Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tory poll surge as trust in Blair collapses
Daily Telegraph

Posted on 06/01/2003 5:57:41 AM PDT by may18

By Toby Helm, Chief Political Correspondent (Filed: 30/05/2003)

The first signs of a solidly-based Tory recovery for a decade are revealed today in an opinion poll that shows a collapse of trust in Tony Blair is beginning to hurt Labour.

A YouGov survey for The Telegraph puts the Conservatives just one point behind Labour, their highest poll rating since 1992 apart from a blip during the fuel crisis in the autumn of 2000.

The results are a further shot in the arm for Iain Duncan Smith four weeks after the Conservatives gained 561 council seats to become the largest party in local government in England. Tory strategists insisted last night that they still had much to do but claimed that policies on university funding, taxation and Europe were striking a chord with voters.

For the first time since Mr Duncan Smith became leader in September 2001, more voters - 19 per cent - believe he would be a better prime minister than the 15 per cent who back Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader.

Click to enlarge The Tories also lie just one point behind Labour on the issue of economic competence, one of Labour's strongest cards at the 2001 general election. The findings will cause alarm in Labour ranks at a time when Mr Blair is under pressure from his backbenchers and the party rank and file to explain why no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq.

The YouGov survey puts Labour on 37 per cent, down three points, the Conservatives on 36 per cent, up four per cent, and the Liberal Democrats on 20 per cent, down one per cent.

A month ago, when the Government was enjoying a post-war rise in popularity - the so-called "Baghdad bounce" - the gap between Labour and Conservatives was eight points.

The Tories' recent pledge to abolish student tuition fees appears to be having a positive influence. Their proposals stand in contrast to Labour's plans to allow universities to charge up to £3,000 a year for courses.

Although 52 per cent of voters agreed that universities are "chronically underfunded", 43 per cent said they were "more sympathetic to the Conservatives" after their promise to scrap tuition fees. Among parents and students the figure was 53 per cent.

Even more worrying for Mr Blair is the dramatic fall in trust in his Government.

Just 29 per cent think that, on balance, the Government has been honest and trustworthy - almost half the level, 56 per cent, of the 2001 election. On the other hand, 62 per cent said it was not honest - more than double the 2001 level.

Mr Blair's personal ratings are also suffering - 38 per cent now think he would make the best prime minister, down five per cent on April and 14 per cent on 2001.

Strategists believe Labour's splits over the euro are harming the party in the same way that divisions dented Tory popularity during the later years of John Major's premiership.

Labour officials point out that the party is, in historical terms, still in a remarkably strong mid-term position. Most governing parties languish well behind the Opposition in mid-term. To maintain the momentum, Mr Duncan Smith is planning a major speech - entitled New Europe: Old Europe - next month in which he will outline his thinking on Britain's relations with the EU and Europe's relationship with America.

One aide to Mr Duncan Smith said the party was finally getting its ideas across. He said: "It's one thing to have the policies, quite another to communicate them. We are beginning to do that."


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: conservativeparty; ianduncansmith; labour; labourparty; tonyblair; tories; uk; unitedkingdom
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-139 next last
To: quebecois
"I am currently giving Bush the benefit of the doubt. ..Either way, the WMD argument was bogus." ~ quebecois

No kidding?

Feb. 17, 1998

Transcript of Bill "Kick the Can on Down the Road" Clinton's address to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff on Iraq:

"Please be seated. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President, for your remarks and your leadership. Thank you, Secretary Cohen, for the superb job you have done here at the Pentagon and on this most recent very difficult problem. Thank you, General Shelton, for being the right person at the right time.

Thank you, General Ralston, and the members of the joint chiefs, General Zinni, Secretary Albright, Secretary Slater, DCIA Tenet, Mr. Bowles, Mr. Berger, Senator Robb thank you for being here and Congressman Skelton. Thank you very much, and for your years of service to America and your passionate patriotism both of you. And to the members of our armed forces and others who work here to protect our national security.

I have just received a very fine briefing from our military leadership on the status of our forces in the Persian Gulf. Before I left the Pentagon, I wanted to talk to you and all those whom you represent the men and women of our military. You, your friends and your colleagues are on the front lines of this crisis in Iraq.

I want you, and I want the American people, to hear directly from me what is at stake for America in the Persian Gulf, what we are doing to protect the peace, the security, the freedom we cherish, why we have taken the position we have taken.

I was thinking as I sat up here on the platform, of the slogan that the first lady gave me for her project on the millennium, which was, remembering the past and imagining the future.

Now, for that project, that means preserving the Star Spangled Banner and the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and it means making an unprecedented commitment to medical research and to get the best of the new technology. But that's not a bad slogan for us when we deal with more sober, more difficult, more dangerous matters.

Those who have questioned the United States in this moment, I would argue, are living only in the moment. They have neither remembered the past nor imagined the future.

So first, let's just take a step back and consider why meeting the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is important to our security in the new era we are entering.

This is a time of tremendous promise for America. The superpower confrontation has ended; on every continent democracy is securing for more and more people the basic freedoms we Americans have come to take for granted. Bit by bit the information age is chipping away at the barriers economic, political and social that once kept people locked in and freedom and prosperity locked out.

But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in this room know very well that this is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas.

And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.

I want the American people to understand first the past how did this crisis come about?

And I want them to understand what we must do to protect the national interest, and indeed the interest of all freedom-loving people in the world.

Remember, as a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf War, the United Nations demanded not the United States the United Nations demanded, and Saddam Hussein agreed to declare within 15 days this is way back in 1991 within 15 days his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them, to make a total declaration. That's what he promised to do.

The United Nations set up a special commission of highly trained international experts called UNSCOM, to make sure that Iraq made good on that commitment.

We had every good reason to insist that Iraq disarm.

Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it not once, but many times, in a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons, against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary, and even against his own people.

And during the Gulf War, Saddam launched Scuds against Saudi Arabia, Israel and Bahrain.

Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment.

Consider just some of the facts:

Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War.

When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports.

For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan.

He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.

Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks.

Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.

Now listen to this, what did it admit?

It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.

And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

As if we needed further confirmation, you all know what happened to his son-in-law when he made the untimely decision to go back to Iraq.

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM.

They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door.

And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it.

Despite Iraq's deceptions, UNSCOM has nevertheless done a remarkable job.

Its inspectors the eyes and ears of the civilized world have uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf War.

This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for chemical and biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other deadly agents.

Over the past few months, as they have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions.

By imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large by comparison, when you hear all this business about presidential sites reflect our sovereignty, why do you want to come into a residence, the White House complex is 18 acres. So you'll have some feel for this.

One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. That's about how many acres did you tell me it was? 40,000 acres. We're not talking about a few rooms here with delicate personal matters involved.

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them.

The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.

Now, against that background, let us remember the past here. It is against that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made clear our preference for a diplomatic solution.

The inspection system works. The inspection system has worked in the face of lies, stonewalling, obstacle after obstacle after obstacle. The people who have done that work deserve the thanks of civilized people throughout the world.

It has worked. That is all we want. And if we can find a diplomatic way to do what has to be done, to do what he promised to do at the end of the Gulf War, to do what should have been done within 15 days within 15 days of the agreement at the end of the Gulf War, if we can find a diplomatic way to do that, that is by far our preference.

But to be a genuine solution, and not simply one that glosses over the remaining problem, a diplomatic solution must include or meet a clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard.

Iraq must agree and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to these sites anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution or diminishment of the integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in place.

Now those terms are nothing more or less than the essence of what he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.

The Security Council, many times since, has reiterated this standard.

If he accepts them, force will not be necessary.

If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences.

I ask all of you to remember the record here what he promised to do within 15 days of the end of the Gulf War, what he repeatedly refused to do, what we found out in 1995, what the inspectors have done against all odds.

We have no business agreeing to any resolution of this that does not include free, unfettered access to the remaining sites by people who have integrity and proven confidence in the inspection business. That should be our standard. That's what UNSCOM has done, and that's why I have been fighting for it so hard. And that's why the United States should insist upon it.

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal.

And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.

Now we have spent several weeks building up our forces in the Gulf, and building a coalition of like-minded nations.

Our force posture would not be possible without the support of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the GCC states and Turkey. Other friends and allies have agreed to provide forces, bases or logistical support, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and Portugal, Denmark and the Netherlands, Hungary and Poland and the Czech Republic, Argentina, Iceland, Australia and New Zealand and our friends and neighbors in Canada.

That list is growing, not because anyone wants military action, but because there are people in this world who believe the United Nations resolutions should mean something, because they understand what UNSCOM has achieved, because they remember the past, and because they can imagine what the future will be depending on what we do now.

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.

We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.

We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.

I am quite confident, from the briefing I have just received from our military leaders, that we can achieve the objective and secure our vital strategic interests.

Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity.

But it can and will leave him significantly worse off than he is now in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors.

And he will know that the international community continues to have a will to act if and when he threatens again.

Following any strike, we will carefully monitor Iraq's activities with all the means at our disposal.

If he seeks to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction, we will be prepared to strike him again.

The economic sanctions will remain in place until Saddam complies fully with all U.N. resolutions.

Consider this already these sanctions have denied him $110 billion. Imagine how much stronger his armed forces would be today, how many more weapons of mass destruction operations he would have hidden around the country if he had been able to spend even a small fraction of that amount for a military rebuilding.

We will continue to enforce a no-fly zone from the southern suburbs of Baghdad to the Kuwait border and in northern Iraq, making it more difficult for Iraq to walk over Kuwait again or threaten the Kurds in the north.

Now, let me say to all of you here as all of you know the weightiest decision any president ever has to make is to send our troops into harm's way.

And force can never be the first answer. But sometimes, it's the only answer.

You are the best prepared, best equipped, best trained fighting force in the world. And should it prove necessary for me to exercise the option of force, your commanders will do everything they can to protect the safety of all the men and women under their command.

No military action, however, is risk-free. I know that the people we may call upon in uniform are ready. The American people have to be ready as well.

Dealing with Saddam Hussein requires constant vigilance. We have seen that constant vigilance pays off. But it requires constant vigilance. Since the Gulf War, we have pushed back every time Saddam has posed a threat.

When Baghdad plotted to assassinate former President Bush, we struck hard at Iraq's intelligence headquarters.

When Saddam threatened another invasion by amassing his troops in Kuwait along the Kuwaiti border in 1994, we immediately deployed our troops, our ships, our planes, and Saddam backed down.

When Saddam forcefully occupied Irbil in northern Iraq, we broadened our control over Iraq's skies by extending the no-fly zone.

But there is no better example, again I say, than the U.N. weapons inspection system itself. Yes, he has tried to thwart it in every conceivable way, but the discipline, determination, year-in-year-out effort of these weapons inspectors is doing the job. And we seek to finish the job.

Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act.

But Saddam Hussein could end this crisis tomorrow simply by letting the weapons inspectors complete their mission.

He made a solemn commitment to the international community to do that and to give up his weapons of mass destruction a long time ago now.

One way or the other, we are determined to see that he makes good on his own promise.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st.

In this century, we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and when necessary action.

In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.

But if we act as one, we can safeguard our interests and send a clear message to every would-be tyrant and terrorist that the international community does have the wisdom and the will and the way to protect peace and security in a new era.

That is the future I ask you all to imagine. That is the future I ask our allies to imagine.

If we look at the past and imagine that future, we will act as one together.

And we still have, God willing, a chance to find a diplomatic resolution to this, and if not, God willing, the chance to do the right thing for our children and grandchildren.

Thank you very much.



51 posted on 06/01/2003 5:39:25 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (Marxist DemocRATS, Nader-Greens, and Religious Zealots = a clear and present danger to our Freedoms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: may18
Interesting. The articles I read seemed to imply that Blair's poll numbers had dropped in the area of "trust" due to the WMD issue.
Liberals over here are sure exploiting this issue in an attempt to chip away a Bush's high poll numbers when it comes to "trust". But I don't think it's working.
52 posted on 06/01/2003 6:08:48 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan

The Great Bullshitter Farts Again

sigh..............
53 posted on 06/01/2003 6:19:05 PM PDT by BullDog108 (Feles mala! Cur cista non uteris? Stramentum novum in ea posui.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: quebecois
I'll believe that Bush is serious about the War on Terrorism as soon as he does something about our open, porous borders.

War on Terrorism:

Patriot Act, check.
War against Iraq, check
Secure the borders, nope

Explain it to me, folks!

54 posted on 06/01/2003 6:38:25 PM PDT by Fraulein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Fraulein
Nothing at all was done about the border problem post 9/11. So why should we expect anything to be done about it now?
55 posted on 06/01/2003 6:43:27 PM PDT by Fraulein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: quebecois
...the "noble lie" theory of leadership (ie: the elite must tell necessary lies to the masses to achieve desirable goals)

And this is exactly what the elites who are trying to shake down America by promoting the ludicrous Global Warming Hoax are doing. Two examples of prominent elitists being less than honest in their campaign to decieve the gullible and scientifically diseducated masses:

First, climatologist Steven Schneider from Stanford and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts.

On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people, we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change.

To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. ? Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

From an interview with Schneider in the October 1989 issue of Discover magazine

Second, former Colorado Senator and Deputy Undersecretary of State Tim Wirth, who presently heads Ted Turners billion dollar fund to reduce world population:

"What we've got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue," said Sen. Timothy E. Wirth, D-Colo., the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's point man on that issue and chairman of the Alliance to Save Energy. "Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

As reported in

REPORTS - Less Burning, No Tears

By ROCHELLE L. STANFIELD, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Saturday, Aug. 13, 1988

56 posted on 06/01/2003 7:03:21 PM PDT by StopGlobalWhining (Vote Bush '04 - Extend "assault weapons" ban - Support Open Borders - S517 US Kyoto - UN Global Gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Imal
"You flat out accuse the leadership of the war in Iraq with duplicity"

First of all, as I've said on numerous occasions, I'm willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. I think that he was probably manipulated by those around him who fed him slanted information.

But the major reasons that were given for the war simply don't add up. Even if some WMD are found (a dubious assertion at this point), Iraq was supposed to be awash in tons of chemicals and biotoxins. Nothing has been found anywhere. If Bush really was misled, shouldn't some heads be rolling? Its bad enough that our intel people were totally blindsided by 9/11 (an horrific failure on the part of our intelligence community for which no one has been really held responsible, to my knowledge), now they appear to have blown one of the most critical missions since 9/11.

And what about the Osama connection? Other than a flimsy story about Iraqi intelligence in Prague, there really hasn't been much in the way of proof that Saddam's govt was involved with the muslim terrorists.

Meanwhile, our soldiers are stuck as occupiers in an increasingly hostile Iraq....getting picked off at a rate of a couple a week.

I'm sorry if my questioning offends you, but there are plenty things to criticize here.

There are several nations in the middle east that have many more of osama's terrorists than Iraq (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, for starters). And several also have WMD programs (Pakistan and Syria). So...why Iraq? The fact that the stated reasons for the invasion don't add up fans the suspicion that some people in power had ulterior motives.

57 posted on 06/01/2003 7:38:50 PM PDT by quebecois
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: quebecois
I'm sorry if my questioning offends you, but there are plenty things to criticize here.

No, I'm not offended at all by actual questioning, so no worries there. However, I do take offense to the idea that your statements somehow constitute questions, in apparent defiance of the rules of the English language.

I refer you specifically to your Post #2, and challenge you to point out so much as a single question in your post. You know, the post I originally responded to. Don't waste your time doing a search for a question mark there, because there are none.

Believe me, I am no enemy of a questioning mind. But I am not going to buy your argument that your statements of "facts" somehow transcend the laws of logic and assume the status of questions. You can repeat that false notion until you're blue in the face, but you aren't going to convince me of something that is patently untrue.

This is about as clear I can get without breaking out the finger puppets for you.

Your opinions are not questions, they are statements, and your statements have no more weight of truth that any other opinion expressed here. Why do you insist on vainly trying to convince me otherwise?

58 posted on 06/01/2003 7:50:40 PM PDT by Imal (If I had a dime for every time Bush's critics were right about him, I'd need to borrow a dime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: quebecois
There will come a day when you will eat your words in post 2. And I'll be there to spoon feed them to you.

Bookmarked.

59 posted on 06/01/2003 8:16:59 PM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Nice to hear you concede that your "inescapable conclusion" might be escapable. Wish I'd known about this phenomenon of the escapable inescapable conclusion back when I was searching for new ways to tease my sister during Easter Egg hunts.
60 posted on 06/01/2003 8:28:07 PM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
Once upon a time Labour believed in Government ownership of the means of production. That means state ownership of mines, factories, and major industries. In response to Maggie Thatcher's several successful runs, Labour deleted that plank from their platform, under the leadership of Tony Blair. The election seemed to be mostly about whether Maggie was out of touch with the commoners after many many years in Number 10 Downing St.

There still are some unreformed socialists on the Labour team, but as a whole, the state ownership was tried and found wanting. Labour is now more centrist Democratic Socialists. They have the additional wiggle of appointing tons of "sit there for life" peers to their House of Lords, as payment for services rendered to various civil servants.

Tories are the Conservative Party, and would limit peerage to people who perform services to the Crown, think generals instead of career social workers. The Tories tend to think that people should work for part of their life.

With regards to the EU, Tories would keep the pound and remain soverign, and Labour would hand over monetary policy to France and Germany. Tories would also keep the UK-US and commonwealth special relationships, Labour would build counter vailing relationships with the European Continent.

Volumes have been written. Above comes from a short lunchtime chat with a UK engineer on a visit.
61 posted on 06/01/2003 9:01:14 PM PDT by donmeaker (Time is Relative, at least in my family.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: quebecois
I understood that Huey Long was actually shot by accident by at least one of his bodyguards. He ended up between the body guard and the guy that his body guards decided to shoot. OOPS!

On the whole, I agree that the 2 percent of crazies lead to better manners on the part of the politicians. The very unpredictability of the US citizen acts as a deterrent.



62 posted on 06/01/2003 9:06:19 PM PDT by donmeaker (Time is Relative, at least in my family.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: quebecois
You have Strauss backwards. Strauss favored careful and unpleasant truths, not noble lies and vacuous slogans.
63 posted on 06/01/2003 9:08:36 PM PDT by FreedomFlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
Yes, but how do you prove that you don't have something?
64 posted on 06/01/2003 9:14:56 PM PDT by plusone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
He's in Minsk with his colleague-in-insanity, Lukashenka.
65 posted on 06/01/2003 9:20:12 PM PDT by plusone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
Interesting. The articles I read seemed to imply that Blair's poll numbers had dropped in the area of "trust" due to the WMD issue.

Thats why the articles are very misleading, the tories along with blair and against his own labour party's wishes, were for the war.

The real reason he's dropping, with his party, is his fight against a referendum about british soverignty, basically he just wants to give it up to the EU, while the people strongly oppose it.

66 posted on 06/01/2003 9:28:58 PM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: quebecois
You seem to be devastated that we liberated a country from a ruthless dictator. (Friend of Jean Chretien, aren't you?)
67 posted on 06/01/2003 9:37:07 PM PDT by Mihalis ((just kidding, man))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: quebecois
The fact that the stated reasons for the invasion don't add up fans the suspicion that some people in power had ulterior motives.

Such as?

68 posted on 06/01/2003 9:47:23 PM PDT by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: The Iguana
If you can answer post #54 for me, then I myself might cease speculating on the possibility of ulterior motives.
69 posted on 06/01/2003 10:13:41 PM PDT by Fraulein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: quebecois
while ignoring the interests of broad middle america

Well, I'm still waiting for the "Middle American Radicals" to "rise up" like your pal Sam Francis said they would back in 1991. Maybe we would take you Rockfordites more seriously if they weren't such a bunch of clowns and cultists.

70 posted on 06/01/2003 11:29:55 PM PDT by Clemenza (East side, West side, all around the town. Tripping the light fantastic on the sidewalks of New York)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude; Matchett-PI
Where is Saddam Hussein? We have been unable to find him. He, therefore, must never have existed.

This oft-repeated false analogy is ridiculous. Saddam Hussein could easily vanish into a hole in a basement wall. 15,000 to 30,000 chemical munitions; thousands of tons of weaponized chemical arms; hundreds of gallons of biological agents; a reconstituted nuclear program with procurement of uranium & missile cores; a fleet of remote-guided WMD drones; dozens of mobile biochem laboratories; and dozens of Scud missile delivery systems could not...

71 posted on 06/02/2003 1:41:13 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
No, I suspect you've misconstrued my meaning. As I clearly stated, the prewar WMD thesis which I've accurately described is strictly defunct. It is incorrect, false, wrong, illusory, unreal, whatever term you prefer. There is no conceivable possibility in my view that it could prove remotely accurate.

The view which may be incorrect is that the foremost explanation for that innacurate intelligence appears to have been misleading information from the Iraqi opposition groups.

72 posted on 06/02/2003 3:56:43 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Dude, here's some food for thought: If we were so horrifically wrong about WMDs in Iraq, why haven't France (especially France), Germany, and Russia been shouting neener, neener, neener from the rooftops? Haven't you wondered why they've been so quiet on the subject? Why there've been no recriminations, accusations, told ya so's? Hmmmmmm...?
73 posted on 06/02/2003 4:05:39 AM PDT by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
Because they no longer have anything to gain, and much to lose. All those reasons people talked about over why they would eventually come around in the UN (Russian oil contracts, U.S. bases in Germany, French trade & intl. standing, etc.,etc.) are still very much around. It was one thing when they thought they could derail the war altogether; quite another now that the war is over & we have Iraq. They want all sorts of things from us (as the G-8 Conference is currently demonstrating) that they won't get if they continue antagonizing the Bush administration.
74 posted on 06/02/2003 4:26:55 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
dozens of mobile biochem laboratories; and dozens of Scud missile delivery systems could not...

Found it!

Oh, I doubt Saddam Hussein, he of the vast palaces, is in a "hole".

75 posted on 06/02/2003 5:03:54 AM PDT by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
It's not right to tax a 20 year old farmer so that some brat who is going to make plenty throughout his life can go to college for free.

Of course not. But this policy makes sense once you understand the motivation: universal, compulsory "education" from birth through 22 years of age.

76 posted on 06/02/2003 5:07:56 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
If you want the comparable analogy to what had been proposed as Iraq's WMD capability prior to the war, that would be the entire Baath Party. Evidence of the Baath Party is quite undeniable and easily identified, so far as I can tell. Finding Saddam Hussein himself would be analogous to finding the 'crown jewel' of Iraq's alleged WMD infrastructure - say, the 29,984 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents to which President Bush alluded in his State of the Union address.
77 posted on 06/02/2003 5:15:46 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
If you want the comparable analogy . . .

I've got an analogy to your last reply: Have you ever heard of Calvinball?

78 posted on 06/02/2003 5:28:06 AM PDT by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
Actually, I take that back, the "crown jewel" of the allegations would probably have to be facilities for electromagnetic isotope separation and gas centrifuge enrichment as well as "more than 10 tonnes of uranium and one tonne of slightly enriched uranium ... in its possession" as alleged in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee back in August.
79 posted on 06/02/2003 5:31:59 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
Have you ever heard of logical fallacies?

Check out this one: False Analogy.

80 posted on 06/02/2003 5:36:06 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
Incidentally, one final point before I leave this issue alone for good. I am not arguing that Iraq has nothing (much less that they never had anything) in terms of WMDs. What I am arguing is that the preponderance of the evidence now strongly suggests that anything they may have was absurdly trivial compared to what they were alleged to have. I believe I've accurately described the prewar public characterization of Iraq's WMD capability. Others may decide for themselves whether what's eventually shown to be present remotely approaches what had been alleged prior to the war.
81 posted on 06/02/2003 5:46:47 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
I checked out your link. They forgot "bifurcation". This is the method of generating two (or more) tangential issues so as to avoid discussion of the main topic. I suppose it has elements of the straw man and others, but I've found that anyone who makes 3 distinct replies to a single post is usually losing the argument -- badly.
82 posted on 06/02/2003 6:02:41 AM PDT by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
My argument with you in particular is simple:

Where is Saddam Hussein? We have been unable to find him. He, therefore, must never have existed.

That is a false analogy - period. It's a cute repartee, but nonetheless a false analogy.

83 posted on 06/02/2003 6:11:46 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Incidentally, one final point before I leave this issue alone for good.

Not a logical fallacy, but an FR technique: "scurrying".

I am not arguing that Iraq has nothing (much less that they never had anything) in terms of WMDs. What I am arguing is that the preponderance of the evidence now strongly suggests that anything they may have was absurdly trivial compared to what they were alleged to have.

Wow. Let's see . . . False Dilemma, From Ignorance, Straw Man

I believe I've accurately described the prewar public characterization of Iraq's WMD capability.

Untestability.

Others may decide for themselves whether what's eventually shown to be present remotely approaches what had been alleged prior to the war.

First: Your memory might be faulty. What you "recall" is mostly the Anti-Bush forces' representation of the prewar characterization. Second: the quantity of Saddam's WMD's is the biggest Straw Man in the logical fallacy cornfield. It only takes one. Saddam was supposed to have zero. None. Zilch. Nada. UN resolutions said so. The game was over when the mobile bio weapons lab was found.

It would be like searching a meth lab, finding tons of drug processing equipment but no meth. (I'm sure that's a false analogy, too, but it's the best option I have to making my point. I'm unable to speak . . . slowly . . . and . . . carefully . . . with single syllable words so you can understand.) The search wasn't a failure. The reason we're so concerned we haven't found the germs and chemicals is that they might have gone across the western border.

84 posted on 06/02/2003 6:39:40 AM PDT by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
Not a logical fallacy, but an FR technique: "scurrying".

No, it's recognition of an effort in futility. I find rhetorical word games & debate over semantics tiresome. Moreover, I don't really care whether I persuade you or not. Since my statements are clear & unequivocal, your persuasion is really all we would be arguing about at this point and I'm simply not interested. Sorry.

If you wish to advance an unambiguous argument, then I will resume the debate on its merits. If you want to play at rhetorical jousting, I decline to participate. Have a nice day.

85 posted on 06/02/2003 6:46:27 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
If you want to play at rhetorical jousting, I decline to participate.

Wait a minute! You started the whole "logical fallacy" business. My second response used your language, your link.

If you wish to advance an unambiguous argument,

Ambiguity is in the eye of the beholder (or the mind of the confused, to be more accurate).

then I will resume the debate on its merits. . . . Have a nice day.

Oh, did I tell you about the biggest trait of the scurriers? They never actually leave the debate. They trumpet their exit so as to get in the last word.

86 posted on 06/02/2003 6:53:46 AM PDT by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
Fine. What are we debating. Formulate your argument in a coherent statement and I will reply to whatever that is.
87 posted on 06/02/2003 7:00:13 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
Make that second period a question mark. I will return in 15-20 minutes. Then, we may debate whatever it is you wish to debate since we're obviously not going to debate my original statements.
88 posted on 06/02/2003 7:02:43 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
I will return in 15-20 minutes. Then, we may debate whatever it is you wish to debate since we're obviously not going to debate my original statements.

But you told me to "Have a nice day". But now you're back. Those are mutually exclusive. Look at #84. It's there. I'm not going to bother to cut and paste yet again.

89 posted on 06/02/2003 7:11:12 AM PDT by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: quebecois
The stated purpose for going to war with Iraq was regime change. The reason for that change was stated as the fact that Saddam had failed to disclose what he had done with his known WMD and was in violation of numerous UN agreements. That fact has not changed and was not duplicitous in any way.

There were, of course, other reasons for removing Saddam from power, but sometimes the simplest statement is the best choice. We still don't know where Saddam's weapons are, but it seems obvious that if he no longer possessed them that he would have revealed their ultimate disposition, as agreed in the UN resolution, rather than face invasion. Don't you agree?
90 posted on 06/02/2003 7:13:15 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv; AmishDude; quebecois; Jorge; Bonaparte; All
"Saddam Hussein could easily vanish into a hole in a basement wall. 15,000 to 30,000 chemical munitions; thousands of tons of weaponized chemical arms; hundreds of gallons of biological agents; a reconstituted nuclear program with procurement of uranium & missile cores; a fleet of remote-guided WMD drones; dozens of mobile biochem laboratories; and dozens of Scud missile delivery systems could not..."

The answer to your concerns is found in my two earlier posts, HERE and HERE

Did you miss them? If so, please read and analyze the information carefully and provide the evidence that intellectually honest, knowledgeable people will recognize as legitimately refuting the points with which you disagree.

91 posted on 06/02/2003 7:29:24 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (Marxist DemocRATS, Nader-Greens, and Religious Zealots = a clear and present danger to our Freedoms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
Very well, then. We will debate your post #84.

am not arguing that Iraq has nothing (much less that they never had anything) in terms of WMDs. What I am arguing is that the preponderance of the evidence now strongly suggests that anything they may have was absurdly trivial compared to what they were alleged to have.

Wow. Let's see . . . False Dilemma, From Ignorance, Straw Man

It is none of these things. If you wish to level the accusation, then demonstrate its veracity (as I did with your False Analogy earlier). Explain how that statement is a False Dilemma, Argument from Ignorance, or Straw Man.

I believe I've accurately described the prewar public characterization of Iraq's WMD capability.

Untestability.

That statement is by no stretch of the imagination untestable. One need merely review statements by administration figures and subsequent media accounts. I would initiate the 'test' here:

Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction Programs CIA Report

UK Iraq Dossier In Full

2003 State Of The Union Address

Vice President Speaks at VFW 103rd National Convention

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell Addresses the U.N. Security Council

Others may decide for themselves whether what's eventually shown to be present remotely approaches what had been alleged prior to the war.

First: Your memory might be faulty.

My memory is not faulty - I remember quite distinctly the allegations and the perceptions which were advanced prior the war. Whatever the case may be, others should feel free to decide the above on the basis of their own memory. My memory is of no consequence. In their own minds, they know of what I speak..

What you "recall" is mostly the Anti-Bush forces' representation of the prewar characterization.

What I recall - as demonstrated - is based in great part on those sources linked above. I would not characterize any of those as "mostly Anti-Bush forces" by any stretch..

Second: the quantity of Saddam's WMD's is the biggest Straw Man in the logical fallacy cornfield. It only takes one. Saddam was supposed to have zero. None. Zilch.UN resolutions said so.

I never stated otherwise. Whatever assumption to the contrary exists nowhere but in your own fevered imagination.

The game was over when the mobile bio weapons lab was found.

I commented on these in another thread. This was my remark:

In my personal assessment (with severely limited information), the two truck-mounted processing units were used for a clandestine biological program at some point or another. In my observation and extrapolation (seeing them on TV and reading publicly disclosed analysis) they were abandoned quite some while ago. I have little doubt that they will be used to bolster the WMD reports, in any event, which Blair stated will be released at some future time.

It would be like searching a meth lab, finding tons of drug processing equipment but no meth...

Indeed, it would. None of my statements were meant to indicate otherwise, as that post from a tangential thread should demonstrate. Any assumption to the contrary exists nowhere except in your own fevered imagination.

The search wasn't a failure. The reason we're so concerned we haven't found the germs and chemicals is that they might have gone across the western border.

Nah. That's BS. The reason the administration is so concerned is because they wish to establish the veracity of the intelligence and the credibility of the war effort. This above may be the reason you're concerned, but that's all it is..

92 posted on 06/02/2003 8:11:32 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
I do not have any disagreement whatsoever with the proposition that Iraq developed and possessed WMDs in the past, as iterated by the first article. I have no basis upon which to draw a conclusion regarding the speculated transfer of WMDs to Syria, as no evidence establishing that allegation has been made public.
93 posted on 06/02/2003 8:32:42 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
  1. False Dilemma: You indicate two choices. Either the administration matches your characterization of the necessity of WMDs or they have failed to prove their case.
  2. From Ignorance: We haven't found "enough", therefore, "enough" does not exist.
  3. Straw Man: You've changed the entire terms of the debate. Now it is no longer enough that there be evidence of WMDs, but that there be enough sufficient to your standars. Recall that intelligence is sparse because Saddam ran a police state!

(as I did with your False Analogy earlier)

You are taking it so seriously! Of course it was a false analogy, you . . . .

*sigh* It was a joke.

Untestability.

One need merely review statements by administration figures and subsequent media accounts.

You review them. And quote them. You can link the Encyclopaedia Brittanica if you want, I ain't clickin'. I'm not going to do your work for you.

Oh, and if they said Iraq has x and we find x/10, that doesn't mean the other 9x/10 does not exist. Just remember that the US military found banned (not-necessarily-WMD) weapons that Blix was unable to find in over a year of resumed inspections.

My memory is not faulty - I remember quite distinctly the allegations and the perceptions which were advanced prior the war. Whatever the case may be, others should feel free to decide the above on the basis of their own memory. My memory is of no consequence. In their own minds, they know of what I speak.

How arrogant. "Well, those of us right-thinking people know, and if you don't agree you're just not willing to admit what's there. Wink, wink."

It only takes one [WMD].

I never stated otherwise. Whatever assumption to the contrary exists nowhere but in your own fevered imagination.

Then what are you complaining about? Saddam had a year to hide and destroy anything. You can't possibly expect to find all that Saddam is suspected of having.

The game was over when the mobile bio weapons lab was found.

In my personal assessment

Well, hold the phone right there, QED and all that.

(with severely limited information)

No? Really?

the two truck-mounted processing units were used for a clandestine biological program at some point or another. . . . they were abandoned quite some while ago.

They were illegal in 1991. What were they using them for in 12 years? Bookmobiles?

It is extraordinary to me the cynicism with which you approach the US administration and yet you fail to apply it to the former Baathists.

Any assumption to the contrary exists nowhere except in your own fevered imagination.

Get a new adjective, huh?

The search wasn't a failure. The reason we're so concerned we haven't found the germs and chemicals is that they might have gone across the western border.

Nah. That's BS.

Oh, never mind then. What was I thinking? I mean we all know there were no military objectives. Just PR considerations. And, hey, who cares if Syria has WMDs? Right? Right?

94 posted on 06/02/2003 9:18:02 AM PDT by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
False Dilemma: You indicate two choices. Either the administration matches your characterization of the necessity of WMDs or they have failed to prove their case.

If by "prove their case" you mean prove the case for war, then your statement is incorrect. I am not presenting that choice, but rather, you have assumed that in your own fevered imagination.

From Ignorance: We haven't found "enough", therefore, "enough" does not exist.

Lack of proof is not proof, but lack of proof is lack of proof. What I have alleged is lack of proof. Anything further is an assumption which exists nowhere aside from your own fevered imagination.

Straw Man: You've changed the entire terms of the debate. Now it is no longer enough that there be evidence of WMDs, but that there be enough sufficient to your standars [sic].

That is false. I have never claimed that - in order to justify war - there need be sufficient evidence of WMDs to establish that the prewar WMD thesis be correct. I have simply stated that the prewar WMD thesis is strictly defunct and that this raises substantive questions regarding U.S. intelligence. Any further inference of how much I consider "enough" resides purely in your fevered imagination.

You are taking it so seriously! Of course it was a false analogy, you . . . .

Thank you for the concession.

You review them. And quote them. You can link the Encyclopaedia Brittanica if you want, I ain't clickin'. I'm not going to do your work for you.

I have refuted the charge of Untestability which was the only requirement in this debate. Whether you see fit to actually carry through and test the statements is entirely your concern.

Oh, and if they said Iraq has x and we find x/10, that doesn't mean the other 9x/10 does not exist.

Of course not. That would be an Argument From Ignorance. What it does mean as that we haven't proven the other 9x/10 exists, which is what I've stated. If you choose to believe that the other 9x/10 exists despite the fact that it has not been proven to exist, then your faith is none of my concern.

Just remember that the US military found banned (not-necessarily-WMD) weapons that Blix was unable to find in over a year of resumed inspections.

I never argued to the contrary, nor was my original intent to suggest otherwise. If you drew that assumption, well you know the only place it exists..

How arrogant. "Well, those of us right-thinking people know, and if you don't agree you're just not willing to admit what's there. Wink, wink."

Deal with it. You have resorted to juvenile insults several times thus far. I have chosen to leave my arguments to stand on their own merits. If you did not desire a hostile debate then you should not have invited one..

Then what are you complaining about? Saddam had a year to hide and destroy anything. You can't possibly expect to find all that Saddam is suspected of having.

I have not complained, though others certainly have on the same basis as that which I've stated. I have described circumstances as they appear - whatever further implications you've inferred exist only in your.. well, you know..

Well, hold the phone right there, QED and all that.

If you had read the original exchange (I did explicitly state that this was from a tangential thread) then you would know that the question to which I replied was an explicit request for my personal assessment. But, of course, you did not read that thread but rather seized on whatever you perceived as an opening for another of your snide, infantile jabs..

They were illegal in 1991. What were they using them for in 12 years? Bookmobiles?

Of course they were. Again, the comment here was only meant to express my view of what they signify. The phrasing was appropriate in its original context. But, then, you don't wish to debate on substance.. Do you?

It is extraordinary to me the cynicism with which you approach the US administration and yet you fail to apply it to the former Baathists.

I approach all governments with cynicism as one might deduce from my screenname. The one however, does not cancel out the other. As you should know by now, this statement is a False Dilemma.... ;)

Get a new adjective, huh?

I wanted to conclude our exchange at post #81 - you insisted on continuing our discussion. Unfortunately, you will therefore simply have to tolerate my rhetorical style until you've decided that our conversation has reached an impasse (as I already concluded at post #81).

Oh, never mind then. What was I thinking?

I don't know, but I did notify you of my indifference to that in post #85.

I mean we all know there were no military objectives. Just PR considerations.

Another False Dilemma..

And, hey, who cares if Syria has WMDs? Right? Right?

Yet another False Dilemma..

95 posted on 06/02/2003 10:20:20 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
you have assumed that in your own fevered imagination.

aside from your own fevered imagination.

No kidding. You used this vapid phrase two distinct times. It's not even clever the first time.

That is false. I have never claimed that - in order to justify war - there need be sufficient evidence of WMDs to establish that the prewar WMD thesis be correct. I have simply stated that the prewar WMD thesis is strictly defunct and that this raises substantive questions regarding U.S. intelligence.

Say what you want, but concern with the skill with which the intelligence community conducts itself hardly justifies such a level of intractibility and humorlessness.

Thank you for the concession.

But the point of it being a false analogy was to show how false . . .

Never mind. Just never mind.

I have refuted the charge of Untestability

Only in your own pyretic phantasm. You just posted links which I declined to click. Refutation requires effort on your part.

If you choose to believe that the other 9x/10 exists despite the fact that it has not been proven to exist, then your faith is none of my concern.

What is your opinion on the flatness of the earth?

Better yet, if a tree is found to be on the floor of the forest, did it actually fall?

Deal with it.

Well, that's persuasive.

You have resorted to juvenile insults

Oh, give me a little more credit than that. While I admit I am not arguing with the style of those who were improperly potty trained, I enjoy the barbs -- whether you catch them or not.

I have chosen to leave my arguments to stand on their own merits.

Interesting choice of phrase. Have you neglected to do laundry lately?

If you had read the original exchange

One more time: I am not going to spend my day doing your work for you.

another of your snide, infantile jabs..

  1. Reach around your back to your posterior.
  2. Remove stick.
  3. Repeat as necessary.

They were illegal in 1991. What were they using them for in 12 years? Bookmobiles?

Of course they were.

I assume you refer to the first sentence with your response.

But, then, you don't wish to debate on substance.. Do you?

It is impossible to debate on that which does not exist.

I approach all governments with cynicism as one might deduce from my screenname.

Have you ever heard of the FR screenname rule? Just curious.

I wanted to conclude our exchange at post #81

Bzzt! You wanted to get in the last word. You can conclude the exchange any time you want.

I mean we all know there were no military objectives. Just PR considerations.

Another False Dilemma..[sic]

One you've created. Recall that concern that the WMDs moved across the Syrian border was "BS".

96 posted on 06/02/2003 10:52:25 AM PDT by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
Excellent. It certainly appears now that we agree this conversation has exhausted its possibilities. Have a nice day!
97 posted on 06/02/2003 10:58:12 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: quebecois
Tell that to the Iraqi children freed from prison.
98 posted on 06/02/2003 11:00:12 AM PDT by AxelPaulsenJr (Shriner's Childrens Hospitals Provide Free Medical Care to Those In Need.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Saddam Hussein spent years dodging inspectors. He delayed, diverted and deceived them. He submitted unresponsive documentation. Even Blix constantly complained about this. Such behavior is characteristic of someone who has something to hide and what could that something be if not forbidden weaponry?

This is only common sense.

And thanks for clarifying the intended meaning of your post. IMO, your expectation that the bulk of Saddam's weaponry should be easy to locate has caused you to over-generalize from the available information.

99 posted on 06/02/2003 11:02:22 AM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Excellent. It certainly appears now that we agree this conversation has exhausted its possibilities. Have a nice day!

You just can't leave gracefully. Your inability to argue your point is not demonstrated if you fail to get in the last word. It would simply be a coincidence.

100 posted on 06/02/2003 11:03:26 AM PDT by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-139 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson