Powells squib now wetter still...

[Jon_in_london]

British security forces call into question Powell's claims that the suspected terrorist who stabbed a manchester policeman is linked to al-queda or iraq. Oops.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,889821,00.html

[The Don]

Don't let inconvenient facts get in the way of a good opinion

I understand that Pontious Pilate, Atilla the Hun, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson and the bloke who cut me up in the car this morning were also trained by al-queda

[Reginald]

Maybe we should stop using the term "Al-Queda" and go back to all using the less "PC" and more generic "Islamic fudamentalist" tag for all these things.


Covers a whole multitude and its far easier to make the required "links".

[crackmonkey]

Oh, damn. That changes EVERYTHING...:rolleyes:

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Oh, damn. That changes EVERYTHING...:rolleyes:

It certainly doesnt cast the rest of what he said in a flattering light, does it?:rolleyes:

[Loon]

You know, when powell said that, I was thinking "it seems to me that they weren't connected to al-qaeda."

I was right.

It also occurs to me that the standard of evidence required to convince people of Iraq's possession of SUV's is much higher because the guy presenting the evidence is so clearly far from neutral on the issue (referring far more to Bush than to Powell). I think it'll soon get to the point where Bush could show video of Hussein explaining a plan to use VX gas on Paris and people would still doubt it because the presenter of the information was GW Bush.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
British security forces call into question Powell's claims that the suspected terrorist who stabbed a manchester policeman is linked to al-queda or iraq. Oops.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,889821,00.html

They are saying:

"These guys aren't connected to Iraq or Al Qaeda"

or

"We (the Brits) have no evidence they are connected to Iraq or Al Qaeda"

or

"The US has no evidence they are connected to Iraq or Al Qaeda"

Here's what Powell said:

The chart you are seeing shows the network in Europe. We know about this European network, and we know about its links to Zarqawi, because the detainee who provided the information about the targets also provided the names of members of the network.

Three of those he identified by name were arrested in France last December. In the apartments of the terrorists, authorities found circuits for explosive devices and a list of ingredients to make toxins.

The detainee who helped piece this together says the plot also targeted Britain. Later evidence, again, proved him right. When the British unearthed a cell there just last month, one British police officer was murdered during the disruption of the cell

I don't see the part where he says 'the Brits told us X'. It seems to me that what he is saying is 'we told the Brits X, and this led to arrests'.

MattJ

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Loon
You know, when powell said that, I was thinking "it seems to me that they weren't connected to al-qaeda."

I was right.

It also occurs to me that the standard of evidence required to convince people of Iraq's possession of SUV's is much higher because the guy presenting the evidence is so clearly far from neutral on the issue (referring far more to Bush than to Powell). I think it'll soon get to the point where Bush could show video of Hussein explaining a plan to use VX gas on Paris and people would still doubt it because the presenter of the information was GW Bush.

How sad this is. I am a skeptic of American policy...and no fan of George Bush. However, think of the implication of this statement. Saddam Hussien, a man who has spent his entire life as a murderer -- not an abstract, tyrant kind of murderer, but one who has killed and assinated with his own hands -- is accorded credibility, time, grace, understanding, etc. by global leaders because GWB is too, well, "American" -- i.e talks like a cowboy and doesn't seem to the French to be the best tool in the tool box.

If Bush is wrong, the world will learn. The global press will ferret it out, his polticial opponents at home and abroad will hold him to a high standard of honesty for his claims about Iraq. It is sad to me that the standard for Saddam is so much lower...maybe because there is essentially a great deal of racism in the world and Europe in particular, racism that holds that an Arab and an essentially third world country need not be held to the same standard of honesty, integrity, truth, justice, respect for other's opinions, etc.

Bush may be wrong and lying, but the truth will be out. Saddam has done nothing but lie and kill throughout his career and life -- millions in Irag and Iran have paid a high price for that. One wonders when the truth about Saddam will ever be accepted? By this I mean not that war is inevitable or necessary -- I still have doubts -- but that his words and deeds are subjected to the same critical scrutiny as are G.Bush's.

Indeed, it is racist to not hold Saddam to that standard.

[Loon]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


How sad this is. I am a skeptic of American policy...and no fan of George Bush. However, think of the implication of this statement. Saddam Hussien, a man who has spent his entire life as a murderer -- not an abstract, tyrant kind of murderer, but one who has killed and assinated with his own hands -- is accorded credibility, time, grace, understanding, etc. by global leaders because GWB is too, well, "American"

This is half of the point I want to make. The rest of the world, or at least China, France and Russia, seems to be looking at this a boy-who-cried-wolf thing. First it was "WOLF" and all there was little evidence. Then it was "WOLF" and people were already tired of this, so the extra wolf-signs didn't impress them- they hadn't seen the wolf.

But I also wanted to point out that Bush needs to realize that his credibility started as less than that of others on this specific issue, in part due to family honor and in part due to the administrations heavy connections to the oil industry. And by failing to convince people with each successive wave of evidence, he loses more credibility. To some, it's looking like he's cried wolf quite a few times and they're conditioned to not believe it.

It may well be getting near time to decide to blow the cover for a critical source (or whatever the risks of revealing a smoking gun are) and to get other countries to say "Hot Damn, let's kick some ass."

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Reginald
Maybe we should stop using the term "Al-Queda" and go back to all using the less "PC" and more generic "Islamic fudamentalist" tag for all these things.


Covers a whole multitude and its far easier to make the required "links".


Are you implying that all islamic fundamentalists are members of al quaida?
Is it illegal to be an islamic fundamentalist?

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Loon


This is half of the point I want to make. The rest of the world, or at least China, France and Russia, seems to be looking at this a boy-who-cried-wolf thing. First it was "WOLF" and all there was little evidence. Then it was "WOLF" and people were already tired of this, so the extra wolf-signs didn't impress them- they hadn't seen the wolf.

But I also wanted to point out that Bush needs to realize that his credibility started as less than that of others on this specific issue, in part due to family honor and in part due to the administrations heavy connections to the oil industry. And by failing to convince people with each successive wave of evidence, he loses more credibility. To some, it's looking like he's cried wolf quite a few times and they're conditioned to not believe it.

It may well be getting near time to decide to blow the cover for a critical source (or whatever the risks of revealing a smoking gun are) and to get other countries to say "Hot Damn, let's kick some ass."

Loon:

I may be missing something critical in what you are saying or in your tone, if so, I apologize.

However, I remain troubled by the standard that the "world" has set for GWB. Again, I am no fan of George Bush and believe many of his policies are problomatic and disingenuous (e.g. complaining about N. Korea, but essentially finding out that Clinton's policies may be about the best you can do...). However, you point out that he comes to the table with out much credibility, but I don't understand why those he is arguing against are given more.

For instance, Chirac. The French have an agenda and a "history". Chirac wants to sell technology and improve trade with the Arab Countries, it wants billions of contracts with Iraq for French industry. To achieve that, it is willing to close its eyes to doing deals with the devil. Now, you've said that GWB has little credibility because of his connection to business and the oil indsutry? How is this, ultimately, any different?

Indeed, GWB and the US is condemned -- and rightfully so -- for having done deals witht he devil in the past...so how are Russia (which wants the oil business) and France (which wants the oil business) any less or more credible here than GWB? Or, is it, in the end, when a European country does a deal with evil, it is real politic, intelectual and understandable, but when an America engages in those activities, it is arrogant, cowboy unilateralism.

I am not arguing the US is right...I am in fact arguing that the US acts like every other nation in this regard, and GWB isn't any different than his harshest critics at the top of the Global Food Chain when it comes to questioning his credibilty.

[demon]

"If Bush is wrong, the world will learn. The global press will ferret it out, his polticial opponents at home and abroad will hold him to a high standard of honesty for his claims about Iraq."

"Bush may be wrong and lying, but the truth will be out."

That might be just fine after the event. In the meantime a lot of innocent Iraqis won`t live to see the summer.

[headscratcher4]

In the meantime a lot of innocent Iraqis won`t live to see the summer.

A lot of innocent Iraqis wont live to see the summer no matter what...it is a nation of 22 million, and most expert agree that Saddam has killed over a million of them already. Not to mention the Iranians that died. And, yes, I know that all of the starving, sick children are America's fault, when we could have re-engaged with the regime and helped Saddam build his palaces.


Anyway, I understand why the US hasn't got a lot of credibility, I don't understand why the Iraqis have any -- that is my only real question.

[demon]

I don`t think many people give Saddam any credibility. What they are concerned about is the reasons why we are going to war with them.

To many those reasons are obvious.

[DanishDynamite]

I agree with demon. I don't think anyone believes a word Saddam says. He has zero credibility. What people are interested in is the reasons for war

[rikzilla]

Jon,

Quick question.

What is "squib"?? And why is squib less appealing when wet?

:confused: :confused:
I thought I'd heard it all...but this squib stuff has mystified me, why all the palaver?? (And BTW what the $$&%** is palaver??)
-z

[DanishDynamite]

rikzilla:(And BTW what the $$&%** is palaver??) Wow! I had no idea this was also an English word (its a Danish word, same spelling). Anyway, from Merriam-Websters:

Etymology: Portuguese palavra word, speech, from Late Latin parabola parable, speech.

1a : a long parley usually between persons of different cultures or levels of sophistication
1b : CONFERENCE, DISCUSSION
2a : idle talk
2b : misleading or beguiling speech

In Danish its a combination of 1a and 2a, i.e. a lot of blabbing, usually high-pitched.

[Doctor X]

Headscratcher makes a valid point regarding the hypocritical standards.

The squib seems to remain quite dry.

--J.D.

[Loon]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


I may be missing something critical in what you are saying or in your tone, if so, I apologize.


To be clear, I'm just trying to say that, for better or worse, Bush's credibility seems to be falling and thus the bar is raising for the evidence he needs to present to the rest of the world. The evidence gets better, but it seems to just about match the decline in credibility, almost a red queen thing.

I'm not saying that it's right or wrong, just that I think it's true. I might be wrong.



However, I remain troubled by the standard that the "world" has set for GWB. Again, I am no fan of George Bush and believe many of his policies are problomatic and disingenuous (e.g. complaining about N. Korea, but essentially finding out that Clinton's policies may be about the best you can do...). However, you point out that he comes to the table with out much credibility, but I don't understand why those he is arguing against are given more.


I think Iraq doesn't need (political) credibilty in this case because there is a presumption that because the inspectors didn't find anything before and aren't finding anything now, there's no weapons.

Also, if you leave your kids in the next room and hear a whump followed by crying, you expect that there are going to be excuses made. So when the kid who isn't crying says "he started it," you're not likely to believe him. Same thing here- everybody was has been expecting Bush to make a play on Iraq. So when it comes, people are skeptical; they are expecting Bush to feed them a BS line simply because he wants to roast Saddam.



For instance, Chirac. The French have an agenda and a "history". Chirac wants to sell technology and improve trade with the Arab Countries, it wants billions of contracts with Iraq for French industry. To achieve that, it is willing to close its eyes to doing deals with the devil. Now, you've said that GWB has little credibility because of his connection to business and the oil indsutry? How is this, ultimately, any different?


It's different for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, France is not passing judgement on its own motivations. They may very well be being hypocritical to say we're only in it for the oil and therefore don't have cause to go to war. Also, an "oil" connection is more obvious than a more general "industrial" connection (or maybe because Chirac is not tied as spceifically to the oil business). Not sure why I think this is the case, maybe because the oil thing looks less honorable because it is more obvious.

And on top of that, it takes more effort to change policy than to maintain the status quo. If the benefits of change (or the odds of seeing those benefits) are small, the benefits may be outweighed simply by the effort of change.




Indeed, GWB and the US is condemned -- and rightfully so -- for having done deals witht he devil in the past...so how are Russia (which wants the oil business) and France (which wants the oil business) any less or more credible here than GWB?


I would guess that, to objective eyes, they should not be. But we are not dealing with objective eyes. We're dealing with greedy eyes. So maybe it's not an issue of credibility between GWB and Chirac, but rather an issue of credibility between GWB and money. Or perhaps it's even just a politcal thing. Others have siggested that France, China and Russia need to appear to be dragged along as only grudging participants.


Or, is it, in the end, when a European country does a deal with evil, it is real politic, intelectual and understandable, but when an America engages in those activities, it is arrogant, cowboy unilateralism.


Nobody for whom this is true would EVER admit to it, but it may also play a factor.



I am not arguing the US is right...I am in fact arguing that the US acts like every other nation in this regard, and GWB isn't any different than his harshest critics at the top of the Global Food Chain when it comes to questioning his credibilty.



Bush has his own history working against him because he's an oilman eyeing an oil producer and because he's got a family history thing going on - "He tried to kill my poppa." This means he is subject to extra scrutiny simply because Iraq is involved {If, say, Columbia all of a sudden went pure evil and became a threat to regional stability and non-gassedness, I think Bush would encounter less opposition to going in and cleaning house. My guess is an aggressive stance towards North Korea would be far less objectionable to the rest of the world (though perhaps because everybody sees opportunity if the North falls.)}


On top of all this, the no-war-in-Iraq side sees an just as much benefit (money for France) in maintaining the status quo as Bush sees in change (Money for America). In addition, there's the inertia of the current situation to overcome- people have to be convinced of the benefits of war.

[DanishDynamite]

Dr. X:Headscratcher makes a valid point regarding the hypocritical standards. What hypocritical standards? No one believes anything Saddam says. I would take Bush's word over Saddam's any day. However, these two political leaders' word means nothing in regard to supporting a war.

[Mike B.]

As far as a double standard goes...

Christopher Hitchens, the British Trotskyite, as he likes to call himself made I think some valid points about a double standard in regards to France.

He said he respected Germany's basic pacifism because of their history and they were consistent.

But France is always asking that the US go through the UN but always acts uniltateraly itself. (Rwanda, Greenpeace, Ivory Coast in the beginning, etc.)

Also,
I fail to see the superior morality in the French position, with all its monetary contracts with the Iraqi regime. (Not that I agree with war either.)

[c0rbin]

I am not arguing the US is right...I am in fact arguing that the US acts like every other nation in this regard, and GWB isn't any different than his harshest critics at the top of the Global Food Chain when it comes to questioning his credibilty.

Great points headscratcher, to take it a step further (or maybe reiterate), Europe has been known to try diplomacy with liars before only to hear the jack boots knocking.

The US has a big PR problem in the world, none of which changes the fact that the Saddams and Kim Jong-Il are dangerous to THE WHOLE WORLD.

Who will stand up to them in the next few years when they have had time to create the threat required by the UN for action?

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I agree with demon. I don't think anyone believes a word Saddam says. He has zero credibility. What people are interested in is the reasons for war

Not that I'm a big fan of war, but I think that the one thing that Powell did successfully do was show that Iraq is not cooperating with the inspectors. That, as my weak understanding of the situation goes, is actually enough to be in breach of the current UN resolution. The idea that Saddam has no credibility works to this argument's favor.

Like it or not, the US seems to have enough justification as a result of the last resolution it force-fed the UN.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


Loon:

I may be missing something critical in what you are saying or in your tone, if so, I apologize.

However, I remain troubled by the standard that the "world" has set for GWB. Again, I am no fan of George Bush and believe many of his policies are problomatic and disingenuous (e.g. complaining about N. Korea, but essentially finding out that Clinton's policies may be about the best you can do...). However, you point out that he comes to the table with out much credibility, but I don't understand why those he is arguing against are given more.



GWB supposedly has the most highly qualified and supported administration in the world. surely he can get some basic facts and a story straight from the start.

this does not give any credence to saddam. i think the basic problem is that a war may end up killing more. think of the basic doctors strategy, you don't make the cure worse than the disease. Afghanistan is reverting to anarchy again, which is worse for the ordinary inhabitant than the living conditions they had under the taliban.



For instance, Chirac. The French have an agenda and a "history". Chirac wants to sell technology and improve trade with the Arab Countries, it wants billions of contracts with Iraq for French industry. To achieve that, it is willing to close its eyes to doing deals with the devil. Now, you've said that GWB has little credibility because of his connection to business and the oil indsutry? How is this, ultimately, any different?



no big fans of the french here. especially after the pacific ocean nuke tests and the raindbow warrior sinking.



Indeed, GWB and the US is condemned -- and rightfully so -- for having done deals witht he devil in the past...so how are Russia (which wants the oil business) and France (which wants the oil business) any less or more credible here than GWB? Or, is it, in the end, when a European country does a deal with evil, it is real politic, intelectual and understandable, but when an America engages in those activities, it is arrogant, cowboy unilateralism.

I am not arguing the US is right...I am in fact arguing that the US acts like every other nation in this regard, and GWB isn't any different than his harshest critics at the top of the Global Food Chain when it comes to questioning his credibilty.

as i noted in another thread, the US is by far the most powerful country in the world, in economic and military terms. they are embarking on an imperialist path, the likes of which wound up in the debacle of WWI.

[Doctor X]

DanishDynamite:

I agreed with Headscratcher's general post.

--J.D.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


no big fans of the french here. especially after the pacific ocean nuke tests and the raindbow warrior sinking.


Whats wrong with sinking the rainbow warrior? Vive Le Frogs!

[headscratcher4]

I think the hypocracy -- and go with me here for a minute, as I've not thought it through completely (as this post will probably show) -- is that Europe, in many ways, does and responds exactly as they see the US responds. In other words, they are seeing the world as "black" and "white."

One of the useful criticisms of Bush, it seems to me, is that he and his Administration, see the world in Black and White -- US always good, Saddam always evil, etc. Those opposed to US policy, especially in Europe, point to this and say: that's not how the world works....

Unfortunately, from where I sit, there seems to be exactly that kind of thinking emerging in Europe. If it is American, it is inherently wrong. No one is measuring the levels of evil, as it were. Indeed, American policy might come out on the short end of that analysis. But, instead, as exhibited in this board on more than one occasion, it is knee-jerk anti-Americanism.

Now, I say this as one who condemns the black and white thinking in my own government. But look above...everyone wants it to be known that they are not supporting or applauding Saddam, but that in the end they have to be against America...it is arrogant, imperialist, etc.

I don't disagree about the troubling aspects of US foriegn policy, but it seems to me that the mistake is that as bad as US foriegn policy may seem, it is at least rooted aspirationally in values and philosophies that Europeans, I think, share and should want to see propogated.

Not to suggest that there isn't more than a little self interest and disengenuousness about how the policy is promulgated...god knows it has had it's bad applications and naked self interest back-fire. But, at heart, this is a country that aspires to democracy, freedoms of speech, religion, conscience, etc.

Nothing about Saddam or his regime, his vision, asperation or capabilities are compatible with any of these values.

Yet, black and white speaking (and going with a possibly bad analogy) our friends in Europe are as reactionary as we in the US. If it is US policy it must be wrong...France, Russia, etc. who have helped prop-up Saddam for the last ten years (once America abandoned it's policy of propping him up), now lecture the world and the US on the importance of diplomacy. It is a lecture we need to hear...

But what than to do? Isn't it really a case of the lessor of two evils? Aren't the dead in Iran and Iraq -- isn't their blood on all of our hands?

BTW...just so I understand a European point of view...it is Imperialism when the US acts against Saddam, but the French monkeying around in West Africa...that is, well, somehow not?

In the end, wrong as the US might be in this, I still believe that we and Europe share many similar values and I guess what I hope for is that it is those values that woud play a bigger role in policy -- rather than the knee-jerck reactionary position that seems to win out on both sides of the Atlantic.