My cherry picking is from the CONCLUSIONS drawn by a republican committee.....after they investigated ALL public and "secret" documentation and testimony.
If I'm cherry picking itn is because I am in a Cherry Orchard.... you seem to be doing your cherry picking in a bean field. On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:24 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > If and when I have time I will provide links and quotes FROM YOUR > Proof... Until then I will say you are cherry picking... > > On Feb 24, 5:43 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: >> The information provided to the Committee indicated that Iraq was >> renovating and expanding fixed dual-use facilities, was capable of >> producing biological warfare agents, and was engaged in research >> that was suitable for biological weapons. All of these activities were >> were dual-use, however. Therefore, all of the activity could have been >> related to legitimate, non-biological weapons activity. Few >> intelligence reports suggested specifically that the activity was >> relatedto biological weapons. The Intelligence Community also >> hadreporting which indicated that Iraq may have had a mobile >> biologicalweapons production capability, but most of that intelligence >> was obtained from a single HUMINT source to whom the >> IntelligenceCommunity never had direct access. >> >> So far it says that most intel was from a second hand never contacted >> and unidentified source. >> >> "However, the definitive statement that Iraq 'has' such facilities was >> not supported by the intelligence." >> >> NEXT !!!!!! >> >> delivery >> >> The majority position in the new NIE was also modified regarding the >> intent of the mapping software Iraq had been trying to procure. The >> new assessment stated that the software "could support programming of >> a UAV autopilot for operation in the United States."132 Even with the >> less conclusive assessment in this NIE, the DIA, the USAF, and the >> Army all interpreted "recent reporting to mean that the purpose of the >> Iraqi request for route planning software and topographic database was >> to acquire a generic mapping capability - a goal that is not >> necessarily indicative of an intent to target the U.S. >> Homeland."133(U) On March 3, 2003, CIA published an assessment of the >> threat from Iraqi UAVs. The assessment described the attempted mapping >> software purchase,noting that while the CIA could not exclude that >> this purchase was directed by Baghdad, "information acquired in >> October suggests that it may have been inadvertent on the part of the >> procurement agent. We are attempting to collect additional information >> regarding Iraq's intentions with this software. >> >> end meaning...they did not have the software. a year later can you say >> "google earth" which geographically maps the entire world giving to >> the public the supposedly secret information that would have been >> gathered... further in the years right after desert storm they did >> fire ONE missile that went further than the allowed 1500 km.... they >> destroyed these systems and were left with only the 600km missiles >> which were legal under the UN guidelines that the US chose to >> unilaterally ignore and invade. they did have more legal missiles than >> thought though. >> >> As far as what is and is not uncivil I am covered under the TOS from >> google that leaves that determination of language use up to the norms >> in the originating country.... I am NOT in Gringolandia and being >> "politically correct" here is taken as insincerity and akin to lying. >> If I see an unknown black man on the street and call for him I say >> "oy. Negro!!!" no offense was meant and none was taken... it was >> simply an identifier of who I was wanting to talk to and we talk. If I >> think you are or you are doing something stupid not to say so is >> disingenuous. >> >> jgg, If you are going to try to quote laws, rules and or more`s to me >> please be informed on the subject.... it makes you look the fool and I >> do not think you are so. >> >> On 2/24/09, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > I DID... They concluded did have delivery systems that were >> > banned... They concluded Saddam did hid some labs... They concluded >> > Saddam could restart a chemical WMD program within weeks by using dual >> > purpose manufacturing plants... All of which Saddam was obligated to >> > either destroy, or not have... I read the post war conclusions BIG >> > LETTERS and the develish small print in the conclusions... You might >> > try that Mark... >> >> > >>> To make it simple for you so that you do not have to suffer your own >> > >>> inadequacies.... >> >> > Now this Mark is an example of uncivil insults by the moderator who >> > post a warning to me for something far more civil.. >> >> > On Feb 24, 3:48 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > GAWD jgg, You have no idea on how to read a report. The precursors which >> > > you >> > > are quoting are part of the "evidence" that is to be admitted or not and >> > > if >> > > admitted (after checking source and giving weight accordingly) at a later >> > > stage in the report. >> >> > > To make it simple for you so that you do not have to suffer your own >> > > inadequacies..... >> >> > > Go to the parts that are in big letters at the end of each general >> > > section >> > > marked CONCLUSIONS. These are for the laymen. Then you will be more >> > > likely >> > > to be less confused with the universally used and accepted bureaucratic >> > > legalese. >> >> > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:56 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > Gawd Mark, how wrong you are... It is in your own proof.... >> >> > > > pgs 32-34 (undeclared precursors), p55 (dual manufacturing capacity >> > > > which was banned) Conclusion 8 (missiles) >> >> > > > The main problem you have here is refused to admit that by the UNSC >> > > > definitions of WMD (stockpiles, precursers, manufacturing capacity, >> > > > research, delivery systems, components thereof) Saddam had WMD... >> > > > Now you might argue that the degree he had them was insufficient for >> > > > invasion, but he in fact had them... Secondly you ignore the reliance >> > > > by the leaders in both parties on faulty intel by all the major intel >> > > > agency in both the Clinton and Bush years (and before).. Thirdly your >> > > > ignore that Saddam refusal to provide full and unfettered access so >> > > > outside third party could not verify the facts which was required due >> > > > to Saddam prior programs, use and lies concerning them prior to >> > > > 1996... >> >> > > > The Kay Report stated that Saddam was waiting for Sanctions to end to >> > > > redo his WMD programs... >> >> > > > Your requirement of ONLY letting me use previously approved "proof" is >> > > > another standard tactic to limit an honest and and civil debate >> > > > Mark... >> >> > > > On Feb 24, 10:30 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > Since public domain empiracal data ( >> > > >http://politicalforum.googlegroups.com/web/iraq.pdf?hl=en&gda=H27U8Do...) >> > > > > says and proves me correct your point is forfiet. >> >> > > > > I have seen NOTHING from you that bears up to any standard of proof. >> >> > > > > I will wait while you argue your Republican position with the >> > > > > Republican committee that authored the report mentioned above.... I >> > > > > will accept as proof of your position ANY and ALL info they did not >> > > > > have when forming the report as pertinent. Lacking that ........... >> > > > > your position goes by the way of all other emotional and second hand >> > > > > informed opinions.... >> >> > > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:52 AM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> >> > > > wrote: >> >> > > > > > To quote a poster on this board >> >> > > > > > "and not a single point countered... not a single question >> > > > > > answered" >> >> > > > > > You claimed "Saddam had no WMD" , "Saddam was no threat", and the >> > > > > > "Saddam had no involvement with AQ"... All three conclusions are >> > > > > > wrong... I made my counter arguments, you changed the topic... >> >> > > > > > Civil debate requires a number of things >> >> > > > > > 1) sufficiently respectful between debaters >> >> > > > > > 2) the debaters respond the points made by others with relevant >> > > > > > facts >> > > > > > and logic >> >> > > > > > 3) a willingness to accept there may be errors in your logic and >> > > > > > facts >> >> > > > > > On Feb 23, 5:50 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > >> If you want to gety that involved then we need to talk "blue >> > > > > >> jeans" >> > > > > >> and "music" and travel rights. >> >> > > > > >> Just how deep is your knowledge ?? >> >> > > > > >> On 2/23/09, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > > >> > 1) Using the definition used by the UNSC, Saddam did have WMD, >> > > > > >> > period... Do you know what they were? >> >> > > > > >> > 2) Saddam's Iraq, as described by the Kay Report was in fact a >> > > > failing >> > > > > >> > state... That combined with the Saddam induced corruption in >> > > > > >> > the >> > > > UN, >> > > > > >> > Saddam's refusal to follow UN Resolution (and the UNSC alowing >> > > > > >> > it to >> > > > > >> > happen), the rise of stateless terrorism to deliver WMD, and the >> > > > > >> > willingness ofr the failing state of Iraq to introduce WMD in >> > > > > >> > the >> > > > > >> > hands of stateless terrorists DID pose a threat to the US and >> > > > > >> > the >> > > > > >> > entire world order... That you refuse to even address this >> > > > > >> > point >> > > > is >> > > > > >> > telling -- you insist on seeing Saddam in a traditional state to >> > > > state >> > > > > >> > conflict, when this was NOT about that... >> >> > > > > >> > 3) Bush went into Iraq to address the sytematic causes of groups >> > > > like >> > > > > >> > AQ -- bad governance in the ME and their export of terrorism to >> > > > > >> > maintain internal order... >> >> > > > > >> > 4) What you are not addressing is that the WOT is not just >> > > > > >> > about OBL >> > > > > >> > or AQ, but the entire structure that allows for those types of >> > > > groups >> > > > > >> > to exist... >> >> > > > > >> > On Feb 23, 5:14 pm, VT VirtualTruth <[email protected]> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > No matter how many times these arguments are proven wrong >> > > > > >> > > you will never listen to the truth of the facts. >> >> > > > > >> > > Saddam was not a threat, had no WMD.s, was not harboring >> > > > > >> > > Al qaeda, and was not involved in the 9/11 attack. >> >> > > > > >> > > Bin Laden who Bush promised to get dead or alive on the >> > > > > >> > > burning >> > > > > >> > > ashes of american dead at ground zero, was the Terror Threat, >> > > > > >> > > is trying to get WMD's, is harboring Al qaeda cells and >> > > > > >> > > spreading terror, was involved in the 9/11 attack, and is >> > > > > >> > > STILL >> >> ... >> >> read more » > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
