-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
-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
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
-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
-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
--- 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
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
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
--- 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,
--- 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
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
-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
-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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
--- 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
--- 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
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
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
--- 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
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
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
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
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
--- 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
--- 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
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:
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
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
--- 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
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,
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.
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
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
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
--- 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 -
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,
-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
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
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
-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
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
--- 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
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], 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
-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
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 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
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
-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
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!
--- 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
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
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%
--- 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
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
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
--- 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!
;-)
___
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
--- 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
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
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
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?
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
73 matches
Mail list logo
