Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Bush up in the polls, Kerry down  (Read 3136 times)

Freak

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4899
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: Bush up in the polls, Kerry down
« Reply #30 on: September 03, 2004, 09:41:07 PM »
To be totally honest I tend to disagree w/you Jas, however, if you can support your assertions I'd be very interested in them.  I have sneaking suspicion your right on some of these issues; so could you provide the url's for the following assertions please?

"it is FACT that much of the WMD evidence cited by bush et al in the runup to the war had already been discredited or was at least in serious question, and that the presentation of it as otherwise was not honest."

"it is FACT that since our invasion of iraq, the number of terrorist attacks worldwide has gone up considerably"

"a 'healthy forest' act that increases clear-cut logging in our national forests. a 'clean air' act that allows more mercury emissions from coal power plants. the list goes on, but some of us just choose not to read it."

Freak is the best, Freak is the best!  Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
I don't like calling you Freak, I'd rather call you  Normal Nice Guy.

jas9999

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 727
  • Actual Law Student
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Bush up in the polls, Kerry down
« Reply #31 on: September 04, 2004, 12:19:58 PM »

"it is FACT that much of the WMD evidence cited by bush et al in the runup to the war had already been discredited or was at least in serious question, and that the presentation of it as otherwise was not honest."

http://truthout.org/docs_03/printer_061303B.shtml
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/03/28/a2.nat.WMD.0328.html
http://www.ceip.org/files/pdf/Iraq3FullText.pdf
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/they_knew_0802/
none of these are very good, but the best stuff isn't on the internet. i know it's hard to believe these days, but most of the information worth reading in this world doesn't appear online.

Quote
"it is FACT that since our invasion of iraq, the number of terrorist attacks worldwide has gone up considerably"

hmm.. i'm having some problems getting this, because it seems that everyone uses different definitions of 'terrorist' attacks (why am i not surprised). what's not in question, however, is that deaths and injuries from those attacks is rising.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889435/

also, it wasn't clear here, but i wasn't trying to argue that the invasion caused the increase. rather, that the claims that invading iraq would make america safer by decreasing attacks was completely false. i realize, however, that my first post was ambiguous on that point. the state department did admit, though, after first releasing false information, that 2003 had more attacks than 2002, and 2004 is certain to top 2003.
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/33771.htm

Quote
"a 'healthy forest' act that increases clear-cut logging in our national forests. a 'clean air' act that allows more mercury emissions from coal power plants. the list goes on, but some of us just choose not to read it."

http://www.wildcalifornia.org/publications/article-57
http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/McInnis-WaldenBillAnalysis.cfm
and here's one from the forest industry that basically admits the criticisms above:
http://www.safnet.org/archive/0603_hfi.cfm

nekko

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 297
    • View Profile
Re: Bush up in the polls, Kerry down
« Reply #32 on: September 04, 2004, 12:56:09 PM »
Quote
also, it wasn't clear here, but i wasn't trying to argue that the invasion caused the increase. rather, that the claims that invading iraq would make america safer by decreasing attacks was completely false. i realize, however, that my first post was ambiguous on that point. the state department did admit, though, after first releasing false information, that 2003 had more attacks than 2002, and 2004 is certain to top 2003.
This isn't really a relevant metric though is it? I mean clearly it seems that the Chechnyans have stepped up operations but is the increase in those attacks relevant to the effectiveness of the invasion of Iraq? Attacks against Israel? Etc. Also are the attacks against American forces considered "terrorist attacks"?

Quote
"it is FACT that much of the WMD evidence cited by bush et al in the runup to the war had already been discredited or was at least in serious question, and that the presentation of it as otherwise was not honest."
The first link seems to talk about the Niger ev.
1) Don't the Brits still back up this argument and say that the forged documents in question were not the foundation of their analysis?
2) In fmr. Ambassador Wilson's book doesn't he actually say that an Iraqi official met with officials in Niger re a trade in materials (which he assumed meant uranium as opposed to their other export goats or something).
3) Doesn't the specific SOU address state Africa as opposed to Niger specifically?


The link to the CEIP paper does state that although not an immediate threat (which was never argued, the argument was always we cannot wait for them to become an immediate threat) Iraq's, "WMD programs represented a long-term threat that could not be ignored".

There are various problems with the arguments presented in the paper but it'd probably be best to argue that separately.

jas9999

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 727
  • Actual Law Student
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Bush up in the polls, Kerry down
« Reply #33 on: September 04, 2004, 05:39:41 PM »
Quote
also, it wasn't clear here, but i wasn't trying to argue that the invasion caused the increase. rather, that the claims that invading iraq would make america safer by decreasing attacks was completely false. i realize, however, that my first post was ambiguous on that point. the state department did admit, though, after first releasing false information, that 2003 had more attacks than 2002, and 2004 is certain to top 2003.
This isn't really a relevant metric though is it? I mean clearly it seems that the Chechnyans have stepped up operations but is the increase in those attacks relevant to the effectiveness of the invasion of Iraq? Attacks against Israel? Etc. Also are the attacks against American forces considered "terrorist attacks"?
that's the problem i was alluding to previously about definitions. the numbers i originally saw weren't online, and i really don't have time to dig them up again, seeing as i'm now an actual law student and have 300 pages of reading to do by tuesday (this will probably be my last post on the topic)...

Quote
The first link seems to talk about the Niger ev.
1) Don't the Brits still back up this argument and say that the forged documents in question were not the foundation of their analysis?
it was far more than that, though. there was the supposed mobile labs, the 45-minutes until deployment claim that blair used as the main argument...
Quote
2) In fmr. Ambassador Wilson's book doesn't he actually say that an Iraqi official met with officials in Niger re a trade in materials (which he assumed meant uranium as opposed to their other export goats or something).

no. this was another republican smear point, presuming no one would actually look at the book. here's the text, from page 424 (i assure you, my elipses are only removing irrelevant things):

Alan Foley ... told ... Michael Isikoff that there was an item in the report on my trip to Niger that had led him to conclude that there may have been something to the assertion that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from Niger. I can only assume that he was referring to the conversation a Nigerien source of mine had had with Iraqi Minister ... "Baghdad Bob," on the margins of an Organization of African Unity (OAU) meeting in 1999. Could it be that we went to war over a conversation in which the word "uranium"  was not spoken at all? The only metting detailed in my Niger report between an Iraqi and a Nigerien official in which even a whiff of uranium arose did not actually include any spoken reference to uranium, only the notion later expressed by my Nigerien contact that maybe, just maybe, at some point in the indeterminate future the Iraqis might, just might, have wanted to raise the subject of uranium.

Quote
3) Doesn't the specific SOU address state Africa as opposed to Niger specifically?

yes, but when challenged, the only evidence the administration ever came up with to back it was was the claim about niger. nothing else, ever. even the white admitted that the lines should not have been in there; if there was credibly evidence, certainly they would not have backpedaled so quickly. if nothing else, they could have just said (and i was shocked they didn't) 'we have other evidence which must remain secret for national security and intelligence gathering reasons' and let it die there.
 
Quote
The link to the CEIP paper does state that although not an immediate threat (which was never argued, the argument was always we cannot wait for them to become an immediate threat) Iraq's, "WMD programs represented a long-term threat that could not be ignored".

one could argue that the purpose of the sanctions regime of the last decade was to ensure that the long-term threat was not ignored. regardless, the larger point is that there was no credible evidence that hussein had restarted any of his nuclear programs after they were entirely eliminated in the mid-90's after the defection of one of the top scientists.

nekko

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 297
    • View Profile
Re: Bush up in the polls, Kerry down
« Reply #34 on: September 04, 2004, 06:26:09 PM »
Don't have time to argue all your points but
Quote
one could argue that the purpose of the sanctions regime of the last decade was to ensure that the long-term threat was not ignored. regardless, the larger point is that there was no credible evidence that hussein had restarted any of his nuclear programs after they were entirely eliminated in the mid-90's after the defection of one of the top scientists.
Yes but
1) It was pretty clear the sanctions regime was dissolving. France and Russia wanted to get rid of all the sanctions. We know at least the Chinese and probably the Russians were supplying arms to Iraq among other materials. So it's not really credible to argue that sanctions was a legitimate long-term solution since even at the time it was falling apart. Let alone the fact that thousands were dying under the sanctions policy.
2) But the CEIP report clearly remarks on various dual use technologies developed by the Iraqis which could thus be shifted to WMD (defined broadly as chemical/biological/nuclear weapons) production.
3) Prior to the invasion we knew the following:
 A) Saddam Hussein has a long history of trying to develop WMD including nuclear weapons.
 B) Saddam Hussein has a long history of aggressive action (Iran, Kuwait) and though rational will make frequent aggressive gambles.
 C) Saddam Hussein has shown a willingness to use chemical weapons.
 D) Saddam Hussein has shown the ability to hide weapons programs remarkably well as discovered by the surprises found by weapons inspectors following Desert Storm.
 E) The pressure exerted by the US forces in the region which restarted what had been a stalled weapons inspection program could was not sustainable. There was a small window in which we could either get mass inspections with everything opened up or go forth with an invasion. Hussein clearly didn't go for the former option and the possible third option of having limited inspections wasn't really feasible given that it likely would have resulted a return to the status quo situation which itself was untenable.
 F) Although no source argues a cooperative relationship between Al-Qaeda and Iraq both the 9/11 report and the CEIP report cited both grant that there was communication/contact between the parties and at least as far as I know the extent of that contact is not yet fully know or understood.
Given this situation what do you feel would've been the logical course of action?


Re: Wilson will need to research although the source that reported the claim was the WaPo which is hardly a bastion of conservative propaganda. Also doesn't he state in his book that although not speaking of uranium the minister discussed a trade deal with Niger which given the tradeable goods of Niger would point to uranium?

jas9999

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 727
  • Actual Law Student
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Bush up in the polls, Kerry down
« Reply #35 on: September 04, 2004, 07:58:26 PM »
breaking from property reading... i just want to say that i mostly agree with your points about iraq. i was not in favor of the sanctions regime as it was being applied, given how many civilian deaths it was causing. but i fully reject the standard argument that the only choices were continuing with the status quo and full-scale invasion. but i'm not going to address this anymore because it's drifted way off the main point, and is too tempting to spend too much time on.

> Although no source argues a cooperative relationship between Al-Qaeda and Iraq

well, that's exactly what bush and company were arguing in the runup to war, at least implicitly. bush said 'in the war on terror you can't distinguish between OBL and SH.' they also repeatedly talked about 'al quaida training camps in iraq' which were, of course, in the kurdish area under us military control.

on the point of wilson, he makes pains in his book, several times, to stress that the niger government does not have the ability nor means to sell its own uranium. it's managed by an international consortium who control the physical product. so, even if someone in the government wanted to sell it, they'd have no practical way of doing so, regardless of who was sniffing around inquiring about purchases.

Freak

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4899
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: Bush up in the polls, Kerry down
« Reply #36 on: September 06, 2004, 02:45:36 AM »
Thank you Jas & Nekko,

I have learned quite a bit in the last 1/2 hr. of reading.  Much more interesting than my legal writing and civ pro reading, I might add.  At some point I'll voice my opinion, but I'm tired.
Freak is the best, Freak is the best!  Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
I don't like calling you Freak, I'd rather call you  Normal Nice Guy.