Defending a friend who is being pummelled is “arrogant?” Why?
Odd fine-tuning, that. Since your “fine-tuning” seems to describe a completely different scenario, who are these people? Particularly, who is the “friend of Iraq” who kicked me in the testicles?
Ohhhh-kay. We have:
A transcript produced by the Iraqis. No evidence of its veracity is produced, such as an audio- or videotape of the meeting. It’s just the Iraqis’ word that Glaspie said the words attributed to her.
Glaspie’s denial.
At this point, we have a classic “he said, she said.”
But then we have the Prime Minister of Iraq stating that Glaspie didn’t give the green light, and made only general comments. The Prime Minister contradicts the transcript.
So the only bit of evidence that isn’t “he said, she said” is that the transcript is inaccurate.
But you still think that the evidence that Glaspie said it outweighs the evidence that she didn’t say it.
Olentzero - your thumb is on the scale.
I’m sure it’s there by accident, and not because your ideological beliefs compel you to be biased against the US.
**Not the action, the statement afterward - “I didn’t say you could hit him!” Anyone who said that after just breaking up a fight is risking getting beat on himself.
Hardly. It’s Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan. While the Taliban may not have exactly been buddy-buddy with Saddam Hussein, they (and bin Laden) certainly resented US interference in Middle Eastern affairs just as much as Saddam did.
US ruins Iraq in the Gulf War, gets attacked on September 11th, ruins Afghanistan, then turns on Iraq again.
Which was provided to ABC News, who in turn provided a copy to the New York Times. While no news vehicle is completely error-free, it seems to me a safe bet that these two did their best to check sources. I also note the State Department refused to comment on the veracity of the report - if it were even partially fabricated, wouldn’t they have said something?
A half-hearted one at best - ‘a largely correct fabrication’. No specifics as to which parts of the transcript were fabricated, if any.
But Aziz’ statement hasn’t been established as the truth either.
They’re only claims in one goddamned news article. That’s not proof. A transcript of an official diplomatic meeting is stronger evidence than two lines in a newspaper article.
Because Glaspie’s and Aziz’ claims haven’t been backed up with solid proof. Prove that Glaspie didn’t say “we have no opinions”, and you lend greater credibility to Aziz’ “Iraq didn’t get the green light” statement.
No, I’m biased against people who can’t back up their claims and feel obligated to take cheap shots into the bargain.
Sources? I’m sure that the transcript came from the Iraqi government, just as the NYT says it did.
That says nothing about whether the contents of the transcript accurately reflect the conversation, and that is somethng ABC and NYT cannot verify, without the non-existent video or audiotape.
Perhaps because diplomatic conversations are supposed to be confidential, and the State Department was not going to commit the same sin as the Iraqis by revealing what was actually said?
Characterize Glaspie’s denial it as you need to, it is still ‘he said, she said.’
But it is evidence. You wish to make a credibility determination. Fine. Demonstrate why it is more likely to be a lie than the truth. The burden is on you.
Even if you knock it out, however, all that means is that we are back at “he said, she said.”
“Goddamned”? Maybe you should take your own advice and count to ten.
Of course it is not proof; it is evidence. And the side with the preponderance of the evidence wins. Right now, I’m winning, because I have presented more evidence than you have.
And why is a transcript of an official diplomatic meeting “stronger evidence”? Which one is easier to falsify? I’d say the transcript.
::sigh:: Neither is the transcript’s take. Is it your position that because the transcript has “Iraqi Foreign Ministry” (or whatever) stamped on it, it becomes “proof.” That’s called “magical thinking.” The fact that the transcript is “official” provides no additional evidence of whether it accurately reflects the meeting or not.
The shot wasn’t cheap; it was dead-on accurate. We have three bits of evidence, all, on their face, of equal evidentiary value. The first two counter each other out. The final (Aziz’s statement) weighs in my favor.
You have presented no evidence that either Glaspie or Aziz were lying, yet you insist that they are. You haven’t even presented a credible reason why Aziz would lie. (He didn’t want to piss off the Americans in 1992? Please. Read official Iraqi statements from that year - it seems the purpose of the Iraqi government at that point was to piss off the Yankees).
Yet, magically, I’m the one who can’t back up his claim.
And you say you aren’t biased. Tsk-tsk.
Why is the burden not on you for a credibility determination of the transcript? Would any court of law accept Glaspie’s and Aziz’ brief statements as proof the transcript in question is false? I’m certainly willing to revise my opinion of the transcript if Glaspie’s later denunciation and Aziz’ statement can be backed up. You haven’t done that to my satisfaction.
I just don’t think that’s how it works. You may have two nickels and I only one quarter, but I still have more money than you. In this case, you have a US government official saying that the transcript is a “largely correct” fabrication, with no further elaboration on which parts of the transcript are fabricated and which are correct. You have the PM of Iraq saying “We didn’t get a green light”, with no further elaboration on whether they thought they had the green light at the time and were now admitting a mistake, or if they knew they didn’t have it at the time and just didn’t care. Two unsubstantiated claims regarding a document provided by the Iraqi government. It’s not good enough for me to disbelieve the transcript.
Right, Aziz and Glaspie are somehow incapable of telling falsehoods because they’re government officials. Therefore everything they say is the unvarnished, solid truth.
No, that’s true. But your evidence requires stronger proof, which you have not yet furnished.
No, we do not. Again, we have a document that we both recognize comes from a national government. Then we have two claims that require further elaboration but do not have it. Those are not equal.
Only if Glaspie specifically stated which parts of the transcript were falsifications would her statement come even close to canceling the document out. (Which brings a thought forward - were the Iraqis the only ones who took records of the meeting? Surely there were US officials who were just as meticulous.) Therefore
becomes a baseless assertion.
And you have presented no evidence that they are telling the truth, yet you insist they are.
And where is your credible reason for him not to?
'Tain’t magic. I haven’t seen you back your claim up in this thread. Feel free to provide a digest of the relevant statements if you disagree.
Actually, I have. Two officials of different governments, with diametrically opposed interests, agree on something. As I noted above, a statement against interest is evidence.
You may not like that, but that’s too bad; that’s the way it is.
My credible reason has been stated - because it is a statement against interest. Again, accept that or not; that is a rule of evidence.
Which thread are you reading? I’ve provided evidence; all you’ve done is said “are not!!”
I acknowledge my bias. I don’t allow my bias to act as blinders.
OK, Glaspie’s and Aziz’ statements are evidence. Is it credible evidence?
If this were any sort of a trial, hearing, or tribunal, would the court accept a statement against interest unconditionally, or would they subject it to critical examination? IANAL, obviously, but it just doesn’t seem to me that a statement against interest per se is enough to make the evidence credible.
Credibility is an issue for the trier of fact. A statement against interest is deemed more likely to be credible than a statement that benefits you.
Example: You come home and find that a lamp has been knocked over. You ask your child what happened.
Your child says “I’m sorry, dad. I was running through the house and I bumped into it.”
Without any other evidence, does that answer seem credible?
Most people would say yes, because there is no apparent benefit to your child to have lied to you and claim responsibility for a “crime” they didn’t commit.
Indeed, there is a strong risk of harm to your child by making the confession - grounding, having to pay to replace the lamp, etc. The reasonable expectation is that your child will not assume the risk of harm that comes from the confession, when the child didn’t do anything wrong.
OTOH, if your child denied breaking the lamp, it is likely that you would question him/her further - “well, what happened? If not you, who? Did it magically decide to jump off the end table?,” etc.
Of course, it is not conclusive. You may have another child, and that child might have paid/blackmailed the confessor to take the heat for breaking the lamp. Then you would have to weigh such factors as whether your child is more afraid of his sibling or of the punishment you could bestow, the greed of the child, etc. But you would need evidence of such bribery/blackmail; the presumption is that person who harms his own interest with a statement is telling the truth.
So the starting point here for a credibililty determination is neutrality as to the Glaspie statement and a rebuttable presumption that Aziz spoke the truth.
Gotta question for you,
Why didn’t you include the transcript as evidence for which a credibility determination needs to be made?
The analysis of the Aziz statement is very interesting, thanks. The fuller quotes from Aziz certainly weaken Glaspie’s position that the transcript is a fabrication.
What is strengthened, however, is the conclusion that the US did not give Iraq the green light.
This group of articles I linked to has some very interesting information in it. Let’s take a closer look at them, shall we?
First off, Glaspie’s statement about the transcript being a fabrication. This article reprints a transcript of her testimony before Congress in March 1991. (The Congressional Record for 1991, unfortunately, is unavailable online.) The only statement specifically addressed by Glaspie in that testimony as false is one about a Diane Sawyer television special on Baghdad Television. Nothing about the “we have no opinion” statement! Additionally, it turns out that the statement in question is verified as true by a cable sent by Glaspie from Baghdad as well as the transcript published by the Iraqi government. If there’s strong evidence she’s lying about not making a pretty boneheaded statement about journalists, doesn’t that throw into question her blanket assertion that the transcript is a fabrication? (Note: I just sent an e-mail to Gilbert Cranberg, the author of that article, to see if there’s any similar evidence in the CR and the cable regarding the “no opinion” statement.)
Now, on to Aziz’ statement. The article I linked to directly in the last post provides the source for the “strong reaction” statement - a USA Today article from November 1992. What USA Today fails to provide, however, is their source for the quote - other than a once-mentioned “90-minute interview”. (With whom? When? Where?) After some investigation, the author of the article, Francisco Gil-White (homepage here - I don’t agree with many of his arguments, but my impression is he knows how to research) seems to think the source of the interview was a book in which the author spoke with Tariq Aziz about the subject of the Glaspie meeting. Here’s the quote from the book (pp342-343, Sandcastles by Milton Viorst, Alfred A. Knopf 1994)
In other words, Iraq expected the US to come after them no matter what they did. This is borne out by the introductory speech Saddam gave to Glaspie in the transcript, which lists all the evidence Iraq has that the US’ policy had already been working towards weakening the country.
Additionally, Aziz acknowledges that Glaspie was not making policy but acting on instructions, as she herself says in the interview:
So the US knew Iraq was getting irritated at the situation, they were well aware that Iraq didn’t plan to waive any options for resolving it, and they still instructed their ambassadors to say “We have no opinion”. If that isn’t a green light, what is?
In summary, there is no further evidence to back up the claim that Glaspie’s “no opinion” statement is a fabrication of the Iraqi government, there is strong evidence that the statement attributed to Aziz about “not getting the green light” is a distortion of Aziz’ actual words. Therefore the transcript of the meeting between April Glaspie and Saddam Hussein in the summer of 1990 is a valid and factual document. The US instructed Glaspie to give Iraq the “green light” for invading Kuwait.
…after previewing…
I thought that’s what we were doing in discussing the evidence you presented. You got any other suggestions?
Hardly! Your definition of “green light” is “do whatever the hell you want; we don’t care.” Iraq plainly stated in that interview that they weren’t going to waive any options in the attempt to resolve the border issues with Kuwait. In plainspeak: “We’ll go to war if we feel we have to.” Glaspie said “I’ve been instructed by James Baker, the Secretary of State, to inform you that the US has no opinion on the conflict.” Plainspeak: “Do whatever the hell you want; we don’t care.”
Ergo: Green light.
But it still has to be subjected to critical examination, doesn’t it? You pointed that out yourself with the “broken lamp” scenario. Before today’s round of exchange, you were presenting those four lines from the Christian Science Monitor as unqualified facts without any attempt at critical examination thereof. I feel the transcript was more that adequately researched by the media that presented it, and therefore was more credible than the CSM article that didn’t even bother to provide verifiable sources for the quotes.
I didn’t mean that finding the WoMD would be easy, but simply that the necessary conditions for proving that Iraq possesses them are able to be met without any confusion as to whether they have been met or not - once WoMD are found, their existence is proven. QED. However, even if no WoMD are ever found, this does not prove (as you have pointed out with your anthrax example) that they do not exist.
Puhshaw.
The people who got the green light, according to you, didn’t believe they had the green light. Ergo, Glaspie’s statement was not translated into plainspeak by the Iraqis as ‘do whatever the hell you want, we don’t care.’
Ergo, no Green Light.
You’re like a witness to a car accident who was 100 yards away. The guy in the car admits the light was red, but you keep insisting that the light was green.
You may interpret Glaspie’s alleged comment differently. The binding interpretation, however, is the Iraqis.
What, besides the Christian Science Monitor/USA Today quote, do you base this assertion on? Did you just skip over the part in my last post where I rebutted this particular statement?
I just thought I’d post a paragraph written by Mark Twain which seems quite relevant, It was over 100 years ago and many jingoistic Americans wanted war at that time. Twain wrote:
Sources? I’m sure that the transcript came from the Iraqi government, just as the NYT says it did.