RE: RFK Jr. interview
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Arnett Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 12:27 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: RFK Jr. interview On 8/3/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, and it rather unambiguously implies that they did not see evidence of WMDs, since Tenet surely would have considered them an imminent threat. There are several problems with this assessment. 1) The report clearly stated that they had biological agents ready for quick weaponization, as well as bulk fills for chemical weapons. Indeed, the version of saran that they used has the agents combined just before use. You're arguing with Tenet, if you're saying this means that Iraq had WMDs or posed an immediate threat in some other way. Good luck with that. Is there some reason we shouldn't believe him or the declassified parts of the NIE? No, but there is a very good reason to not go with your interpretation of his remarks. John and I have, repeatedly, quoted from the declassified part of the report. Using the prevalent definition of WMD, these quotes clearly show that the report states that Iraq, in all likelihood, had WMD. I went to Wikipedia to get the common definition. It's not a definitive source for everything, but it is a good reference for common understanding. Quoting: Today, the term WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) means different things to different people. The most widely used definition is that of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons (NBC). The same source quotes US civil defense as stating it's: 1) Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, or rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces [113 g], missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce [7 g], or mine or device similar to the above. (2) Poison gas. (3) Any weapon involving a disease organism. (4) Any weapon that is designed to release radiation at a level dangerous to human life. This definition derives from US law, 18 U.S.C. Section 2332a and the referenced 18 USC 921. Indictments and convictions for possession and use of WMD such as truck bombs, pipe bombs, shoe bombs, cactus needles coated with botulin toxin, etc. have been obtained under 18 USC 2332a. This expands the concept of WMD from the common definition. This is the definition that I saw used in the discussions that led up to war, and in the statements that Hussein did not have WMD. If massive stockpiles of anthrax and sarin were found, most folks would have accepted that as proof that Hussein had WMD. Second, you have tended to focus on the delivery systems much more than the agents of WMD, arguing that they aren't weapons without delivery systems. But, this is at odds with the Civil Defense definition above. 2) Not being an imminent threat does not mean a county does not have WMD. France doesn't constitute an imminent threat, even though it has a number of H-bombs...which are clearly WMD. I'm fairly sure that France, despite its disagreements, has not lately been considered an enemy of the United States. Anyway, what is this whole discussion about if not the justification for the war, which clearly was the proposal that Iraq posed an imminent, immediate, mortal, etc., threat. But, your specific statement that I questioned was that everyone knew that Iraq had no WMDnot that Iraq didn't pose an imminent threat. Since we've established, with France, that possessing WMD does not equate an imminent threat, let's expand that definition. During October, 1962, the US government determined that there was an imminent threat of attack by the USSR. The US military went to DEFCON 2. The situation defused, and the military later stood down to DEFCON 3. Later, in the '70s and '80s, there was little fear of an immediate attack by the USSR, even though thousands of H-bombs were targeted at the US. The USSR was not thought to pose an imminent threatotherwise our defense posture would have been heightened. Irrelevant. The point is that it was not a foundation for saying that there were WMDs or there was an immediate threat. But, it specifically stated that there were WMDs, as commonly defined. 5) Later in the report, the likelihood of an immediate unprovoked attack by Hussein on the US was assessed as low. In that sense, there wasn't an imminent threat. Indeed. Why do you think Tenet has bothered to speak out in public against the idea that this was an intelligence failure? He's defending the intelligence community by telling their side of the story... and leaving it up to us to decide if the administration's statements in support of attacking Iraq were justified by the intelligence it received. What do you think, now that you have read the NIE? Were the immediate threat and so forth statements justified by the NIE? Was the war justified by the NIE
RE: RFK Jr. interview
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Minette Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 12:05 PM To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' Subject: RE: RFK Jr. interview This is the definition that I saw used in the discussions that led up to war, and in the statements that Hussein did not have WMD. To clarify, I'm referring here to the Wikipedia definition, not the Civil defense one. Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are all WMD by common definition. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 8/4/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, but there is a very good reason to not go with your interpretation of his remarks. John and I have, repeatedly, quoted from the declassified part of the report. Using the prevalent definition of WMD, these quotes clearly show that the report states that Iraq, in all likelihood, had WMD. Bullshit, to be blunt. But, your specific statement that I questioned was that everyone knew that Iraq had no WMD Bullshit again. I never said that everyone knew Iraq had no WMDs. Irrelevant. The point is that it was not a foundation for saying that there were WMDs or there was an immediate threat. But, it specifically stated that there were WMDs, as commonly defined. Bullshit. Show me one place in the published NIE where it says that Iraq had WMDs. It is not there. It says they had WMD programs and WMD efforts, but nowhere, nowhere does it say that they had WMDs. Nowhere. Yet our leaders didn't tell us that they had programs and could develop WMDs. They told us that they had them and were ready to attack America with their fleet of UAVs. They told us we shouldn't be so sure that Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons and that they were rebuilding their nuclear facilities, despite intelligence that said *if* they restarted their program, it would be years. Come on. The NIE paints a picture of Saddam wishing and hoping that he could weaponize what he had and get other programs going again. That's not a guy with WMDs, that's a guy with aspirations. No question that he used them in the past and was doing all sorts of bad stuff. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: RFK Jr. interview
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Arnett Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 1:33 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: RFK Jr. interview Irrelevant. The point is that it was not a foundation for saying that there were WMDs or there was an immediate threat. But, it specifically stated that there were WMDs, as commonly defined. Bullshit. Show me one place in the published NIE where it says that Iraq had WMDs. It is not there. It says they had WMD programs and WMD efforts, but nowhere, nowhere does it say that they had WMDs. Nowhere. It is in the first Key Judgment on page 5 of the report (page 9 in Acrobat). The first two sentences read: We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program in defiance of the UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapons program. I think it goes without saying that Baghdad is used as a synonym for Iraq here. Chemical and biological weapons, by definition, are WMD. Thus, the first Key Judgment is that Iraq has a WMD program that includes actual WMD. According to this judgment, the WMD program included both weapons and development for biological and chemical warfare. It did not include nuclear weapons, just a nuclear weapons program. It's not bullshit. Rather, it's the clear and obvious meaning of the text. Dan M. Yet our leaders didn't tell us that they had programs and could develop WMDs. They told us that they had them and were ready to attack America with their fleet of UAVs. They told us we shouldn't be so sure that Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons and that they were rebuilding their nuclear facilities, despite intelligence that said *if* they restarted their program, it would be years. Come on. The NIE paints a picture of Saddam wishing and hoping that he could weaponize what he had and get other programs going again. That's not a guy with WMDs, that's a guy with aspirations. No question that he used them in the past and was doing all sorts of bad stuff. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: RFK Jr. interview
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Arnett Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 1:33 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: RFK Jr. interview But, your specific statement that I questioned was that everyone knew that Iraq had no WMD Bullshit again. I never said that everyone knew Iraq had no WMDs. Well, I didn't get your point quite right, so I'll admit that. I was focusing on the disagreement over whether a strong consensus among the Western intelligence agencies about the existence of WMD in Iraq existed. You argued, since the US Intelligence Analysis we all have been referring to concluded that there were not WMD, no such consensus existed. If that were true, it would be sufficient to falsify both my assertion and JDG's assertion. But, it is not true, at least if one takes the plain sense of the text. The point of that statement is that the pre-war assessment of the existence of WMD is in dispute. I am not arguing that there was a consensus on an imminent danger. I don't believe such a consensus existed. Remember, I stated that Bush took the + 3 sigma point of the consensus probability distribution of risk as the most likely point. That's not saying that Bush gave a good representation. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3) Not stating that there was an imminent threat is not the same as stating that there is not an imminent threat. Irrelevant. The point is that it was not a foundation for saying that there were WMDs or there was an immediate threat. Nick, I find your reaction to be astonishing. Indeed, I suspect it is at the heart of our inability to communicate. The quote you have cited from George Tenet said the NIE did not say that there was an imminent threat. You, however, have interpreted this statement as saying the NIE said that the threat from Iraq was *not imminent.* The two statements, however, are not equal. As I have pointed out earlier, the NIE dealt with factual questions. The determination of the imminence of the threat is a political question, which as near as I can tell, the NIE was *silent*, even *agnostic*, on. Perhaps I am wrong in that, but if I am, it would be usefull for you to support your contention with quotes from the NIE supporting it. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 8/4/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is in the first Key Judgment on page 5 of the report (page 9 in Acrobat). The first two sentences read: We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program in defiance of the UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapons program. A program is not a weapon, just a plan to get rich is not money. You're reading it the way you want to, not using the meanings it makes clear. Do realize how very, very carefully they pick the language in these reports? Who and how many people review it (which actually is classified)? Where it says weapons, if it mean weapons of mass destruction, it would have said so. Maybe you think this is nitpicking... but this is an intelligence brief for the president and security council, they are very, very precise in what they say. If they weren't, then how would the consumers of the report know when they are talking about ordinary weapons, which Iraq certainly had, and WMDs? Even if you stretch the implications of the intelligence as much as you would, then it still doesn't present a foundation for what the administration said to justify the war. And more to the point of this thread, it doesn't provide a foundation for all the b.s. that so many people STILL think was true when we attacked. I think that's about enough for me on this. It's bad enough to live with whatever responsibility I have for this mess. I'm not going to demand that you take your head out of the sand, but I think that's just where it is. -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 8/4/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I find your reaction to be astonishing. Indeed, I suspect it is at the heart of our inability to communicate. The quote you have cited from George Tenet said the NIE did not say that there was an imminent threat. You, however, have interpreted this statement as saying the NIE said that the threat from Iraq was *not imminent.* More bullshit (can you tell I'm feeling very impatient?). I never said any such thing. Anybody with a room-temperature IQ can see that there's nothing in the declassifed parts of the NIE that says anything like, An attack from Iraq is not imminent. It said their judgment was that there was a low probability of Iraq using WMDs against the United States if it succeeded in building them. The point is that the administration was going around saying, We have to attack Iraq because our intelligence shows that they have WMDs and they pose an imminent, mortal threat to the United States, ready to send UAVs here loaded with weaponized biological and nuclear agents and just might have nukes, we can't be sure. Not one word of that was justified by the actual intelligence report. And the intelligence report proved rather accurate, didn't it? They really didn't have WMDs, UAVs, a nuclear program, etc. Oops. And now the White House is trying to argue that they never said that Iraq posed an imminent threat... yanking out quotes in which they said we shouldn't wait until the threat is imminent, which they did say. But they ignore all the times they said it was imminent. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I find your reaction to be astonishing. Indeed, I suspect it is at the heart of our inability to communicate. The quote you have cited from George Tenet said the NIE did not say that there was an imminent threat. You, however, have interpreted this statement as saying the NIE said that the threat from Iraq was *not imminent.* More bullshit (can you tell I'm feeling very impatient?). Impatience does not help you communicate. It said their judgment was that there was a low probability of Iraq using WMDs against the United States if it succeeded in building them. I don't find the words low probability anywhere in the NIE. Quote: We have low confidence in our ability to assess when Saddam would use WMD. In other words, they are warning the policy-makers that they do not have a firm judgement on this matter. It appears that either because Saddam Hussein is unpredictable, or because of a lack of inside intelligence of Iraqi doctrines, that they do not have a firm conclusion. Quote: He probably would use [chemical and biological weapons] when he perceved he had irretrieveably lost control of the military and security situation, but we are unlikely to know when Saddam Hussein reaches that point. Quote: Iraq would probably attempt clandestine attacks against the US homeland if Baghdad feared an attack would threaten the survival of the regime were imminent or unvaoidable Such attacks - more likely with biological than chemical agents - probably would be carried out by special forces agents or intelligence operatives. The point is that the administration was going around saying, We have to attack Iraq because our intelligence shows that they have WMDs and they pose an imminent, mortal threat to the United States, ready to send UAVs here loaded with weaponized biological and nuclear agents and just might have nukes, we can't be sure. Not one word of that was justified by the actual intelligence report. This is simply not true. The existence of Iraq's stockpiles of WMD are consistently supported throughout the NIE. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/4/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is in the first Key Judgment on page 5 of the report We judge that... Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions Where it says weapons, if it mean weapons of mass destruction, it would have said so. Maybe you think this is nitpicking... but this is an intelligence brief for the president and security council, they are very, very precise in what they say. If they weren't, then how would the consumers of the report know when they are talking about ordinary weapons, which Iraq certainly had, and WMDs? Call me crazy Nick, but I'm going to take a wild guess that the words chemical and biological probably tipped the readers off that the NIE wasn't referring to ordinary weapons JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 8/2/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And this was before the war? And they concluded that *none* of the stockpiles were weaponized. Yes, John. Again, I'd urge you to go to the sources. Uh, what's your source for this? To repeat... the National Intelligence Estimate from October 2002 has been desclassified. George Tenet has described its contents. I've provided links. Immediate has only one meaning in this context, as far as I know. I don't think so. We are talking about justification for war. So immediate could easily mean that if this opportunity to neutralize the threat is not taken now, that we will not have a future opportunity to neutralize it before it becomes unneutralizeable. In reality, regarding Iraq, in 2002, our intelligence community was not making that argument, so it is beside the point. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: RFK Jr. interview
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jdiebremse Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 6:50 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: RFK Jr. interview Or hard decisions. We're in denial over Social Security, for example. And its worth noting that Democrats were instrumental in torpedoing our best chance at Social Security reform in a generation One of the reasons I brought up Social Security was that I realized that it wasn't just Republicans that were in denial. We hashed out it pretty well here during the time of the debate, and there were a lot of ways to slow the growth of the Social Security provided to higher income people which would effectively put a cap on Social Security in fixed dollars. For example, since I've been making maximum contributions most of my life, my wife and I are now scheduled to get close to 40k/year in Social Security. We don't need anything more than inflation adjustment from now on...and I think it is reasonable for us to be responsible for savings if we wanted more retirement income. The folks at the bottom, though, aren't doing as well. This plan would address the shortfall without changing the philosophy of social security. Bush wanted a sea change in philosophy. I may have time to debate his views on the US, but he definitely shows opposition to the philosophy behind social security. So, he used his political capital to use the need to reform Social Security as a springboard to overthrow the idea behind social securitygetting the government out of the social security business and replacing it with, essentially, 401k's. I'd place it in the pox on both your houses category of screw-ups. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: RFK Jr. interview
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Arnett Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 10:03 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: RFK Jr. interview On 8/2/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And this was before the war? And they concluded that *none* of the stockpiles were weaponized. Yes, John. Again, I'd urge you to go to the sources. Uh, what's your source for this? To repeat... the National Intelligence Estimate from October 2002 has been desclassified. George Tenet has described its contents. I've provided links. The link that I saw you provide was the BradBlog interview with RFK Jr. With all due respect, he's not a good source. Remember, he wrote how the government is covering up the ties between mercury and autism...and how his arguments were a feature in Julia's references to the 7 errors of quacks and pseudoscientists. Now, if you listed a primary source that I couldn't find in your post, I'd be very interested in that. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 8/3/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now, if you listed a primary source that I couldn't find in your post, I'd be very interested in that. I quoted from the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which is available in many places on the net. I quoted George Tenet's public statements about it. I thought I included URLs, but in case not... GWU has lots of the documents: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/index.htm Here is the October NIE with the greatest amount declassified (there have been three declassifications): http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/nie.pdf Tenet's speech about it, in which he makes very clear the difference between having programs and intensions v. actually having WMDs (as well as ordinary weapons v. WMDs), including the crystal-clear statement, They never said there was an 'imminent' threat. : http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/dci020504.html I don't see how any reasonable person, after reading these documents, could conclude that war on Iraq was justified by an immediate or imminent threat. But that's what we were told by the consumers of this intelligence. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: RFK Jr. interview
I quoted from the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which is available in many places on the net I wasn't sure if you obtained your quoted directly. A quick read of that estimate shows numerous claims that Hussein had significant WMDs in his possession. The text selection tool doesn't seem to work on this text for some reason, it comes as just an image, but there are a couple of quotes from the June 4th, 2004 release of that memo. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/nie.pdf We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosarin) and VX; Although we have little specific information on Iraq's CW stockpile, Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents, much of it added in the last year. We assess that they possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads, including for a limited number of covertly stored Scuds, possibly a few with extended range. We judge Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including antrhrax, for delivery by bombs, missles, arial sprayers, and covert operations. Now, with regards to your quote: This quote you attributed to Tenet: They never said there was an 'imminent' threat. Rather, they painted an objective assessment for our policymakers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests. is consistent with the released version of the report. This: Specifically, they said that Iraq had a missile program, but no WMD missiles. They had an Unmanned Aerial Vehicles program, but no Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. They said that Saddam wanted to restart his nuclear program, but didn't have one going. They said that they believed Iraq still had some biological and chemical agents and programs that would be able to develop the means to weaponize and deliver them, but no evidence that they had done so. Is not. Further, with regard to Scott Ritter, Wikipedia has some 1998 quotes from Ritter quote In January of 1998, his inspection team into Iraq was blocked from some weapons sites by Iraqi officials and Ritter was accused by Iraq of being a spy for the CIA. He was then expelled from Iraq by its government in August 1998. Shortly thereafter, he spoke on the Public Broadcasting Service show, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program [1] When the United States and the UN Security Council failed to take action against Iraq for their ongoing failure to cooperate fully with inspectors (a breach of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1154), Ritter resigned from the United Nations Special Commission on August 26, 1998. [2] In his letter of resignation, Ritter said the Security Council's reaction to Iraq's decision earlier that month to suspend co-operation with the inspection team made a mockery of the disarmament work. Ritter later said, in an interview, that he resigned from his role as a United Nations weapons inspector over inconsistencies between United Nations Security Council Resolution 1154 and how it was implemented. The investigations had come to a standstill, were making no effective progress, and in order to make effective progress, we really needed the Security Council to step in a meaningful fashion and seek to enforce its resolutions that we're not complying with. [3] On September 3, 1998, several days after his resignation, Ritter testified before the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services and the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and said that he resigned his position out of frustration that the United Nations Security Council, and the United States as its most significant supporter, was failing to enforce the post-Gulf War resolutions designed to disarm Iraq. [4] During Ritter's Senate testimony about the inspection process, Senator Joseph Biden stated The decision of whether or not the country should go to war is slightly above your pay grade. Senator John McCain later rebutted by stating that he wished that the administration had consulted with somebody of Ritter's pay grade during the Vietnam War. end quote He is more than entitled to change his mind, but I'd be curious to see the information he received after he reigned that made him change it. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 04/08/2006, at 9:25 AM, Dan Minette wrote: We assess that they possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads, including for a limited number of covertly stored Scuds, possibly a few with extended range. Ah yes. The missiles. That I, and the British Army base I lived near, were well in range of. The British Army base that is vital for comms in the eastern Med. The British Army base that, um, lowered its security protocols and threat readiness in the months leading up to the war... (the removal of anti-truck concrete blocks and fortifications at the entrances a dead giveaway there). Someone knew they weren't a threat. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 8/3/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I quoted from the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which is available in many places on the net I wasn't sure if you obtained your quoted directly. A quick read of that estimate shows numerous claims that Hussein had significant WMDs in his possession. Try again. It says no such thing. Having stockpiles of chemical and biological agents is not the same as having biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. It's like having bullets, but no guns for them. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat. Rather, they painted an objective assessment for our policymakers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests. is consistent with the released version of the report. Yes, and it rather unambiguously implies that they did not see evidence of WMDs, since Tenet surely would have considered them an imminent threat. I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program I'm not arguing that that isn't true. The ability to get a program going again is not the same as having WMDs that constitute an immediate, imminent -- pick your word from all the words the adminstration used -- threat. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: RFK Jr. interview
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Arnett Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 6:53 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: RFK Jr. interview available in many places on the net I wasn't sure if you obtained your quoted directly. A quick read of that estimate shows numerous claims that Hussein had significant WMDs in his possession. Try again. It says no such thing. Having stockpiles of chemical and biological agents is not the same as having biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. It's like having bullets, but no guns for them. Ah, that's what you are hanging your hat on? If I understand you correctly, you are saying they don't have delivery systems? But, they clearly do. They have missiles, bombs, and artillery shells. It is possible, that they would not be equipped to put the two together quickly. But, the report said the exact opposite: The Iraqis have experience in manufacturing CW bombs, artillery rockets, and projectiles. We assess that they posses CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads, including for a limited number of covertly stored Scuds, possibly a few with extended range. We judge that all key aspects--RD, production, and weaponization--of Iraq's offensive BW program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War. We judge Iraq has sime leathal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operations. To use your analogy, I can see why you don't see a loaded gun described in this report. But, I think it is clear that they are describing someone with a gun in his hands and a box of shells on the table in front of him. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat. Rather, they painted an objective assessment for our policymakers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests. is consistent with the released version of the report. Yes, and it rather unambiguously implies that they did not see evidence of WMDs, since Tenet surely would have considered them an imminent threat. There are several problems with this assessment. 1) The report clearly stated that they had biological agents ready for quick weaponization, as well as bulk fills for chemical weapons. Indeed, the version of saran that they used has the agents combined just before use. 2) Not being an imminent threat does not mean a county does not have WMD. France doesn't constitute an imminent threat, even though it has a number of H-bombs...which are clearly WMD. 3) Not stating that there was an imminent threat is not the same as stating that there is not an imminent threat. 4) Tenet testified in defense of the report after it was known that there were not any MWDs. At that time, there clearly wasn't a threat. 5) Later in the report, the likelihood of an immediate unprovoked attack by Hussein on the US was assessed as low. In that sense, there wasn't an imminent threat. I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program I'm not arguing that that isn't true. The ability to get a program going again is not the same as having WMDs that constitute an immediate, imminent -- pick your word from all the words the adminstration used -- threat. But, that was said in '98 by Scott Ritter...and Hussein had 5 years to advance his programs in secret since then. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: RFK Jr. interview
At 07:23 PM Thursday 8/3/2006, Dan Minette wrote: There are several problems with this assessment. 1) The report clearly stated that they had biological agents ready for quick weaponization, as well as bulk fills for chemical weapons. Indeed, the version of saran that they used has the agents combined just before use. Nit: saran is a plastic wrap. GB nerve agent is known as sarin . . . -- Ronn! :) Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever. -- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tenet's speech about it, in which he makes very clear the difference between having programs and intensions v. actually having WMDs (as well as ordinary weapons v. WMDs), including the crystal-clear statement, They never said there was an 'imminent' threat. : http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/dci020504.html I don't see how any reasonable person, after reading these documents, could conclude that war on Iraq was justified by an immediate or imminent threat. But that's what we were told by the consumers of this intelligence. Nick, I asked a very specific question - Other than Scott Ritter (last in Iraq in 1998), did any of the intelligence services actually conclude that Iraq had no WMD stockpiles or programs before the war? You answered in the affirmative, and referred me to the National Intelligence Estimate as posted at GW University - an estimate entitled, quote, Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction. In my quick look-over of it, I see no evidence that the National Intelligence Estimate you cite answers my above question in the affirmative. Indeed, the very title of the report answers my question in the negative. Admittedly, you have also referred to a quote from George Tenet, cited above. This quote, however, refers to whether or not those weapons consitute an imminent threat. As I noted earlier, there is a difference between the *factual* question of whether the weapons existed and the *political* question of what sort of threat those weapons actually pose, and what, if anything should be done about that threat. While the intelligence agencies may have had their opinions on these political questions, the ultimate constitutional responsibility for making political decision resides with the politicians themselves. As Dan Minette said Not stating that there was an imminent threat is not the same as stating that there is not an imminent threat. I didn't see an out-and-out statement that Iraq was not an imminent threat in the report, and if such a statement does not exist, I would say that this precisely because of this very delineation in responsibilities. I might also add, that you are putting an awful lot of faith in intelligence services that did not recognize that Saddam Hussein was two years away from a nuclear bomb in 1991, did not recognize that India and Pakistan were about to go public as nuclear powers in the mid-90's, that did not realize that the DPRK was taking our bribes and building nuclear weapons anyways in the mid-90's, and did not realize that Iran had been engaging in all sorts of nuclear bomb- making activities for years. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We assess that they possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads, including for a limited number of covertly stored Scuds, possibly a few with extended range. Ah yes. The missiles. That I, and the British Army base I lived near, were well in range of. The British Army base that is vital for comms in the eastern Med. The British Army base that, um, lowered its security protocols and threat readiness in the months leading up to the war... (the removal of anti-truck concrete blocks and fortifications at the entrances a dead giveaway there). Someone knew they weren't a threat. Someone knew that Iraq didn't have trucks capable of hitting Cyprus? Really? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 04/08/2006, at 1:56 PM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We assess that they possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads, including for a limited number of covertly stored Scuds, possibly a few with extended range. Ah yes. The missiles. That I, and the British Army base I lived near, were well in range of. The British Army base that is vital for comms in the eastern Med. The British Army base that, um, lowered its security protocols and threat readiness in the months leading up to the war... (the removal of anti-truck concrete blocks and fortifications at the entrances a dead giveaway there). Someone knew they weren't a threat. Someone knew that Iraq didn't have trucks capable of hitting Cyprus? Really? Ha ha. The overall threat level was dropped. That includes standing down all alert states. In Gulf War 1, you couldn't get near the place. In Gulf War 2, you could drive through the base with no security checks at all. They were not worried about missile attacks, according to people I know on the base. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 8/3/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, and it rather unambiguously implies that they did not see evidence of WMDs, since Tenet surely would have considered them an imminent threat. There are several problems with this assessment. 1) The report clearly stated that they had biological agents ready for quick weaponization, as well as bulk fills for chemical weapons. Indeed, the version of saran that they used has the agents combined just before use. You're arguing with Tenet, if you're saying this means that Iraq had WMDs or posed an immediate threat in some other way. Good luck with that. Is there some reason we shouldn't believe him or the declassified parts of the NIE? 2) Not being an imminent threat does not mean a county does not have WMD. France doesn't constitute an imminent threat, even though it has a number of H-bombs...which are clearly WMD. I'm fairly sure that France, despite its disagreements, has not lately been considered an enemy of the United States. Anyway, what is this whole discussion about if not the justification for the war, which clearly was the proposal that Iraq posed an imminent, immediate, mortal, etc., threat. 3) Not stating that there was an imminent threat is not the same as stating that there is not an imminent threat. Irrelevant. The point is that it was not a foundation for saying that there were WMDs or there was an immediate threat. 4) Tenet testified in defense of the report after it was known that there were not any MWDs. At that time, there clearly wasn't a threat. 5) Later in the report, the likelihood of an immediate unprovoked attack by Hussein on the US was assessed as low. In that sense, there wasn't an imminent threat. Indeed. Why do you think Tenet has bothered to speak out in public against the idea that this was an intelligence failure? He's defending the intelligence community by telling their side of the story... and leaving it up to us to decide if the administration's statements in support of attacking Iraq were justified by the intelligence it received. What do you think, now that you have read the NIE? Were the immediate threat and so forth statements justified by the NIE? Was the war justified by the NIE? But, that was said in '98 by Scott Ritter...and Hussein had 5 years to advance his programs in secret since then. The NIE was from October 2002. As you may recall, the war was launched a few months later. The rhjetoric was already launched. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, you are saying that in 2002, a major intelligence agency concluded that Iraq had no WMD stockpiles of any kind? No. You've inverted the statement. The NIE, as well as Tenet in later public statements about that NIE, said that they believed that Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological agents, but they were not weaponized. And this was before the war? And they concluded that *none* of the stockpiles were weaponized. There was no delivery system that they were aware of, just an intention or programs to create them. Makes it kind of hard to argue for an imminent threat, doesn't it? It depends how long it would take to weaponize them, among other factors. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 02/08/2006, at 9:19 PM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, you are saying that in 2002, a major intelligence agency concluded that Iraq had no WMD stockpiles of any kind? No. You've inverted the statement. The NIE, as well as Tenet in later public statements about that NIE, said that they believed that Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological agents, but they were not weaponized. And this was before the war? And they concluded that *none* of the stockpiles were weaponized. Well, given that one of the most important comms stations in the eastern med *lowered* the threat status in the weeks running up to the war, I'd say so. Charlie No Evidence Beyond Actually Being There Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 8/2/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And this was before the war? And they concluded that *none* of the stockpiles were weaponized. Yes, John. Again, I'd urge you to go to the sources. There was no delivery system that they were aware of, just an intention or programs to create them. Makes it kind of hard to argue for an imminent threat, doesn't it? It depends how long it would take to weaponize them, among other factors. Immediate has only one meaning in this context, as far as I know. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On Aug 2, 2006, at 8:26 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On 8/2/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And this was before the war? And they concluded that *none* of the stockpiles were weaponized. Yes, John. Again, I'd urge you to go to the sources. There was no delivery system that they were aware of, just an intention or programs to create them. Makes it kind of hard to argue for an imminent threat, doesn't it? It depends how long it would take to weaponize them, among other factors. Immediate has only one meaning in this context, as far as I know. I've been staying out of this thread (I'm actually learning to hold my tongue at this late date), but I came across this, which seems to be on point: Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons. — Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02 That's all for now, Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On Aug 2, 2006, at 8:56 AM, Dave Land wrote: Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons. — Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02 That's all for now, Apparently not. I found a better source for the quote: the US House of Representatives record of Secretary Rumsfeld's presentation, which is slightly misquoted above... We do know that he has been actively and persistently pursuing nuclear weapons for more than 20 years, but we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons. http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has261000.000/ has261000_0.HTM http://tinyurl.com/m66jo http://url123.com/a7ycw Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And this was before the war? And they concluded that *none* of the stockpiles were weaponized. Yes, John. Again, I'd urge you to go to the sources. Uh, what's your source for this? There was no delivery system that they were aware of, just an intention or programs to create them. Makes it kind of hard to argue for an imminent threat, doesn't it? It depends how long it would take to weaponize them, among other factors. Immediate has only one meaning in this context, as far as I know. I don't think so. We are talking about justification for war. So immediate could easily mean that if this opportunity to neutralize the threat is not taken now, that we will not have a future opportunity to neutralize it before it becomes unneutralizeable. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are confusing a factual conclusion with a political conclusion. Whether or not Iraq had WMD stockpiles or programs is a factual conclusion for which the intelligence services are suited. Whether that threat is immediate, imminent, urgent, or mortal is a political conclusion that is properly the province of the political arena. Are you saying that Iraq, despite having no WMDs, Other than Scott Ritter (last in Iraq in 1998), did any of the intelligence services actually conclude that Iraq had no WMD stocpiles or programs before the war? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 8/1/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you saying that Iraq, despite having no WMDs, Other than Scott Ritter (last in Iraq in 1998), did any of the intelligence services actually conclude that Iraq had no WMD stocpiles or programs before the war? Programs and intentions, yes. Stockpiles, no. You didn't know this? Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you saying that Iraq, despite having no WMDs, Other than Scott Ritter (last in Iraq in 1998), did any of the intelligence services actually conclude that Iraq had no WMD stocpiles or programs before the war? Programs and intentions, yes. Stockpiles, no. You didn't know this? So, you are saying that in 2002, a major intelligence agency concluded that Iraq had no WMD stockpiles of any kind? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 8/1/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, you are saying that in 2002, a major intelligence agency concluded that Iraq had no WMD stockpiles of any kind? No. You've inverted the statement. The NIE, as well as Tenet in later public statements about that NIE, said that they believed that Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological agents, but they were not weaponized. There was no delivery system that they were aware of, just an intention or programs to create them. Makes it kind of hard to argue for an imminent threat, doesn't it? Have you read the declassified parts of the NIE? And Tenet has summarized it several times in public venues. He has been very clear about saying that this was not an intelligence community failure by telling us what the intelligence actually said. He hasn't come right out and said that the administration's public statements were not justified by the intelligence reports, but he doesn't really need to. It is obvious if you compare the two. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And then there's Scott Ritter and his team, who were the people in charge of actually determining the facts on the ground. Ritter consistently said there were no WMDs, even after the invasion when the government claimed to have found them! And turned out to be right, of course. Nobody arguing against the likelihood of Saddam having WMDs??? In denial, Dan? The people in a position to know were only convinced that he had programs with a goal build WMDs. Even among people in a position to know, Scott Ritter was an outlier Nick. Moreover, Ritter had not been in charge of actually determining the facts on the ground since 1998! And Scott Ritter, in his own book criticized the current US policy of containment in the absence of inspections as inadequate to prevent Iraq's re-acquisition of WMD's in the long term. Of course, Ritter did not subsequently advocate regime change from this conclusion, but it still is worth noting that he felt that the sanctions regime was inadequate. It is perfectly clear that it was the consensus of the intelligence community, not to mention the reality -- that Iraq posed no immediate, imminent, urgent or mortal (White House words) threat to the United States. You are confusing a factual conclusion with a political conclusion. Whether or not Iraq had WMD stockpiles or programs is a factual conclusion for which the intelligence services are suited. Whether that threat is immediate, imminent, urgent, or mortal is a political conclusion that is properly the province of the political arena. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 7/31/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are confusing a factual conclusion with a political conclusion. Whether or not Iraq had WMD stockpiles or programs is a factual conclusion for which the intelligence services are suited. Whether that threat is immediate, imminent, urgent, or mortal is a political conclusion that is properly the province of the political arena. Are you saying that Iraq, despite having no WMDs, could have posed an immediate, imminent, urgent, or mortal threat to the United States? By doing what, running with scissors? Doesn't a political conclusion need to have a factual basis? Can politicians properly decide that another nation is an immediate threat to us even though they don't have any weapons capable of hurting us? Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 31 Jul 2006, at 5:15PM, Nick Arnett wrote: On 7/31/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are confusing a factual conclusion with a political conclusion. Whether or not Iraq had WMD stockpiles or programs is a factual conclusion for which the intelligence services are suited. Whether that threat is immediate, imminent, urgent, or mortal is a political conclusion that is properly the province of the political arena. Are you saying that Iraq, despite having no WMDs, could have posed an immediate, imminent, urgent, or mortal threat to the United States? By doing what, running with scissors? Doesn't a political conclusion need to have a factual basis? Can politicians properly decide that another nation is an immediate threat to us even though they don't have any weapons capable of hurting us? Politicians decide things all the time that have no factual basis. Left, right, up, down; one thing they all have in common is a determination not to let facts interfere with their political faith. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 7/31/06, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Politicians decide things all the time that have no factual basis. Left, right, up, down; one thing they all have in common is a determination not to let facts interfere with their political faith. I knew that... ;-) Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 7/31/06, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Politicians decide things all the time that have no factual basis. Left, right, up, down; one thing they all have in common is a determination not to let facts interfere with their political faith. I knew that... ;-) Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 7/29/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There were not many people whose job it was to assess the likelihood of Hussein having WMDs who argued against it. Still on board with that, are you? Let's see what the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, has said about the analysts' reports in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of October 2002, the one that justified the war. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat. Rather, they painted an objective assessment for our policymakers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests. Specifically, they said that Iraq had a missile program, but no WMD missiles. They had an Unmanned Aerial Vehicles program, but no Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. They said that Saddam wanted to restart his nuclear program, but didn't have one going. They said that they believed Iraq still had some biological and chemical agents and programs that would be able to develop the means to weaponize and deliver them, but no evidence that they had done so. Their key source said that Iraq was dabbling in biological weapons, but not sufficient to constitute a real weapons program. Furthermore, the Senate report blasted the way that this NIE was prepared... specifically for a failure of peer review, which would have revealed opinions within the intelligence community that could have argued contrasting viewpoints or at least the greater uncertainty that was clearly held by many in the intelligence community. Looking back, in 2004, the CIA reported the following: *The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions.* Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them. And then there's Scott Ritter and his team, who were the people in charge of actually determining the facts on the ground. Ritter consistently said there were no WMDs, even after the invasion when the government claimed to have found them! And turned out to be right, of course. Nobody arguing against the likelihood of Saddam having WMDs??? In denial, Dan? The people in a position to know were only convinced that he had programs with a goal build WMDs. Just as nobody ever got rich by planning for gold, a program isn't a weapon. Of course, it is entirely understandable that people would be confused about this if they're getting their information from the White House, Fox News, etc. It is perfectly clear that it was the consensus of the intelligence community, not to mention the reality -- that Iraq posed no immediate, imminent, urgent or mortal (White House words) threat to the United States. Yet we went to war. We have millions and millions of people in this country who still believe that Iraq had WMDs and was ready to use them against us. Here we are, the wealthiest, most power nation on the planet and our leaders seem to be quite happy to allow people to believe this baloney, perpetrated by media spin, because it serves their political purposes. This doesn't mean I don't have compassion for those who cling to their illusions. It is horribly painful to realize that as a people, we invaded and destroyed the infrastructure of another country, killed hundreds of thousands of its citizens along with Wes and 2550-some our our own children, traumatized millions more, propelled the country into civil war and made the world far less safe. I'm sure that some denial in this situation is appropriate. My question is, how do we proceed? It would be cruel to demand that everybody face the facts immediately. The facts are hideous and re-traumatizing people is worse than useless. I think that all we can do is tell our stories as honestly as possible, with faith that healing will result. Trouble is, the media provides such a lousy example of how to tell a story, yet it dominates. Sure...the poll picked questions for which the facts were more in line with the prejudices of the Democrats than the Republicans. If they only had added a couple of others, like was Hussein in violation of the Security Council Resolutions or did the French ambassador to the UN admit to taking a substantial amount of money from Hussein, I bet that the Republicans' answers would be better in line with the facts. I don't buy it. The questions were about the stated reasons for going to war, in plain language. I think I've got a test question. Would someone who's still a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, and still believes that, while it's a hard fight, it's a fight for the freedom of the people of Iraq fell comfortable at the ceremony? I know people who have children in the military that were called into active duty and are still supporters of the war in
Re: RFK Jr. interview
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And I suppose that John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore *also* told us those thing in order to justify the war too, huh Nick? Does it have to be about partisanship? It seems to me to be clearly about partisanship for you - whether it was the original article presented here contrasting Republicans and Democrats, to the accusations you made against a Republican Administration in your follow-up posts. In particular, you asked don't you agree that our leaders told us things that weren't true in order to justify this war? My point is that people who weren't trying to justify the war were also telling us the same untrue things. That strongly suggests that telling us those things that weren't true was't necessarily about trying to justify the war. Indeed, I'd argue that you have your causality reversed - they weren't telling us those things that weren't true to justify the war, they were trying to justify the war because they were telling us those things that weren't true. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 7/29/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Indeed, I'd argue that you have your causality reversed - they weren't telling us those things that weren't true to justify the war, they were trying to justify the war because they were telling us those things that weren't true. Sorry, but I keep reading that over and over, but I can't understand it. Try again? Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: RFK Jr. interview
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Arnett Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 10:12 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: RFK Jr. interview On 7/29/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Indeed, I'd argue that you have your causality reversed - they weren't telling us those things that weren't true to justify the war, they were trying to justify the war because they were telling us those things that weren't true. Sorry, but I keep reading that over and over, but I can't understand it. Try again? I think I understand what JDG was getting at. He was arguing that the honest assessment of Bush et. al., given the data they had, was that Hussein had been developing WMD for yearsdating back to the time when vast areas were declared off limits to inspectors as Presidential Palaces...which totaled thousands of acres I thinkthis was back in early 1998, as far as I can recall. At the time, Clinton warned the nation that we might need to go to war to stop the WMD development. In the end, he and the British bombed the suspected sites. So, the argument that Clinton thought they had dangerous WMDs, and that the European intelligence agencies thought they had WMDs is accurate. The difference of opinion was over the existence of WMDs, but on the extent of the risk to the world from the WMDs. My feeling at the time was that the sanctions were at least partially effective, and could be made more effective, given the situation after 9-11. I thought it was years before Hussein posed a real threat to world stability. From what I read at the time, the consensus analysis of the professionals was closer to my view than to Bush's view that we needed to act now. The other side of things, and most important to me, was the difference over how straightforward setting up a democracy in Iraq would be. I feared something, well, more or less along the lines of what happened. AFAIK, Bush bought the Chabali scenario lock stock and barrel. They key point, to me, was when he shelved the State Department plan for recovery for a non-plan of wishful thinkingChabali would set up a democracy, oil would start pumping at a high ratesupporting the Irqui economy, and we would succeed within a year, with a grateful nation offering us long term bases. My criticism of Bush is not that he lied, but that he used bad technique in evaluating data. I've seen management at companies I worked for do this...cherry picking data that supports their views as the highest quality data and ignoring the rest. One way to look at it is that Bush took a position that was 3-sigma high compared to the nominal evaluation of the risk. The reality was 3-sigma low compared to the evaluation. But, no-one _knew_ this was true. Few thought it logical that Hussein lied and interfered with the inspectors at every turn to hide the fact that he _did not_ have WMD. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On Jul 22, 2006, at 3:51 PM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 23/07/2006, at 2:50 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RFK Jr's statement didn't adress this at all. I'd argue that both Democrats and Republicans give half truths that favor their position. It's not that RFK Jr. is a champion of truth against those lying Republicans. He certainly isn't. His recent pieces on Thisemero/autisml and on Bush stealing the election both contained so many factual and analytical errors that I have to doubt a lot of what he says. Stay off my side, in other words. Charlie, I've read over RFK's piece in Rolling Stone, Was the 2004 Election Stolen? http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/ was_the_2004_election_stolen and it seems pretty damning against an honest election this last go around. I'd be curious what factual errors you cite to cast doubt on his thesis. I went through the exhaustive footnotes as well and it looks damning. For instance, how can 98% of these various and many errors benefit one candidate over another w/o someone's hand on the scale? More significantly are the exit polls which indicate Kerry actually one the popular vote as well as the electoral college. I know counting votes can quickly enter the nether nuanced regions where law database jargon overlap, but I've been following this topic for some time and it seems very clear we are being hoaxed. Your a fan of numbers, can you explain to us your issues with his piece? I've also heard him speak at length about the lawsuit they are bringing against the e-voting machine manufacturers. He has spoken several times, and in depth, on his weekend show Ring of Fire and I've have found the legal case quite compelling. Here are two of the main shows available - and with the commercials edited out! - as MP3 download as well as on iTunes. http://www.ringoffireradio.com/show.asp?jid=121 http://www.ringoffireradio.com/show.asp?jid=122 Give them a listen, but I'd be covering my ass damn quick if I was one of those 'xecs. His tenacious partner Papantonio was David-like in assaulting the Goliath tobacco companies - and the little guy with the sling won for all of us. I think privatizing the vote is a crime, certainly as implemented. The polling system is _supposed_ to be under suspicion, to prove it's accurate, not for us to investigate unless our public masters, er servants, fail us as dramatically as they have. It's why the Bush administration touts exit polls in Ukraine and encouraged crowds to protest. My favorite quote on this is attributed to Joseph Stalin, 'It's Not the People Who Vote that Count; It's the People Who Count the Votes. It is entirely justified to rigorously question the ownership of these voting machine companies by Republican operatives and general supporters - particularly as they claim the computer code is deemed proprietary and not available for any public scrutiny under any condition. This, one of the cornerstones of our democracy, must not be allowed to stand. For those feeling smug that their guys may have pulled a fast-one, because the conservative-ends-justify-any-means, should consider just who hacks most of the machines on this planet: nerdy misfits with bad grooming and a penchant for privacy and challenges... not the sort likely to sign up for Chamber of Commerce work groups and overwhelmingly liberal, or libertarian. So, if you think your safe because your crooks are doing it now, just wait until a plethora of new e-virus seep into our various systems. Need I go into detail about the very-very serious problem of concerted attention by foreign powers with an interest in meddling in our elections? This should be beyond political side-swiping and treated seriously. To thwart the corruption of private money counting our votes I would like to take the cash away from them. Short of the RFK lawsuit succeeding I would like to see low/no-cost alternatives take the wind out of these privateer sails. I've been working up a business plan to develop open-source voting machines as a viable public service. Anybody interested? - JG - Jonathan Gibson www.formandfunction.com/word ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 7/29/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, the argument that Clinton thought they had dangerous WMDs, and that the European intelligence agencies thought they had WMDs is accurate. Okay... but I don't think that changes the basic idea that our leaders are responsible for what they say, no matter what party they belong to. I don't think it changes the fact that virtually all the reasons that people supported going into this war turned out to be wrong. That's an enormous, very costly (unbelievably costly) mistake. Where's the accountability for that? I've heard exactly one member of Congress apologize to those who have lost the most -- family members. Each of us have had thousands of our tax dollars spent. What's the meaning of a poll that show Democrats aren't kidding themselves about the facts as much as Republicans? I don't think it tells me for whom I should vote. It tells me that people are in denial. Why do people use denial? To avoid pain, sorrow, anger and so forth. I think this is about a failure to work through our pain and grief about 9/11 and much more in a healthy manner. As a nation, as a culture, we have thrown away most of the rituals and ceremonies that allow us to acknowledge and express our pain and frustration, which blocks us from taking appropriate action and celebrating what we do have. If that is political, so be it, but it has nothing to do with partisanship. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: RFK Jr. interview
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Arnett Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 1:40 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: RFK Jr. interview On 7/29/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, the argument that Clinton thought they had dangerous WMDs, and that the European intelligence agencies thought they had WMDs is accurate. Okay... but I don't think that changes the basic idea that our leaders are responsible for what they say, no matter what party they belong to. They are. But, they are not responsible for being clairvoyant. Clinton took the best possible analysis he could obtain, and made reasonable assumptions from it. I think that's responsible. Bush didn't, and I think that reflects his incompetence. I don't think it changes the fact that virtually all the reasons that people supported going into this war turned out to be wrong. That's an enormous, very costly (unbelievably costly) mistake. Where's the accountability for that? I've heard exactly one member of Congress apologize to those who have lost the most -- family members. Each of us have had thousands of our tax dollars spent. I have a question about a parallel situation. On Wednesday, Rita was forecast to hit shore southwest of Houston, with the projected path just to the west of the city. Having seen the New Orleans disaster a couple of weeks before, the mayor of Galveston ordered a mandatory evacuation. A voluntary evacuation was ordered for Houston. A horrible mess ensued. Included in that were the deaths of 20 senior citizens in a bus accident. My question is whether the mayor owes the families of those senior citizens an apology, because it would have been better if no evacuation order was given. What's the meaning of a poll that show Democrats aren't kidding themselves about the facts as much as Republicans? I don't think it tells me for whom I should vote. It tells me that people are in denial. Sure, but there is also the interesting fact that only certain questions were asked. Why do people use denial? To avoid pain, sorrow, anger and so forth. Or hard decisions. We're in denial over Social Security, for example. Most of the folks my dad's age are convinced that they got a poor deal from Social Security, when, in reality, they made off like banditsin terms of taxes paid vs. benefits. Denying the humanness of blacks allowed Southerners to accept slavery as just. I think this is about a failure to work through our pain and grief about 9/11 and much more in a healthy manner. As a nation, as a culture, we have thrown away most of the rituals and ceremonies that allow us to acknowledge and express our pain and frustration, which blocks us from taking appropriate action and celebrating what we do have. If that is political, so be it, but it has nothing to do with partisanship. One good step would be to depoliticize ceremonies. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 29 Jul 2006, at 8:25PM, Dan Minette wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Arnett I think this is about a failure to work through our pain and grief about 9/11 and much more in a healthy manner. As a nation, as a culture, we have thrown away most of the rituals and ceremonies that allow us to acknowledge and express our pain and frustration, which blocks us from taking appropriate action and celebrating what we do have. If that is political, so be it, but it has nothing to do with partisanship. One good step would be to depoliticize ceremonies. And dereligionise them. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ And yes, OSX is marvelous. Its merest bootlace, Windows is not worthy to kiss. - David Brin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Indeed, I'd argue that you have your causality reversed - they weren't telling us those things that weren't true to justify the war, they were trying to justify the war because they were telling us those things that weren't true. Sorry, but I keep reading that over and over, but I can't understand it. Dan pretty much had it. In my opinion, Bush, et al did not decide to invade Iraq and then decide to justify it by saying that Iraq had WMD stockpiles (and Bush et al certainly didn't decide to just completely make up the idea that Iraq had WMD stockpiles out of whole cloth.) Rather, in my opinion, Bush, et al believed that Iraq had WMD stockpiles and programs, and that this was a primary factor in Bush et al deciding to invade Iraq. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think it changes the fact that virtually all the reasons that people supported going into this war turned out to be wrong. I don't know that that is true. For example, another area where Republicans would probably poll smarter than Democrats is the issue of Nigerian yellowcake. http://www.slate.com/id/2103795/ http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/ http://www.slate.com/id/2140058/ Additionally, Saddam Hussein's use of torture, disappearances, and famine as a tool of political impression all appear to be true. Furthermore, the long-term weakness of sanctions on Iraq, as demonstrated by the Oil-for-Food scandal, also appears to have been true. Where's the accountability for that? I've heard exactly one member of Congress apologize to those who have lost the most -- family members. Each of us have had thousands of our tax dollars spent. Such an apology would be taken as tantamount to saying that we should not have invaded Iraq. I know of few members of Congress or the Administration who are willing to say that - especially while the Iraq project continues, and while our troops remain on the ground there. What's the meaning of a poll that show Democrats aren't kidding themselves about the facts as much as Republicans? That Democrats are smarter about concocting a biased poll that produces the results that they most want to hear? Kind of ironic that you keep bringing this poll up, given that your ultimate grievance is the biased analysis of information. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or hard decisions. We're in denial over Social Security, for example. And its worth noting that Democrats were instrumental in torpedoing our best chance at Social Security reform in a generation JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 7/29/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A horrible mess ensued. Included in that were the deaths of 20 senior citizens in a bus accident. My question is whether the mayor owes the families of those senior citizens an apology, because it would have been better if no evacuation order was given. But there really was a hurricane and it really did hit the area, to varying degrees. I don't think there are many who seriously argue that an evacuation was not called for. But it seems that there's a need to take responsibility for the lack of preparedness that seemed to be present. I'm not close enough to the situation to have an informed opinion. I know that around here, we are terribly unprepared for disasters, despite the fact that we can expect brush fires and a major earthquake now and then. Sure, but there is also the interesting fact that only certain questions were asked. You seem to be hinting at something. Certain questions? Why do people use denial? To avoid pain, sorrow, anger and so forth. One good step would be to depoliticize ceremonies. We manage in the ones I'm involved in. But people politicize them by labeling them political. Being for peace is political, apparently. No photos are allowed at Arlington because that's political. For example, there's a crazy bill in committee in the House that would make it illegal to mention the name of a deceased member of the U.S. military in a political context without the permission of next of kin. It sounds like it is protecting the family, but it's really protecting the politicians from criticism. It further isolates the families by erecting yet another barrier to grief. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gibson Jonathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Charlie, I've read over RFK's piece in Rolling Stone, Was the 2004 Election Stolen? http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/ was_the_2004_election_stolen and it seems pretty damning against an honest election this last go around. Kennedy's article has been pretty thoroughly debunked: http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/06/is_rfk_jr_right.html Well, let me clarify that - RFK is hardly alone in pointing out that ou electoral system in this country is broken, that it is an embarassment to democracy, and incredibly poorly run. (As an aside, is there a non-partisan organization tha has been set up to lobby for electoral reform?) With that being said, Kennedy's assertion that the available evidence effectively proves the existence of pro-Republican voter fraud in 2004 is not supported by the evidence. I strongly encourage reading the full multi-part article from Mystery Pollster (which is one of the best blogs out there), but for those who don't, in a nutshell here is the scoop: 1) There is much past evidence of exit polls favoring Democrats, and favoring supporters who were much more fired up about their candidate. 2) Statistical error is hardly the only source of error in an exit poll. In many cases, exit pollsters are unable to stand as close as desirable to a polling place's exit. Exit pollsters are often inexperienced, they may accept volunteers (which is inapprorpiate), or may otherwise fail to conduct a random sample. In addition, non-response error in exit polls may be very significant. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: RFK Jr. interview
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jdiebremse Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 7:46 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: RFK Jr. interview --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gibson Jonathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Charlie, I've read over RFK's piece in Rolling Stone, Was the 2004 Election Stolen? http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/ was_the_2004_election_stolen and it seems pretty damning against an honest election this last go around. Kennedy's article has been pretty thoroughly debunked: http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/06/is_rfk_jr_right.html Well, let me clarify that - RFK is hardly alone in pointing out that ou electoral system in this country is broken, that it is an embarassment to democracy, and incredibly poorly run. (As an aside, is there a non-partisan organization tha has been set up to lobby for electoral reform?) With that being said, Kennedy's assertion that the available evidence effectively proves the existence of pro-Republican voter fraud in 2004 is not supported by the evidence. I strongly encourage reading the full multi-part article from Mystery Pollster (which is one of the best blogs out there), but for those who don't, in a nutshell here is the scoop: 1) There is much past evidence of exit polls favoring Democrats, and favoring supporters who were much more fired up about their candidate. 2) Statistical error is hardly the only source of error in an exit poll. In many cases, exit pollsters are unable to stand as close as desirable to a polling place's exit. Exit pollsters are often inexperienced, they may accept volunteers (which is inapprorpiate), or may otherwise fail to conduct a random sample. In addition, non-response error in exit polls may be very significant. I'm not sure I find that the second point very convincing as given, John. That phenomenon is measurableso a measurement should have been provided by Mystery Pollster if he wanted to seriously make that argument. Fortunately, he has provided such a measurement. He points out a correlation between two factors that contribute to the likelihood of getting a non-random sample (inexperienced pollsters, and sampling rate) and the difference between the election results and the polling results. The discrepancy tends to zero as the expected quality of the poll improves. Finally, I know it sounded like I gigged, you there, but only in fun. :-) You just left out what I considered Mystery Pollster's best arguement, so I wanted to add it. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 30/07/2006, at 4:21 AM, Gibson Jonathan wrote: Charlie, I've read over RFK's piece in Rolling Stone, Was the 2004 Election Stolen? http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/ was_the_2004_election_stolen and it seems pretty damning against an honest election this last go around. I'd be curious what factual errors you cite to cast doubt on his thesis. JDG has posting one debunking, which I'll read later, but there are others, at Good Math, Bad Math for example. http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/06/ election_fraud_or_just_bad_mat.php The point is not that there were problems with the election, and endemic problems with the election system, in the States. There are. But RFK jr should have been able to write a piece based on the real problems without resorting to such bad analysis that it damages the whole case and the argument for fixing it. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: RFK Jr. interview
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Arnett Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 7:04 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: RFK Jr. interview On 7/29/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A horrible mess ensued. Included in that were the deaths of 20 senior citizens in a bus accident. My question is whether the mayor owes the families of those senior citizens an apology, because it would have been better if no evacuation order was given. But there really was a hurricane and it really did hit the area, to varying degrees. I don't think there are many who seriously argue that an evacuation was not called for. There were not many people whose job it was to assess the likelihood of Hussein having WMDs who argued against it. Earlier, a Galveston mayor was lambasted for ordering an evacuation that was unnecessary. If it wasn't for Katrina, people would have complained a lot. Sure, but there is also the interesting fact that only certain questions were asked. You seem to be hinting at something. Certain questions? Sure...the poll picked questions for which the facts were more in line with the prejudices of the Democrats than the Republicans. If they only had added a couple of others, like was Hussein in violation of the Security Council Resolutions or did the French ambassador to the UN admit to taking a substantial amount of money from Hussein, I bet that the Republicans' answers would be better in line with the facts. Why do people use denial? To avoid pain, sorrow, anger and so forth. One good step would be to depoliticize ceremonies. We manage in the ones I'm involved in. But people politicize them by labeling them political. Being for peace is political, apparently. I think I've got a test question. Would someone who's still a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, and still believes that, while it's a hard fight, it's a fight for the freedom of the people of Iraq fell comfortable at the ceremony? I know people who have children in the military that were called into active duty and are still supporters of the war in Iraq. If they lost one of their children, would they feel alienated at the ceremony because of what was said? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
Ahoy,
I'm here late for this conversation.
Pardon me.
On Jul 23, 2006, at 4:00 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
only the party in
power has been this corrupt and this cynical.
Where have you gone Dan Rostenkowski?
Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you!
;-)
I do hope your not equating Rostenkowski kiting postage in the same
realm of nastiness as these Abramoff/Reed/Delay/Republican
mega-kleptos?
Really?!?
Those staunch defenders of Family and American Way were eager to hide
slavery and prostitution in the Marrianis {sp?} Islands for big bucks
to turn tariff inspectors' eyes away even as Made In America was
stamped on tainted goods unduty-bound for the States.
Remember when a blue collar manufacturing job could support a family?
Sure, both parties have corruption. Big discovery, Perry Mason defense
for the bleeding obvious offers Exhibit A. What's truly graph-able now
is the 10x rate so-called Republicans plunder our public common
resources for their privateer gigs. By my thumbnail guesstimate
they've done as much in this last 10 years as Democrats did in three
decades... not adjusting for inflation. This administration used up
the Clinton-Gore surplus cash they came in with and have gone on to
use the family credit card to dig this country deeper into debt than
all previous leadership combined - that's all our presidents, all our
wars, all our debts from two hundred plus years ago to now, surpassed
in a few short no-bid tax-haven years.
Seen the wreckage over at die Heimat-Sicherheit yesterday? According
to a bipartisan congressional investigation some $34.3 b-b-billion in
contract spending alone is missing, misspent boondoggled ... with
over half those Homeland Security contracts no-bid. Amazing what the
hidden hand of the un-Free Market hath wrought. Productivity is
absolutely smokin' {up in a puff} as privatization fever grips the body
politic - feel safer America?
Nick Arnett:
Our leaders are responsible to tell us the truth about all things,
but most of all when they're putting our troops in harm's way,
visiting death and destruction on another people. It doesn't
matter if their intent was the very best, there's
nothing complex about making statements that turn out to be
wrong. Call it an exaggeration,but it's not just a different
point of view, it's wrong.
False. Untrue.
For all your posturing, the word mistake somehow never entered
your lexicon. Or are you seriously suggesting that Bush, Rice,
Rumsfeld, Blair, Aznar, et al. honestly believed that Iraq did not
have WMD's?
I will.
It's one important reason our betters felt OK attacking Iraq, but not
North Korea, or Iran.
As a layman taking in the international news over the years I
distinctly recall the same Saddam son in-law defector that neo-con
Richard Pearle, etc, oft-quoted for WMD voracity had {in the very same
debrief} insisted Hussien had systemically destroyed all those weapons
to prevent an American pretext for trouble. This was not the only
report by any measure and corroborates what the UN inspectors relayed
before Bush had them running for cover from his impending Schlock
Offal campaign. What we've seen is a fine example of feeding emotional
beasts red meat while we were already worried about Anthrax {wherever
did...} and shoe-bombers {LoL}.
head shaking
And so-called conservatives were so full of disdain when Clinton parsed
what is is.
I was a Defense Contractor when 9-11 occurred and by November 2001 I
had army officers telling me they were going to Iraq. Not Afghanistan.
Two months from WTC and these guys were overjoyed at the opps for rank
advancement and anxious to stick it to anybody ass-kicking with
occasional mention of warming up those '91 Gulf War leftovers to finish
them off. This Bush cabal had an overarching Iraq plan going into the
GwB's initial election and let Afghanistan fall over in a heap chasing
their dystopian wet-dreams of oil-igarchy. 9-11 was an emotional
cudgel they adroitly, repeatedly, consciously, delightfully whacked us
with as their buddies pick the pockets of the crowd - to this day.
Unlike Nick, I cannot extend these traitorous shadowmen the courtesy of
a benefit of doubt.
They have known all-too-well what they were doing and mesmerized by
their own echo-chamber chanting were certain that a few decade-old
stockpiles of ponies just HAD to be in there somewhere, if they just
kept digging... and killing.
Well, we're waist-deep in the big muddy and the damn fool sez, 'Press
on'.
And, um, if you agree that they had disarmed, though not in
public, then
don't you agree that our leaders told us things that weren't true
in order to justify this war?
And I suppose that John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore *also* told
us those thing in order to justify the war too, huh Nick?
Wow, there's a real unique fall-back position: blame Clinton.
Isn't that hairshirt wearing thin yet?
I
RE: RFK Jr. interview
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 2:21 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: RFK Jr. interview Dan wrote: Have you looked at the poll RFK refered to? [http://astro.berkeley.edu/~aleroy/Report10_21_04.pdf] That link is broken, Try this. http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/pipa.html but I've seen polls that indicate that sort of denial of facts by Republicans. I also have seen it by Democrats. Can you show me one. I haven't seen anything like this poll. I admit that this is the first poll I've seen where questions of fact are asked on a party basis. I've seen a number of polls, though, that indicate a denial of facts that fall in line with arguments by Democratic politicians. The classic one I recall was a poll on the profit per gallon of gasoline made by oil companies in the '90s. The majority thought that it was in the 20c/gallon range. But, at that time, oil was at about $18/barrel, unleaded gasoline spot price was about $0.50 gallon, and oil companies were making about 6% of sales as profit. Translated into a per gallon price, it was $0.03 cents. Another recent one that comes to mind is the fraction of people who believe that the oil companies have major responsibility for the change in the price of gasoline and crude oil over the last few years. 63% think oil companies such as Exxon or Mobile have a great deal to do with the rise in price, while only 30% think it's normal supply and demand. I'd be very curious to see that broken down by party, but I think it is reasonable to assume that more Democrats blame oil companies for problems than Republicans. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: RFK Jr. interview
Dan Minette wrote: Translated into a per gallon price, it was $0.03 cents. .03 cents or $0.03? Sorry, pet peeve, alongside ATM machine and PIN number. :-) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For one thing, does Iraq not producing WMD also mean that Iraq had no stockpiles of WMD? Does it also mean that Iraq was not retaining to capacity to restart WMD programs as soon as sanctions were lifted? Yes, Nick, it is complex. I couldn't disagree more. To me, no WMDs means no WMDs. Suffice to say, I don't think most people see the Iraq situation so simplistically. Our leaders are responsible to tell us the truth about all things, but most of all when they're putting our troops in harm's way, visiting death and destruction on another people. It doesn't matter if their intent was the very best, there's nothing complex about making statements that turn out to be wrong. Call it an exaggeration,but it's not just a different point of view, it's wrong. False. Untrue. For all your posturing, the word mistake somehow never entered your lexicon. Or are you seriously suggesting that Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Blair, Aznar, et al. honestly believed that Iraq did not have WMD's? Your question was, shall we say, complex? You said, Chapter VII That was my point. The truth of the matter is the polls are funny things. Pollsters have long known that simply changing the order of questions in a poll can produce different results. Another of my favorite examples is that if you were to take a poll today, and asked only one question For whose electors did you vote in the 2004 Presidential election? you would probably get a percentage for George W. Bush that differed from the actual number by significantly more than the margin of error. In this case, if you asked a poll about facts that are unfavorable to the case for war with Iraq, you would get a result that would suggest that Democrats are more informed about the facts in the case for war than Republicans. On the other hand, if you ran a poll about facts (such as the one in my example) that are favorable to the case for war with Iraq, you would get a result that would suggest that Republicans are more informed about the facts in the case for war than Democrats. And, um, if you agree that they had disarmed, though not in public, then don't you agree that our leaders told us things that weren't true in order to justify this war? And I suppose that John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore *also* told us those thing in order to justify the war too, huh Nick? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 7/25/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I couldn't disagree more. To me, no WMDs means no WMDs. Suffice to say, I don't think most people see the Iraq situation so simplistically. Aw, c'mon John. We weren't talking about the Iraq situation, which is anything but simple. We were talking about perceptions, denial and public decision-making. I wasn't even suggesting that all that as a whole is simple. I was saying that there are simple factual matters. ... the word mistake somehow never entered your lexicon. Or are you seriously suggesting that Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Blair, Aznar, et al. honestly believed that Iraq did not have WMD's? Does it matter, really? Like some 2,500 other U.S. families who have darn good emotional reasons to find someone to blame, I'm tempted to question their motives and so forth. Perhaps I'm crazy not to. But I don't think it matters, as they were responsible to tell us the truth. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they believed they were doing the right thing. But they failed, horribly. I believe that focusing on responsibility, rather than blame, is the peaceful path. Really, who cares why they led us to war on false premises? They are responsible for their mistakes. And I suppose that John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore *also* told us those thing in order to justify the war too, huh Nick? Does it have to be about partisanship? Can't it just be wrong, no matter who's doing it? And they are part of the leadership of the nation, so they are responsible, too. So am I... and you. It's our country, our military, our tax dollars, our sons and daughters getting traumatized and killed. We can do better, I'm sure, but I'm not at all confident that either of the big two political parties are likely to make a big difference. In other words, just because I call for accountability and responsibility from the folks in power, please don't imagine I automatically assume that their opponents are our saviors. I'm not looking to the White House or the U.N., etc., to lead us into peace. I think it starts here, with me. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On Jul 24, 2006, at 8:05 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Nick Arnett wrote: I suspect that the vast majority of Americans, when asked if Iraq had complied with Chapter 672.4 of the UN Security Resolutions, requiring disarmament of model airplanes, they'd say (...) (a) Yes - 0.4% (b) No - 0.7% (c) What is Iraq? - 12.5% (d) What is UN? - 37.3% (e) What are those Chapters and Resolutions? - 20.1% (f) WFC? - 87.8% Yes, I suppose a great majority of respondents would not know what the hell any of it means, but I wonder whether they'd specifically mention Wells Fargo Corporation or the World Federation of Chiropractic or the Win32 Foundation Classes... Did you mean WTF? Dave Smart-Ass Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is complex about this question, to pick one major example -- should the US have gone to war with Iraq if US intelligence had concluded that Iraq was not making WMD or providing support to al Qaeda? Is that too complex for ordinary people to answer yes or no? Do we need to fund a think tank to analyze its nuanced meaning? For one thing, does Iraq not producing WMD also mean that Iraq had no stockpiles of WMD? Does it also mean that Iraq was not retaining to capacity to restart WMD programs as soon as sanctions were lifted? Yes, Nick, it is complex. As a second example, if the poll had asked did Saddam Hussein comply with the Chapter VII UN Security Resolutions requiring Iraq's disarmament of WMD's do you think that more Republicans or more Democrats would answer correctly? I'll bet dollars to donuts on the Republicans. And... what's the correct answer to your question? As far as I know, it is yes, as our intelligence agencies had concluded. Yet our leaders would have had us believe that it was no. In reality, Iraq's lack of cooperation had to do with inspections, not WMDs. Ah Nick, thank you for adding one data point to my theorem that in fact Republicans have a more accurate understanding of the conditions leading up to the Iraq war than Democrats. The answer, of course, is No. The UN Security Council required Iraq to engage in a verifiable disarmament of its weapons programs. Even if it surreptitiously ended its WMD programs, not doing so publicly (and thus creating uncertainty about whether or not it had disarmed) was a clear violation of binding Chapter VII UNSC resolutions. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 7/24/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For one thing, does Iraq not producing WMD also mean that Iraq had no stockpiles of WMD? Does it also mean that Iraq was not retaining to capacity to restart WMD programs as soon as sanctions were lifted? Yes, Nick, it is complex. I couldn't disagree more. To me, no WMDs means no WMDs. Our leaders are responsible to tell us the truth about all things, but most of all when they're putting our troops in harm's way, visiting death and destruction on another people. It doesn't matter if their intent was the very best, there's nothing complex about making statements that turn out to be wrong. Call it an exaggeration,but it's not just a different point of view, it's wrong. False. Untrue. Even if it surreptitiously ended its WMD programs, not doing so publicly (and thus creating uncertainty about whether or not it had disarmed) was a clear violation of binding Chapter VII UNSC resolutions. Your question was, shall we say, complex? You said, Chapter VII UN Security Resolutions requiring Iraq's disarmament of WMD's and as far as I can tell, they were in compliance with the disarmament requirement, even though they weren't, as we know, complying with all of the inspection requirements. Perhaps you meant to just say, Chapter VII UN Security Resolutions, rather than adding the clause that restricted it just the disarmament part. Darn complexity. And, um, if you agree that they had disarmed, though not in public, then don't you agree that our leaders told us things that weren't true in order to justify this war? As you demonstrate, how one asks the question has a great influence on the outcome of the poll... especially if the question is truly complex. I urgently wish liberty, stability, electricity, health care and so forth for the people of Iraq and I assume you do, too. Perhaps we can find common ground by focusing on that goal, rather than arguing about semantics and attitudes. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
In a message dated 7/22/2006 2:28:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That link is broken, but I've seen polls that indicate that sort of denial of facts by Republicans. I also have seen it by Democrats. All it indicates to me is that it is not unusual for folks to be in a state of denial. This is the even handed response that is so much bs. You sound like a network newcaster. When the Abramov scandal hit there was all this stuff about democrats getting money as well. But this was crap. Democrats got some money from the tribes before there was abramov and less after. The lobbying scandal is a purely republican thing. The lies about WMD, Sadam, 911, stem cell research are not countered by equal lies by demcrats or liberals. The crap that Bush and company puts out about tax cuts (using the mean instead of the median tax cut for example) are not matched now or in the past by what the democrats did. The number of earmarks has increased several fold since the republicans took over congress; the number was low and rose only slowly under the democrats. So don't pull this they all do this. They all don't; only the party in power has been this corrupt and this cynical. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: only the party in power has been this corrupt and this cynical. Where have you gone Dan Rostenkowski? Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you! ;-) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: only the party in power has been this corrupt and this cynical. Where have you gone Dan Rostenkowski? Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you! ;-) Doesn't scan right. Julia who lives within 15 miles of Joe DiMaggio Blvd. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I give about 40 speeches a year, in red states to Republican audiences, and I get the same enthusiastic responses from those audiences as I get from Liberal college audiences. The only difference is, is that the Republicans often say to me, 'How come we've never heard this before?' ... The Democrats as a whole had a much more accurate view of those events. And then PIPA went back twice to these same people. Of course your found it intriguing. I am sure it is a very comforting bedtime story that Democrats are smart and Republicans stupid, and that if everyone had access to the truth, then we'd all be Democrats. Feh! JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 7/22/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course your found it intriguing. I am sure it is a very comforting bedtime story that Democrats are smart and Republicans stupid, and that if everyone had access to the truth, then we'd all be Democrats. Aside from the fact that it wasn't about smart and stupid or access to truth... You seem to be saying that I only found it intriguing because it fits my view of the world. So, you think it's bad to focus on sources of information that tell you what you want to hear? Which was the point, of course. Poll after poll shows that a lot of people in this country believe important things that are factually incorrect... things that the White House, Fox and others have said were true and/or refuse to disavow. That seems like a rather large problem for a democracy. Don't you think so? Or maybe that's just the way things have always been and democracy has survived it, so we shouldn't be particularly concerned? Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
JDG wrote: Of course your found it intriguing. I am sure it is a very comforting bedtime story that Democrats are smart and Republicans stupid, and that if everyone had access to the truth, then we'd all be Democrats. I don't think its a matter of smart or stupid as much as a tendency to filter information such that it supports an established POV. Do you have a critique of the poll [http://astro.berkeley.edu/~aleroy/Report10_21_04.pdf] that establishes that its results are biased or wrong? The above post implies that it is complete fiction. From tha analysis of the poll: Another possible explanation is that Bush supporters cling to these beliefs because they are necessary for their support for the decision to go to war with Iraq. Asked whether the US should have gone to war with Iraq if US intelligence had concluded that Iraq was not making WMD or providing support to al Qaeda, 58% of Bush supporters said the US should not have, and 61% assume that in this case the president would not have. To support the president and to accept that he took the US to war based on mistaken assumptions is difficult to bear, especially in light of the continuing costs in terms of lives and money. Apparently, to avoid this cognitive dissonance, Bush supporters suppress awareness of unsettling information. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
Dan wrote: ionary.. RFK Jr's statement didn't adress this at all. I'd argue that both Democrats and Republicans give half truths that favor their position. It's not that RFK Jr. is a champion of truth against those lying Republicans. Have you looked at the poll RFK refered to? [http://astro.berkeley.edu/~aleroy/Report10_21_04.pdf] -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
Have you looked at the poll RFK refered to? [http://astro.berkeley.edu/~aleroy/Report10_21_04.pdf] That link is broken, but I've seen polls that indicate that sort of denial of facts by Republicans. I also have seen it by Democrats. All it indicates to me is that it is not unusual for folks to be in a state of denial. Dan M. mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 22 Jul 2006, at 7:27PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you looked at the poll RFK refered to? [http://astro.berkeley.edu/~aleroy/Report10_21_04.pdf] That link is broken, but I've seen polls that indicate that sort of denial of facts by Republicans. I also have seen it by Democrats. All it indicates to me is that it is not unusual for folks to be in a state of denial. ROTFL Try this one http://astro.berkeley.edu/~aleroy/Report10_21_04.pdf -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ It was the pseudo-religious transfiguration of politics that largely ensured [Hitler's] success, notably in Protestant areas. - Fritz Stern, professor emeritus of history at Columbia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
Dan wrote: Have you looked at the poll RFK refered to? [http://astro.berkeley.edu/~aleroy/Report10_21_04.pdf] That link is broken, Try this. http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/pipa.html but I've seen polls that indicate that sort of denial of facts by Republicans. I also have seen it by Democrats. Can you show me one. I haven't seen anything like this poll. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] difficult for non-citizens to vote. One example that I just read was the opposition to a picture ID voting card, which requires proof of citizenship to vote. Requiring citizens to get an ID card from one single statewide office that is never open, to be able to vote is the essence of jim crow. Which is why that law has bee struct down, in both state and federal court. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 7/22/06, The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] difficult for non-citizens to vote. One example that I just read was the opposition to a picture ID voting card, which requires proof of citizenship to vote. Requiring citizens to get an ID card from one single statewide office that is never open, to be able to vote is the essence of jim crow. Which is why that law has bee struct down, in both state and federal court. Maybe it would make more sense to shoot down the laws that permit a state government to keep difficult office hours. Why don't the people in this country stop kidding themselves about states rights and just admit that the various states are administrative units of the federal government? The Tenth Amendment is obviously repealed without due process simply by ignoring it. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 23/07/2006, at 2:50 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RFK Jr's statement didn't adress this at all. I'd argue that both Democrats and Republicans give half truths that favor their position. It's not that RFK Jr. is a champion of truth against those lying Republicans. He certainly isn't. His recent pieces on Thisemero/autisml and on Bush stealing the election both contained so many factual and analytical errors that I have to doubt a lot of what he says. Stay off my side, in other words. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
