DescentBB

I would like to suggest we draft both Bold 'D' and Palz and ship their butt's to Iraq just to stop them from posting 3 pages lists

I would like to take this moment to thank the men and women who serve in the US armed forces. Just learned that a friend of a friend was killed serving in Iraq and it's a poignant reminder that freedom aint free.

How about we have the top Dem and top GOP work together as dual presidents? Make 'em work at it.

Sickone -- I'll try to be brief.

Palzon wrote:

Bold Deceiver wrote:Alternatively, they could have sold them to terrorists, but that's not a possibility in your world.

i implicitly included this in my argument.

I don't think so. See below.

Palzon wrote: finally, to the question you've been dying to have answered.

Bold Deceiver wrote:Since you contend that Iraq possessed WMD, and since you contend that Iraq no longer possesses WMD, when, in your view, did WMD cease to exist in Iraq?

Well, my answer is I don't know and I don't care. (Snip diatribe.) [T]o me your question about WHEN is utterly misguided.

Well, that kind of flies in the face of your attempt to find refuge in the high moral ground of just trying to get to the bottom of things, doesn't it?

You see, Palzon, and let me just spell it out for you so that you are able to grasp this, as I have clearly done an inadequate job so far:

On March 17, 2003, the President gave Saddam 48 hours to step down. Now here's a hypothetical. You will be asked to make assumptions, without admitting their truth - but only that they are plausible. Then I will ask you the question, again, based on those assumptions.

Suppose that our intelligence data on WMD had not gone stale by, say, October, or November, or December of 2002. In other words, the WMD was still there up to each of those months, you pick the month. Suppose further, that our intelligence community could no longer reliably predict where WMD might be located, geographically, for a period of time leading up to the war. Suppose that our key U.S. intelligence operatives were pulled out of Iraq, in any one of the aforementioned months, prior to the U.S. attack on March 19, 2003.

Now suppose that during these periods of time (October, November, or December of 2002 to March 19, 2003), there were variables at play: Saddam could either transfer, hide, sell, spoil, or otherwise dispose of the WMD you admit existed prior to the war.

Is your answer to the question still, "I don't know and I don't care"? Because under this entirely plausible scenario, your own limitation to the three pillars of vicious conclusions (fabrication, exaggeration, and misinterpretation) doesn't just appear slanted -- it demonstrates either partisan ideology (your disclaimers notwithstanding) or quite frankly, facile reasoning. The answer is painfully obvious, Pal -- there are other conclusions to draw.

1) The intelligence was good intelligence, properly interpreted, and reasonably relied upon, until October, 2002, when fresh data was no longer available;

2) The intelligence was good intelligence, properly interpreted, and reasonably relied upon, until November, 2002, when fresh data was no longer available;

3) The intelligence was good intelligence, properly interpreted, and reasonably relied upon, until December, 2002, when fresh data was no longer available;

Etc.

Lastly, I'm sorry to hear you state the loss of a friend in the war recently, who died so that we could express our opinions freely in this country, and on the DBB.

BD

i tried to explain, but i will try harder.

the question is only relevant as it is pertinent to decide what failure caused the intel to go bad. by learning WHEN it went bad, we should learn HOW and WHY it went bad. WHEN is academic to HOW and WHY. You're asking the wrong question. You want to know when it went bad? i'll tell you. some time between the last time hussein used wmd and the time we pulled him out of his hole in Bagdhad.

If the intel was solid at the times you suggest, this truly is the worst of all possibilities. because that means that the imminent threat is still out there. and USA, whether under the leadership of Bush, Clinton, or any previous administration has blundered by acting too late.

getting to the bottom of this is the key. i've said nothing inconsistent in this regard. I'll answer the question again. my answer is a testament to how little i care whether the real culprit for the intelligence failure is a republican or a democrat. It is sufficient that the mistake occcurred for me to believe it is worthy of investigation and important to us all.

without further adieu...

WHEN IS academic to HOW, WHY, or even WHO.

Palzon wrote:You want to know when it went bad? i'll tell you. some time between the last time hussein used wmd and the time we pulled him out of his hole in Bagdhad.

Actually, no -- I didn't ask you "when [the intelligence] went bad", but it's a telling tendency you have, re-stating questions in a manner calculated to assume the fact that the intel was "bad", so that you can use that to leap into worlds of conclusions that would make you a first rate journalist for the New York Times.

Please.

That fact hasn't been established -- by anyone. Much less one concedes he has no idea what the intel was, ever, at any point. Naturally, that won't stop you from beating the drum of unsubstantiated conclusions. Must be a fun world, in the shade of three pillars.

My work is done. Carry on man.

BD

ok so if i interpret your question literally, you are asking me when i THINK the wmd was gone? not WHEN it was actually gone? and certainly not WHEN we were wrong about being there?

do yo even know what you're asking? the entire significance of the wmd not being there is that it invalidates the intel or some process of its interpretation/presentation. when I THINK it was gone is irrelevant. WHEN it was actually wrong is academic. the point where it was gone is the same point where our intel stopped being correct. THAT is significant.

we were wrong about it being there. its not there now. prolly not gonna be there. and if it was there, we let it get away.

if the intel was right then we let them slip away and it was a mistake. if the intel was wrong, wrongly interpreted, fabricated exaggerated, etc., then we made a mistake. i answered your question. now you answer mine. is this not a mistake?

if you can seriously sit there and maintain this was not a failure on some level, then you are in total denial and we have definitely reached an impasse.

We've technically come full circle to why your arguement is faulty to begin with Paly. You seem to have this problem accepting that this "Faulty intel" was still a good enough reason to invade and remove Hussein in a war that you yourself admitted was warranted.

You're missing the whole point anyways and just spinning figure eights with BD here. Nobody here other then you feels the intel was wrong. Just because they haven't found anything now doesn't mean it wasn't there before or when this whole thing started.

Which means even if they don't find anything EVER, their intel was correct BEFORE the war. Which also means going into Iraq and kicking Saddam in the butt WAS justified. Get my drift?

Also, nobody else here other then you is making a big deal about the fact that they haven't found WMD because most of us know there were other equally good reasons to go into Iraq. We really don't care if they haven't found WMD yet. It might take years before we find anything. Does that make the Bush Administration wrong? No. We might never find anything, does that mean the Bush Admin was wrong? No.

You just sat down on something that the rest of us really don't feel is a big enough deterant for there not to have been a war....which again YOU agreed with. You've attached yourself to "The gov. made a mistake, they LIED TO US! OMG!" Get a friggin grip and a reality check Paly. The gov. lies to the public all the damn time, and since humans are running the show there are going to be mistakes.

However, to do something of this nature the government exhausted all the resources it has available before going through with war. If the intel was 95% correct, thats good enough for me.

Palzon wrote:do yo even know what you're asking? (snip) WHEN it was actually wrong is academic. the point where it was gone is the same point where our intel stopped being correct.

Sure I do. I'm asking you to understand what others on this board seem to find obvious -- that just as it is possible that U.S. treachery, fabrication and incompetence are not only possibilities.

If the U.S. intel was accurate up to one week prior to invasion, I would call that good intel.

Six weeks -- good intel.

3 months -- good intel.

6 months -- good enough for me.

1 year -- I can live with that.

You, on the other hand, dismiss my hypothetical question as irrelevant. That's odd.

You also have no trouble ascribing evil or, or alternatively, incompetence, to your own country's executive branch, while at the same time admitting that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Shows you're packing a different kind of agenda, friend.

Hey, each cat to his own kick. I'm just holding up the mirror.

BD

you're failing to address the fact that if WMD was there, we lost it. And now the threat is still out there.

just answer my question, counselor.

Palzon wrote:you're failing to address the fact that if WMD was there, we lost it. And now the threat is still out there.

just answer my question, counselor.

Sure. If the U.S. intel was accurate up to one week /one month / six months prior to invasion, I would say that's not a mistaken interpretation of raw data, my progressive young Austinite tree-huggin', otter-scrubbin' friend. In the context of a dictator who deploys, then actively conceals WMD, I'd call that good interpretation. Call me irresponsible.

Where, along the time continuum I've outlined above, would you call it misinterpretation of intel? Six months? 3 months? 1 day? One hour?

Same reasoning if the WMD is hidden, and as yet undiscovered. I would call it hidden, and as yet undiscovered. Not a mistake.

Tough question though. Had me on the ropes there. Still gasping for breath.

BD