Zar

leonarde has one thing right. Interpretation is as important as facts. But how do we interpret facts? Do we do it clean out of thin air? Do we do it from "the gut"? It seems to me that interpretation of a singular "fact" involves, among other things:

1) Other "facts" and their interpretations.
2) Tradition and experience
3) Law and its interpretation
4) Morality
5) An application of the "categorical imperative." That is, can one's interpretation work in all, or nearly all cases or does it only work in the cases that benefit you?

So, you cannot simply present a "fact" with an "interpretation" and say that is sufficient. You cannot say, "Well, that's my interpretation", and expect this to ward off critics. Interpretations can be examined -- they are not magic black boxes beyond which no one can question. You can at least probe and explore these views and force someone to make a conscious choice at some point along the way. Of course, this can only happen if the parties to the discussion are willing to expose these interpretive elements and discuss them. Otherwise it is just a merry go round of shouting.

Let's take the supposed fact that an al-Qaeda representative met with the Iraqi government 5 years ago. Does that mean they were involved in 9/11, or does that mean they flirted with these terrorists once but decided against it? And doesn't years and years of sanctions provide a context for this flirtation? Why look at it one way or another? For instance, why does leonarde think his interpretation alone of that fact holds? For instance, the CIA hasn't seemed too keen on the idea. Perhaps the maxim, "You are with us or you are with the terrorists," echoes in his mind as he says this. I don't know. Also, why would, say, the sheltering of an al-Qaeda representative by the United Kingdom not bring American bombs onto London?

I agree, its all about context. But let's not use that truth as a blunt instrument to club people with. Let's discuss it.


P.S.:

Of course, we also have to ask why Pakistan and Saudi Arabia -- the two most blatant sponsors of international terror, and aiders and abbetters (nay, practically founding fathers) to al-Qaeda, get the diplomatic treatment while Iraq gets bombed for the 1,000th time. Is it Saudi oil? Iraqi strategic positioning? Pakistani Nukes? Iraq an easy target to make big fireworks for the boys and girls at home so that we can have the appearance of progress when in fact we could very well have slid backwards? Here's an interpretation: What may appear to be progress may in fact be its opposite.

Koyaanisqatsi

What? I made no such point and offered no dates, that I can recall. I think you're confusing me with Farren.

The only thing I said in regard to that was on page one of this thread:

What I have been addressing is the history of forged documents and misinformation planted by the WESTERN INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY (to quote leonarde) regarding the shaping of public opinion to be in favor of a war with Iraq, including, as leonarde's own sources conclude, Germany.

I observed, based on leonarde's sources, that stated the BND report was from '91 (a "war" ago) and hadn't been changed significantly since then and was deliberately leaked in order to "prepare" public opinion for the impending American war.

Here's more from leonarde's own sources regarding a Powel's "reaction" to the "German report" that is very telling indeed (I'll highlight the part that leonarde conveniently ommitted):

Holy Jesus!

What does? The press reports on the German assessment! Not the "original German intelligence report," that, again, leonarde's own sources state was identical to the one they presented to the German government a "war ago," presumably meaning '91.

Considering the fact that Powell didn't actually read the German intelligence assessment, but nonetheless saw fit to declare the press releases on it "reinforces another one the messages I am carrying throughout the region" and considering my own sources that show a concerted and on-going conspiracy of planting misleading disinformation from the British and American intelligence community and that Germany was a member of that same community and that leonarde's own sources state the same conclusion (that it was leaked deliberately in order to "prepare" public opinion) and last, but certainly not least, that our own intelligence community had to forge documents regarding Iraq's nuclear capabilities in order to trick Congress that prompted the Senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committe (who is therefore privy to top secret, executive meeting intelligence information) to state officially in a letter to the director of the FBI on March 14th, 2002:

Note that the "fabrication" is considered to be a fact already in evidence and that Rockefeller is concerned about this being evidence of a larger deception campaign "aimed at manipulating public opinion" I would say that I've made a far more devastating indictment of the entirety of any WESTERN INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY reports regarding Iraq than leonarde has made in support of them.

The very fact that our intelligence community relied upon forged documents regarding Iraq's possible nuclear threat in executive, top secret, "eyes only" meetings of Congress and that Powel hadn't read the original German intelligence report yet commented as if it reinforced his "message" nonetheless, it is incumbent upon leonarde to adddress the glaring ommission of this allegedly "smoking gun."

If the BND's report was so devastating, then why in the hell would our intelligence community have to resort to defrauding Congress by using forged documents?

Remember, Germany was our ally and therefore considered a part of the overall "WESTERN INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY" that leonarde grouped together himself!

If our intelligence community and the British intelligence community have been planting false and misleading information about Iraq's alleged WMD programs for years all the way and up to the point of actually forging documents regarding their nuclear capability to Congress, why wouldn't the German intelligence community do the same thing?

And is there any evidence of this? Yes! Leonarde's own sources once again, stating that the information was deliberately leaked to journalists in order to sway public opinion.

A fact that Powell indirectly affirms with his bizarre statement that a press release (and not the actual report) "reinforces" his "message throughout the region." What "region" is that, but the NATO alliance and the UN nation-states as well as, apparently, in the minds of the public.

The words "public opinion" have come up in everyone's sources and always with an accusation of intent to mislead. Why should it be any different with Germany? They were on our side up to the point of evidence being presented to the UN. Suddenly their evidence and our evidence is not enough to convince them that the threat is imminent enough to simply go along with America? Instead they publicly broke ranks? Why?

Well, leonarde would have us believe that it was because of "lucrative deals" between an unknown "agent" of Germany who illogically infiltrates Iraq in order to strike a deal with an Iraqi Lt. General for alleged contracts after the war is over, when there would be no Lt. General or Ba'ath party to make good on!

A meeting reported in a right-wing British newspaper clearly designed to demonize Germany in no specific or verifiable way after the war is over and the questions of German, French and Russian (as well as China, but they don't count, of course) places in the NATO alliance and the UN are now going to have to be addressed. A British newspaper just like the other British newspapers that the British intelligence agency has been guilty of using to their propaganda ends for years at least regarding public opinion of Iraq!

Are you talking about a meeting between the CIA and Bin Laden? If so, I haven't been addressing that, so you should ask Farren.

First of all, the German intelligence community are not "dirty peaceniks" anymore than the CIA under Clinton were "dirty peaceniks." As we know all too well, whoever is in charge of a country is not necessarily in charge of the intelligence community, but even if it were true and not just part and parcel to the overall WESTERN INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY that leonarde so gleefully caps locked for us all, if they really did have conclusive evidence of Saddam's nukes (even if it were from a decade ago), you tell me why Powel wouldn't have read it and our intelligence community wouldn't have posted it in every newspaper in America instead of relying on forged documents to present to top secret, executive meetings of the various Intelligence Committees of Congress?

Since none of us knows exactly what evidence was forged, isn't it more likely--given all of this evidence establishing the desire of the WESTERN INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY as well as the stated intentions of America leading up to the war that Germany was at least on board with until evidence was presented--that this presumably decade old report was not a "smoking gun" at all? Or did Germany, once again, with all of this conclusive evidence just decide to keep it to themselves in order to make "lucratrive deals" with a regime that they knew would be gone once the war was over?

A "deal" that was allegedly struck--according to a British, right-wing newspaper--between an unknown German "agent" who goes to Iraq to make a deal with a Lt. General specifically for contracts after the war is over, when the stated purpose of the American war was regime change?

It not only makes no sense, it is patently absurd that Germany would send somebody to Iraq and not the other way around. Iraq was the one who needed German support, allegedly! Why the hell would Germany risk all of this in order to strike a deal that was to be inacted after the war with a doomed regime? But I guess if a right-wing British newspaper prints it, in spite of the evidence that the British intelligence community has been using British newspapers to spread propaganda, then it must be true, regardless of the glaring inconsistencies in the details of what allegedly transpired.

Remember that the deal was allegedly for contracts after the war was over! Did Germany think that Iraq was going to win the war so strongly that they decided it would be more advantageous for them to withdraw support for America; to break their diplomatic ties with America and risk being kicked out of the NATO alliance over the remote possibility that the Ba'ath party could somehow either defeat America or stay in power in order to make good on contracts of further WMD production?

:banghead:

Well, again, you'd have to take that up with Farren. My ball's been dunked so hard, the backboard shattered .

Gurdur

Yes, of course Koy is right here -- though he doesn't name one of the main reasons.

Schr�der made his ant-Iraqi-War stand when it became very clear indeed that the German public were overwhelmingly against American-unilaterally-led intervention in Iraq.

This public opposition has actually grown, not faded, with the results of the war.

As for crap allegations about dirty commercial deals for "friends" of Iraq, the Federal government of Germany was constantly in a tizzy running around making sure no German company sold dual-use technology to Iraq.
Ever since the rather embarrassing incident where the German government gave the go-ahead to a company to sell hydraulic press-lifts to India, where India claimed they would be used for bridging work (and who could object to that ?), but then suddenly used them for moving its missiles around, the German government has always erred on the side of caution as to allowing commercial deals.
As for basing a whole international stance upon the vague chance of doing more deals in future, when the relationship to the USA is rather important to the Geman government, I'ld say it's fairly obviously just empty crap, no ?

leonarde

Posted by Koy:No, no, no!!!! The article DID read "precisely a war ago" but since

1) wars happen at very irregular intervals (ie there's nothing "precise" about them chronologically)

2) time is seldom measured in terms of "wars" any more than it is measured in terms of 'famines', 'hurricanes', "economic recessions" etc.

3) we know darned well that German intelligence must have put out SOME intelligence reports on Iraq between 1991 and 2002

it is clear from the CONTEXT that this was a typo (a mistake IN THE TEXT as given on the internet). I indicated that by placing "sic" in brackets after the word "war". Why else would I do that?

If the above wasn't clear enough, we had the story of Powell's reaction to that previous BND report: Powell was reacting in early 2001 to a recently released account of the German
intelligence report. The one released to the press in early 2001.

Cheers!

leonarde

Partial post by Koy:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This I don't understand: Koy's (apparent) surprise here. For:

1) we don't know the time frame involved. Powell may have read the report later.

2) though the US and Germany DO share some intelligence information, that hardly means that they just swap(presumably classified) intelligence reports.

3) the US has a couple of intelligence agencies doing the exact same thing (CIA and DIA) as the BND so he would go by THOSE reports more than by anything produced by Germany.

I see nothing surprising about the above.

Cheers!

Koyaanisqatsi

Then why did our intelligence community have to forge documents?

:banghead:

F*cking hell, leonarde. Use your brain just once. Please.

If Powel had read the actual report "later" then why were forged documents presented to executive, "eyes only" committee meetings of Congress?

Farren

Koy, I'm beginning to suspect Leornarde is better at trees than woods. His technique thus far has consisted mainly of cognitive dissonance, red herrings and selective reading.

You've gotta respect his faith in his leaders, though.

leonarde

Previously posted:It is YOU who is assuming that our intelligence community forged documents. I don't know that. Given what I know about the overall situation I find it unlikely. Instead I would suggest a more likely scenario:

1) in the late 2002 timeframe as the Iraq crisis heated up and there was more talk than ever about Iraq's WMD programs, some clever guy (or possibly 2 or 3 people) who were native Arabic speakers decided to go into the document-forging business.

2) Why? For profit. They put out feelers to the CIA/MI-6 (or perhaps went through an intermediary).

3) Voila! Several, perhaps many, thousands of dollars for not that much work.

The CIA/MI-6 took the document at face value (in the beginning) but since it was consistent with OTHER evidence of continued Iraqi development in the WMD area, there was not so much to be suspicious of.

Cheers!

leonarde

Partial post by Koy:You are mixing apples and oranges here.

1) The document(s?) that was (were?) forged were purported to be Iraqi internal documents sneaked out of the country.
This would be an Arabic language document since that is the language of Iraq and its government .

2) The link that I posted about Powell refers to an annual GERMAN document since it was written by analysts of a GERMAN intelligence agency (BND). The original would be in German .

Do you see the difference???? Two completely different documents!!!

Cheers!

Larry

There are two main things that need to be accomplished to really justify the war, in my mind. WMD's and a link between Iraq and terrorist organizations, and specifically Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Neither one of these has been accomplished, yet.

There have been plenty of stories - which since they first came out, were "sent back to the states for further analysis." - Then, we never hear anything else about it.

What kind of time frame would be the expected norm, to find the link in Iraq, to Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda? So far, each of these initial reports have either been shot down or have disapeared.

As far as I see it, US Intelligence doesn't seem to be doing such a stellar job. OBL - he's dead....he's alive.....he's dead.....now he's alive again, this time for sure, (I think. ).

But, I don't want to stray off-topic. I will just say that I don't put too much stock in these initial reports.