Once again, another egregious misrepresentation at what John Mace has written. It’s like you can’t even go a full post without working in some mendaciousness.
You know what it reminds me of? Sarah Palin and death panels.
Yes, the health care law has a provision on the Independent Payment Advisory Board. We can quote the law and read the words in black-and-white. But some yahoo comes up with a whole different version of what those words mean, and no amount of correction or factual intervention can correct that narrowminded, intentionally ignorant rhetoric.
Was Sarah Palin judged to be simply mistaken about those supposed death panels? Was it simply a matter of misinterpretation? Or subjective opinion? Or just the typical Washington positioning on issues?
No. Willful distortion of what other people have said or written, whether it is in the ACA, 1441, or this message board, despite repeated correction, is a lie. PolitiFact’s judgment is that Palin’s intentional misreading and misleading constitutes a pants on fire lie.
That’s the same thing that is happening here. What Sarah Palin is to death panels, NFbW is to the Iraq war. It’s not simply holding a different political position, or having a different view: it’s just a load of pants-on-fire lies that gets endlessly repeated. And every single post that repeats the same fictional version of history – like that the majority of the UNSC concluding one thing or another in March 2003 – is just pouring more fuel on the burning pack of lies that gets shoveled in to every single post he makes.
My question and your reply are written down here. If you wish to continue to pretend you wrote something else, then nothing will stop you. If you are not personally ashamed of being dishonest there is not much that can be done to stop your dishonesty.
But now if you accept that Blix recognized that Iraq’s cooperation was indeed proactive, I will ask you why you think Blix’s view that the late initiatives by Iraq, being ‘not immediate’ means that Iraq was, (A) not cooperating or (B) not in compliance with 1441?
Once again Ravenman makes a claim that comes with no backup as to why my statement is a misrepresentation of what John Mace wrote. Ravenman cannot explain the misrepresentation so he goes off on some Sarah Palin diversion.
Show me the points of your argument instead of filling up space about Sarah Palin.
IMO, it was virtually impossible for Iraq to be in full compliance with all those resolutions.
No, they were required to submit full and complete information, not recycled B.S.
Blix said it wasn’t “immediate”, so pardon me if I believe him rather than you.
If I said that (and I don’t think I did), it was a mistake. Iraq had 30 days to comply with one part of 1441. But note also that 1441 says:
" 4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted
by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with,
and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a
further material breach of Iraq’s obligations…"
A “final chance” is not a bridge. It’s the destination.
No one believes you about that because you have not provided a cite. There is no point in your repeating this unsubstantiated claim.
No, I don’t, but it really doesn’t matter. As noted, partial non-compliance is declared to be in additional material breach. The plain reading of the text of 1441 and the plain reading of Blix’s statements tell us that Blix thought Iraq was not in compliance. But of course he’s not going to explicitly say that since only the UNSC council can determine it. But you can’t read his comments without realizing that he’s saying he, personally, thinks they did not fully comply with paragraph 3. And I agree with him.
Since you are so fond of citing Blix then you should respect all his statements invluding the ones where he says that within a few months beyond March 2003 and with Iraq’s continued proactive cooperation it would take a mere three months or so for Iraq to be in full compliance and long term monitoring would be completely set up.
What you think John Mace means nothing.
Iraq was never required to be in full compliance with all resolutions by any date certain under the mandate of 1441. It is s non-issue as a matter of Iraq being in compliance with 1441.
Has anyone seen the Cheers episode with John Cleese? He plays a psychiatrist friend of Fraiser’s who does marriage counseling.
He sees Sam and Diane and tells them it’s his opinion they are not compatible and should not get married. Diane can’t accept this and repeatedly tries to convince Cleese he’s wrong. It goes on until he “agrees”.
Here’s the episode:
Go ahead and fast forward to 22:30 to see how it plays out.
Blix never said that, and only the UNSC could determine whether Iraq was in “full compliance”. There is no way Bush was going to allow a vote of “full compliance” to get passed. Bush, or any other US president could always find some technicality to use as a claim that SH was NOT in full compliance. There was too much stuff that seems to have just been “lost” and SH would not be able to account for 100% of his so-called WMDs.
First off, “disarmament” is only part of the UNSC resolutions. SH also had to account for any and all WMDs that he claimed were already destroyed. That’s the technicality that a US president could always latch onto to say that SH was not in compliance w/ UNSC resolutions.
Secondly, you didn’t quote the whole paragraph. In fact, you reported from a secondary source rather from the transcript itself and you modified the quote so it looked like one sentence instead of two separate sentence fragments:
Emphasis added. “Key”, not “all”. Blix never used the term “full compliance”. And that’s because he was only talking about the disarmament effort (and at that, only the “key” aspects of it) and not the verification of WMDs alleged to have been destroyed already. But also because Blix would never explicitly use that term. He knows that only the UNSC could make that determination. And you and I both know the US (and Britain) have veto power over any resolution passed by that council.
And note that he said “resolve”. You are assuming that the “resolution” was going to conclude that compliance had been achieved. That’s not necessarily so in every case.
My editing was careful done to clarify, not obscure, the claim you made.
He never said or predicted that they would “be in full compliance”. In fact, he’s too good at his job to make the mistake of saying something like that.
Do you really have any idea what Blix meant by “key remaining disarmament tasks”? it appears you are just making crap up in your head again. Blix uses the phrase “list of key remaining disarmament tasks” He always uses the term ‘remaining’ doesn’t he. You complain that Bilx didn’t say “all” remaining issues, but you did not mention Blix’s explanation of what the "key remaining disarmament tasks’ purpose and evolution were all about.
Why don’t you read this again, and then I will ask about your statement about that appears to be quite full of it as we generally expect of you John Mace:
You wrote, " And that’s because he was only talking about the disarmament effort (and at that, only the “key” aspects of it) and not the verification of WMDs alleged to have been destroyed already."
You state that with absolutely no basis in fact. Blix’s words (see underlined above) that the list of KEY ISSUES/TASKS is clearly about unresolved issues that existed prior to 1998 such as the unilateral unwitnessed destruction of chem weapons in the early nineties, and all the issues that have come up since 1998 when inspectors were not on Iraqi soil.
And if what I’ve shown you thus far is not enough, Blix talked directly about Iraq’s initiatives that were absolutely about the 1991 unilateral destruction and how to quantify and verify that Proscribed weapons were in fact destroyed.
Read this and weep Mace.
You digging a hole deeper and deeper… It will all cave in soon. And for what. To argue points that help Bush justify his stupid decision to end all this peaceful inspection and Iraq cooperation stuff. Again. Why do you do it. All those lame brains peeking in ought to start wondering the same thing.
What is wrong with stating the obvious truth that Iraq was cooperating with UN inspectors better than ever … and within a few more months … had Bush not decided to invade… Iraq would have been verified disarmed and long term monitoring would have been set up.
And what is this nonsense?
You wrote, "But also because Blix would never explicitly use that term. (“full compliance”) He knows that only the UNSC could make that determination. And you and I both know the US (and Britain) have veto power over any resolution passed by that council.
How in the hell could you even think you know that Blix would not use that term if he had all the answers and he felt verification was complete? And what would a US and UK veto do to stop Blix from stating that Iraq was fully and verified disarmed? Have you lost your mind?
It looks like Blix was given more power than you think in UN Res 1284.
;
You see, It would not give Iraq much incentive to comply if Iraq cooperated and came clean, but the US and UK could keep the sanctions and oil embargoes going anyway.
So Blix could report the monitoring and verification program was in place and Iraq was complying with everything and sanctions etc would be lifted… I don’t see where a vote was required.
This could have been amended later… but it makes sense to do it this way.
You’re just cherry-picking again and throwing up a wall of text, connecting the dots in a way that only seem to think make sense, apparently in order to justify in your mind why you were fooled by W in Oct 2002.
Blix never used the term “full compliance”, as you claimed. That term has a very specific meaning, and Blix is not the guy who determines when that is achieved, so he is no position to predict when it will occur. He can predict when he thinks he’s done as much as he can, but only the UNSC members, with all permanent members agreeing, can decide that or predict when it will happen.
Perhaps you were Fooled By W yet again if you think Bush would ever agree to sign a UNSC resolution saying Iraq was in “full compliance”.
Blix never used the term “full compliance”, as you claimed. That term has a very specific meaning, and Blix is not the guy who determines when that is achieved, so he is no position to predict when it will occur. /QUOTE]
Do you know what ‘verified disarmament’ means in the following statement:
“a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.” Blix does not have to state whatever the hell you think is a special meaning of “FULLY COMPLIED” to be looking forward to the day in a few months when ‘verified disarmament’ might be achieved.
And you remain ignorant of the fact I have shown you if you still think that Bush would have had a resolution to veto if Blix and El Beradai were to have been allowed those three more months to achieve ‘verified disarmament’ and the terms of Res 1284 were set into effect. Look again at Res 1284 that I posted earlier. That is not a wall of text, it is a repudiation of your bull crap and shows you know nothing about which you speak.
And since you are now claiming that the phrase I used has a ''specific meaning" it is incumbent of you to define what that “specific meaning” and how that meaning is universally required to be applied in all conversations and discussions. I was asserting what what I believe Blix would consider to be full compliance according to 1282 and other resolutions and his role as Chief Inspector of UNMOVIC.
You are now arguing that if Iraq continued with pro-active cooperation for a few more months and Blix was able to verify disarmament and set up long term monitoring and inspections, then Bush could ‘veto’ that reality away. But the truth is, realistically and technically you are wrong because there would be nothing to veto in the first place, but secondly your are a fool to suggest as a big Bush butt kissing Bushie would complain that the all powerful and magnificent Bush could make an argument stick that Iraq was still not cooperating and was a threat to the world so war would be necessary.
Bush can only make an argument such as that stick when stupid people fall for it.
You are not defending anything of the sort against my points because I do not at all disagree that Blix said Iraq’s cooperation was neither immediate or total. That is not where the disagreement is and it is not where it was. Blix was not talking about ‘all’ cooperation. He was talking about initiatives mostly on old unresolved issues regarding the unilateral destruction of chemical weapons in 1991 or 1992. The UNSC members never concluded that the pace of cooperation on those matters rose to the level of material breach of 1441. And there was no date certain for that level of cooperation to be reached.
You are defending, however just as Adaher does, - the legitimacy of the invasion itself.
I know that inspections that reduced the threat as Blix’s inspections had done blow up your bogus and mindless and groundless idea that invading Iraq was somehow legitimate. And that is what this is about isn’t it Mace.
I have to spend some time replying to all the other posters who have expressed an interest in my postings.
Since this thread, Little Nemo, is supposedly about my posting and XT started it, I will attempt to respond to all that has been posted to me or about me here:
In answer to your comment, I am probably the only one here that is attempting to understand and address the viewpoints of others. Others, such as John Mace, who thought at the time that invading Iraq was legitimate. Since John Mace and many others butting heads with me think the war was legitimate I am definitely not on their side and never would or will be.
There was no legitimate reason to a rational mind to decide to invade Iraq when UN Inspectors had reduced any threat potential from Iraq and WMD to somewhere near zero by March 2003 after Blix stated that Iraq was cooperating proactively but not what he considered to be immediate on one part of the inspection process.
Mace expressed that his mind and Dick efn Cheney’s mind were one with Iraq with regard to it’s legitimacy and how Bush should have gone ahead and done it. Mace even wrote a letter for Bush on how he should have approached Iraq - an approach that should not have included bothering with “mice” UN inspectors who were up against the “cat” Saddam Hussein.
You may also see if you read what Mace wrote that he has had problems with understanding the realities surrounding the US invasion of Iraq. Mace said in July 2003 that “not one country officially came in on the side of Iraq. Not one.” which is absurd. Everyone knew about the French and should have known that the majority of members on the UNSC came out for continued inspections and not war. That of course was considered by post-inspection war mongers in 2003 to be ‘on the side of Iraq’.
Wow, those are three whopping lies right there. Aren’t you ever embarrassed by what you write?
I’ll say this again: you agree more with Bush than John or I ever did. You’re as responsible for the war as any average citizen is, so you should look deep into your soul and acknowledge your mistakes which cost thousands of American lives.
Bush has no say on the matter if the Chief Inspectors of IAEA and UNMOVIC report Iraq’s to be fully complied with its disarmament obligations. No phony claim of
a wall of text here for Mace to hide behind when he cannot respond. Just the facts as written in Res 1284 which created UNMOVIC.