december, summarizing an article is not that hard. You should try it sometime.
The Brokaw interview boils down to this statement by WMD hunter, David Kay:
Translation: We know there aren’t any WMDs so we’re going to pretend that finding a “program” is equivilent to finding WMDs. Luckily for us, we get to define what constitutes a WMD “program,” and we can spin whatever “evidence” we want as proving the existence of that program. We don’t actually have to find any stocks of WMDs to cobble together some bullshit presentation about a “program” sometime before the election campaign. We will then claim robotically during the campaign that the WMD allegations have been “proven” and that we need to “move on.” We will feign anger and exasperation whenever anyone tries to remind us that what the “president” actually asserted before the invasion was that Iraq had not just some nebulous “program” (and a “program” is whatever we say it is) but thousands of stocks armed and ready to go.
Of course, we haven’t found shit that we can even spin as a “program” at this point…but don’t worry, we will.
I would draw the conclusion that we still don’t know the story on Iraq’s WMDs and it will take a long time to find out. We ought to wait and see.
What a load of bullshit.
From now on anyone that believes there’s some huge WMD stash is a fucking idiot in my book.
No it shouldn’t take a long time at all.
Wasn’t Colin Powell pointing out buildings in that UN presentation?
Shouldn’t that have been the first place our troops went?
What did those turn out to be?
The Gaspode – I hold a very very dim view of alphabet news so this is a perfect example.
-
Tom Brokaw holds an interview with a person involved in the story. That’s good info.
-
Tom Brokaw states on the news. “David Kays says the US could be 6 months away from finding proof of WMD.” Still good. If I want,I can investigate further.
-
Tom Brokaw states on the news. “According to an “administration official” the US could be 6 months away from finding proof of WMD.” My bullshit meter pegs.
Unfortunately,the 3s outnumber 1s and 2s by a wide margin… I don’t believe it’s any “vast conspiracy” but rather trashy journalism. The news programs compete for “market share/advertising dollars” like any other TV program so the more sensationalism they can spin the better their ratings.
I quit watching alphabet news years ago but my bullshit meter still pegs automatically when I see ABC,NBC or CBS.
Now on CNN Tenet is saying he didn’t even read the final SOTU draft.
…? Alright then, let’s say “both,” and probably some other things I’ve missed.
There’s no basis for saying that despite the loud and frequent remonstrations. The foreign affairs committee investigating never came close to asserting that anything has been “proven very false”, or proven a teeny bit false, or anything of the sort. But you’d know that. It takes no more critical reading skill to paint Cook and his lapdog Short as the paragons of truth and virtue while everyone else is inept…you’re aware of that too, I’m sure.
This thread began as “Bush knew uranium story was false.” I don’t know that the uranium story is false, so I’ll wait for more information before believing it’s false, despite efforts made by ambitious members of both Parliament and Congress to spin a non-scandal of epic non-proportions. SOTU: “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” True on its face, true according to the UK, but nonetheless a bald-faced deception obvious to anyone who can read. Yeah. Sure. 
Boy are we going in circles here. It’s not about being a bald-face (you mean bold-face, but I digress) deception, it’s about the bigger picture, that the uncertainty should make us more conservative.
Saddam may or may not have tried to acquire uranium. What does that mean? It means we don’t know shit, and we should go back to square one in our investigation. Once we have proof positive, then we should level the accusation, bring the case to the American people, or handle it through the UN.
Nobody from the US or Britain can even provide a name, a place, a time, a year, let alone a turncoat Baath party official, in regards to this yellowcake business. The only scrap we have is “trust us”. I’ll assume, as I think everyone should, that he didn’t try to acquire any uranium until a case can be made otherwise. I’m not asking for much either, (none of this beyond a reasonable doubt shit), just something, anything besides telling me not to trust CBS, that could make me start to change my mind a little bit.
“We have secret intel we can’t divulge”
Bullshit, Bush and Blair are getting raked over the coals for this. If there was any single little scrap or evidence that could save their asses, (whether it should be released or not for national security reasons :D), they would bring it public in a heartbeat.
This whole things stinks, and you know it.
Wasn’t that what Hans Blix and everyone else was saying back in March? And you were opposed to that, IIRC…
Well they are working on it- the first forgery didn’t work so well so they are using better crayons this time.
december let me guess, some time around 2005 should be enough time, right? 
Read_Neck I have to admit your listing ABC, NBC and CBS as biased, but omitting Fox New was truly amusing. Thanks.
But, you ommitted CNN? Is that due to poor quality control on your behalf or they been co-opted by the John Birch Society while I wasn’t looking? Additionally, now that MSNBC has canned Michael Savage shouldn’t they be on your Big List O’ Evil?
Don’t forget those crazy NPR liberals or public TV.
Your pal, elf6c
World Eater,(and anyone interested) this book “The Man Who Kept Secrets” is an excellent read on the CIA. It’s well worth the time.
Why should Bush make exculpatory information public now? I think he’s a smarter politician than his critics. We aren’t near an election. It doesn’t matter if his popularity drops during the summer of 2003.
The interview I cited earlier said that the team looking for WMDs in Iraq will take a long time to reach conclusions. I predict that in the summer or fall of 2004 they will put out a comprehensive report showing all sorts of dangerous WMDs. The report will make the case that Bush saved the country and the world from disaster. His opponents will be seen to have been defaming the President while Bush was defending the nation.
elf6c - I didn’t forget anyone. The 24/7 news channels and even PBS do a pretty fair job of news because they devote more time. Radio? Do people still listen to that?
We?!?! What the fuck are you the Borg or something? Who gives a rats ass about his popularity dipping and elections. He’s playing with peoples lives here, and I mean that in every sense of the word.
This fucker is going to cause a terrorist attack, not prevent one, and you care about his popularity?
**
Save the the country and world from disaster?
No you didn’t just say that.
Save the the country and world from disaster?
You just said GWB will…
Save the the country and world from disaster?
**Bwahahahahaha! Bwahahaha! Hahahaha!
**
…whewwww… <wiping tears>
Evidence made public in fall 2004. Hmmm, just before the elections - enough time for it to be used to defame his critics and get him reelected before that evidence gets exposed as a steaming pile. The timing would be purely coincidental, I’m sure. Please tell me someone is using your account and posting this as a parody piece.
…
:eek:
…?
Wha…?
[checking poster’s name again] Hmm… not Diogenes TC…?
You know, december, with friends like you, the GOP doesn’t need any enemies. I can’t read your post in any other way, than you telling us how the spin to win '04, will be.
This would then mean that:
- The loss of American (and Iraqi) lives doesn’t matter to you, as long as the spin will work to keep GWB in office?
- Or, you actually don’t care about truth, justice and freedom for all, and your only interest is in the spin?
- Or, you are a certain kind of dweller under a certain type of construction, and meant to post this on another board.
Enough with the rethoric (from me). I just had to rant. A straight question, december, and disregard what I wrote above:
In your honest opinion, do you think it’s right to stretch out the search for WMD or WMD programs, in order to gain popularity in the presidential election next year?
(on preview - I see that Dissonance has an equally hard time believing what december wrote.)
No. I was half-kidding. But, I do think this issue has the potential to boomerang against the Democrats.
I was addressing the political aspects because the current focus on the sentence from the SOTU looks to be like a political effort.
You didn’t answer if it’s right or not.
No, I meant bald-faced. Other than that I don’t really disagree with you. This particular cycle of media attention to different aspects of the uranium issue by itself does not help or hurt anyone’s case either way, imo. It’ll support some of what you’ve been saying, what I’ve been saying, some of what this one or that one thinks…my major problem is with the different media reports themselves. They make assertions, draw conclusions, raise questions…an unnamed official, close to the intelligence community, strictly off the record…etc etc. It’s maddening after a while if you’re a sincere news junkie, to have to wade through what is news and what is more likely campaign fodder.