| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/23 |
| 2007/6/6-10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:46872 Activity:kinda low |
6/6 WTF? Does Romney have even the faintest idea what a "null set" is?
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/05/se.01.html
\_ I think it's more shocking that he apparently doesn't know that
the IAEA inspectors were, y'know, in Iraq.
\_ Let's be honest, Saddam did not fully open his country. Yes, the
inspectors were there, but Saddam was at least attempting to make
it look like he was running a shell game. I think it was for
Iraqi domestic reasons, but he was not fully open.
\_ You're wrong, and your president is a liar.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,895882,00.html
Or maybe Saddam got to Blix! Maybe he was brainwashed into
saying that Iraq was complying... Maybe we ignored him
because we knew the spaceslugs had taken over his mind!
\_ You read this and see, "Iraq is clean". I read this (I
read the whole thing, did you?) and see several specific
on-going violations as well as tons of bio/chemicals that
Iraq claims were unilaterally destroyed with no
documentation as well as numerous comments regarding long
term lack of cooperation on Iraq's part spanning many
years. Blix does not say Iraq is complying (as you
claim). He says Iraq has started to work with Blix's
people and gives examples such as reducing the
"minder:inspector ratio" from 5:1 to 1:1. Not exactly the
kind of stuff that leads one to believe "Iraq is
complying". But whatever, DailyKOS awaits your endless
wisdom on these matters. But maybe you're right. After
we found Saddam but no WMD we should have said we were
sorry, reinstated him, left, and sent flowers and cash.
\_ In the words of Judith Miller, "We were proved fucking
right." There were no weapons. The inspectors were
in. They were getting the job done. They were pulled
out so we could stop bombing. The claims Romney et al
make are false.
\_ What? RTFA. A does not imply B.
\_ In October 2002, Blix came out and said "Iraq
better behave with this round of inspections."
In Feb 2003, he says "They seem to be behaving."
Bush et al run around saying "HE'S NOT COMPLYING."
They then say "GET THE FUCK OUT, WE'Z GON' BOM!"
When the weapons are found not to be there, they
say "Well, it doesn't matter.. We went in because
he wouldn't let the inspectors in." No shit,
"they seem to be behaving" doesn't mean "they're
clean". But now we know "they were clean".
And we know those who could have told us so were
ignored because we wanted our fucking war.
Romney says the inspectors were not allowed in.
You say that he really meant "yeah they let them
in, but they didn't <i>let them in." You're both
wrong. Romney's a liar. You're stupid.
\_ Yeah, I spent 100 hours (no joke) trying to
make this point in the months leading up
to the war, only to be called all kinds
of names on the motd. It is nice to be
vindicated and the GOP is going to go down
in flames in 2008 if they can't figure out
a way to distance themselves from this
utter and complete failure in Iraq.
\_ DITTOHEAD BULLETIN..."MOONBAT" IS OUT...NEW OPPONENT
BELITTLEMENT POLICY IS TO TELL THEM TO GO BACK TO
DAILYKOS...THIS IS NOT A DRILL.
Just a note. Back when Rummy was "doing a fabulous
job," he said "We know where [the WMDs] are." The
claim wasn't that Saddam was being evasive, or that
we thought there might be something fishy going on,
THE CLAIM WAS THAT WE KNEW WHERE THE WMDs WERE. Which
we didn't. -tom
\_ Barking Moonbat to you. Because the Bushies are all
so.... moderate. It is the rest of you that are
extremists.
\_ Sheesh tom, speaking of shell games... At least try
to stay on topic.
\_ So the WMDs weren't there. Either the intel was
wrong or they were moved. Either way the Blix report
does not say what the above poster says it says. The
rest of your post is your standard personal attack
drivel, as expected.
\_ Either the intel was wrong, or they were moved,
OR RUMSFELD WAS 100% FULL OF SHIT. -tom
\_ Uhm, yeah. Why do you bother? What does this
have to do with Blix's report or really,
anything at all? Rumsfeld isn't even
mentioned on this thread until you brought him
up. Off your meds?
\_ "We know where they are. They're in
the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and
East, West, North and South somewhat."
- Donald Rumsfeld
"I never said we know where the weapons
are."
- Donald Rumsfeld
\_ ALERT...ALERT..."OFF YOUR MEDS" WAS
DEPRECATED AS AN INSULT AFTER THE GREAT
HONORABLE RUSH LIMBAUGH WAS CAUGHT USING
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS...PLEASE CEASE AND
DESIST USING THIS TERM IMMEDIATELY.
DITTOHEAD CENTRAL, OUT.
\_ I think he means there's no sensible answer to the question. |
| 5/23 |
|
| transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/05/se.01.html Return to Transcripts main page CNN LIVE EVENT/SPECIAL Republican Presidential Debate Aired June 5, 2007 - 19:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. Right now Tom Fahey of the New Hampshire Union Leader with the first question. Governor Romney, I wanted to start by asking you a question on which every American has formed an opinion. We have lost 3,400 troops, civilian casualties are even higher, and the Iraqi government does not appear ready to provide for the security of its own country. Knowing everything you know right now, was it a mistake for us to invade Iraq? MITT ROMNEY, FORMER GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS: Well, the question is, kind of, a non sequitur, if you will. What I mean by that -- or a null set -- that is that if you're saying let's turn back the clock and Saddam Hussein had opening up his country to IAEA inspectors and they'd come in and they'd found that there were no weapons of mass destruction, had Saddam Hussein therefore not violated United Nations resolutions, we wouldn't be in the conflict we're in. But he didn't do those things, and we knew what we knew at the point we made the decision to get in. I supported the president's decision based on what we knew at that time. I think we were underprepared and underplanned for what came after we knocked down Saddam Hussein. And that's not the sort of thing you say when you have men and women in harm's way. We did, however, not do a great job after we knocked down Saddam Hussein and won the war to take him down and his military. And at this stage, the right thing for us to do is to see if we could possibly stabilize the central government in Iraq so that they can have stability, and so we can bring our troops home as soon as possible. Not to do that adds an enormous potential risk that the whole region could be embroiled in a regional conflict. FAHEY: Governor, thank you, but the question was, knowing what you know right now -- not what you knew then, what you know right now -- was it a mistake for the United States to invade Iraq? ROMNEY: Well, I answered the question by saying it's a non- sequitur. It's a non -- null set kind of question, because you can go back and say, "If we knew then what we know now, by virtue of inspectors having been let in and giving us that information, by virtue of if Saddam Hussein had followed the UN resolutions, we wouldn't be having this discussion." So it's a hypothetical that I think is an unreasonable hypothetical. We did the right thing based on what we knew at that time. I think we made mistakes following the conduct or the collapse of Saddam's government. Knowing what you know right now, was it a good decision? RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: Absolutely the right thing to do. It's unthinkable that you would leave Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and be able to fight the war on terror. Iraq is part of the overall terrorist war against the United States. That's why you hear things like you heard in the debate the other night, that, you know, Iran really isn't dangerous; The danger to us is a state like Iran handing nuclear weapons over to terrorists. BLITZER: Senator McCain, arguably going to war is the most important decision a member of the Senate can make. Did you read the national intelligence estimate, which included all the caveats on whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? JOHN MCCAIN , ARIZONA: I did not read that particular document. I received hundreds of briefing, tens and hundreds of hours of study and background and information on it. We had a multi-billion dollar scandal in the form of oil for food. The fact is that Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction before on his own people and on his enemies. And if he'd gotten them again, he'd have used them again. That was his commitment and his belief, that he was going to. Senator Brownback, you're also a member of the United States Senate. Did you read that classified national intelligence estimate? I had a number of briefings and I held a number of committee hearings. At that time, I was chairing the Middle East Subcommittee on Foreign Relations. And we held hearings on this topic and what was taking place and what Saddam was doing. But the issue is that we've got to put forward, now, a political plan. And that's something I'm going to introduce tomorrow, a political plan to create a three-state solution in Iraq: a Kurdish state, a Sunni state, a Shia state. Because Iraq is more three groups held together by exterior forces. And that's what we've lacked is a political plan to get us moving forward in success. Do you think it was appropriate that members of Congress would authorize the president to go to war without reading that national intelligence estimate? JIM GILMORE, FORMER GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA: You know, I think the people who are in Congress who are responsible for sending this country to war, with the enormous dangers that it has geopolitically and strategically, ought to read at least that kind of material. I know they get a lot of stuff and they can't read everything. I think the true business is this: The interests of the United States is in creating as much stability as possible in the Middle East. There is a very great danger to this country: our interests in Israel, our interests in energy and in other ways. There is a giant danger of the Middle East becoming an unstable place. Saddam Hussein was unstable, and so taking him out was good there. But we certainly didn't anticipate the further instability that was to come after. BLITZER: We're going to bring all of you in, but I want to go to Scott Spradling of WMUR for the next question. Senator McCain, we've just spent a few minutes looking back. Since June 1st there have been at least 17 confirmed deaths of American soldiers in Iraq. Approximately 100 US troops are dying there every month. If our top military commander in Iraq, General Petraeus, reports back to Congress this September that the surge hasn't significantly improved the situation on the ground, what then? MCCAIN: Well, let me say, first of all, I know how frustrated and saddened all Americans are. This morning I was with the family of Matthew Stanley of Wolfeboro, who sacrificed his life. And our hearts and our sympathy goes out to all those who have sacrificed their lives in this conflict. I (inaudible) think this strategy needs to be given a chance to succeed. We haven't barely gotten the fifth brigade over there, which is part of this strategy. I am convinced that if we fail and we have to withdraw, they will follow us home. And we will be facing greater challenges and greater sacrifices than that already made by Matthew Stanley and his family. There is no doubt in my mind that this will become a base for terrorism, there will be chaos in the region. And when Senator Clinton says this is Mr Bush's war, that this is President Bush's war -- when President Clinton was in power, I didn't say that Bosnia, our intervention there was President Clinton's war. When we intervened in Kosovo, I didn't say it was President Clinton's war. What Senator Clinton doesn't understand that presidents don't lose wars. Nations lose wars, and nations lose the -- have the consequences of failure. it's not working so far in September, what do you do then? And I'll tell you the options: One is the division that Sam described. You would have to divide bedrooms in Baghdad because Sunni and Shia are married to each other. You have 2 million Sunni and 4 million Shia living in Baghdad together. You would have to -- you withdraw to the borders and watch genocide take place inside Baghdad. You see further jeopardy of Israel because of the threats of Hezbollah and Iranian hegemony in the region. That's why we must succeed and give it a chance to succeed. Go ahead, same question to you: If General Petraeus says it's not working in September, what should the US do then? TOMMY THOMPSON, FORMER HHS SECRETARY: The first thing the president should do is demand the al-Maliki government to vote as to whether or not they want the United States to stay in Iraq. If they vote "yes," how are ... |
| www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,895882,00.html Guardian Unlimited Mr President, Since I reported to the Security Council on 27 January, UNMOVIC has had two further weeks of operational and analytical work in New York and active inspections in Iraq. This brings the total period of inspections so far to 11 weeks. Since then, we have also listened on 5 February to the presentation to the Council by the US Secretary of State and the discussion that followed. ElBaradei and I have held another round of talks in Baghdad with our counterparts and with Vice President Ramadan on 8 and 9 February. Let me begin today's briefing with a short account of the work being performed by UNMOVIC in Iraq. The regional office in Mosul is now fully operational at its temporary headquarters. Plans for a regional office at Basra are being developed. Our Hercules L-100 aircraft continues to operate routine flights between Baghdad and Larnaca. With the resolution of the problems raised by Iraq for the transportation of minders into the no-fly zones, our mobility in these zones has improved. The number of Iraqi minders during inspections had often reached a ratio as high as five per inspector. During the talks in January in Baghdad, the Iraqi side agreed to keep the ratio to about one to one. Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming. The inspections have taken place throughout Iraq at industrial sites, ammunition depots, research centres, universities, presidential sites, mobile laboratories, private houses, missile production facilities, military camps and agricultural sites. At all sites which had been inspected before 1998, re-baselining activities were performed. This included the identification of the function and contents of each building, new or old, at a site. It also included verification of previously tagged equipment, application of seals and tags, taking samples and discussions with the site personnel regarding past and present activities. At certain sites, ground-penetrating radar was used to look for underground structures or buried equipment. Through the inspections conducted so far, we have obtained a good knowledge of the industrial and scientific landscape of Iraq, as well as of its missile capability but, as before, we do not know every cave and corner. Inspections are effectively helping to bridge the gap in knowledge that arose due to the absence of inspections between December 1998 and November 2002. More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been collected at different sites. Three-quarters of these have been screened using our own analytical laboratory capabilities at the Baghdad Centre (BOMVIC). The results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations. We have now commenced the process of destroying approximately 50 litres of mustard gas declared by Iraq that was being kept under UNMOVIC seal at the Muthanna site. The laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor, which we found at another site, has also been destroyed. The total number of staff in Iraq now exceeds 250 from 60 countries. This includes about 100 UNMOVIC inspectors, 15 IAEA inspectors, 50 aircrew, and 65 support staff. Mr President, In my 27 January update to the Council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, most importantly prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure. This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that had never been declared or inspected, as well as to Presidential sites and private residences. In my last updating, I also said that a decision to cooperate on substance was indispensable in order to bring, through inspection, the disarmament task to completion and to set the monitoring system on a firm course. Such cooperation, as I have noted, requires more than the opening of doors. In the words of resolution 1441 (2002) - it requires immediate, unconditional and active efforts by Iraq to resolve existing questions of disarmament - either by presenting remaining proscribed items and programmes for elimination or by presenting convincing evidence that they have been eliminated. In the current situation, one would expect Iraq to be eager to comply. While we were in Baghdad, we met a delegation from the Government of South Africa. It was there to explain how South Africa gained the confidence of the world in its dismantling of the nuclear weapons programme, by a wholehearted cooperation over two years with IAEA inspectors. I have just learned that Iraq has accepted an offer by South Africa to send a group of experts for further talks. How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programmes? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed. Another matter - and one of great significance - is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for". If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented. We are fully aware that many governmental intelligence organizations are convinced and assert that proscribed weapons, items and programmes continue to exist. The US Secretary of State presented material in support of this conclusion. Governments have many sources of information that are not available to inspectors. Inspectors, for their part, must base their reports only on evidence, which they can, themselves, examine and present publicly. Mr President, In my earlier briefings, I have noted that significant outstanding issues of substance were listed in two Security Council documents from early 1999 (S/1999/94 and S/1999/356) and should be well known to Iraq. The declaration submitted by Iraq on 7 December last year, despite its large volume, missed the opportunity to provide the fresh material and evidence needed to respond to the open questions. This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions. In my January update to the Council, I referred to the Al Samoud 2 and the Al Fatah missiles, reconstituted casting chambers, construction of a missile engine test stand and the import of rocket engines, which were all declared to UNMOVIC by Iraq. I noted that the Al Samoud 2 and the Al Fatah could very well represent prima facie cases of proscribed missile systems, as they had been tested to ranges exceeding the 150-kilometre limit set by the Security Council. I also noted that Iraq had been requested to cease flight tests of these missiles until UNMOVIC completed a technical review. Earlier this week, UNMOVIC missile experts met for two days with experts from a number of Member States to discuss these items. The experts concluded unanimously that, based on the data provided by Iraq, the two declared variants of the Al Samoud 2 missile were capable of exceeding 150 kilometres in range. This missile system is therefore proscribed for Iraq pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) and the monitoring plan adopted by resolution 715 (1991). As for the Al Fatah, the experts found that clarification of the missile data supplied by Iraq was required before the capability of the missile system could be fully assessed. With respect to the casting chambers, I note the following: UNSCOM ordered and supervised the destruction of the casting chambers, which had been intended for use in the production of the proscribed Badr-2000 missile system... |