Lies and more lies. Who Said What When

tatertrader · Jun 6, 2003

Quote from KymarFye:

We're so lucky to have tatertrader to SHOW us how to argue, aren't we? Notice how his response to the Ann Coulter piece on liberals' reaction to Iraq eschewed personal attacks, name-calling, and self-righteous indignation, and instead went right to the substance of the matter (Iraq policy):

Good job, hypocrite.

I did not "eschew" name-calling nor personal attacks as you accuse.

I point them out as the cheap evasive distraction they are in the context of an hack-editorial piece.

Try again.

KymarFye · Jun 6, 2003

Quote from trader556:

On Guardian. It appears they tried to explain the story in such way that fits you and your buddies twisted logic.. At least they made an effort to admit some wrong (if any) and do it fast. I saw the retracted page, but you have already posted here with your piles again.

"ome wrong (if any)"? You have some doubts? You think maybe my buddies and me somehow forced THE GUARDIAN, over there in the UK, to accept our "twisted logic," and go through the embarrassment of retracting two items in two days, one of them a Page 1 feature? Or is it possible that THE GUARDIAN realized that, if they had any hope of maintaining any credibility at all (and perhaps of avoiding legal action under Britain's strict libel laws), they had to print the retractions?

Really, it's not complicated. It's not even a controversy anymore. THE GUARDIAN blew it, badly. They've admitted it.

The rest of your post, as usual, mixes up different issues in one spew. I really wouldn't know where to begin to try to sort things out for you - with your distortions, prejudical readings and pure misstatements of history, blind dependence on leftwing organizations like the Body Count people, and on and on. (I'll concede, by the way, that there was some significant number of Iraqi "innocents" killed or hurt during the war - many of them, it should be added, as a result of Iraqi fire or during use as human shields. If I didn't believe that deposing Saddam Hussein's regime would, by far, save many more lives - of Americans, Iraqis, and others - I wouldn't have been able to support the war.)

Really, though, if you can't bring yourself to admit, as your source already has, that both the Wolfowitz story and the Straw-Powell story were completely phony, then it is impossible to discuss anything with you. You're so determined to have your "issue," that you're going to cling to it even after those who made it up for you have abandoned it.

KymarFye · Jun 6, 2003

Quote from tatertrader:

I did not "eschew" name-calling nor personal attacks as you accuse.

I point them out as the cheap evasive distraction they are in the context of an hack-editorial piece.

Try again.

Do you know what the word "eschew" means?

Let me "try again": Your criticize others for substituting personal attacks for arguments on substance, yet that's exactly what you did in your response to the Coulter piece. THAT is hypocrisy.

Do you know what the word "hypocrisy" means?

Throughout the rest of your posts, you consistently use derogatory language for those with whom you disagree politically. At the same time, instead of engaging their arguments or the subjects under discussion, you bring up new subjects from diverse sources - a tactic that debaters refer to as "spreading," where instead of countering a particular argument directly, the debater hurls a whole series of arguments. Trader556 likes to do this also. It's a tactic that virtually ensures that no real dialogue can take place.

Virtually any President or any other political leader can and is vulnerable to the kind of "recitation of lies" argument that you borrowed from that Democratic Party-aligned web site. I remember from my youth a notorious article on "The 100 Lies of Jimmy Carter," the candidate who promised, "I'll never lie to you." The tactic of going through the Federal Budget and isolating items that conflict, or appear to conflict, with some statement a President made to one or another interest group somewhere along the line is an old favorite. It's based in part on the convenient fiction that a President goes over his Administration's budget line by line. Frequently, yielding up the requisite "spread" of lies requires some prejudicial and tendentious readings of particular items. Both sides love, for instance, to call any slowing of the rate of increase in some favored program a "cut," and come out crying that Clinton cut defense x-billion dollars, or Bush cut Medicare x-billion dollars. Then, if they can find a quotation where Clinton claimed to support defense or Bush claimed to support Medicare - voila, it's a perfidious lie!

Your Shakowsky rant uses similar tactics. Because, for instance, Bush's environmental policy doesn't address air pollution in the way she would prefer, she thinks that calling it "Clear Skies" is a "lie." She doesn't think tax cuts will stimulate the economy, and thus help employment - so she feels justified in calling the policy a "lie." Much of the rest of her statement merely masks political differences in accusations of mendacity, or rests on facts not in evidence (esp. the supposed dishonesty about the reasons for war).

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's all a bunch of tedious horseshit.

The issue before us on this thread was whether or not the Bush Admnistration lied about the reasons for the Iraq war and, particularly, about its beliefs regarding Iraqi WMDs. I don't consider the case proven in either respect. Until one of you critics can point to some reasonable proof of your claims, then charing Bush et al with lying is dishonest. We've seen that some on the Left, including but not limited to the GUARDIAN, have offered up clear and confessed mistruths while pursuing such charges. We're still waiting for something that stands up to examination.

trader556 · Jun 6, 2003

Keymar max401 et.all.

Just for you form Bloomberg:

Pentagon in 2002 Found `No Reliable' Iraq Arms Data

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=arhNn3MRS398&refer=us

In 2002!! Soooo what the f%$k!!! :mad:

What did Powell present to UN?? and what about the repeated bs on national media and every speech the Pres was giving?

Remember: Iraq has WMD's and poses immediate threat to US. mushroom cloud over US blah blah balh. The stupefied public ate it up hook line and sinker. Because we want to believe that the system works and that "elected officials" are by the people for the people. Well news flash for you! they are f^%kiing thugs. They have sold this democracy to the highest bidders.

b]Remember folks, these are not white collar accounting lies. These are lies to get support so THOUSANDS GET SLAUGHTERED for oil and money[/b]. So please get some priorities straight. :mad:

Keymar I guess after you saw the accounting for the thousands killed you have no comment on your attacks. It's ok. No hard feelings. This is a great forum. We roll with the punches. Good info posted both sides. Some true colors are shown, but all an all good debates.

Too bad that this greatest nation of them all, gets destroyed from inside...

KymarFye · Jun 6, 2003

Quote from trader556:

Keymar max401 et.all.

Just for you form Bloomberg:

Pentagon in 2002 Found `No Reliable' Iraq Arms Data

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=arhNn3MRS398&refer=us

In 2002!! Soooo what the f%$k!!! What did Powell present to UN?? and what about the repeated bs on national media and every speech the Pres was giving?

Remember: Iraq has WMD's and poses immediate threat to US. mushroom cloud over US blah blah balh. The stupefied public ate it up hook line and sinker. Because we want to believe that the system works and that "elected officials" are by the people for the people. Well news flash for you! they are f^%kiing thugs. They have sold this democracy to the highest bidders.

b]Remember folks, these are not white collar accounting lies. These are lies to get support so THOUSANDS GET SLAUGHTERED for oil and money. So please get some priorities straight.

Keymar I guess after you saw the accounting for the thousands killed you have no comment on your attacks. It's ok. No hard feelings. This is a great forum. We roll with the punches. Good info posted both sides. Some true colors are shown, but all an all good debates.

Too bad that this greatest nation of them all, gets destroyed from inside... [/B]

On the issue of civilian casualties, please re-read my post, as I addressed the issue directly.

As for this new report, it doesn't say what you think it says, or what you would like it to say.

CNN has been running this story all day. The following link contains responses from the Pentagon and specifically the DIA, the agency directly concerned - whose chief asserts no inconsistency between the actual report and public policy statements by Rumsfeld and others:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/06/sprj.irq.wmd/index.html

Here are selections from the document in question, which is itself only the one-page summary of a larger report:

â¢ "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

(This is the key excerpt that is being seized upon by Administration critics: It appears to refer to the issue of ongoing Iraqi weapons production rather than the larger issue of the existence of WMD programs and the possession of WMD weapons, equipment, and materials.)

Other excerpts expand upon the then-current view at the DIA on Iraqi WMDs:

â¢ "Unusual munitions transfer activity in mid-2002 suggests that Iraq is distributing CW [chemical weapons] munitions in preparation for an anticipated attack."

â¢ "Iraq retains all the chemicals and equipment to produce the blister agent mustard, but its ability for sustained production of G-series nerve agents and VX is constrained by its stockpile of key chemical precursors and by the destruction of all known CW production facilities during Operation Desert Storm and during subsequent [U.N.] inspections. In the absence of external aid, Iraq will likely experience difficulties in producing nerve agents at the rate executed before Operation Desert Storm."

â¢ "Iraq is steadily establishing a dual-use industrial chemical infrastructure that provides some of the building blocks necessary for production of chemical agents."

â¢ "Baghdad is rebuilding portions of its chemical production infrastructure under the guise of a civilian need for pesticides, chlorine and other legitimate chemical products, giving Iraq the potential for a small 'breakout' production capability."

â¢ "Although we lack any direct information, Iraq probably possesses CW agent in chemical munitions, possibly including artillery rockets, artillery shells, aerial bombs and ballistic missile warheads. Baghdad also probably possesses bulk chemical stockpiles, primarily containing precursors, but that also could consist of some mustard agent or stabilized VX."

â¢ "Iraq is assessed to possess biological agent stockpiles that may be weaponized and ready for use. The size of those stockpiles is uncertain and subject to debate. The nature, size and condition of those stockpiles is also unknown."

Note also that this report, or rather summary page, is from one document by one agency. The CIA stands by its own more forthcoming analysis.

You are still repeatedly accusing the Administration of lies while lacking any solid basis in truth. As I've stated before, that practice is dishonest and hypocritical. To put it in terms that might have a better chance of getting through to you: It's friggin f&>ked up :mad:

The Left used to stand for something other than attacking the US and protecting tyrants.

LiverNoMore · Jun 6, 2003

Quote from ROCK SOLID:

dude, you seem pretty logical from some of your other posts i've read. in one of your posts, i think you mentioned perspective bias.

while it is true, many americans are pro-american because they live there, keep in mind, you may very well have your own perspective bias. if wherever you're from, your gov. disagrees with the usa, as well as your friends & family, you probably have an anti-american perspective bias. it goes both ways....

Yes indeed. I have my own perspective bias. My government disagrees with "the usa", and I am biased against the current government of that country.

I am from a place that was once called The Massachusetts Bay Colony, also nicknamed The Hub Of The Universe and The Cradle Of Liberty. My government is the one that wrote a Constitution and a Bill Of Rights which guaranteed the Presumption of Innocence and other aspects of Due Process Of Law, which "the usa" in the form of the Bush Administration have no interest in other than to destroy.

That is my bias. Your perceptiveness of the existence of that bias was Rock Solid.

tatertrader · Jun 7, 2003

Quote from KymarFye:

Do you know what the word "eschew" means?

Let me "try again": Your criticize others for substituting personal attacks for arguments on substance, yet that's exactly what you did in your response to the Coulter piece. THAT is hypocrisy.

Yes I know what "eschew" means. You do not, as you clearly demonstrate.

I point out name-calling - does it mean I foreswear it's use? No. Coulter's essay is a hack-job and her use of denigrating and slanderous bile is ample evidence of her lack of substance as an editorialist.

I however am not an editorialist and my post is not directed specifically at Coulter, rather at the rubes who swallow that bulls$#%#t and regurgitate it back in the context of debate.

Your criticism is fair, but your conclusion illustrates a weak grasp of both vocabulary *and* logic.

Try again.

KymarFye · Jun 8, 2003

Quote from tatertrader:

Yes I know what "eschew" means. You do not, as you clearly demonstrate.

I point out name-calling - does it mean I foreswear it's use? No. Coulter's essay is a hack-job and her use of denigrating and slanderous bile is ample evidence of her lack of substance as an editorialist.

I however am not an editorialist and my post is not directed specifically at Coulter, rather at the rubes who swallow that bulls$#%#t and regurgitate it back in the context of debate.

Your criticism is fair, but your conclusion illustrates a weak grasp of both vocabulary *and* logic.

Try again.

Well eschewze me: Your meaning becomes clear when you confess that underhanded and pointless rhetorical tactics are just fine with you for your own use. It's only when "editorialists" use them, that you have a problem. So, I understand what you meant, but I still find it rather odd that you would defend yourself against the charge of hypocrisy by denying that you eschew name-calling, etc.

As for the original issue in question, I don't think anyone here cares very much what you think of Coulter. Your arguments remain as empty and pointless as your self-superior insults - indeed, they hardly exist except in the form of those self-superior insults or in borrowed propaganda that you won't even bother to defend when it's challenged.

Apparently, in your mind anyone who disagress with you must be a "spineless" bullshit-regurgitating "rube," and that's the end of the matter. If you can't rise above this low level of discourse, then I'll decline any future invitations of yours to "try again," or to have anything do with you here or elsewhere.

KymarFye · Jun 8, 2003

Good round-up of discussion on WMD's, with links to relevant articles:

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/009954.php#009954

The Mark Steyn piece that is quoted and linked on that instapundit page is, as usual, quite entertaining, but the Robert Kagan piece is more direct, and worth c&p-in in full:

A Plot to Deceive?

By Robert Kagan
Sunday, June 8, 2003; Page B07

There is something surreal about the charges flying that President Bush lied when he claimed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Yesterday The Post continued the barrage, reporting that Defense Intelligence Agency analysts claimed last September merely that Iraq "probably" possessed "chemical agent in chemical munitions" and "probably" possessed "bulk chemical stockpiles, primarily containing precursors, but that also could consist of some mustard agent and VX," a deadly nerve agent.

This kind of "discrepancy" qualifies as front-page news these days. Why? Not because the Bush administration may have -- repeat, may have -- exaggerated the extent of knowledge about what Hussein had in his WMD arsenal. No, the critics' real aim is to prove that, as a New York Times reporter recently put it, "the failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq may mean that there never were any in the first place."

The absurdity of this charge is mind-boggling. Yes, neither the CIA nor the U.N. inspectors have ever known exactly how many weapons Hussein had or how many he was building. But that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and the ability to produce more? That has never been in doubt.

Start with this: The Iraqi government in the 1990s admitted to U.N. weapons inspectors that it had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax and a few tons of VX. Where are they? U.N. inspectors have been trying to answer that question for years. Because Hussein refused to come clean, the logical presumption was that he had hidden them. As my colleague, nonproliferation expert Joseph Cirincione, put it bluntly in a report last year: "Iraq has chemical and biological weapons." The only thing not known was where they were and how far the Iraqi weapons programs had advanced since the inspectors left in 1998.

Go back and take a look at the report Hans Blix delivered to the U.N. Security Council on Jan. 27. On the question of Iraq's stocks of anthrax, Blix reported "no convincing evidence" that they were ever destroyed. But there was "strong evidence" that Iraq produced more anthrax than it had admitted "and that at least some of this was retained." Blix also reported that Iraq possessed 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media," enough "to produce . . . 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax." Cirincione concluded that "it is likely that Iraq retains stockpiles of anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin."

On the question of VX, Blix reported that his inspections team had information that conflicted with Iraqi accounts. The Iraqis claimed that they had produced VX only as part of a pilot program but that the quality was poor and the agent was never "weaponized." But according to Blix, the inspections team discovered Iraqi documents that showed the quality of the VX to be better than declared. The team also uncovered "indications that the agent" had been "weaponized." According to Cirincione's August 2002 report, "it is widely believed that significant quantities of chemical agents and precursors remain stored in secret depots" and that there were also "thousands of possible chemical munitions still unaccounted for." Blix reported there were 6,500 "chemical bombs" that Iraq admitted producing but whose whereabouts were unknown. Blix's team calculated the amount of chemical agent in those bombs at 1,000 tons. As Blix reported to the Security Council, "in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."

Today, of course, they and many other known weapons are still unaccounted for. Does it follow, therefore, that they never existed? Or does it make more sense to conclude that the weapons were there and that either we'll find them or we'll find out what happened to them?

The answer depends on how broad and pervasive you like your conspiracies to be. Because if Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are lying, they're not alone. They're part of a vast conspiratorial network of liars that includes U.N. weapons inspectors and reputable arms control experts both inside and outside government, both Republicans and Democrats.

Maybe former CIA director John Deutch was lying when he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Sept. 19, 1996, that "we believe that [Hussein] retains an undetermined quantity of chemical and biological agents that he would certainly have the ability to deliver against adversaries by aircraft or artillery or by Scud missile systems."

Maybe former defense secretary William Cohen was lying in April when he said, "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. . . . I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."

Maybe the German intelligence service was lying when it reported in 2001 that Hussein might be three years away from being able to build three nuclear weapons and that by 2005 Iraq would have a missile with sufficient range to reach Europe.

Maybe French President Jacques Chirac was lying when he declared in February that there were probably weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that "we have to find and destroy them."

Maybe Al Gore was lying when he declared last September, based on what he learned as vice president, that Hussein had "stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Finally, there's former president Bill Clinton. In a February 1998 speech, Clinton described Iraq's "offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs." Clinton accurately reported the view of U.N. weapons inspectors "that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons." That was as unequivocal and unqualified a statement as any made by George W. Bush.

Clinton went on to insist, in words now poignant, that the world had to address the "kind of threat Iraq poses . . . a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists . . . who travel the world among us unnoticed." I think Bush said that, too.

So if you like a good conspiracy, this one's a doozy. And the best thing about it is that if all these people are lying, there's only one person who ever told the truth: Saddam Hussein. And now we can't find him either.

The writer, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writes a monthly column for The Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26671-2003Jun6.html

welo · Jun 9, 2003

I've been keeping track of the WMD thing (or lack thereof) with a fair degree of interest, just like everyone else. I'm more inclined to declare botched intelligence rather than outright conspiracy to waste a hundred billion dollars ousting Hussein.

The evidence either way is ambiguous, yet leans toward showing the intelligence community feeling pressured into telling the Bush administration what they thought it wanted to hear, then senior cabinet officials accepting and conveying the intel as gospel. Overall looks like a lot of spinning to decide who to blame.

People are looking into this, and at the very least it's inspired a lot of shaky journalism. Here, for instance, someone's editor needs a slap or two. And then we have the famously out of context Vanity Fair interview with Wolfowitz (actual transcript here, if anyone's interested).

I admit it looks bad, but I'm witholding judgement until more facts are in.

(for a darkly humorous spin on the WMD issue, look here

)