 |
|
Drachasor
|
|
Ogie, it is very, very clear that Iraq has no yellowcake from Africa. The documents were clearly forged and even the British have admitted that.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3060633.stm
That's about George Tennet, CIA Director, on how he failed to stop the false claims from being put into the speech.
The situation is highly comparable to Rather's, except one was used to help justify a war and one wasn't.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ogie Oglethorpe
|
 |
Marietta, GA
Dec 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drachasor
Ogie, it is very, very clear that Iraq has no yellowcake from Africa. The documents were clearly forged and even the British have admitted that.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3060633.stm
That's about George Tennet, CIA Director, on how he failed to stop the false claims from being put into the speech.
The situation is highly comparable to Rather's, except one was used to help justify a war and one wasn't.
-Drachasor |
Have you been living in a cave this year or simply within the cocoon of Kerry supported media noncoverage?
This topic was discussed any number of times here at 'poly. To bring you up to speed perhaps, heres a more a recent link on teh entire story rather than the ole recyled 2003 stuff everyone takes as a Kerry talking point and can recite as litany.
WSJ OPED JULY 15 2004
quote:
The Yellowcake Con
The Wilson-Plame "scandal" was political pulp fiction.
Thursday, July 15, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
So now the British government has published its own inquiry into the intelligence behind the invasion of Iraq, with equally devastating implications for the credibility of the Bush-Blair "lied" crowd. Like last week's 511-page document from the Senate Intelligence Committee, the exhaustive British study found some flawed intelligence but no evidence of "deliberate distortion." Inquiry leader Lord Butler told reporters that Prime Minister Tony Blair had "acted in good faith."
What's more, Lord Butler was not ready to dismiss Saddam Hussein as a threat merely because no large "stockpiles" of weapons of mass destruction have been found. The report concludes that Saddam probably intended to pursue his banned programs, including the nuclear one, if and when U.N. sanctions were lifted; that research, development and procurement continued so WMD capabilities could be sustained; and that he was pursuing the development of WMD delivery systems--missiles--of longer range than the U.N. permitted.
But the part that may prove most salient in the U.S. is that, like the Senate Intelligence findings, the Butler report vindicates President Bush on the allegedly misleading "16 words" regarding uranium from Africa: "We conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded." (Click here for more excerpts.)
We're awaiting apologies from former Ambassador Joe Wilson, and all those who championed him, after his July 2003 New York Times op-ed alleging that Mr. Bush had "twisted" intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." The news is also relevant to the question of whether any crime was committed when a still unknown Administration official told columnist Robert Novak that Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA employee and that's why he had been recommended for a sensitive mission to Niger. A Justice Department special prosecutor is investigating the case, with especially paralyzing effect on the office of the Vice President.
In that New York Times piece, readers will recall, Mr. Wilson outed himself as the person who had been sent to Niger by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate claims that Iraq might have been seeking yellowcake ore for its weapons program. Vice President Dick Cheney had asked for the CIA's opinion on the issue after reading a Defense intelligence report.
Mr. Wilson wrote that "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place." He claimed he informed the CIA of his findings upon his return, was certain reports of his debrief had circulated through appropriate channels, and that the Administration had chosen to ignore his debunking of the story.
After the Novak column appeared, Mr. Wilson charged that his wife was outed solely as punishment for his daring dissent from White House policy. To that end, he has repeatedly denied that his wife played a role in his selection for the mission. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," he wrote in his book "The Politics of Truth." "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." A huge political uproar ensued.
But very little of what Mr. Wilson has said has turned out to be true. For starters, his wife did recommend him for that trip. The Senate report quotes from a February 12, 2002, memo from Ms. Plame: "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity."
This matters a lot. There's a big difference both legally and ethically between revealing an agent's identity for the revenge purpose of ruining her career, and citing nepotism (truthfully!) to explain to a puzzled reporter why an undistinguished and obviously partisan former ambassador had been sent to investigate this "crazy report" (his wife's words to the Senate). We'd argue that once her husband broke his own cover to become a partisan actor, Ms. Plame's own motives in recommending her husband deserved to become part of the public debate. She had herself become political.
Mr. Wilson also seems to have dissembled about how he concluded that there was nothing to the Iraq-Niger uranium story, serving for example as the anonymous source for a June 12, 2003, Washington Post story saying "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.' " There were some forged documents related to an Iraq-Niger uranium deal. Trouble was, such documents had not even come to the intelligence community (never mind to Mr. Wilson's attention) by the time of his trip, and obviously hadn't been the basis of the report he'd been sent to investigate. He told the Senate he may have "mispoken"--at some length we guess--on this issue.
The Senate Intelligence Committee found, finally, that far from debunking the Iraq-Niger story, Mr. Wilson's debrief was interpreted as providing "some confirmation of foreign government service reporting" that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. Why? Because he'd reported that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki had told him of a 1999 visit by the Iraqis to discuss "commercial relations," which the leader of the one-industry country logically interpreted as interest in uranium.
Remember that Messrs. Bush and Blair only said that Iraq had "sought" or was "trying to buy" uranium, not that it had succeeded. It now appears that both leaders have been far more scrupulous in discussing this and related issues than much of the media in either of their countries, which would embarrass the journalistic profession, if that were possible.
All of this matters because Mr. Wilson's disinformation became the vanguard of a year-long assault on Mr. Bush's credibility. The political goal was to portray the President as a "liar," regardless of the facts. Now that we know those facts, Americans can decide who the real liars are. |
I again ask the question, is there any definitive proof that Bush was going based solely upon the known forged docs and not the word of Tony Blair who steadfastly stood and rightly never backed away from British Intelligence claims?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
 |
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I do not believe that Mr. Fun has a ridiculous or even, an irrational belief, merely that one of his presuppositions is weak. Specifically the one that says that your sexuality defines who you are as a person. I disagree with that notion, as I believe our identity can encompass changes in what he believes is our orientation.
|
I'm not sure where exactly the idea that 'your sexuality defines who you are as a person' came from - perhaps I missed something. It sounds like one of those phrases that oversimplifies what is really meant to be said, so I will not say more on it until I understand it.
quote:
It is funny. Gay people say that their orientation is fixed, but the straights are willing to acknowledge that their preferences can change.
Like a compass. A compass will change orientation depending on your heading. It takes skill to learn to navigate by a compass in order to keep a course.
|
Do gay people say this? Preferences can change, sure, but it's not something easy or very common. In my experience (granted this is a tiny experience compared to the world, but as it is the best one I've got I will use it) once people have reached sexual maturity their orientations generally do not change. For some people they do - but then some people actually change their genders. This is also not an easy thing to do, and I think it's not too outrageous to say that if you are 20-something and gay, you are likely to stay gay for the rest of your life. Sexual preference is (again in my experience) a lot more fixed than other 'fixed' characteristics of individuals. I am certainly surprised at the notion that one might be able to learn how to control their sexual preference. I don't think something like that is like a compass at all - maybe like the flow of a rive - it can change, but it's no simple task to change its flow.
quote:
Where have I used the term 'immoral' or 'evil' here in the thread. I used one term, 'disordered'.
|
I am not accusing you of doing so. I am pointing out the dangers of the line of reasoning that homosexuality is abnormal, twisted, wrong, a disorder (and thus incorrect in some way by definition) etc etc. This is an outdated attitude not even supported by the base of Christian belief (at least from the one version of the Bible I have read). Am I correct in thinking that, although you are not aiming to change gay lives and may not dislike gay people, you do not accept homosexual relationships are a legitimate way of living one's life?
quote:
And this is precisely the presupposition I deny. I deny that you have a fixed preference. So why does my disagreement make me a bigot, when I am not disagreeing with Mr. Fun as a person? |
Again, you have confused me a little here - if you deny one has a fixed preference, then necessarily does that not mean there IS no 'disorder' in homosexuality, merely it is the other preference... which can change?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Have you been living in a cave this year or simply within the cocoon of Kerry supported media noncoverage?
This topic was discussed any number of times here at 'poly. To bring you up to speed perhaps, heres a more a recent link on teh entire story rather than the ole recyled 2003 stuff everyone takes as a Kerry talking point and can recite as litany. |
Well, then the situation is more similar to the CBS situation, which was my main point. Though I admit I was mistaken, it doesn't change the fundamental problem I was making.
It is true, however, that the intelligence in general had major problems, and there was no significant evidence of ongoing chemical, biological, or nuclear programs. The intelligence, when examined, was largely hypothetical. The Bush Administration is still responsible for the incrediably stupid and reckless decision to stop the Weapon Inspectors from providing more direct intel.
It is also the case that Iraq wasn't able to get any yellowcake through these maneuverings, and even with yellowcake, they would still have massive issues to go through before having a nuclear weapon (such as enrichment).
quote:
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I again ask the question, is there any definitive proof that Bush was going based solely upon the known forged docs and not the word of Tony Blair who steadfastly stood and rightly never backed away from British Intelligence claims? |
Those documents *were* forged and Bush used them as justification of the intelligence. It is just like the CBS scandal, apparently, except it was used to help justify war.
Afterall, the CBS story was basically true, they just were using bad evidence to support it.
Sure it wasn't entirely based on that, but you are ignoring massive parts of the reports if you didn't manage to get that the intelligence systems were deeply flawed in general.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
I'm not sure where exactly the idea that 'your sexuality defines who you are as a person' came from - perhaps I missed something. It sounds like one of those phrases that oversimplifies what is really meant to be said, so I will not say more on it until I understand it.
|
Its the same as saying that your orientation cannot change, that it is a part of who you are.
quote:
Do gay people say this? Preferences can change, sure, but it's not something easy or very common. In my experience (granted this is a tiny experience compared to the world, but as it is the best one I've got I will use it) once people have reached sexual maturity their orientations generally do not change. For some people they do - but then some people actually change their genders. This is also not an easy thing to do, and I think it's not too outrageous to say that if you are 20-something and gay, you are likely to stay gay for the rest of your life.
|
I don't contest this point. Just because it can change, does not make it easy to change. But gay people deny that anyone who was gay, can ever change.
There are many testimonies of people who have changed, and I am sure, testimonies going the other way too.
What they will say, when someone says that I did change, is that you never were gay. You never were gay because you left the lifestyle. Which is just another Scotsman.
quote:
Sexual preference is (again in my experience) a lot more fixed than other 'fixed' characteristics of individuals.
|
What characteristics are you thinking of?
quote:
I am certainly surprised at the notion that one might be able to learn how to control their sexual preference. I don't think something like that is like a compass at all - maybe like the flow of a rive - it can change, but it's no simple task to change its flow.
|
I'm just testing the connotations of the word, orientation, trying a much different connotation that is usually associated with the word.
However, with practice, I do think people learn to control themselves, as they can for just about anything. Doesn't make it easy, but we do this for many other desires.
quote:
I am not accusing you of doing so. I am pointing out the dangers of the line of reasoning that homosexuality is abnormal, twisted, wrong, a disorder (and thus incorrect in some way by definition)
|
Consider someone with a mental disorder. Does their mental disorder reflect on their value as a person? That's what I mean by the use of the term, and the distinction that I am trying to get across.
quote:
This is an outdated attitude not even supported by the base of Christian belief (at least from the one version of the Bible I have read).
|
I find that curious, considering that the bible, both in the OT and the NT offer much stronger condemnation of sodomy.
quote:
Am I correct in thinking that, although you are not aiming to change gay lives and may not dislike gay people, you do not accept homosexual relationships are a legitimate way of living one's life?
|
How do I answer this.
When you want to help someone change their life, does this mean that you dislike them? Often the opposite is true that it is because you care for them, that you want to help them out. But that's a two way street. If they do not want the help, then I will not give that help to them.
However, I believe I also have a responsibility to act as a witness, and to encourage people to eschew these activities, if at all possible.
It is not so much taht the relationships are not legitimate, but that they are damaging and ultimately harmful to their participants.
quote:
Again, you have confused me a little here - if you deny one has a fixed preference, then necessarily does that not mean there IS no 'disorder' in homosexuality, merely it is the other preference... which can change? |
True. The problem is that Mr. Fun will not concede even this much, that people can change their preferences. Regardless of whether you consider the actions to be disordered or not, you first must establish the point that people can choose to act on their desires, and can choose to resist them.
Last edited by Ben Kenobi on 30-10-2004 at 23:41
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
For the umpteenth time. NO. They used British intelligence and estimates. It was Wilson that assumed they had only the forged docs to go by. The media bought it hook line and sinker.
Now unless you can point to some passage, document or quote that says the administration relied on this document as prime evidence for the casus belli, it doesn't fly. |
You are forgetting that those documents were indeed forged. There may have been other evidence, but the same is true of the CBS scandal; the story was true, but part of the documentation was forged. In that I am wholly accurate, but I admit I was partly wrong about the nuclear material issue (though that wouldn't help them much reconstituting a nuclear program; afterall, they already had nuclear material and that was known).
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
And according to all experts on the subject, the sanctions weren't going anywhere, and Saddam was of NO threat when we went to war. He certainly lied about him being a threat, now didn't he?
Saddam wasn't a threat, and the sanctions were there to stay. No one on the Security Council was making any move to get rid of them. Oil for Food had its problems, but there was no evidence it affected how the governments were acting in regard to sanctions (in fact, all reports are to the contrary).
Will without means is nothing.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-10-2004 02:43
|