Mark Hickey <
[email protected]> wrote:
>Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> and able to
>>>>> maintain irrational opinions in the face of mountains of evidence to
>>>>> the contrary.
>>>>
>>>>Speaking of mountains of evidence to the contrary, aren't you the guy
>>>>who insists that GWB, **** Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld et al did not, in
>>>>fact, lie through their teeth to get us into this mess? I thought so.
>>>
>>>No more than all the others who voted to do so in the face of the
>>>evidence available at the time. You know, the evidence that was
>>>scrutinized ever so carefully by a bipartisan commission or three that
>>>came to the unaminous conclusion that there was no tampering or
>>>tweaking of the evidence.
>>
>>You keep saying that, Mark, but the only commission actually tasked
>>with examining that issue is the Senate Select Committee Phase II
>>currently ... uh ... under way. The other committees were really not
>>tasked to look at the issue at all, rendering it out of the scope of
>>their work. That's why the Dem's continue to press for Phase II to be
>>completed.
>>
>>The fact that it could have been completed before the last election,
>>but was delayed by whichever party held the majority, shouldn't
>>trouble anybody too much.
>>
>>Please cite the passages of the "commission or three" that resulted in
>>direct conclusions about the way senior policymakers used the
>>intelligence.
>
>Neil, you're obviously being purposefully obtuse. I'm sure even your
>news sources reported on the results of the commission's findings, and
>the fact that they found none of the manipulation and pressuring that
>the left is claiming today. Let's not get into a game of who's got
>the most free time (you'd obviously win).
I'll just repeat myself: that wasn't their job. Phase II of the
Senate Select Intelligence Committee IS tasked to look at the way
senior policymakers used the intelligence. What they did or didn't
find was simply a byproduct of their tasks.
Phase II has the cool job....
>>>Or, you COULD say that Germany lied, that France lied, that Clinton
>>>lied, that Gore lied, that Kerry lied, that the majority of foreign
>>>intelligence agencies lied, that the UN Weapons Inspectors lied. Oh,
>>>through their teeth, of course
>>
>>I disagree with your take on the conclusions of the inspectors.
>>
>>Duelfer: no WMD;
>>
>>Kay: no WMD. Resigned in protest of the misuse of intel;
>>
>>Blix: accused Bush and Blair of maliciously overstating the case for
>>WMD. Pulled out forcefully in the face of impending unilateral action
>>by the US. UNMOVIC had reported "increased cooperation by Iraq" at
>>that time.
>
>I've posted the link to the UNMOVIC March 2003 report many times, yet
>you fall back to a couple dissenters and Blix (who ALSO said Iraq had
>WMDs many times).
"Couple of dissenters?" You mean the United States's chief weapons
inspectors and the head of UNMOVIC???
You continually fall back to what "everybody knew," yet you DO this
while ignoring what NOBODY could PROVE at the leadup to war. Why?
What France, Gore, Clinton, Kerry, and Germany BELIEVED wasn't
supported by the latter inspections. Sure, it's peculiar, but it
robbed the president of the case for war ... or /should/ have.
.... unless you're being purposefully obtuse ... or simply have too
much time on your hands and have used it to conjure up a 'rationale'
for war despite the lack of supporting evidence.
>Sheesh, Neil - I'm sure I could find a couple
>people who still believed the world is flat in 2003 too.
That's cute, Mark. If they were of the caliber of Blix, Duelfer, Kay,
and Ritter, I might buy some time while they presented their cases.
In either case, I wouldn't cause the deaths of tens of thousands until
I'd heard them out.
OTOH, I might try to discredit them based on their personal lives to
dissuade the country from listening while I pursued my agenda.
Tough call.
>If those countries did NOT think Iraq had WMDs, why did they
>repeatedly vote for continued sanctions against Iraq? Hmmmm?
Same old story: it's starting to look like they were all wrong, and if
itchy fingers (and nefarious motives) hadn't prevailed, we would have
known that we'd (all) been duped ... and somewhere between 3,000 and
100,000 people wouldn't be ... uh ... dead.
.... and we wouldn't be thought have as having committed our own
atrocities ... or using 'chemical weapons' against civilians (Whiskey
Pete), etc.
>>>Can't have it both ways (without being a hypocrite).
>>
>>I tend to agree: don't see how reasonable people on either side of the
>>aisle can still support this (so many don't), but I'm sure interested
>>in seeing Phase II....
>
>Why? You're only going to be be disappointed.
Maybe ... but I doubt it.
--
Live simply so that others may simply live
If you understood the concept _and_ had a defensible position, you
