How about reading any of at least a dozen threads in GD and forming a view ?
London Calling:
Oh, I have. I just don’t share their certainty.
elucidator:
My bad, then. I thought you were merely presenting the possibility that the evidence was fraudulent as a skeptical scenario. I didn’t realize you were presenting it as a perceived fact. In which case, I’ll just say that based on past experience, I put about as much faith in mediawhores as you do in Bush, and leave it at that.
(And seeing as you’ve been pretty supportive in another thread, I’d rather not get into a 7 page blastfest and lose that warm fuzzy feeling I have about you.)
Scylla
MediaWhore presented the news stories as links. The links are as given above, you can read it at your leisure. IIRC, the foremost link is to that barricade storming bastion of Trotskyist thought, NBC news. Nice think about MediaWhores: they always supply the links. Go read.
Thier “spin” on this isn’t the stories themselves, they merely point them out. They claim that the media is a bunch of spineless lickspittles who spout the Party Line. Hence, this story is likely to quietly dive to Page C6. I think they’re right. I think that’s wrong.
Neurotik
No hurt, no foul. Egotist Te Absolvo, go forth and sin no more.
As to London’s post and your response: might I humbly suggest that if there is this much uncertainty about the matter, then perhaps flinging our children into combat is the stupidest, most awesomely brain-dead and morally bankrupt fucking…
calm…find my center…gather my chi…have a sip of chamomile tea…
…is not a very good idea.
Doh! Last phrases directed to Scylla not Neurotik.
Oh, before I forget. Gotta tell you, companero, I prefer a good hard clean fight to a basket of kittens any day. That’s probably because I’m an asshole. But, hey, somebody’s got to do it!
elucidator:
From reading both the Post and NBC’s stories from the MWO, can you agree that these are the facts?
-Iraq has been attempting to build nuclear weapons.
-Iraq has banned UN mandated inspectors since 1998.
-According to the UN “Iraq had been six to 24 months away from such capability before the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the U.N.-monitored weapons inspections that followed.”
-Also according to the UN “Iraq possesses a small force of missiles capable of delivering a nuclear weapon despite international efforts to destroy such weapons…” and “Iraq has also probably managed to hide some chemical and biological weapons”. In addition, “Iraq is trying to build gas centrifuge machines that could produce weapons grade nuclear material.”- the removal of which was one of Saddam’s biggest stumbling blocks in his quest to develop nuculear weapons.
-The “commercial” photos show that there is new construction going on at what were sites being used for development of nuclear weapons. The UN has not drawn any conclusions from this action- they haven’t said that Iraq is or isn’t still trying to develop nuclear weapons, only that they can’t form a conclusion because Saddam won’t let them in to gather further evidence to exonerate (or damn) him.
-The White House has since said that the UN did not draw the conclusion that this site was being used for developing nukes, they did.
There is something wrong with the balance of the universe when I agree with Elucidator heart and soul. Bush’s fomenting a war on Iraq can only serve to harm America’s security, not en hance it. As William Raspberry put it in today’s Washington Post:
So far, Saddam has given the US no cause to launch a pre-emptive strike, and Bush’s dishonest misrepresentation of the 1998 report and the commercial satellite photographs is absolutely dastardly. Moreover, he is squandering our moral capital that we will need in case we have a legitimate reason to go to war, i.e., if a “smoking gun” linking Saddam to 9/11 were found.
Let us say that we launch a successful war and kill Saddam, not to mention tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians:
A. Given the current neglect of Afganistan’s needs now that we have disposed of the Taliban, how can we take on an additional burden in Iraq, especially given the lack of a legitimate Iraqi alternative to Saddam?
B. What would be the repercussions in the Muslim world? Granted, most of the Arab governments would be more relieved than otherwise at Saddam’s demise, but their citizens would be outraged at yet more high-handed American imperialism, and there would be even more would-be martyrs out to harm the US and its people.
I wish there was nothing to the Iraqi nuclear program. Look at some satellite pictures yourself. But, as is often the case with satellite intel.,
As to Bush’s motivation, I said in my “Attack Iraq?” thread some months ago that Bush was motivated by Saddam trying to kill his father. I also noted that he would grasp to establish a terror nexus because there is evidence for it, and there is an existing authorization for the use of force.
Note the new editorial disclaimer. Emphasis mine. Of course, “unlikely that” in no way means “did not.” It is logical that dissidents or defectors would not support Saddam. That does not make all defectors liars.
I don’t think anything - factually - is very clear right now. Ideologically, the usual suspects take their usual sides. As usual, that is meaningless to the facts on the ground.
As for war with Iraq, I wonder what Sun Tzu would say? Specifically, can it be avoided once Bush rattles the sabre (stupid behavior) enough? Saddam is not unaware of the preemption stratagem either.
Mojo most of what you cite has to do with another issue. It is related to this issue, but not directly enough to warrant a point by point rebuttal. The Bushistas, unable to unearth any real evidence to substantiate thier position, has ham-handedly attempted to fabricate some (as your last bullet seems to point out, they did at least try to weasel a retraction, of sorts)
They lied. Worse, they lied trying to lead us into war.
And if MediaWhores is right, they’ll get away with it.
Shit like this make the Baby Jesus puke His little guts out.
And while you’re surfing, check out this little nugget:
The point I was making was that based on the facts, the interpretation that the White House made was reasonable. Saddam was fairly close to manufacturing nukes, we (UN + US forces) slowed down that process, he’s been trying to manufacture nuclear material since, and construction work has resumed on what were known to be nuclear weaponry sites. You started with a misleading title- “The “Iraqi Photo” Evidence a Fake?” and provide no support that the evidence is fake. Instead you’re getting hysterical over the fact that the UN commision did not form an opinon on the evidence presented (mostly cuz Saddam won’t let them inspect the sites) whereas the White House did? Are you saying that the new construction on the nuke sites is not related to Saddam attempting to acquire nyuclear weaponry? Somehow I think l’il baby Jesus is doing just fine.
[sub]And as for “And if MediaWhores is right…” well, there’s a first time for everything.[/sub]
Let me see if I can break this down into digestible nuggets for you, Mojo
The news stories do not come from MediaWhores. It is thier contention that the story will be buried, despite its very important implications. Well, for instance, check out Drudge Report, which at my last glance was still headlining something about how Saddam needs Viagra to launch his missile.
The White House later admitted, admitted, mind you, that its claim that they were presenting conclusions that the UN had reached was false. I. myself, dont know if they were constructing a nuclear-bomb plant. Neither do you. But you didn’t lie about it and they did.
A misleading title would have been “Iraqi Photo evidence A FAKE!!” Note the exclamation point, rather than the question mark, which, of course, implies there is some question.
Got it? Run along now. The grown-ups are talking.
Sorry, it’s still indigestable.
I’m still not sure what this has to do with any of the points I raised. I never claimed that the stories were authored by MWO, only that they (and you) made an incorrect interpretation of the facts.
No, as I’ve said in my last two posts they interpreted the data whereas the UN did not. The UN comission did not say that the site wasn’t being used for developing nuclear weapons. They didn’t form any conclusions, period. Why didn’t they? Because the incontravertable evidence is in areas of Iraq that they are not allowed access to.
Once again, please provide any proof you have that the Iraqi photo evidence is a fake.
But according to you, Bush has managed to hoodwink several foreign government leaders as well as a majority of US citizens . I guess he must be a “crafty, insightful master of realpolitik” in order to pull that off, right?
From NBC News:
[bolding added]
Getting any clearer now, Sparky?
Now, of course, the photo is not a “fake”. He was holding a real, honest to God, no kidding photo in his hands. It just doesn’t say what he says it does.
Further, he cited a report from the UN, and entirely misrepresented its substance and its conclusion.
However, you’re dead right about one thing: the photo is a genuine photo. Not a fake. It was taken with a real camera, and everything.
If anyone was misled by this scurrilous lie on my part, I extend my humble apologies.
Odd side note: when I read the MWO link last night, it pointed to an NBC News article, as quoted above. Now, when I click the same link, it takes me to a similar article, but subtly different: the part about Our Churchill playing fast and loose with the truth is now way down in the text, whereas before it was the lead.
Osama Bin Laden is in Oceania. He was always in Oceania…
Iraq is our enemy. Iraq has always been our enemy.
The US never supported Iraq against Iran.
Donald Rumsfeld has never been to Iraq.
Etc., etc., etc. . . .
(Sorry, but the combination of the Administration’s spinmongering and a recent reread of 1984 has finally pushed me over the edge.)
See, that’s where we disagree. What I was pointing out with the first post is that “what he says it does” is a reasonable interpretation of the photo, especially considering the other evidence.
From NBC:
Am I correct that this statement is the basis for claiming that “Bush is a liar”? The site in question had been used to create nuclear weapons and is now undergoing new construction. The UN comission formed no opinion of this whereas Bush and Blair did- that it was further evidence of Saddam working on nukes.
When you say that the evidence is fake, are you claiming that the photo doesn’t show what the president purports? or just that since the UN Commision didn’t form any conclusions, no one else can either?
Can you say “Gulf of Tonkin”, boys and girls?
I’m going to cut to the chase here, Mojo
If The Resident stands up and waves a picture in our collective face and says “Here it is! Proof positive! What more do you need?” he should be telling the truth.
Might he be shading the truth? Is the bear catholic, does a Pope shit in the woods?
Now, if its a matter of, oh, say, some naughtiness of an oral persuasion in the Oval Office, that’s not real good. But nothing to get my shorts all in a bunch.
When, however, he is trying to lead my country to war, trying to support a policy of raining death and suffering down on people who have done us no harm, and wants to use MY Army and MY Air Force to accomplish it…
If it is a question of war!
Then it had better be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, or God help him!
Any less is utterly, and irredeemably, unacceptable. Period.
What’s this deal with “lying?”
I thought I’d pretty much understood from the beginning that the photos showed new cosntruction at an old weapons site.
The obvious conclusion is not that they’re building a school in the old nucular facility, but that maybe it might be that they’re making and ATOM BOMB!!!
And, they seemed to come out an clear it up pretty quickly that they were mistaken in citing the earlier report as presently germaine, yet nevertheless they had come to the same conclusion.
That it was a deliberate lie is a jump to a conclusion.
Anyhow, i saw on CNBC that the Center for Strategic Research in London released a report saying that given some nulear material Saddam was only a couple of months from having the bomb.
We also did intercept those aluminum thingies for centrifuging nuclear material to make it weapons grade that Iraq was shipping just recently.
Hmmmmm.
Well, iit’s my army and planes, too, you know?
I understand that some posters here don’t believe Bush is telling the truth. However, there’s another issue. What facts would engender your support for initiating a war on Iraq, if you believed them? Would it be enough if
– Saddam was working on nukes?
– Saddam was 6 months away from having nukes
– Saddam already had nukes
– Saddam had chemical and biological WMDs
– Some other standard?
– You wouldn’t support initiating an attack unless he attacked us?
I’d be interested in knowing your POVs.
You can tell that Bush is going a little over-the-top when even my dad, the most conservatively religious Republican I know, is disagreeing vehemently with his actions.
Take from that what you will.