The Art of Camouflage - David Kay comes clean, almost . . .

[chess9]

Shanti:

You are obviously a very smart fellow.

I can understand Republicans being willing to forgive GW for this bit of stupidity. Forgiving is one of the noblest things humans can (and should) do. Many of my friends say "Yeah, he oversold the war and probably shouldn't have done it, but he's our President, we're there and let's get on with it." They know they can't rationally argue Bush's 2003 SOTU position. It seems that only the Republicans who must make the public case for Bush being right are those defending him. So, I'm puzzled. Here we are in the relative obscurity of this noodling little forum where about 30 regulars are paying attention and several guys-admittedly not many-aren't playing the forgiveness card but, rather, the rational defense card. Is it the challenge of squaring the circle, turning lead into gold, getting O.J. off...or what? At what point will intellectual integrity rear its ugly head?

Maybe I'm just a dumb, narrow-minded old fart, but I think the case against Bush's pretext war is all but CLOSED.

-Robert

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Shanti - So Bush may be guilty of selective hearing and a misguided faith in the accuracy of our intelligence, but I still see no evidence that he intentionally misled or lied to us.

You readily admit that Bush may be guilty of selective hearing in the first part of your statement, yet you say you don't see any evidence of intentional misleading?

Every normal human will tend to have better "hearing" when something is being said that validates their own desires. Obviously Bush hated Saddam and wanted to see him gone. He also believed that Saddam was a threat to us and to the world. So he naturally paid more attention to the intelligence reports that supported the belief that Saddam had stockpiles of weapons. But there was more to it than that. Saddam was a bad guy, everyone agrees about that. So when you hear intelligence saying that an evil dictator is doing something bad, you are much more likely to pay attention and believe this. When you see a few reports that say this evil dictator may not be doing domething bad, obviously you will be more skeptical.

I don't think that this kind of "selective hearing" is the same as intentionally misleading. I would venture a guess that everyone on this board, whether intentionally or not, pays much more attention to information that supports their arguments and is much quicker to dismiss information that doesn't support their arguments. But even this is not a fair comparison, because in Bush's case, the vast majority of the information he was given said Saddam had WMD's.

The only way you can say Bush is guilty of lying and intentionally misleading is if you think that he knew all along that there weren't any WMD's but said there were anyway. I don't think that is very likely. I think his "selective hearing" was unintentional and led him to strongly believe that there really were WMD's. In which case, you can make the argument that he was stupid, but not that he lied.

If Bush knew all along that there weren't any WMD's, then I honestly don't think he would have made the claims he made. He would have made the argument in a different way. Surely he would have known the backlash that would come from not finding WMD's. Especially in an election year.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Shanti
The intelligence that indicated Iraq was a threat was not made up by Bush as you like to pretend.

True. It was made up by Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Really?
I didn't know they were in charge during the Clinton administration.

Nor am I talking about the five-year-old, Clinton-era intelligence. I am talking about the new claims about the "massive stockpiles" and the aluminum tubes and all the other stuff we've already refuted here a hundred times.

Much of the intelligence used was in fact Clinton-era intelligence. The point was that there was no evidence that the status of the WMD's had changed since this intelligence was gathered because Saddam continued to do everything in his power to make sure nobody could verify what was really there.

Many other countries reached the same conclusions based on their own intelligence sources.

Which is why we had inspectors back on the ground in Iraq to determine what was still accurate and what was to old and moldy to consider. Furthermore, the fact that many countries believed Iraq still had some WMD capabilities is a far cry from the "massive stockpiles" Bush and his minions insisted were in Iraq.

Do you honestly believe that the inspectors were being told the truth by Saddam? Kay indicated that Saddam had continued to violate the sanctions and had been hiding equipment from the inspectors. So how are they going to help if everything is being hidden from them?

All in all, it looks like Iraq's claims were more accurate than the Bush administration's, a simple fact the Bushies conveniently ignore.

Kay was directed to make a mountain out of a molehill. He did his best to do so without actually lying.

Iraq's claims were that they were abiding by the U.N. resolutions. Obviously this claim was false.

"We've shared in the classified report about two dozen major cases of where Iraq hid equipment or engaged in prohibited activities that were not permitted under the U.N. resolution," Kay said.

And Kay's reports indicate that Iraq was indeed still very involved with active bio and chem weapons research that they kept hidden from the U.N.

NO, it did NOT. It indicated Iraq had a few remaining fragments of programs and materials that might be applied to WMD-related activities some day. It did NOT indicate Iraq had ANY active bio or chem weapons research.

No, it didn't.

Really?
Kay also stated that the Iraq Survey Group had discovered:

5) "Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons."

6) "New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN."

I went over this in a thread several weeks ago and you prompty disappeared. It would be nice if you paid attention so you don't pop up again in a month repeating the same disinformation.

Re. #5, Kay's team was given a single, twenty year old "vial of live C. botulinum Okra B." bacteria -- not toxin -- obtained from a U.S. lab in the early 1980's. It was one of several assorted vials kept in an Iraq scientist's refrigerator for many years. This particular strain of the botulinum bacteria is a less-virulent strain that has never been successfully weaponized. It's good for Botox, not bioterrorism.

Re. #6, note the word "applicable". None of these were useful as biological weapons agents. Some of the research techniques might be useful in bio-weapons research. Like so much of the innuendo in Kay's report, however, he found no evidence of actual proscribed research.

Ricin is not useful as a weapons agent?
How could "continuing work on ricin" not be considered an active WMD program?
Could you explain to me what the benign use of ricin is?

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: chess9
Shanti:

You are obviously a very smart fellow.

I can understand Republicans being willing to forgive GW for this bit of stupidity. Forgiving is one of the noblest things humans can (and should) do. Many of my friends say "Yeah, he oversold the war and probably shouldn't have done it, but he's our President, we're there and let's get on with it." They know they can't rationally argue Bush's 2003 SOTU position. It seems that only the Republicans who must make the public case for Bush being right are those defending him. So, I'm puzzled. Here we are in the relative obscurity of this noodling little forum where about 30 regulars are paying attention and several guys-admittedly not many-aren't playing the forgiveness card but, rather, the rational defense card. Is it the challenge of squaring the circle, turning lead into gold, getting O.J. off...or what? At what point will intellectual integrity rear its ugly head?

Maybe I'm just a dumb, narrow-minded old fart, but I think the case against Bush's pretext war is all but CLOSED.

-Robert

Hey, I've admitted that I was wrong on more than one occasion. We all remember my stupid claim about nobody in the administration saying they knew for sure that Saddam had WMD's. And I agree that from what we know so far, it sure looks like the "imminent threat" wasn't so imminent.
And contrary to popular belief, I'm not a Bush loyalist. There are issues on which I disagree strongly with the president and the republican party. As some of you know, I voted for Clinton twice(not in the same election)

Maybe I'm just not so quick to automatically interpret the Kay information as meaning "Bush lied and Saddam was harmless", as many of you anti-Bush loyalists seem to have done. Yes, the information indicates Saddam's WMD programs were not a major threat right now. They also indicate, however, that Saddam had intentions to continue WMD research and development and had been continually deceiving the U.N. and violating the resolutions. Regardless of Bush's faulty emphasis on WMD stockpiles, the war was justified for the sole fact that Saddam had proven to us over and over again for 12 years, that the only way to guarantee he was disarmed was to remove him from power. Without that, his continued deception would virtually guarantee that we could never be sure he was disarmed. It is also clear that even if he wasn't an "imminent threat", he could have become one in a very short time without us knowing.

So no, this doesn't close the case.

 

[Moonbeam]

So no, this doesn't close the case.
---------------------
Look, the case is whether or not it is legal or moral to attack another country if they don't represent an immediate threat. The answer and principle for which this country has stood for decades, and which Bush slimed, is that it is illegal and immoral. Bush turned this fine country into an agressor nation just like Iraq. You always become what you fear. There were no WMD and the war was a violation of international and moral law. Bush is a criminal. And we all know that ignorance of the law is no excuse. You can't jsut walk into a country, kill thousands of people and call it an intelligence mistake. There's this little thing Conservatives like to jump up and down about called personal responsibility and consequences for your actions.

If you're trying to say that Iraq could be dangerous, you're obfuscating the issues.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I went over this in a thread several weeks ago and you prompty disappeared. It would be nice if you paid attention so you don't pop up again in a month repeating the same disinformation.

Re. #5, Kay's team was given a single, twenty year old "vial of live C. botulinum Okra B." bacteria -- not toxin -- obtained from a U.S. lab in the early 1980's. It was one of several assorted vials kept in an Iraq scientist's refrigerator for many years. This particular strain of the botulinum bacteria is a less-virulent strain that has never been successfully weaponized. It's good for Botox, not bioterrorism.

Re. #6, note the word "applicable". None of these were useful as biological weapons agents. Some of the research techniques might be useful in bio-weapons research. Like so much of the innuendo in Kay's report, however, he found no evidence of actual proscribed research.

Ricin is not useful as a weapons agent?
How could "continuing work on ricin" not be considered an active WMD program?

Because ricin, although a potent toxin, is NOT an effective agent for weapons of mass destruction. It is more useful for assination and murdering small groups of people. From CNN:

Fact Sheet - What is ricin?

(CNN) -- Ricin is a natural highly toxic compound that comes from castor beans, used to make castor oil.
[ ... ]
Medical experts point out that ricin is nowhere near as powerful a killer as anthrax.

To equal one kilogramme of anthrax, four metric tons of ricin would be needed. On the other hand, anthrax can be treated, if caught early enough.
[ ... ]
Ricin can be produced easily and cheaply but analysts say as a weapon it is most effective on individuals. It is thought a large amount would be needed to make it a weapon of mass destruction -- about four tonnes of spray to kill half the people in an area of 100 square kilometres.

I also note you ignored everything else I pointed out. The bottom line remains that Kay did NOT find WMDs or active WMD programs in Iraq. Yes, Hussein was a brutal thug who wanted NBC weapons again ... someday. That desire is a poor reason to kill over ten thousand people (including over 500 American soldiers) and spend 200 billion dollars plus.

Could you explain to me what the benign use of ricin is?

(For the record, this is a dishonest comment. It suggests the only possibilities are WMD or benign.)

 

[Bowfinger]

Oops, missed this:

Originally posted by: Shanti
Much of the intelligence used was in fact Clinton-era intelligence. The point was that there was no evidence that the status of the WMD's had changed since this intelligence was gathered because Saddam continued to do everything in his power to make sure nobody could verify what was really there.

Yes, in fact, there was plenty of evidence the status had changed in five years:

• Former U.N. lead inspector Scott Ritter said their team had destroyed much of Iraq's WMD capabilities. He also said Clinton's 1998 bombing raids destroyed the last remnants of Iraq's nuclear capabilities and at least "90% to 95%" of Iraq's remaining chemical and biological weapons capabilities.
  
• Iraqi defectors reported all WMDs had been destroyed. In particular, the former head of Iraq's chem or bio weapons program (don't remember which) told us he had direct knowledge that all such weapons were destroyed before he defected. It's interesting that Bush&Co. suppressed this while simultaneously trumpeting other information from this man, e.g., the mobile labs.
  
• Then-current U.N. lead inspector Hans Blix reported no evidence of remaining nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons or weapons agents.

Lots of evidence for those who were open to it. While it may not have been conclusive, it was certainly enough to raise a reasonable doubt. We had plenty of time to let Blix continue his work, to regain current intelligence instead of relying on the moldy Clinton-era reports. It was reckless to charge in with guns blazing based on information we knew was shaky at best.

 

[Gaard]

Shanti - The only way you can say Bush is guilty of lying and intentionally misleading is if you think that he knew all along that there weren't any WMD's but said there were anyway.

Not true. Knowing all along that no WMDs existed but saying otherwise would be lying. But intentionally misleading would be something like using only evidence that supported your agenda while ignoring all other evidence.

Intenionally misleading would be saying something like..."We know that they may have produced up to xxx tons of VX. They have not accounted for any of this."

 

[DT4K]

So ongoing development work on ricin does not qualify as a violation of the U.N. resolutions banning Iraq from developing chemical weapons?

Intentional misleading means persuading people to believe something to be true that you know is not true.
I don't see any evidence that Bush knew there were no WMDs.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Shanti
So ongoing development work on ricin does not qualify as a violation of the U.N. resolutions banning Iraq from developing chemical weapons?

Where the hell did this come from? And what the hell does it have to do with anything that has been said?

Intentional misleading means persuading people to believe something to be true that you know is not true.

Again you are mistaken. Do you not know the difference between a lie and misleading? Maybe you and I have different definitions of 'mislead'. I'm under the impression that to mislead someone, you are purposely affecting their direction of thought. You know, like only emphasizing certain intelligence.

I don't see any evidence that Bush knew there were no WMDs.

Have you seen any evidence that Bush may not have been as sure, certain, or positive of the existence of WMDs as he said he was?

 

[DealMonkey]

How about this: Bush & Co. didn't really know there were WMDs in Iraq, yet they said that they did. Isn't that a lie?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
How about this: Bush & Co. didn't really know there were WMDs in Iraq, yet they said that they did. Isn't that a lie?

Exactly.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Shanti
So ongoing development work on ricin does not qualify as a violation of the U.N. resolutions banning Iraq from developing chemical weapons?

Where the hell did this come from? And what the hell does it have to do with anything that has been said?

It came from Kay and it has to do with the statements made on here that there were no active WMD programs.

Intentional misleading means persuading people to believe something to be true that you know is not true.

Again you are mistaken. Do you not know the difference between a lie and misleading? Maybe you and I have different definitions of 'mislead'. I'm under the impression that to mislead someone, you are purposely affecting their direction of thought. You know, like only emphasizing certain intelligence.

I didn't say he didn't mislead people. I said he didn't intentionally mislead. You can lead someone to a certain conclusion that ends up being incorrect while you thought the conclusion you were leading them to was the correct one. I would call that unintentional misleading.

I don't see any evidence that Bush knew there were no WMDs.

Have you seen any evidence that Bush may not have been as sure, certain, or positive of the existence of WMDs as he said he was?

I think, even though he was wrong, he believed that he did know there were WMDs.
Lets face it, we all think we "know" certain things while in reality all that means is that we are convinced these things are true. It is very rare for us ever to know anything with 100% certainty.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Shanti - The only way you can say Bush is guilty of lying and intentionally misleading is if you think that he knew all along that there weren't any WMD's but said there were anyway.

Not true. Knowing all along that no WMDs existed but saying otherwise would be lying. But intentionally misleading would be something like using only evidence that supported your agenda while ignoring all other evidence.

Intenionally misleading would be saying something like..."We know that they may have produced up to xxx tons of VX. They have not accounted for any of this."

It's not intentional misleading if you think it is true. It is intentional leading.

 

[nutxo]

Kay was the CIA's chief weapons inspector until he resigned last week. The difference between his report of last fall and his statements of recent days is that he was still on the Bush administration's payroll when he wrote the former and a free agent when he made the latter. It's the difference between obfuscation and clarity?political allegiance and public candor.

This paragraph pretty much makes me take anything this man says with a very large grain of salt.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Shanti

I don't see any evidence that Bush knew there were no WMDs.

Have you seen any evidence that Bush may not have been as sure, certain, or positive of the existence of WMDs as he said he was?

I think, even though he was wrong, he believed that he did know there were WMDs.
Lets face it, we all think we "know" certain things while in reality all that means is that we are convinced these things are true. It is very rare for us ever to know anything with 100% certainty.

Hey, you know I'm pretty sure you have a weapon in your pocket. Do you mind if I shoot you in the head and then afterwards I can check to make sure?

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Shanti

I don't see any evidence that Bush knew there were no WMDs.

Have you seen any evidence that Bush may not have been as sure, certain, or positive of the existence of WMDs as he said he was?

I think, even though he was wrong, he believed that he did know there were WMDs.
Lets face it, we all think we "know" certain things while in reality all that means is that we are convinced these things are true. It is very rare for us ever to know anything with 100% certainty.

Hey, you know I'm pretty sure you have a weapon in your pocket. Do you mind if I shoot you in the head and then afterwards I can check to make sure?

To keep your analogy accurate,
If you've seen me pull the weapon out and use it to kill hundreds of thousands of people, including unarmed women and children, then I put it back in my pocket and tell you I don't have it anymore, then several people tell you they saw the weapon still in my pocket, then I say "sure, you can check my left pocket, but NOT my right pocket", ......then yeah, I think it would be reasonable for you to shoot me in the head.

 

[Gaard]

I didn't say he didn't mislead people. I said he didn't intentionally mislead.

I think, even though he was wrong, he believed that he did know there were WMDs.


Shanti, can you answer a quick question for me?

"Bush Apologist"

1) If I were to use this to describe someone, without meaning it as an insult, do you think that maybe you would be a perfect candidate?

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I didn't say he didn't mislead people. I said he didn't intentionally mislead.

I think, even though he was wrong, he believed that he did know there were WMDs.


Shanti, can you answer a quick question for me?

"Bush Apologist"

1) If I were to use this to describe someone, without meaning it as an insult, do you think that maybe you would be a perfect candidate?

By your standard every time someone makes a mistake they are a liar.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I didn't say he didn't mislead people. I said he didn't intentionally mislead.

I think, even though he was wrong, he believed that he did know there were WMDs.


Shanti, can you answer a quick question for me?

"Bush Apologist"

1) If I were to use this to describe someone, without meaning it as an insult, do you think that maybe you would be a perfect candidate?

By your standard every time someone makes a mistake they are a liar.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I didn't say he didn't mislead people. I said he didn't intentionally mislead.

I think, even though he was wrong, he believed that he did know there were WMDs.


Shanti, can you answer a quick question for me?

"Bush Apologist"

1) If I were to use this to describe someone, without meaning it as an insult, do you think that maybe you would be a perfect candidate?

Give me a fvcking break.
Just because I support Bush and the war in Iraq doesn't make me an apologist.
I already said I disagree strongly with him on certain issues and I voted for Clinton twice.

Answer me this question:
If we had found massive stockpiles of WMD's, would you have been saying: "Yeah, Bush was right, it's good that we went into Iraq when we did"?
Be honest. Your response would have been: "Well, there wasn't any evidence that he was actually going to use them and the inspectors could have found them if we gave Saddam more time, and sanctions might have eventually convinced him to destroy them".

Is there anything that you don't follow the party line on?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Gaard
I didn't say he didn't mislead people. I said he didn't intentionally mislead.

I think, even though he was wrong, he believed that he did know there were WMDs.


Shanti, can you answer a quick question for me?

"Bush Apologist"

1) If I were to use this to describe someone, without meaning it as an insult, do you think that maybe you would be a perfect candidate?

By your standard every time someone makes a mistake they are a liar.

Not true Dave.

Wasn't it you who brought intent into the 'did he lie' debate? It's my contention that Bush's intent was to deceive us (USA, world) into thinking that he knew there were WMD, when in fact he didn't know.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Gaard
I didn't say he didn't mislead people. I said he didn't intentionally mislead.

I think, even though he was wrong, he believed that he did know there were WMDs.


Shanti, can you answer a quick question for me?

"Bush Apologist"

1) If I were to use this to describe someone, without meaning it as an insult, do you think that maybe you would be a perfect candidate?

By your standard every time someone makes a mistake they are a liar.

Not true Dave.

Wasn't it you who brought intent into the 'did he lie' debate? It's my contention that Bush's intent was to deceive us (USA, world) into thinking that he knew there were WMD, when in fact he didn't know.

But if you know you know or you think you know you know, then doesn't that mean you really know even if you don't?
I guess it depends on what you know about the definition of the word know.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Gaard
I didn't say he didn't mislead people. I said he didn't intentionally mislead.

I think, even though he was wrong, he believed that he did know there were WMDs.


Shanti, can you answer a quick question for me?

"Bush Apologist"

1) If I were to use this to describe someone, without meaning it as an insult, do you think that maybe you would be a perfect candidate?

Give me a fvcking break.
Just because I support Bush and the war in Iraq doesn't make me an apologist. Absolutely not, you are correct. But saying things like "He misled, but he didn't intentionally mislead us" and "even though he was wrong, he believed he was right" does.
I already said I disagree strongly with him on certain issues and I voted for Clinton twice.

Answer me this question:
If we had found massive stockpiles of WMD's, would you have been saying: "Yeah, Bush was right, it's good that we went into Iraq when we did"?
Be honest. My honest answer would have been that Bush was correct. Your response would have been: "Well, there wasn't any evidence that he was actually going to use them and the inspectors could have found them if we gave Saddam more time, and sanctions might have eventually convinced him to destroy them". No it wouldn't have.

Is there anything that you don't follow the party line on? What party is that?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Gaard
I didn't say he didn't mislead people. I said he didn't intentionally mislead.

I think, even though he was wrong, he believed that he did know there were WMDs.


Shanti, can you answer a quick question for me?

"Bush Apologist"

1) If I were to use this to describe someone, without meaning it as an insult, do you think that maybe you would be a perfect candidate?

By your standard every time someone makes a mistake they are a liar.

Not true Dave.

Wasn't it you who brought intent into the 'did he lie' debate? It's my contention that Bush's intent was to deceive us (USA, world) into thinking that he knew there were WMD, when in fact he didn't know.

But if you know you know or you think you know you know, then doesn't that mean you really know even if you don't?
I guess it depends on what you know about the definition of the word know.

Bill Clinton, is that you?