--- 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 exces
--- 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."
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 interpr
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. Baghd
--- 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 i
> -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
> -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
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 rep
> -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 u
> -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:
&g
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 b
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. Tha
--- 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 ba
--- 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
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
> -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'
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 signific
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
> 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 d
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 p
> -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:
&
> -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
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 you
--- 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 syst
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 bi
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 wer
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 c
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 i
--- 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
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 believ
--- 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
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
--- 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 thre
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 Arn
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 Arn
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. W
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, urgen
--- 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 t
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 ana
> -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]> wro
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
> -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 PROTE
--- 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 elect
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
--- 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
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 t
> -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]> wro
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
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 agains
> -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:
&g
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, b
--- 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 partisan
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
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!
__
> -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
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
--- 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, Ni
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 could
--- 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 com
Dave Land wrote:
>
>> (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
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
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%
On 7/23/06, jdiebremse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Another explanation is that public opinion polls are notoriously
very poor at dealing with very complex issues. (And I'd also add
that two-year-old opinion polls are poor at describing that nation's
opinions on current events.) For example, it
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 DiMa
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aside from the fact that it wasn't about smart and stupid or
> access to truth...
You certainly fooled me particularly from the excerpts you
posted.
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Anot
--- 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/
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
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.
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 state
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 vot
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 Democra
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.
>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
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://astr
Original Message:
-
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 07:35:40 -0700
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 7/22/06, jdiebremse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Of course your found it intriguing. I am sure it is a
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
fil
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
--- 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
78 matches
Mail list logo
