--- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is the radio address text; all quoted lines in
> this post are from this text unless stated otherwise:
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021005.html
>
> "The danger to America from the Iraqi regime is grave
> and growing.
Opinion
> The regime is guilty of beginning two
> wars.
True
>It has a horrible history of striking without
> warning.
True
>In defiance of pledges to the United Nations,
> Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons,
True we know this becouse they used them.
> and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of
> those weapons.
True they did rebuild these facilities.
>Saddam Hussein has used these weapons
> of death against innocent Iraqi people,
True
>and we have
> every reason to believe he will use them again."
Opinon, but if one goes agains an agreement once, then they are likely to do
it again, sounds like a reasonable opinoin to me.
> First sentence: Opinion, not backed by hard evidence.
> Second & third: True.
> Fourth: True in the past, but not yet proven for 2003;
> according to article JDG posted, an Iraqi officer (not
> proven a trustworthy source either, as he's also
> failed to provide hard evidence) claims that SH's WMD
> programs were toothless by the mid-to-late '90's, but
> that he had and was seeking intelligence/ability to
> rebuild those programs once UN sanctions were lifted.
> Fifth: First part true, second is opinion based on the
> assumption that he does in fact have WMDs and systems
> to deliver them...against whom?
>
> Implication: against Americans, on American soil.
> This is manipulative, not informative.
I see, you did the same thing I did, only we seem to disagree to some extent.
You "read in" a lot to what he was saying, I did not. You made assumptions
and followed implications, I did not. Of course I was not listening to the
"talking head review" that came after the address. I am of the opinion that
you got your "take" from some such "review".
Don't get me wrong, he is spining, but he is not saying the words you are
puting in his mouth. He just isn't, you or someoen you listend to is.
My take on the "against whom" part was strait from the adress. "Saddam
Hussein has used these weapons of death against innocent Iraqi people"
> > We resumed, and ended the war, not becouse we knew
> > they had WMDs, but becouse
> > they had broken the agreements they made to ensure a
> > sesation of hostilities.
>
> Yet UN inspectors, back for the first time in years,
> were 'making progress' (albeit only under the threat
> of the military might poised around Iraq) when they
> were forced out by the US. See sentence below re:
> 'future of...America in...[Saddam's] hands.'
Yes but the final chance they were recieving for the inspections to work was
squandered by them cheeting and liying the same as they had done previously.
They were told very specificaly -compleat compliance or ELSE-.
What about the inpracticality of leaving our sons, daughters, fathers,
mothers, sisters, and brothers sitting in the desert for years? What about
their lives? Where wre we suposed to get the funds to keep them there?
Sitting on Sadam's doorstep in a "seig" for another 12 years was simply
unworkable. If we want less spending on military, then we can't have a large
portion of it flying recon and support of no-fly zones for ever. Remember
what those no-fly zones were for, keping the Bath's form killing the kurds
and the Shiat.
> > It was always about this. In adition to this was the
> > threat that if they were
> > not following one set of agreements, and they had
> > the means to produce WMD,
> > then the risk was too high. Even if we were not
> > going to keep our word about
> > 91, we had to do something becouse the threat, (the
> > worse case scinario based
> > on intelegence and probabilities and facts) was to
> > greate not to.
>
> I await the results of current inquiries.
>
> "Iraq has longstanding ties to terrorist groups, which
> are capable of and willing to deliver weapons of mass
> death.
hamas. Sadam bragged and openly supports hamas. To name only one.
> And Iraq is ruled by perhaps the world's most
> brutal dictator who has already committed genocide
> with chemical weapons, ordered the torture of
> children, and instituted the systematic rape of the
> wives and daughters of his political opponents.
All true.
> "We cannot leave the future of peace and the security
> of America in the hands of this cruel and dangerous
> man.
Remember the security of america also depends on our ability to respond
elsewhere in the world (like our own shores?) we can no-longer aford
(echonomicaly or security) to expect to keep our troops fully engagen in a
seig or a no-fly protection for others.
> This dictator must be disarmed.
Absolutly he broke his agreements, and has lied about one set of weapons, he
might be lying about all of them.
> And all the
> United Nations resolutions against his brutality and
> support for terrorism must be enforced."
We have to enforce these agreements or future ones mean nothing.
> First sentence: True WRT the first part, but to Hamas
> and others (IIRC), not to al-Qaida.
There are intelegence links showing that Bath's were meeting with AQ's. That
was known before 9/11.
> I think that
> someone posted a link stating that in at least one
> poll, ~70% of Americans thought that Saddam had
> definitively been linked to al-Qaida and 9-11 (ref:
> previously posted article(s) about Rumsfeld's post
> 9-11 statements WRT Iraq and al-Qaida).
Their were pictures found in seveal places in Iraq depicting an "Iraqi Air"
plane flying into WTC. But he never said AQ he said "terrorists".
> I'm guessing
> that in the second part, he is referring to suicide
> bombers etc, by saying "weapons of mass death" instead
> of "weapons of mass destruction" -- but I also suspect
> that many, many people who heard this 'registered'
> "WMD" instead. Very carefully and cleverly crafted
> wording.
Absolutly! Skillfuly done. Hoo RA! Wonderfull marketing! My hat goes off. 3
cheers! But he DID NOT SAY WHAT HE IS BEING BLAMED FOR SAYING! If his
aponents are going to be wordsmiths then why not Bush? Only the easily dupped
when for that anyway. Whoe's fault is that? Who made the rules? Who listens
to the loudest spin? Just becouse you do what has to be done and play the
spin better than your apponents doesn't make what you did wrong, and it
doesn't make your spin wrong either. If he haden't done any spin, then the
peacenics surly would have, then his hands would have been tied. Vietnam
anyone? He played their game, beat them at it, and did the RIGHT THING to
boot. It makes me so proud.
> Second sentence: True (although he was nevertheless
> good enough to be an ally of sorts in the '80's...).
> Third: What the he**!?! The future of America in
> Saddam's hands?!? This is nonsense.
> Fourth: True (or it should have been).
> Fifth: Essentially true, although with an emotional
> spin that I don't think is in the UN resolutions.
Yes it is.
> > Was thier a "spin" to sell the war? Of course their
> > was. That's how things
> > work in the US. Every product you buy, (even sci-fi
> > books) are marketed as
> > best as possible. Some of these products are good
> > products, some are not, but
> > they are all "sold" with a "spin". It was exagerated
> > however by the media.
> > Who's fault is that, Bush? Wolfowitz? Powel? They
> > are at fault for the
> > American mode of consensus? You want to blame them
> > for the manner that ideas are expressed in the US?
>
> In matters of state, by Administration members
> themselves, ABSOLUTELY! They weren't selling books,
> or songs, or widgets. They were addressing the
> American people about armed conflict.
And their opponents were not using spin and marketing techniques? Come on!
You fight the fight your given.
> > Of course the left never "sells" or "spins" do they?
> > And the libritarians are
> > not imune. Who the hell is Ann Rand after all?
>
> I would like to point out that I recognized and
> *called* on the slant-factor in this article, so
> obviously I realize that "the left" (which I am not,
> frex 'packing' as I do when necessary) has a spin. (It
> may have been before you re-upped, but I clearly have
> no love for Ann Rand either.) Everyone slants things
> in their favor. It doesn't make the practice honest,
> correct or admirable.
No but it *is* the -reality- of what is required. As soon as one group is
willing to play to the masses with "spin" everyone has to get on the spin
Maru becouse the best ship is the one that carries the goods. What really
makes me proud is the way they did it without fibbing. Instead of spoon
feeding the spin, they let the idiots fill in the spin, by making buzwords
like WBD, evil doors, etc. Then stating facts in ways that sounded simmilar
to, but were not exactly the same buzz. It was briliant. Especialy for
someone who has shown that he has difficulty with words. Did they know what
they were doing? Yes. Was it the right thing to do? Yes.
> > All this where are the WMDs talk is just another
> > spin, I prefer to deal with
> > the facts and make a decision based on that. Those
> > were provided -along with the spin-.
>
> No, they weren't. Inplications, innuendo,
> re-direction, partial truths -- but not the *relevant*
> facts.
> I expect "spin" on most if not all political matters,
> but in matters of armed conflict, in which men, women
> and children will die, we (the people) require and
> deserve to make our decisions based upon as much of
> the 'truth' as it is possible to know. (I am *not*
> advocating public dissemination of sensitive
> intelligence which will compromise the military's
> ability to fight.)
How is that supposed to work? Were the peacniks going to just stop spinning?
The Far left? The middle left? Was anyone else going to just not spin? Come
on.
> > WMD was an additional spin that the media focused on
> > becouse it was the one
> > that would sell the most comercials. Sure it was a
> > Bush spin, but it was also
> > a major concern, given that they were not following
> > other parts of the
> > agreement, and the intelegence was pointing to a
> > program, -their was a
> > program- even if they were not producing large
> > enough quantities, their was a program.
>
> I await the results of the searches currently underway
> in Iraq.
And as far as the flavor of this conversation is conserned, I could care
less. We did do the right thing.
> > The media is where all the hype was. I remember ex
> > generals on FOX, and
> > interviews with working officials who stated over
> > and over and over and over
> > again that WMD was not the main reason, Husain as
> > not the main target. At one
> > point Powel said specificaly that we may not find
> > WMDs, and that was long
> > before the first troops moved in.
>
> No, all the hype was _not_ just in the media.
>
> "American security, the safety of our friends, and the
> values of our country lead us to confront this
> gathering threat. By supporting the resolution now
> before them, members of Congress will send a clear
> message to Saddam: His only choice is to fully comply
> with the demands of the world. And the time for that
> choice is limited. Supporting this resolution will
> also show the resolve of the United States, and will
> help spur the United Nations to act."
>
> First sentence: American security is placed *first.*
> And Saddam's regime is a "gathering threat" to it --
> how if not by WMD or other terrorist acts?
> Rest of paragraph: True as far as it goes.
You still don't see how Sadam was a serious threat to our security even if we
had known ofr certain that he did not have WMDs? You anted our military to be
spread as thin as possible, in another 1/2 century seig stance like Korea?
Where were all those soldires going to come from?
> > On many channels every other word was, WMD, WMD. If
> > you were watching left
> > leaning media, then you got the story from the
> > perspective the left wanted
> > you to have. You don't think they didn't have
> > stratagy meetings on post war
> > programming? You think they didn't focus on the most
> > benificial message based on their political
> leanings?
> >
> > And some just fall right into their stratagy. Step
> > back, wake up.
>
> <raised eyebrow> Right back at ya'! ;)
>
Guy with glasses and a big noes -> 87)
> > Yes Bush spun the WMD thing.
> > Yes the left exagerated it.
> > No it wasn't the main reason for the war.
> > No you were not lied to (on this point) by your
> > President.
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
