Freethought & Rationalism Archive

slept2long · 05-07-2003, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde

Those intelligence agencies-------including the French and German ones--------did indeed report, as prior posts here indicate, that Iraq's WMD programs were continuing over a decade after Iraq had agreed to give them up as part of a Gulf War ceasefire.

Bullshit. The links you provided said no such thing. The German report was from before the gulf war and the French report said they couldn't find anything but that doesn't mean there is nothing. In other words there is NO proof they had a WMD program.

Quote:

On this very page of the thread I posted a French characterization of Iraq's WMD programs, the nuclear program in particular.

A french charectirazation? It said they couldn't find anything but that didn't mean they were clear of nuclear material.

Quote:

On a previous page I posted on the German characterization of those programs.

And that was shot down and pre-gulf war.

Quote:

Of course the decision about what to DO about the continuance of those programs is finally a political one.

They haven't concluded they were continued! And the desicion is not a political one. It's one of law.

Quote:

But the general picture of the programs has, for several years, been consistent across Western intelligence agencies and that general picture in no way depended on documents which have appeared recently and have been proven forged.

Yes it was consistent!!! It was "We don't know, but maybe....."

slept2long · 05-07-2003, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde

Wait just a cotton-pickin' minnit! Bush never said 'We know about the WMD programs because of documents from Niger'. Bush let Powell and others put forward in a public forum (ie the UN Security Council) a select cross sampling of strong indications that Iraq was continuing these WMD programs via varied and various intelligence sources: by "varied" I mean the MEANS: satellite/aerial photography, informaton from defectors/informants etc. By "various" I mean that much of this stuff was cross-referenced: a given site of interest was photographed MANY TIMES over an extended period of time, the intelligence effort to figure out what was going on in Iraq had been going on in a BIG WAY since August 2nd 1990. (Powell's presentation at the UN as far as I recall did NOT have the Niger documents included )

Bush let them provide strong indications but no proof. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? And those pictures showed dick. You couldn't make out anything. And what about the drawing of a mobile bioweapons vehicle? He showed up with a picture and said Iraq might have these. He didn't bother to show why he may believe such nor show they did infact have any such vehicle.

Quote:

Probably the TOTAL number of documents bearing on Iraq's WMD program would total in the thousands, perhaps the many tens of thousands. But that's just the paper trail . Then there was a stream of scientists and other officials who defected post 1991 who gave us better ideas about what to photograph, where to look for documents etc.

And we have found what?

Quote:

But as I have pointed out previously on this thread, the French and German intelligence services, operating largely from their own independent sources came to the same general conclusions about Iraq's post-1991 WMD programs. And the French and German evaluations depended in no way on any forged documents that we know of.

Again your right. They all proved nothing. And no one said they depended on forged documents.

leonarde · 05-07-2003, 05:42 PM

Partial post:

Quote:

Those intelligence agencies-------including the French and German ones--------did indeed report, as prior posts here indicate, that Iraq's WMD programs were continuing over a decade after Iraq had agreed to give them up as part of a Gulf War ceasefire.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bullshit. The links you provided said no such thing. The German report was from before the gulf war [...]

Incorrect. There were TWO German reports referred to: one released to the media in February of 2002. This was described as being nearly identical to a previous one. From the overall context it was clear that the previous one was from a YEAR earlier (ie 2001)(for if the previous one were from 1991 it would be incomprehensible why it would be described as so similar to the 2002 report since UNSCOM had destroyed so much WMD material from 1991 to 1997). Nice try!

Cheers!

slept2long · 05-07-2003, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
Getting back to the forged "Niger" documents: the US received these from UK and probably believed that the UK had verified their authenticity. Why MI-6 (?) didn't do a thorough job on that I have no idea.

This is funny. Another strawman! First you provide a false dilemma, the US probably thought the UK verified them. Then you ask "why didn't MI6 do a better job I have no idea". So you absolve the US for using them for a reason you invented then ponder why MI6 didn't make sure they were good when they gave them out. Sweet.

Quote:

This would also explain why Secy Powell was so nonchalant about the documents proving fraudulent: they were British-supplied documents and represented less than the tip of the iceberg of evidence about Iraq's WMD programs.

What kind of reasoning is this? Secretary of State was low key about the documents because they were British supplied and less than the tip of the iceberg? So he was lowkey because he had less than an smidge of evidence of Iraq's weapons program that had been charectirized by the French and German documents you cited as not verifiably there but not verifiably gone?

leonarde · 05-07-2003, 05:52 PM

Partial post:

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
Getting back to the forged "Niger" documents: the US received these from UK and probably believed that the UK had verified their authenticity. Why MI-6 (?) didn't do a thorough job on that I have no idea.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is funny. Another strawman! First you provide a false dilemma, the US probably thought the UK verified them.[...]

It was no "strawman"; I was simply SPECULATING on how the documents were handled/evaluated etc.

Cheers!

leonarde · 05-07-2003, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Secretary of State was low key about the documents because they were British supplied and less than the tip of the iceberg? So he was lowkey because he had less than an smidge of evidence of Iraq's weapons program that had been charectirized by the French and German documents you cited as not verifiably there but not verifiably gone?

No. Reread my post. I know your reading comprehension is better than that.

Cheers!

Loren Pechtel · 05-07-2003, 05:54 PM

We don't really need all the "bullshit"'s.

slept2long · 05-07-2003, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
The problem now, as ever, with Koy's posts is that they are so long, so filled with dozens and dozens of bold faced words and phrases that no one can say for sure what the substantive part of each of his posts is. But here's what looks important to me:

Fluch out your headgear. It's crystal clear what Koy is talking about even though he has to contend with your moving the goal posts.

Quote:

Indeed they should buy it: the German, French, and British intelligence agencies said roughly the same thing.

Without knowing what they said your sure they said the same thing?

Quote:

The non-government organizations (NGOs)/think tanks dedicated to non-proliferation had the same overall evaluation of Iraq's WMD programs. Those evaluations were independent (except for the case of the British one) of any documents found to be forged.

You never mentioned any of these before. Care to post some reports from NGO's and such?

leonarde · 05-07-2003, 06:01 PM

Partial post by slept2long:

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
One item under dispute here is whether the US or UK "forged' some documents. So a relevant story:

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/cent...ews/5401751.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bullshit leonarde. No one has disputed whether the US or UK forged them.

Yes they have: right here on this forum among other places: Koy says they were forged by the US/UK and I disputed that.

Cheers!

leonarde · 05-07-2003, 06:06 PM

From the very first post of page 4 of this thread written by Koy:

Quote:

Then why did our intelligence community have to forge documents?

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

I disputed that characterization.

Cheers!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-07-2003, 05:54 PM	#147
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	We don't really need all the "bullshit"'s.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.