Oh, hell, man, we argue about the meanings of numbers all the time without disputing what the numbers are. It’s part of healthy skepticism. This time, you haven’t even referred to a poll that was taken since the latest revelation before claiming it is not only factual but currently significant. Thanks for playing.
And thank-you for ignoring what I wrote immediately before that:
Also, it’s beginning to look like O’Neill’s memory might not be the steel trap he thinks it is, according to Alan Greeenspan:
Not to say that O’Neill is a liar, but it just demonstrates that a person’s view of events are often distorted, especially when those events affect the person directly, dramatically, and negatively.
Read what I was responding to. elucidator said people have stopped defending Bush against charges that he lied to justify the invasion of Iraq. I said I’ve stopped defending him because I’m sick of making the same arguments that have been made dozens of times in previous threads.
In other words, we agree on what’s been argued ad nauseum.
I don’t follow you here. I’m not trying to draw any sort of analogy between Clinton and Bush. I’m saying that the discussions that O’Neill talked about, and which we’re discussing in this thread, were actually discussions about continuing Clinton’s policy on Iraq. They were not planning the invasion of Iraq before 9/11. Is that what you’re referring to?
http://www.intelmessages.org/Messag...sages/2159.html
"Two top Bush administration officials said yesterday that America would accept the continuation of Saddam Hussein‘s regime if Iraq disarms, apparently backing away from the official U.S. policy of seeking the ouster of the dictator.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said in television interviews yesterday that a disarmed Saddam could remain in power, and Mr. Powell said that is now President Bush‘s position.
*“Remember where regime change came from — it came from the previous administration,” * Mr. Powell said on NBC‘s “Meet the Press.”
(emphasis added)
It would seem, then, that the Admin had publicly repudiated any continuation of Clinton policy. All Saddam had to do was divest himself of the weapons he didn’t have in the first place. Neat trick.
Please, John, you’re defiantly challenging a poll that hasn’t even been taken yet to show any difference from one that doesn’t reflect information you’re valiantly trying to dismiss. Doesn’t work that way, pal.
elucidator, Age has made it quite clear that any and all facts contradicting his views are nauseating to him. Don’t waste any more precious, irreplaceable electrons trying to explain it to him unless you just want to have fun.
I can’t open your link, so I can’t see the date of the statement you’ve quoted. But given the context you’ve provided, I’m guessing that it was significantly after 9/11.
The topic of discussion was whether Bush planned the invasion of Iraq before 9/11. Some people in this thread seem to think that O’Neill said Bush was planning to invade Iraq before 9/11. O’Neill said that their pre-9/11 discussions were about continuing Clinton’s Iraq policy.
Obviously, Bush’s stance changed at some point. I’m just pointing out that O’Neill didn’t say Bush was committed to invasion before 9/11. Does your link say different?
Obviously, its impossible to get rid of something you don’t have. But Hussein backed himself into that corner by refusing to cooperate with UN inspections.
Actually, I said that we’d discussed the topic ad nauseum. Not the same thing. But hey, when have the facts ever slowed you down?
Yes, how dare Saddam allow UN inspectors unfettered access to his country! What kind of an idiot tries to avoid war by letting the UN folks go wherever they want and pull surprise inspections on his palaces and bunkers? :mad:
Of course it doesn’t work that way. You know it, I know it (and the American people know it).
Sheesh, man, all I’m saying is that I’m acknowledging the current polls don’t have the O’Neill issue factored in, that future polls should have it factored in, and that I’ll gladly say you are right when those future polls come out and if they show a significant change.
For now, we’ll simply have to agree to disagree on whether O’Neill’s revelations will play a significant roll in influencing people’s oponion of Bush.
Is this a joke?
Surely you can’t mean that Saddam did complied with his obligations under the inspections in light of this 173 page UNMOVIC report on Iraq’s WMD programs. It talks about (approximately) 20 instances in which the evidence directly contradicted Iraqi assertions about their WMD programs. It also talks about Iraqi attempts to mislead inspectors by lying or planting false evidence. It also includes specific examples of Iraqi noncompliance, including the discovery of the “Iraqi Air Force” document, which raised the spectre of over 6,500 bombs armed with mustard gas.
And lest we forget, Hans Blix gave testimony before the UNSC detailing the Iraqi inspections. Blix’s numerous reports give an overall favorable impression of Iraq’s cooperation, but also raise a number of issues, including intimidation of witnesses, discovery of noncompliant materials and programs, harassment, and false disclosures.
And, of course, there is the small matter of the numerous UN Resolutions finding that Iraq is not in compliance with its obligations related to the inspections. (If this needs a cite, let me know and I’ll dig up one.)
True, Iraq allowed the UN inspectors to go pretty much wherever they wanted. But that doesn’t mean they were cooperating.
I’d be interested in seeing your definition of cooperation. Do you happen to have it handy?
Any of these will do.
So you’d agree that Iraq’s destruction of its Al Samoud 2 missiles, despite controversy over whether the missile violated UN resolutions, and its handover over a 13,000 page report detailing every last WMD ever found in Iraq constitutes cooperation?
That fulfills the definitions you linked to. What else do you expect before calling it cooperation?
Well, John, then I must confess I’m out of ways to understand why you even brought up that obsolete poll as evidence of anything at all.
That should be taken without about a pound of salt.
Greenspan is a gold bug. He has a master plan for returning to the gold standard that of course includes a balanced budget. (“Certainly a gold-based monetary system will necessarily prevent fiscal imprudence, as 20th Century history clearly demonstrates.”) One person speculated that his comments and actions in the late nineties were a reflection of this master plan in action.
O’Neill was known to be close to Greenspan. Shortly after 9/11, they issued a
joint statement urging the government not to be too hasty with the stimulus measures until the lingering effects of the terrorist attack could be assessed.
Greenspan likes his job, and is a known bootlick when it comes to that. (remember him sitting next to Hillary at Bill’s first State of the Union? and then the total about-face he did about deficits shortly after Bush came in to office?) Given that, a history of his words and deeds is more valuable than a sudden denial issued in what I’m sure was a moment of total embarrasment for him.
Probably O’Neill figured his friendship with Greenspan meant something. I believe he figured wrong.
pantom:
I have to say that I’m surprised at your ad hominem attack on Greensapn. Two prominent individuals have offered divergent views of a a particular event. You choose to believe one but not the other. Certainly O’Neill has at least as much at stake, from his own personal perspective, to distort as Greenspan has. I see no reason whatsoever to weight one guy’s view over the other’s.
Oh, then I guess it was the other Age Quod Agis who wrote:
Yeah, no implied analogy there, no siree. :rolleyes:
Not that I don’t believe you, but do you have a cite for this? I can’t seem to find a transcript of the interview, and I’m wondering if what you quoted is perhaps a little out of context, because it seems to contradict news articles about the interview. For example:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?ID=3925358&p1=0
The way I’m reading this, O’Neill didn’t go back on what he said on 60 Minutes, but was clarifying that it wasn’t the planning he criticized, but rather the fact that Bush apparently had already resolved to take action on that planning before 9/11, whether or not the justification was there. In other words, contingency planning is acceptable, but pre-emptive strikes without justification are not. Which is the same point I made earlier vis a vis your comparison of Bush’s planning with Clinton’s planning. Contigency planning is acceptable, but pre-emptive strikes require justification.
I’d like to see the context of the snippet you quoted. I suspect that the point O’Neill is making is just that - contingency planning is acceptable, but what Bush did went beyond contigency planning to the point of saying “Find a way to make it happen”. If that’s not what he meant, then it would constitute a total reversal of what he said on 60 Minutes, and I would think Bush would have jumped all over that by now.
I would not agree that Iraq was cooperating, despite the fact that they destroyed the Al Samoud 2 missiles (the only “controversy” was that Iraq said the missiles didn’t violate UN Resolutions, and everyone else said they did), and filed a lengthy dossier.
[nitpick]The document was 11,807 pages, not 13,000[/nitpick]
I’d expect that cooperation would include not engaging in harassment, deception, and intimidation. I’d expect that their documentation not include false information, and that their documentation include the location or credible information indicating the destruction of prohibited weapons, as required by the UN Resolutions. Or does your definition of cooperation include those things? If so, may I see your dictionary?
But don’t take my word for it. Take the word of Hans Blix. From a New York Times article:
Is this really the first you’ve heard of this? If so, please read the rest of my post #110.
John Mace: 'Cause it fits his previous patterns of behavior so very well. Greenspan is a fine technocrat, but my impression of his character is that, basically, he’ll do anything to keep his job, including betraying a friend. Just my judgement, I realize, but the evidence is that O’Neill and Greenspan were close, and that they both leaned towards restraint in the budget process. Therefore, O’Neill’s characterization fits in with the knowns, and so does Greenspan’s denial.