Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8984 total)
41 online now:
Coragyps, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (5 members, 36 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Post Volume: Total: 877,707 Year: 9,455/23,288 Month: 470/1,544 Week: 184/561 Day: 10/14 Hour: 1/1

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Fox news must die, CNN too
Member (Idle past 3227 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004

Message 46 of 51 (160061)
11-16-2004 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Silent H
11-16-2004 5:54 AM

Perhaps a little
holmes writes:

Ever hear of Hans Blix?

From http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1767468

Nevertheless, Blix says he did not believe before the war that a U.S.-led attack against Iraq was inevitable. The United States hoped that its military buildup, which led Iraq to allow weapons inspections, would cause Iraq to "crack" and come clean about its weapons, Blix says. "But they didn't."

His Jan 2003 update to the UN president: http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

Quotes from this report can be mined to give any impression that is wanted. It is like most senior supervisory reports and gives the good and bad. He reports that they got to inspect many sites without trouble and the Iraq government seemed to be cooperating.


1. He did not believe they were entirely forthcoming with the records they should have.

2. Harrassment of his inspectors occurred. Not directly by government officials but he strongly suspect that it was at their urging.

3. They stated that some programs ended long before the evidence seems to indicate.

holmes writes:

How about Senator Graham?

From: http://graham.senate.gov/pr020503.html

Febrary 5, 2003

WASHINGTON (February 5, 2003) - Senator Bob Graham, D-Florida, former chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, issued the following statement today in response to Secretary of State Colin Powell’s presentation to the United Nations Security Council:

“I applaud Secretary Powell for finally making available to the world the information on which this administration will base its actions against Iraq. In my judgement, the most significant information was the confirmation of a linkage between the shadowy networks of international terrorists and Saddam Hussein, the true coalition of evil.

“Since October, the American intelligence community has been warning us that, when Saddam Hussein is on the verge of being toppled, he will be the most dangerous, including striking out against Americans here in our homeland and abroad.

““In my opinion, this linkage of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction and groups like al Qaeda and Hezbollah - with a substantial number of trained terrorist operatives placed inside the United States - represents the greatest danger to our people. I am outraged that four months have passed with little effort having been made to increase the security of our people.

“I continue to urge the president, in the relatively few days left before the start of war with Iraq, to use every measure to protect Americans by dismantling these international terrorist organizations here and abroad.”

Check here, http://graham.senate.gov/iraq.html for what Sen. Graham says he stated prior to the war.

In this, http://graham.senate.gov/pr101302.html he makes his strongest statements against the idea of going to war with Iraq. But from this:

-- and he does not pose an immediate threat to our homeland, according to a recently declassified assessment from the CIA. Rather, that report suggests, Hussein might use his chemical and biological weapons in terrorist strikes on the United States in retaliation for a U.S.-led attack on Baghdad.

you can see that Sen. Graham believes that Hussein did have WMD's. I would like to note that I agreed with his pre-war assessment of the situation then as I do now...we did not need to take Hussein down...WMD's or no.

So....when did Sen. Graham say that he believed Iraq had no WMD's? After, the US looked for them and didn't find them? 20-20 hindsight is available to everyone.

holmes writes:

Did you not hear about the speech at the UN which resulted in a standing ovation (and totally dissed Powell's speech)?

There were several speeches that dissed Powell's speech (French, German,...). To which speech are you referring? What opinion/evidence was presented concerning WMD's?

holmes writes:

Wolf Blitzer?

He interviewed a number of people who were against the war (before the war), Walter Cronkite is a notable example. The three that I looked up, all indicated that they believed Iraq had WMD's. Wolf also interview some people in favor of the war and they indicated that they believed Iraq had WMD's. In all the interviews, Wolf did not harrass the interviewee and did not overtly push his views on the subject. Sorry, I did not find a commentary from Wolf that expressed his views on the possibility of going to war with Iraq.

holmes writes:

Did you hear about all of the senior diplomats (including republicans) which formed a group to criticize Bush's actions given the false intelligence he was using?

Actually, I am not familiar with this particular event (I assume it occurred prior to the invasion). Could you help me out with more details?

holmes writes:

I mean come on, you are actually saying you didn't hear the controversy regarding Bush's claims regarding nuclear weapons?

Yes, I did hear about that, but nuclear = WMD does not mean that WMD = nuclear. Additionally, the weight that the administration gave to the "intelligence" is a judgement call on their part and the "nucular" threat evidence was not claimed as the main reason for ending Sadaam's rule.

You seem to be of the opinion that because I support the troops now and advocate staying until the job is done, that I was for the war in the first place. I was not.

I did not think that Iraq was a threat even with WMD's. History shows that Sadaam has rarely made a move so risky that his rule was in jeopardy. He was not going to overtly attack the US and would be very careful to avoid getting caught covertly attacking the US. He has never been catagorized as "stupid" in my book.

My statement was that the mistake of thinking Iraq had WMD's was part of the path that led to war.

So far you have not provided credible (somewhat a judgement call, admitedly) support for your statement that the government had evidence showing there were no WMD's and then hid that fact.

Poor planning on the Pentagon's part...rushing into a war that could have waited...and no plan to "win the peace" are not disputed by me.

edited for grammar

This message has been edited by LinearAq, 11-16-2004 09:46 AM

We're apathetic anarchists...we don't care who we blow up!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Silent H, posted 11-16-2004 5:54 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Silent H, posted 11-16-2004 5:01 PM LinearAq has not yet responded

Silent H
Member (Idle past 4371 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002

Message 47 of 51 (160194)
11-16-2004 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by LinearAq
11-16-2004 9:45 AM

Perhaps I made a mistake in what you were talking about. I thought when you were referring to intelligence "mistakes" regarding WMDs that included not just presence of any possible weapon, but their nature, as in could they or would they likely be used.

The President used the threat of WMDs. I was saying he was lying about WMDs, regarding their existence as a threat.

Here is what was possible and our intelligence actually was mistaken on: There had been stockpiles of WMDs (chem-bio) from before the first gulf war, which were unaccounted for. Our intelligence assumed they were still there. No one was in a position to confirm or deny it and I actually thought they might still be there.

If this is all you were talking about then there is no issue from me. He could have had old stockpiles made for use in the 1980's in the heads of conventional munitions.

The problem was that even if they were there, they were unlikely to be usable in any real way. They certainly posed no threat to the US mainland. It had been pointed out that it was unlikely anyone could smuggle them in and it would be easier just to make the stuff here in the US.

There were also indications that they might have programs in place looking to create WMD technology. Unfortunately that also does not pose any sort of threat, and that is if they have them. Yet it was known at CIA that they had no real way of knowing anything. I leave you to do catch up and read through the Senate findings.

That is what caused a real scandal, and had Bush's original weapons hunter David Kay stunned when he learned about it. People like the French and extop US intel officials had publicly derided our capacity to have this intel. They were proven right.

The administration certainly did claim that there was a program for nuclear WMD technology using as evidence documents that had been publicly denounced by IAEA... and I believe Blix too... well before the invasion, and indeed before Powell's and Bush's public statements of their veracity. That was a lie, but got transferred as somehow Tenet's fault.

Remember this was also the cause of the scandal when one official publicly criticized Bush and Powell's claims, and then his wife's identity as a CIA agent was leaked to the press (and they still can't seem to find out who commited that federal offense).

If you feel that Bush is justified in asserting that his claims of WMDs were "mistakes", when the only mistake made (out of all of their claims) was that they may have had old stockpiles, even though they were by all accounts never going anywhere and not as effective as was repeatedly hyped (remember the "mushroom cloud" imagery?) counter to public facts, then so be it.

I am not going to go back over old materials at this point to dredge everything up if you feel you need to know more about this subject. This is old news and either you knew it or you didn't. If you think I'm hindsighting everything at this point then you can believe it but it's not true. In the end why should I care?

Such a thing was suggested in another thread and Schraf thankfully pulled up quotes from me on EvC about Iraq issues before the Iraq War happened, proving I was not hindsighting things. Then the person never said anything again. So at this point I don't care to prove myself... if there is a dispute at this point (which maybe there isn't).

Actually, I am not familiar with this particular event (I assume it occurred prior to the invasion). Could you help me out with more details?

I would think this is easy to find. I will look up this and the intelligence group (which is even more important). Give me a couple days, as this is low priority.

the "nucular" threat evidence was not claimed as the main reason for ending Sadaam's rule.

I simply cannot believe you are saying this. That was the top of the WMD threat that they hyped. How many times did Rice state if we wait for concrete evidence it may be in the shape of a mushroom cloud? They hit that button so many times.

That is what made that one official's denouncement so important, and then his wife was exposed as a CIA spy in retaliation. If it was nothing on their hype machine, this would hardly have been the response.

If you want to claim it wasn't their reason, well that is true. It appears to have more to do with removing a threat to Israel and getting a gov't in place that will help us stabilize oil assets.

You seem to be of the opinion that because I support the troops now and advocate staying until the job is done, that I was for the war in the first place. I was not.

You and I share the same position then... with the exception that our level of intelligence on the existence and threat of WMDs was advanced to the level of a lie to the american public.

your statement that the government had evidence showing there were no WMD's and then hid that fact.

At the very least it is obvious to you that they did so with the existence of nuclear weapons and weapons programs, right? I should add that my position was that they hid the fact that they knew they had no way of knowing whether there were WMDs or not. They hinted that they had ways of knowing, but they knew they had none, one way or the other.

Like I said, one of the big bombshells in the Congressional report was that the CIA had no assets within Iraq at all. They had absolutely no way of saying what they knew.

"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by LinearAq, posted 11-16-2004 9:45 AM LinearAq has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 4654 days)
Posts: 140
From: Texas
Joined: 05-03-2004

Message 48 of 51 (160282)
11-16-2004 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Hangdawg13
11-15-2004 3:11 PM

...loaded words overrule rational thought processes...
Wasn't thinking I was going to respond to anything here, but I just had to say something about this:

No, but for the life of me I cannot understand why you want to believe these terrorists are the good guys.

How in the world did you come to this conclusion? There's an enormous difference between saying:

How is what they're doing terrorism? They're attacking military forces who have illegally occupied their country. (Whether or not our invasion of Iraq was legitimate or justified, it was certainly illegal.) What about that is terrorism?

...and saying, "I support the Iraqi insurgents, I sure hope they are victorious over our forces!" One is an argument of definition; the other is a statement of position.

Neither one of us is blind, and that is what really disturbs me. You seem to have good intentions, but the conclusions you've come to are so evil, I just can't comprehend it.

How is what he said evil? Pointing out that the people we're fighting against might maybe just not be all terrorists with only the destruction of America in mind is not evil. A refusal to foolishly classify all enemies as "terrorists" without first considering their motives and methods is not evil.

I could not have said it better myself:

...when you dilute the meaning of the word "terrorism", you diminish the significant of every victim of terror.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Hangdawg13, posted 11-15-2004 3:11 PM Hangdawg13 has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 721 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001

Message 49 of 51 (160295)
11-16-2004 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Jack
11-15-2004 9:12 AM

Whether or not our invasion of Iraq was legitimate or justified, it was certainly illegal.

The British government would disagree with you: http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page3287.asp

And Kofi Annan would disagree with the British government.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dr Jack, posted 11-15-2004 9:12 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 721 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001

Message 50 of 51 (160296)
11-17-2004 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Verzem
11-15-2004 3:08 PM

did David Koresh have sex with 13 year olds or not?

Do you think it is OK for a religious leader to have sex with the 13 year old daughters of his followers?

The age of consent in Texas is 17.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Verzem, posted 11-15-2004 3:08 PM Verzem has not yet responded

Posts: 3920
Joined: 09-26-2002

Message 51 of 51 (160303)
11-17-2004 12:38 AM

Topic intended to be about Fox, CNN news
I think messages should have some reasonably direct tie in to how news media cover things.

Much of this seems to be getting pretty remote to the topic theme.

I may be wrong,


Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:

Change in Moderation? (General discussion of moderation procedures)
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020