Bush, Cheney Concede Saddam Had No WMDs

Gup, having WMD "at one time" (but not now), and "trying to get them", isn't a very good cause to send young Americans to their deaths for, I don't think.

 

Yes, but with all due respect your opinion was uninformed. No offense intended, but I don't think you are in the intelligence business. The people in the intelligence business from all the intelligence gathering nations of the world said the same thing. The UNSC said the same thing. The democrats said the same thing, including Kerry and Biden, two very vocal democrats. France, Germany, and Russia said the same thing. Recent reports both from Britain and the US have said that the coalition acted in good faith, not misleading people. The evidence was not tenuous to those who knew. It turned out to be wrong. Apparently Saddam had a well laid plan of deception that worked very well.

 

"not the same as Iraq"...wow, I'd like to see someone argue that one with the pastor.

"The latitude and longitude are distinctly different...see? I was right, and you just don;t care about the truth, like me".

 

There may be some who do that, but I have seen very little of it here. Objectivity is not exactly king around here and those of us who have it tend to get run over by political idealism that is quite often not well founded in reality.

I do notice you are still unwilling to address the statements of fact that I put forth in support of what I previously said. As I have seen here before, people like you tend to run very fast when actual facts get out on the table that refute them. It is sad that you can't own up to it and face it.

 

You're WAY too slippery to argue facts with, pastor. It's not possible. Like trying to stick greased jello to the wall with masking tape.

 

That poster remains <snip> to this day...what a surprise!

You know what they say about those who make assumptions...

No, no typo, just your own misreading. The inspectors were pulled out of Iraq just before the invasion in March 2003 - Kay was not even appointed at that time. You insisted that the Blix-Kay interview took place sometime around March 2004, not 2003, after the invasion, after they had both gone public saying that no WMDs had been found, after they stated that the sanctions had been effective after all.

Timeline

Yes, he wanted to continue inspections, but the Bush administration insisted that we invade instead. Is anyone saying otherwise?

But we invaded anyway, proof or no proof (well, actually only NO proof), we had conviction, and that's what counts.

IOW, better than known, inveterate liars.

That was June 2003, still well before the date I referred to. And he doesn't say they do have them, he said it was too early to tell for sure that they did not have them, although that they did not was his suspicion. Just preceding that quote was one you conveniently left out:

A lot of us still wonder. In that same article:

Got that Larry? No evidence!

Larry, did you miss the lead paragraph of that Oct 2003 (still before March 2004) article you posted:

No WMDs were found, says Kay. PMDs, but not WMDs. Further on:

No WMDs, again.

Um, did you miss the part where he said that he had been WRONG about that?

That's failure?

Um, Larry, you insisted that Blix and Kay said that WMDs were found, not that they were not. You said that you saw the interview around March 2004, but the January 2004 article is probably what you meant, even though it says the opposite of what you had claimed, which was that WMDs were found.

Kays' "We were almost all wrong — and I certainly include myself here" is a refutation of his previously held belief that WMDs would be found. They were not found.

[ October 08, 2004, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

When all of those places meet the same standard as Iraq, then it would be considered. Though this argument is often brought up, it lacks serious contemplation and analogy. Those places are not the same as Iraq. </font>[/QUOTE]And everytime this point is brought up it is dismissed in the same manner. How, please, is Iraq different?

 

Sad that you resort to such statements rather than discuss the true facts.

Which means, "I can't refute what you say since you quoted the people who actually know. Rather than have to admit I was wrong, I will just blame you."

Aren't you embarrassed to even post that kind of stuff Jim? I have to admit, I just don't get it. When someone posts facts and quotes from people who know, why would you take shots at the poster? Why not talk about the facts and why they are wrong or not?

 

But you used the numbers to try to sensationalize it, it seems. The WMD myth was not believed by many to be a myth. That is well documented. We know now that it was apparently a myth. There was no way to know that at the time.

I have seen nothing about PNAC. I can say with confidence that the "Bush adminstration" did not plan to invade Iraq in 97 or 98 as you claimed, since the government of Texas has no authority, and Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the others were not a apart of a then non-existent Bush presidential administration. Having said that, I can believe that some people had plans to do exactly what they did. I don't have a problem with that if it is indeed true. When I responded to you I said "I think" ... That means I don't really know; I have seen no evidence for it. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

Daisy,

I must admit that once again I feel bad for you, because you are trying again, and again, you prove me right. However, you have walked into this trap so many times, I am feeling less bad for you each time.

If you go back and read what I actually said, you will see that I said the interview was sometime around then, but the comments made in March 2004 had to do with their beliefs prior to the war in March 2003. You are the one who misread … And accused me falsely. That quote is apparently in a thread that no longer exists.

Much of your post is based on you being wrong about what I said. Get it straight. The comments by Blix and Kay in 2004 were about their belief prior to the war in 2003. There is no need for you to try to mislead people on that. You were wrong in your representation of what I said.

Not that I know of. Why?? Did you think someone had?

The point of the quote was to show that Blix did indeed believe that there was evidence of the WMDs though it was not conclusive. Which is, strangely enough, what I said … and now proved by you. Thanks for proving me right.

But you were talking out of ignorance since June 2003 was after the date I was referring to. You were wrong Daisy. I was referring to Blix and Kay’s statement about their beliefs in March 2003, prior to the war.

Daisy, I hate for you to keep embarrassing yourself this way. I told you at the beginning of my post that you had the date wrong. When you base your whole point on a wrong premise (already corrected by me), you end up making these wrong conclusions.

No, Thanks for pointing out that I was right again. Kay believed they had WMDs prior to the war. He admits he was wrong. Which is what I said: Blix and Kay believed that Iraq had WMDs.

Yes, gross failure. You failed to read closely; you failed to note the difference between March 2003 and March 2004. And you have constructed a straw man based on that misunderstanding.

I don’t remember saying that. I do know that I said that Blix and Kay believed prior to the war that Iraq had WMDs. They have both confirmed that was their belief. I showed you the plain evidence of it.

Um, No. Listen to me again and learn this time. I saw the interviews around March of 2004. In those interviews, the question was asked about their belief at the time the war started which was March 2003. They both said in separate interviews (and now I have documented it for you from other sources), that in March 2003, they believed there was evidence that Iraq had WMDs.

But in your pattern of misreading (or distorting) you have twisted what I said. I made plain that the comments in March 2004 were about beliefs of March 2003. If you had read closely, you would have seen that.

Did you notice the word “were”? That is, in English, a past tense. It means they believed the weapons were there prior to the war. Kay admits he was wrong about that. Blix said “Don’t pin me down to say they don’t have any.” He was clearly allowing that they did have them. They have since found out that they weren’t. But I am curious as to why you didn’t link to this? Would you mind giving us the link so we can see what I said? I have a suspicion that it will show my recollection to be correct and will show that you distorted my words.

Right … talking about the claims of stockpiles over which we went to war. For him to admit he was wrong is a plain admission that I was right. And you proved it. When he says he was wrong about the existence of WMDs, that means he previously believed WMDs existed. What did Larry say? Larry said that Kay admitted believing prior to the war that WMDs existed.

Daisy, I am telling you .., please learn your lesson. Don’t keep coming after me on this stuff. Every time you do two things: You prove me right and you prove yourself wrong. Everything I posted here showed that what I said was right. It also shows that both Blix and Kay are now convinced that there were not WMD stockpiles. But at the time, they both believed there was evidence that they existed, which is what I said. You took me to task for my statements and now we find out that I was right. Blix and Kay believed prior to the war that Iraq had WMDs and programs in place. Kay was fairly certain; Blix was skeptical but unwilling to rule it out. Strangely enough, that is what this “delusional poster” said. And you, once again, went after me and in so doing proved yourself wrong.

 

Which means, "I can't refute what you say since you quoted the people who actually know. Rather than have to admit I was wrong, I will just blame you."

Aren't you embarrassed to even post that kind of stuff Jim? I have to admit, I just don't get it. When someone posts facts and quotes from people who know, why would you take shots at the poster? Why not talk about the facts and why they are wrong or not? </font>[/QUOTE]1. No, it means just what it says.

2. No, I'm not embarrassed at all.

3. Of course you don't get it. I wouldn't have expected any better.

 

That is a difference but not the ones I was thinking about.

No, I don't believe that. I believe they have a lot to do with it. But in 97 or 98, they were not teh "Bush administration." There was no such thing. They had no authority to plan for a war, and it is doubtful that they thought they would have a decision making part of it. It is common for groups to lay out plans for what they think ought to be done.

Democrats said the same thing, including 9/11 Commission member Bob Kerrey. That was nothing new. It was a common belief among many people.

 

There is nothing slippery about the facts. You simply can't reply to them becuase you know they are right. I didn't make that up. But you would rather come after me than deal with the issues.

YOu should be. This board deserves better than what you are currently doing in your attacks on me. Talk about the issues.

Because you aren't thinking through it. WHat i don't understand is why you refuse to talk about issues? I don't understand why you would rather talk about me. I certainly have better stuff to talk about. You should too. I pointed out a number of facts in support of my conclusions. Rather than address those facts, you chose to take personal shots at me. Inexplicable and inappropriate. Do better.

 

Pretty funny, Larry. I've wasted too much time on you already. You resort to so much twisting, re-definition of normally understood words, and other dishonest tactics that I have no desire to be suckered into another of your childish arguments. It's not even possible to "agree to disagree", because you always seem to need to end the discussion with a snide insult.

See ya.

 

Fellas... c'mon, now. Don't let this stuff get to ya. Kiss and make up and stop fighting...

 

Looking forward to the debate tonight.