Re: [OpenHeroQuest] Vote RRRRRRRRRRRRR !!!!!!!!!

From: Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_SBUMmN12K1avv4UL-HSmMlXLhXAIogUZCv1bCGcFm_tXyF9EAh4PcNeRNwBrsu5Er8p>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:18:39 +1300


Graeme wrote:

> >The British claim is not based on the forged documents but on two
> >separate pieces of intelligence, neither of which was based on the
> >forged documents. The ISC looked into this issue when the fuss
> >broke out and concluded that the intelligence assessment that Iraq
> >had tried to negotiate the purchase of uranium was reasonable.

>What the fuck? The claim was made that the answer to the question at the
>top of this post was "no". The answer is plainly "yes". End of story.

Yet the Bush claim itself was truthful.

>The accuracy of the British claim is a seperate matter. There has been a
>claim made that there is other intelligence evidence other than the forged
>documents on which it is based. But that evidence has never been made
>available to the public, so its existence (let alone worth) is not known to
>you or me.

In part it rests upon an Iraqi trade delegation visiting Niger. Niger has only two exports of note: agricultural produce and uranium.

>The IAEA have stated that Britain has not made any additional
>evidence available to it.

Simply because the documentary evidence is the property of a third party intelligence agency which cannot be made available to anybody else without their consent.

The British did share what intelligence they could share and a significant result was the discovery of undeclared literature about copper vapor laser refining at the home of a nuclear scientist whose identity was also not declared to the UN weapons inspectors as was required by resolution 1441.

>The CIA has stated that having examined the
>evidence Britain holds it does not find the claim credible.

The CIA has not examined the evidence that the British hold because the British have not given it to them for the reason stated above.

>The sole
>evidence for Iraq's nuclear program post 1998 is the purchase of aluminium
>tubes, which are more likely to have been used for missile casings.

Wrong. Even in addition to the other stuff I mentioned above, the Iraqis attempted to purchase six ultrasonic medical devices which contained a switch that was precise enough to be used as a nuclear detonator. They then ordered _120_ of these switches as spare parts. The French caught wind of this purchase, hit the roof and had the purchase order revoked. It was stunts like this that lead intelligence agencies to conclude that Iraq was trying to reconstitute its nuclear program.

> > >"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when
> > >have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely
> putting us
> > >on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and
> > >suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come
> > >too late."
> >
> > >[Intended implication - the threat is imminent, but not visible.
> >
> >Read the first sentence again. "Some have said we must not act until
> >the threat is imminent".

>Read the whole paragraph again. Bush describes how a threat can be imminent
>but we would not know.

No, he doesn't. Look at "If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge". He is describing a worsening threat.

>The paragraph can be read as "the threat is imminent
>but not visible" and given that this is being used as justification for
>taking immediate action, that is the intended meaning.

But he isn't using it as a justification for taking immediate action. He's pointing out why action is being taken even though the threat is plainly not immediate. That is why Iraq was a preventative war rather than a pre-emptive war.

> > >Note also
> > >the link with terrorists that remains unproven, and unaccepted by the US
> > >intelligence community.

> >Wrong. The link with Al-Qaida is unproven, the link with other terrorist
> >groups is not.

>Which ones?

Palestinian groups.

>What evidence?

Iraq openly paid large sums of money to families of suicide bombers and has been a refuge for some terrorists, notably Abu Nidal.

> > >["Serious and mounting" - how does this differ from "imminent"?]

> >Serious means the situation is bad. Mounting means that it is
> >worsening. Imminent means that the shit can hit the fan anytime
> >now. A threat can be serious and mounting without it being
> >imminent.

>Take "serious and mounting" in the context of the early statement that
>"Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions".
>Translation - we know its bad, we know its getting worse, and we can't know
>when the shit will hit the fan.

Wrong. He is saying that serious and mounting threats need to be dealt with here and now rather than waiting.

>And again, this is offered as evidence justifying war. In short the threat
>is "imminent".

Wrong. The slant is only possible through a strained reading of the text.

> > >["Safety of our people" - the primary justification used here for war...]

> >And this is bad because?

>This is further evidence that Bush claimed the threat was imminent.

It is no such thing.

>Look, the discussion started with a claim that Bush never said that Iraq
>was an imminent threat to America.

Which is true.

>Yet, here we have him stating that we
>can't know exactly how big a threat he is, that he is a big threat, that
>that threat is growing, and we need to go to war for the safety of our
>people. In short, barring minor semantic twiddling, that there is an
>imminent threat.

The only person doing any semantic twiddling so far is you. Bush is quite clearly explaining why action should be taken in response to those who say that action should not be taken unless the threat is imminent.

>The fact that subsequent investigation has discovered that Iraq had no
>meaningful weapons programs,

Wrong. The Al-Samoud Missiles had a range clearly in defiance of the UN resolutions (and it wasn't a mistake because the Iraqis had been informed by UN inspectors that a missile with the diameter of 760mm was prohibited - yet they went ahead and developed one).

And the Iraqis would have obtained a No Dong missile hadn't the North Koreans shafted them.

>no chemical, biological, or nuclear programs at all,

The Kay report shows clear evidence that Iraq had an ongoing program into the development of chemical and biological agents that were prohibited by UN resolutions and could be used to makes weapons if ordered. Furthermore Iraq had clearly concealed stuff in defiance of UN resolutions that could be recovered if the orders were given (the gas centrifuge for example).

The discovery of violations of UN resolutions before and after the war only confirms that Saddam never had any intention of complying fully with them.

> and no means of using them against America even if it did is a
>seperate argument entirely.

I remember the days when everybody believed that Afghanistan had no means of reaching the US.

--Peter Metcalfe            

Powered by hypermail