Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Dishonesty and Shifting Emphasis in Iraq War

Iraq Paul Krugman

  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 04 May 2003 - 07:54 AM

Posted here because the sites require subscriptions. They're a bit too quick to assume we won't find chemical and biological weapons, but I agree with their other points.

Quote

NY Times  April 29, 2003
Matters of Emphasis
By PAUL KRUGMAN

"We were not lying," a Bush administration official told ABC News. "But it was just a matter of emphasis." The official was referring to the way the administration hyped the threat that Saddam Hussein posed to the United States. According to the ABC report, the real reason for the war was that the administration "wanted to make a statement." And why Iraq? "Officials acknowledge that Saddam had all the requirements to make him, from their standpoint, the perfect target."

A British newspaper, The Independent, reports that "intelligence agencies on both sides of the Atlantic were furious that briefings they gave political leaders were distorted in the rush to war." One "high-level source" told the paper that "they ignored intelligence assessments which said Iraq was not a threat."

Sure enough, we have yet to find any weapons of mass destruction. It's hard to believe that we won't eventually find some poison gas or crude biological weapons. But those aren't true W.M.D.'s, the sort of weapons that can make a small, poor country a threat to the greatest power the world has ever known. Remember that President Bush made his case for war by warning of a "mushroom cloud." Clearly, Iraq didn't have anything like that — and Mr. Bush must have known that it didn't.

Does it matter that we were misled into war? Some people say that it doesn't: we won, and the Iraqi people have been freed. But we ought to ask some hard questions — not just about Iraq, but about ourselves.

First, why is our compassion so selective? In 2001 the World Health Organization — the same organization we now count on to protect us from SARS — called for a program to fight infectious diseases in poor countries, arguing that it would save the lives of millions of people every year. The U.S. share of the expenses would have been about $10 billion per year — a small fraction of what we will spend on war and occupation. Yet the Bush administration contemptuously dismissed the proposal.

Or consider one of America's first major postwar acts of diplomacy: blocking a plan to send U.N. peacekeepers to Ivory Coast (a former French colony) to enforce a truce in a vicious civil war. The U.S. complains that it will cost too much. And that must be true — we wouldn't let innocent people die just to spite the French, would we?

So it seems that our deep concern for the Iraqi people doesn't extend to suffering people elsewhere. I guess it's just a matter of emphasis. A cynic might point out, however, that saving lives peacefully doesn't offer any occasion to stage a victory parade.

Meanwhile, aren't the leaders of a democratic nation supposed to tell their citizens the truth?

One wonders whether most of the public will ever learn that the original case for war has turned out to be false. In fact, my guess is that most Americans believe that we have found W.M.D.'s. Each potential find gets blaring coverage on TV; how many people catch the later announcement — if it is ever announced — that it was a false alarm? It's a pattern of misinformation that recapitulates the way the war was sold in the first place. Each administration charge against Iraq received prominent coverage; the subsequent debunking did not.

Did the news media feel that it was unpatriotic to question the administration's credibility? Some strange things certainly happened. For example, in September Mr. Bush cited an International Atomic Energy Agency report that he said showed that Saddam was only months from having nuclear weapons. "I don't know what more evidence we need," he said. In fact, the report said no such thing — and for a few hours the lead story on MSNBC's Web site bore the headline "White House: Bush Misstated Report on Iraq." Then the story vanished — not just from the top of the page, but from the site.

Thanks to this pattern of loud assertions and muted or suppressed retractions, the American public probably believes that we went to war to avert an immediate threat — just as it believes that Saddam had something to do with Sept. 11.

Now it's true that the war removed an evil tyrant. But a democracy's decisions, right or wrong, are supposed to take place with the informed consent of its citizens. That didn't happen this time. And we are a democracy — aren't we?



LA Times   April 29, 2003
Robert Scheer:
Are We Dumb or Just Numb?


Forget truth. That is the message from our government and its apologists in the media who insist that the Iraq invasion is a great success story even though it was based on a lie.

<Stuff about WMDs deleted>

It is expected that despots can force the blind allegiance of their people to falsehoods. But it is frightening in the extreme when lying matters not at all to a free people. The only plausible explanation is that the tragedy of Sept. 11 so traumatized us that we are no longer capable of the outrage expected of a patently deceived citizenry. The case for connecting Saddam Hussein with that tragedy is increasingly revealed as false, but it seems to matter not to a populace numbed by incessant government propaganda.

The only significant link between Al Qaeda and Hussein centered on the Ansar al Islam bases in the Kurdish area outside of Hussein's control. That's the "poison factory" offered by Colin Powell in his U.N. speech to connect Hussein with international terror. But an exhaustive investigation by the Los Angeles Times of witnesses and material found in the area "produced no strong evidence of connections to Baghdad and indicated that Ansar was not a sophisticated terrorist organization." Moreover, the purpose of this camp was to foster a holy war of religious fanatics who branded Hussein as "an infidel tyrant" and refused to fight under the "infidel flag" of his hated secular regime.

<snip>

Edited by Certifiably Cait, 26 August 2012 - 02:30 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#2 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 04 May 2003 - 08:40 AM

Thank you QF.  I feel it over simplifies a few things but the basic sentiment is one I agree with.

Lil
Posted Image

#3 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 04 May 2003 - 09:07 AM

^ Unfortunately, two drawbacks of columns (from my POV) is that they have to fit into the allocated space and hold the attention of the average reader.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#4 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 04 May 2003 - 09:13 AM

If you start talking to me about "casual readers" I'll smite ya.  ;)

Lil
Posted Image

#5 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 09:53 AM

Another editorial (emphasis mine):

NY Times   May 6, 2003

Quote

Missing in Action: Truth
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

When I raised the Mystery of the Missing W.M.D. recently, hawks fired barrages of reproachful e-mail at me. The gist was: "You *&#*! Who cares if we never find weapons of mass destruction, because we've liberated the Iraqi people from a murderous tyrant."

But it does matter, enormously, for American credibility. After all, as Ari Fleischer said on April 10 about W.M.D.: "That is what this war was about."

I rejoice in the newfound freedoms in Iraq. But there are indications that the U.S. government souped up intelligence, leaned on spooks to change their conclusions and concealed contrary information to deceive people at home and around the world.

Let's fervently hope that tomorrow we find an Iraqi superdome filled with 500 tons of mustard gas and nerve gas, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 29,984 prohibited munitions capable of delivering chemical agents, several dozen Scud missiles, gas centrifuges to enrich uranium, 18 mobile biological warfare factories, long-range unmanned aerial vehicles to dispense anthrax, and proof of close ties with Al Qaeda. Those are the things that President Bush or his aides suggested Iraq might have, and I don't want to believe that top administration officials tried to win support for the war with a campaign of wholesale deceit.

Consider the now-disproved claims by President Bush and Colin Powell that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger so it could build nuclear weapons. As Seymour Hersh noted in The New Yorker, the claims were based on documents that had been forged so amateurishly that they should never have been taken seriously.

I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.

The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade. In addition, the Niger mining program was structured so that the uranium diversion had been impossible. The envoy's debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted — except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway.

"It's disingenuous for the State Department people to say they were bamboozled because they knew about this for a year," one insider said.


Another example is the abuse of intelligence from Hussein Kamel, a son-in-law of Saddam Hussein and head of Iraq's biological weapons program until his defection in 1995. Top British and American officials kept citing information from Mr. Kamel as evidence of a huge secret Iraqi program, even though Mr. Kamel had actually emphasized that Iraq had mostly given up its W.M.D. program in the early 1990's. Glen Rangwala, a British Iraq expert, says the transcript of Mr. Kamel's debriefing was leaked because insiders resented the way politicians were misleading the public.

Patrick Lang, a former head of Middle Eastern affairs in the Defense Intelligence Agency, says that he hears from those still in the intelligence world that when experts wrote reports that were skeptical about Iraq's W.M.D., "they were encouraged to think it over again."

"In this administration, the pressure to get product `right' is coming out of O.S.D. [the Office of the Secretary of Defense]," Mr. Lang said. He added that intelligence experts had cautioned that Iraqis would not necessarily line up to cheer U.S. troops and that the Shiite clergy could be a problem. "The guys who tried to tell them that came to understand that this advice was not welcome," he said.

"The intelligence that our officials was given regarding W.M.D. was either defective or manipulated," Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico noted. Another senator is even more blunt and, sadly, exactly right: "Intelligence was manipulated."

The C.I.A. was terribly damaged when William Casey, its director in the Reagan era, manipulated intelligence to exaggerate the Soviet threat in Central America to whip up support for Ronald Reagan's policies. Now something is again rotten in the state of Spookdom.

:(  &  :angry:
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#6 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 05:25 PM

First, again: The deal wasn't Iraq can have crude biological weapons." The deal was, "No WMD's at all.". If they have any, then Bush was right. If they don't have them, then Bush was wrong. If they do have them, then Iraq was violating its international agreements and the UN failed to resolve it after 12 years.


Quote

One wonders whether most of the public will ever learn that the original case for war has turned out to be false. In fact, my guess is that most Americans believe that we have found W.M.D.'s. Each potential find gets blaring coverage on TV; how many people catch the later announcement — if it is ever announced — that it was a false alarm? It's a pattern of misinformation that recapitulates the way the war was sold in the first place. Each administration charge against Iraq received prominent coverage; the subsequent debunking did not.

Quote

Thanks to this pattern of loud assertions and muted or suppressed retractions, the American public probably believes that we went to war to avert an immediate threat — just as it believes that Saddam had something to do with Sept. 11.

Documented for posterity. Some day, some day soon, I want the anti-war pundits to look at the polls and accept the fact that they're in the minority, not that the rest of us are being deceived or are stupid.

It's just as bad as the pro-lifers who say "Sure, opinion polls are against me, but the media surpreses the truth about abortian!". Um... no.

Quote

Top British and American officials kept citing information from Mr. Kamel as evidence of a huge secret Iraqi program, even though Mr. Kamel had actually emphasized that Iraq had mostly given up its W.M.D. program in the early 1990's

"Mostly" isn't enough.

That being said, I like NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF. He admitted that his pre-war editorials about America's imminent defeat were mostly wrong. I admire that.

I think the claim that "the WMD's we may find won't be enough because Powell once mentioned a mushroom cloud.".  Um... no. What part of "No weapons of mass destruction" is ambigious?

And, again, if no WMD's are found, I'll be the first to criticize Bush. *looks around the thread*. Okay, maybe third. :ninja:
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#7 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 07:14 PM

Funny how you never hear any pro-war people actually citing the Niger thing as proof of Iraq's WMD development program, but you never go a day without hearing some anti-war person claim that they do it all the time... it's sort of like Creationists who keep claiming that Darwin and Gould and such asserted things that everyone who's ever read their work knows they didn't assert.

And, um... why do we need the Niger thing, anyway? Even if we ignore the other kinds of WMDs that Iraq has been known to have and/or be developing all along, and just look at nukes alone, are we pretending not to already have the working notes and research data from the scientists themselves who were developing the nuclear weapons? Maybe only NEW evidence found SINCE the war ended counts; is that the deal?

#8 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 08:20 PM

^ Old working notes from a nuclear weapons research program likely halted years ago. The Bush Administration's case was so weak that they felt they had to lie to the world and the American public and base their case upon some aluminum tubes and documents they knew were forged.

Delvo:

Quote

Maybe only NEW evidence found SINCE the war ended counts; is that the deal?
Evidence of what the Bush Administration knew before the war is fair game.

Rov, the US has violated its share of WMD treaties. For example, we’re developing mini-nukes despite signing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. These mini-nukes have only minimal deterrent value and are clearly offensive weapons. Why are you holding Iraq to a higher standard than the US holds itself to?
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#9 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 08:27 PM

Quote

Old working notes from a nuclear weapons research program likely halted years ago. The Bush Administration's case was so weak that they felt they had to lie to the world and the American public and base their case upon some aluminum tubes and documents they knew were forged.

:rolleyes:. You know, say what you will about the administration. Disagreeing with their politics and calling them a band of liars are two distinctly different things. Are you honestly saying that the administration manipulated the public and the world for... what exactly? Oil? Votes? Because Saddam just pisses Bush off?

QuantumFlux, on May 7 2003, 11:07 AM, said:

Rov, the US has violated its share of WMD treaties. For example, we’re developing mini-nukes despite signing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. These mini-nukes have only minimal deterrent value and are clearly offensive weapons. Why are you holding Iraq to a higher standard than the US holds itself to?
Got a link?

Anyway, I'm not. Even if the US is violating the nonproliferation treaty, there's a difference between a treaty and a cease-fire that often gets ignored.

Treaty = Agreement that can have diplomatic consequences if it's not followed. Usually, it's a compromise between nations. Treaties coming otu of a war usually happen years after hostilities cease.
Cease-Fire = The vanquished agrees to terms so that the victor will cease hostilities.

The consequences of breaking or violating a treaty are usually diplomatic.

The consequences of violating a cease-fire are a resumption of military activity.

Edited by Javert Rovinski, 07 May 2003 - 08:29 PM.

St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#10 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 08:27 PM

From the David Letterman show:

Top Ten President Bush Excuses For Not Finding Weapons of Mass Destruction

                                                                                                                                                  

10. "We've only looked through 99% of the country"

                                                
                                                

9. "We spent entire budget making those playing cards"

                                                
                                                

8. "Containers are labeled in some crazy language"

                                                
                                                

7. "They must have been stolen by some of them evil X-Men mutants"

                                                
                                                

6. "Did I say Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?  I meant they have goats"

                                                
                                                

5. "How are we supposed to find weapons of mass destruction when we can't even find Cheney?"

                                                
                                                

4. "Still screwed up because of Daylight Savings Time"

                                                
                                                

3. "When you're trying to find something, it's always in the last place you look, am I right, people?"

                                                
                                                

2. "Let's face it -- I ain't exactly a genius"

                                                
                                                

1. "Geraldo took them"
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#11 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 08:30 PM

LOL Zack
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#12 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 08:35 PM

QuantumFlux, on May 7 2003, 06:07 PM, said:

These mini-nukes have only minimal deterrent value and are clearly offensive weapons.
The deterrent value of these new generation nukes is in their small size.  It allows for a wider range of potentia nuclear responses to an WMD attack.  Rather than using a city buster to take out a WMD site use to launch an attack you can do the same job with a .5 kiloton baby nuke.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#13 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 08:38 PM

CJ: You know more about that than I do.... does it violate the proliferation treaty? What exactly are the terms of said treaty?
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#14 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 08:51 PM

Terms of Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty: http://www.unog.ch/d...istreat/npt.pdf
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#15 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 08:52 PM

Javert Rovinski, on May 7 2003, 06:25 PM, said:

CJ: You know more about that than I do.... does it violate the proliferation treaty?
No, the treaty is mainly focused on stopping proliferation.  Article VI has a clause that countries shoud "pursue negotiations" to halt the nuclear arms race and etc. below.  Constructing that as a violation is a major reach since the treaty does not ban the creation and fielding of new nuclear weapons by states that are nuclear powers.  It only asks for them to pursue negotiations in good faith .

Quote

Article VI

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#16 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 09:07 PM

From the Treaty

Quote

Declaring their intention to achieve at the earliest possible date the cessation of the nuclear
arms race and to undertake effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament,

Developing mini-nukes isn't exactly an effective measure in the direction of nuclear disarmament.
Also Bush pulled out of the ABM treaty, an action which seems to run counter to this clause.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#17 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 10:13 PM

The ABM teaty and the nonpoliferation treaty have very little if anything to do with each other. The ABM treaty had witin it a  mechanism that would allow either of the two signatories to withdrawl from it with a certain amount of warning. Bush gave the proper amount of warning time and was completely within the realmof the mechanism of the treary.
And if you have been paying attention then you may have noticed a series of treaties called START I, START II and START III that should reduce the respective arsenals of both Russia and the US to less than 4000 warheads within the decade. Tactical nuclear weapons are no longer deployed. The US will go down to one strategic missile system by the end of 2003 with 530 Minuteman 111's with one warhead each. Under START 11 the 24 Trident missiles on the 14 Ohio class boats go from carrying 16 warheads to carrying four apiece. Four of the Ohio's have been converted into conventional cruise missile submarines. The US is paying for the Russians to dissmantle tier own ICBMs and has already paid countries like Kazhakstan to buy all thier weapons grade material and flew it to the US to keep it from falling into the hands of others. The US hasn't even manufactured a nuclear warhead since 1989 until this year and only then to replace warheads that have gone bad from age on a one to one basis.  If this isn't attempting to reduce the numbers and halt the spread of nuclear weapons then I don't know what is.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#18 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 10:16 PM

QuantumFlux, on May 7 2003, 11:54 AM, said:

Developing mini-nukes isn't exactly an effective measure in the direction of nuclear disarmament.
Also Bush pulled out of the ABM treaty, an action which seems to run counter to this clause.
Wait, hang on.

First, the AMB was designed to be able to be withdrawn from, with warning. Nothing illegal there.

As for the NonProliferation treaty:
Setting aside the difference between treaties and cease-fires (which I should reemphasize... Iraq violated a cease-fire, not a treaty. Night, meet day.), I'm going to have to do Yet More Googling.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#19 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 10:31 PM

QuantumFlux, on May 7 2003, 12:07 PM, said:

Old working notes from a nuclear weapons research program likely halted years ago.
So your story is that Hussein ordered the WMDs developed (thus proving that he did want to have the weapons)...
then, when we said we wanted this halted, halted the programs, to please us (since it wasn't for his own sake; remember, he'd proven he wanted the weapons)...
then did everything he could to prevent anyone from knowing that he'd done so, even though pleasing us was the only possible reason for him to have supposedly halted those programs...

Um...

:wacko:

Now THERE would have been some good material for Letterman to work with, if he weren't so ardently dedicated to bashing Republicans...

Your comment about "treaties" with a country that doesn't exist anymore, I'll leave to the others...

Edited by Delvo, 07 May 2003 - 10:36 PM.


#20 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 07 May 2003 - 10:42 PM

^ No, I'm saying Saddam halted his nuclear weapons program after suffering a series of setbacks (such as having the Israelis destroy his nuclear reactors).

The UN nuclear weapons inspectors praised the cooperation of Saddam's regime and said they had found no evidence of an active nuclear program.

Edited by QuantumFlux, 07 May 2003 - 10:47 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Iraq, Paul Krugman

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users