@Beagle (Beagle) posted a new topic, subject "Post-Powell's Address: "Smoking Gun" Redux". It read: Transcript Ignoring firearms metaphors, the circumstantial case against Iraq vis-a-vis WMD is very compelling, IMO. *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC @EasyPhil (EasyPhil) replied The recordings of conversations are laughable, along with the highly sophisticated satellite photo's that only _experts_ can spin, I mean interpret. Very compelling case indeed, NOT! *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC So @Beagle (Beagle) replied I agree, **EasyPhil** , we should send an apology to the former Soviet Union and Cuba right away. *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC @Kendo (Kendo) replied > *Originally posted by EasyPhil * > **The recordings of conversations are laughable, along with the highly sophisticated satellite photo's that only _experts_ can spin, I mean interpret. Very compelling case indeed, NOT! ** Could you perhaps elaborate on this? How are the conversations laughable? What's wrong with the photo's? I'm not an expert so I have no way of knowing what is laughable about these pieces of ‘evidence'. I'm not being sarcastic. If I were to believe the evidence presented it seems that the war is much better justified. But, then, that's the problem isn't it…do I believe it? *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC After which, @Mullinator (Mullinator) added I reckon that for the most part, based on whatever way a person was leaning prior to today, that person will see the justification for solidfying that position and read into the evidence what they want to read. And, I think that the evidence will also persuade the UN to get a little tougher with Iraq but still try to avoid going to the limits that the US is looking to set forth. *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC Then @EasyPhil (EasyPhil) said > *Originally posted by Beagle * > **I agree, **EasyPhil** , we should send an apology to the former Soviet Union and Cuba right away. ** Of course, this country never presents trumped up evidence, _cough, Gulf of Tonkin, cough_ , no, it would never do that. *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC After which, @Beagle (Beagle) added Godwin's Variant: The Vietnam Drop *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC Then @EasyPhil (EasyPhil) said From the Transcript: > But they're worried. “We have this modified vehicle. What do we say if one of them sees it?” > What is their concern? Their concern is that it's something they should not have, something that should not be seen. > The general is incredulous: “You didn't get a modified. You don't have one of those, do you?” > “I have one.” > “Which, from where?” > “From the workshop, from the Al Kendi (ph) Company?” > “What?” > “From Al Kendi (ph).” > “I'll come to see you in the morning. I'm worried. You all have something left.” > “We evacuated everything. We don't have anything left.” > Note what he says: “We evacuated everything.” > We didn't destroy it. We didn't line it up for inspection. We didn't turn it into the inspectors. We evacuated it to make sure it was not around when the inspectors showed up. “Modified vehicle”, what exactly does this mean? Modified for what? Are these people speaking in english or in arabic? If in arabic there could be some question about the significance of the word “evacuated”. *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC To which @Beagle (Beagle) replied > If in arabic there could be some question about the significance of the word “evacuated”. I agree (shock) that if there is evidence that the State Dept. fudged the interpretations the evidence becomes less valid. Of course, I don't think you speak Arabic. It seems obvious (to me) that these guys try to speak in “code” somewhat, knowing that they might be monitiored. *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC To which @Liberal (Liberal) replied I agree with Mully. Right now, a bunch of guys are giving their “reaction” speeches. And those were obviously written before Powell spoke. *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC Then @Shodan (Shodan) said When the facts are in your favor, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the facts and the law are against you, do what **EasyPhil** is doing. Regards, Shodan *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC Then @EasyPhil (EasyPhil) said > *Originally posted by Beagle * > **I agree (shock) that if there is evidence that the State Dept. fudged the interpretations the evidence becomes less valid. Of course, I don't think you speak Arabic.** There's nothing in Arabic to translate in the transcript. > ** > It seems obvious (to me) that these guys try to speak in “code” somewhat, knowing that they might be monitiored. ** And “evacuate” is a code word for what? *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC After which, @Beagle (Beagle) added > There's nothing in Arabic to translate in the transcript. True. You had to set your VCR. “Evacuate” is not even a code word. They are just trying to make the conversation less inculpatory than saying, “DIDJA MOVE THE PROHIBITED WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?! YOU KNOW, THE CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPON VEHICLES?!” *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC After which, @EasyPhil (EasyPhil) added > *Originally posted by Beagle * > **True. You had to set your VCR. “Evacuate” is not even a code word. They are just trying to make the conversation less inculpatory than saying, “DIDJA MOVE THE PROHIBITED WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?! YOU KNOW, THE CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPON VEHICLES?!” ** Hey you said they were using code, are you making this up? *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC Then @t-keela (t-keela) said Powell described in some detail what a modifed vehicle is. At least one type of modified vehicle. It is capable of producing large quantities of chemical and/or biological agents. There are at least 18 of these modified vehicles, which can easily be consealed from UN inspectors. *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC To which @Beagle (Beagle) replied No, **Phil**. It's just that the all caps part would be a bad thing to say if you know the enemy (the United States) is using ELINT: electronic intelligence to listen to what you say. IMO, the all caps part is not a bad working interpretation (barring translation issues) of what was said. *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC @mack (mack) replied The evidence doesn't call for the level of destruction the US is contemplating. *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC To which @Beagle (Beagle) replied > the level of destruction The alleged warplan. I don't think the level of destruction goes beyond hitting the elite military hard and often during the early phases. After that, the US will in all liklihood use minimal force. *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC @Diogenes_the_Cynic (Diogenes the Cynic) replied This is pretty weak stuff IMO. You have a couple of guys talking vaguely about “evacuating” something and some indecipherable sattelite photos. I certainly am not going to take Powell's _word_ for anything as to what this stuff means. How do we even know when and where that conversation was taped. It doesn't really reveal anything anyway. There is nothing here which warrants an invasion. Show me an actual WMD, not just some guys that _might_ be talking about WMD's or might be talking about their porno stash. Actually, even a WMD isn't good enough for me. I want proof that Iraq is, in any way, _a direct threat to the US_. Nothing else justifies war. *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC Then @Avalonian (Avalonian) said I am one of the people who have been waiting (rather impatiently, I admit) for evidence that war against Iraq is justified. Now that Powell's entire presentation has been transcribed, I think that evidence is there. Up to now, there has been little reason to believe much of what the Bush Administration has said about Iraq. It saddens me to say that, in the face of what Powell just presented to the UN, I'm now a believer. That's not to say that there weren't problems with some of Powell's presentation. The attempt to link the Iraqi regime with Al Qaida is zbrooks@example.org. While credible evidence was presented in much of the presentation, there was little more than assertions presented on this subject. While I'm certain that there has been interaction between Iraq and Al Qaida (how could there not be?) I remain skeptical about what the nature of that interaction is, and I remain doubtful that the connection between the two is very strong. I don't see them as “partners,” or even allies. Powell also made a few leaps of faith which don't really bear out under close examination. For example: > **Our sources tell us that, in some cases, the hard drives of computers at Iraqi weapons facilities were replaced. Who took the hard drives. Where did they go? What's being hidden? Why? There's only one answer to the why: to deceive, to hide, to keep from the inspectors.** Well… no, not really. Hard drives could be replaced because they were bad, corrupt, or outdated, or simply because the computer users needed more space. Replaced hard drives does not _necessarily_ lead automatically to the conclusion that deception is going on. It raises suspicions, certainly, but without specifying time frames or other circumstances, Powell did not convince me on this point. As already pointed out, the translations of the recorded messages may leave much to be desired. I'd be very interested to know if any who understand Arabic would produce different translations. The nuances of language are rarely understood fully, and wars can be started over a misunderstood word. I'd hate to see that happen here. So, yes, there were flaws and weak points in Powell's statement today. However, the bulk of what he presented was strong. The details about biological and chemical weapons and UAV's were truly chilling. The details about Iraq's nuclear capability, while not conclusive, presented a very strong case. And the thing of it is, I _trust_ Powell, where I do not really trust Bush. Where Bush made pronouncements simplified for the lowest common denominator, Powell spent this morning making a detailed statement, unafraid to get down to brass tacks if necessary… and it _is_ necessary, if we're truly going to advise a course for way. I've believed for a long time that Powell is a reasonable, thoughtful man… and I trust him. He presented a compelling case today, and while I might have disagreed with a few of the finer points of it, I found the weight of evidence bore heavily against Iraq. I hate to say it… but I am largely convinced that Iraq is presenting a credible threat, to the Middle East and possibly to the United States. The evidence that Powell presented today is what I have been waiting for for months. It is not ironclad, but it is compelling. *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) ( there was a missing post ) After which, @elucidator (elucidator) added Oh, but I did indeed give the cite. Here it is again… http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/7891/saddam_glaspie.html And please hasten to note quotes from Ms. Tutwieler and Mr. Kelly, also cited from the same page. Some time later Ms. Glaspie, called before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, backpedaled furiously, if not to say desperately. From this:http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1999/05/27/p23s3.htm "She said she was the victim of “deliberate deception on a major scale,” and denounced the Iraqi transcript as “a fabrication” that distorted her position, though it contained “a great deal” that was accurate. The veteran diplomat awaited her next assignment, later taking a low-profile job at the United Nations." Mmmm, yes. “Low profile” Lucky she didn't get reassigned to the mail room at the Elbonain Embassy. All in all, the above quotations and thier context present a plausible case as far as I am concerned. I have no doubt that there are many who fervently wish it were not so. Down the memory hole, so to speak. Your interpretation is very generous indeed. Very, _very_ generours, stretching a pair of pantyhouse to cover an acre of ground. And no, of course, no one interprets Ms. Glaspie as “sanctioning” the invasion, that bit of stretch is entirely your own. Merely that she communicated a lack of concern, as having no dog in that fight. However, if the US was prepared to go to war over Kuwait, is it unreasonable to expect something so major to be expressed in no uncertain terms? And why then the other quotes as above? No sale. *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC To which @Beagle (Beagle) replied > Beagle, since I think that was zbrooks@example.org. I have never claimed that Saddam doesn't support terrorism. What I have said repeatedly is that there is *no[i/] evidence that he was involved with al-queda, or 9/11 I was weighing in on what some people say about Saddam and terrorism, since that seemed to be the going concern. I agree that there is no proven link between Saddam and 9/11. I'm not sure if it is Bush propaganda, as some claim, or poor critical listening skills on the part of US citizens (a majority think there is a proven Saddam - al Qaeda link according to some polls). *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC After which, @Beagle (Beagle) added This thing is going to wind up sooner, not later. > MSNBC: WASHINGTON, Feb.7 — U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has signed orders sending some 60,000 more U.S. troops — including a fifth aircraft carrier — to the Persian Gulf region as the U.S. military rapidly gathers a major force in the region for possible war with Iraq… > > LAND, SEA AND AIR > To date, according to the Pentagon, there are 113,000 U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf area — nearly half of them in Kuwait, the likely main launch point for a U.S.-led ground invasion. The buildup is expected to reach 150,000 by Feb. 15, a senior official said Wednesday. > Mid-February is widely thought to be the earliest date that U.S. forces would be ready to begin an invasion of Iraq, but officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said they may need some weeks beyond that. By the latter part of February the size of the U.S. force is likely to exceed 200,000 troops. *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC So @Leaper (Leaper) replied Personally, I'm curious as to how it was determined that the consequences of not going to war were more harmful to U.S. interests than the possible (some would say _inevitable_ ) consequences of doing so (i.e. terrorist organizations getting hold of brand new WMDs, increased tension in Middle East, loss of ally trust, etc.). Of course, these must be balanced against the good in both cases, but how do our government honchos make these determinations? What sort of depth of information is required? Do we think that they can actually HAVE this depth? Though I'm sure they at least believe they do… (And I hope they, unlike **december** , aren't just _hoping_ that terrorists won't retaliate on an Iraqi war with chemical/nuclear attacks…) (Just kidding, **december** , I know what you meant. :)) *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC So @Beagle (Beagle) replied Here Some sceintists are being interviewed. The Security Council looks split. The fight over a second resolution has begun. But don't take my word for it. > Three more Iraqi scientists have been interviewed in private by UN weapons inspectors in Baghdad… > > …Over the past two days the chief inspectors have been warning Iraq it must “drastically” improve its co-operation with the weapons teams, and in particular allow unmonitored interviews to take place… > > …The US is continuing its military build-up in the region, in the face of continued scepticism from key UN Security Council members France, China and Russia… > > …In a telephone conversation with the French leader, Chinese President Jiang Zemin echoed that position, saying: “The UN Security Council… should try to avoid war with all its might.” > > The White House said that President Bush had begun working for a “serious, effective and acceptable” second UN resolution to authorise military action. > > “The standard the president has set is that the second resolution must enforce the first resolution,” said spokesman Ari Fleischer… *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC To which @Sam_Stone (Sam Stone) replied **elucidator:** Let's see… You provide a transcript from an Iraqi source. When asked for another cite, you provide an anonymous Geocities page that also provides an unsourced conversation. You call that a cite? On the other hand, we have Ms. Glaspie herself claiming that the transcript is a forgery. And we have the Bush administration saying that the orders Ms. Glaspie talks about in the forged transcript were never given. Here's a cite for you: Allegations of Communication with Iraq Denied - U.S. State Department From the cite: > The State Department has issued an emphatic and detailed denial of allegations concerning United States policy and actions in the days prior to Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait. > > Specifically denied were what spokesman Richard Boucher called “several misstatements of fact” made by independent presidential candidate Ross Perot concerning U.S. policy toward Iraq in the October 19 presidential debate. > > “Mr. Perot stated that we told Saddam Hussein he could take the northern part of Kuwait; that we won't even let the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee see the written instructions for (U.S.) Ambassador (to Iraq April) Glaspie; and that Saddam has still got his nuclear, his chemical, and his bacteriological weapons,” Boucher told an October 20 news briefing. “None of these assertions are correct.” and… > “First, the United States has never, and I repeat never, told, or in any way indicated to, Saddam Hussein that Iraq could take the northern part of Kuwait. Nowhere in any document is there the statement or even the suggestion that the United States ever told this to Saddam or any other Iraqi,” Boucher said. > > “Contrary to Mr. Perot's assertions, the administration has not denied to Congress one single document about U.S. policy toward Iraq,” he said. "Indeed, we've provided literally thousands of documents to the Congress on this subject, including every single document relating to Ambassador Glaspie's meetings with Saddam Hussein. > > “Second, Ambassador Glaspie's meeting with Saddam Hussein on July 25th was short notice. There were never, and I repeat never, any instructions provided to Ambassador Glaspie for that meeting,” he said. "On July 19th, the State Department sent her, as well as other ambassadors in the region, an instruction regarding the U.S. position on the Iraq-Kuwaiti border dispute. That document was provided to the Congress and declassified over one year ago. > > “It states the U.S. position that disputes should be resolved peacefully and that no force should be used,” he said. “It further states that the United States is committed to support the sovereignty and integrity of the Gulf states and that we will continue to defend our vital interests in the Gulf. It adds that we remain strongly committed to supporting the individual and collective self defense of our friends in the Gulf.” > > Boucher said Ambassador Glaspie delivered this message to the Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister the day she received it. “In order to impress upon the Iraqis the seriousness of our views,” Ambassador Glaspie delivered a similar message to the Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister in the middle of the night of August 24-25 and again the following morning. When Glaspie was summoned on short notice to meet with Saddam Hussein on July 25th, “she had no specific instructions,” the spokesman emphasized. “Any allegations that the administration is withholding such instructions are simply false.” In short, this whole “April Glaspie Told Saddam To Go Ahead and Invade Kuwait” thing seems to be a myth that developed like this: 1) Iraq forges a transcript in order to try and stop an attack by the U.S. A pure propaganda ploy. 2) Ross Perot, that shining beacon of rationality and reasonableness, seizes the document as a way to make political hay during an election. 3) Indy media propagates the transcript as myth, and it flies around the internet. *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC So @Sam_Stone (Sam Stone) replied **It's Time to Play Pundit Jeopardy!** **Contestent 1:** I'll take, for $100, Alex. **Alex Trebek:** “These three terms are supposed to be clever, but instead just make you look stupid.” **Contestent 1:** What are, “Klinton”, “Amerikka”, and “Saddam Bin Laden”. **Alex Trebek:** Correct! *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC To which @Sam_Stone (Sam Stone) replied I dunno what happened to Contestent #1. Must be drunk. He was supposed to say, “I'll take politics for $100”. *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC After which, @Jojo (Jojo) added Can someone answer me this question: Those anthrax attacks that occured a few months ago involved weaponised anthrax that apparently came from American laboratories. What does the US intend to do with weaponised anthrax? *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC To which @elucidator (elucidator) replied No assertion is made that Ms. Glaspie blessed Saddam's intentions, merely that she did not clearly state American opposition. Later attempts to shove the entire thing down the memory hole have apparently proved unavailing, though I doubt that they will stop. Further, I note you have no rebuttal to the other two quotes in support of this thesis, from Ms. Tutwieler and Mr. Kelly. If you wish to make the case that Ms. Glaspie incompetently fulfilled her role as envoy, you'll get little opposition from me, it is entirely plausible that she misrepresented the view of our government to Saddam, or failed to make them clear. Nonetheless, if war is to be a consequence of an action, nothing should be left to doubt. Hence, Saddams actions as regards Kuwait could hardly be said to be the actions of a madman, flying in the face of certain war. You will recall, that is my point, and all of my point. As I'm sure you know, my use of the phrase Saddam bin Laden is to satirize our leaders groundless certainty of a connection between two entirely incompatible forces of evil, connected only by thier enmity toward the US. Insisting that a secular cynic is kissing cousin with a religious fanatic makes about as much sense as insisting that the Unitarians control the agenda of the snake handling Pentecostals. It is nonsense, and as such, deserves derision, which I am happy to provide. You may smile, you may not, you may go pound burdocks, its all rather the same to me. I throw my line where the fish are, to open minds. I have no illusions as to yours. *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC After which, @Sam_Stone (Sam Stone) added Except that the ONLY evidence of your claims about Glaspie is a transcript from the Iraq regime, which the U.S. ambassador flatly calls a forgery. Why are you giving Iraq the benefit of the doubt over your own ambassador? It all boils down the their word against hers, and they have much to gain from making this claim, and she had absolutely nothing to gain by saying what they claim she said. Furthermore, their transcript says that she claims to have been given instructions by her government to say that they were not interested in Kuwait. Not only does the Bush administration deny this, but they have declassified documents which show that they are telling the truth. Against all this, we have the word of Saddam Hussein. So naturally, elucidator assumes Saddam is telling the truth. *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC After which, @elucidator (elucidator) added And again, apparently without effect, I call your attention to the supporting quotes, which you are pleased to ignore. Your innuendo that I am somehow sympathetic to Saddam Hussein ought to be beneath you. It is not. *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC @Sam_Stone (Sam Stone) replied No, I don't think you're sympathetic to Saddam Hussein. I think you're sympathetic to any possible evidence which upholds your particular worldview. This is not an uncommon failing. We all do it to some degree. Some, however, stick to their ‘evidence' a little too long after it's been shown to be a pile of crap. I take it you didn't actually read my cite, huh? Your page is basically the stuff that Ross Perot was spewing, which my cite debunks rather thoroughly. For example, you think that your page accurately quotes John Kelly. MY cite says this: > “[Kelly] said that historically the United States has taken no position on the border disputes in the area nor on matters pertaining to internal OPEC deliberations, but the United States has taken a strong position in support of the sovereignty of all states in the area,” Boucher said. “Iraq's apparent readiness to use force to settle disputes is ‘a cause for grave concern',” the spokesman quoted Kelly as saying. “That's the way we told it to the Iraqis.” Your cite is some unknown Geocities page. Mine is the U.S. Information Agency. Which one do you think carries more weight? As for Tutweiler's comment, I can't find any other sources for it, other than the usual collection of Tripod and Geocities links, or secondary sources that reference same. I can't find any original source documents. If you have them, I'd liike to see it. But even if it were, it's such a lame point that it's not even worth talking about. I mean, your big ‘smoking gun' is that a spokesman for the State Department was asked in a press conference if she knew whether or not the U.S. had protested a build up of troops on the border with Kuwait, and she said, “I am unaware of that”. Wow. Alert the presses. *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC @Koxinga (Koxinga) replied Good job, Sam. Now watch elucidator change the subject once again. *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC @Squink (Squink) replied > What does the US intend to do with weaponised anthrax? Muff the investigation into the affair so badly that the American public will just forget about it ? *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC To which @elucidator (elucidator) replied well, **Sam** it would appear to be a simple matter of all my cites are crap, while yours are gospel truth. I am content to leave zbrooks@example.org. You have, however, altered the quote from Ms. Tutwieler. You phrase it as to whether the US had protested a build up of troops and have her saying “I am unaware of that”. I am sure you will admit this is an extraordinarily stilted way of speaking. My original quote: "At a Washington press conference called the next day, State Department spokesperson Margaret Tutweiler was asked by journalists: “Has the United States sent any type of diplomatic message to the Iraqis about putting 30,000 troops on the border with Kuwait? Has there been any type of protest communicated from the United States government?” to which she responded: “I'm entirely unaware of any such protest.” If you are going to imply falsity, at the very least quote correctly! Would the State Department lie to me? You've got to be kidding! My own President has lied to me, looked me right in the eye, jutted out his chin in an expression of the utterest candor, and lied to me. And to you as well. The difference is you believe it, and I do not. By no stretch of the imagination am I alone in my skepticism. Nonetheless, we have clearly belabored this point sufficiently for a major hijack. If you like, open a thread on the subject of Ms. Glaspie's actions prior to the Kuwait invasion, and lets open the matter up for more views, and especially better researchers. On my word as a gentleman and a Doper, I believe what I have said to be true is true, and verifiable, if for no other reason than that I have read it over and over, many times, from many sources, and you and Shodan are the first to try to tell me it isnt so. If you seek to convince me, you'll have to do better. If you merely seek to discredit me, the game isn't worth the candle. Oh, and **Dogbreath** …want to call me a liar, or dishonest, at least have the balls to pit me and speak your mind, such as it were. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone who will say I've ever ducked out of an honest disagreement, but give it your best shot, if you think you can hack the course. Until that time, you can kiss my ass till I bark like a fox. *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC So @Mr.Svinlesha (Mr. Svinlesha) replied **Sam** and **elucidator** : As time goes on, and war draws closer, I cannot help but experience these discussions as becoming more and more surreal. Having read the alleged text for the Glaspie-Hussein meeting, **elucidator** , I find that there is room for both your interpretation _and_ the official State Department version presented by **Sam** , above. It's merely a matter of how you tilt the prism. I could go through my reasoning step-by-step, but to summarize, I think it is entirely possible that Hussein and Glaspie talked past each other, and misunderstood each other's intent. After all, it is in no sense an unreasonable policy on the part of the US to avoid, if possible, entanglement in a minor border skirmish between Iraq and Kuwait, especially if we view US actions in their context – that of trying to improve US-Iraqi relations. While I'm uncomfortable with the attempts made by the US back then to get into bed with Hitler – oops, sorry **Jeff** , I mean Hussein – I have no problem with the US government assuming a ”hands-off” approach to conflicts like the one above. In fact, I wish they would do it more often. That said, a critical review of your cite, **Sam** , doesn't do much to support your claim, IMHO. The first few paragraphs refute a number of accusations made by Ross Perot. These are not at issue here, so I'll skip over them. Coming to the meat of the issue, Boucher states: > * “Second, Ambassador Glaspie's meeting with Saddam Hussein on July 25th was short notice. There were never, and I repeat never, any instructions provided to Ambassador Glaspie for that meeting…”* > This is a bit of red-herring, even if true; Glaspie may not have had specific instructions for that particular meeting, but she did have general instructions regarding the US diplomatic position vis-a-vis the Iraq-Kuwait conflict. In fact, the assertion above might even weaken your position: if Saddam had called her to a meeting specifically for the purpose of getting an idea of how the US would respond to an invasion, and Glaspie, with no other specific instructions, simply repeated the official US position, then it is entirely conceivable that Hussein could have interpreted her response as a green light. Glaspie, on the other hand, not understanding that Saddam was feeling her out (not up, mind you) with regard to his plans for overrunning Kuwait, simply articulated the standard official US policy. Afterwards, one might criticize her for failing to fully appreaciate the import of Hussein's statements, but at the same time, such a mistake is – to my eyes at least – understandable (though tragic). Anyway, continuing:* > On July 19th, the State Department sent her, as well as other ambassadors in the region, an instruction regarding the U.S. position on the Iraq-Kuwaiti border dispute… It states the U.S. position that disputes should be resolved peacefully and that no force should be used… It further states that the United States is committed to support the sovereignty and integrity of the Gulf states and that we will continue to defend our vital interests in the Gulf. It adds that we remain strongly committed to supporting the individual and collective self defense of our friends in the Gulf… Boucher said Ambassador Glaspie delivered this message to the Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister the day she received it.* Conceivably, Hussein called Glaspie in order to get a specific clarification of the meaning of that document, or the seriousness of its intent. Again, a miscommunication may have occurred. (Please don't misinterpret this last as a defense of Hussein. It is not.) > _In order to impress upon the Iraqis the seriousness of our views," Ambassador Glaspie delivered a similar message to the Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister in the middle of the night of August 24-25 and again the following morning._ Note that this second delivery occurred almost a month after the invasion, and thus isn't particularly relevant to the zbrooks@example.org. Note also that the State Department, in its response, does not deny the correctness of the transcript released by the Iraqi government. It does not claim, for example, that Glaspie did not say the things she allegedly said; this question is, in fact, carefully avoided. Rather, State is simply trying to make the case that US policy vis-a-vis an eventual Iraqi takeover of Kuwait was clear, prior to the invasion. We can only speculate about how the US would have reacted had Iraq merely moved in and taken over some disputed border territory, and an oil well or two. But now, here comes the surreal part. After defending Glaspie from charges of “green-lighting” the invasion, Boucher (the State Department representative) goes on state: > * “The charge that Saddam still has nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons is wrong,” Boucher said. “Although Iraq may have hidden some of its former weapons programs, the U.N. teams have successfully found and destroyed critical elements and facilities of Iraq's chemical, nuclear, biological, and missile programs, and will continue vigorous inspections to ensure that these programs are not rebuilt. In addition, the U.N. inspection teams have found that U.S. technology made no significant contributions to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs,” the spokesman declared.* > Now then, seriously. Here we have a State Department document that categorically exonerates Glaspie; **Sam** insists, in fact, that we must accept its claims as true, because of the credibility of the source itself, the US government. It also states categorically that Saddam no longer has WMDs. **Sam** , who promotes an invasion of Iraq because of its possession of WMDs, presents us with a government document that states factually no such WMDs exist, and supports the continued work of the UN inspectors. So I ask you: how are we to interpret this document? Do you wish us to believe, **Sam** , that the section on Glaspie is true and accurate, but disregard the section on WMDs? Are they telling the truth at one point, but lying at another? If so, which is the lie, and how can you tell? If both are true, why are we going to war? On the other hand, if the statement concerning WMDs is false/incorrect, then why should we believe its claims about Glaspie, or its defense of US actions prior to the invasion of Kuwait? It seems to me that beneath the major substantial issues in this debate lies a more fundamental question, one related to the trustworthiness of the US government. This question is something of a watershed: if you believe that the US government is honest, you support war, and in debate find that you must do everything in your power to defend its integrity. If you don't believe in the US government, then the opposite; you do what you can to assault its integrity. (For what its worth, I, personally, call for a healthy dose of skepticism in the face of pronouncements for Washington.) What strikes me as surreal is the fact that ”conservatives,” who generally view the government with grave suspicions, and whose ideology dictates curtailing the influence of big government as much as possible, seem immediately willing to take everything presented by that government as true, _a priori_. At the same time, liberals, who are supposedly the friend of a large, paternalistic welfare state, and who tend to view the government not as an adversary, but as a ally, take the exact opposite stance. Is it just me, is that kinda weird? *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC To which @elucidator (elucidator) replied Well done, **Mr. S** I never read so far as to get to the part about the WMD's, and that has me confused. There were UN inspectors in Iraq before the Kuwait invasion? Huh? Wha? Still, this remains a subset of a hijack: my original point was about half a hijack in and of itself, to wit: rebutting claims that Saddam is an uncontainable madman as evidenced by his behavior with Kuwait. I suggest that Saddam could be said to be irrational in this regard only if there was unquestionable and explicit statements from Ms. Glaspie that war would result from his actions. As in stating with total Bugs Bunnian dignity: “Of course you realise, this means war!” Short of that, any doubt lends credence to my supposition. I hesitate to make a noise like “Well, enough of that, I win, they lose, let's move on.” Not quite the done thing. *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC After which, @Beagle (Beagle) added > Boucher: “Although Iraq _may have hidden_ some of its former weapons programs…” (italics mine) That was a CYA analysis if I ever read one: “Really our program is working well, unless it is determined later that it is not.” I think the State Department was trying to simultaneously praise the inspections regime - while acknowledging the shell game the Iraqis have been playing for years. On Kuwait: Logically, we did not green light Saddam to conquer Kuwait. No way. That is not, nor has ever been, in our national interests. However, it makes sense to stay out of border disputes between nations, happens all the time. Could the Iraqis have misunderstood what we were saying and vice versa? Sure, that too happens all the time. *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC To which @bordelond (bordelond) replied > *Originally posted by elucidator * > **And no, of course, no one interprets Ms. Glaspie as “sanctioning” the invasion, that bit of stretch is entirely your own. Merely that she communicated a lack of concern, as having no dog in that fight.** In that case, Glaspie's off the hook, IMHO. And that's even if I accepted the Iraqi account as completely factual to the letter, which I do not. Glaspie shouldn't have had to spell it out for Hussein thus: “IF you invade Kuwait, make no mistake – the U.S. WILL take military action to kick Iraq out.” Saddam had to have known better, IMHO. He's fully responsible for his own actions. *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC Then @Sam_Stone (Sam Stone) said And you're all still missing the point that Glaspie flatly denies that she said what that transcript claims, and that the only source we have for it is the Iraqi government. You're also missing that the transcript states that Ms. Glaspie said, “My government has instructed me to inform you that we have no interest in Kuwait”, while the State Department documents show that there was no such instruction. Again, if the only source is Saddam Hussein, why are you giving this story ANY credence at all? *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC @light_strand (light strand) replied > *Originally posted by Jojo * > Can someone answer me this question: > > Those anthrax attacks that occurred a few months ago involved weaponised anthrax that apparently came from American laboratories. What does the US intend to do with weaponised anthrax? The US intends to do exactly what you think the US would do with weaponized anthrax. The strain used in the anthrax letters was the “Ames” (developed in Ames Iowa) strain. This strain was used by the Army and distributed to research labs in the US. Now it's not completely out of the question that it made it's way to Iraq, just highly unlikely. Moreover, apparently the work done on the strain seemed to rule out Iraq as the originator. The trick to weaponizing bacterial strains is to refine them to the point where they are easily absorbed. Generally wild-type bacteria are “clumpy” and not easily inhaled. If you can refine them to a fine powder which floats, you've “weaponized” them. Now if I had to guess from where the the mailed culture originated, it would be my opinion that it came out of a military research facility. This is also why I believe that the mailer has not been publicly caught. I think that the US military has no intention of embarrassing itself by revealing how easily stolen are its cultures. *[{\color{blue}{(...)}}]: Edited by CMC After which, @Mr.Svinlesha (Mr. Svinlesha) added **elucidator** : > * Still, this remains a subset of a hijack: my original point was about half a hijack in and of itself, to wit: rebutting claims that Saddam is an uncontainable madman as evidenced by his behavior with Kuwait. I suggest
{'source': 'discourse', 'url': 'https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-powells-address-smoking-gun-redux/152980', 'title': 'Post-Powell\'s Address: "Smoking Gun" Redux', 'views': 9664, 'has_accepted_answer': False, 'word_count': 74488, 'like_count': 0, 'reply_count': 318, 'participant_count': 55, 'posts': 318, 'tags': '', 'author': '@Beagle (Beagle)', 'participants': '@Beagle (Beagle), @EasyPhil (EasyPhil), @Kendo (Kendo), @Mullinator (Mullinator), @Liberal (Liberal), @Shodan (Shodan), @t-keela (t-keela), @mack (mack), @Diogenes_the_Cynic (Diogenes the Cynic), @Avalonian (Avalonian), @elucidator (elucidator), @Leaper (Leaper), @Sam_Stone (Sam Stone), @Jojo (Jojo), @Koxinga (Koxinga), @Squink (Squink), @Mr.Svinlesha (Mr. Svinlesha), @bordelond (bordelond), @light_strand (light strand), @Tee (Tee), @ElvisL1ves (ElvisL1ves), @december (december), @Mojo (Mojo), @Latro (Latro), @tagos (tagos), @DrDeth (DrDeth), @asrivkin (asrivkin), @greco_loco (greco_loco), @RandySpears (RandySpears)', 'image_url': [None], 'created_at': '2003-02-05T17:00:55.000Z', 'last_posted_at': '2003-02-17T17:44:30.000Z'}