Powell now doubts Iraq evidence

[Pax]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Pax, there really is that much pressure to conform? Is that a good thing?

If there is, then is it right or wrong for people like Rice and Powell to act as if they are not going to particpate in that game?

Is bigotry only offensive in a white person?

I am only relaying to you what I see and hear. As far as pressure to conform. I donm't put that on my kids or other people. I let people be themselves. Like I said as the U.S. integrates more race will be less important.

I don't have an opinion on whether or not Rice and Powell should play that game. People have put up reasons why they should but I have not really considered them yet. I am still working on GW2 /ME and the part they played in it. My views on them are based
entirely on that and nothing else.

[Vanguard]

DanS-

Your second reply is no more worthy of a response from me than your first. Sorry.

I'm glad you realize the futility of attempting to refute the irrefutable.

So let me just repeat the ridiculous passage from your post so that I can savor my triumph.

It would have been stupid for the Bush administration to lie, and I don't believe they did so, precisely because you would be in the situation they have now.

Ha.

[DinoDoc]

Vanguard: If they had lied, the US would have already "found" WMD in Iraq of the exact amounts the US claimed.

[Tripledoc]

And cover one lie with a bigger lie, even though their first lie was found out. Don't think so.

Anyway the war is about "stability, peace and demcracy" (of which there is none), and "terror-links" (of which there were none), and "getting rid of a brutal dictator" (so brutal that no charges have as of yet been brought against him).

[Vanguard]

I seriously doubt that the administration even considered the question of what would happen if we didn't find WMDs. They don't show any ability to think more than one jump ahead. That's why they are surprised by the vehemence of the Iraqi insurrection. That's why they couldn't figure out that other countries would be annoyed by our lying to them. That's why they think supply side economics is a good idea. They simply aren't very bright.

They believe what they want to believe. Anything else they ignore or attack.

[DinoDoc]

I'm just telling you what logically follows from the belief that the Bush Admin lied about WMD in Iraq. Reject it based on your prejudices if you want, it make no difference to me.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Vanguard: If they had lied, the US would have already "found" WMD in Iraq of the exact amounts the US claimed.

Like many others, I expect this to "happen" within the last month before election. Doesn't make it more true, though.

[DinoDoc]

It would've happened before now. OBL is the only potential October suprise to look for.

[bipolarbear]

I say we all just revolt. Put an end to corruption. Dynamite the capital!

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by DanS
It would have been stupid for the Bush administration to lie, and I don't believe they did so, precisely because you would be in the situation they have now.

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Vanguard: If they had lied, the US would have already "found" WMD in Iraq of the exact amounts the US claimed.

What naive points of view!

[DinoDoc]

How so?

[Dauphin]

DD, do you reckon that the Bush admin would have had enough faith in their own abilities to manufacture the necessary WMD evidence on such a scale as to convince neutral inspectors of its validity?

[DinoDoc]

Considering they are the one's in charge of the inspection process, yes.

[GePap]

The lie from the amdinistration does not lie in their stating the belief that Iraq may have had WMD's. The lie comes from stating as fact they knew the locations fo stockpiles, probalby the quantities as well. And with trully "sexed up" documents like that form the UK (a british lie the admin. fully backed) stating that Iraq could launch a WMD attack in 45 minutes.

There is a world of difference saying:

"According to the best intelligence from the international community and the UN, we believed in 1998, the last time inspectors were there, that Saddam Hussein had kept some stockpiles, and while evidence since then is sketchy and incomplete, we believe he probalby still has these weapons becuase why would he chuck them?"

and saying:

"The CIA and UK intelliegence tell us Saddam has reconstituted his weapons programs, his nuclear program-in fact, let me show you a list of sites we KNOW Iraq has WMD's at-AND we know these weapons are in standby mode right now".

If you say the first, you are leaving room for discussion, debate-people can say "hey, why should we go to war on your assumptions" and so forth.

Say the second, and you polarize the debate, since now for people to challenge you, they can;t simply argue with your assumptions, they must call you a liar and attempt to disprove you-but since you can always claim to have information the other could not have access to, how can it be a fair arguement in the public stage? It can't.

[DanS]

I'm glad you realize the futility of attempting to refute the irrefutable.

Well, what you state as obvious isn't at all obvious. Because of this disconnect, it's no use discussing it with you or even responding to you.