October 03, 2003

Yea and Hitler had the greatest Post Office and the greatest AIR MAIL in Europe...gee those JU-88's were great at dropping those air mail deliveries for the weapons inspectors (the same ones who had no idea of the secret KRUPP blue prints going back to 1932 of 88 anti-air and anti tank guns....)

If we had intervened in 1935 I can see the headlines...HITLER's INTENTIONS ENTIRELY HONORABLE ...NO PROOF OF ABILITY OR DESIRE FOR WORLD CONQUEST...CHURCHILL SHOULD RETIRE!!! THE OLD SOT!!! THE WARMONGER....

Dog Bites Man! Horsefeathers ignores Kay's inability to support the State of the Union Address!

Oh Blather. Truth bites Contrarian Idealogues.

Why don't you read the original English version of Kay's report, not the Numb Chumpsky translations.
Did you miss these parts:

The report does not represent a final reckoning of Iraq's WMD programs, nor are we at the point where we are prepared to close the file on any of these programs...
Iraq's WMD programs spanned more than two decades, involved thousands of people, billions of dollars, and were elaborately shielded by security and deception operations that continued even beyond the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom
We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002
A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.

A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.

Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).

A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.

Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.
In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts, we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence - hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use - are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts. ...

Although we are resisting drawing conclusions in this first interim report, a number of things have become clearer already as a result of our investigation, among them:

Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to either restart CW production or make available chemical weapons.

In the delivery systems area there were already well advanced, but undeclared, on-going activities that, if OIF had not intervened, would have resulted in the production of missiles with ranges at least up to 1000 km, well in excess of the UN permitted range of 150 km. These missile activities were supported by a serious clandestine procurement program about which we have much still to learn.

In the chemical and biological weapons area we have confidence that there were at a minimum clandestine on-going research and development activities that were embedded in the Iraqi Intelligence Service. While we have much yet to learn about the exact work programs and capabilities of these activities, it is already apparent that these undeclared activities would have at a minimum facilitated chemical and biological weapons activities and provided a technically trained cadre.

And Grumpy, maybe you can compare that to the State of the Union address? One vial from 1993 is not gallons and gallons and gallons.

Although your reminder that the report is an interim report is welcome, it is astonishing that Horsefeathers can only see an opportunity to bash the New York Times. Where is the outrage over the horrendous reporting at the Washington Times over the Valerie Plame affair? Or the outrage over the affair itself? Horsefeathers has no credibility because its outrage is never directed at the Bush administration. Treason is alleged to have happened in the White House, and by a conservative columnists. I sooo look forward to the next screed.

Contra, you shouldn't need to be reminded to read an account that you're commenting on. Good idea to remember the State of the Union Address.

What was that you said about a single vial? Here's what President Bush said in the SOU:

It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes

Imagine that - a single vial.
And our guys found it!
Damn, those guys are good!

Maybe if you dropped that outrage thing, you'd get it better on the first read.

Yeah, but it wasn't a vial of toxin, Grumpy. It was samples you could make toxin, but not toxin itself. Not a weapon. Keep looking, we'll keep funding the tax cuts for the rich.

Now you want to toss out accusations and be outraged about tax policies?

What does that have to with the Kay report?

Why don't you pick your favorite outrage and try to stick with it long enough to present anything like a rational statement in defense of it.

Why? You mean to say you have a defense?

If you actually read Kay's report, O Contrary One, and read it with an intention of understanding it, rather than seeking something to fuel your petulant outrage you would understand that having found "bacteria" which can produce toxin is actually a more dangerous and more damning find.

I doubt you read Glen Reynolds except in a similar vein, in hope of finding something to contend about, but he addresses the issue you chose to raise and contend about.

As several readers point out, the toxin is far more deadly than the bacterium -- but the bacteria can be used to produce lots of toxin rather quickly (that's the "surge production" point), whereas the toxin itself is an end product: bacteria can make toxin, toxin can't make more toxin. So from a weapons-production standpoint the bacteria are worse

I think countering your blather with actual facts and reasoning is sufficient defense. There is nothing to do with idealogues like yourself except to defend others from being misled.

Grumpy, I'd agree with you that bacteria has more potential than actual toxins, but Bush's SOTU talked about actual weapons. If potential were all that counted, we could, for instance, be concerned about all the fertilizers that John McVeigh used. And remember, that vial was stored from 1993 and lay dormant all that time. It's not like it was sequestered a week before the arrival of the UN inspectors.

Before the war, if you had set the standards of proof, would this have made it? I think most people would have looked for the inventory which was referred to in the SOTU.

Geez, Frank, you and Old Contrary are really are having a tough time understanding this.

The SOU did not make a case for military action based on or dependent on any inventory. It made a case based on Saddams history of seeking, debveloping , and using WMD, and refusing to comply with the ceasefire agrements and the UN Security Council demands.

Kays findings, even in the preliminary report released shows clearly , as did each prior UN inspection, that Saddam was committed to evading compliance.

You're absolutely right, the vial beoing referred to has "potential"

The President made clear in the SOU speech that he would not allow that potential to be realized.

And so he did- with the approval of Congress, the majority of citizens and sufficient allies.

Get over it, or don't, maybe find a hobby- but stop acting like it was other than what it was.

Grumpy, I think you need to understand the difference between the words which are used and the intent of the communication. You're correct that the phrase which was used in the SOTU was "materials capable of producing," not materials themselves. However, that's not what America understood, and as with the repeated use of Iraq and 9-11 in the same sentence, America was confused. The Republicans knew the confusion -- they conduct focus groups all the time -- and did nothing to dissipate the confusion, because it worked to their advantage. (Just like the very little talk in the SOTU about humanitarian causes). America went into the war thinking it was because of WMDs: "the disarmament of Iraq has begun," was the announcement. You can point to the fine print all you want, but war is not an issue of fine print. The populace didn't think they were buying a used car, and they thought they were dealing with a straightforward president.

Frank,

Lot's of American people understood lots of things. And some of them misunderstood lots of things.

Saddam Husseins record speaks for itself. The record of what the case for military action was speaks for itself. So does Kay's report.

Go eat some fresh fruit and vegetables. You might feel better.

Thanks, Grumpy, but I feel fine. It's our democracy that's hurting.

I guess the New York Times isn't the only organization to miss the boat in reporting on the Kay report. Slate's Fred Kaplan wrote, "A close reading of the actual, unclassified report—which Kay delivered as testimony on Oct. 2 to a panel of several congressional committees—reveals not only that Bush's critics are closer to the mark, but something much more significant: that Saddam wanted and, in some cases, tried to resurrect the weapons programs that he had built in the 1980s, but that the United Nations sanctions and inspections prevented him from doing so."

Headline? The Iraq Sanctions Worked.

Headlines:
Fred Kaplan Can't Read, Writes Nonsense

Kay Report Proves UN Sanctions Didn't Work

Kaplan didn't come close to reading Kay's report with even basic comprehension levels. He should take one of those SQ3R Courses in reading.
http://www.ucc.vt.edu/stdysk/sq3r.html

Then he wouldn't miss things like this:

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002

Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.

Grumpy, it's apparent you haven't read what Kaplan wrote, because he deals with one of your first extracts and why it's not genuine evidence of weapons.

Kaplan looks at:

"A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research."

...and italicizes "suitable" (i.e., could conceivably be used for, but also used for other things) and "research" (i.e., evidence of research, but not weapons).

Before going any further, did you actually read Kaplan's article before criticizing it, or are you just defending the Kay report without considering Kaplan's argument?

Whether or not the example in the first extract is classified as "weapons" or "research" is irrelevant. In either case, the claim that inspections were or could have been successful is specious.

The UN Resolutions themselves specified what successful was- full and unconditional compliance. When you have some evidence for that, let us know.

Trying to squirm out of a position again? Tell us all: did Kay find any weapons of mass destruction, or not?

"Bush said that a team of U.S. weapons hunters in Iraq led by David Kay has found proof that Saddam, Iraq's deposed president, had the ambition and ability to use weapons of mass destruction, even though the team has found no weapons."

The statement last night on NBC, that Kay said it's possible that he found no weapons because they'd all been taken out of the country, would be laughed out of court. It's not evidence, only supposition.

Trying to worm back in with fallacious arguments again?

The US administration made a case for military action, not court action.

You keep trying to sneak in the same patently false argument over and over again- that the US Administration's case for war requires the finding of specific WMD in some specific stage of development or was based on some "imminent" threat of attack.

Even the declassified preliminary report has given copious and conclusive evidence that Saddam Hussein remained in material breach of the ceasefire and UN Sec. Council Resollutions and continued to seek and develop WMD even during inspections.

Unless you think you can prove that Sadam Hussein was in full and unconditional compliance with the ceasefire and all extant Security Council resolutions you're just making noise.

The Kay report has proved that inspections didn't work.

War is far more serious than any court trial. We need to be more certain. We were clearly mistaken about the Iraqi threat level.

War is evidently more serious than you are capable of comprehending.

Other than repeating the same load of folly, ignorance , and cant over and over and over, you haven't said anything sensible or presented anything that faintly resembles evidence for anything you have claimed.

Where is the evidence that Saddam Hussein was not in material breach? Where is the evidence that he was in unconditional compliance? Where is the evidence that UN Inspections prevented him from seeking WMD

The Kay report shows that the threat of Iraq was what the US administration said it was, that Saddam would continue to seek and develop WMD unless he was forcibly removed from power.

Read the report. Don't forget- SQ3R.

Grumpy, if I recall correctly, Vice President Cheney went on Tim Russert's show and said that we had evidence that Iraq had reconsitituted its nuclear program. And in August, 2002, Cheney said, "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." And Ari Fleischer said,

Grumpy, if I recall correctly, Vice President Cheney went on Tim Russert's show and said that we had evidence that Iraq had reconsitituted its nuclear program. And in August, 2002, Cheney said, "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." And Ari Fleischer said, "If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world." Colin Powell said, "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."

These are not statements that Saddam HUssein was conducting research to try to get them, or broker deals, or wanted them. These are statements that he had them, at the time the statements were made. (These, and more, can be found here.)

Now, if you want to point to all the evidence that Saddam Hussein wanted to arm Iraq, and did research in order to do so, and made contacts to attempt to do so, I won't argue with you. That much is clear from the Kay report, and I can read.

But if you try to tell me that Kay uncovered evidence that supports the fear-mongering statements like these I"ve just shared, then you've got a much higher hurdle to surpass. Kay has not found anything like what the administation was claiming.

And don't try to pass off on saying "Cheney admitted he misspoke." The White House had months to correct the misimpressions which Cheney et al gave, but chose not to, because it was clearly in their best interest to do so.

Frank - Then stop arguing. If you really can read then you know that even the few thing that you're grudgingly willing to admit to demonstrate conclusively that Sadam Hussein refused to carry out full and unconditional compliance with the ceasefire and the UN Resolutions. When a ceasefire is breached, there is no ceasefire.

No matter how many times you try to say it, none of these statements you keep dragging out do anything to make the case for military action illegitimate except in your own mind and others similarly self-deluded.

As good old Sam Johnson would say:

Truth is, indeed, not often welcome for its own sake; it is generally unpleasing, because contrary to our wishes and opposite to our practice; and, as our attention naturally follows our interest, we hear unwillingly what we are afraid to know, and soon forget what we have no inclination to impress upon our memories."

And don't you go go dragging out that old excuse about Cheney's statement proving squat.

FYI the Cheney staement was covered extensively months ago. If you read the damned thing you'll see he made reference to "programs" several times and it's abundantly clear to any but committed idealogues and fear mongerers that he misspoke in one instance.

When you think you have evidence that Saddam Hussein was in full and unconditional compliance with the ceasefire and UN Resolutions get back to us.

Maybe the real Congress was held hostage in a basement and the people who voted to authorize the President to take military action were impostors.

Take a hike in the fresh air. Take a course in SQ3R and learn how to read with better retention skills.

Frank,
Grumpy has offered you an argument. He is not obliged to offer you an understanding.

Doesn't look like you two expect to have your understandings improved by reading others' opinions, either. The Bushies said all those things that Frank posted; the Kay report supports none of it. I think I know where the "cant" is.

I have never seen an administration so corrupt, and so disrespectful of its citizens, as this which is now in authority. To warn of impending disaster; to frighten the masses with imminent destruction; to appeal in such hysterics in order to go to war; and then act as if the Kay report actually supports these outrageous claims is beyond the pale of all decency. And any citizen who cannot see that deserves to have its pockets picked by these rapscallions.

Chill out Juni, you're getting hysterical.

Frightening the masses with imminent destruction

You're the one trying to frighten people by spreading wild acusations that have no foundation in fact at all.

Here's what the man said- and what you, Frank and the rest of the Contra Band can't- or won't-grasp:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

If you actually pay any attention to things, "the masses" haven't had much trouble comprehending this. The masses aren't the ones making up revisionist histories.

Arguments over what wasn't found are spurious- all the more so when the Kay report is only preliminary. The Kay report gives clear evidence of what was found- that the Hussein regime continued for twelve years in material breach of the ceasefire agreements, the UN Resolutions, and the final opportunity for full and unconditional compliance.

Acting with the authority of the House and Senate the President made a decision to take appropriate action.

Write to Frank and the Contrary guy. Maybe you can get a group discount for an SQ3R course, an excellent aid to reading comprehension.

"I wish there were some cure, like the lover's leap, for all heads of which some single idea has obtained an unreasonable and irregular possession."

( Boswell's Life of Johnson) giga-usa.com

"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."
-- President George W. Bush, March 17 2003

"But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found."
-- Ari Fleischer, April 10 2003

"I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now."
-- Colin Powell, May 4 2003

The Kay report supports none of this, Grumpy.

The Kay Report supports everything that I have claimed it supports.

The Kay report gives clear evidence for the justification of military action as the US Administration presented it.

Your continued obsession with repeating the same statements about specific WMD ( which the preliminary Kay report has not disproved in any way) is evidence in support of nothing other than the Samuel Johnson report on Unreasonable and Irregular Possession cited above.

Unfortunately, Grumpy, the justification as you have reported it is not the way the administration has reported it. George W. Bush, Colin Powell, and Dick Cheney are in the administration. Ari Fleischer was at the time of the quotation above. Which administration were you thinking of?

Grumpy:

I suspect neither of us is going to persuade the other. And I also suspect that you love the US as much as I do, even if we have different expectations for our country's direction -- so there's a lot I won't say, but I will say to you (and others) that if it seemed like I was questioning your patriotism, consider it a preemptive strike, and understand that in the past, on this blog, I have been accused of not caring about my country, of being so asleep that it would take a mushroom cloud over Manhattan to arouse my pragmatism, and that I was practicing moral relativism if I criticized the President and failed to criticize Saddam Hussein more loudly in the same sentence. (I also expect that this comment might provoke a bit of a reply from others on this blog, but that's OK.)

Because I think we're both set in our ideas, I won't spend more time in this discussion. But allow me to restate my points before I move on.

1. Because of many of the quotations above, I believe the administration tried to persuade the American people that Iraq had WMDs in 2002 and represented a threat to the region and the US.

2. Because Wolfowitz said that WMDs was the "core reason" (and I acknowledge that he said there were other reasons), it was clear to me that that was the reason they decided to push, even if for "bureacratic" reasons.

3. Even if others mentioned other reasons, they were not the core reason (i.e., the reason which was usually stressed) because not every group in the administration embraced reasons such as humanitarian abuse (Wolfowitz as much as said that in his Vanity Fair interview).

4. By the time we were at a point of war with Iraq, many of the administration's WMD arguments had been eroded (the yellow cake, the aluminum tubes...), pushing greater reliance on non-core reasons which everyone didn't agree justified war.

5. Kay's report, while not saying there are no WMDs (it never could, of course, that would take a universal inspection) does not support claims that Hussein had WMDs in the months leading up to the war.

6. Keller's headline (getting back to the original post) is completely justified because Kay did not find weapons. Whether or not Kay was assigned an unfair task (find weapons that may not exist, vs. determine the truth) is completely separate. But since I believe the administration pushed WMDs so heavily as justification for the war, it's approproate for a headline to answer that immediate question. To do otherwise would be akin to a headline like "Jorge Posada calls a great game;" people want to know the score.

Now, like I said, I really don't intend to waste your time on this. If you want to continue, it looks like there are others here who will argue with you. And if my post provokes a response from Stephen saying something like "you were practicing moral relativism," I still won't care, because he can take it up with me in email if he wants. I know I can find his former words, just like I found my older posts to prove my points before.

OK?

Yankees 6, Red Sox 2
NYTimes headline:
Yankees fail to sweep in Bronx: Top of order slumping, Martinez looms.

And thanks Frank for telling me what you think you are going to provoke me to say and then rebutting it. Maybe you should wait until I actually say it. Just a thought.

I think your neighborhood must get a different edition. :-) (Also, I don't think "Under the Tuscan Sun" plays here.)

Frank,

If the cloud of remains from several thousand Americans, the remains that were rotted in mass graves in Iraq, and a detailed report of Saddams continued efforts to maintain his reign of terror and desire for more and more deadly WMD wasn't enough to impress the seriousness of this on you, I wouldn't dream of taking on the fools errand of convincing you of anything.
I wouldn't even count on a mushroom cloud.

The only reason I respond to your posts at all is on behalf of those who may still be unaware or confused on the matter.

You are absolutely right that Kay's preliminary report makes no claim of having found WMD.

You're absolutely right that there were several statements from the current administration- as well as the previous administration, the French, the Germans, and the UN -that said they believed there were WMD present in Iraq at the time of military action.

And you are absolutely right when you admit theat the Kay report has disproved none of them.

For twelve years the murderous thug Saddam Hussein continued - as the UN Inspections and the Kay report proved- to refuse to comply with the unconditional demand for disarming and proving that he had disarmed.For twelve years he continued to oppress and murder and do everything he could to maintain any and every ability he could to hold on to power, to murder, to support terrorism, and maintain WMD-all of which the Kay report proves unequivocally.

For you it remains a matter of "but I believe"

Regardless of anything you choose to believe, you are flat out dead wrong and dangerous when you make the fallacious claim that these statements were ever presented as any necessary basis for military action. You are deliberately promoting a lie.

I have no questions at all about your idea of patriotism. There have always been useful idiots and scoundrels seeking refuge there. You will never lack for company.

Good old Sammy J. puts it quite succinctly. You should check it out Frank- I found this on a site over in Rumania.
http://imperium.lenin.ru/LJ/er2000/memories/index1.html

"A man sometimes starts up a patriot, only by disseminating discontent, and propagating reports of secret influence, of dangerous counsels, of violated rights, and encroaching usurpation. This practice is no certain note of patriotism. To instigate the populace with rage beyond the provocation, is to suspend publick happiness, if not to destroy it. He is no lover of his country, that unnecessarily disturbs its peace. Few errours and few faults of government, can justify an appeal to the rabble; who ought not to judge of what they cannot understand, and whose opinions are not propagated by reason, but caught by contagion."

Grumpy, a little lesson from Nixon for you: denial and stonewalling is a lonely path.

No one needs to fear moral equivalence accusations now that Grover Norquist has compared the estate tax to the Holocaust.

-Dozens of WMD related program activities,

-Significant amounts of concealed equipment,

-Hidden prison laboratories,

- Reference strains of biological organisms.

-New and continued biological weapons research on Brucella, Congo, Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, ricin and aflatoxin.

-Hidden documents and equipment for nuclear weapon technology,

-Continued planning and advanced design work for long range missiles,

-Clandestine attempts to obtain ballistic missile technology.

The terrorists and jihadists do everything they can to find bigger and better ways to commit mass murder.
Useful idiots like the contrary one make noises about denial.

"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."
-- President George W. Bush, March 17 2003

"But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found."
-- Ari Fleischer, April 10 2003

"I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now."
-- Colin Powell, May 4 2003

The Kay report supports none of this, Grumpy.

"No Illicit Arms Found In Iraq, U.S. Inspector Tells Congress."

But Dismembered Arms -- That's A Different Story. (Too bad it's, uh, you know, completely irrelevant.)

Noticed an interesting bit of rhetoric above. On October 9, 5:55, "Grumpy" accused Hired Contrarian this way:

You keep trying to sneak in the same patently false argument over and over again- that the US Administration's case for war requires the finding of specific WMD in some specific stage of development or was based on some "imminent" threat of attack.

I noticed this because the word imminent gets a lot of coverage. Even Andrew Sullivan is focusing on it, and says the left shouldn't be using it unless it was actually used by Bush.

But here, oddly, Hired Contrarian hadn't even said "imminent." Grumpy was using a straw man, because HC didn't say "imminent." It was only after Grumpy said it that others started using the word.

Grumpy's pretty tricky!

re Grumpy, well, people who sometimes fool themselves sometimes fool themselves into believing they fool others.

Dear Careless Reader,

Oddly, the one who proudly proclaims his status as one hired to be contrary did exactly what I said he did.

Evidently you don't understand what a straw man argument is, or you wouldn't employ one.

Try reading the sentence again.

Contrary one did indeed keep trying to sneak in the same patently false argument, the same argument that the US Administration's case for war requires the finding of specific WMD in some specific stage of development or was based on some "imminent" threat of attack.

Do you know what the word "or" means?

As you can see, some people are not only fools, they are persistent fools. Try not to encourage them with false hopes that they might have said something intelligible.

Well, then, another truth twister! You DID mention the "imminent threat" concept first.

And now I'm confused... With Cheney making the statements he made about their WMD capabilities, and the President having said in Cincinnati that Hussein could inflict "massive and sudden horror" on the US --- that it wasn't imminent?

Please speak clearly, since it was you who raised the imminent threat idea in this thread.

I have spoken clearly. I said :

-the claim that the US Administration's case for war requires the finding of
specific WMD in some specific stage of development or was based on some "imminent" threat of attack is fallacious.

There are two basic roots to a fallacious argument:

1/ It is based on an incorrect or misleading notion or information.

2/The intent to deceive

It's possible your confusion is based on number one, but if so, the correct information has been pointed out here repeatedly.

Given that you simply ignore it, number two seems the more likely case.

As far as this thread goes, the evidence is there for anyone who is interested in evidence. If you like, you can continue trying to deceive people.

I'll assume anyone else still reading here is capable of reading the whole thread and deciding for them selves.

I'll leave you and any others still here who enjoy mutual deception and noise making to enjoy yourselves.

Grumpy, you brought up "imminent threat." NO ONE ELSE. Don't try and slime out.

And besides, Bush laid the threat out in clear terms in Cincinnati. Are you saying that after all that he didn't think the threat was imminent? Are you accusing him of complacency? Make up your mind!

Wow, surprised this thread is still building!

I gave further thought to Bush's SOTU paragraph that many are using to say that Bush explicitly said the threat was not imminent, and it's one of those passages where, the more you think about it, the more you understand. The way it reads to me now is that Bush wasn't characterizing it as non-imminent, so much as making a rhetorical point against others who think it's non-imminent. That is, he seems to put aside whether or not he himself considers it imminent so that he can say that imminence is not a relevant point. (My fuller discussion is here.) As a result, I don't think you can discount other language which Bush used, such as "it could happen at any time." To me, Bush was clearly expressing the idea of imminence, even if he never said "this is imminent."

""Whoever commits a fraud is guilty not only of the particular injury to him who he deceives, but of the diminution of that confidence which constitutes not only the ease but the existence of society." Samuel Johnson
----------------------------------

Yes Frank, you really nail it there, right in the beginning of the little essay you linked for us: "These days, the word imminent, and its use, seems to be more important than the concept of imminent."

Your (as Sam Johnson would say) fraudulent use of words in your attempt to undermine your own Government in wartime is evidently much more important to you than any concepts.

The President: Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

Even though you preceded the quote with an illegitimate assumption- For instance, the words in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address show that he wanted to avoid using the word "imminent" you actually managed- despite yopurself,somehow- to sum up the President's thoughts accurately in one sentence--

Frank: That is to say, the threat is not imminent, but we couldn't allow it to achieve imminence.

Obviously, it's rather asinine to suggest that the President wanted to avoid using the word imminent when you give a quote where he uses the word in the first sentence. He used the word in order to avoid using it, Frank?

No, he didn't want to avoid using it, he wanted to - and did-use it very deliberately to make the point that even you, for all your confused thinking couldn't avoid recognizing. At that point, you just could have admitted your mistake. But no, not you, Frank. The concept isn't important. Frank want's to try and use the word any way he can to attack the President and undermine the war.

Frank: Now, while it's evident that in the State of the Union speech the President avoided applying the word imminent, isn't it obvious that's what he meant? Let's look at the definition of the word first.

As pointed out already it's evident that the President did use the word, but yes it sure is obvious what he meant-- But who cares what's obvious and what he meant, right Frank? Your interest is in how can you manage to somehow desparately try to spin it around, join the rest of the chattering fools and attack him.

But, lets do what you suggested next- "look at the definition"-- OK Frankie boy lets look:

The American Heritage Dictionary gives only one definition, "About to occur; impending." Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary gives three definitions, one of which is very close to the American Heritage Dictionary's, but also this: "Full of danger; threatening; menacing; perilous."

Now what? Another chance for an admission that Frank was wrong, that he has been spreading a patently false argument and has finally seen the error of his ways?- No, remember this is Frank. Truth is not on Frank's agenda. Trying to use the word to undermine is more important than any concept of the word.

Now. I'd say everything Bush described in his speech meets the second definition, no doubt about it. But as for the first, Bush implied that if we let Hussein continue, that on some uncertain time table all the materials he'd amassed would become actual weapons. (Otherwise, he's no threat, right?) And, if the timetable is uncertain, then it may as well be imminent, correct?

No Frank, he didn't just imply what would happen if we allowed Saddam to continue- he stated it-

He and all the rest of the administration and Tony Blair, and our allies- over and over and over went around giving speech after speech stating it emphatically-- everything in Saddams's history, every intelligence report, and twelve years of refusal to comply with a cease fire made it evident that the threat from Sadam Hussein could not be allowed to stand.

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

This "Obviously he's no threat", is a real crock. What was obvious was that, just like you already said,--, although the timetable was uncertain, he was a threat, a threat that as you already pointed out, the President was not going to allow to become imminent.

Although the precise timetable was uncertain, the entire history of Saddam Hussein made clear his willingness to use WMD-- and twelve years of consistent material breach made clear he had no intention of complying with the ceasefire or any of the UN Resolutions.

What the hell is your problem in understanding something so simple, so obvious, so repeated, and with so much evidence?

Oh yeah- your thesis "These days, the word imminent, and its use, seems to be more important than the concept of imminent." and your agenda.

So, having no qualms about the fradulent use of words to support your agenda of undermining the President, and with no care at all for, as Sam would say, the "diminution of that confidence which constitutes not only the ease but the existence of society" Frank goes on.

Frank Now, if we take the administration at their words, that Hussein was not an imminent threat, but merely one in the making, would we have behaved any differently than we did? As it was, we bypassed the UN and threw away decades' worth of alliances. What would we have done otherwise, just not gone to the UN at all? As a practical matter, it doesn't look like the impact of using the word imminent is significant: we'd still have warred.

Now, if we take the administration at their words, ( no imminent threat) would we have acted any differently than we did.???

WTF? Who is the "we? " Do you mean if we- the loony left hate America asshats who have been lying about what the President said- had taken the administration at their word?-- We give up Frank, tell us--would you have acted differently if you had believed the President? You have your opportunity-- will you act differently? (And drop the "merely one in the making come from"- where did that come from?)

A "mere" twelve years of material breach, and "merely" invading neighboring countries, gassing Iraqis, doing al he could to develop more and more potent chemical , biological, and nuclear weapons. What is wrong with you?
You finally get around to telling the truth about what the President said, and it's right back to more lies.

Frank: As it was, we bypassed the UN and threw away decades' worth of alliances

Frank- we went to the UN- Twelve years ago. Saddam agreed to a cease fire. He was in material breach for twelve years. Twelve years Frank.
We kept getting resolution after resolution. The last one said he had one final opportunity for complete and unconditional compliance with every extant resolution for the last twelve years. Twelve years of material breach. The Security Council called for serious consequences for anything other than total inconditional compliance.

Who bypassed the UN, Frank? What are you talking about?
Saddam bypassed the UN, Frank. The French threw away decades worth of alliances. The Germans threw away decades worth of alliances. Kofi Annan threw away the findings of material breach as reported his own inspection teams.

We led a coalition of UN members willing to enforce the UN Resolutions and the consequences they called for.We and the coalition enforced them. The reign of Saddam Hussein and his murderous thugocracy is over.

Frank, you're a published author- you're obviously not an idiot by the usual definition. But you are a useful idiot in doing the real service you provide for the cause of terrorism and terrorists. The hell with the truth, the hell with concepts-- and the hell with the Iraqi's and the hell with the American citizens being killed.

Frank has an agenda. Frank has a service to render.

You're twisting those words as hard as you can Frank, no worry about any real concepts, and doing everything you can to undermine the US Government in a time of war and aide the cause of the very people who still are doing all they can to kill Americans, kill Iraqis, and destroy any hope for self determination in Iraq and any hope for peace in the Middle East.

Just shut up.

Oh- No,can't do that, Frank won't shut up. Frank has an agenda.

Frank: What would we have done otherwise, just not gone to the UN at all? As a practical matter, it doesn't look like the impact of using the word imminent is significant: we'd still have warred.

WTF? You've given the reasons for taking military action in a situation where the President clearly stated the threat was not imminent- and object anyway because if it had been imminent we would have taken military action?

Yeah Frank, I sure hope we would have stopped him even sooner then.
You don't?

You'd rather that even if the threat was imminent, we just kept on doing nothing? Just how many people are required to die before Frank would allow the President of the United States to carry out his duty as Commander in Chief - one that, if you remember, The Congress authorized?
How many dead would it take Frank? Fifty , a hundred, a thousand? Ten thousand? More?

Or is it actually your preference that we just let Americans and Iraqi's die no matter what? Do you think we should have let him kill a few hundred or a few thousand more people first and then asked the UN to pas a resolution condemning it-- maybe one saying "don't do it again- or there will be serious consequences?"

Next, Frank brings up a statement about Saddam having some already developed WMD.

Yeah Frank--several administration members made several statements like that - Because every US intelligence agency, the French intelligence, the British Intelligence, the UN.... every intelligence service everywhere going back three administrations said so and through it alL, Saddam refused to comply with the ceasefire agrement, kept on murdering his own people, kept on developing weapons... Is there a point here,Frank?

Remember, the issue you are supposedly talking about is, did the President base his decision on a claim that Saddam posed an imminent threat or not?
That was clearly established in the quote you gave - he did not.

And, of course, no one really knows exactly what WMD he had or didn't have on a particular do they Frank?

The UN inspections couldn't determine that for an absolute certainty could they? And why not? Because Saddam Hussein continued for twelve years in material breach of the UN Resolution by refusing to comply. That's why they gave him one final opportunity Frank- for unconditional compliance--- remember?

Then Frank tries the old canard about Cheney who spoke repeatedly about the development of nuclear programs- all true, all verified, and in one instance, in one speech mistakenly said "nuclear wepons" Once. He mis-spoke. Once. And Even though Frank knows that the one usage of the word "weapons" Cheney made was a mistake, and says so himself, Frank can't let truth or facts stop him from his agenda.

Frank tries to make something out of "how long it took" to correct it. If anyone actually listened to the talk, or read it, the correction wasn't even needed, it was obvious.

How long will it take Frank to correct his mistakes- mistakes that aren't so readily attributable to being "mistakes" at all?

Next Frank suggests that if a threat were actually immininent, that that would be a good reason to attack the Prersident too: To say that it is imminent opens you up to having been asleep at the wheel by letting it get that far. No one would want to be accused of that

No they wouldn't-- but that wouldn't stop you would it? As long as you can accuse the President of something- anything- real, imaginary, true, false, no matter. It's the use of the word that's important.

Quote the President as clearly stating that the decision to take military action was not based on an imminent threat-- and then just get on with the goal of undermining your own country while at war.

No way to know and gauge in any precise way just how imminent the threat to Iraqi cirizens, to American and Coalition soldiers and even American citizens at home fas a result of your efforts Frank, but you sure do try.

You're useful idiot.
And a fraud.

Shut up.

I lost track. Are you saying Bush didn't think it was imminent? With all that danger, and the "it could happen any time," this big "mushroom cloud," that he didn't think it was imminent? If so, you should be outraged by his complacency. Bush can't have it both ways.

Grumpy, it's really far simpler than you make it sound. All your wanderings and perambulations, your confused, tortuous logic do is to confuse what is really a simple point:

In the state of the union address, Bush did not say it was not an imminent threat. He was responding to the argument of those who are unconvinced the threat was imminent, and, knowing that if the available evidence hadn't convinced them yet he was unlikely to convince them it was, he chose another route: that it was foolish of them to wait to be convinced. That paragraph in the SOTU is not about whether or not the threat is imminent, but about whether or not a stage of imminence is relevant.

That's all that it is. The paragraph takes no position on whether or not the threat is imminent, it only takes a poisition on whether or not that matters, and comes down firmly on the side that it doesn't matter.

All the other language which Bush and other members of his administration used point to the threat's imminence.

You know, you must be in denial or something to not see something which is really very simple: the threat was imminent ("on any given day," he said in Cincinnati); some remained unconvinced, and he couldn't convince them otherwise; he had to try another tack — perhaps not to convince them, but to convince others who might be swayed by them.

As for your repeated claim that I am undermining our government, costing lives, etc., well, that's a load of crap and you know it. That's just a canard which people throw out when they know their other arguments have too little weight; in essence, it's a last refuge.

Grumpy seems to imagine world where a competent President could say these three things:

1. Watch out for the mushroom cloud
2. Could happen any day
3. But the threat is not imminent.

If you assume competence, one of those three doesn't belong.

The wickedness of a loose or profane author is more atrocious than that of a giddy libertine or drunken ravisher, not only because it extends its effects wider, as a pestilence that taints the air is more destructive than poison infused in a draught, but because it is committed with cool deliberation.

http://www.samueljohnson.com/writing.html

Frank must love all the traffic you're sending his way, but how about responding to my last post, Grumpy? After all, the question has no more to do with Samuel Johnson than it does with Ionesco. I'll save you the effort of scrolling up:

Grumpy seems to imagine [a] world where a competent President could say these three things:

1. Watch out for the mushroom cloud
2. Could happen any day
3. But the threat is not imminent.

If you assume competence, one of those three doesn't belong.

I haven't "imagined" any President at all. It's you and Frank who have let your imaginations and ideaology get in the way of recognizing a clear and simple fact- the case for military action was not based on any specific claim about any specific WMD or any prediction of what day that threat might manifest.

Saddam Hussein was a murderous thug, he violated a ceasefire agreement for twelve years, continued to do everything he could to develop WMD, gave no evidence of having destroyed those he had by his own admission, and continued to torture, murder and fill mass graves with his opposition.

When you can disprove that, get back to us. The rest is simply failed rhetoric.

Grumpy, you introduced "imminent threat" in an effort to sound smart, when no one else had. Then you went further out on your limb, and have refused to accept the fact that, when Bush and the administration were talking to the American people (in an effort to persuade and produce an endorsement through poll results), they used very serious language. That language mentioned programs, but it also mentioned WMDs themselves, not just programs. That language wanred of mushroom clouds and terrorist alliances which could produce death and destruction "at any time." When? "we don't know when, and that's the problem," Bush said.

So, redeem yourself or go away. Explain why you think Bush holding these opinions makes sense:

1. Watch out for the mushroom cloud
2. Could happen any day
3. But the threat is not imminent.

Isn't it possible Frank's right, that the imminent paragraph was just a rhetorical exericse? Or do you think Bush was talking out of both sides of his mouth? Or, are you saying Bush is incompetent?

Perhaps you have another explanation?

It's not difficult: I've focused my last three posts on one small issue, so that you don't have to get distracted. All you have to do is answer on one small issue, Grumpy.

Answer it or don't come back: because if you do come back without answering, everyone here will know you're a weenie.

Your comment sections are being spammed -- notice the url for the post before this. You might want to start deleting posts like that...

Gratitude is born in hearts that take time to count up past mercies.

Imitation is the sincerest form of television.