Subject:
|
Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:43:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
284 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > But that's not the issue. The issue is that Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Rice
> > (among other admin officials and toadies) asserted that Saddam was an
> > active and immediate threat with an active chemical/biological weapons
> > program and an active nuclear agenda. Bush et al also claimed that Saddam
> > could be ready to attack the US within 45 minutes. Bush also claimed that
> > Saddam had remote-operated weapons capable of reaching the US.
>
> Clearly all false... But I'm not sure he actually CLAIMED those things (what
> he did claim was bad enough in the lying department, though...)
You make a good distinction. In the interest of fairness and disclosure, I
offer some documentation of my assertion:
Dubya's speech on 10/7/03 included the following statements:
re: active biological/chemical weapons program:
> Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi
> regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all
> development of such weapons and to stop all support for terrorist groups.
> The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and
> produces chemical and biological weapons.
and a little later:
> And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that
> it has used to produce chemical and biological weapons.
> Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct
> violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
> Yet Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons, despite
> international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.
Regarding unmanned craft:
> We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of
> manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical
> and biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is
> exploring ways of using UAVs for missions targeting the United States.
Granted, I was off the mark in saying "Bush also claimed that Saddam had
remote-operated weapons capable of reaching the US," but he was clearly
intimating this while maintaining a cowardly plausible deniability.
regarding nukes:
> The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons
> program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear
> scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahedeen" -- his nuclear holy
> warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at
> sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has
> attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed
> for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.
Again, Bush hereby maintains his cowardly deniability. If he wishes to assert
on record that Iraq is using its facilities for nukes, he should say so. If he
does not wish to be on record with such a statement, he shouldn't make leading
statements to that effect.
I know that trial lawyers do this sort of equivocation all the time, but
certainly a morally-conscious, compassionate Conservative wouldn't stoop to such
deception?
Regarding Saddam's weapons programs:
> After 11 years during which we have tried containment, sanctions,
> inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam
> Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons, and is increasing his
> capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a
> nuclear weapon.
> > Bush also claimed that
> > Saddam was actively supporting and actively linked to Al-Qaida.
Regarding Iraq/al-Qaeda:
> We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a
> decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq.
This is at the very least a lie of omission, since those leaders fled to
Kurd-controlled regions of Iraq. Additionally, some leaders of al-Qaeda fled to
other countries, but Bush cleverly left them out of the equation and chose to
condemn a single nation out of many. That's the fallacy of selective reasoning
at its finest.
also:
> We have learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb making,
> poisons, and deadly gases
On the basis of what evidence? None that was presented for public scrutiny,
and certainly nothing conclusive. Lacking demonstrable evidence, this is a
direct lie. Further, to date al-Qaeda has not used chemical or biological
weapons.
Regarding the claim that Saddam could attack within 45 minutes, I was incorrect
to blame Bush himself. That claim was made by the British government. However,
if that statement was incorrect, then Bush should have addressed it as such.
> As usual when discussing Demopublican politicians, with rare exceptions,
> there's a lot of misleading going on
Now, now. Some Libertarians do it, too. Is Harry Browne running again, by
the way?
> > (I remind the reader that he was not guilty of perjury nor of obstruction of
> > justice).
>
> How do you figure? He might not have been convicted of those (it's hard to be
> convicted if you are not charged) but he's sure *guilty*,
Ken Starr's aggressive prosecutorial zeal bordered on supernatural. He would
certainly have prosecuted a case against Clinton for perjury and obstruction of
justice if such cases could have been made.
> He admitted it (parse away the parsiflage in his statements),
I can't find a good cite at the moment. Did he admit to perjury or did he
admit to lying? I don't actually recall him admitting to obstruction of
justice, though I may be incorrect.
The fact is that Clinton *lied* but did not commit perjury, and the two are
very different things, legally speaking.
> [Dubya] does have some intelligence, you have to admit.
His greatest intelligence, I think, shows in his ability to cover his tail and
to appoint people similarly able to protect him. That's no mean feat, but I
don't credit him with much beyond an ability to have talented people work for
him (even if he hired some of them directly out of Daddy's stable).
Dave!
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
81 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
