Kerry flip flops on the war....AGAIN

[castlegazer]

Sorry, but no one but the Prime Minister and his cabinet in Britain believe the African Uranium link. I am an American Citizen and our intelligence agencies have discounted the veracity of this claim.

Um, also there is no evidence, again, as stated by our own intelligence community, that he ever met with al Qaida. I will grant you that he apparently had sought these meetings but was denied.

 

[bcvillastwo]

Earlier someone said...............

It's a shame that biased data has been used as fact to justify relaxing gun laws across the country. While I am against relaxing gun laws, I am open to doing so if there is scientifically acceptable proof that it has a positive impact.

Well if the data is biased (a notion I neither accept nor reject) then someone should be able to substantiate the bias. If those that financed the study are in favor of relaxing the ban it doesn't necessarily follow that their data is biased. Prove your assertion with fact please.

In addition, I've heard plenty of people assert that the pro ban lobby used biased data to get the ban enacted in the first place. Likewise, I have no basis to either accept or reject that assertion but it was frequently made during the run up to the AWB. Again, if the data base biased I am sure that the bias has been substantiated.

Frankly, I am tired or assertions without evidence and all sides do it. Then when evidence is supplied it doesn't count because it was developed by biased individuals or groups. That leaves us with the inability to deal with issues in any reasonable fashion becauce no one believe anyone else. So, we happily make our assertions and go on our merry way, facts be damned.

After all, lets not let facts get in the way of a good story.

 

[castlegazer]

Originally posted by Funkyzeit mit Bruno
Maybe we should ignore a dictator who is an avowed enemy of the US, seeking uranium, and meeting with al qaeda. I say why take the chance.

Would you like to make a statement about the President and how he should handle North Korea and Iran.

Be very careful of slippery slopes in international affairs.

 

[Funkyzeit mit Bruno]

Originally posted by castlegazer
Would you like to make a statement about the President and how he should handle North Korea and Iran.

Be very careful of slippery slopes in international affairs.

Neither Iran nor North Korea were actively engaged in hostilities with the US. Saddam was shooting at our aircraft, probably the only nation in the world to do so (since the Soviets anyway, unless I am mistaken).

Also, neither Iran and North Korea never harbored a terrorist who had attacked the US on US soil. From Richard Clarke's testimony to the 911 Commission, regarding Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Islamist terrorist who attacked the U.S., on U.S. soil (1993 WTC bombing):

The Iraqi government, because, obviously, of the hostility between us and them, didn't cooperate in turning him over, and gave him sanctuary, as it did give sanctuary to other terrorists

I don't think anyone is saying we should ignore Iran and North Korea Korea, though.



As to your point about Saddam regime's meeting with al qaeda, here is a quote form the 911 Commission's final report:

In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.

The Butler Report is the lastest thing I've read about the intelligence regarding Saddam's attempts to acquire uranium. I don't think any US officials have cast doubt on that part of the report.

 

[Loftus]

Originally posted by Geoff_M
And if Bin Laden's organization hadn't been killed or driven into spider holes in the interim, you might have a point.

2002 (Apr.): Explosion at historic synagogue in Tunisia leaves 21 dead, including 14 German tourists.
2002 (May): Car explodes outside hotel in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 14, including 11 French citizens.
2002 (June): Bomb explodes outside American Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12.
2002 (Oct.): Nightclub bombings in Bali, Indonesia, kill 202, mostly Australian citizens.
2002 (Nov.): Suicide attack on a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, kills 16.
2003 (May): Suicide bombers kill 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
2003 (May): Four bombs kill 24 people, targeting Jewish, Spanish, and Belgian sites in Casablanca, Morocco.
2003 (Aug.): Suicide car bomb kills 12, injures 150, at Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia.
2003 (Nov.): Explosions rock a Riyadh, Saudi Arabia housing compound killing 17.
2003 (Nov.): Suicide car bombers simultaneously attack two synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 25 and injuring hundreds.
2004 (Mar.): Ten terrorists bombs exploded almost simultaneously during the morning rush hour in Madrid, Spain, killing 202 and injuring more than 1,400.
2004 (May): Terrorist attack Saudi oil company offices in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, killing 22.
2004 (June): Terrorist kidnap and execute American Paul Johnson Jr., in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

(source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884893.html)

This list does not include the recent terrorist incidents in Russia or any of the attacks or kidnappings in Iraq.

Al Qaida isn't a terrorist organisation like Fatah or the IRA. It's a network. The head can be driven into a hole in the ground but it doesn't stop the foot soldiers - usually of disparate terrorist groups - from carrying out its instructions.

 

[bcvillastwo]

Another individual well versed in the history of our Presidents. Just another gratutitus assertion without any factual basis.

How about we wait 25 to 50 years before we make such silly assertions.

According to some, Warren Harding is widely considered the worst President in American history. Financial impropriety was rampant in the administration. Harding died of natural causes while in office.

Another listing shows that James Buchanan the worst followed by Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, Warren G. Harding, and William Henry Harrison.

The Federalist Society pretty much follows the list above for worst and has George Bush beating Bill Clinton in the Average category with a ranking of 2.92 over 2.77 on a 5.0 scale.

C Span shows similar results in terms of lowest rankings and again puts Bush over Clinton in the middle of the pack ranked at 20th and 21st respectively.

The Zogby Presidential Greatness Poll again shows Bush significantly ahead of Clinton but still just in the middle.

In conclusion, saying something doesn't necessarily make it so. Again, some people let facts get in the way of a good story. Are there polls, or reviews that say Bush is terrible? Yes aboslutely but I say its simply too early to tell where he's going to fall out when compared to other Presidents or other Presidents and the times they lived in.

 

[castlegazer]

Originally posted by Funkyzeit mit Bruno
Neither Iran nor North Korea were actively engaged in hostilities with the US. Saddam was shooting at our aircraft, probably the only nation in the world to do so (since the Soviets anyway, unless I am mistaken).

You are mistaken.

Also, neither Iran and North Korea never harbored a terrorist who had attacked the US on US soil. From Richard Clarke's testimony to the 911 Commission, regarding Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Islamist terrorist who attacked the U.S., on U.S. soil (1993 WTC bombing):

Is this why we went to war with Iraq?

U.S. Responds to Iranian Attacks

PRESIDENT REAGAN'S STATEMENT,

OCT. 19, 1987 Acting pursuant to my authority as Commander in Chief, U.S. naval vessels at 7:00 a.m. EDT today struck an Iranian military platform in international waters in the central Persian Gulf. This platform has been used to assist in a number of Iranian attacks against nonbelligerent shipping. Iran's unprovoked attacks upon U.S. and other nonbelligerent shipping, and particularly deliberate laying of mines and firing of Silkworm missiles which have hit U.S. flag vessels, have come in spite of numerous messages from the Government of the United States to the Government of Iran warning of the consequences.

The action against the Iranian military platform came after consultations with congressional leadership and friendly governments. It is a prudent yet restrained response to this unlawful use of force against the United States and to numerous violations of the rights of other nonbelligerents. It is a lawful exercise of the right of self-defense enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter and is being so notified to the President of the UN Security Council.

The United States has no desire for a military confrontation with Iran, but the Government of Iran should be under no illusion about our determination and ability to protect our ships and our interests against unprovoked attacks. We have informed the Government of Iran of our desire for an urgent end to tensions in the region and an end to the Iran-Iraq war through urgent implementation of Security Council Resolution 598.

December 1994
North Korea shoots down U.S. helicopter

One U.S. soldier is killed when North Korean forces shoot down a U.S. helicopter. North Korea accuses the helicopter pilot of spying, while the U.S. maintains that the aircraft had strayed off course during a routine training mission. Pyongyang holds the pilot for 13 days and to win his release, the U.S. expresses "sincere regret" for the incident.

March 2003
Tensions escalate; U.S and North Korea at impasse

After restarting its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon in late February, Pyongyang tests two short-range missiles in March. It also intercepts and harasses a U.S. spy plane flying off its coast and announces that it is pulling out of the armistice talks that have been going on since the end of the Korean War.

 

[Funkyzeit mit Bruno]

Originally posted by castlegazer
You are mistaken.



U.S. Responds to Iranian Attacks

PRESIDENT REAGAN'S STATEMENT,

OCT. 19, 1987 Acting pursuant to my authority as Commander in Chief, U.S. naval vessels at 7:00 a.m. EDT today struck an Iranian military platform in international waters in the central Persian Gulf. This platform has been used to assist in a number of Iranian attacks against nonbelligerent shipping. Iran's unprovoked attacks upon U.S. and other nonbelligerent shipping, and particularly deliberate laying of mines and firing of Silkworm missiles which have hit U.S. flag vessels, have come in spite of numerous messages from the Government of the United States to the Government of Iran warning of the consequences.

The action against the Iranian military platform came after consultations with congressional leadership and friendly governments. It is a prudent yet restrained response to this unlawful use of force against the United States and to numerous violations of the rights of other nonbelligerents. It is a lawful exercise of the right of self-defense enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter and is being so notified to the President of the UN Security Council.

The United States has no desire for a military confrontation with Iran, but the Government of Iran should be under no illusion about our determination and ability to protect our ships and our interests against unprovoked attacks. We have informed the Government of Iran of our desire for an urgent end to tensions in the region and an end to the Iran-Iraq war through urgent implementation of Security Council Resolution 598.

December 1994
North Korea shoots down U.S. helicopter

One U.S. soldier is killed when North Korean forces shoot down a U.S. helicopter. North Korea accuses the helicopter pilot of spying, while the U.S. maintains that the aircraft had strayed off course during a routine training mission. Pyongyang holds the pilot for 13 days and to win his release, the U.S. expresses "sincere regret" for the incident.

March 2003
Tensions escalate; U.S and North Korea at impasse

After restarting its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon in late February, Pyongyang tests two short-range missiles in March. It also intercepts and harasses a U.S. spy plane flying off its coast and announces that it is pulling out of the armistice talks that have been going on since the end of the Korean War. [/B]

I stand corrected, thanks. Where'd you get that great info? I've been trying to research this issue recently but haven't found anything as good as what you've posted.

It is interesting to note that in 1994 North Korea shot down the helicopter but in 2003 they merely harassed the spy plane. I wonder if Bush administrations policies had anything to do with that. Before the US invaded, Saddam regularly shot at our aircraft, even well after 9/11.

Originally posted by castlegazer
Is this why we went to war with Iraq?

JUst that one terrorist? No, although I think we'd be foolish not to deal harshly with any regime that harbors terrorists that have attacked US soil. I think Saddam was a threat to America because of a combination of factors, among them:

-the level of hostility between Iraq and the US
-the evidence that Saddam was seeking uranium
-Saddam's willingness to deal with terrorists
-Saddam's numerous contacts with al qaeda

 

[Rokkitsci]

Just a few notes - more detail later

Forgeries =

It appears that the new mantra of CBS News and the Democrat operatives is "well the documents may be fake, but the content is accurate" so we should continue to demand that Bush prove them wrong.

This really bends my steely-eyed spaceman's brain. But, lets for a moment accept this brand of logic and apply it to other similar situations.

It seems that there was a forged document that found its way into the hands of the Italian Intelligence apparatus. That forged document said that "Iraq was trying to purchase yellow-cake (uranium) from Niger." It was an obvious fake. Dates were wrong. Open and shut case of forgery.

HOWEVER - there were many OTHER independent sources that said that indeed Iraq WAS trying to purchase uranium from Niger. Britain intelligence thought so - without even referring to the forged document. Russia thought so - without relying on the forged document. The United States thought so - without citing the forged document in any way. Now of course all these countries KNEW about the forgery - they just ignored it and continued to do their job.

President Bush cited something like this in his SOTU message = " British Intelligence has learned that Iraq has recently attempted to purchase uranium from Niger." (or something quite like that)

So here we have a case of a forged document that stated a conclusion that most intelligence agencies in the world thought to be true. What have the Democrats (and the MSM) done??

They have contended that this one forged document negates all the other independently gathered material and have said that we should have ignored all that because there was a forged document somewhere.

In other words - the forgery itself negates the message that it contains. Regardless of the fact that the message was true - independent of the forged document.

NOW - lets look at the latest forged document issue.

In THIS case, we have a forged document that is contrary to everything that anyone associated with the real situation declares to be true (with the lone exception of one 86 year old woman who admittedly hates Bush - but even SHE says the documents are forgeries)

So - if we apply the Democrat method of analysis - we should say that whatever message is contained in THIS forged document has to be disbelieved - just like they claimed about the Iraq/Niger connection. There the fact that the document was a forgery made all other data irrelevant.

BUT - in THIS case - the message in the forgery has to be believed in SPITE of it being in a forged document.

In addition, we have to disbelieve all the contemporary witnesses to the real events who say that the message in the forgery is false.

I am getting a headache here -

In one case a forged document with a TRUE message negates all the other known truth about the situation. And the TRUE statement in the forged document must be DISBELIEVED.

In the other case a forged document with a FALSE message negates all the other truth known about the situation. And the FALSE statement in the forged document must be BELIEVED.

I just cannot figure this one out - will someone help me please???

I am so confused - I just hate it when that happens.

Forgeries must have recently inherited some hitherto unknown meta-physical power.

It used to be that we would just ignore the messages in forgeries and prosecute the ones who made them.

 

[Geoff_M]

Al Qaida isn't a terrorist organisation like Fatah or the IRA. It's a network. The head can be driven into a hole in the ground but it doesn't stop the foot soldiers - usually of disparate terrorist groups - from carrying out its instructions.

It was my intention to state that the "organization's leadership" had been effectively removed from the picture due to their killing or capturing. That was a proof reading error on my part as it would be silly to assert that Al Qaida ceases to exist today. Intelligence reports indicate that the organization has been severly disrupted and many of their operations, as you mentioned, are the likely result of regional or local "rouge" units. The fact is that despite Bush's "poke" at Bin Laden in 3/2002 (effectively saying "you've been marginalized... you're a nobody"), the US still has significant resources devoted to his capture. If you doubt that, ask yourself if the Whitehouse would like to see, and understands the political value of, Osama's mug on the front of USA Today next month standing next to smiling members of the US Special Forces.

 

[JKanownik]

Originally posted by bcvillastwo
Earlier someone said...............



Well if the data is biased (a notion I neither accept nor reject) then someone should be able to substantiate the bias. If those that financed the study are in favor of relaxing the ban it doesn't necessarily follow that their data is biased. Prove your assertion with fact please.

In addition, I've heard plenty of people assert that the pro ban lobby used biased data to get the ban enacted in the first place. Likewise, I have no basis to either accept or reject that assertion but it was frequently made during the run up to the AWB. Again, if the data base biased I am sure that the bias has been substantiated.

Frankly, I am tired or assertions without evidence and all sides do it. Then when evidence is supplied it doesn't count because it was developed by biased individuals or groups. That leaves us with the inability to deal with issues in any reasonable fashion becauce no one believe anyone else. So, we happily make our assertions and go on our merry way, facts be damned.

After all, lets not let facts get in the way of a good story.

Here are a few links explaining the statistical bias (defined as: A statistical sampling or testing error caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others) of the Lott study:

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/onepage.html#lesscrime

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_1_26/ai_80924579

http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_article.pdf


Note that I am not claiming the there is no link between relaxed gun laws and reduced crime rates, just that existing conclusions from both sides are biased. Slight changes to the models used greatly influence the final results and so far the predictive powers of Lott's model and the slightly changed models that contest his results have been extremely limited. There's also the issue of correlation vs. causation where opinion (and personal bias along with it) comes into play because Lott's study was non-experimental.

-Josh