Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Um, you do realize that this video is from 1992, yes? You do realize that the events Gore is referring to were from the mid-1980s, yes?
Yes, I do.
Then why did you bring it up? Are you saying that nothing changed between 1992 and 2003?
quote:
I have footage of him talking about it in 2002
Then why didn't you use that reference? You're doing nothing but trying to engage in the logical error of conflation: That because Gore gave a speech regarding the analysis of US foreign policy with respect to Iraq in 1992, that means that everything is exactly the same ten years later.
Because, as we know, nothing happened at all between 1992 and 2003. There weren't any no-fly zones, no sanctions, no destruction of weapons and weapons programs, no dismantling of infrastructure...I mean, there was absolutely no time at all between the time Hussein gassed the Kurds and our invasion, right?
quote:
The reason I posted that footage was because he was complaining that Bush Sr wasn't doing enough to stop Saddam.
Incorrect. He was complaining that Bush, Sr.
DIDN'T do enough and because he
DIDN'T do enough, he allowed Hussein to get out of control, invade another country, and start a war that didn't have to have happened if only Bush, Sr. had taken Hussein seriously.
You do understand the difference between analysis of past events and the prognostication of future events? As the text of Gore's speech clearly stated and which you so conveniently ignored, he did not say we should invade Iraq. Instead, he said the exact opposite: We must approach the situation diplomatically and use political and economic pressure to contain him.
And that's exactly what we did.
And it worked: Hussein had no WMD program.
Remember, the inspectors were in the country at the time we invaded. They had to be evacuated.
quote:
quote:
Are you seriously claiming that nothing changed in the intervening 20 years? This is the exact same disingenuous claim regarding the non-existent (yes, I used that word) WMD's. "He had chemical weapons! He gassed the Kurds!"
No, nothing changed.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? Hussein still had chemical weapons? We gave them to him back in the 1980s and he used them against the Kurds. Are you saying that the United States
CONTINUED to give Hussein chemical weapons? That's what "nothing changed" means, after all. The situation from before was that we had given Hussein chemical weapons and thus, he had chemical weapons.
If nothing changed from the 80s to the 00s, then it necessarily must be the case that Hussein had chemical weapons because the United States
CONTINUED to give them to him.
Is that what you're saying?
quote:
Are you in general just disconnected from world affairs?
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, that's just precious, Nemesis Juggernaut, bless your heart.
You're links are from...let's see...the CNN is from 1997, the CBC is from 1998, and the Guardian is from 2003.
But notice...the Guardian source contradicts your claim that you tried to justify with the CNN and CBC sources. That is, the CNN and CBC sources say that Hussein was keeping inspectors out.
But the Guardian source says that inspectors found chemical weapons canisters.
How can that be if Hussein had kicked the weapons inspectors out and, to quote you, "nothing changed"? Are you saying that weapons inspectors are somehow quantum and can both be and not be present in the country simultaneously?
Or, perhaps, something changed.
And it appears you didn't read past the headline in the Guardian article. The text of the article indicates that these canisters weren't of any real importance. It quotes a US official denying that these canisters were a "smoking gun":
"A smoking gun would be if you found a big stockpile with chemicals," an official said.
And, as has already been discussed when Tal tried to make the same claim, these canisters were from before the previous Gulf War and thus, the residue in them was of no real significance and certainly not a WMD.
Did you not read the article, NJ? The canisters were, and I quote the article, "empty."
Thank heaven you didn't report the Polish discovery...which had to be immediately retracted as not having happened at all.
quote:
Look, don't take my word for it.
1998? You're pulling references from
1998? Did you learn nothing? What was different between 1998 and 2003?
Oh, that's right...the weapons inspectors went back into the country and continually said there were no WMDs to be found. In fact, the inspectors had to be evacuated in order to start the invasion.
And I love the attempt to use Edwards' 2003 speech where he talks about sitting in briefings being told about Hussein's weapons program.
Who do you think was briefing Edwards? That's right...the Bush Administration.
You remember them: The ones who were lying about Hussein's weapons program. Do you seriously not understand the difference between the Congress and the Administration? The only information Congress gets to see is information that has first been filtered through the Administration. If the Administration lies to Congress and Congress falls for the lie, are you seriously going to blame
Congress for it?
Of course you can find Congresscritters talking about Hussein's weapons programs. They were being fed nothing but the drumbeat of war from the Administration. They weren't told anything regarding just how flimsy this information was and how the people who were reporting on these supposed weapons programs were highly doubtful of their accuracy.
Remember the infamous 16 words? Where on earth did they come from? They were supposed to have been in a speech Bush gave in October. They were directly and explicitly removed because they weren't true: Hussein had never attempt to acquire uranium from Niger.
And yet, in January, three months later, up they pop again. How did that happen? Everybody in the Administration knew they weren't true. They were specifically excised. And yet, there was Bush, insisting that Congress absolutely had to pass the authorization to use force because Hussein had attempt to get uranium.
So he lied to Congress.
And they bought it.
How is it Congress' fault that they thought Hussein was attempting to build a nuclear weapon when the information they were getting was known to be false by those who were telling it to them?
quote:
I posted it, specifically, because Gore outlines all of the things that Democrats today say are non-existent.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
Names, dates, places, NJ. Show me a single person who says that Hussein had never had WMDs [B][I]
EVER[/b][/i]. You do understand that the comments made by Gore in 1992 were referring to Hussein's actions during the
1980s while all the quotes that you've brought up were by people referring to Hussein's actions in the
1990s, yes?
Are you saying that nothing happened between the 80s and the 90s? That nothing happened between the 90s and the 00s?
Didn't we fight a war in Iraq in 1991? Didn't we impose sanctions on Iraq through the 90s? Weren't there weapons inspectors begging for more time to complete their job and constantly saying they hadn't found any WMDs right up to the very moment of invasion and thus had to be evacuated?
Nah. According to you, "nothing changed." Hussein still had chemical weapons because we were still giving them to him. That's what we had done in the
1980s and "nothing changed."
quote:
quote:
First, you need to step away from that video. It's incomplete and edited.
What? LOL! Show me where its edited.
Um, didn't you watch it?Didn't you notice that the camera repeatedly does bizarre jump cuts with a hitch in Gore's voice as if he wasn't giving a single phrasing? There's a timing counter in the lower corner. Did you miss it? There's a cut from 20:56:04 to 21:00:13. Four minutes just vanished.
And where do you think I managed to get the transcript of the speech? Didn't you notice that I talked about things that Gore said
BEFORE the video picked up? Is this another quantum effect where Gore both did and did not say things that the video did not include?
Did you bother to do any research on this at all? Did you even bother to try and find this video link on your own or did you crib it from a web site?
quote:
Its Gore speaking, continuously, for over nine minutes.
No, it isn't. It's jump cuts of Gore who spoke for much longer than that. Did you bother to look for the transcript of the speech? How do you think I was able to quote from it?
There's another jump cut at 21:02:40 to 21:03:43...complete with an actual white frame showing that there was a cut. There are other jump cuts:
From 21:05:41 to 21:06:11
From 21:06:54 to 21:08:54
From 21:10:05 to 21:10:40
Each one with a white flash to indicate a cut. Did you not notice?
The part of the speech covered by Gore only contained about 9 minutes, 30 seconds of over 17 minutes of Gore speaking. Nearly half of his comments are gone.
And the video doesn't include his opening comments, the rest of his speech, or the Q&A portion. How did you think I was able to come up with Madeline Albright's question regarding how the Clinton/Gore administration would do things differently with regard to Iraq? It was during the same speech.
quote:
Show me where I said Gore wanted to invade Iraq.
The part where you said, and I quote:
He's complaining about the very thing he bitches about today! Un-be-lieve-able....
Well, today he's bitching about how we invaded Iraq. So if he was bitching about the same thing then as he was today (which he wasn't), he'd be bitching about invading Iraq.
Something you call, "un-be-lieve-able."
quote:
The acknowledgment of WMD's by the very side that only denied it after-the-fact for political gain, was my motive for posting it.
But that "acknowledgement" was only because the Administration had lied to everybody about the state of Iraq.
If I lie to you and you fall for the lie, how does that absolve me and condemn you?
And what you're still not getting is that even though Gore had thought Hussein had a weapons program, he still didn't think we should have invaded. That's what he's bitching about today and what you claimed he was bitching about 15 years ago (which he wasn't).
It certainly wasn't because of "political gain." It's because we found out that the Administration lied to us. We trusted the Administration to give accurate information and they didn't.
Remember those "16 words"? The Administration knew they weren't true, had specifically and deliberately removed them from an October speech because of their falsity, and yet Bush somehow managed to say them three months later in January.
Remember the Downing Street memos? That the Administration was fixing the intelligence to the policy?
Did you do any research on this subject, NJ? Or did you just crib links from a web site?
Do not feed the trolls, folks.
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
™ Version 4.2