RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex

[Alberto Monteiro]

Dan Minette wrote:
> 
> Medical categories are just that, categories.  Women are different 
> from men, premature infants display less cognitive ability than some 
> grown non-human primatesyet killing an infant is murder, just as 
> killing an adult is, and just as killing an ape isn't. It's 
> acceptable black and white for most...excluding some strident animal 
> rights activists.
> 
There are serious movements that would include killing an ape
as murder - so, even this example is not black and white :-)

[in fact, considering how many people are there, and how few
apes, it seems that killing an ape should be _worse_ than
killing a man...]

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: More From the National Intelligence Estimate

[Nick Arnett]

On 8/3/06, jdiebremse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


All are quotations:

We judge that Iraq has... chemical and biological weapons. (5)



Weapons, yes.  But don't be misled into thinking this means weapons of mass
destruction.  The NIE makes it clear that it does not.

Since inspections ended in 1998 Iraq has... energized its missile

program and invested more heavily in biolgical weapons; in the view
of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons
program. (5)



But there was no evidence or judgement that Iraq had any WMDs or any weapons
that posed an immediate threat.  As has been pointed, out, the NIE said just
the opposite, that there was little chance that it posed a threat.

If Baghdad acquires sufficient fissile material from abroad [JDG -

i.e. Nigerian yellowcake] it could make a nuclear weapon within
several months to a year.

Without such material from abroad, Iraq would probably not be able
to make a [nuclear] weapon until 2007 or 2009. (10)

Iraq retains approximately two-and-a-half tons of 2.5 percent
enriched uranium oxide, which... could... produce... about two
nuclear weapons.  ...Iraq could divert this material - the IAEA
inspects it only once a year - and enrich it to weapons grade before
a subsequent inspection discovered it was missing.   (24-25)



Could... might... in the future...  This is not what the administration said
to justify the war.  They said that Iraq had WMDs, that they knew where they
were, that we'd find them as soon as we invaded, etc., etc.  Webster's
defines "imminent" as "ready to take place; especially: hanging
threateningly over one's head."

Cheney 8/26/2002
"What we must not do in the face of a mortal threat is give in to wishful
thinking or willful blindness."

Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that
Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not
be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat
from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."

Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security
of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam
Hussein in Iraq."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials
to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

"U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000
munitions capable of delivering chemical agents."

"We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet
of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse
chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

Bush - 10/2/02
"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."

Bush – 10/7/2002
"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past
nuclear] sites."

Cheney - 3/16/2003
"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons,
and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Rumsfeld  -
9/19/02
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security
of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam
Hussein in Iraq."

Bush 10/2/02
"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . It has developed
weapons of mass death"

Bush - 10/3/02
"There's a grave threat in Iraq.  There just is."

Bush - 11/1/02
"Today the world is...uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed
by Iraq."

Bush - 11/23/02
"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by
Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill
thousands."

White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett - 1/26/03
Asked, "is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests," replied "Well, of
course he is."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan - 2/10/03
"This is about imminent threat."

Rumsfeld - 3/25/03
"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."

Ari Fleisher - 5/7/2003
Asked "Didn't we go to war because we said WMD's were a direct and imminent
threat to the U.S?"; responded, "Absolutely."

Now that you have read this, surely you cannot still believe that the
administration's arguments for the were supported by the intelligence.  How
do we deal with this?  An easy answer would be to blame conservatives and
run to the left.  But blame has never healed any wounds. I think that
somehow we have to acknowledge what really happened, take responsibility for
it as a nation (rather than blaming one political faction), talk about it,
memorialize it and seek to identify whatever good might come out of it.  I
don't think that our military power can redeem the error, but I do believe
the error can be redeemed.  We can't start to do any of that until we can
acknowledge what happened and what it meant to each of us.

Nick


--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
_

Re: More From the National Intelligence Estimate

[Alberto Monteiro]

Nick Arnett and JDG debate endlessly:
>
>> All are quotations:
>>
>> We judge that Iraq has... chemical and biological weapons. (5)
> 
> Weapons, yes.  But don't be misled into thinking this means weapons 
> of mass destruction.  The NIE makes it clear that it does not.
> 
(blah blah blah)

I think it's all a matter of probabilities. You can
both agree that, before the War of Conquest [:-)], the
best Intelligence could say was that there was a
probability p, 0 < p < 1, that Iraqi had WMD, and
another probability p', 0 < p' < 1, that Iraqi
will  deploy a WMD in the USA. [it's not true that p' > p
in general: many countries have WMDs but don't seem 
likely to use them].

Also, there is a reasonable threshold probability
p*, 0 < p* < 1, for which the War is justified
whenever p' >= p*.

Until you can give numbers to p, p' and p*, this
discussion will never finish :-P

For example, replace "Saddam" for "Hugo Chavez". What are p, p'
and p*? I bet p is almost zero, p' is also a very small number,
so that, even if p* is small, a War on Venezuela is not justified.

OTOH, replace "Saddam" for "Hezbollah", put yourself in
the position of Israel, and those probabilities will be totally
different: the best estimations of p' are below p*!

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: RFK Jr. interview

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Nick Arnett
> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 12:27 AM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: RFK Jr. interview
> 
> On 8/3/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Yes, and it rather unambiguously implies that they did not see
> evidence
> > of
> > > WMDs, since Tenet surely would have considered them an imminent
> threat.
> >
> > There are several problems with this assessment.
> > 1) The report clearly stated that they had biological agents ready for
> > quick
> > weaponization, as well as bulk fills for chemical weapons.  Indeed, the
> > version of saran that they used has the agents combined just before use.
> 
> 
> You're arguing with Tenet, if you're saying this means that Iraq had WMDs
> or posed an immediate threat in some other way.  Good luck with that.  Is
> there some reason we shouldn't believe him or the declassified parts of 
> the NIE?

No, but there is a very good reason to not go with your interpretation of
his remarks.  John and I have, repeatedly, quoted from the declassified part
of the report.  Using the prevalent definition of WMD, these quotes clearly
show that the report states that Iraq, in all likelihood, had WMD.

I went to Wikipedia to get the common definition.  It's not a definitive
source for everything, but it is a good reference for common understanding.
Quoting:

"Today, the term WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) means different things to
different people. The most widely used definition is that of nuclear,
biological or chemical weapons (NBC)."

The same source quotes US civil defense as stating it's:

"1) Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, or rocket having a
propellant charge of more than four ounces [113 g], missile having an
explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce [7 g], or mine
or device similar to the above. (2) Poison gas. (3) Any weapon involving a
disease organism. (4) Any weapon that is designed to release radiation at a
level dangerous to human life. This definition derives from US law, 18
U.S.C. Section 2332a and the referenced 18 USC 921. Indictments and
convictions for possession and use of WMD such as truck bombs, pipe bombs,
shoe bombs, cactus needles coated with botulin toxin, etc. have been
obtained under 18 USC 2332a."

This expands the concept of WMD from the common definition.  

This is the definition that I saw used in the discussions that led up to
war, and in the statements that Hussein did not have WMD.  If massive
stockpiles of anthrax and sarin were found, most folks would have accepted
that as proof that Hussein had WMD.  

Second, you have tended to focus on the delivery systems much more than the
agents of WMD, arguing that they aren't weapons without delivery systems.
But, this is at odds with the Civil Defense definition above.


> 
> 2) Not being an imminent threat does not mean a county does not have WMD.
> > France doesn't constitute an imminent threat, even though it has a
> number
> > of
> > H-bombs...which are clearly WMD.
> 
> 
> I'm fairly sure that France, despite its disagreements, has not lately
> been
> considered an enemy of the United States.  Anyway, what is this whole
> discussion about if not the justification for the war, which clearly was
> the proposal that Iraq posed an imminent, immediate, mortal, etc., threat.

But, your specific statement that I questioned was that everyone knew that
Iraq had no WMDnot that Iraq didn't pose an imminent threat.

Since we've established, with France, that possessing WMD does not equate an
imminent threat, let's expand that definition.  During October, 1962, the US
government determined that there was an imminent threat of attack by the
USSR.  The US military went to DEFCON 2.  The situation defused, and the
military later stood down to DEFCON 3.  Later, in the '70s and '80s, there
was little fear of an immediate attack by the USSR, even though thousands of
H-bombs were targeted at the US.  The USSR was not thought to pose an
imminent threatotherwise our defense posture would have been heightened.



> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  The point is that it was not a foundation for saying that
> there were WMDs or there was an immediate threat.
 
But, it specifically stated that there were WMDs, as commonly defined.

 
> > 5) Later in the report, the likelihood of an immediate unprovoked attack
> > by
> > Hussein on the US was assessed as low. In that sense, there wasn't an
> > imminent threat.
> 
> 
> Indeed.  Why do you think Tenet has bothered to speak out in public
> against the idea that this was an intelligence failure?  He's defending >
> the intelligence community by telling their side of the story... 
> and leaving it
> up to us to decide if the administration's statements in support of
> attacking Iraq were justified by the intelligence it received.



> What do you think, now that you have read the NIE?  Were the "immediate
> th

RE: RFK Jr. interview

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Dan Minette
> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 12:05 PM
> To: 'Killer Bs Discussion'
> Subject: RE: RFK Jr. interview
> 
> 
> This is the definition that I saw used in the discussions that led up to
> war, and in the statements that Hussein did not have WMD.  

To clarify, I'm referring here to the Wikipedia definition, not the Civil
defense one.  Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are all WMD by
common definition.

Dan M. 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: RFK Jr. interview

[Nick Arnett]

On 8/4/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




No, but there is a very good reason to not go with your interpretation of
his remarks.  John and I have, repeatedly, quoted from the declassified
part
of the report.  Using the prevalent definition of WMD, these quotes
clearly
show that the report states that Iraq, in all likelihood, had WMD.



Bullshit, to be blunt.


But, your specific statement that I questioned was that everyone knew that

Iraq had no WMD



Bullshit again.  I never said that everyone knew Iraq had no WMDs.


Irrelevant.  The point is that it was not a foundation for saying that
> there were WMDs or there was an immediate threat.

But, it specifically stated that there were WMDs, as commonly defined.



Bullshit.  Show me one place in the published NIE where it says that Iraq
had WMDs.  It is not there. It says they had WMD programs and WMD efforts,
but nowhere, nowhere does it say that they had WMDs.  Nowhere.

Yet our leaders didn't tell us that they had programs and could develop
WMDs.  They told us that they had them and were ready to attack America with
their fleet of UAVs.  They told us we shouldn't be so sure that Iraq didn't
have nuclear weapons and that they were rebuilding their nuclear facilities,
despite intelligence that said *if* they restarted their program, it would
be years.

Come on.  The NIE paints a picture of Saddam wishing and hoping that he
could weaponize what he had and get other programs going again.  That's not
a guy with WMDs, that's a guy with aspirations.  No question that he used
them in the past and was doing all sorts of bad stuff.

Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: RFK Jr. interview

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Nick Arnett
> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 1:33 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: RFK Jr. interview
> > Irrelevant.  The point is that it was not a foundation for saying that
> > > there were WMDs or there was an immediate threat.
> >
> > But, it specifically stated that there were WMDs, as commonly defined.
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  Show me one place in the published NIE where it says that Iraq
> had WMDs.  It is not there. It says they had WMD programs and WMD efforts,
> but nowhere, nowhere does it say that they had WMDs.  Nowhere.

It is in the first Key Judgment on page 5 of the report (page 9 in Acrobat).
The first two sentences read:

"We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
program in defiance of the UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has
chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of
UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapons
program."

I think it goes without saying that Baghdad is used as a synonym for Iraq
here.  Chemical and biological weapons, by definition, are WMD.  Thus, the
first Key Judgment is that Iraq has a WMD program that includes actual WMD.
According to this judgment, the WMD program included both weapons and
development for biological and chemical warfare.  It did not include nuclear
weapons, just a nuclear weapons program.

It's not bullshit.  Rather, it's the clear and obvious meaning of the text.


Dan M. 




 
> Yet our leaders didn't tell us that they had programs and could develop
> WMDs.  They told us that they had them and were ready to attack America
> with
> their fleet of UAVs.  They told us we shouldn't be so sure that Iraq
> didn't
> have nuclear weapons and that they were rebuilding their nuclear
> facilities,
> despite intelligence that said *if* they restarted their program, it would
> be years.
> 
> Come on.  The NIE paints a picture of Saddam wishing and hoping that he
> could weaponize what he had and get other programs going again.  That's
> not
> a guy with WMDs, that's a guy with aspirations.  No question that he used
> them in the past and was doing all sorts of bad stuff.
> 
> Nick
> 
> --
> Nick Arnett
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Messages: 408-904-7198
> ___
> http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Once more into the 9-11 breach

[Gibson Jonathan]

Greetings,
What a week for this topic!
This entry is big, so brace for impact.
- JG -

On Aug 3, 2006, at 3:37 PM, Brother John wrote:
Of course, everyone knows that I am just a right-wing crackpot and  
conspiracy nut, so no one has to pay any attention to me. But my son  
and I knew that 9-11 was an inside job as we watched the towers fall  
on live TV on 9-11. GW and his neocon friends in the oil business  
obviously needed some pretext for starting an ongoing, never ending,  
perpetual war for perpetual peace. Most wars are started by wicked men  
in high places for similar reasons. All of the reasons given are just  
propaganda to get the masses to go along with them. If those who  
actually run America, and I'm not talking about Congress and the White  
House, really wanted to secure this country against terrorism, what  
would be the first thing they would do? Yep, screen everyone who comes  
and goes just as carefully as they currently screen grandmothers in  
our nation's airports. Is that being done? Is it even being attempted?  
No, of course not. If containers coming into our ports are not  
inspected and screened, and if our borders are not secure so that  
everyone coming in has to go through a proper screening, then we  
haven't got the slightest idea who or what is coming and going. *The  
fact that we still have virtually unlimited entry into the country  
through our ports and across our borders is proof positive that the  
government isn't honest when it talks about fighting terrorism.


*And if the government isn't serious about terrorism, then what was  
9-11 all about? What is the Iraq war all about? What was the  
Afghanistan war all about? The American people are obviously being  
played for complete suckers, and nearly all of them are blindly going  
along with it. It is hard to imagine how intelligent and educated  
people can be so gullible, but there is the proof, right before our  
eyes.




I agree with you to a very large degree.
What I've been trying to divine from all these entrails is the big  
picture, nay grand design, to explain the some of the oddities of GwB  
that day and other mysteries.  Watching the 9-11 Truth Symposium is  
useful, but mostly a recap for those of us digging into this with any  
vigor while trying to keep a level head above murky waters.  Last night  
I heard Webster Tarpley speak in depth and great length about this and  
it is stunning.  I find myself speaking in the present because it has  
been reverberating in my head ever since.  His delivery is thankfully  
clear and relatively simple although the topic convoluted.  This  
probably saved me getting apoplectic or going ballistic with agitation.  
 He ends with a real note of hopeful optimism I resonate with and hope  
all of you will too.  I've been feeling this must transcend political  
flavors if we are going to resolve what has been done to us.  I feel  
certain some important ground was shifted this week.



But first, I spent some unexpected idle moments yesterday to going over  
the just-revealed NORAD clips and transcripts from Vanity Fair.  This  
is significant as it dents a number of assertions this administration  
has put forth with vigor.  Give it a read/listen.

http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01
As an invaluable aid, check out the Cooperative Research  
minute-by-minute timeline as you work through the Vanity Fair piece.
http://complete911timeline.org/timeline.jsp? 
timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=dayOf911



Since I don't have Webster Tarpey's book to quote, here's the White  
Rose Society clip of the interview {skip 1st 1/2 of three-hour show}
http://server4.WhiteRoseSociety.org/content/malloy/MalloyShow-(03-08 
-2006).mp3

and my own snipped version w/o commercials {down to 1 1/2 hours}
http://www.formandfunction.com/word/wordbits/MalloyShow-(03-08-2006).mov
I can't listen to Mike Malloy every day, nor for long, as he has a  
rather strong, shall we call it "Altoid," flavor that takes getting  
used to, but he's in restrained mode in this lengthy interview.


Webster claims this organization has been around since Grover Cleveland  
& JP Morgan tracing its use of the USS Maine explosion as pretext to  
launch the Great White Fleet in America's first imperialist power play,  
behind a fascist march to take over DC in 1933, to Gulf of Tonkin, JFK  
assassination, Iran-Contra...  and now 9-11.
He  started on this trail when the Red Brigade kidnapped the Italian  
Foreign Minister in the 70's and his body was found a few blocks from  
where he was working - the Italian government asked him to investigate  
and he found the actual backers of this group were NATO intelligence  
gone bad... the Red Brigade and other shadowy groups, like P2 Lodge &  
Gladio, set up as fall-back terrorist harassment networks in case the  
Soviets rolled through Europe, but they took matters into their own  
hands early.


Why was Able Danger set up?  This was apparen

RE: RFK Jr. interview

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Nick Arnett
> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 1:33 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: RFK Jr. interview
> 
> 
> But, your specific statement that I questioned was that everyone knew that
> > Iraq had no WMD
> 
> 
> Bullshit again.  I never said that everyone knew Iraq had no WMDs.

Well, I didn't get your point quite right, so I'll admit that.  I was
focusing on the disagreement over whether a strong consensus among the
Western intelligence agencies about the existence of WMD in Iraq existed.
You argued, since the US Intelligence Analysis we all have been referring to
concluded that there were not WMD, no such consensus existed.  If that were
true, it would be sufficient to falsify both my assertion and JDG's
assertion. But, it is not true, at least if one takes the plain sense of the
text.

The point of that statement is that the pre-war assessment of the existence
of WMD is in dispute.  I am not arguing that there was a consensus on an
imminent danger.  I don't believe such a consensus existed.  Remember, I
stated that Bush took the + 3 sigma point of the consensus probability
distribution of risk as the most likely point.  That's not saying that Bush
gave a good representation.

Dan M. 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: RFK Jr. interview

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 3) Not stating that there was an imminent threat is not the same
> > as stating that there is not an imminent threat.
>
> Irrelevant.  The point is that it was not a foundation for saying
> that there were WMDs or there was an immediate threat.

Nick,

I find your reaction to be astonishing.  Indeed, I suspect it is at
the heart of our inability to communicate.  The quote you have cited
from George Tenet said "the NIE did not say that there was an
imminent threat."   You, however, have interpreted this statement as
saying "the NIE said that the threat from Iraq was *not imminent.*"

The two statements, however, are not equal.   As I have pointed out
earlier, the NIE dealt with factual questions.  The determination of
the imminence of the threat is a political question, which as near
as I can tell, the NIE was *silent*, even *agnostic*, on.   Perhaps
I am wrong in that, but if I am, it would be usefull for you to
support your contention with quotes from the NIE supporting it.

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: RFK Jr. interview

[Nick Arnett]

On 8/4/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



It is in the first Key Judgment on page 5 of the report (page 9 in
Acrobat).
The first two sentences read:

"We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
program in defiance of the UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has
chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess
of
UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear
weapons
program."



A program is not a weapon, just a plan to get rich is not money.  You're
reading it the way you want to, not using the meanings it makes clear.  Do
realize how very, very carefully they pick the language in these reports?
Who and how many people review it (which actually is classified)?  Where it
says "weapons," if it mean "weapons of mass destruction," it would have said
so.  Maybe you think this is nitpicking... but this is an intelligence brief
for the president and security council, they are very, very precise in what
they say.  If they weren't, then how would the consumers of the report know
when they are talking about ordinary weapons, which Iraq certainly had, and
WMDs?

Even if you stretch the implications of the intelligence as much as you
would, then it still doesn't present a foundation for what the
administration said to justify the war.  And more to the point of this
thread, it doesn't provide a foundation for all the b.s. that so many people
STILL think was true when we attacked.

I think that's about enough for me on this.  It's bad enough to live with
whatever responsibility I have for this mess.  I'm not going to demand that
you take your head out of the sand, but I think that's just where it is.

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: RFK Jr. interview

[Nick Arnett]

On 8/4/06, jdiebremse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




I find your reaction to be astonishing.  Indeed, I suspect it is at
the heart of our inability to communicate.  The quote you have cited
from George Tenet said "the NIE did not say that there was an
imminent threat."   You, however, have interpreted this statement as
saying "the NIE said that the threat from Iraq was *not imminent.*"



More bullshit (can you tell I'm feeling very impatient?).  I never said any
such thing.  Anybody with a room-temperature IQ can see that there's nothing
in the declassifed parts of the NIE that says anything like, "An attack from
Iraq is not imminent."

It said their judgment was that there was a low probability of Iraq using
WMDs against the United States if it succeeded in building them.

The point is that the administration was going around saying, We have to
attack Iraq because our intelligence shows that they have WMDs and they pose
an imminent, mortal threat to the United States, ready to send UAVs here
loaded with weaponized biological and nuclear agents and just might have
nukes, we can't be sure.

Not one word of that was justified by the actual intelligence report.  And
the intelligence report proved rather accurate, didn't it?  They really
didn't have WMDs, UAVs, a nuclear program, etc.  Oops.  And now the White
House is trying to argue that they never said that Iraq posed an imminent
threat... yanking out quotes in which they said we shouldn't wait until the
threat is imminent, which they did say.  But they ignore all the times they
said it was imminent.

Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: More From the National Intelligence Estimate

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We judge that Iraq has... chemical and biological weapons. (5)
>
> Weapons, yes.  But don't be misled into thinking this means
> weapons of mass destruction.  The NIE makes it clear that it does
> not.

Nick,

We are clearly failing to communicate here.  You seem to be saying
that "chemical and biological weapons" are not "weapons of mass
destruction."   If you are, in fact, saying that - then you are
using words outside of their common usage.   Before proceeding, it
would be usefull for you to define what you mean.

> Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
> "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not
> imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having
> nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just
> as concerned about the immediate threat
> from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."

This quote is completely supported by the NIE.   The NIE states that
Iraq could assemble a nuclear bomb, quote, "within several months to
a year" if it had succeeded in acquiring yellowcake from Niger or
some other source.  The NIE noted that Iraq had recently attempted
to do just that.   Additionally, the NIE says that "We judge that
Iraq has... biological weapons." (5)

> Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
> "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to
> the security of our people and the stability of the world than the
> regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."

This statement is not fully supported by the NIE, but given the
evidence in the NIE, I am unable to suggest another terrorist State
that posed a greater or more immediate threat to the security of the
United States in 2002.

> State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
> "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the
> materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX
> nerve agent."

This is supported by the NIE.  "Saddam probably has stocked...
possibly as much as 500 [metric tons] of [chemical weapons] agents -
much of it added in the past year." (6)

> "U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of
> 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents."

I cannot find information in the NIE to confirm or deny this quote.

> "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a
> growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be
> used to disperse
> chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

This is supported by the NIE.  In describing Iraq's UAV program, it
says that delivery of chemical and biological weapons on these
aircraft "is an inherent capability." (7)   It also says that "Iraq
maintains... several development programs, included for a [unmanned
aerial vehicle] probably intended to deliver biological agents." (7)

> Bush - 10/2/02
> "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
>
> Bush – 10/7/2002
> "Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities
> at [past nuclear] sites."

The NIE does not contain any information to confirm or deny these
quotes.

> Cheney - 3/16/2003
> "We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear
> weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear
> weapons."

This quote was clearly false, and seems to have been a case of mis-
speaking.  Cheney, I believe, intended to say "nuclear program".
Reconstituting nuclear weapons would require Saddam to have had
constituted nuclear weapons once previously.  I don't think this
quote is significant, it seems to me to be an honest mistake.

> Bush - 10/3/02
> "There's a grave threat in Iraq.  There just is."

The NIE neither confirms nor denies this quote.

> Bush - 11/23/02
> "The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat
> posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass
> destruction to kill thousands."

The NIE neither confirms nor denies the first half of this quote.
The second half, of course, is factually true.

> White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett - 1/26/03
> Asked, "is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests,"
> replied "Well, of course he is."
>
> White House spokesman Scott McClellan - 2/10/03
> "This is about imminent threat."
>
> Rumsfeld - 3/25/03
> "The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be
> removed."
>
> Ari Fleisher - 5/7/2003
> Asked "Didn't we go to war because we said WMD's were a direct and
> imminent threat to the U.S?"; responded, "Absolutely."

The NIE neither confirms nor denies the above quotes.

> Now that you have read this, surely you cannot still believe that
> the administration's arguments for the were supported by the
> intelligence.

I can and I do.   Of the quotes presented, I found three explicitly
supported by the NIE.  I found only one explicitly denied - and that
seems almost certainly to have been a mis-speak.   The remaining 10
appear to either deal with political determinations that seem to
have been outside the scope of the NIE, or outside the s

Re: RFK Jr. interview

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I find your reaction to be astonishing.  Indeed, I suspect it is
> > at the heart of our inability to communicate.  The quote you
> > have cited from George Tenet said "the NIE did not say that
> > there was an imminent threat."   You, however, have interpreted
> > this statement as saying "the NIE said that the threat from Iraq
> > was *not imminent.*"
>
> More bullshit (can you tell I'm feeling very impatient?).

Impatience does not help you communicate.

> It said their judgment was that there was a low probability of
> Iraq using WMDs against the United States if it succeeded in
> building them.

I don't find the words "low probability" anywhere in the NIE.

Quote:
"We have low confidence in our ability to assess when Saddam would
use WMD."

In other words, they are warning the policy-makers that they do not
have a firm judgement on this matter.   It appears that either
because Saddam Hussein is unpredictable, or because of a lack of
inside intelligence of Iraqi doctrines, that they do not have a firm
conclusion.

Quote:
"He probably would use [chemical and biological weapons] when he
perceved he had irretrieveably lost control of the military and
security situation, but we are unlikely to know when Saddam Hussein
reaches that point."

Quote:
"Iraq would probably attempt clandestine attacks against the US
homeland if Baghdad feared an attack would threaten the survival of
the regime were imminent or unvaoidable Such attacks - more
likely with biological than chemical agents - probably would be
carried out by special forces agents or intelligence operatives."

> The point is that the administration was going around saying, We
> have to attack Iraq because our intelligence shows that they have
> WMDs and they pose
> an imminent, mortal threat to the United States, ready to send
> UAVs here loaded with weaponized biological and nuclear agents and
> just might have
> nukes, we can't be sure.
>
> Not one word of that was justified by the actual intelligence
> report.

This is simply not true.   The existence of Iraq's stockpiles of WMD
are consistently supported throughout the NIE.

JDG




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: RFK Jr. interview

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 8/4/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It is in the first Key Judgment on page 5 of the report
> >
> > "We judge that... Baghdad has
> > chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges
> > in excess of UN restrictions
>
>
> Where it says "weapons," if it mean "weapons of mass destruction,"
> it would have said so.  Maybe you think this is nitpicking... but
> this is an intelligence brief for the president and security
> council, they are very, very precise in what
> they say.  If they weren't, then how would the consumers of the
> report know when they are talking about ordinary weapons, which
> Iraq certainly had, and WMDs?

Call me crazy Nick, but I'm going to take a wild guess that the
words "chemical" and "biological" probably tipped the readers off
that the NIE wasn't referring to "ordinary weapons"

JDG





___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE; The Enlightenment

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > One of the ideas that came from the Enlightenment is
> > that "all men are
> > created equal."  That concept means that the
> > differences in intelligence,
> > race, religion, age, are superficial differences
> > when discussing human
> > rights.  We are all endowed with equal rights (most
> > think that the use of
> > the word "men" was not intended to exclude women as
> > having no rights)..no
> > matter how different we are.
>
> Just going to point out that Africans *didn't* count
> as full human (3/5s of a person, I believe was
> specified, in the matter of population, although of
> course they did not get 3/5s of a vote in elections)
> to certain framers of the Constitution [#]

In fairness, my recollection is that it was the people who believed
that Africans *were* fully human, and who thus were anti-slavery,
who argued for the 3/5ths clause.   I believe it was the people who
were pro-slavery that opposed the 3/5ths clause.

Otherwise, white slave-holders would have had their voting weight in
Congress fully accounting for their non-voting slaves.

JDG





___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Since planetary science has been ruled "on-topic" :)

[Ronn!Blankenship]

<>

BBC NEWS
Strange 'twin' new worlds found
A pair of strange new worlds that blur the boundaries between planets
and stars have been discovered beyond our Solar System.

A few dozen such objects have been identified in recent years but this
is the first set of "twins".

Dubbed "planemos", they circle each other rather than orbiting a star.

Their existence challenges current theories about the formation of
planets and stars, astronomers report in the journal Science.

"This is a truly remarkable pair of twins - each having only about 1%
the mass of our Sun," said Ray Jayawardhana of the University of
Toronto, co-author of the Science paper.

"Its mere existence is a surprise, and its origin and fate a bit of a
mystery."

'Double planet'

The pair belongs to what some astronomers believe is a new class of
planet-like objects floating through space; so-called planetary mass
objects, or "planemos", which are not bound to stars.

Now we're curious to find out whether such pairs are common or rare.
The answer could shed light on how free-floating planetary-mass objects
form
Valentin Ivanov

They appear to have been forged from a contracting gas cloud, in a
similar way to stars, but are much too cool to be true stars.

And while they have similar masses to many of the giant planets
discovered beyond our Solar System (the largest weighs in at 14 times
the mass of Jupiter and the other is about seven times more massive),
they are not thought to be true planets either.

"We are resisting the temptation to call it a 'double planet' because
this pair probably didn't form the way that planets in our Solar System
did," said co-researcher Valentin Ivanov of the European Southern
Observatory (ESO) in Santiago, Chile.

'Amazing diversity'

The two objects have similar spectra and colours, suggesting that they
formed at the same time about a million years ago.

They are separated by about six times the distance between the Sun and
Pluto, and can be found in the Ophiuchus star-forming region some 400
light years away. They go under the official name Oph 162225-240515, or
Oph 1622 for short.

"Recent discoveries have revealed an amazing diversity of worlds out
there," said Dr Jayawardhana. "Still, the Oph 1622 pair stands out as
one of the most intriguing, if not peculiar."

His colleague, Dr Ivanov, said they were curious to find out whether
such pairs are common or rare.

"The answer could shed light on how free-floating planetary-mass
objects form," he added.

Oph 1622 was discovered using the ESO's New Technology Telescope at La
Silla, Chile. Follow-up studies were conducted with the ESO's Very
Large Telescope.
Story from BBC NEWS:
<>

Published: 2006/08/03 20:50:13 GMT

© BBC MMVI


-- Ronn!  :)

"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever."
-- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l