there. None was found. How big of a problem is that? And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven't found any weapons of mass destruction?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think -- let me take that, both pieces -- the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

What else do you expect from the most propagandistic administration in US History? Facts are irrelevant, it's all about "staying on message" and this message is "Bush/intellijunt deesine/christians/amerika, good. Freedom/libruls/thinking for yourself, bad". It's amazing how many self described "skeptics" still swallow that excrement.

[Tricky]

Perhaps he didn't lie about knowing where they were. That's a little iffy. But he said they existed. Even with weasel words, he can't escape the recordings on file of him declaring that Iraq had WMDs. If he issued qualifiers, they were quiet and puny and so were inconsequential.

Of course, there is also the possibility that he believed they existed. A person can be mistaken without being a liar (something I have told to those trying to spring the religious trap of "liar, lunatic, lord" on me.)

But if he isn't a liar, then he is incompetent. Frankly, I'd prefer a liar.

[peptoabysmal]

You didn't include this from Rummy's response:

I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting.

It is clear that Rumsfield believes there is something there.

This site was suspected of producing ricin, something that Saddam and Bin Laden both had a deep affection for (and the KGB used).

This, to me, is a lot scarier than anything Rumsfeld has said:
As described in a lengthy report released Friday at the Pentagon, Iraqi documents captured by U.S. troops say the Russians collected information about U.S. troop movements and battle plans at the outset of the invasion by tapping sources inside the American military. And they say the intelligence was passed to Saddam.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11995121/


Russia tied to Iraq's missing arms (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm)

Is it possible that the most embarrassing thing for this administration is that the Russians made fools of us? It offers a better explanation of the missing WMD than any other I've heard. There is at least one definite case of missing WMD from Iraq, the known quantities of HMX and RDX has gone missing from al Qaqaa according to the UN. (Remember, Kerry made an issue of it in his campaign?) Do you believe the "explanation" that 300 tons of power was taken by looters?

Photos point to removal of weapons (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-115519-3700r.htm)

edited to add: technically HMX and RDX are MMD, but have little other use than in thermonuclear wepons.

[Art Vandelay]

It's funny how you bushites think that Rummy is talking about something else when answering a question about WMD's. Oh well, whatever keeps your heros on a pedestal.Rumsfeld was asked about the areas the coalition controlled not having WMD. He answered by implying that the areas where he expected to find WMDs were elsewhere, and saying that he knew WHERE THE AREAS WHERE HE EXPECTED TO FIND WMDs are. Apparently, a "bushite" is anyone who doesn't believe every single accusation, no matter how absurd. Do you believe that Hitler invented Tay Sachs disease? If not, I'm going to call you a Hitlerite.

The fact is, this just shows how stupid and/or dishonest the liberals are. Now that the war isn't going as well as hoped, they're all claiming that they were against it from the start. Then, when people ask why they voted for it, they have to come up with an excuse. They were lied to! They never would have voted for it if they had known the truth! Let's think about this for a minue. Let's say you're a liberal senator. Your president comes to you saying that you should vote to start a war. You are opposed to it, except that he says the country has WMDs. That's the ONLY REASON you would vote for it. Without that reason, you are VEHEMENTLY opposed to this war. Aren't you going to make absolutely sure that the president is on the record saying that he knows where the WMD are? If his Secretary of Defense says that he knows where "they" are, aren't you going to INSIST that he restate his claim WITHOUT pronouns, so that it's COMPLETELY CLEAR what he's claiming? Even if you think it's clear what he's saying, should you make ABSOLUTELY SURE?

These are LAWYERS we are talking about! Their entire livelihood is words. They deal with meaning and ambiguities for a living. And they can't even figure out that there's more than one way to interpret a pronoun? Puh-leeze. Either they are complete idiots, or they deliberately avoided getting a clear answer so that afterwards they could say "Gee whiz, we had no idea it could mean anything but this!"

[jj]

I wish you luck in this, and perhaps Clause will help by once again trying to change the subject to...well, to anything other than Rumsfeld.

Two points:
1) It is not "argumentum ad populum" to ask what the common understanding of the language somebody uses is.

2) I'll be a substitute (would that be sanity) Claus and change the subject now:

ROVE
discuss

[thaiboxerken]

Not only did the Bush administration say that the knew that Saddam has WMD's, they even described the weapons and the capabilities. Liberals aren't saying that they were opposed to the war all along. However, without the WMD claim and the implications that Saddam had ties with Al Queda and the 9/11 attacks, there would've never been support for the war from the left.

[thaiboxerken]

If his Secretary of Defense says that he knows where "they" are, aren't you going to INSIST that he restate his claim WITHOUT pronouns, so that it's COMPLETELY CLEAR what he's claiming?

I don't know why the interviewer didn't ask him to clear that up. It's pretty obvious that "they" refers to WMDs, since the sentence before he is talking about WMDs and the question he is answering is about where WMDs are.

The majority of people understand that he is claiming to know where the WMDs are, although he is giving an understandably vague location for them.

[headscratcher4]

It all depends on what the definition of "is" is.

[thaiboxerken]

Such semantic nonsense didn't work on conservatives when Clinton used them, yet... hmmm.

[Ziggurat]

The majority of people understand that he is claiming to know where the WMDs are, although he is giving an understandably vague location for them.

The majority of people have not read Rumsfeld's entire response (how do I know that? Because nobody ever quotes his whole response, including you). Why are we supposed to assume majority opinion is accurate in a case when the majority base their conclusions on incomplete data?

But you knew that. You knew you were posting incomplete data, because I already told you that cropping his response created a false impression, and rather than have the honesty to let people decide for themselves how to interpret his whole response, you continue with selective quoting. Why would that be? Why wouldn't you want other posters to see his whole response and judge for themselves? And you want to criticize someone else's honesty? You're pathetic.

So since you can't be bothered with even a little bit of intellectual honesty, here's the WHOLE question and response. I am removing paragraph breaks in Rumsfeld's response, because this was a spoken (not written) reply and I think they create a false impression. But I'm TELLING you that, so you can judge yourself. That's called being honest in a debate. Try it sometime.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, weapons of mass destruction. Key goal of the military campaign is finding those weapons of mass destruction. None have been found yet. There was a raid on the Answar Al-Islam Camp up in the north last night. A lot of people expected to find ricin there. None was found. How big of a problem is that? And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven't found any weapons of mass destruction?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think -- let me take that, both pieces -- the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. Second, the [audio glitch] facilities, there are dozens of them, it's a large geographic area. It is the -- Answar Al-Islam group has killed a lot of Kurds. They are tough. And our forces are currently in there with the Kurdish forces, cleaning the area out, tracking them down, killing them or capturing them and they will then begin the site exploitation. The idea, from your question, that you can attack that place and exploit it and find out what's there in fifteen minutes. I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting.

[audio glitch] is subsequently transcribed as "criminal".

Now, let me engage in a little highlighting of my own:

SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think -- let me take that, both pieces -- the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. Second, the [audio glitch] facilities, there are dozens of them, it's a large geographic area.

This statement can be read as the bolded sections all refering to the same thing: areas where WMD's were though to have been kept, not the WMD's themselves. Follow that up with Rumsfeld's explicit statement that the WMD's may have already been removed from those places, and there's absolutely no inconsistency between his initial statement and his recent response to McGovern. Ergo, no reason to conclude that Rumsfeld lied in his response to McGovern.

You were wrong before, you couldn't defend your claim, and starting a new thread isn't going to make you right.

[thaiboxerken]

THe majority opinion IN THIS POLL. No wonder you have problems seeing that Rummy claimed to know where WMDs were.

It's funny how you have to merge paragraphs to try to make it seem as if Rummy is talking about criminal facilities and not WMD's. Also, Rummy "knew" that the crimina facilities were were the WMD's were kept. It's the same thing as claiming knowledge of where the WMD's are.

Alas, no WMD's were found.. nor was there any evidence that they existed or were produced.

Strange, the justifications for Bush's war on Iraq haven't panned out. There were no ties to Al Queda and no WMD's.

[Jocko]

Strange, the justifications for Bush's war on Iraq haven't panned out. There were no ties to Al Queda and no WMD's.

You're only half right, Ken. Wanna guess which half?

[Ziggurat]

I don't know why the interviewer didn't ask him to clear that up. It's pretty obvious that "they" refers to WMDs, since the sentence before he is talking about WMDs and the question he is answering is about where WMDs are.

Time for another reading lesson. Stephanopoulos isn't asking where the WMD's are, he's asking why they haven't been found. And Rumsfeld's answer STARTS by talking about AREAS. The sentence you refer to is this one:

"It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed."

Let's do that little thing we call parsing. What's the subject of the sentence? "It". What does "It" refer to? It refers to something mentioned in the sentence before that, namely the area coalition forces control. So the subject is an area. What's the verb? "be", or more broadly "not to be". What's the object? "the area". The object of the sentence is modified by a conjunction "where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed". But the conjunction modifies "area", not the other way around. So it's inaccurate to say that the sentence is about WMD's. It is about areas, with WMD's serving only as a (past tense) modifier for one of those areas. You will get spanked repeatedly on parsing until you learn how to do it yourself.

Furthermore, the sentence immediately FOLLOWING what you claim is Rumsfeld's lie ("Second, the [audio glitch] facilities, there are dozens of them, it's a large geographic area.") Is EXCLUSIVELY about areas (or facilities, if you prefer), and makes no mention of WMD's at all. If you want to talk merely about proximity of the sentence in question to other words and terms, you still lose.

[Ziggurat]

It's funny how you have to merge paragraphs to try to make it seem as if Rummy is talking about criminal facilities and not WMD's.

I merge paragraphs that were created arbitrarily in the first bloody place, but TOLD you about it. You, on the other hand, actually CUT most of Rumsfeld's response completely without mentioning that sordid little detail. You really think you've got the upper hand? How stupid do you think I am? As stupid as you are?

Also, Rummy "knew" that the crimina facilities were were the WMD's were kept. It's the same thing as claiming knowledge of where the WMD's are.

Pop quiz time: what's the difference between "were" and "are"?

TENSE!

Rumsfeld claimed knowlege of where they had once been. He claimed no knowledge, and specifically stated he did NOT have any such knowledge (funny, but you cut that part, wonder why?), of where the alleged WMD's were at the time of the interview. Like I said, you're going to get schooled repeatedly until you improve your reading skills to at least tell the difference between past and future tenses. Jeeze, what the hell do they teach kids these days?

[thaiboxerken]

You're only half right, Ken. Wanna guess which half?

Both.

[thaiboxerken]

Pop quiz time: what's the difference between "were" and "are"?

TENSE!

Rumsfeld claimed knowlege of where they had once been

We know where they are. - Rummy

[Jocko]

Both.

Okay, let's add remedial math to remedial grammar and remedial logical thought. You're gonna have a very full summer school schedule, Ken.

Are you really saying that you believe there was no connection between AQ and Iraq? I just wanna make sure we're clear on this point.

[Jocko]

We know where they are. - Rummy

*Sigh*. You're talking about facilities again, Ken. Check the transcript, please.

[thaiboxerken]

Almost 70% of the people in the poll disagree. I think most of those polled speak and understand english.

[thaiboxerken]

Are you really saying that you believe there was no connection between AQ and Iraq?

Saddam and AQ, no.

[Jocko]

Almost 70% of the people in the poll disagree. I think most of those polled speak and understand english.

Half the people on the board don't speak English as a first language.

I'm beginning to suspect you are one of them.

[thaiboxerken]

Doesn't matter how many languages they speak, as long as they speak and understand english.

[CFLarsen]

Half the people on the board don't speak English as a first language.

I'm beginning to suspect you are one of them.
Are people who don't speak English as a first language second-rate?

[Jocko]

Are people who don't speak English as a first language second-rate?

No, simply qualifying Ken's rather bizarre criteria among the sample set. Apparently, Ken thinks facts and reasoned parsing of the statements in question is trumped by popularity. In other words, it seems Ken believes in voting on what is a fact and what is not.

[Ziggurat]

We know where they are. - Rummy

Wow! My whole point is that the "they" in that sentence refers to something else! You had no response to my argument, so you then jump to another sentence which DOES refer to WMD's. I point out that you got the verb tense on that sentence wrong, so you jump back to your original discredited and undefended claim, as if that's new. How clueless are you?

I don't care what your first language is. Your own grammar is fine, your spelling is fine (and I'm not one to complain on that point as long as it's legible), but somehow you're incapable of parsing language from anyone else. So I disagree with Jocko: I suspect that English is either your first language or at least a language you've spoken fluently for a long time. You're just an idiot who can't form a coherent argument to save your life.

[Grammatron]

Almost 70% of the people in the poll disagree. I think most of those polled speak and understand english.

Yeah...right.

[Grammatron]

But if he isn't a liar, then he is incompetent. Frankly, I'd prefer a liar.

Clinton can't run again...sorry had to say it :p

All those who view this administration as incompetent had a chance in 2004 and were not successful. The next chance is coming up in 2008 and this time Bush can't run again.

Frankly, if people focused more on invompetency rather than conspiracy and lies Bush would have been voted out.

[Ziggurat]

Almost 70% of the people in the poll disagree. I think most of those polled speak and understand english.

As of my writing this, 57 people answered the poll. I counted 13 people who actually posted anything in the thread, and a number of those just posted hit-and-run comments which don't address the substance of the issue. And NONE of those posters has refuted my claims - hell, even you don't really try, but just keep running in circles by jumping from claim to claim as each one is demolished in turn. Somehow, despite that huge majority you're laying claim to, only a few of them are even willing to enter the debate, and none have stepped forward to actually defend their poll answers after I posted Rumsfeld's whole response and demonstrated how you misrepresented and misinterpreted it. Your majority has been, in short, dumbstruck. Why you think it bolsters your case to hide behind others who won't even argue their beliefs is quite beyond me, but it's far from the first nonsensical thing you've done.

[Art Vandelay]

THe majority opinion IN THIS POLL.Is it too much to ask that you speak in complete sentences?

It's funny how you have to merge paragraphs to try to make it seem as if Rummy is talking about criminal facilities and not WMD's. How did he "merge paragraphs"?

Also, Rummy "knew" that the crimina facilities were were [sic] the WMD's were kept. It's the same thing as claiming knowledge of where the WMD's are. This is portion to which Ziggurat was responding when he pointed out that there is a difference betwween "were" an "are". You jumped, without absolutely no justification whatsoever, from "were" to "are". When called on it, you posted the dishonest response of "We know where they are. - Rummy". He said that we know where the areas where the WMD were are. "Were" applies to WMDs. "Are" applies to the areas.

Alas, no WMD's were found.. nor was there any evidence that they existed or were produced.Iraq never had WMD? Never ever?

There were no ties to Al Queda and no WMD's.The justification wasn't that there were WMDs. The justification was that Iraq was not complying with the inspection regime. But you just keep insisting that it is Rumsfeld who's the liar.

Almost 70% of the people in the poll disagree. I think most of those polled speak and understand english.16% think that it means "areas" not "WMD". Which means it is quite likely that Rumsfeld is in that category. It's irrelevant what you think it means; for Rumsfeld to be lying, he had to have believed that it meant "WMD".

[thaiboxerken]

In retrospect, Rummy claims that he meant areas, not WMD. At the time he said it, i'm sure he meant WMD. That's ok, I guess most people in the forum simply can't comprehend english, right?

[Ziggurat]

In retrospect, Rummy claims that he meant areas, not WMD. At the time he said it, i'm sure he meant WMD.

And yet, you can't provide an argument for why that's the only sensible interpretation. So how do you know? Time-traveling ESP? I though I was the only one who could do that.

That's ok, I guess most people in the forum simply can't comprehend english, right?

No, Taibo, just you. It's all just you. You've been abandoned by your majority.

[thaiboxerken]

And yet, you can't provide an argument for why that's the only sensible interpretation.

Bible apologists use your same tactic, when a contradiction is found, they explain it away as interpretation.


No, Taibo, just you. It's all just you. You've been abandoned by your majority.

The poll is still there. I haven't seen anyone recant their vote.

[Ziggurat]

The poll is still there. I haven't seen anyone recant their vote.

Why would they? It's anonymous, so nobody has to fess up to making a mistake to begin with. Votes can't actually be retracted, so the only recanting would be admitting making a mistake, and that's hard to do. You, for example, have yet to actually admit to any of your numerous mistakes on this topic (such as confusing verb tenses, or not recognizing duplicate paragraphs). You just pretend they never happened.

And besides, I bet a lot of the voters just moved on, and didn't bother following the subsequent thread. Nobody's under any actual obligation to do more.

[Upchurch]

Time for another reading lesson. Stephanopoulos isn't asking where the WMD's are, he's asking why they haven't been found.Incorrect. Let's review:

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, weapons of mass destruction. Key goal of the military campaign is finding those weapons of mass destruction. None have been found yet. There was a raid on the Answar Al-Islam Camp up in the north last night. A lot of people expected to find ricin there. None was found. How big of a problem is that? And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven't found any weapons of mass destruction?

He was not asking why they had not been found. He stated that they had not been found. Stephanopoulos's question was concerning the consequences of having not found any WMD's to date and whether or not Rumsfeld was concerned (i.e. "curious") that no WMD's had been found.

continuing:

SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all.

I take this to be referring to the last question. Namely, he is saying that it is not at all curious to him that despite the large control U.S. and coalition forces have/had in the country, they haven't found any WMD's.

If you think -- let me take that, both pieces -- the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed.

Rumsfeld is establishing what the area is that the coalition forces control. It is not curious to him that they have not found the WMD's (see previous statement), because he claims that the area controlled by coalition forces is not the same area where the WMD's are located (or "dispersed").

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

"they" in both the first and second sentence clearly refers to WMD's as it is redundant for him to state that coalition forces know where coalition forces are (or to refer to them in the third person since the US is part of the coalition forces) and it is nonsensical to state that one area is in another (eta: that is, "a different") area. The only other subject left are WMD's.

Second, the [audio glitch] facilities, there are dozens of them, it's a large geographic area.

"them" here now refers to the facilities.

It is the -- Answar Al-Islam group has killed a lot of Kurds. They are tough. And our forces are currently in there with the Kurdish forces, cleaning the area out, tracking them down, killing them or capturing them and they will then begin the site exploitation. The idea, from your question, that you can attack that place and exploit it and find out what's there in fifteen minutes.

This, again, I take as referring to the question of whether or not Rumsfeld is curious that they have not yet found any WMD's.

I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting.

Here we see the difficulties of the English language. In the first sentence, "things" can be inferred to mean the contents of the facility. In the second sentence, "them" refers to the "things".

Assuming that Rumsfeld is implying that the facilities had, at least at one time, contained WMD's (no other subjects such as coalition forces, areas, or facilities make any sense), he sets up an uncertainty. Either he is contradicting his earlier statement in this response that "we know where they are" or he is backing off from the specificity of that statement by making it more along the lines of "we know where they may have been." At best, he is back peddling. At worst, he is contradicting himself.

going back to your parsing:
"It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed."

Let's do that little thing we call parsing. What's the subject of the sentence? "It". What does "It" refer to? It refers to something mentioned in the sentence before that, namely the area coalition forces control.

Correct.

So the subject is an area. What's the verb? "be", or more broadly "not to be". What's the object? "the area". The object of the sentence is modified by a conjunction "where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed". But the conjunction modifies "area", not the other way around. So it's inaccurate to say that the sentence is about WMD's. It is about areas, with WMD's serving only as a (past tense) modifier for one of those areas. You will get spanked repeatedly on parsing until you learn how to do it yourself.

Also correct and utterly unrelated to whether or not Rumsfeld has said that he knows or knew where the WMD's were.

Furthermore, the sentence immediately FOLLOWING what you claim is Rumsfeld's lie ("Second, the [audio glitch] facilities, there are dozens of them, it's a large geographic area.") Is EXCLUSIVELY about areas (or facilities, if you prefer), and makes no mention of WMD's at all. If you want to talk merely about proximity of the sentence in question to other words and terms, you still lose.

Well, you skipped right over the pertinent part. Why didn't you parse the sentence that thaiboxerken stated was Rumsfeld's lie?


edited for spelling.

[Upchurch]

And NONE of those posters has refuted my claims -Perhaps they were just more clever than I was and saw that you jumped over the statement in question before they wrote a long winded exploration of the entire quote.

Your majority has been, in short, dumbstruck.Evidences? ;)

[andyandy]

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, weapons of mass destruction. Key goal of the military campaign is finding those weapons of mass destruction. None have been found yet. There was a raid on the Answar Al-Islam Camp up in the north last night. A lot of people expected to find ricin there. None was found. How big of a problem is that? And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven't found any weapons of mass destruction?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think -- let me take that, both pieces -- the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. Second, the [audio glitch] facilities, there are dozens of them, it's a large geographic area. It is the -- Answar Al-Islam group has killed a lot of Kurds. They are tough. And our forces are currently in there with the Kurdish forces, cleaning the area out, tracking them down, killing them or capturing them and they will then begin the site exploitation. The idea, from your question, that you can attack that place and exploit it and find out what's there in fifteen minutes. I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting.

I've read this a few times....and i can't see where there is scope for any serious debate....re-write it to depolitize it - like make it about the failure to find ice-cream vans in Manchester....give it to 100 english speakers and then ask them what the "they" refers to in the 5th line of the reply - they'd all say ice-cream vans - even the dumb ones :D

[Upchurch]

This statement can be read as the bolded sections all refering to the same thing: areas where WMD's were though to have been kept, not the WMD's themselves.Waitaminute. Your argument is that Rumsfeld was saying that he knew where the area where the WMD's were, not where the WMD's were? (and I don't seem to remember that "thought to have been kept" line in his reply)

What is the difference?

That's like saying: I know where the room is that has that box in it, but I don't know where the box is.

(I'm not trying to pick on you Zig, but you're the only one I've come across in this thread that has attempted to support Rumsfeld's statement saying what you guys are saying he said. ....I may need help parsing that sentence, if you have the time. :boggled: )

[Ziggurat]

Incorrect. Let's review:
...
He was not asking why they had not been found. He stated that they had not been found. Stephanopoulos's question was concerning the consequences of having not found any WMD's to date and whether or not Rumsfeld was concerned (i.e. "curious") that no WMD's had been found.

Correction accepted. The essential point I wanted to make was that Stephanopoulos wasn't asking where the WMD's were, as Thai claimed, and your correction confirms this.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all.

I take this to be referring to the last question. Namely, he is saying that it is not at all curious to him that despite the large control U.S. and coalition forces have/had in the country, they haven't found any WMD's.

Agreed.

If you think -- let me take that, both pieces -- the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed.

Rumsfeld is establishing what the area is that the coalition forces control.

Agreed.

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

"they" in both the first and second sentence clearly refers to WMD's as it is redundant for him to state that coalition forces know where coalition forces are (or to refer to them in the third person since the US is part of the coalition forces) and it is nonsensical to state that one area is in another area. The only other subject left are WMD's.

Wrong. One area can indeed be in another area, and quite obviously so. California is in America. Orange County is in California. Areas can be in other areas. So the only subject left is NOT WMD's.

People are also often ambiguous when they talk. Is it possible he meant WMD's and not areas or facilities? Sure. It's also possible he did mean areas or facilities. Since it's possible he meant something that he claimed he later meant, it's really hard to assert that he lied. If he meant what he now says he meant, then this is not an eloquent phrasing, because it's ambiguous and awkward where it should be clear and concise. But that kind of thing happens when you're talking.

I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting.

Here we see the difficulties of the English language. In the first sentence, "things" can be inferred to mean the contents of the facility. In the second sentence, "them" refers to the "things".

Assuming that Rumsfeld is implying that the facilities had, at least at one time, contained WMD's (no other subjects such as coalition forces, areas, or facilities make any sense), he sets up an uncertainty.

Sure.

Either he is contradicting his earlier statement in this response that "we know where they are" or he is backing off from the specificity of that statement by making it more along the lines of "we know where they may have been." At best, he is back peddling. At worst, he is contradicting himself.


Or he meant something different by "they" to begin with, in which there's no contradiction OR backpedalling.

Well, you skipped right over the pertinent part. Why didn't you parse the sentence that thaiboxerken stated was Rumsfeld's lie?

Because I've already done so, in both this thread and a previous thread (Refer to my post on the previous page where I bolded Rumsfeld's statement to parse it the way I think he meant it). Thai already knows this, and has refused to do what you have done for him: offer an actual argument rather than just endless repetition of the ccusation.

[Upchurch]

Wow! My whole point is that the "they" in that sentence refers to something else! You had no response to my argument, so you then jump to another sentence which DOES refer to WMD's. I point out that you got the verb tense on that sentence wrong, so you jump back to your original discredited and undefended claim, as if that's new. How clueless are you?To be fair, what thaiboxerken quoted does match with the two transcripts provided in this thread so far. Do you have a version that uses the word "were"?

[Ziggurat]

Waitaminute. Your argument is that Rumsfeld was saying that he knew where the area where the WMD's were, not where the WMD's were? (and I don't seem to remember that "thought to have been kept" line in his reply)

What is the difference?

I'm saying Rumsfeld claimed that he knew where the weapons had once been, but that they might not be there anymore. Part of the confusion comes from abiguity of tense: present tense for Rumsfeld when he gave the interview is past tense for us now. So if one uses the past tense now, it's not always obvious if that means past tense or present tense with respect to when the interview occured. If there were multiple past tenses of "were" which contained information about relative temporality, that might make it easier, but we'll have to make do with what English provides.

(I'm not trying to pick on you Zig, but you're the only one I've come across in this thread that has attempted to support Rumsfeld's statement saying what you guys are saying he said. ....I may need help parsing that sentence, if you have the time. :boggled: )

Sorry, can't help you with that last jumble :D

[specious_reasons]

I've read this a few times....and i can't see where there is scope for any serious debate....re-write it to depolitize it - like make it about the failure to find ice-cream vans in Manchester....give it to 100 english speakers and then ask them what the "they" refers to in the 5th line of the reply - they'd all say ice-cream vans - even the dumb ones :D
How about this:

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, ice cream. Key goal of Scout Troop #42 is finding some ice cream. None have been found yet. There was a raid on the Baskin Robbins up in the north last night. A lot of people expected to find chocolate there. None was found. How big of a problem is that? And is it curious to you that given how many Boy Scouts now have in Manchester, they haven't found any ice cream?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think -- let me take that, both pieces -- the area in the south and the west and the north that the Boy Scouts frequent is substantial. It happens not to be the area where the ice cream was dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Manchester and east, west, south and north somewhat. Second, the [audio glitch] facilities, there are dozens of them, it's a large geographic area. It is the -- Girl Scouts are scaring the boys. They are tough. And the Boy Scouts are currently in there with theCub Scouts, cleaning the area out, tracking them down, giving them cooties and they will then begin the site exploitation. The idea, from your question, that you can attack that place and exploit it and find out what's there in fifteen minutes. I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of ice cream trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting.

[Ziggurat]

To be fair, what thaiboxerken quoted does match with the two transcripts provided in this thread so far. Do you have a version that uses the word "were"?

You misunderstand (though if you haven't been following closely, I admit I was ambiguous in some of my references). "Were" was used in a different sentence. Thai misinterpreted the meaning of that sentence, and I was correcting his interpretation of that sentence based on the verb tense. He tried to support his contention by noting that present tense was used in the sentence you mention. That argument would work if his interpretation of the subject of that sentence were unambiguously correct, but since that is the whole point of contention, that claim doesn't actually advance his argument any, and he should have known that. I am not contending that he actually misquoted.

[Upchurch]

Wrong. One area can indeed be in another area, and quite obviously so. California is in America. Orange County is in California. Areas can be in other areas.
:o Yes. I spotted that on re-read. I clarified my statement.

So the only subject left is NOT WMD's.Woops. How has WMD's been excluded? And are you saying that the area controlled by coalition forces are within the area describes in "They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

People are also often ambiguous when they talk. Is it possible he meant WMD's and not areas or facilities? Sure. It's also possible he did mean areas or facilities.He had not yet mentioned "facilities". Given that he introduced "facilities" as his second point and had not mentioned them at all until that point, it is difficult to believe or even show that he was referring to facilities.

As for the possibilities of "areas", I'll admit that I am not familiar enough with Iraqi geography nor with where the coalition forces were at that particular time to know whether or not they overlap with the area he described. If he is referring to an area, I find it odd that he refers to "areas" as a "they" and that he feels to point out that the coalition forces know where these areas are.

It would be equivalent to me saying that I am in the midwestern states of the US and I know where the midwestern states of the US are. Why bother pointing out that I know where a location is if I have already admitted to knowing that I am in that location?

If he is referring to an area, it is an extremely clumsy and pointless turn of phrase.

Since it's possible he meant something that he claimed he later meant, it's really hard to assert that he lied. If he meant what he now says he meant, then this is not an eloquent phrasing, because it's ambiguous and awkward where it should be clear and concise. But that kind of thing happens when you're talking.Another possibility is that he did some serious backpeddling, like I mentioned. Or, he simply contradicted himself, which also happens quite often when you talking off the top of your head.

Or he meant something different by "they" to begin with, in which there's no contradiction OR backpedalling.I disagree that he did mean a "they" different from WMD's because that is a rather large stretch, imho, and not terribly consistent with the immediate context of the sentence. He was either inconsistent with the immediate context, or he was inconsistent with what he said later on.

Because I've already done so, in both this thread and a previous thread (Refer to my post on the previous page where I bolded Rumsfeld's statement to parse it the way I think he meant it). Thai already knows this, and has refused to do what you have done for him: offer an actual argument rather than just endless repetition of the ccusation.Yeah, I'm not going back through pages and pages of another thread.

As for your parsing on the previous page, how do you reconcile the fact that "the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed" is singular and "they" is plural? Where as "weapons of mass distruction" is plural and, thus, matches the "they"?

After all, the question remains: "is our children learning"?

[Upchurch]

"Were" was used in a different sentence.Ah. What sentence?

[Upchurch]

I'm saying Rumsfeld claimed that he knew where the weapons had once been, but that they might not be there anymore.
I agree that he said that, but not until two paragraphs later. He originally used present tense.

Part of the confusion comes from abiguity of tense: present tense for Rumsfeld when he gave the interview is past tense for us now. So if one uses the past tense now, it's not always obvious if that means past tense or present tense with respect to when the interview occured. If there were multiple past tenses of "were" which contained information about relative temporality, that might make it easier, but we'll have to make do with what English provides.So don't view it from a current point of view. I'm flexible enough to read it from the perspective of someone hearing it at the time it was said and, in fact, have done so. This ambiguity does not really apply.

Sorry, can't help you with that last jumble :Dphttt. and you call yourself a parser. :rolleyes:

(or rather, I will infer such from your use of the "with" in the above quote. :D )

[BryanLower]

I disagree that he did mean a "they" different from WMD's because that is a rather large stretch, imho, and not terribly consistent with the immediate context of the sentence. He was either inconsistent with the immediate context, or he was inconsistent with what he said later on.

I've beeen waaaaay too busy today to follow this or any other thread. I'll just say "yeah, me too" to this post.

I will only add that if it takes this much stretching to make the "they" something other than WMD, then Occam's Razor should shave those other possibilities off. I've re-read the transcript over and over, and it still doesn't make sense that he's talking about anything but WMD.

[Ziggurat]

Woops. How has WMD's been excluded?

Bad phrasing on my part. I meant WMD's aren't the only subject left, that there is more than one subject to choose from.

He had not yet mentioned "facilities". Given that he introduced "facilities" as his second point and had not mentioned them at all until that point, it is difficult to believe or even show that he was referring to facilities.

It's difficult to prove (pronouns really can be ambiguous), but why is it difficult to believe that as a possibility? It's a spoken statement. We sometimes get ahead of ourselves. That would be harder to argue if this were written, but it isn't. And the actually, the phrasing ("Secondly, the criminal facilities, there are dozens of them..." rather than the more natural "Secondly, there are dozens of criminal facilities") suggests to me that he might actually be trying to backtrack to define what he meant by "they", but continues to talk of facilities in terms of "they" and "them" pronouns.

As for your parsing on the previous page, how do you reconcile the fact that "the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed" is singular and "they" is plural? Where as "weapons of mass distruction" is plural and, thus, matches the "they"?

Awkwardness. Nobody corrects your grammar in realtime.

And I'll give you an example of how you can screw up while talking in an even more dramatic case. Cheney was giving an interview where he said "... we believe he [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Sounds like a pretty dramatic and false claim. But it really wasn't very remarkable at all, and didn't evoke ANY further questioning. Why? Because it was clear in context that he meant that saddam had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program, not actual nuclear weapons. In fact, the latter is a logical impossibility, because EVERYONE agrees that Saddam never had working nuclear weapons, only a program, and you can't reconstitute what you never had. Cheney slipped up, but it was clear it was a slip-up of speach, and that's why it didn't get a follow-up question at the time. He probably didn't notice his screwup, the interviewer understood him, and they both kept going, but the misinterpretation is there. Is the awkwardness and ambiguity I'm attributing to Rumsfeld really a bigger slip of speech than that? Is it really worse than anyone else you've ever seen quoted?

[Ziggurat]

Ah. What sentence?

Thai had claimed:
Also, Rummy "knew" that the crimina facilities were were the WMD's were kept. It's the same thing as claiming knowledge of where the WMD's are.

So actually, "were" comes from Thai's own use (I misremembered - that little trackback arrow in quotes comes in handy for this sort of thing). Rumsfeld never directly states in this response that the WMD's were at the "criminal facilities", but we pretty much all agree that he implies that the WMD's were there at some point in the past. But Thai is the only one who thought that claims of knowledge of past location are synonymous with claims of knowledge of present location.

[thaiboxerken]

Wait, now you're using MY words to show that Rumsfeld didn't lie? What the hell is that?

[Art Vandelay]

I will only add that if it takes this much stretching to make the "they" something other than WMD, then Occam's Razor should shave those other possibilities off. The point, though, is that we are not trying to figure out what the most likely interpretation of the statement is. The issue is whether there is no interpretation that doesn't make Rumsfeld a liar.

I've read this a few times....and i can't see where there is scope for any serious debate....re-write it to depolitize it - like make it about the failure to find ice-cream vans in Manchester....give it to 100 english speakers and then ask them what the "they" refers to in the 5th line of the reply - they'd all say ice-cream vans - even the dumb ones :DYou should be careful about referring to specific lines. Remember that the number of lines that something takes up can vary wildly depending on computer setting.

Waitaminute. Your argument is that Rumsfeld was saying that he knew where the area where the WMD's were, not where the WMD's were? (and I don't seem to remember that "thought to have been kept" line in his reply)

What is the difference?

That's like saying: I know where the room is that has that box in it, but I don't know where the box is. A better analogy would be "I know where the room that had the box is, but I don't know where the box is".

Woops. How has WMD's been excluded?I don't think that he said they have been. He said "So the only subject left is NOT WMD's." In other words "It is not the case that WMD are the only subject left", not "WMD are not a subject that is left".

It would be equivalent to me saying that I am in the midwestern states of the US and I know where the midwestern states of the US are. No, he's saying that they aren't in the areas in question. Furthermore, just because you are in an area does not mean that you know all properties of that area. For instance, one could have been in the area that
in which Saddam was hiding, without knowing where the area in which Saddam was hiding was.

As for your parsing on the previous page, how do you reconcile the fact that "the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed" is singular and "they" is plural? It's quite possibly him simply misspeaking. Like how you said "where as" instead of "whereas" and "were" instead of "where", or how Ziggurat said "though" instead of "thought". These things happen.

I agree that he said that, but not until two paragraphs later. He originally used present tense.No, he said "It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed." "Were" is past tense.

If there were multiple past tenses of "were" which contained information about relative temporality, that might make it easier, but we'll have to make do with what English provides.Actually, there is; it's called "perfect", it is accomplished through the helping verb "have", and you used that tense (apparently, without even realizing it).

This statement can be read as the bolded sections all refering to the same thing: areas where WMD's were though[t] to have been kept, not the WMD's themselves.
"To have been kept" is present perfect. It being the object of the past tense of "think" establishes it as referring to the past. If instead of saying "to have been kept", you had said "to be kept", Upchurch's confusion would be more understandable. "Have been kept" is present perfect: relative to this time, them being kept lies in the past. "Had been kept" is past perfect: relative to some past time, then being kept lies in the past. "Will have been kept" is future perfect: relative to some future time, them being kept lies in the past.

[Upchurch]

It's difficult to prove (pronouns really can be ambiguous), but why is it difficult to believe that as a possibility? It's a spoken statement. We sometimes get ahead of ourselves. That would be harder to argue if this were written, but it isn't. And the actually, the phrasing ("Secondly, the criminal facilities, there are dozens of them..." rather than the more natural "Secondly, there are dozens of criminal facilities") suggests to me that he might actually be trying to backtrack to define what he meant by "they", but continues to talk of facilities in terms of "they" and "them" pronouns.

Before we get too much more into this (and because I'm running out of time). Do you still believe that the the people who read Rumsfeld's statement the same way that I do (currently 40:9) are dumbstruck or can you at least see how we reached have reached the conclusion that we have?

For my part, I at least understand how you can interpret it the way you do. I don't agree, but I understand. Like BryanLower, I think your explanation of Rumsfeld's statement is the more unnecessarily complex of the two presented. Your explanation requires that he was ambiguous and made a grammar mistake. Mine (the most charitable version) only requires that he was ambiguous.

Language, by its very nature, is imprecise, contextual, and open to interpretation. Going into this level of analysis and allowing that people can make mistakes, it is conceivable that you could change the meaning of any statement to mean nearly anything but what the person actually meant.

and now I'm out of time. *sigh*

[Ziggurat]

Wait, now you're using MY words to show that Rumsfeld didn't lie? What the hell is that?

No, Thai. I'm using your words to show that you're an idiot. Try to keep up, will you?

[andyandy]

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, ice cream vans. Key goal of Scout Troop #42 is finding some ice cream vans. None have been found yet. There was a raid on the Baskin Robbins supply depot up in the north last night. A lot of people expected to find chocolate there. None was found. How big of a problem is that? And is it curious to you that given how many Boy Scouts now have in Manchester, they haven't found any ice cream vans?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think -- let me take that, both pieces -- the area in the south and the west and the north that the Boy Scouts frequent is substantial. It happens not to be the area where the ice cream vans were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Manchester and east, west, south and north somewhat. Second, the [audio glitch] facilities, there are dozens of them, it's a large geographic area. It is the -- Girl Scouts are scaring the boys. They are tough. And the Boy Scouts are currently in there with theCub Scouts, cleaning the area out, tracking them down, giving them cooties and they will then begin the site exploitation. The idea, from your question, that you can attack that place and exploit it and find out what's there in fifteen minutes. I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of extra large freight trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting.

lol :D - very good....i think it needs to be ice cream vans though - otherwise the ice cream would take an "it" rather than a "they" - and so the above example would imply that "they" meant "boy scouts"......sorry to be a pedant :) ......now all we need is to give it to 100 english speakers and get the results :) :)

[Upchurch]

Dang it! Okay, one more quick one.
No, he said "It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed." "Were" is past tense.Wrong sentence. The one under question is "We know where they are" and specifically what "they" is referring to. "Are" is present tense.

[specious_reasons]

lol :D - very good....i think it needs to be ice cream vans though - otherwise the ice cream would take an "it" rather than a "they" - and so the above example would imply that "they" meant "boy scouts"......sorry to be a pedant :) ......now all we need is to give it to 100 english speakers and get the results :) :)

I should have put a "[sic]" in there. I thought it quite proves the point that the one sentence makes less sense when plural "WMDs" is replaced with singular "ice-cream".

[Ziggurat]

Before we get too much more into this (and because I'm running out of time). Do you still believe that the the people who read Rumsfeld's statement the same way that I do (currently 40:9) are dumbstruck or can you at least see how we reached have reached the conclusion that we have?

If you cut the quote short, as is usually done, then your interpretation is actually the most sensible one. If you DON'T cut the quote short, which is the only fair way to assess his statements, it becomes ambiguous, and your reading is still a plausible one. But Rumsfeld himself has already stated which interpretation he claims is correct, and given that there is ambiguity, I don't think there's a basis upon which to call him a liar.

But I would note that pretty much whenever the claim is made that he lied about this, his response is cut short. There are a whole lot of people who simply aren't interested in actually finding out what he really meant, but just want to pin an accusation on him.

BTW, I think this may have been a little essoteric (I knew it would go over Thai's head but I hoped someone else would pick it up), but "dumb" has a meaning other than "stupid", and it's actually that other sense of the word which I intended and which, I think, makes the most sense in context. And your response obviously shows that you are not dumbstruck.

[thaiboxerken]

There are alot of people that will simply believe Rummy when he says "I didn't lie" when he did.

[Tricky]

Ziggy Ziggy Ziggy, you are invoking every possible odd interpretation of Rummy's words and completely (intentionally?) ignoring the ones that are the most easily parsed. Yes, you could be right about what Rummy meant if you contort yourself to have your lips speaking out of your hat, your eyballs tunneled down some tube, and your fingers crossed behind your back. (Please, don't hurt yourself.)

No telling where your head will wind up. ;)

[BPSCG]

Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain

[Elind]

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

I'm not a fan of Rummy, but this post, and poll, is a good example of spin that has the desired result.

70% of Skeptic respondent say that he "clearly" knew where the WMDs were. Yet Rummy said they were "somewhat" ("somewhere"?) in Iraq.

Good to know that at least 10% of the people here know how to distinguish fact from somewhat.

[Rob Lister]

Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain

Ah, argument ad populum settles everything but the facts.

In politics, facts are not that important...unless there're on your side.

[Upchurch]

If you cut the quote short, as is usually done, then your interpretation is actually the most sensible one. If you DON'T cut the quote short, which is the only fair way to assess his statements, it becomes ambiguous, and your reading is still a plausible one. But Rumsfeld himself has already stated which interpretation he claims is correct, and given that there is ambiguity, I don't think there's a basis upon which to call him a liar.And backpeddling? Does that not also fit all the facts and not require grammatical gymnastics to justify?

But I would note that pretty much whenever the claim is made that he lied about this, his response is cut short. There are a whole lot of people who simply aren't interested in actually finding out what he really meant, but just want to pin an accusation on him.Alternately, there are those who will bend over backwards and twist words and meanings to keep from admitting that the man made a simple mistake, both in his initial statement and in claiming that he did not say it in the first place.

It cuts both ways.

[thaiboxerken]

It is kind of odd that right-wing apologists will try to convince people that Rummy didn't lie. It's not like it is a big lie anyway. It's not one of the lies that ended up with thousands of people dead. If they admitted that he was caught in a lie, there'd be no "controversy" over it. In fact, there really isn't a controversy over it anyway, since most people think he lied and don't care. It was good for a few laughs, that's about it.

[a_unique_person]

It was a good excuse to hurl some invective around.

[Upchurch]

If you cut the quote short, as is usually done, then your interpretation is actually the most sensible one. If you DON'T cut the quote short, which is the only fair way to assess his statements, it becomes ambiguous, and your reading is still a plausible one. But Rumsfeld himself has already stated which interpretation he claims is correct, and given that there is ambiguity, I don't think there's a basis upon which to call him a liar.

But I would note that pretty much whenever the claim is made that he lied about this, his response is cut short. There are a whole lot of people who simply aren't interested in actually finding out what he really meant, but just want to pin an accusation on him.
So, you don't see how reasonable people could think differently than you do, even knowing the full quote?

[Elind]

So, you don't see how reasonable people could think differently than you do, even knowing the full quote?

But you are implying that reasonable people are including information (quotes?) not listed in this thread. In other words, this quote, this poll, this discussion is really irrelevant because some people know that Rummy is always lying. End of discussion.

[Upchurch]

But you are implying that reasonable people are including information (quotes?) not listed in this thread. In other words, this quote, this poll, this discussion is really irrelevant because some people know that Rummy is always lying. End of discussion.
Sorry, I was speaking specifically about the line "We know where they are", where "they" refers to either "weapons of mass destruction" or "the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed". Using only the quotes provided in this thread, specifically the one from Rumsfeld in which the above appeared, it takes the fewest number of assumptions to come to the conclusion that he, at very least, meant "weapons of mass destruction" and then back peddled from the absoluteness of that statement later.

I am not referencing or implicating any other quotes before or after the quote itself, with the one exception of question that prompted the quote. You would be wise to take your own (albeit, implied) advice.

[Ziggurat]

So, you don't see how reasonable people could think differently than you do, even knowing the full quote?

No, Upchurch. That's pretty much exactly what I DIDN'T say. If I didn't think reasonable people could see it differently, I wouldn't have called your interpretation plausible.

[Upchurch]

No, Upchurch. That's pretty much exactly what I DIDN'T say. If I didn't think reasonable people could see it differently, I wouldn't have called your interpretation plausible.
I just wanted to be sure given all the "quote cut short" stuff.

What do you think of the Occam's Razor argument?

[thaiboxerken]

No, Upchurch. That's pretty much exactly what I DIDN'T say. If I didn't think reasonable people could see it differently, I wouldn't have called your interpretation plausible.

Unless it's ME that came up with the same conclusion, then it's not plausible. Strange.

[Ziggurat]

What do you think of the Occam's Razor argument?

I think if someone tells you they meant something a particular way, and they could have meant it that way, then that's usually how we should then interpret it. I'll leave you to decide how Occam's Razor meshes (or doesn't) with that principle.

[thaiboxerken]

I think if someone tells you they meant something a particular way, and they could have meant it that way, then that's usually how we should then interpret it. I'll leave you to decide how Occam's Razor meshes (or doesn't) with that principle.

Unless they are politicians.

[Ziggurat]

Unless it's ME that came up with the same conclusion, then it's not plausible. Strange.

It was never the implausibility of your conclusion I objected to, it was your inability to actually address arguments in anything resembling a logical or coherent fashion (not to mention your problems with verb tense, recognizing duplicate paragraphs, and basic dishonesty regarding selective quoting). Upchurch has been able to defend his position, you have not. That's the difference, and it's quite simple. But then, even the simplest concepts seem to give you problems.

[Jocko]

Unless it's ME that came up with the same conclusion, then it's not plausible. Strange.

That's because you've demonstrated that you're an unreasoning, rabid Bush-hating android on this issue. Now, you could learn from Upchurch or keep wondering how "strange" it is that people don't take you seriously. I've already placed my bet, so don't dissapoint me, Ken! ;)

[Upchurch]

I think if someone tells you they meant something a particular way, and they could have meant it that way, then that's usually how we should then interpret it. I'll leave you to decide how Occam's Razor meshes (or doesn't) with that principle.
As much as I'm not defending thaiboxerken (I don't know why he thinks the way he does) and allowing that it is a cliche, I have to agree with him on his "Unless they are politicians" line. With only one notable exception, politicians who are not good public speakers and are not good at thinking on their feet tend to not go very far in politics. It's like a painter who is clumsy with his brush.

I find it much more likely that Rumsfeld would overstate his position and then back off from it then he would make such a simple grammatical error. Especially since the administration had been pushing the idea that Iraq had WMD's so hard and so long at that point.

[Jocko]

As much as I'm not defending thaiboxerken (I don't know why he thinks the way he does) and allowing that it is a cliche, I have to agree with him on his "Unless they are politicians" line. With only one notable exception, politicians who are not good public speakers and are not good at thinking on their feet tend to not go very far in politics. It's like a painter who is clumsy with his brush.

I find it much more likely that Rumsfeld would overstate his position and then back off from it then he would make such a simple grammatical error. Especially since the administration had been pushing the idea that Iraq had WMD's so hard and so long at that point.

But is it reasonable to conflate artlessness with deceit? For Ken to have anything even resembling a point, Rumsfeld would have to have known there were no WMD sites (and by extension, no WMDs) and with that conviction, knowingly claimed the contrary. Artlessness is one thing; but that is just plain suicide.

On Planet Ken, there is no such thing as being wrong. Just lying. I object to his binary view of a much more complicated scenario.

Since Occam's is on the table, BTW, is it a simpler explantion that the Bush Administration was wrong, or conspired to decieve? The intelligence behind the claims has been made largely public; does one have to "lie" to draw conclusions from bad intel?

[Upchurch]

But is it reasonable to conflate artlessness with deceit? For Ken to have anything even resembling a point, Rumsfeld would have to have known there were no WMD sites (and by extension, no WMDs) and with that conviction, knowingly claimed the contrary. Artlessness is one thing; but that is just plain suicide.I'm not even going that far anymore. At this point I'm only interested in the most likely meaning of the word "they" in "We know where they are" and whether or not it is reasonable to assert that Rumsfeld said that he knew where Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were.

On Planet Ken, there is no such thing as being wrong. Just lying. I object to his binary view of a much more complicated scenario. I've nothing to say about that, per se. I've long asserted that being anti-woo is not equivalent to being skeptical or critical thinking. Here, agreeing with my position does not mean necessarily mean that I think you are correct. The journey is just as important as the destination and being lost in the woods for 5 hours before stumbling onto the place you want to be is not what I would call a great accomplishment.

Since Occam's is on the table, BTW, is it a simpler explantion that the Bush Administration was wrong, or conspired to decieve?Generally speaking, conspiracies are always more complex than being wrong. However, in this case there is no conspiracy proposed, at least not from me.

In my opinion, based on the reasons given, Rumsfeld did say that coalition forces knew where Iraq's weapons of mass distruction were at that time. That may not be what he meant and he definitely hedged away from that position later on in the interview, but I think it is valid to say that the assertion was there.

The intelligence behind the claims has been made largely public; does one have to "lie" to draw conclusions from bad intel?Well, this gets into a different aspect of the argument. Namely, whether or not a lie is an all or nothing deal. No, drawing conclusions from bad data is not lying. Cherrying picking the data for items that support the conclusion that you want to reach ....I would at least call that "less than honest", even if it were unintentional and less than honest with oneself.

This is probably a different discussion for a different thread.

[Jocko]

Well, this gets into a different aspect of the argument. Namely, whether or not a lie is an all or nothing deal. No, drawing conclusions from bad data is not lying. Cherrying picking the data for items that support the conclusion that you want to reach ....I would at least call that "less than honest", even if it were unintentional and less than honest with oneself.

I largely agree with your conclusions. Though in regard to whose thread this is, I would extend cherry-picked data and flawed conclusions to apply to Ken just as much as I would apply them to Rumsfeld. ;)

[thaiboxerken]

On planet Jocko, if a person in the Bush administration says that they didn't lie, then they didn't and he'll jump through grammatical hoops, stretch meanings and outright fabricate new definitions to justify to himself that such a lie wasn't a lie.

[Jocko]

On planet Jocko, if a person in the Bush administration says that they didn't lie, then they didn't and he'll jump through grammatical hoops, stretch meanings and outright fabricate new definitions to justify to himself that such a lie wasn't a lie.

Ken, Ken, Ken... you've missed so much in your own thread. You may not believe it, but the answers you seek are all there if you can be bothered to actually read them.

Also, I'm highly disappointed that you were unable to construct an original slam any more cogently than you can construct an original thought. Ah well, I imagine you're a constant victim of overexpectations of others. Give Pikachu a hug for me, tough guy. ;)

[thaiboxerken]

You remind me of Tai Chi, Jocko. You think you're so clever, but you're not.

[Jocko]

You think you're so clever...

Only compared to some, Ken. Only compared to some.

[thaiboxerken]

For Ken to have anything even resembling a point, Rumsfeld would have to have known there were no WMD sites (and by extension, no WMDs) and with that conviction, knowingly claimed the contrary.

Wrong. The lie is where Rummy claims that he never claimed he knew.

[Jocko]

Wrong. The lie is where Rummy claims that he never claimed he knew.

You know, in any race, there are two people who cross the finish line all by themselves. The first guy, and the last guy.

When you find yourself all alone at the finish line, it's very important that you know which one you are.

[thaiboxerken]

I seem to be at the finish line with 44 other people, as of now.

[Tricky]

You know, in any race, there are two people who cross the finish line all by themselves. The first guy, and the last guy.

When you find yourself all alone at the finish line, it's very important that you know which one you are.
That is one of the worst analogies I've ever heard. Many races are competitive at the start and/or at the finish. In almost every race there are people in the middle cross the line by themselves.

Plus, there is nothing that clearly connects it to the discussion.

[Jocko]

I seem to be at the finish line with 44 other people, as of now.


Funny, haven't heard much from any of them. Obviously too winded, yeah?

[Jocko]

That is one of the worst analogies I've ever heard. Many races are competitive at the start and/or at the finish. In almost every race there are people in the middle cross the line by themselves.

Plus, there is nothing that clearly connects it to the discussion.

Yeah, I know. That's why I didn't charge anything for it. Still, Ken likes it and that's all that matters.

[thaiboxerken]

You sure about that? Are you telling a lie or just mistaken?

[Tricky]

Yeah, I know. That's why I didn't charge anything for it. Still, Ken likes it and that's all that matters.
LOL. Good thing. Are you sure you want to be a greeting card epigrammist?

Let's take a step back here.

The remarks were made three years ago. Had Rumsfeld felt that he was being misunderstood about there "definitely" being WMDs, why didn't he say something at the time? Why is it so much later that he is trying to backpedal? He sounds like some failed prophet of the apocalypse trying to explain why the world didn't come to an end as predicted.

[Jocko]

You sure about that? Are you telling a lie or just mistaken?
^^ See that, Ken? ^^

That's called a "quote." Grownups use them to let other grownups know what they're responding to. I suggest you investigate the many ways in which inclusion of these "quote" may facilitate a more effective, less confusing exchange. You know, so others have the slightest freaking idea of what you're talking about.

[Jocko]

LOL. Good thing. Are you sure you want to be a greeting card epigrammist?

Let's take a step back here.

The remarks were made three years ago. Had Rumsfeld felt that he was being misunderstood about there "definitely" being WMDs, why didn't he say something at the time? Why is it so much later that he is trying to backpedal? He sounds like some failed prophet of the apocalypse trying to explain why the world didn't come to an end as predicted.

You may well be right. But still, you can attribute the issue to many other things (hubris, overconfidence, wishful thinking, poor recollection, being off-the-cuff in the first place, etc.) before you arrive at "lie."

I recall several instances of administration officials admitting they were wrong about WMDs (don't remember if Rumsfeld was among them), which seems like a no-brainer; of course they were wrong about them. But Ken's insistence on a dark plot to foist a lie (read: deliberate falsehood perpetrated in spite of knowing things were otherwise) on the American public is just plain silly. The only one who knows that for sure is Rumsfeld.

Of course, when you get 45 people on the internet to vote, I guess there's no need to actually deal with the realities.

[Tricky]

You may well be right. But still, you can attribute the issue to many other things (hubris, overconfidence, wishful thinking, poor recollection, being off-the-cuff in the first place, etc.) before you arrive at "lie."

I recall several instances of administration officials admitting they were wrong about WMDs (don't remember if Rumsfeld was among them), which seems like a no-brainer; of course they were wrong about them. But Ken's insistence on a dark plot to foist a lie (read: deliberate falsehood perpetrated in spite of knowing things were otherwise) on the American public is just plain silly. The only one who knows that for sure is Rumsfeld.

Of course, when you get 45 people on the internet to vote, I guess there's no need to actually deal with the realities.
Well, I voted "lie" because with the limited options, that seemed the most likely. Now I know you and TBK have crossed swords from time to time, so I doubt this little dust-up is really about the poll.

My personal feeling is that Rumsfeld intentionally weasel-worded his comments so he would have plausible deniability later, but he had every intention of making it sound like he was sure that there were WMDs. Call it dissembling if you like, but he was either wrong or deliberately deceptive, IMO.

Ken. Your poll was set up to give a predictable response. I mostly agree with you in principle, but name-calling doesn't further your position. Don't you martial artists learn anything about subtlety?;)

[Jocko]

Call it dissembling if you like, but he was either wrong or deliberately deceptive, IMO.

If you draw parity between those two terms, then we're in agreement.

My problem with the whole assumption of nefarious intent is this: For Rumsfeld to have lied, in the true sense of the word, he must have known something contrary to what he was saying. That means had proof that there were no WMDs, rather than evidence that there were.

We know the latter existed, wrong though it was. Evidence is not proof. But there's absolutely no reason to suspect that the former existed, unless you just have a burr up your @$$ about Bush and willingly sell out to paranoid fantasy in order to support that hatred. Enter Ken and his little poll.

[Tailgater]

He's probably doing more dodging than he needs to. Recently on discovery times (I think), they showed a huge complex in Iran on satellite that the UN had questioned about developing nukes. The entire thing was torn down and raked with dirt within the week...I don't doubt there could have been some credible evidence of sites, but all they had to do was move what was in them. But look what happens when someone "leaks" info to try and prove something. So, i'd say he's probably juggling between what he can say and what the public wants to hear. Insert some lying? I would be more surprised if he just told the truth.

[thaiboxerken]

For Rumsfeld to have lied, in the true sense of the word, he must have known something contrary to what he was saying. That means had proof that there were no WMDs, rather than evidence that there were.

The lie isn't about having WMD's or not, it's about his claim that he didn't claim to know where they were. Try and keep up. And yes, the poll was posted keeping in mind that I figured the results would be in my favor. It's because I know most people can understand english in this forum.

[Almo]

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

That seems to me to be a facecious statement with this meaning: "We know they are in Iraq. We'll find them."

Cool: the 60 sec between posts saved me from a double post. :)

[Jocko]

The lie isn't about having WMD's or not, it's about his claim that he didn't claim to know where they were.

So your ever-mobile goalposts have now reduced the issue to a simple allegation of lying about a statement, and has nothing to do with WMDs?

And you think that's an issue? Christ, at least Clinton lied under oath, and I keep hearing from fruitcakes like you about how trivial that was.

Try and keep up.

If you'd stop moving your goalposts, I wouldn't have such a hard time keeping up, now would I?

[Rob Lister]

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

That seems to me to be a facecious statement with this meaning: "We know they are in Iraq. We'll find them."

Cool: the 60 sec between posts saved me from a double post. :)


You should have used the 60 seconds to read what it was "they" and "they're" referred to.

[Almo]

You should have used the 60 seconds to read what it was "they" and "they're" referred to.

Sorry about that. :( Was just going by what I remembered from when I saw him say that on TV live.

ETA: Okay, i just went and read the transcript at the site listed. It still looks to me like he meant "Oh they're [WMD] there. We just have to actually find them." What am I missing?

[Tricky]

If you draw parity between those two terms, then we're in agreement.

My problem with the whole assumption of nefarious intent is this: For Rumsfeld to have lied, in the true sense of the word, he must have known something contrary to what he was saying. That means had proof that there were no WMDs, rather than evidence that there were.
Yes, he could have been wrong about "knowing". If there was the possibility he didn't really know, then he shouldn't have said "we know". Saying you know something when you do not could be construed by many as a lie concerning the certainty of your "knowledge". Its a moot point.

What is not moot is that he postured himself as possessing knowledge, not evidence. There was some evidence for WMDs and some against. For example, the UN inspection tours had not found anything of substance and strongly advised continuing the search rather than invading. So we started a war based on "knowledge" that had been contradicted by others, including some of our allies. If that wasn't a lie, it was just as bad. In fact, it was worse than most lies because of the results.

Call it what you like.

[Elind]

Sorry, I was speaking specifically about the line "We know where they are", where "they" refers to either "weapons of mass destruction" or "the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed".

And I was refering to the line "They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

It is a stupid comment, but simply says that he thought they were in Iraq. Duuhh.

Stupid or wrong is not the same as lying, is my point.

[thaiboxerken]

So your ever-mobile goalposts have now reduced the issue to a simple allegation of lying about a statement, and has nothing to do with WMDs?

The goalpost never moved, it's up in the poll. The poll is about his claim of never claiming to know, not about WMD's themselves.


And you think that's an issue?

No, it's really not an issue. Yet, you and other right-wingers seem to really want people to think that he didn't make this inconsequential lie.

[thaiboxerken]

It is a stupid comment, but simply says that he thought they were in Iraq. Duuhh.

Actually, he's saying he "knows" they are in Iraq. Later, he claims that he never claimed to "know" they were in Iraq.

[Rob Lister]

He appears to be speaking of WMD facilities.

[Upchurch]

He appears to be speaking of WMD facilities.
care to expand on that, a tad? What are you referring to and how do you come to that conclusion?

[Art Vandelay]

Bible apologists use your same tactic, when a contradiction is found, they explain it away as interpretation.And should anyone declare that what Rumsfeld says is the inerrant word of God, I would most certainly disagree.

Using only the quotes provided in this thread, specifically the one from Rumsfeld in which the above appeared, it takes the fewest number of assumptions to come to the conclusion that he, at very least, meant "weapons of mass destruction" and then back peddled from the absoluteness of that statement later.Assumptions are not something that can be quantified. It is nearly meaningless to say that one set of assumptions is "bigger" than another, unless the latter is a proper subset.

What do you think of the Occam's Razor argument?I have already explained why it is completely irrelevant.

Unless it's ME that came up with the same conclusion, then it's not plausible. Strange.You have claimed that Rumsfeld definitely lied, not that is is merely plausible that he lied.

You remind me of Tai Chi, Jocko. You think you're so clever, but you're not.I have found that Jocko is almost always clever. Even when he is wrong, he manages to be wrong in a clever manner.

So your ever-mobile goalposts have now reduced the issue to a simple allegation of lying about a statement, and has nothing to do with WMDs?In this case, I must side with TBK. The issue has, from the start, not been whether he lied about WMD, but whether he lied about whether he knew where WMDs were.

No, it's really not an issue. Yet, you and other right-wingers seem to really want people to think that he didn't make this inconsequential lie.If it's not really an issue, why do you people keep starting thread after thread about it? Has anyone started a thread merely to deny that Rumsfeld lied? If we "right-wingers" are so very concerned about it, why are you the ones that keep starting the threads?

[thaiboxerken]

I have already explained why it is completely irrelevant.

Does this reasoning apply to Bill Clinton's statements about sexual relations as well?

If we "right-wingers" are so very concerned about it, why are you the ones that keep starting the threads?

Because I like to see the right-wingers do what they do best.... deny, deny, deny.

[Elind]

Actually, he's saying he "knows" they are in Iraq. Later, he claims that he never claimed to "know" they were in Iraq.

I'm commenting on the sentence in the OP. I don't know what you are; but for the record, I know that WMD's were in Iraq in 1990 at least and I know with certainty that they would be there again today if Saddam was still running the show.

But don't feel bad about not having the choice to deal with that today, after all you can practise on Iran instead.

[thaiboxerken]

I know with certainty that they would be there again today if Saddam was still running the show.

No, you don't.

[Elind]

Yes I do. You know what I mean. Do you seriously think he would change spots, any more than that fanatic in Iran will? I knew 3 years ago that they would screw the EU and said so in a post somewhere for the benefit of those who wanted to "talk" more.

I know that Saddam would be back in the same game, probably justifying it as an arms race with Iran. Know the history there?

[thaiboxerken]

There are no WMD's in Iraq. You don't know S***. The sanctions worked. I'm sure he wanted WMDs, though.

[Elind]

You don't pay attention very well. Too many steroids?

Do you think, in the alternate universe, that sanctions would still be in place if not for the invasion of Iraq? Did you read news prior to that? They would have been over, fini, gone, long ago and the Russians, French, Chinese and more would have been falling over themselves to do business and look the other way.

[thaiboxerken]

You don't pay attention very well. Too many steroids?

Do you think, in the alternate universe, that sanctions would still be in place if not for the invasion of Iraq? Did you read news prior to that? They would have been over, fini, gone, long ago and the Russians, French, Chinese and more would have been falling over themselves to do business and look the other way.

Feel free to apply for the JREF challenge for the paranoral ability of KNOWING how alternate timelines will turn out.

[Art Vandelay]

Does this reasoning apply to Bill Clinton's statements about sexual relations as well?I don't recall Clinton invoking Occam's Razor. Can you explain?

I will tell you, however, that I was willing to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt for quite a while. When Gennifer Flowers' accusations surfaced, I figured it was just political mudslinging. I still felt the same way after the Paula Jones suit began. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt, and you have failed miserably in dispelling my doubt.

Because I like to see the right-wingers do what they do best.... deny, deny, deny.It's not too difficult, when left-wingers keep coming up with such absurd claims.

There are no WMD's in Iraq. You don't know S***. The sanctions worked. I'm sure he wanted WMDs, though.The purpose of the sanctions was to pressure Saddam into complying with the cease fire agreements and the following UN resolutions. The idea that they "worked" is absurd. If they had "worked", they wouldn't have been needed anymore. The sanctions absolutely, definitely, completely failed, and in fact simply fueled anti-American sentiment, helping inspire 9/11. Just another absurd claim that is so easily denied by anyone with any common sense.

[a_unique_person]

Funny, haven't heard much from any of them. Obviously too winded, yeah?

I'd guess a lot of people don't see the point in standing up just to be insulted by you.

[CFLarsen]

I'd guess a lot of people don't see the point in standing up just to be insulted by you.
It's a mark of credibility to be insulted by Jocko.

If he insults you, it's because you are right.

[Tricky]

The purpose of the sanctions was to pressure Saddam into complying with the cease fire agreements and the following UN resolutions. The idea that they "worked" is absurd. If they had "worked", they wouldn't have been needed anymore.
It doesn't appear that you've thought about this very much. Some things only "work" if you continue to use them. That's like saying "if insulin worked, I wouldn't need it any more". No, I'm not saying that we would need to keep sanctions in place forever, but there is a great deal of evidence that they were in fact working, the greatest one being that neither the UN inspectors or the invaders could find any WMDs. I don't see how you can have any better evidence than that.

The sanctions absolutely, definitely, completely failed, and in fact simply fueled anti-American sentiment, helping inspire 9/11.
That's a bit of a stretch. I haven't heard any statements by OBL or other terrorist talking heads that indicate that sanctions were a reason for 9/11. And again I ask, if the sanctions failed "definitely and completely", why didn't we find WMDs? What caused Saddam to ditch them?

Just another absurd claim that is so easily denied by anyone with any common sense.
LOL. "Common sense" says the Earth is flat. The claim that sanctions caused Saddam to destroy his WMDs is supported by evidence, which trumps common sense every time.

[Upchurch]

Using only the quotes provided in this thread, specifically the one from Rumsfeld in which the above appeared, it takes the fewest number of assumptions to come to the conclusion that he, at very least, meant "weapons of mass destruction" and then back peddled from the absoluteness of that statement later.
Assumptions are not something that can be quantified. It is nearly meaningless to say that one set of assumptions is "bigger" than another, unless the latter is a proper subset.It isn't a matter of measuring how "big" an assumption is, merely the number of solutions. One theory requires grammatical gymnastics (I like that term), the other does not. If that doesn't do it for you, fine. Occam's is just a rule of thumb.

What do you think of the Occam's Razor argument?I have already explained why it is completely irrelevant.I'm sorry. I must have missed where you did this. Could you please point it out?

[Upchurch]

LOL. "Common sense" says the Earth is flat. The claim that sanctions caused Saddam to destroy his WMDs is supported by evidence, which trumps common sense every time.
I consider "common sense" to be a red-flag that someone can't rationally defend their position. That and "obvious". Whenever I see these terms, I've found that it usually means that the speaker hasn't explored the issue thuroughly and is content with their current conclusion/interpretation/assumption. It also usually means that they aren't even willing to try to defend the position, either.

[Jocko]

It's a mark of credibility to be insulted by Jocko.

If he insults you, it's because you are right.

Whatever helps you sleep better. Lord knows you've yet to make a credible argument on your own merits; why not invent new criteria, huh? :rolleyes:

[Jocko]

What is not moot is that he postured himself as possessing knowledge, not evidence.

Agreed, but again - to call it a lie, he had to "know" better... just as Ken is using the statement that he "knew" the sites were active to hang the term "lie" upon.

There was some evidence for WMDs and some against. For example, the UN inspection tours had not found anything of substance and strongly advised continuing the search rather than invading. So we started a war based on "knowledge" that had been contradicted by others, including some of our allies. If that wasn't a lie, it was just as bad. In fact, it was worse than most lies because of the results.

Even Blix went before the UN and basically said that there was no way to know what was there, what had been there, what had been destroyed, etc. because of interference from the Hussein regime. There was no way to have any confidence that Hussein had disarmed, and his conduct suggested strongly the contrary.

In a post 9/11 world, that kind of benefit of the doubt just doesn't cut it. The situation was at stalemate, with half the nations supposedly enforcing the containment actually profiting illegally from smuggled oil... there was very little chance of that status quo changing, and consequently very little chance of better intel becoming available in a timely manner.

You can say Bush overresponded to the perceived threat, and in hindsight I agree. But doing so one must acknowledge the conditions - all established by the Hussein regime and abetted by a toothless UN and corrupted security council - that led to that overreaction.

[Tailgater]

The first statement doesn't even support an exact location. He uses terms like AREA AROUND and SOMEWHAT in a direction. So he's really saying he knows they are somewhere, but not exactly. Just depends on how much you want to pick apart a vague statement. Either side could make a case about it and it looks like they have. Don't you know by now that all politicians insert words into seemingly concrete statements to leave things open for interpretation so drones can argue about what was a lie?

[fishbob]

The purpose of the sanctions was to pressure Saddam into complying with the cease fire agreements and the following UN resolutions. The idea that they "worked" is absurd. If they had "worked", they wouldn't have been needed anymore. The sanctions absolutely, definitely, completely failed, and in fact simply fueled anti-American sentiment, helping inspire 9/11. Just another absurd claim that is so easily denied by anyone with any common sense.

Taking the last two sentences out of context, you appear to be saying that the claim that the sanctions failed is absurd. Taking the entire paragraph into account indicates that you mean the opposite.
You been taking Rumsfeld lessons or what?

No evidence has been found that Iraq was involved in any way with the terrorist attacks on the US in Sept of 2001. There is considerable evidence that fundamentalist muslims did not like Saddam.
So if you are trying to be absolutely, definitely, completely clear about something, you got some esplainin' to do.

[Upchurch]

The first statement doesn't even support an exact location. He uses terms like AREA AROUND and SOMEWHAT in a direction. So he's really saying he knows they are somewhere, but not exactly. Just depends on how much you want to pick apart a vague statement.
St. Louis is somewhere about in the middle of the east side of the state. Columbia, MO is around the middle of the state. Kansas City is about that far again on the other side of Columbia.

Now, from these statements, would you interpret that I know where these places are located exactly or that I only have a guess?

Don't you know by now that all politicians insert words into seemingly concrete statements to leave things open for interpretation so drones can argue about what was a lie?
Definitely a case of COYA. My point is that it is a valid and reasonable position to hold that Rumsfeld stated that coalitian forces knew where the WMD's were at the time he made the comment.

[bjb]

I voted for lie.

The subject is:

Did he lie about claiming to KNOW where WMD's were?

The CIA guy asked Rumsfeld about his claims to *know* the location of the WMD's, and Rumsfeld said he never made such a statement. Rumsfeld did make such a statement so he was lying. That is lie #1.

When Rumsfeld said he 'knew' the location of the WMD's, he was certainly wrong, but he wasn't lying, assuming he had been given information that told him where there WMD's were. But if there was no reliable intelligence and Rumsfeld simply wanted to appear dead certain that he knew where the WMD's were located, then he was lying. This could be lie #2, the one the CIA guy accused Rumsfeld of telling. However, that would be very, very difficult to prove without having access to the same classified intelligence he possessed at the time.

What interests me is the CIA guy who asked the question in the first place. He may have had access to the information and knew Rumsfeld was lying (lie #2) way back when he claimed to know where the WMD's were.

By the way, I've read the transcripts and I've seen the TV interviews. There is no doubt that Rumsfeld wanted us to believe that he knew the location of the WMD's before the war. You guys can argue about what he 'meant' but that is definitely what he wanted us to believe. Also, there is no doubt that Rumsfeld denied that he had claimed to know where the WMD's were before the war.

[thaiboxerken]

He is just a former CIA analyst, what would he know about the intelligence?

[Tricky]

Even Blix went before the UN and basically said that there was no way to know what was there, what had been there, what had been destroyed, etc. because of interference from the Hussein regime. There was no way to have any confidence that Hussein had disarmed, and his conduct suggested strongly the contrary. Blix might have agreed that at the time of the invasion that there was no way to know what had been destroyed etc. but that does not mean he felt that there would never be any way to know. That is why he spoke out forcefully against the invasion. He felt that we needed to give the inspections more time to work.

Yes, Saddam was stonewalling. It was a like pulling teeth to get anything done. But pulling teeth is still better than amputation, and at the time of the war, Saddam was already pretty much toothless, as the flight of his "elite fighting forces" revealed.

In a post 9/11 world, that kind of benefit of the doubt just doesn't cut it. The situation was at stalemate, with half the nations supposedly enforcing the containment actually profiting illegally from smuggled oil... there was very little chance of that status quo changing, and consequently very little chance of better intel becoming available in a timely manner.
I strongly disagree. Even if there were graft and corruption and even if we didn't know everything we wanted to know, the invasion was no way to deal with it. Yes, Saddam is gone. Yes they have a "democracy" which is looking more and more like Iran's "democracy". Was it worth the price? Was it worth the billions of dollars and thousands of lives? Was it worth squandering all of our political capital and having even our allies become distrustful of us? Has it made us safer from terrorism? I say the answer is no and I say that we should have known that the answer would be no.

You can say Bush over-responded to the perceived threat, and in hindsight I agree. But doing so one must acknowledge the conditions - all established by the Hussein regime and abetted by a toothless UN and corrupted security council - that led to that overreaction.
Saddam was a paper tiger by the time the "toothless" UN security council had done their work. You can argue that their methods were slow and subject to corruption. You can argue that they didn't fix everything. You can say all the bad stuff you want about them, and a good deal of it would be true. But they would still be far better than the US solution. And I don't think it relies on hindsight to recognize that. I think foresight and a willingness to listen to various viewpoints could have recognized the same thing.

[Jocko]

Saddam was a paper tiger by the time the "toothless" UN security council had done their work. You can argue that their methods were slow and subject to corruption. You can argue that they didn't fix everything. You can say all the bad stuff you want about them, and a good deal of it would be true. But they would still be far better than the US solution. And I don't think it relies on hindsight to recognize that. I think foresight and a willingness to listen to various viewpoints could have recognized the same thing.

Tricky, we're talking about Hussein with access to billions of dollars under the table from smuggled oil sales. BILLIONS. Maybe you're unconcerned with that scenario, but I'm not. As to the "various viewpoints," you can Google up a thousand viewpoints that tell you the Jews/GOP/martians perpetrated 9/11; that doesn't make them valid... past, present or future.

No one is demanding absolute perfection from the UN. I know graft happens. But there sure seems to be a hue and cry for absolute perfection from the Bush Administration.

[Ziggurat]

He is just a former CIA analyst, what would he know about the intelligence?

Are you talking about McGovern?

I have no idea what he knows. I only know what he says. And his track record is, well, lacking. For example, back in early 2004 he claimed that the August 2001 PDB was a smoking gun which proved Bush should have known about 9/11 and stopped it, and that Tenet would keep his job past the election because he could blackmail Bush with that PDB to keep his job. Well, the administration released most of that PDB, it wasn't the smoking gun McGovern claimed, none of the intelligence it contained was actionable, and Tenet left his post before the election. Was McGovern simply wrong, or did he know better but was lying? I'm guessing the first, but neither speaks particularly well of his trustworthiness as a source for information about intelligence.

[Tricky]

Tricky, we're talking about Hussein with access to billions of dollars under the table from smuggled oil sales. BILLIONS. Maybe you're unconcerned with that scenario, but I'm not.
I don't see any serious evidence for that scenario, so I'd put it on the back burner of things to be concerned about. Yeah, he probably had a lot of money. He couldn't get WMDs with it. He couldn't even buy uranium with it, so what good did it do?

As to the "various viewpoints," you can Google up a thousand viewpoints that tell you the Jews/GOP/martians perpetrated 9/11; that doesn't make them valid... past, present or future.
I was talking about my viewpoint which I have held, modified slightly, since before the invasion. I thought it was a bad idea that would create more problems than it solved. I still think that. I thought that we would win the war easily but we would not be able to win the "peace". I still think that. I thought that in the absence of a strong head of country the various sects would turn on each other in bitter factionalism. I still think that. I thought many thousands would die when Saddam unleashed his WMDs in a final act of defiance. That one, I was wrong about, but then, I wasn't privy to intel. I believed that the Bush admin was telling us the truth about Saddam having WMDs, but that invading would just force him to use them. I've lost a little naivety since then.

No one is demanding absolute perfection from the UN. I know graft happens. But there sure seems to be a hue and cry for absolute perfection from the Bush Administration.
I've seen no hue and cry for absolute perfection from Bush. But incompetence on such a grand scale rightfully deserves scorn. Nor am I an automatic Bush basher. He has done a few things well. I even agree with him in principle about the immigration issue. But apart from that issue, his foreign policy has been an unmitigated disaster. I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

[Jocko]

I don't see any serious evidence for that scenario, so I'd put it on the back burner of things to be concerned about. Yeah, he probably had a lot of money. He couldn't get WMDs with it. He couldn't even buy uranium with it, so what good did it do?

Couldn't, or didn't? You are seriously suggesting that the loose-weave net that was the sanctions actually prevented any of that? And even if those particular things were inaccessible, are you really satisfied that nothing bad would come of that kind of loose money, and that those bad things would not find their way here?

Wow, you have a level of faith I cannot even conceive.

I was talking about my viewpoint which I have held, modified slightly, since before the invasion. I thought it was a bad idea that would create more problems than it solved. I still think that. I thought that we would win the war easily but we would not be able to win the "peace". I still think that. I thought that in the absence of a strong head of country the various sects would turn on each other in bitter factionalism. I still think that. I thought many thousands would die when Saddam unleashed his WMDs in a final act of defiance. That one, I was wrong about, but then, I wasn't privy to intel. I believed that the Bush admin was telling us the truth about Saddam having WMDs, but that invading would just force him to use them. I've lost a little naivety since then.

My point was that not all viewpoints are equally valid. You didn't have the intel and guessed one way; they had the intel and guessed differently. But the next time you and the president - whoever it is - differ on the right course of action, I'm still betting on the president.

Not to equate you to a fraud, but even a sham psychic is gonna be right sometimes.

I've seen no hue and cry for absolute perfection from Bush. But incompetence on such a grand scale rightfully deserves scorn. Nor am I an automatic Bush basher. He has done a few things well. I even agree with him in principle about the immigration issue. But apart from that issue, his foreign policy has been an unmitigated disaster. I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

What is the sum-total of the post Iraq criticism if not post-hoc rationalization and Monday morning quaterbacking? What is this very thread about? It's not enough for people like Ken that Bush & Co. were wrong; no, they have to be liars as well.

That's blind, unthinking hatred, rooted largely in emotion and expressed largely in childish vitriol. I, too, calls 'em like I sees 'em.

[thaiboxerken]

You are seriously suggesting that the loose-weave net that was the sanctions actually prevented any of that?

I think the fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq suggests it.

[Tricky]

Couldn't, or didn't? You are seriously suggesting that the loose-weave net that was the sanctions actually prevented any of that? And even if those particular things were inaccessible, are you really satisfied that nothing bad would come of that kind of loose money, and that those bad things would not find their way here?

Wow, you have a level of faith I cannot even conceive.
Well, Jocko, there's a lot of bad stuff out there that might happen. The best plan is to focus on the stuff that is most likely, and I did not see a shred of evidence before the invasion that Saddam was much of a threat, even if he did have WMDs. My observation is that there wasn't a lot of attention paid to his WMDs until Bushco started talking it up. What we saw was nothing more than an advertising campaign for a war. I choose not to buy it.


My point was that not all viewpoints are equally valid. You didn't have the intel and guessed one way; they had the intel and guessed differently. But the next time you and the president - whoever it is - differ on the right course of action, I'm still betting on the president.
My point is that even if they had been right about WMDs, the invasion would have still been a bad idea. As we learn more, we find that intel was very mixed but we were only being told one side. So in retrospect, the decision was even more wrong in light of current information, but it was always wrong. And Bush was privvy to a lot more information than we were.

Not to equate you to a fraud, but even a sham psychic is gonna be right sometimes.
I've stated my reasons for my positions and I've weighed the evidence that is available. You may come to a different conclusion based on the same evidence, but I honestly don't see how. Still, I'm not saying that your position is based on just "guesses" as you seem to be suggesting about mine. I'd say the reason we disagree is that we have different views on what is important.

What is the sum-total of the post Iraq criticism if not post-hoc rationalization and Monday morning quaterbacking? What is this very thread about? It's not enough for people like Ken that Bush & Co. were wrong; no, they have to be liars as well.
I don't agree with everything they say, but I know that Ken was against the war from its very inception, as was I. It is incorrect to call that "post-hoc rationalization". I can probably produce a post I made before the invasion which shows that I have long held this position (with some modifications based on evidence). I have been wrong about some things and I am not ashamed of admitting them.

But even if it is impossible to prove that a person has held their position for any length of time, it is a mistake to accuse anyone of "Monday morning quarterbacking" unless you can show evidence that their opinions were formed on Monday morning. I don't think you can show that about any of the people on the opposite side from you in this issue.

But it is not wrong, and in fact admirable to use new evidence to bolster support for the position you already have. If you are honest, you will also consider evidence that damages your position and adjust your position accordingly. It is my opinion that most of the recent evidence has bolstered the position of those who opposed the war and a much smaller amount has damaged that position.

I think Bush and co have been shown to be, at the very least, misleading about the war, and I believe evidence supports this. While I am somewhat less inclined to hurl invective than some, I have very very low regard for our present administration, so my feelings are just as strong, if not my rhetoric.

That's blind, unthinking hatred, rooted largely in emotion and expressed largely in childish vitriol. I, too, calls 'em like I sees 'em.
As to the invective that is already flying around, flames should be kept in Flame Wars, IMO, where they can be done with style and wild abandon, but I am unlikely to convince Ken, Claus, Art or you of that.

Why can't we all just be friends?
Kumbaya
;)

[Ziggurat]

He couldn't even buy uranium with it, so what good did it do?

Actually, he had plenty of uranium. The advantage to buying new uranium would be to make it harder to track his activities.

[Tricky]

Actually, he had plenty of uranium. The advantage to buying new uranium would be to make it harder to track his activities.
He did? Uranium that was of sufficient quality to make WMDs? Where was it?

BTW, uranium doesn't last forever. Enriched uranium lasts a much shorter time. Radioactive, you know.

[Art Vandelay]

It doesn't appear that you've thought about this very much. So, what, anyone who disagrees with you cannot have had thought about it much?

Some things only "work" if you continue to use them. This is not one of them.

No, I'm not saying that we would need to keep sanctions in place forever,There are kids in high school now who weren't even born when the sanctions were first put into place. In a few more years, they'll be able to vote. How do you tell a voter "Just because these sanctions have been in place your entire life, that's no reason to think we'll have to keep them forever"? When the sanctions were first put into place, the intent was to induce compliance within the next few years, not decades. They failed.

but there is a great deal of evidence that they were in fact working, the greatest one being that neither the UN inspectors or the invaders could find any WMDs. I don't see how you can have any better evidence than that.How about them actually working?

That's a bit of a stretch. I haven't heard any statements by OBL or other terrorist talking heads that indicate that sanctions were a reason for 9/11. Then you haven’t been paying attention.

After long emphasizing the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, bin Ladin moved to other issues dealing with the U.S. attempt to destroy Islam. These included an opposition to UN sanctions against Iraq (which he blamed on the United States) as killing the Muslim Iraqi people and the assertion that the United States was supporting the Jews in an effort to "achieve full control over the Arab peninsula."(23) Bin Ladin claimed the United States did not rest after the "slaughter" of the Gulf War but instead pushed for the "dismemberment and the destruction...of what remains of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors."(24) These actions, according to bin Ladin, are meant to divert attention from the Jewish occupation of Jerusalem and the killing of Muslims in Palestine.

And again I ask, if the sanctions failed "definitely and completely", why didn't we find WMDs? What caused Saddam to ditch them?The inspection regime, and the world attention that came with it.

The claim that sanctions caused Saddam to destroy his WMDs is supported by evidence, which trumps common sense every time.And yet you present no such evidence.

It isn't a matter of measuring how "big" an assumption is, merely the number of solutions. Huh?
I'm sorry. I must have missed where you did this. Could you please point it out?Top of post 70.

No evidence has been found that Iraq was involved in any way with the terrorist attacks on the US in Sept of 2001. There is considerable evidence that fundamentalist muslims did not like Saddam. Yes, that’s right. Just keep repeating those liberal talking points. Don’t bother actually addressing what I said.

So if you are trying to be absolutely, definitely, completely clear about something, you got some esplainin' to do.You’ve got some espainin’ to do about why I have some esplainin’ to do.

Yes, Saddam was stonewalling. It was a like pulling teeth to get anything done. But pulling teeth is still better than amputation, and at the time of the war, Saddam was already pretty much toothless, as the flight of his "elite fighting forces" revealed. Just because his forces were not able to stand up to the strongest military in the world, that hardly means that he was “toothless”. He had managed to defy the UN with impunity, and was poised to rebuild to the pre-war status quo the moment the world looked the other way.

[Art Vandelay]

BTW, uranium doesn't last forever. Enriched uranium lasts a much shorter time. Radioactive, you know.Yes, that's true. Normal uranium lasts 4.5 billion years. Enriched uranium has a half-life of only 704 million years. Better use it up quickly! After a million years, one tenth of one percent will be gone!

[thaiboxerken]

Having uranium isn't enough, one has to be able to enrich it. How many centrifuges did we find in Iraq?

[Jocko]

Having uranium isn't enough, one has to be able to enrich it. How many centrifuges did we find in Iraq?

I can think of one, buried in a garden on government orders. Not crucial in and of itself, but it does bear asking why Saddam would own just one such centrifuge... oh, silly me, of course Ken believes that. Saddam would never be so clever as to bury others in different places. That's just plain impossible.

[Ziggurat]

He did? Uranium that was of sufficient quality to make WMDs? Where was it?

Mostly at Al Tuwaitha. Hundreds of tons of the stuff, IIRC, which was enough to make WMD's. The IAEA never confiscated his unenriched uranium stockpile. I had a big debate with Crossbow some years ago, shortly after the invasion, where I went through the IAEA documents that catalogued the stuff because he didn't believe me when I told him.

BTW, uranium doesn't last forever. Enriched uranium lasts a much shorter time. Radioactive, you know.

U238, the most common isotope, has a halflife of about 4.5x10^9 years. U235, the second-most-common isotope and the one which enrichment is designed to concentrate, has a half-life of 7x10^8 years. Yes, it doesn't last forever. But it lasts long enough.

[thaiboxerken]

One?! Just one?!

[DavidJames]

I suggest those of you still flogging the Saddam having WMD's or even an active WMD program idea over to the paranormal forum. Even your president has given up that charade.

[a_unique_person]

He is just a former CIA analyst, what would he know about the intelligence?

It's not just one former CIA analyst calling the Bush administration, (and it's allies), on the WMD lies before the war even started. Andrew Wilkie in Australia resigned when he knew there was going to be a war, based on false and misleading evidence. An analyst killed himself in Great Britain because he couldn't handle having to lie on the issue. There are other sources as well

http://thinkprogress.org/60-minutes-42306

Inteview on 60 minutes.

[Jocko]

One?! Just one?!

Ken, this might be a good time to remind you of two things:

1. The quote function is your friend. Don't be afraid of it.
2. One is one more than none. How many gardens are there in Iraq, Ken?

[a_unique_person]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/29/1083224526066.html



He sure needs to now. Sensational documents just released by the British parliamentary inquiry into Blair's stated reasons for war reveal what the British Joint Intelligence Committee told Blair (and the Australian intelligence services) six weeks before the war:
"The JIC assessed that al-Qaeda and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest terrorist threat to western interests, and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq," the British parliamentary report says.
"The JIC report, 'International Terrorism: War with Iraq', also said there was no evidence Saddam Hussein wanted to use any chemical or biological weapons in terrorist attacks or that he planned to pass them on to al-Qaeda. "However, it judged that in the event of imminent regime collapse there would be a risk of transfer of such material, whether or not as a deliberate regime policy." (Australia was told: war will fuel terror).

[a_unique_person]

Interview with Andrew Wilkie.

http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/EdDesk.nsf/All/01A33C10272BF7A2CA256CE500837A10



“It troubles me that Australia has adopted a position, a very strong position, based on incomplete information,” he says. “We do not have unrestricted access to all US information on this matter. There were certain things in [US Secretary of State] Colin Powell’s address to the UN Security Council a few weeks ago that surprised [me] at ONA.”
What is the basis of his conviction that Iraq does not pose a serious enough threat to justify a war? “Their military is very weak. It’s a fraction of the size it was when it invaded Kuwait in 1990. Most of what remains is poorly trained, poorly equipped and of questionable loyalty to the regime. Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program is, I believe, genuinely contained. There is no doubt they have chemical and biological weapons, but their program now is disjointed and limited. It’s not a national WMD program like they used to have. Also, I am not convinced that Iraq is actively co-operating with al Qaeda. The bottom line is that this war against Iraq is totally unrelated to the war on terror.”
Wilkie is no bleeding-heart leftie. He had a successful career as an army officer before entering the shadowy world of intelligence. He graduated from the Royal Military College, Duntroon, in 1984, held a variety of posts including army aide de camp to the governor*general, and rose to the rank of lieut*enant-colonel before retiring in 2001. During his last two years in the army, he was seconded to ONA as a strategic analyst, and returned there as a civilian after working for a time for a large American defence contractor.





http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/EdDesk.nsf/All/01A33C10272BF7A2CA256CE500837A10


This reveals exactly what the game was that Bush and Co were playing. Even Wilkie, who had no doubts that Saddam was not the threat he was made out to be, thought there was something there to find. And that is what they were gambling on when they said they knew there were WMD. Even though Saddam was no longer a threat, a token amount would be found to parade around so that they could say the war was justified.

[a_unique_person]

I can think of one, buried in a garden on government orders. Not crucial in and of itself, but it does bear asking why Saddam would own just one such centrifuge... oh, silly me, of course Ken believes that. Saddam would never be so clever as to bury others in different places. That's just plain impossible.

You need many thousands of them to make weapons grade uranium.

[Tricky]

Mostly at Al Tuwaitha. Hundreds of tons of the stuff, IIRC, which was enough to make WMD's. The IAEA never confiscated his unenriched uranium stockpile. I had a big debate with Crossbow some years ago, shortly after the invasion, where I went through the IAEA documents that catalogued the stuff because he didn't believe me when I told him.
If you get away from the right-of-center articles, you find that this turned out to be a bust. The uranium could not be used for bombs and so it was handled somewhat shoddily. It looks like the greatest danger was environmental contamination, mostly because people were dumping the uranium to use the barrels for storage. I couldn't find a mainstream article on Al Tuwaitha that wasn't three years older or more.

If Bushco thought they could make a case for these being WMDs or even potential WMDs, they'd be trumpeting it to the stars. The fact that they are not doing so tells me that they know it would just be another embarassment. Heck, they called a hospital waste dump a WMD site, so you'd think their reaction to a real nucular stockpile would be, "Wheee-doggies! Put that sucker on the front page." But oddly, they are quiet about it. Sorry Ziggy, this one doesn't pass the sniff test.


U238, the most common isotope, has a halflife of about 4.5x10^9 years. U235, the second-most-common isotope and the one which enrichment is designed to concentrate, has a half-life of 7x10^8 years. Yes, it doesn't last forever. But it lasts long enough.
There are more factors than just the half-life (http://www.lanl.gov/quarterly/q_w03/shelf_life.shtml). Weapons need new parts, new casings etc. Plus, there is no evidence that Saddam ever had any nukes to fix. Even if he did have this highly questionable pile of uranium, it would take many years to manufacture a weapon even if he had facilities to do so which there is also no evidence for. They have some blueprints in a file cabinet. Not very scary.

[Tricky]

I can think of one, buried in a garden on government orders. Not crucial in and of itself, but it does bear asking why Saddam would own just one such centrifuge... oh, silly me, of course Ken believes that. Saddam would never be so clever as to bury others in different places. That's just plain impossible.
Alas (http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-34975.html), it was also a red herring.

But for the Bush administration, things quickly began to go wrong with the Obeidi story. True, Obeidi said he’d buried the centrifuge equipment, as he’d been ordered to do in 1991 by Saddam’s son Qusay Hussein and son-in-law Hussein Kamel. But he also insisted to the CIA that, in effect, that was that: Saddam had never reconstituted his centrifuge program afterward, in large part because of the Iraqi tyrant’s fear of being discovered under the U.N. sanctions-and-inspections regime. If true, this was a terribly inconvenient fact for the Bush administration, after months in which Secretary of State Colin Powell and other senior officials had alleged that aluminum tubes imported from 11 countries were intended for just such a centrifuge program. Obeidi denied that and added that he would have known about any attempts to restart the program. He also told the CIA that, as the International Atomic Energy Agency and many technical experts have said, the aluminum tubes were intended for rockets, not uranium enrichment or a nuclear-weapons program. And he stuck by his story, despite persistent questioning by CIA investigators who still believed he was not telling the full truth.
You guys are really not doing your case any favors by recycling old embarrassments for Bushco.

[thaiboxerken]

One is one more than none. How many gardens are there in Iraq, Ken?

Did they ever really find a centrifuge? I never heard that. Perhaps you can show me.

[Ziggurat]

If you get away from the right-of-center articles, you find that this turned out to be a bust. The uranium could not be used for bombs and so it was handled somewhat shoddily.
...
Sorry Ziggy, this one doesn't pass the sniff test.

You're reading more into my claim than is actually contained in it. I'm aware that this uranium stockpile wasn't much of a threat - there's a reason that the IAEA didn't confiscate it. I'm just saying he had it, and that he didn't actually NEED to go anywhere else for the raw materials (the reason seeking uranium from africa would be significant is it would let him play with the material without the IAEA oversight he had to worry about on his known stockpiles). That was my only point. The enrichment process has always been, and will always be, the biggest barrier to nuclear weapons. Uranium ore by itself, or even processed yellowcake, really isn't that hard to come by.

There are more factors than just the half-life[/URL]. Weapons need new parts, new casings etc. Plus, there is no evidence that Saddam ever had any nukes to fix.

Yes, of course. Had he ever had a nuke, we would be having a very different debate today. But I was only talking about the uranium itself.

Not very scary.

Never claimed it was.

[Ziggurat]

Did they ever really find a centrifuge? I never heard that. Perhaps you can show me.

Here you go:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/26/sprj.irq.centrifuge/index.html

"(CNN) -- The CIA has in its hands the critical parts of a key piece of Iraqi nuclear technology -- parts needed to develop a bomb program -- that were dug up in a back yard in Baghdad, CNN has learned."

[thaiboxerken]

Here you go:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/26/sprj.irq.centrifuge/index.html

"(CNN) -- The CIA has in its hands the critical parts of a key piece of Iraqi nuclear technology -- parts needed to develop a bomb program -- that were dug up in a back yard in Baghdad, CNN has learned."

Oh, so they found a centrifuge but concluded "U.S. officials: Find is not smoking gun"

Strange. The equipment also dates back to pre-sanction era. Hmmm.

[Art Vandelay]

There are more factors than just the half-life (http://www.lanl.gov/quarterly/q_w03/shelf_life.shtml). Weapons need new parts, new casings etc.You didn't say the weapon doesn't last forever, you said the uranium doesn't last forever, and you said that the reason for that was radioactivity.

[Tricky]

You didn't say the weapon doesn't last forever, you said the uranium doesn't last forever, and you said that the reason for that was radioactivity.
Yes. I was mistaken.

[Tricky]

Here you go:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/26/sprj.irq.centrifuge/index.html

"(CNN) -- The CIA has in its hands the critical parts of a key piece of Iraqi nuclear technology -- parts needed to develop a bomb program -- that were dug up in a back yard in Baghdad, CNN has learned."
Yep. Same red herring I mentioned. You notice the item is three years old. That should be plenty of time to find the rest of the parts or some other scientists who were part of the program. Maybe they were all killed.

[Tricky]

You're reading more into my claim than is actually contained in it. I'm aware that this uranium stockpile wasn't much of a threat - there's a reason that the IAEA didn't confiscate it. I'm just saying he had it, and that he didn't actually NEED to go anywhere else for the raw materials (the reason seeking uranium from africa would be significant is it would let him play with the material without the IAEA oversight he had to worry about on his known stockpiles). That was my only point. The enrichment process has always been, and will always be, the biggest barrier to nuclear weapons. Uranium ore by itself, or even processed yellowcake, really isn't that hard to come by.
LOL. Well, you did say it was enough to make WMD's, when in truth, all the uranium of that quality in the world wouldn't be enough to make WMDs. But that's okay. I know you are not claiming there were WMDs or even incipient WMDs, yet it appears you still don't throw out WMD's as a good reason for going into Iraq. Obviously, the US knew about this stockpile long in advance. They didn't need to invade to find it.

[Elind]

Feel free to apply for the JREF challenge for the paranoral ability of KNOWING how alternate timelines will turn out.
For your information; interpreting words (in English at least), means doing so in context and attempting to understand the intended meaning behind the words (sentences even!). I could have qualified that word even more by explaining this further within quotes within the sentences, but I didn't think it was necessary, and now I have spent at least one minute explaining what is meant by sarcasm; if you take my point?:mad:

[thaiboxerken]

So when you make a foolish claim, it's just sarcasm?

[Elind]

Arrghhhh.

[Ziggurat]

LOL. Well, you did say it was enough to make WMD's, when in truth, all the uranium of that quality in the world wouldn't be enough to make WMDs.

Not without processing, sure. But that's always the way it is with uranium.

But that's okay. I know you are not claiming there were WMDs or even incipient WMDs, yet it appears you still don't throw out WMD's as a good reason for going into Iraq. Obviously, the US knew about this stockpile long in advance. They didn't need to invade to find it.

Of course not. The IAEA knew about these stockpiles, and that means we did too.

But I've long maintained that the problem with Saddam and WMD's extended well beyond whatever he had at a given moment. If not what he had now, then always how do we continue to make sure he can't get any in the future. And the only permanent solution to that problem was toppling him.

[Ziggurat]

Yep. Same red herring I mentioned. You notice the item is three years old. That should be plenty of time to find the rest of the parts or some other scientists who were part of the program. Maybe they were all killed.

But it's not a red hering. It doesn't demonstrate any CURRENT capacity at the time we invaded, sure. But it did demonstrate an continued determination to re-establish such programs at some point in the future. And that's a real issue, not a red hering, even if you don't agree on what we should have done about that issue.

[Tricky]

Not without processing, sure. But that's always the way it is with uranium.
The way I understand it, this grade of uranium couldn't be processed for weapons, which is why the IAEA left it alone.


Of course not. The IAEA knew about these stockpiles, and that means we did too.

But I've long maintained that the problem with Saddam and WMD's extended well beyond whatever he had at a given moment. If not what he had now, then always how do we continue to make sure he can't get any in the future. And the only permanent solution to that problem was toppling him.
I seriously doubt that is any sort of permanent solution. Unless we keep troops there forever, there will be other strongmen. Iraq may even become part of Iran, or so close that you can't tell the difference. We didn't make ourselves one bit safer by toppling Saddam. (as always, IMO)

No, you can never tell for sure what some despot is doing. But I don't believe that America should be in the business of toppling countries that we don't trust. I mean, can we really trust Canada?

[Huntster]

...The equipment also dates back to pre-sanction era. Hmmm.

Correct. Part of what he was believed to have, yet absolutely, positively, and predictably wouldn't surrender it, despite sanctions, closed skies, UN inspectors, the threat of war, etc.

Buried in a garden.

You folks who really don't like looking for stuff don't find much, do you? You couldn't even find the fact that that centrifuge existed and was found. Somebody else had to link you to the published information.

Go have another drink (see my signature).

[thaiboxerken]

Actually, we just like people to support their own claims, Sasquatch-boy.

[Tricky]

But it's not a red hering. It doesn't demonstrate any CURRENT capacity at the time we invaded, sure. But it did demonstrate an continued determination to re-establish such programs at some point in the future. And that's a real issue, not a red hering, even if you don't agree on what we should have done about that issue.
You don't take drastic steps like naked aggression because of what somebody might someday do, because you might be wrong. Aren't you glad we didn't nuke Libya? Lots of people wanted us to.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken :
Feel free to apply for the JREF challenge for the paranoral ability of KNOWING how alternate timelines will turn out.
For your information; interpreting words (in English at least), means doing so in context and attempting to understand the intended meaning behind the words (sentences even!)....

Don't waste your time. Mr. thaiboxerken commands limited control over the English language.

He also seems to have a limited concept of reality. See my signature below. Feel free to click on the links, if you enjoy bizarre entertainment.

[Huntster]

So when you make a foolish claim, it's just sarcasm?

Good question, sir. (See my signature below).

[Tricky]

Correct. Part of what he was believed to have, yet absolutely, positively, and predictably wouldn't surrender it, despite sanctions, closed skies, UN inspectors, the threat of war, etc.

Buried in a garden.
What the livin' hell are you talking about? Saddam almost certainly didn't even know the damn thing existed. He didn't even order it buried, his son did. It might have been just some sort of offhand order. It is quite obvious that this was not a widespread trend or we would have found other things in other gardens. It sounds like a confused Iraqi patriot planting a victory garden.


You folks who really don't like looking for stuff don't find much, do you? You couldn't even find the fact that that centrifuge existed and was found. Somebody else had to link you to the published information.
I knew when it was found and I knew that it had been discredited as evidence almost three years ago (See my earlier link.) You apparently didn't. Try to keep up with the news.

Not even the Bushies consider this evidence, and they'd be happy to seize upon anything remotely supporting their cause. What does that tell you?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Correct. Part of what he was believed to have, yet absolutely, positively, and predictably wouldn't surrender it, despite sanctions, closed skies, UN inspectors, the threat of war, etc.

Buried in a garden.

What the livin' hell are you talking about?...

Ultimately, I'm talking about living Hell. It's often called "war". It wouldn't have happened if Iraq had cooperated with the UN resolutions.

...Saddam almost certainly didn't even know the damn thing existed. He didn't even order it buried, his son did....

Funny, you like to accuse George Bush of knowing everything, yet you're willing to give Saddam a pass while admitting that it may have been his very son who had the "damn thing" buried there?

...It might have been just some sort of offhand order....

Yeah. An offhand order. Perhaps from Ace Hardware, Baghdad?:

"No, I'll just take one centrifuge today, thanks. My garden is only so big, you know......"

...It is quite obvious that this was not a widespread trend or we would have found other things in other gardens....

"We"? How many gardens did you "check"? How many gardens are in Iraq?

Hell, "we" didn't even find Saddams sorry ass "in a garden", although it was close; he was under a farm............

...It sounds like a confused Iraqi patriot planting a victory garden....

It doesn't look like the Iraqi is the confused one here.


Originally Posted by Huntster :

You folks who really don't like looking for stuff don't find much, do you? You couldn't even find the fact that that centrifuge existed and was found. Somebody else had to link you to the published information.

I knew when it was found and I knew that it had been discredited as evidence almost three years ago (See my earlier link.) You apparently didn't. Try to keep up with the news.

I, too, knew when it was found. I was writing that to the other "genius", thaiboxerken.

Try to read the name at the top of the quotes.

...Not even the Bushies consider this evidence, and they'd be happy to seize upon anything remotely supporting their cause. What does that tell you?

It tells me exactly what it means; an Iraqi scientist had a centrifuge buried in his garden.

[Art Vandelay]

"If Saddam had a weapon program, we'd find at least something."
"We found a centrifuge."
"If there were a weapon program, there would be something more than a centrifuge."

Funny how the goalposts keep moving.

[thaiboxerken]

"If Saddam had a weapon program, we'd find at least something."
"We found a centrifuge."
"If there were a weapon program, there would be something more than a centrifuge."

Funny how the goalposts keep moving.

Yea, from an actual threat to antique junk left over from over a decade ago.

[Huntster]

...Funny how the goalposts keep moving.

It's not the goalposts. It's not even the defense being pushed back.

It's the political and ideological offense, repeatedly fumbling the ball........

Again, I refer to my signature lines; that ought to explain the offense's "butterfingers".

[Tricky]

"If Saddam had a weapon program, we'd find at least something."
"We found a centrifuge."
"If there were a weapon program, there would be something more than a centrifuge."

Funny how the goalposts keep moving.
"Saddam had WMDs"
"We didn't find any WMDs"
"Saddam had an active weapons program"
"We didn't find any evidence of an active weapons program"
"Saddam wanted to have an active weapons program"

Yep. I see them goalposts making a fast retreat.

[Ziggurat]

The way I understand it, this grade of uranium couldn't be processed for weapons, which is why the IAEA left it alone.

Nope. The only uranium you can't process to make a nuke is uranium that has already been depleted. But that's not what they had. They had unenriched uranium - it takes a hell of a lot of processing to get it to the point it can be used for a nuke, but what they had was still sufficient starter material. The IAEA left it alone because the barriers to processing it were much higher than the barriers to just getting more.

I mean, can we really trust Canada?

Well, I think we can trust them not to invade any of their neighbors, but I can't guarantee they won't start a war with Denmark over some piece of cold, wet rock. :eek:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4175446.stm

[Dr Adequate]

"If Saddam had a weapon program, we'd find at least something."
"We found a centrifuge."
"If there were a weapon program, there would be something more than a centrifuge."

Funny how the goalposts keep moving. It seems that Art Vandelay CAN win an argument ... if he's allowed to supply both sides of it. He may not be the sharpest knife in the draw, but he is a little less dimwitted than the imaginary voices in hs head.

I guess everyone needs something to be proud of.

[Art Vandelay]

Apparently Dr A has been listening to every single conversation I have ever had, and knows for a fact that no one has made those arguments. Perhaps he works for the NSA?

[Huntster]

...Perhaps he works for the NSA?

Not So Adequate?

[thaiboxerken]

Perhaps he works for the NSA?

Perhaps, because under Bush's administation, he wouldn't need a warrant to observe every aspect of your private life.

[Elind]

Don't waste your time. Mr. thaiboxerken commands limited control over the English language.

He also seems to have a limited concept of reality. See my signature below. Feel free to click on the links, if you enjoy bizarre entertainment.

I appreciate the backup but; funny thing is I had you pigeoned as a religious version of Andy and Yandy (of course Bhuddism isn't really a religion) but we'll see how we get along in the future. (Personally I think you're a bit whacky, but we'll see).:boxedin:

[Huntster]

Perhaps, because under Bush's administation, he wouldn't need a warrant to observe every aspect of your private life.

If he isn't government, he can observe many aspects of your private life without a warrant.

Private spies don't need warrants.

[Huntster]

I appreciate the backup...

I just like to poke at thaiboxerken. He's so foolish, he's funny. I'd like to see what gem he offers next.

...funny thing is I had you pigeoned as a religious version of Andy and Yandy...

Who is Andy and Yandy?

...(Personally I think you're a bit whacky, but we'll see).:boxedin:

Well, I'm as whacky as the next guy, but not near as whacky as thaiboxerken. I'm religious, but I admit seeing things a lot differently than most Christians.

I like to joke around. I'm getting the opportunity to joke around more here lately.

[Elind]

I like to joke around. I'm getting the opportunity to joke around more here lately.

Only problem with that is that you label yourself as a jokester; otherwise known as :tr:

[a_unique_person]

I just like to poke at thaiboxerken. He's so foolish, he's funny. I'd like to see what gem he offers next.



Not quite the aim of the forum, though, is it?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I just like to poke at thaiboxerken. He's so foolish, he's funny. I'd like to see what gem he offers next.

Not quite the aim of the forum, though, is it?

No, it isn't.

But please review his own trolling. My signature line offers just a few of the precious silliness he likes to post. The mods don't seem to mind. So what do you do? Ignore the fool? Sure.

But what about when he's trolling around, looking for YOU?

I'm from the old school. Give them back a taste of their own medicine, but do it better. After a while, he'll get the picture.

[Elind]

Not quite the aim of the forum, though, is it?

We agree on something after all.

[thaiboxerken]

If he isn't government, he can observe many aspects of your private life without a warrant.

Private spies don't need warrants.

Private spies are breaking the law. Does that make it right for the government to break the same laws?

[thaiboxerken]

But please review his own trolling. My signature line offers just a few of the precious silliness he likes to post. The mods don't seem to mind. So what do you do? Ignore the fool? Sure.


Feel free to start a thread about it, maybe even a poll, sasquatch-boy.

[Elind]

Private spies are breaking the law. Does that make it right for the government to break the same laws?
Private "spies" as you call them, using legally public information, break no law. The same applies to government. What you are implying is that you want all information, including that legislated by government in the interest of "open" government, to be considered secret. So who is the hypocrite here?

[thaiboxerken]

Private "spies" as you call them, using legally public information, break no law.

People that tap phone lines without warrant are breaking the law.

The same applies to government. What you are implying is that you want all information, including that legislated by government in the interest of "open" government, to be considered secret. So who is the hypocrite here?

No, I'm implying that the government is spying on people of the general public, violating privacy laws. It's not OK for the government or private people to tap my phone lines, monitor my email and internet without a warrant.

[CFLarsen]

People that tap phone lines without warrant are breaking the law.

"It's not illegal if the President is doing it".

Have you learnt nothing from the past? ;)

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
If he isn't government, he can observe many aspects of your private life without a warrant.

Private spies don't need warrants.

Private spies are breaking the law....

What law? It's perfectly legal to for private entities to gather intelligence, depending on how they do it.

...Does that make it right for the government to break the same laws...

There are very strict laws for government with regard to surveillance, foreign and domestic.

C'mon, thaiboxerken; you knew that, didn't you?

(See sig lines below, particularly: "I'm always right".)

[Huntster]

Feel free to start a thread about it, maybe even a poll, sasquatch-boy.

I don't need to.

You're better advertising than I could buy.

[Huntster]

...People that tap phone lines without warrant are breaking the law....

Guess what, fool:

Nobody is "tapping your line" when you type your foolishness here.

And you reveal much.........

...No, I'm implying that the government is spying on people of the general public, violating privacy laws. It's not OK for the government or private people to tap my phone lines, monitor my email and internet without a warrant....

Prove it, "science" boy.

I have more proof of sasquatch than you have that somebody is "tapping your line".

Hell, who'd want to tap your line?

You're hanging your dirty laundry out here for all to see, and you have absolutely nothing the NSA would be interested in.

[thaiboxerken]

What law? It's perfectly legal to for private entities to gather intelligence, depending on how they do it.

Depending on how they do it... hmm. Why do I think those words are important?


There are very strict laws for government with regard to surveillance, foreign and domestic.

C'mon, thaiboxerken; you knew that, didn't you?

(See sig lines below, particularly: "I'm always right".)

There are, but those laws seemed to have been ignored, and then changed to make those laws insignificant. Then, when found out, the government wanted to file charges against the ones that reported the illegal surveillance.

[thaiboxerken]

I have more proof of sasquatch than you have that somebody is "tapping your line".

I doubt that anyone is tapping my line, but they can. The government can issue secret warrants in a secret court of law to do a secret operation on me just by claiming that I am a terrorist suspect. They don't even have to give the secret judge secret evidence that I'm doing anything wrong, they just have to promise to the secret judge that they can find evidence. I don't trush phantom governmental procedings. The government should be accountable to the public.

I never claimed that the government would be interested in me, as I'm not a political threat to the Bush admin, I don't know anyone in the middle-east and I don't wear a turban.

[Rob Lister]

I never claimed that the government would be interested in me, as I'm not a political threat to the Bush admin, I don't know anyone in the middle-east and I don't wear a turban.

Then clearly no known member of a terrorist orgainization would call you from overseas on your phone.

[thaiboxerken]

Then clearly no known member of a terrorist orgainization would call you on your phone.

But would they call quakers?

http://www.progressive.org/mag_mc121605

[Rob Lister]

But would they call quakers?

http://www.progressive.org/mag_mc121605

I don't care who they call, the calls need to be monitored. Any president unwilling to do so is one I will not support. How 'bout them apples.

ETA: I love your sources.

[thaiboxerken]

I don't care who they call, the calls need to be monitored.

The quakers need to be monitored? Nice. Is it right for Bush to spy on political enemies?

[Rob Lister]

The quakers need to be monitored? Nice. Is it right for Bush to spy on political enemies?

I don't know if they did or not. I do know that phone calls from members of known terrorist organizations do need to me monitored, regardless of who they call. Are you saying a quaker can't be an aid to a terrorist orgainization? Please say you are.

[thaiboxerken]

I'm saying that I doubt that the quakers are terrorists. I also doubt that the US government has any reason to believe they are.

"Before 9-11, the FBI’s watch list consisted of only 16 names. Today it contains 80,000. As of June 2005, the National Counterintelligence Center had amassed files on 190,000 individuals. Do these numbers strike you as reasonable, or are suspicions getting out of hand?"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/23/opinion/main1228569.shtml


Is this surveillance about terrorism or political enemies?

[Rob Lister]

I'm saying that I doubt that the quakers are terrorists. I also doubt that the US government has any reason to believe they are.

So your doubt about all quakers in general extends to all quakers specifically?


"Before 9-11, the FBI’s watch list consisted of only 16 names. Today it contains 80,000. As of June 2005, the National Counterintelligence Center had amassed files on 190,000 individuals. Do these numbers strike you as reasonable, or are suspicions getting out of hand?"

They strike me as unrealistic in that the number is too small.



Is this surveillance about terrorism or political enemies?

If you're a terrorist, or a terrorist sympathizer, the two can be one in the same.

[thaiboxerken]

So your doubt about all quakers in general extends to all quakers specifically?

No, but it does extend to these people who's only "suspicious" activity consisted of anti-war protest.


They strike me as unrealistic in that the number is too small.

So, you're paranoid. Ok.


If you're a terrorist, or a terrorist sympathizer, the two can be one in the same.

Is your last name McCarthy?

[Rob Lister]

No, but it does extend to these people who's only "suspicious" activity consisted of anti-war protest.

If it only extended to anti-war protests, then why are there foreign terrorists calling them?

[thaiboxerken]

If it only extended to anti-war protests, then why are there foreign terrorists calling them?

Do you have evidence that they were called by foreign terrorists?

[Art Vandelay]

"Before 9-11, the FBI’s watch list consisted of only 16 names. Today it contains 80,000. As of June 2005, the National Counterintelligence Center had amassed files on 190,000 individuals. Do these numbers strike you as reasonable, or are suspicions getting out of hand?"Ah, argument by irrelevant numbers. So the FBI moved a bunch of names to the Watch List from another list. So what? So they have a bunch of files. So what? If they have a file on everyone's who's applied to be a police officer, that right there would be quite a bit more than 190,000.

[Rob Lister]

Do you have evidence that they were called by foreign terrorists?

The onus is clearly on you. Do you have a case wherein they intercepted non-foreign calls? I certainly can't prove a negative (but admittedly still give the them much, much benifit of the doubt...and were it clinton or gore or kerry, I'd do the same)


This ain't a game, no matter how much you think it is. There really are people out there that are more than willing to kill you, and me, and every "infidel" simply for the 'cause'. They lack only the means. Help them all you wish. I shall do my best to thawart them.

I see the line placed differently than you. I see my line as more properly placed.

[CFLarsen]

This ain't a game, no matter how much you think it is. There really are people out there that are more than willing to kill you, and me, and every "infidel" simply for the 'cause'. They lack only the means. Help them all you wish. I shall do my best to thawart them.

If you see someone armed on a plane, what will be your "best" to thwart them?

Tell the teacher (stewardess) and hope she will be able to take him out? Or merely hope that the guy will be a Good Guy?

You are quite right. This isn't a game. This is very real. And we need to do whatever it takes to protect ourselves, whilst still maintaining our rights.

If you want to distinguish between the Good Guys and the Bad Guys, you better be prepared to make some tough decisions. And quick, because you probably won't have all that much time.

This isn't a game. It sure isn't a movie either. This is very real. And real situations demands real solutions.

[Rob Lister]

If you see someone armed on a plane, what will be your "best" to thwart them?

Well Clause, it very much depends on the circumstances. I am not a huge guy but I am not totally without means. Likely, I would do just what you suggest and tell the steward or stewardess what I witnessed. I would also inform them of any means by which I would be willing to help, should any such need arise.

At the very probable least, an Air Marshal will get a good talking to as to what exactly "undercover" means.

P.S. I'm willing to bet I've more experience in determining good guys from bad than you have. I could be wrong. Either way, it doesn't make me better at it...just more likely logical in the doing of it. I submit your past posts and treads as evidence.

[thaiboxerken]

The onus is clearly on you. Do you have a case wherein they intercepted non-foreign calls?

What?! The onus is on the government to show that these people were talking to terrorists.


This ain't a game, no matter how much you think it is.

I agree, the watchlists are no joke, they are very serious. When the government starts to monitor people, illegally, for the simple crime of protest, it's a very serious matter.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by CFLarson :
If you see someone armed on a plane, what will be your "best" to thwart them?...Likely, I would do just what you suggest and tell the steward or stewardess what I witnessed. I would also inform them of any means by which I would be willing to help, should any such need arise.....

An excellent choice. I'd do the same.

At the very least the steward or stewardess can alert the cockpit, which is now closed tight, and might be armed, too.

Then quietly pay attention, and think about possibilities.........

[Rob Lister]

What?! The onus is on the government to show that these people were talking to terrorists.



I agree, the watchlists are no joke, they are very serious. When the government starts to monitor people, illegally, for the simple crime of protest, it's a very serious matter.

No, it is not. SigInt is a function of the C-N-C. Were it not so, it should be.

[thaiboxerken]

So you think it's ok for the government to spy on those that speak out against it. OK!
For some reason, I thought there was some constitutional stuff was written about that kind of thing.

[Rob Lister]

Then quietly pay attention, and think about possibilities.........

Exactly. All the while doing ones best to prepare themselves for even the most outrageous outcomes.

[CFLarsen]

Well Clause, it very much depends on the circumstances. I am not a huge guy but I am not totally without means. Likely, I would do just what you suggest and tell the steward or stewardess what I witnessed. I would also inform them of any means by which I would be willing to help, should any such need arise.

At the very probable least, an Air Marshal will get a good talking to as to what exactly "undercover" means.

You feel that's your "best"? It wouldn't have been enough onboard the planes.

P.S. I'm willing to bet I've more experience in determining good guys from bad than you have. I could be wrong. Either way, it doesn't make me better at it...just more likely logical in the doing of it. I submit your past posts and treads as evidence.

Not only do you keep misspelling my first name, you even change the e to an o in my last.

What do you think you gain from doing that? Do you think you appear more credible? Even "logical"? You're really someone we can trust making the right decision... :rolleyes: