BS: NON-Partisan political comments

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 09:17 AM

from DougR,

"I don't believe that I ever questioned the right of anyone to think differently from the way I do, nor do I think I implied that because they did not agree with my POV the were inferior to me or less intelligent. We just thought differently. "

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 10:15 AM

"And keep your communications aboveboard, complete, and straight with yourself."



from Amos!

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Oct 05 - 03:35 AM

Jingoistic approaches to smearing the ideas of others is de rigurer for ... those who can't win an argument on its merits. Best to not discuss the facts or issues at all, just smear your opponents.


From SRS

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 01:54 PM

from GUEST,DB

"Basically, any group which claims to have exclusive access to 'the truth' is potentially dangerous and should be resisted."

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 06:06 PM

"That's why it's so pointless getting angry here - whether they like it or not, the people with whom we are arguing are actually assisting us. Why on earth should we be angry with people who are helping us, even whebn that may not be their intention? Do people doing weight training get angry at the weights they exert themselves to lift? "


About the only reason that the arguments here ARE worthwhile- since I have YET to see EITHER side actually discuss the FACTS without getting into ad hominum arguments

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: GUEST,ART THIEME
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 01:56 PM

(I put my name in caps like JOHN HANCOCK signing the Declaration Of Independance!)

When people prove to be truly self-serving, as seems to be the political reality quite often, I will side with the more sharing and compassionate side every time. (No party designated!!)

ART THIEME

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: GUEST,IVOR
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 07:03 PM

I've just been thru this thread.

Non-Partisan political comment might be a contradiction in terms.

Aritotle (I think) said "Man(meaning 'people',people)Man is a political animal".

I think that's probably because we cannot, a priori, tell the whole truth, we have to select, because of our limitations, and we're going to select according to one bias or another.

"Facts" is another hot potato - see E.H.Carr's "What is History"; essentially 'facts' don't just lie there - we select them.
My choice of route thru is to become more aware, and to nurture increasing awareness in others.

We're also lumbered with a vast knowledge deficit. People owe a lot of their opinions to the varying depths of their ignorance. I include myself in that.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Jan 06 - 01:48 PM

ejsant

I have found on my nearly fifty year walk, mostly by my own actions, that the arguing of ones position by employing the technique of abuse and denigration of one's adversary may indeed produce the desired results but it rarely, if ever, produces acceptance of the alternate view. This often times, if not all times, results in animosities being harbored and if we are ever really to live in peace and harmony with one another it is our responsibility to avoid actions that create or sustain animosities between ourselves."

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 12:36 PM

BeardedBruce:

I have found on my nearly fifty year walk, mostly by my own actions, that the arguing of ones position by employing the technique of abuse and denigration of one's adversary may indeed produce the desired results but it rarely, if ever, produces acceptance of the alternate view.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

At some point, Bruce, you have to accept the fact that the folks you're talking to may be Limbaughesque DittoBots, and are impervious to either reason or facts. Normal discourse then becomes an exercise in micturation, and it's not going to hurt your case too much by engaging in "abuse and denigration".

Find me someone willing to acknowledge the fact that Dubya's a serial liar (a demonstrable fact), and there may be hope for a real discussion. As long as they refuse to admit even elemental facts as a basis for discussion, and I don't think that one may hope for more than playground "discussion".

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Once Famous
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 12:44 PM

Arne

the FBI is interested in you.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 01:50 PM

Martin:

the FBI is interested in you.

Oh, really? Why, that makes us even. I'm interested in the FBI too.

But thanks for the info.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 02:25 PM

sorry if I did not make it clear that was a quote from ejsant



"As long as they refuse to admit even elemental facts as a basis for discussion"

Agreed, which is why I can't have conversations with you, or SRS, or Bobert.... You ( all) refuse to discuss FACTS.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 02:48 PM

Bearded Bruce:

Agreed, which is why I can't have conversations with you, or SRS, or Bobert.... You ( all) refuse to discuss FACTS.

Sorry if I seem reluctant to discuss "facts" you seem to think are self-evident. Feel free to trot them out, and maybe we can have a discussion.

In the meanwhile, care to either agree with or refute:

That Dubya out-and-out lied when he said: "He [Saddam] wouldn't let them [the weapons inspectors] in" and that is why Dubya decided to invade.

That Dubya out-and-out lied when he said repeatedly that wiretaps need a warrant and/or judicial approval and that we weren't wiretapping without a warrant (that is, he kept saying this until his secret wiretaps became public knowledge).

You may argue about the impetus behind these statements, or their "justification" under the circumstances, but isn't it a little disingenuous to refuse to admit that Dubya's been lying to us???? Once we extablish that predicate, maybe we can discuss other statements of the maladministration in the proper context....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 02:53 PM

Arne,

"Feel free to trot them out, and maybe we can have a discussion."

Except that I have brought out those facts, many times, and you insist on attacking me rather than discussing them. I await YOUR refutation of the multiple facts I have presented, then we can discuss you opinions about Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 04:00 PM

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.-- Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember'd.

Hamlet

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 05:48 PM

BeardedBruce:

Except that I have brought out those facts, many times, and you insist on attacking me rather than discussing them.

I suspect you're mistaking a disagreement with what you're claiming for an attack on you. But do feel free to point to (or link to) what you think I so rudely ignored....

But before we begin, is Dubya one of the most blatant liars we have seen in high public place? C'mon, let's start with some honesty here. Otherwise, we can hardly start talking about your pet talking points, eh?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 10:06 AM

"You will never win a battle unless you can understand how the other side is thinking. It doesn't mean you have to agree with them, but you do need to understand what motivates them."


Ron Olesko

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: autolycus
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 10:39 AM

Beardedbruce, youve shown in your last thread a prime difficulty in having a non-partisan discussion. Is that possible when there exists such a thing as "the other side"?

As far as I can see those two thoughts ("non-partisan" and "the other side" (I wrote that aiming for crystal clarity)) are irreconcilable (at least until both sides have been to the guru I referred to 28 Nov. last)

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 10:53 AM

Arne,

YOU:"That Dubya out-and-out lied when he said: "He [Saddam] wouldn't let them [the weapons inspectors] in" and that is why Dubya decided to invade."


David S. Broder " The first -- and to my mind weakest -- instance is the claim that Bush took the nation to war on the basis of false intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But there is no clear evidence as yet that Bush willfully concocted or knowingly distorted the intelligence he received about Saddam Hussein's military programs. Interpretations of that intelligence varied within the government, but the Clinton administration, of which Gore was an important part, came to the same conclusions that Bush did -- and so did other governments in the Western alliance."

We have gone around about the weapons inspectors- And the UN report says that Saddam was in "substantial non-compliance" at the time of the deadline. IF Saddam decided to let inspectors in AFTER Bush had mobilized troops on his borders, that hardly supports YOUR contention of why Bush invaded.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 05:28 PM

BeardedBruce:

"You will never win a battle unless you can understand how the other side is thinking. It doesn't mean you have to agree with them, but you do need to understand what motivates them."

OK. So, pray tell: What motivates you to turn such a blind eye to the incompetence, mendaciousness, and outright criminality of the maladministration and the Republican party then? If you think I'm misstating the case, I'd bring to your attention:

1). Dubya's comments that no one in the maladministration (Libby and Rove included) were involved in the Plame outing (and his comments that anyone who did such would be fired).

2). Dubya's repeated contention that war in Iraq was the "last" option, and that he hadn't decide to go in there, when there's repeated accounts from multiple sources that Iraq had been in the works almost from the inception of Dubya's maladministration.

3). Dubya's repeated assertions that warrants were needed for wiretaps and that he wasn't doing any warrantless snoops.

4). The maladministration's claims that Dubya didn't know Abramoff (despite Abramaoff's 200 or so visits to the White House, his logged meetings with Dubya, and his being a member of the Dubya transition team. Hey, for that matter, remember Dubya's "Kenny who?" for his old pal (and biggest contributor) "Kenny Boy" Lay.

5). Then there's DeLay, Ney, Ralph Reed, Michael Brown, John Bolton, etc.

The list goes on and on, Bruce. So, dear Brucie, what is the "motivation" for your continuing to defend such a fetid heap of miasma? What's in it for you??? Do tell us....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 05:57 PM

BeardedBruce:

Arne,

[Arne]:"That Dubya out-and-out lied when he said: "He [Saddam] wouldn't let them [the weapons inspectors] in" and that is why Dubya decided to invade."

Yep. Not only is that not the truth, but it's not even close. I've tried to look at how it could be charitably interpretetd as a twisting of the truth, a somewhat dishonest and misleading slant on the truth, or a reasonable mistake. No matter how I look at it, t's none of those things, Bruce, and it's time you displayed some honesty and fessed up to it. Or you can explain why Saddam letting the inspectors in (an obvious and established fact) is "Saddam not letting them in".

David S. Broder " The first -- and to my mind weakest -- instance is the claim that Bush took the nation to war on the basis of false intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But there is no clear evidence as yet that Bush willfully concocted or knowingly distorted the intelligence he received about Saddam Hussein's military programs. Interpretations of that intelligence varied within the government, but the Clinton administration, of which Gore was an important part, came to the same conclusions that Bush did -- and so did other governments in the Western alliance."

Hogwash, and more importantly, irrelevant to my quote.

We have gone around about the weapons inspectors- And the UN report says that Saddam was in "substantial non-compliance" at the time of the deadline.

Oh, nonsense. And as I said, disagreeing with your misinterpretation and selective cut'n'paste of the facts hardly constitutes personal attack on you. What "deadline"? What "report"? What does that have to do with the state on the ground in March of 2003? And more importantly, isn't it up to the United Nations to decide what action to take in the face of any "substantial non-compliance"?

IF Saddam decided to let inspectors in AFTER Bush had mobilized troops on his borders, that hardly supports YOUR contention of why Bush invaded.

Huh???? You sound very confused here (or confusing). Once again, I'll see if I can divine your "point" from this sentence, but don't fault me if I'm guessing wrong in the face of your incomprehensibility. Are you saying that the invasion was one and the same as massing troops on the border? Why do you suggest that I am thinking that the timing of Saddam's letting the inspectors in is supportive of my (alleged; to be honest I don't think I've actually stated a theory as to why Dubya invaded) theory as to why Dubya invaded? I'll agree with you that this timing does no such thing. What does seem to put to the lie one "theory" as to why Dubya invaded is the fact that Saddam did let the inspectors in albeit after Dubya had started mobilizing troops. Great. The fust0shaking worked. Saddam gave in. Now does that mean that Dubya's got to get 2200+ U.S. soldiers killed when the "mission is already accomplished". That last bit is the silly ... and the horrific ... part of Dubya's little speech. The plain facts (that Saddam did let the inspectors in) make that war unnecessary!!! So, the facts as we know them make those deaths in vain ... if we're to believe that Dubya was honest when he made that statement. No wonder you cling to it so grimly ... the alternative would make Lady Macbeth's insomnia seem like a walk in the park compared to you and your cheerleading.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jan 06 - 01:31 PM

Arne,

"OK. So, pray tell: What motivates you to turn such a blind eye to the incompetence, mendaciousness, and outright criminality of the maladministration and the Republican party then? If you think I'm misstating the case, I'd bring to your attention:"

Not a blind eye- it is just that they are better than the alternative offered by the Democrats, IMO.



"1). Dubya's comments that no one in the maladministration (Libby and Rove included) were involved in the Plame outing (and his comments that anyone who did such would be fired)."

As I stated, IF there are people found to have committed illegal acts, they should be prosecuted. Period. Regardless of party.


"2). Dubya's repeated contention that war in Iraq was the "last" option, and that he hadn't decide to go in there, when there's repeated accounts from multiple sources that Iraq had been in the works almost from the inception of Dubya's maladministration."

This was discussed- PLANS are always being made for POSSIBLE actions, just in case. I have seen NO EVIDENCE that any decision, other than to have Saddam comply with his obligations, was made PRIOR to the DEADLINE date specified in UNR 1441.

"3). Dubya's repeated assertions that warrants were needed for wiretaps and that he wasn't doing any warrantless snoops."

Repeated? I have not seen them- can you provide a link?
I will wait for facts before deciding the point.



"4). The maladministration's claims that Dubya didn't know Abramoff (despite Abramaoff's 200 or so visits to the White House, his logged meetings with Dubya, and his being a member of the Dubya transition team. Hey, for that matter, remember Dubya's "Kenny who?" for his old pal (and biggest contributor) "Kenny Boy" Lay."

Again, send me links.


"[Arne]:"That Dubya out-and-out lied when he said: "He [Saddam] wouldn't let them [the weapons inspectors] in" and that is why Dubya decided to invade."

Yep. Not only is that not the truth, but it's not even close. I've tried to look at how it could be charitably interpretetd as a twisting of the truth, a somewhat dishonest and misleading slant on the truth, or a reasonable mistake. No matter how I look at it, t's none of those things, Bruce, and it's time you displayed some honesty and fessed up to it. Or you can explain why Saddam letting the inspectors in (an obvious and established fact) is "Saddam not letting them in"."


So, after the deadline, he let the inspectors have the access they wanted- AFTER THE DEADLINE HAD PASSED. From his past history, he always gave in just enough to get away with NOT complying with the UN resolutions- Can you provide ANY evidence that he was providing ANY of the information specifically pointed out in the UN report required by 1441, that stated he was in substatantial non-compliance? The ONLY thing I had heard was that, IF he did provide that information, the inspectors would have been able to do their job- NOT THAT HE WAS COOPERATING.



"We have gone around about the weapons inspectors- And the UN report says that Saddam was in "substantial non-compliance" at the time of the deadline.

Oh, nonsense. And as I said, disagreeing with your misinterpretation and selective cut'n'paste of the facts hardly constitutes personal attack on you. What "deadline"? What "report"?

Have you bothered to read the UN REPORT required by 1441? It appears you have major problems in comprehension of the English language.

Do you understand "FINAL" at all?

"hat does that have to do with the state on the ground in March of 2003? And more importantly, isn't it up to the United Nations to decide what action to take in the face of any "substantial non-compliance"?"

State on the ground in MARCH- Saddam had failed to comply with his last and final chance, and the UN had stated that. He had the choice to open his borders, and did not- His RESISTANCE to the US invasion was sufficient reason, from the ceasefire terms of the Kuwait war, to invade.


"David S. Broder " The first -- and to my mind weakest -- instance is the claim that Bush took the nation to war on the basis of false intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But there is no clear evidence as yet that Bush willfully concocted or knowingly distorted the intelligence he received about Saddam Hussein's military programs. Interpretations of that intelligence varied within the government, but the Clinton administration, of which Gore was an important part, came to the same conclusions that Bush did -- and so did other governments in the Western alliance."


You state this is hogwash, but provide no justification of your opinion. You may think it whatever you like- but if you want others to agree with you, you might want to at least outline the facts you believe support your view. This is your usual method of argument- I still await all the FACTS that would show me why you have your opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 20 Jan 06 - 04:45 PM

BeardedBruce:

Not a blind eye- it is just that they are better than the alternative offered by the Democrats, IMO.

Ahhhh, "moral relativism" at its finest. The tu quoque defence is in full flourish amongst the Republican sycophants, IC. Guess that's what you're reduced to when your leareds are caught with their pants down. But what, pray tell, is "worse" with the Democrats, eh? For what prize, did you sell your soul for a sou, dear Bruce? Let us know; we're interested? Abortion? What motivates you to turn a blind eye to the needless deaths of thousands of our young ones?

As I stated, IF there are people found to have committed illegal acts, they should be prosecuted. Period. Regardless of party.

Do you think that it was legal to disclose Plame's connection with the CIA (something that it is now obvious that both Rove and Libby did)? Even fi you're going to get 'technical' on this, do you think that this outing for political purpose was the hallmark of good government? Regardless, you miss the point: Dubya said that anyone involved in this would be out of a job (and he also said, probably dishonestly, that Libby and Rove weren't involved). He lied. Rove is still special assistant to Dubya. And Libby's only out because he got indicted. Hardly the hallmark of an responsible and honest administration.

This was discussed- PLANS are always being made for POSSIBLE actions, just in case. I have seen NO EVIDENCE that any decision, other than to have Saddam comply with his obligations, was made PRIOR to the DEADLINE date specified in UNR 1441.

You still believe that horsepucky, when so many people have said that the maladministration was gung-ho from the get-go??? Just as a ferinstance, I'd point to the fact that Dubya went ahead and invaded after he'd gotten Saddam to let the inspectors in (and despite the fact that the U.N. Security council was heavily in favour of letting the inspectors do their job). There's Duya's "F*** Saddam, we're taking him out" comment, and his appalliong "Feels good!" (while pumping his fist in the air) on starting the hostilities. That doesn't register with you, Bruce???

And what's with this horsepuckey about "the DEADLINE date specified in UNR 1441"? Please explain.

"3). Dubya's repeated assertions that warrants were needed for wiretaps and that he wasn't doing any warrantless snoops."

Repeated? I have not seen them- can you provide a link?
I will wait for facts before deciding the point.

Here's one (found in 2 minutes with Google). I've heard audio clips of a couple on the radio but can't give you links right now. Is one enough, or will you demand "repeated"? (One quote is enough to establish the proposition that he in fact did make such an assertion).

Here's the official maladministration site's words:

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.

"4). The maladministration's claims that Dubya didn't know Abramoff (despite Abramaoff's 200 or so visits to the White House, his logged meetings with Dubya, and his being a member of the Dubya transition team. Hey, for that matter, remember Dubya's "Kenny who?" for his old pal (and biggest contributor) "Kenny Boy" Lay."

Again, send me links.

*sheesh* Pick up a newspaper, will ya? Or for that matter, Google is your friend....

[Arne]: Yep. Not only is that not the truth, but it's not even close. I've tried to look at how it could be charitably interpretetd as a twisting of the truth, a somewhat dishonest and misleading slant on the truth, or a reasonable mistake. No matter how I look at it, t's none of those things, Bruce, and it's time you displayed some honesty and fessed up to it. Or you can explain why Saddam letting the inspectors in (an obvious and established fact) is "Saddam not letting them in".

So, after the deadline, he let the inspectors have the access they wanted- AFTER THE DEADLINE HAD PASSED.

WTF is this "AFTER THE DEADLINE HAD PASSED"???? But I'd note this is nonresponsive to my point. Still don't know what hallucinatory "deadline" you're trying to foist off here, but Dubya didn't say "... before the deadline had passed", did he??? Yes or no, Bruce.

So, after the deadline, he let the inspectors have the access they wanted- AFTER THE DEADLINE HAD PASSED. From his past history, he always gave in just enough to get away with NOT complying with the UN resolutions- Can you provide ANY evidence that he was providing ANY of the information specifically pointed out in the UN report required by 1441, that stated he was in substatantial non-compliance? The ONLY thing I had heard was that, IF he did provide that information, the inspectors would have been able to do their job- NOT THAT HE WAS COOPERATING.

Saddam let the inspectors in. He gave them the report they wanted. The inspectors were doing their job, and protested against the Dubya sword wagging and asked ... almost begged ... to be left in there to fininsh the job. They were 100% right, BTW.

You seem to have some completely incomprehensible notion that Dubya just had to invade (something that not even the UNSCR in the ititial 1441 resolution had even specified) if there was any disputed or technical "non-compliance" at some date that it seem just you made up, and further, that it is good policy to invade and to get many thousands killed despite whatever happened afterhad to invade at the same time that he was still claiming that no such decision had been made, which would make him a liar (and prove my other point).

Here's UNSCR 1441:

          3.       Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

          4.       Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq�s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

          5.       Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC�s or the IAEA�s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

Iraq did #3. The U.S. thought it inaccurate and/or incomplete, but it turns out to have been far more accurate than the U.S. claims. The Iraqis did #5. #4 says that the U.N. will be responsible for assessing and taking further action, not Dubya and his bunch of gunslingers.

Do you understand "FINAL" at all?

Do you unnderstand "stoopidity", "intransigence", and "imperviousness to new facts and developments" at all? Do you still think that 2000 soldiers' (and many more civilians') lives are a perfectly reasonable prive to pay for some bureaucratic and/or technical failure to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s (disputed failure at that)? I asked you this a long time ago, and I don't think I ever got a response. How many soldiers' lives are worth a snub to Dubya's ego and pride, Bruce? Or hoy many are worth his political esteem and electoral advantage (if you happen to be a bit cynical about Dubya's strategery)? Because an invasion when Iraq was co-operating in every meaningful way and when it was becoming more and more apparent every day that Iraq had not WoMD becomes sheer stoopidity if not outright madness....

State on the ground in MARCH- Saddam had failed to comply with his last and final chance,...

Oh, garbage.

His RESISTANCE to the US invasion was sufficient reason, from the ceasefire terms of the Kuwait war, to invade.

Goebbels stands in awe.

You state this is hogwash, but provide no justification of your opinion. You may think it whatever you like- but if you want others to agree with you, you might want to at least outline the facts you believe support your view.

Fact: Eight of thirteen members of the U.N. Security Council refused to back the U.S. invasion.

Many governments (and far more people) were dead-set against any invasion.

Clinton never trotted out some manufactured baloney including fake anthrax vials for the U.N. Security Council. Many outside of government and even a numebr of governments expressed scepticism at the "Dogdy dossier", and the Pile'O'Crap that Powell gave at the U.N.

Broder's got his own row to hoe; he was one of the ones that got conned by the maladministration.

Prime example of Broder's hogwash: "The first -- and to my mind weakest -- instance is the claim that Bush took the nation to war on the basis of false intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." The intelligence was false. This is pretty much undisputed fact. And unless you're willing to admit that Dubya's a malevolent liar and schemer, pulling the wool over the eyes of the 'Merkun public whe he really wanted to go to war for other reasons (yaknow, like the reasons spelled out the the Project for a New American Century report that was the darling child of allthe neocons infesting his maladministration), then Dubya took the nation to war on the basis of false intelligence. Simple as that, Bruce. Broder claims there's no "clear evidence" that Dubya wilfully distorted the intelligence", but that's nonsense (or wilfull blindness on Broder's part). There's been more than one person reporting that the evidence was distorted, "worst-cased", stovepiped, ignored, and otherwise so horribly mangled (and in many cases reportedly under direction or under pressure from Cheney's office) that what came out was that black was conclusively determined to be white. You can't argue with what we know now, Bruce. There's no possible way to get things so totally wrong with an objective eye.

Now don't go accusing me of ignoring your "points". I didn't before, and I'm not doing it now. I just disagree with what you say. But now I want an answer:

Did Dubya lie when he said "He [Saddam] wouldn't let them [the inspectors] in"? Simple yes or no, Bruce. Let's se how honest you are.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: freda underhill
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 10:29 AM

Myself when young did eagerly frequent

Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument

About it and about: but evermore

Came out by the same Door as in I went.

(from Edward FitzGerald's Translation of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, a 10th century skeptic).

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 09:47 AM

CapriUni - PM
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 02:49 PM

From Garrison Kiellor, many, many many years ago (if I recall correctly):

Everyone has a sense of humor. It's just that not everyone has your sense of humor.

(or something to that effect)

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 10:05 AM

BeardedBruce:

Still non-responsive, IC. Imagine my surprise. You even had a month to come up with something actually on-point....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 10:19 AM

Arne,

Most of your points I had addressed in the past- YOUR inability to comprehend the written word is not my problem.

This is not the thgread for the discussion: There are others that are appropriate.





"Now don't go accusing me of ignoring your "points". I didn't before, and I'm not doing it now. I just disagree with what you say. But now I want an answer:"

And when I ask a direct question , when have you responded?


I do agree that we disagree, though...

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 09:39 PM

BeardedBruce:

Arne,

Most of your points I had addressed in the past- ...

Ummm, the question, Bruce, the question.

Did Dubya lie? Yes or no..... Shouldn't be hard to figure out, eh? All you have to do is do some research, and find out if "[Saddam] wouldn't let them [the inspectors] in." You have a job to do there, Bruce, because you're going to have to figure out how Hans Blix was reporting from Upper Phlogistan when everyone thought he was reporting from Baghdad and reporting that the U.S. intelligence was (in the words of one of his inspection team) "garbage, garbage, and more garbage" ... before Dubya's "one last chance" and his alleged last minute reluctant decision to invade. You're going to have to explain how the inspectors had took a wrong turn and found a load of chicken-s*** in the vast reaches of Syria while checking out a place that Dubya's maladministration had said that Saddam was hiding SCUDs.... I suppose it is true that Dubya might have been justified in invading if indeed these serial miscues and foulups of the insepectors had failed to uncover the massive quantities of WoMD that were really in Iraq because they had so stoopidly and mistakenly been inspecting the wrong country. If so, my estimation of Dubya will rise quite a bit. So hop to it, my man....

Say, Bruce:

Here's an interesting link for ya. You know, sometimes knowing there's a problem is the first step to finding a cure.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: autolycus
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 05:20 AM

Bearded Bruce

   You ask Arne where is the answer from him to a direct question of yours.

I have the same request.

It is a knotty problem - how is it possible to have a "non-partisan" discussion" when we refer to "the other side", as in "unless you know how the other side is thinking"?

A non-partisan discussion can only be entered, presumably, by those not on either side. Those on either side are, by definition, partisan.

That leads to a fundamental question, or rather the plural, to fundamental questions.. If someone on one side of an argument listens to the other side,

1. Does the outcome that having heard the other side they still don't agree prove that they have not heard?
2. Or having heard and still not agreeing does NOT prove that they have not heard the views of the other side?
3. In either case, how can it be part of a non-partisan discussion?

   (Cor, like being back at uni. doing me philosophy.

   Auto.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 06:34 AM

Auto,

I did say "This is not the thread for the discussion: There are others that are appropriate." ( I did correct a typo...)

Arne,

Ok, since you have a problem in comprehension.

Bush told what he thought was the truth at the time he said it- As MOST of the world believed.

"All you have to do is do some research, and find out if "[Saddam] wouldn't let them [the inspectors] in." "

I did- and Saddam DID NOT until well after the deadline YOU reprinted from UNR1441 Try reading what you post.

Did you ever read the Blix Report? It seems obvious you did not, since you keep saying that he lied to the UN in it.

Just because YOU keep repeating lies does not make them true, regardless of your viewpoint- TRY to have some basis for your statements- like quotes, or UN reports, or reality.


Cheers back at you.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 08:58 PM

BeardedBruce:

Bush told what he thought was the truth at the time he said it- As MOST of the world believed.

Umm, the quote in question was spoken in July of 2003 (much to the consternation of such as Kofi Annan, standing by his side). He repeated this same assertion (with slightly different words, IIRC) on one other occasion after that.

So, did Dubya really think in July, 2003 that Saddam hadn't let the inspectors in??? Perhaps it's possible, but in that case, I'd think about invoking the 25th Amendment.....

No, Blix didn't lie to the U.N. But he did say that he hadn't found a darn ting (and he said that he'd been checking the sites that U.S. "intelligence" had pinpointed ... in Iraq, nor Upper Phlogistan).

I did- and Saddam DID NOT until well after the deadline YOU reprinted from UNR1441....

Huh? What deadline? Nonetheless, Dubya didn't say "he wouldn't let them in until after this deadline I pulled out of my arse...."

We're back to this thing where you seem to think that arbitrary "deadlines" and arbitrary marks of co-operation are far more important that whether the job was getting done ... so much so that it didn't even matter whether there were WoMD there, what really mattered is that Saddam supposedly spit in Dubya's eye (at least at first), and thus we needed to invade a sovereign (albeit dictatorial) country, bollix it up royally, and get 2200 U.S. servicemen killed in the process. I think not, but that's an entirely different proposition from the question of whether Dubya was telling an outright lie in that quote I put forth.....

Just because YOU keep repeating lies does not make them true,...

Ummm, what lies, Bruce? Just because you keep avoiding the point doesn't make it go away, Bruce.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 04:54 AM

BeardedBruce is correct this is not the thread to be discussing the subjects raised by Arne. He is also right in that he has previously answered Arne's points in other relevant threads.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 08:28 AM

However, BB has recently said "Just because you keep repeating lies.." This is a non-partisan political comment? At least the person who started the thread should try to keep on-topic.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: autolycus
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 05:04 PM

BB, forgive me, I didn't grasp your last comment to me, so I'm just requesting clarification.

(Incidentally, I read elsewhere you're leaving mudcat. I hope it's not true tho' naturally I'd respect your choice. You have so much of interest to say.)

It's just that you said this is not the thread for my question. Please redirect me to the right place, tho' if you could say why this is the wrong one, I'll be in your debt.

Best wishes

Auto(Ivor)

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 06:21 AM

Auto,

This thread has drifted from my original intent ( see the starting post. I admit I am guilty of responding to the blatent lies presented as facts without any justification. There are a number of threads here that ARE appropriate for the discussion about Iraq, where I have addressed the topic at some length. Too bad Arne has a problem with comprehension of English.

And no, I have never hinted that I was leaving this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 09:08 PM

BeardedBruce:

This thread has drifted from my original intent ( see the starting post. I admit I am guilty of responding to the blatent lies presented as facts without any justification.

So if I were you, I wouldn't get too snitty when people respond to your recent posts.

Too bad Arne has a problem with comprehension of English.

At the risk of further thread creep, may I ask where I'm supposedly having difficulty?

;-)

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 01:35 PM

The Shambles - PM
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 01:12 PM

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
Noam Chomsky

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 02:14 PM

Bearded Bruce:

Oh, I don't mind your exercise of your freedom of expression. I just wish you'd actually address the points people make in response ... and perhaps, sometimes, occasionally, make some sense.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 06:57 AM

kendall - PM
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 09:31 AM

Believe it or not, "The truly wise man is never sure of anything."

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 07:02 AM

Arne,


"I just wish you'd actually address the points people make in response ... and perhaps, sometimes, occasionally, make some sense."


I state that the UN report required by 1441 stated that Saddam was in substantial non-compliance, and give a clicky to it so that all can read it and see.

YOU state that Saddam was doing what the UN wanted, and give NO reference other than your own imagination.


I was being generous and attributing it to lack of comprehension rather than a deliberate use of restating a false statement until people start to believe it.



Now, can we take this discussion to another thread?

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 06:34 AM

Little Hawk - PM
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 05:21 PM

"The thing about the left is that it has, in recent years, developed an orthodoxy that is every bit as repressive as the orthodoxy in the right."

Absolutely. In fact, that has always been the case, not just recently. Left and Right are equally given to hypocrisy, self-serving hyperbole, and unthinking prejudice. This makes it easy for them both to find a lot to accuse the other of, and a lot to bitch about generally.



This is a statement I can agree with, whole-heartedly.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 06:49 AM

sorry about that- ALL of the last post save the last line were from LH, and should have been in quotes.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 08:05 AM

"jacqui.c - PM
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 07:59 AM

I have a theory that the divides in humanity come down to the basic insecurity of a lot of people. This makes them need to belong to a group and, when they come across others who are not part of that group, they have to push their ideology forward, sometimes extremely aggressively, in order to bouy up their own ego."

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 08:48 AM

" Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 07:14 AM

...
Any large group of people has it's wackos.
If I found a wacko atheist I would not cite him as evidence that atheists are wrong."

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 07:56 AM

"kendall - PM
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 07:53 AM

Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. None are carved in stone"

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 09:52 PM

BeardedBruce:

I state that the UN report required by 1441 stated that Saddam was in substantial non-compliance, and give a clicky to it so that all can read it and see.

Ummm, nope. Amongst other things, it was the Security Council's job to decide if there was "substantial non-compliance".

YOU state that Saddam was doing what the UN wanted, and give NO reference other than your own imagination.

We're seeing more and more every day about both how Saddam was trying to find some way to convince the U.S. that he was complying (he even started destroying the disputed but arguably legal SRMs). Now we have the N.Y. Times report that Dubya and Blair were bound and determined to go to war despite the fact there were no WoMD being found and thinking maybe they wouldn't be found (even to the point of ginning up a 'Gulf of Tonkin provocation' by getting a U-2, repainted in U.N. colours, fired on [and maybe a pilot killed, but what the hey?]). And Colin Powell saying that a war wasn't justified without a second U.N. resolution and that this wasn't justified without some WoMD or something (see here).

And you still continue to suck Dubya's hind teat and carry his water for him. Bet that makes you feel ... proud. I'd shower, if I were you.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 08:28 AM

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm

http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/unscresolutions/PVRs-debates/un-scdebate-021903.htm

"December 19: the Security Council hears an initial, closed-doors assessment of the Iraqi dossier from Drs. Blix and ElBaradei. Both officials tell reporters that the declaration appears deficient in important respects. Blix states: "There were a lot of open questions at the end of 1998...and these have not been answered by evidence in the new declaration. ... An opportunity was missed in the declaration to give a lot of evidence..." For example: "Iraq declared earlier that they had produced about 8,500 litres of anthrax, and there was not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it was limited to 8,500, so we must ask ourselves, was there more?""

http://www.acronym.org.uk/textonly/dd/dd69/69nr01.htm

http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/unscresolutions/PVRs-debates/un-scmeeting-031203.htm

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/AllDocsByUNID/97e9b9191b64dab449256ce800055700


"11. [The Security Council] directs the executive chairman of Unmovic and the director-general of the IAEA to report immediately to the council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2412837.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2759653.stm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/836223/posts


YOU state that Saddam was doing what the UN wanted, and give NO reference other than your own imagination.


Care to read about what you have made so many declarations without support?

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 09:57 PM

BeardedBruce:

[Bruce]: I state that the UN report required by 1441 stated that Saddam was in substantial non-compliance, and give a clicky to it so that all can read it and see.

[Arne]: Ummm, nope. Amongst other things, it was the Security Council's job to decide if there was "substantial non-compliance".

Ummm, you can take the maladministration's word for it, Brucie. Here:

But Bush already realized the sources were not panning out. According to a Times review of the entire Jan. 31 memo, written by Blair's foreign policy adviser, David Manning, it showed that ''the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq."

With no weapons, Bush talked about provoking Saddam. ''The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colors," the Times quotes the memo as saying. ''If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."

The maladministration thought they needed to provoke a breach. Not too encouraging for the home team, Brucie, when even Dubya's on the other side, eh?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 10:56 PM

BeardedBruce:

[BeardedBruce claimed: "I state that the UN report required by 1441 stated that Saddam was in substantial non-compliance, and give a clicky to it so that all can read it and see."]


First link: Date Nov. 8, 2002


Second link: Date Nov. 8, 2002 (and a repeat of the first one)


Third link: Date Feb. 19, 2003.

The debate, which heard from more than 60 speakers, in two days, was called for by the Non-Aligned Movement and held in the wake of last Friday's briefing by the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), Hans Blix, and the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei. They reported that Iraq's cooperation on procedural matters had recently improved and they had not found any weapons of mass destruction. They pointed out, however, that many banned weapons remained unaccounted for, requiring Iraq's 'immediate, unconditional and active' cooperation.
...
Although the world seemed perched on the thin edge of war, said the Indonesian representative, the situation was not hopeless and the objectives of resolution 1441 (2002) could still be met. Resolution 1441 was a finely structured text, which defined the disarmament scenario before Iraq and clearly outlined the consequences for default or violations. In formulating the next step, it was only right that the inspectors and the results of the inspections be taken into account. To authorize war without doing so would amount to 'preconceived warfare' and seriously undermine the Council.

The representative of Norway agreed that time had not run out and the use of force was not unavoidable, but more inspectors or better equipment could not, by themselves, resolve the outstanding issues. As Dr. Blix had said last Friday, the period of disarmament through inspections could be 'short' if Iraq chose to cooperate fully, as required. It was a challenge to the Council and an affront to the international community that Iraq was withholding full cooperation.

Similarly, the representative of Canada said that more time for inspections could be useful, but only if Iraq decided to cooperate fully and transparently, starting now. While that cooperation was beginning, it was being offered grudgingly and only after intense pressure and the deliberate build-up of military forces in the region. To make clear to Iraq what was expected, the Council must lay out a list of key remaining disarmament tasks and establish an early deadline for compliance. That would allow the international community to judge whether Iraq was cooperating on substance, and not just on process.

I'd note that three of the listed speakers mentioned "material breach", but only one of them (Macedonia) was claiming a clear "material breach" existed. And not a single instance of "substantial non-compliance".

Nothing a little searching couldn't resolve, or at least help significantly, as Blix told them. And with "improv[ing] ... cooperation", hard to keep maintaining there's some "material breach" justifying 2300 U.S. soldiers (and many more Iraqis) dead ... but I know you don't give a damn about them or their families, Brucie....

Again, note the date. And note that points brought up in debate by member countries are hardly the "sense of the U.N.", much less U.N. resolutions.

Then you quote:

"December 19: the Security Council hears an initial, closed-doors assessment of the Iraqi dossier from Drs. Blix and ElBaradei. Both officials tell reporters that the declaration appears deficient in important respects...."

Ummm, hate to say it, Brucie, but the declarations of Iraq turned out to be far less "deficient" than the declarations of the U.S. before the U.N. Might have looked like "breach" to some folks, but that doesn't make it an actual breach, does it? Are you willing to at least grant that point?


Fourth link: Through Feb. 1, 2003 (actually, has stuff to about Feb. 5, 2003, when Powell gave his ginned up "dog'n'pony" show to the U.N.).


Fifth link: Date Mar. 12, 2003. Debate on what to do. Well, let me tell you, Brucie, the U.S. pushed for armed invasion, but the U.N. was a hell of a lot smarter than Dubya, and resisted. In the end, while Dubya had promised to force a vote on a new resolution that would presumably have found Iraq in non-compliance and authorised Dubya's blood-letting, Dubya had to renege on his promise when it was obvious that he wouldn't even get more than 5 of the Security Council members to go along with him (despite arm-twisting and bribes). So don't pretend that the U.N. authorised anything like what Dubya did, no matter what was said by the various parties in debate. Like this:

"The African position, he continued, did not endorse war at the present stage. The international community, through the inspectors, must subject the sincerity of Iraq's promise of full cooperation and compliance with relevant resolutions to some rigorous test. Any war against Iraq would have to be sanctioned by a resolution from the Council."

More from the debate:

"Iraq's continued full cooperation with inspectors must be the basis for the peaceful settlement of the crisis and the subsequent lifting of sanctions."

and:

CHUCHAI KASEMSARN (Thailand) welcomed Iraq's further cooperation with the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), enabling them to make progress in their inspections.

Even less in that debate about "material breach". And once again, not a single instance of "substantial non-compliance". But once again, two points, Brucie: It's the U.N. Security Council (and not individual member states) that gets to decide if there's a "material breach" of UNSCR 1441. And even if they decide that (which they didn't do), it is they who get to decide what to do about it. Not Dubya. Dubya can't claim any U.N. backing for his sanguinary little war, because they refused to back it. Period. Not to mention that Dubya's little war is arguably contrary to the U.N. Charter.


Seventh link: Date Nov. 8, 2002. And a repeat of previous links.


Eighth link: Date Feb. 11, 2003

"But he took a more positive line than in his report two weeks ago, saying Baghdad had made progress in a number of areas."

And then there's this:

"Mr Blix cast doubt on American intelligence material presented to the Security Council last week by US Secretary of State Colin Powell.

He said he had no evidence that Iraq had had advance warning of inspections - as has been claimed by the United States - and questioned satellite images said to show suspicious movement at an Iraqi weapons site.

Big, fat, red flag there.


Ninth link: Freeperville. 'Nuff said.


Endless repetition of the same ol' crap is not any kind of proof, Brucie. Where'd the U.N. find that Saddam was in "substantial non-compliance" or "material breach"? Still waiting ...... and waiting ....... and waiting ...............

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 08:40 AM

''the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq."

Never said they were, JUST THAT THE UN DECLARED SADDAM WAS IN NON-COMPLIANCE with 1441, his LAST AND FINAL chance.

Read what has been said, not wwhat you want to see.


"IF Iraq chose to cooperate fully, as required. It was a challenge to the Council and an affront to the international community that Iraq was withholding full cooperation. "

"Similarly, the representative of Canada said that more time for inspections could be useful, but only IF Iraq decided to cooperate fully and transparently, starting now. While that cooperation was beginning, it was being offered grudgingly and only after intense pressure and the deliberate build-up of MILITARY FORCES in the region. "


As for "but I know you don't give a damn about them or their families, Brucie...."

The blood is on the hands of those, like yyou, who DID NOT DEMAND THAT SADDAM COMPLY, but instead did all they could to lead him to believe that he could get away with continued violation, as he had for 14 years. LOOK at who was making money off the violations of sanctions, and who voted against holding Saddam to the terms of 1441.


""But he took a more positive line than in his report two weeks ago, "
WELL AFTER THE DEADLINE FOR COOPERATION IN 1441- see note above about Saddam only cooperating AFTER the military buildup.