# SDMB - Fair and Balanced ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 29, 2005, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353 "2005-06-29T13:25:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/221 "2005-06-30T19:31:09Z")
I rise to underscore an argument made by the cool breeze from the North, **Big Svin** … “Imminent threat” was essential to the legality of the Iraq invasion. As noted by **Finn** , it was not only central to the case presented to the UN by Colin Powell, it was, for all practical purposes, the _only_ argument. This was not an error or an oversight: the only legal justification for a pre-emptive strike is a genuine threat. A presumptive threat that may or may not loom into reality does not qualify. These very same themes are stressed in the Downing Street Smoking Memos. Our British cousins, innocent _naifs_ that they are, truly gave a rat’s patoot about matters of international law, more fools they. Granted, given the disastrous results of this adventure, its begins to seem trivial, these questions of legality. But, at the time, the Bushiviks and their supporters went to great lengths to make a false and misleading case for legitimacy. It was only when that case failed did they begin to pretend that it never mattered. I urge the reader to remember: out of Powell’s hour long exposition of damning evidence not one…not _one_!.. of his assertions have proven out. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/222 "2005-06-30T19:46:25Z")
Note that the [Congressional Resolution on Iraq](http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html) never uses the phrase “imminent threat”. Instead it uses, multiple times, the phrase “continuing threat”. IOW, it’s been a threat all along, and we’re now going to deal with it. Perhaps this paragraph sums up the resolution best: > [@](#): > > Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself I will absolutely agree that that paragraph could be interpreted as describing an “imminent threat”, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be interpreted that way. A surprise attack could be tomorrow or 3 years from now. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/223 "2005-06-30T20:16:57Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > On the subject of how the war was sold, how about [Powell’s speech to the UN?](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html) > > How many times is the word ‘liberate’ used? Zero. > How many times is the word ‘freedom’ used? Zero. > How many times is the word ‘humanitarian’ used? Zero. > How many times is the word ‘democratic’ used? Zero. > How many times is the word ‘torture’ used? Zero. > How many times is the word ‘oppression’ used? Zero. > > How many times is the word ‘terrorism’ used? Seven. > How many times was the phrase ‘weapons of mass destruction’ used? Seventeen. Although, even in a speech that was certainly delivered primarily on the subject of WMD, Powell included this: > [@](#): > > A source said that 1,600 death row prisoners were transferred in 1995 to a special unit for such experiments. An eye witness saw prisoners tied down to beds, experiments conducted on them, blood oozing around the victim’s mouths and autopsies performed to confirm the effects on the prisoners. Saddam Hussein’s humanity–inhumanity has no limits. Which is more about human rights violations and torture than WMD. > [@John Mace](#): > > Here’s what I see is a big part of the “the problem”, and I think I can speak for many of the posters here, like Xtisme or Airman Doors and others, who didn’t vote for Bush in this last election, or did so reluctantly: It seems that disavowing Bush is not enough for many of the anti-Bush crowd here. Unless you are willing to swear on the [MoveOn.Org](http://MoveOn.Org) charter to hate Bush with every fiber of your being, you ending being called a partisan hack, or mindless Bush supporter. Preach it, brother - maybe it will be more acceptable coming from you. And **MaxTheVool** - am I correct in thinking that you were saying that the suggestion that only a racist/fool/whatever could support Bush was misguided? If so, I apologize for misunderstanding you. I thought you were saying that I was doing harm to the SDMB by pointing it out. My bad, I think. > [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > Shodan, showing another common strategy: I don’t like this debate. Let’s have a different one altogether. I can certainly understand why you might want that. 😉 And yes, it is certainly a common strategy, employed by both conservatives and liberals alike, especially when they find themselves in your situation. > [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > I assume that your tu quoque is an acknowledgement that it was unfair to characterize Kerry’s position as Sam did. You can certainly assume whatever you like. It might go down a little better if you can point to where **Sam** stated that Kerry **never** said anything that could be interpreted, or misinterpreted, by partisans. Knowing what we do about Sen. “I voted for it before I voted against it” Kerry, I would be surprised if anyone expected that kind of consistency from him. 😃 > [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > Perhaps you could find some additional examples that human rights are given as much attention in a speech by Bush as they are in that speech to the UN. Well, from your own cite: > [@](#): > > In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. I won’t pretend that WMD weren’t stressed as the basis for the invasion. But I also won’t pretend that this was the only reason. And I am afraid I will have to decline the Left’s attempt to pretend for me. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/224 "2005-06-30T20:30:07Z")
**Shodan** : WMDs may not have been the only reason, but they absolutely were the _sine qua non_ for the justification for war. That’s what has many folks more than a little upset about the justification leading up to the war. Personally, I wouldn’t have favored the war even if we did have 100% certainty of WMDs in Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/225 "2005-06-30T20:30:41Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Although, even in a speech that was certainly delivered primarily on the subject of WMD, Powell included this To be fair, the line which comes right before that? > [@](#): > > We also have sources who tell us that, since the 1980s, Saddam’s regime has been experimenting on human beings to perfect its biological or chemical weapons. The line that comes right after that? > [@](#): > > Let me turn now to nuclear weapons. We have no indication that Saddam Hussein has ever abandoned his nuclear weapons program. So it’s human rights violations in the context of WMD research. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/226 "2005-06-30T20:45:46Z")
[hijack] Not that it matters much, but I am genuinely curious: > [@FinnAgain](#): > > So it’s human rights violations in the context of WMD research. They weren’t even researching biological or chemical weapons? My understanding is that the Iraqi nuclear “program” was largely on paper, and propped up by the verbal assurances of fearful Iraqi nuclear scientists to Saddam Hussein that all was full steam ahead. But the Iraqi biological and chemical programs was in similar shambles? [/hijack] ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/227 "2005-06-30T20:46:57Z")
> [@bordelond](#): > > But the Iraqi biological and chemical programs **were** in similar shambles? Corrected. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/228 "2005-06-30T20:51:14Z")
**bordelond** : I don’t grok… how does your question stand after your correction? I’m a bit confused. \ Is that your final answer? \ 😉 ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/229 "2005-06-30T20:55:50Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > **bordelond** : I don’t grok… how does your question stand after your correction? I’m a bit confused. > > \ Is that your final answer? \ 😉 I used the singular version of the verb when I should have used the plural. What I’m asking is this: we know that the Iraqi nuclear program was essentially an “Emperor’s New Clothes” scenario. I am asking if research into biolgical and chemical weapns programs was going on in Iraq. Reason I’m asking: “WMD” is a semi-weaselly term to get people to think “nukes”, but it technically encompasses bioweapons and chemical weapons. So, if Iraq had ongoing research into biological/chemical weapons, Powell’s statements quoted about torture would seem to have some legitimacy. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/230 "2005-06-30T21:10:09Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > And **MaxTheVool** - am I correct in thinking that you were saying that the suggestion that only a racist/fool/whatever could support Bush was misguided? If so, I apologize for misunderstanding you. I thought you were saying that I was doing harm to the SDMB by pointing it out. My bad, I think. I think you understand me now. Making blanket negative statements about Bush supporters (ie, “all Bush supporters are idiots”) is both false and harmful. Which is not to say it never happens. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/231 "2005-06-30T21:11:07Z")
That’s a good point you raise, and to be honest I don’t have the time to address it fully right now as I’m heading off to a friend’s house to drink a cold beer or three. I’ll try to get some research done later this evening or tomorrow though. For now, IIRC, all of the WMD programs were in much the same state as the nuke program, and Sadaam was focusing most of his energy on the nuke program in any case. But, even if Sadaam was working towards biological/chemical WMD, then Powell’s statements about torture were still only in the context of that WMD development. Sorta like “And in order to develop his WMD, he’s torturing people.” ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/232 "2005-06-30T21:19:51Z")
**Bricker** : Thanks. > [@](#): > > \*\*\* 1) The employment of the OSP to stovepipe previously discredited intelligence directly into the White House;\*\* > > All this shows is a disagreement between different analysts as to what weight certain intelligence observations should be granted. This doesn’t show that the “previously discredited” intel was correctly discredited, or that the other intel was correctly credited. > > Note that “correctly” doesn’t mean “turned out to be true”. “Correctly” means evaluated in a reasonable and prudent manner.\* Well, to start with, I would argue that intelligence evaluated in a “reasonable and prudent” manner would likely turn out to be true. At least, a large portion of such intelligence would turn out to be true. The fact that so much of the OSP intelligence product turned out to be completely false argues against it being evaluated in a reasonable and prudent manner, don’t you think? But let me continue as well by challenging you to provide, say, 3 examples of intelligence produced by the OSP that meet your own standards of reasonable and prudent evaluation. > [@](#): > > \*\*\* 2) The infamous “yellowcake” statement in the SOU – intentionally included after specifically being stricken by Tenet from a previous speech;\*\* > > That’s an odd summary. According to CNN, Tenet took responsibility for the error himself….\* Yes, Tenet did take responsibility for the error. But your source does not tell you that Tenet did, in fact, personally contact Bush and advise him to strike the exact same claim in speech made three weeks previously (in Cincinnati, if memory serves) ; that the CIA and the White House wrangled over the yellowcake accusation in great detail prior to the speech, because the CIA knew the claim to be false; that the CIA finally relented when the White House speechwriter came up with a creative way of pitching the story, by pinning it to a report issued by the British government. The precise formulation of the statement made it technically true, even though the CIA and the White House speech writer knew that the actual accusation was extremely dubious at best. Now, it is possible to lay responsibility for this at the feet of the White House speechwriter – whose name escapes me at the moment, unfortunately – but we must wonder: did Bush really know nothing at all about this controversy? Seems pretty unbelievable to me. At the very least it seems compelling evidence that something fishy was going on (not proof). > [@](#): > > \*\*\* 3) Assertions that Iraq was “six months away” from building a nuclear weapon, a claim based on a non-existent report;\*\* > > This was not true. I agree that the IAEA made no such report. > > But is that the end of the story? Was there _A_ report that said this, and Mr. Bush simply misattributed the source? If so, while I agree it’s an untruth, it’s more likely a mistake than a deliberate lie.\* If not, however – what then? A lie? I also want to communicate my irritation over the fact that Bush allowed a spokesman to later retract the statement, while he himself never admitted it to be false. > [@](#): > > - **4) Documented rhetorical exaggerations of the evidence, including the wholesale removal of caveats or assertions of uncertainty in the relevant intelligence reports;** > > Removal of caveats or assertions of uncertainty doesn’t create a lie. It reflects the editorial choices that go into any public address by a president, on any subject.\* Sorry, **Bricker** , this was a none response. Editorial choices are made for a reason. What reason, do you think, lies behind the Bush administration’s specific editorial choices when arguing its case for war? > [@](#): > > \*\*\* 5) Claims of total certainty prior to the war exchanged for assertions that intelligence is by its very nature a “murky” business, after the invasion;\*\* > > Again, how does this prove a lie? It shows what we all already know: that the assertions of certainty were based on inaccurate and incompetent evaluation of the evidence. When that was made plain, the comment that intelligence is a murky business is absolutely true: its very murkiness precluded (or hindered) an accurate assessment in advance.\* This argument seems really weak to me, councillor. In fact, if, as you claim, “directly contradictory statements” would suffice to convince you that Bush lied, then I would like you to compare this statement: > [@](#): > > George Bush, March 17, 2003 > > **Intelligence** gathered by this and other governments _ **leaves no doubt** _ that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. …with post-war claims that intelligence is a “murky business,” in which little can be known with certainty. Or are you arguing that prior to the war, the Bush and his administrators didn’t know that intelligence gathering is a murky business? > [@](#): > > \*\*\* 6) Statements that there existed a clear, documented relationship between al-Qaida and Hussein’s regime;\*\* > > What statements, specifically, are those?\* Hopefully someone with a bit more time on their hands can ferret out a couple of quotes, after which I’d like to hear your response. > [@](#): > > - > 1. Assertions that the “aluminium tubes” were intended for use as enrichment centrifuges, in complete contradiction to the conclusions of the overwhelming (read: total) majority of the government’s own experts on these devices;\* Rather than going through this all again, I refer you to the [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=201634&page=4&pp=50) discussion, in particular between **Sam** and myself, beginning about the middle of page 4 (start with post 165). And I’ll also quote from the [Washington Post](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A39500-2003Aug9¬Found=true): > [@](#): > > \*\* This article is based on interviews with analysts and policymakers inside and outside the U.S. government, and access to internal documents and technical evidence not previously made public. > > The new information indicates a pattern in which President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their subordinates – in public and behind the scenes – made allegations depicting Iraq’s nuclear weapons program as more active, more certain and more imminent in its threat than the data they had would support. On occasion administration advocates withheld evidence that did not conform to their views…. > > Gas centrifuge experts consulted by the U.S. government said repeatedly for more than a year that the aluminum tubes were not suitable or intended for uranium enrichment. By December 2002, the experts said new evidence had further undermined the government’s assertion. The Bush administration portrayed the scientists as a minority and emphasized that the experts did not describe the centrifuge theory as impossible. > > In the weeks and months following Joe’s Vienna briefing, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and others continued to describe the use of such tubes for rockets as an implausible hypothesis, even after U.S. analysts collected and photographed in Iraq a virtually identical tube marked with the logo of the Medusa’s Italian manufacturer and the words, in English, “81mm rocket.”… > > The intercepted tubes were too narrow, long and thick-walled to fit a known centrifuge design. Aluminum had not been used for rotors since the 1950s. Iraq had two centrifuge blueprints, stolen in Europe, that were far more efficient and already known to work. One used maraging steel, a hard steel alloy, for the rotors, the other carbon fiber…. > > “This is a case where different people had honorable and different interpretations of intentions,” said an Energy Department analyst who has reviewed the raw data. “If you go to a nuclear [counterproliferation official] and say I’ve got these aluminum tubes, and it’s about Iraq, his first inclination is to say it’s for nuclear use.” > > _But the government’s centrifuge scientists – at the Energy Department’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory and its sister institutions – unanimously regarded this possibility as implausible._ > > In late 2001, experts at Oak Ridge asked an alumnus, Houston G. Wood III, to review the controversy. Wood, founder of the Oak Ridge centrifuge physics department, is widely acknowledged to be among the most eminent living experts. > > _Speaking publicly for the first time, Wood said in an interview that “it would have been extremely difficult to make these tubes into centrifuges. It stretches the imagination to come up with a way. I do not know any real centrifuge experts that feel differently.”_ > > As an academic, Wood said, he would not describe “anything that you absolutely could not do.” But he said he would “like to see, if they’re going to make that claim, that they have some explanation of how you do that. Because I don’t see how you do it.”\*\* And so forth. There’s more in the linked thread. > [@](#): > > \*\*\* 8) The State Department’s pre-war assessments that containment was working, and that the sanctions had effectively curtailed Saddam’s “WMD” programs;\*\* > > So the State Department had an assessment. DOD had a different assesment. Mr. Bush went with DOD. Why does that make him a liar?\* I’m sorry. I thought the State Department was a part of the administration. Anyway, my point was that State’s assessment 2 years prior to the war _changed_ after 9/11, drastically, despite a conspicuous lack of evidence to support the reassessment. > [@](#): > > \*\*\* 9) The Downing Street memos;\*\* > > Which prove what?\* They don’t ”prove” anything, as you’ve noted yourself. They’re merely evidence, in the form of a judgement made by a person one might reasonably believe to be capable of accurately reporting the facts of the matter – namely, the head of British Intelligence Services. > [@](#): > > \*\*\* 10) No WMDs, despite administration assurances there could “be no doubt” Iraq possessed them.\*\* > > Irrelevant. The issue is whether Mr. Bush lied about what we knew going in – not what ultimately resulted.\* I tell you, “ **Bricker** , I am absolutely, completely, 100% certain there’s a white alligator in your backyard pool.” Half a dozen experts jump up from behind your couch and say things like, “Well, you know, there’s no such thing as a white alligator,” or “In fact, alligators are tropical creatures, and your pool is in a temperate zone.” I respond, “No. They are wrong. There can, in fact, be absolutely **no room for doubt** about the existence of this crocodile.” You go and look in the pool. No alligator. You return to me. I say, “Well, ahem…of course, alligator detection has always been a ‘murky business.’” Might it be reasonable to conclude that, in fact, I was actually lying about the alligator in your pool? > [@](#): > > \*\*\* In other words: what would I need to do to convince you?\*\* > > Of a lie? Direct contradictory statements. Admission of a lie.\* I doubt I can produce the latter. For examples of the former, see above. **bordelon** : It is good to see that we are in agreement. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/233 "2005-06-30T21:27:30Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > **bordelon** : > > It is good to see that we are in agreement. However, we are probably in stark disagreement regarding the acceptability of the lying under the circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/234 "2005-06-30T21:51:32Z")
Oh, dear, **Bricker**! You messin’ with **Big Svin** , the Google Monster. But allow me to pick off a couple of the really crippled assertions, save the Big Guy some needless work. The reputation of Dr. Khidir Himza sleeps with the fishes. He has been thoroughly discredited, indeed, the Bushiviks have quietly but thoroughly disassociated themselves with him, after he proved to be a total buttmuchkin. And even if he had been a paragon of truth and virtue, he left Iraq years…years!..before the time in question, and had no knowledge anyone is obliged to regard as credible or useful. Similarly, the expertise of Mr. Rolf Ekeus is, at best, unreliable, having left his position in 1997. > [@](#): > > …This was not true. I agree that the IAEA made no such report… Commendable candor, admitting the blazingly obvious. But followed by: > [@](#): > > …But is that the end of the story? Was there _A_ report that said this, and Mr. Bush simply misattributed the source… Why, yes, perhaps! Could be! Have you the slightest reason to assert this, or are you merely indulging in idle and whimsical spreculation? If you tried to pull this stuff in a courtroom, would your opposite number rise in objection, or merely fall to the floor in giggling fits? And please note: when GeeDubya made this assertion about the IAEA report, he brandished the alleged report as he stood there! Never forget the punch line, as he waved the nonexistent report: “I don’t know how much more proof you need!” Now, I don’t know what exactly he held in his hand, but I’m damned sure what he _didn’t_ have in his hand! As are you. Gosh, **Bricker** , so many “Ooopsies!” So many, many times false statements passed through the Presidential pie hole! And yet you would have us entertain the notion that he is innocent in all of this, a loveable doofus who just, goshdarn it!..didn’t quite have all his ducks in a row. I fantacize of you defending Jeffrey Dahmer: “My client stands accused of murder, cannibalism, unsavory practices, and violations of the health code in matters of food storage, as well as jaywalking. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it cannot be conclusively proven that my client has ever been convicted of jaywalking, 337 indictments notwithstanding! Well, then, if he can’t be proven guilty of that, might we not believe that these other charges are equally unproveable!?” The rest I’ll leave to **Big Svin**. Man, you’re gonna get _soooo_ creamed! ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/235 "2005-06-30T23:16:20Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Here’s what I see is a big part of the “the problem”, and I think I can speak for many of the posters here, like \*\*Xtisme \*\*or **Airman Doors** and others, who didn’t vote for Bush in this last election, or did so reluctantly: It seems that disavowing Bush is not enough for many of the anti-Bush crowd here. Unless you are willing to swear on the [MoveOn.Org](http://MoveOn.Org) charter to hate Bush with every fiber of your being, you ending being called a partisan hack, or mindless Bush supporter. Why, oh, why am I never included on the good lists? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/236 "2005-06-30T23:17:39Z")
I can’t remember how you voted, **furt**. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/237 "2005-06-30T23:29:49Z")
It is good, indeed, seeing **Mr S** back doing what he does best. Mincemeat, for some reason, comes to mind. * * * Simple question for Bush backers, apologists and other assorted members of the fan club: Absent the WMDs “menace,” how many of you would have supported the invasion? ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/238 "2005-06-30T23:46:23Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I can’t remember how you voted, **furt**. Oh, I’m just giving you crap. You don’t know 'cause I don’t think I’ve ever said. 😉 But I’m definitely one of those who is far from right-wing in any objective sense, but has been called a “Bush-worshipper,” “mindless drone” and the like more than a few times. FWIW, I didn’t vote for him in 2000 or 2004. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/239 "2005-07-01T00:25:36Z")
> [@Mr. S.](#): > > 1. Statements that there existed a clear, documented relationship between al-Qaida and Hussein’s regime; > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > What statements, specifically, are those? > [@Mr. S.](#): > > Hopefully someone with a bit more time on their hands can ferret out a couple of quotes, after which I’d like to hear your response. Not that I have a lot of time on my hands (I have a grant proposal I have to get in on the 1st), but this was one of my favorites. For some reason, I have very clear memories of being in NYC in a hotel listening to Rumsfeld lie these lies. Here’s a link to a previous post of mine on the matter: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5982775&postcount=116](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5982775&postcount=116) The highlights: > [@](#): > > President Bush asserted a link yesterday between Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the al Qaeda terrorist network, saying he fears they will join forces and are already virtually indistinguishable. > […] > White House press secretary Ari Fleischer tried to play down the specificity of Bush’s charge, saying the president was talking about what he feared could occur. Fleischer repeated the administration position that it would be a mistake to wait for a smoking gun. “Clearly, al Qaeda is operating inside Iraq,” he said. “In the shadowy world of terrorism, sometimes there is no precise way to have definitive information until it is too late.” > [@](#): > > In an interview with PBS’ “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer,” Rice said the U.S. government clearly knows “that there were in the past and have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time.” > “We know too that several of the detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al Qaeda in chemical weapons development,” Rice said. > “So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general. And there are some al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad,” she said. “There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented.” > [@](#): > > Rumsfeld: I’ve – I think I’ve – the problem with it is that when intelligence is gathered, it’s gathered at a moment, and then that moment passes, and then there’s the next moment and the moment after that. We certainly have evidence of senior al Qaeda who have been in Baghdad in recent periods. Whether they’re currently there or not one never knows, because they’re moving targets.[…] > Q: Carefully chosen. You said there was one report, a single source, of unspecified training by al Qaeda of some kind of chemical weapons training. > Rumsfeld: Yeah. > […] > Q: Do you know what the specific kind of training is without telling us? > Rumsfeld: That I’m not – I don’t have high confidence in, because – > Q: Do you have more than one source that indicates this, that you can’t reveal to us? > Rumsfeld: On that particular matter – (pauses) – yes. > Q: And on one of your other issues, you say there’s credible information that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven, the issue of safe haven. > Rumsfeld: Right. > Q: Is Iraq providing al Qaeda safe haven? > Rumsfeld: I guess that’s a question of semantics. I – The entire transcript is worth a read, because you really can see the game playing with the truth that Rumsfeld was doing. [http://www.dod.gov/transcripts/2002/t09262002\_t0926sd.html](http://www.dod.gov/transcripts/2002/t09262002_t0926sd.html) I think my favorite, favorite part of this press conference is the work of one intrepid reporter who points out how three administration figures are saying the same thing over the same two day period. Not only does that information turn out to be a lie, but it is clear that the administration was pushing the information. It is also helpful to keep in mind that this concerted selling of a lie was done just a couple of weeks before the Senate voted on the resolution. > [@](#): > > Q: Mr. Secretary, is the information that you have told us about this morning new? And why is the administration, in a very orchestrated pattern, putting this out now? > > Rumsfeld: I’ve been out of town and I don’t know anything about an orchestrated pattern. All I know is I was asked questions when I walked in here, so I responded. If that’s an orchestra, it’s a funny orchestra – > > Q: Condi Rice said it last night, Ari Fleischer said it a few minutes ago, and you were using almost exactly the same words. So there’s – > > Rumsfeld: Yeah. Well, the way that happens – first of all, with respect to the first part of your question, much of the information is not new. Some is, some isn’t. It is cumulative. It keeps coming along as interrogations take place. ---
**Author:** ![zoo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/71c47a/32.png) [@zoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoo)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/240 "2005-07-01T00:26:23Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Why, yes, perhaps! Could be! Have you the slightest reason to assert this, or are you merely indulging in idle and whimsical spreculation?! I would much like to see Bricker address this point. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353.md?page=13)