UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after

[Graeme Dice]

[quote="Axis KastAnd we didn’t trust he U.N. inspectorate to provide any greater level of certainty. Therein lies the problem.[/quote]

No, _you_ didn't trust the inspectors. The vast majority of the world, with the exception of such mythical U.S. allies as Narnia, did trust the inspectors. And now we see that surprise, surprise, the inspectors were right.

[Axis Kast]

Actually, it was the American leadership who kept insisting that Hans Blix wasn't doing the job they thought should have been done.

[Vympel]

And again, you continue to whine about Iraq?s conventional defenses when the problem at hand is really that the Chinese could have been bringing anything.

Appeal to ignorance. Again. Illuminatus Primus' point is well borne out- you think it's an appropriate use of resources to run screaming into any fifth-rate tinpot to make sure they're not doing something rather than having any evidence they are. You're a complete fool.

namely that Saddam did have ties with the al-Qaeda network, including a ?non-aggression? and research-cooperation pact, and that he was still in the process of planning terrorist attacks against the United States (with a functioning military intelligence arm, no less, which is more than one could say of Afghanistan). The choice to act was more than justified.

You really are fucking desperate, aren't you? A 6-year old *indictment* (ie. completely unproven) and the no-evidence appeals to Russian 'intelligence' (that the State Dept is totally unaware of, no less), once you put it through Axis Kast alchemy, somehow morphs into solid evidence for a complete justification for military invasion- and you accuse others of cherry-picking (in the other thread) while the 9/11 commission's determination stares you right in the fucking face. Amazing.

Ah, my point substantiated. David Kay is an acceptable source for a final pronunciation on Iraq

No, his opinion is just another to the PILE of reasons why you're wrong, and will continue to be wrong.

in your opinion, but the man chosen to proceed in his wake is not, because that wouldn?t be in fitting with your world-view. I see.

No, dumbass, it's that Duelfer is giving the same song-and-dance that Kay did when he took the job, right down to the "we're not going to make a pronouncemen till we know for sure" and all that other bollocks.

I also find it funny that you claim to speak with authority about Mr. Duelfer?s personal convictions when, in fact, that?s nothing more than an appeal to motive.

Show where I spoke about his personal convictions, idiot.

You can?t speak precisely about any of what he thinks, Vympel.

Show where I did, idiot.

Just like you can?t actually refute Duelfer?s legitimate criticisms of what turned out to be a remarkably short search given initiation estimates and reports issued right up to the twilight of Kay?s work in-country.

He didn't make any criticisms of Kay's search, genius, no matter how much you wish he did (and certainly not by copying your various lame criticisms, like "see, a mortar got shot at them, they can't know for sure!" or whatever you were ranting about last time we went over this).

[Vympel]

Actually, it was the American leadership who kept insisting that Hans Blix wasn't doing the job they thought should have been done.

That was what Graeme Dice meant, stupid.

[Axis Kast]

Appeal to ignorance. Again. Illuminatus Primus' point is well borne out- you think it's an appropriate use of resources to run screaming into any fifth-rate tinpot to make sure they're not doing something rather than having any evidence they are. You're a complete fool.

We’ve already discussed why this is a strawman. Iraq wasn’t merely “any fifth-rate tinpot”; it was a country known for its anti-American activities and its long history of illegal activities. While the sanctions demonstrably crippled Iraq’s conventional armaments development, moreover, they were also violated on such a regular basis that the U.S. was hard-pressed to do anything but take the word of nations such as China at face value, for example. There was no way to know for sure what they had short of going in there – and as we’ve also already discussed, we weren’t about to leave it to an agency such as UNMOVIC.

You really are fucking desperate, aren't you? A 6-year old *indictment* (ie. completely unproven) and the no-evidence appeals to 'intelligence' (that has been wrong before), once you put it through Axis Kast alchemy, somehow morphs into solid evidence for a complete justification for action- and you accuse others of cherry-picking (in the other thread) while the 9/11 commission's determination stares you right in the fucking face. Amazing.

A six-year-old indictment, the new admissions by the Russian President, the Czech reports on Mohammed Atta, the assessments of the Central Intelligence Agency. And, perhaps most importantly, the new post-September 11th threat threshold which so lowered our tolerance about “acceptably harmless” activities and “potentially dangerous” ones.

No, dumbass, it's that Duelfer is giving the same song-and-dance that Kay did when he took the job, right down to the "we're not going to make a pronouncemen till we know for sure" and all that other bollocks.

Except for the fact that his castigation of the Kay report reads exactly like mine. Go look it up if you’re unwilling to believe me; I posted it here back on March 31, when the article first appeared in the Baltimore Sun. Duelfer took on every issue from the length to the staffing of Kay’s search.

Show where I spoke about his personal convictions, idiot.

Right here, you moron:

What rubbish. His replacement got up and gave some Congressional committee the old blowjob by blowing some sunshine up their arse with the typical platitudes and vague bullshit about all the work they supposedly have to do, and you twist that as "lambasting Kay for a poor search"- as if Duefler's methods are any bloody different from Kay's. Here's a hint for yourself, Kay had exactly the same ray of sunshine coming out of his arse when *he* started, until he too got hit with a really hard swipe of the smelly reality fish. If Duefler quits in disgust (either that, or the tremendous waste of money the ISG is gets disbanded before that), it'll be the same routine all over again, and I'm sure you'll be right here, making appeals to ignorance and clumsily trying to create unreasonable, excessively paranoid, rabid can't-possibly-ever-admit-how-wrong-you-were doubt about *his* search too.

Christ, the world's moved on Kast- you know what Duelfer's job is? So the desperados can keep saying "but wait, it's not overrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!* (fade out)

You act as if your personal belief that Charles Duelfer is some kind of administration stooge is actually going to fly without any kind of substantial evidence. Not to mention ignoring the substance of his criticisms of Kay, none of which you were previously able to dodge, either.

[Graeme Dice]

Iraq wasn’t merely “any fifth-rate tinpot”; it was a country known for its anti-American activities and its long history of illegal activities.

Let me know when you invade North Korean then.

[Axis Kast]

Again with this "equality of invasion" shit.

Where the fuck is it written in stone that the same perscription works on each and every patient?

North Korea is a whole different kettle of fish as compared to Iraq. Our grievances may be similar; the strategic situation is far, far different. One reason we went into Iraq is to ensure that we don't end up in the same kind of deadlock as in North Korea.

[Vympel]

We've already discussed why this is a strawman. Iraq wasn't merely any fifth-rate tinpot; it was a country known for its anti-American activities

Like? Trying to kill Bush 41? Anything else?

and its long history of illegal activities

Yup, those fearsome illegal activities like smuggling in a few spare parts over 10 years of sanctions that destroyed its viability as an aggressive state.

While the sanctions demonstrably crippled Iraq?s conventional armaments development, moreover, they were also violated on such a regular basis that the U.S. was hard-pressed to do anything but take the word of nations such as China at face value, for example. There was no way to know for sure what they had short of going in there, and as we've also already discussed, we weren?t about to leave it to an agency such as UNMOVIC.

Of course, because after all, UNMOVIC has been proven totally wrong. Oh ... wait.

A six-year-old indictment

With no evidence to back it up, you mean, and which the 9/11 commission says didn't happen.

the new admissions by the Russian President

With no evidence to back them up, you mean.

the Czech reports on Mohammed Atta

Which the 9/11 commission says didn't happen.

the assessments of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Could you be any more VAGUE?

And, perhaps most importantly, the new post-September 11th threat threshold which so lowered our tolerance about acceptably harmless activities and potentially dangerous ones.

Ah, it's the old copyright Axis Kast "9/11 changed everything because Bush says so" argument.

Except for the fact that his castigation of the Kay report reads exactly like mine.

Then post the article. He didn't castigate it. I remember the article, and you're bullshitting.

Go look it up if you're unwilling to believe me; I posted it here back on March 31, when the article first appeared in the Baltimore Sun. Duelfer took on every issue from the length to the staffing of Kay's search.

Interesting, you're not posting it again. You know why? Because you're lying, and we both know it- he never specically mentioned Kay's opinion or assaulted any of its methods.

Right here, you moron:

LOL. He posts the entire fucking reply. Who do you think you're fooling? Point out the appeal to motive, specifically.

You act as if your personal belief that Charles Duelfer is some kind of administration stooge is actually going to fly without any kind of substantial evidence.

First you claim I'm appealing to his personal convictions, then you say I'm calling him an administration stooge. They're not the same, moron. But yes, I am calling him a stooge, that's my opinion, and here's some evidence that it's the case:

Duelfer explains strategy

Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on armed services, called on the CIA to declassify Duelfer's entire status report, delivered to the committee. Levin said he is "deeply troubled" that the public version leaves out information that casts doubt on the Bush administration's contention that Iraq had an active WMD program.

"Mr. Duelfer's statement raises the same issues of selective use of information . . . that have been such a problem for the credibility of the intelligence community's prewar estimates related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," Levin said in a statement.

I think it's also quite interesting that Duefler is going full-on into Iraq's 'intentions'- given their continuing failure to find any actual weapons or the capabiltiy to produce them, they'll do their best to try and find out if Iraq intended to do something as a lame second place.

Not to mention ignoring the substance of his criticisms of Kay, none of which you were previously able to dodge, either.

Your self-assessment of the efficacy of your pathetic arguments are not my problem, beyond their humor value. Post his criticisms of Kay then.

[Axis Kast]

Like? Trying to kill Bush 41? Anything else?

Like plotting terrorist attacks against the United States. Like sending multiple intelligence operatives to numerous meetings with al-Qaeda representatives.

Yup, those fearsome illegal activities like smuggling in a few spare parts over 10 years of sanctions that destroyed its viability as an aggressive state.

The investigation is still underway into just how far those ties went.

Of course, because after all, UNMOVIC has been proven totally wrong. Oh ... wait.

That UNMOVIC appears to have been more correct than not in its assessments thus far is immaterial to the original situation. In 2003, we didn’t have the benefits of hindsight. We had only a series of intelligence reports whose details and warnings weren’t becoming any clearer as time went by, and the option of relying on a group of United Nations inspectors working under conditions we expected – with good reason – to be decidedly adverse.

With no evidence to back it up, you mean, and which the 9/11 commission says didn't happen.

The 9/11 commission declared that Iraq had no direct link to September 11th, not that they didn’t have links to the al-Qaeda network.

Which the 9/11 commission says didn't happen.

Based on the “evidence” that Mohammed Atta didn’t bring with him a cell phone that wouldn’t have worked in Europe anyway? Yeah, that one’s sure to be a case-breaker.

Ah, it's the old copyright Axis Kast "9/11 changed everything because Bush says so" argument.

You disagree that Afghanistan was taken as a joke before September 11th, but that nations like it are now worthy of greater scrutiny?

He didn't castigate it. I remember the article, and you're bullshitting.

Like hell he didn’t castigate it. Duelfer clearly accused Kay of having botched his job by drawing early, unfounded conclusions based on limited actual activity and insufficient research. That’s the bottom line.

Interesting, you're not posting it again. You know why? Because you're lying, and we both know it- he never specically mentioned Kay's opinion or assaulted any of its methods.

I’m not posting it because the article is no longer freely accessible.

First you claim I'm appealing to his personal convictions, then you say I'm calling him an administration stooge. They're not the same, moron. But yes, I am calling him a stooge, that's my opinion, and here's some evidence that it's the case.

Calling him an administration stooge who is consciously “blowing sunshine” is questioning whether or not he is, in fact, in on a conspiracy, Vympel. It’s an attempt to invalidate his opinions and assessments on the basis of some presumed loyalty or allegiance you cannot prove.

Of course, you don’t know to what extent those “doubts” and classified information were intertwined. If you’re going to call out Putin, I’ll gladly call out Levin.

[Vympel]

Like plotting terrorist attacks against the United States. Like sending multiple intelligence operatives to numerous meetings with al-Qaeda representatives.

You have no *evidence* of plotting terorism attacks against the United States. You have no *evidence* of a cooperative relationship. Try again.

The investigation is still underway into just how far those ties went.

And the American's are committing suicide outside the gates of Baghdad.

That UNMOVIC appears to have been more correct than not in its assessments thus far is immaterial to the original situation. In 2003, we didn?t have the benefits of hindsight.

Rubbish. There were many dissenting reports and they were ignored

We had only a series of intelligence reports whose details and warnings weren?t becoming any clearer as time went by, and the option of relying on a group of United Nations inspectors working under conditions we expected ? with good reason ? to be decidedly adverse.

Again- repeating what was thought to rebut criticism of what they thought.

The 9/11 commission declared that Iraq had no direct link to September 11th, not that they didn?t have links to the al-Qaeda network.

No, they said no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, period.

Based on the ?evidence? that Mohammed Atta didn?t bring with him a cell phone that wouldn?t have worked in Europe anyway? Yeah, that one?s sure to be a case-breaker.

And the "evidence" from having the IRAQI IN QUESTION IN CUSTODY FOR ALMOST A YEAR? Dumbass.

You disagree that Afghanistan was taken as a joke before September 11th, but that nations like it are now worthy of greater scrutiny?

Iraq was nothing like Afghanistan. Try again.

Like hell he didn?t castigate it. Duelfer clearly accused Kay of having botched his job by drawing early, unfounded conclusions based on limited actual activity and insufficient research. That?s the bottom line.

Uh huh. All that Duelfer said- and this was reported elsewhere besides the Baltimore Sun, was that they would be looking at intentions (just like Kay said when he started), that they wouldn't make any preliminary findings (just like Kay said when he started), that they'd wait to see the full picture (just like Kay said when he started), that the destruction of documents were a problem (just like Kay said when he started) and that he didn't know anything specific (just like Kay said he started), and spoke vaguely about 'promising sources' of information (just like Kay said when he started). He *never* went near crticising Kay's methods, never juxtaposed his own methods with Kay's (because they're the SAME), and certainly never criticised anything Kay did.

I?m not posting it because the article is no longer freely accessible.

Which gives you carte blanche to simply assert whatever you wish about what was in it. How convenient!

Calling him an administration stooge who is consciously ?blowing sunshine? is questioning whether or not he is, in fact, in on a conspiracy, Vympel. It?s an attempt to invalidate his opinions and assessments on the basis of some presumed loyalty or allegiance you cannot prove.

Besides the fact that his public statement and his private testimony are supposedly not the same, you mean.

Of course, you don?t know to what extent those ?doubts? and classified information were intertwined. If you?re going to call out Putin, I?ll gladly call out Levin.

Why shouldn't I call out Putin? The State Department hasn't even heard of this supposed intelligence, and you think this is the same as the man who sat in on the commitee and listened to what Duelfer told them behind closed doors? Right.

[Patrick Degan]

But nobody beyond the Coalition of the Bribed felt war was justified by the threat Iraq supposedly presented. Nor did any of the nations which supposedly believed Saddam was armed believed it with absolute certainty. Neither did the CIA.

And we didn’t trust he U.N. inspectorate to provide any greater level of certainty. Therein lies the problem.

No, the problem is that this White House looked for anydamnexcuse to justify war and ignored every scrap of inconvenient evidence to the contrary.

Not to mention that you completely ignore the fact that nations such as Belgium and Turkey look at Iraq with a vastly different set of priorities and security problems in mind than the United States. The French determination that they are safe from Iraqi attack is relevant only to Paris.

I "ignore" this fact because it has no bearing on any discussion as to whether the justifications for the late war were valid. They clearly were not on the basis of the evidence.

Non-sequitor. Iraq had, has, and will always have ZERO relevance to September 11th.

You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. September 11th provided the impetus to go to Iraq. Regardless of whether Saddam was involved, that disaster brought us to recognize a whole new low in terms of the threshold above which enemies were considered dangerous enough to warrant a response.

How many times are you going to flog this tired and pathetically threadbare argument? September 11th does not erase the imperative to prove that a nation actually constitutes an active threat to justify a war, no matter how much your enfeebled brain believes otherwise. I have said before and I say again —a threat is only as good as the ability to actually carry it out, not because of wild paranoia about said threat.

And got bombs dropped on it for its trouble, after which it never made a subsequent attempt at such an action.

According to new reports from the Russian leadership, that’s not true at all.

According to events which actually unfolded, it most certainly is true. But by all means keep grapsing at straws.

Our puppet goverment in Iraq encourages terrorism elsewhere in the world, Gracie? I'm waiting for the convolutions which justify THIS formulation.

Encouraged. That should have been past tense.

Oh puhLEEZE! We're not talking about that pathetic token widows-and-orphans fund you made a fool of yourself over the last time we had this go-around, are we? Or is it the mythical Iraq/Al-Qaeda Grand Alliance which has been debunked yet again by the 9-11 Commission?