I am sure this will be mentioned by Kerry on Friday

[VEFF]

Even though it isn't really news and may not have much of an impact, if any, on the election result, you can bet Kerry will mention this once again, especially with the CIA being the bearer of this official news.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/index.html

[aviationwiz]

Yeah, would not surprise me one bit if he mentions it.

[Justin42]

From that link:
The massive report does say, however, that Iraq worked hard to cheat on United Nations-imposed sanctions and retain the capability to resume production of weapons of mass destruction at some time in the future.

"[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted," a summary of the report says.

--- as usual, the truth is somewhere in between....

[VEFF]

From that link:
The massive report does say, however, that Iraq worked hard to cheat on United Nations-imposed sanctions and retain the capability to resume production of weapons of mass destruction at some time in the future.

"[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted," a summary of the report says.

--- as usual, the truth is somewhere in between....

Good point.
To be honest, I hadn't read the entire article yet, just the first paragraph (summary).

I think removing Saddam from power was a great thing; however, the WMD angle simply shouldn't have been used as the justification without evidence that such weapons actually existed.

I am glad John Edwards reiterated and made a point to mention:
1) the fact that the coalition forces had Osama cornered and then left the job to some local militia, who had been behind Osama just a few weeks earlier and couldn't necessarily be trusted.
2) that the focus has shifted to Iraq, even though there is no real (at least not proven) connection between Saddam and Al Qaede or Saddam and 9/11 and even though the leader of those who attacked us and started the war on terror is probably still holed up in Afghanistan...

[dodecahedron]

it is interesting that no one seems to remember that not only did Saddam have WDM but he had used them.

[JamieW]

Veff,

Your point 1 isn't a fact. There's no proof that Osama was actually cornered, just the possibility. Perhaps this would help:

Main Entry: fact
Pronunciation: 'fakt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME <accessory after the fact> c archaic : ACTION
2 archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact : in truth

[VEFF]

Veff,

Your point 1 isn't a fact. There's no proof that Osama was actually cornered, just the possibility. Perhaps this would help:

Main Entry: fact
Pronunciation: 'fakt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME <accessory after the fact> c archaic : ACTION
2 archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact : in truth

Thanks for the lesson, although I surprisingly already knew what a fact is
NO JOKE>> :The distinction between fact and opinion was actually taught to us in history class when I first came to the US; the grade it was taught in surprised me. I won't even go there though.

You are right in that it was never proven beyond a doubt (i.e. no physical evidence of his presence,such as photos, video etc. at that location at that specific time).
Nevertheless, even the republicans aren't contesting the assertion that he was indeed cornered, due to an apparent ton of circumstantial evidence.
I wasn't there and don't have access to the numerous intelligence reports out there, witness statements etc., so if those reports are false too, don't blame me...

[JamieW]

It just seems odd to me that Dems will attack Bush for not going after a theoretical location of Osama based on "intelligence" yet attack him for going into a theoretical location of WMD based on "intelligence."

[dodecahedron]

why odd?
politics.
defy all logic.

[VEFF]

It just seems odd to me that Dems will attack Bush for not going after a theoretical location of Osama based on "intelligence" yet attack him for going into a theoretical location of WMD based on "intelligence."

IMHO, I think we're comparing apples and oranges:

Well, even though they didn't catch Osama because the intelligence was incorrect, it was worth a try, since they the mission is already in place.
If it was later proven that he had been there, which he very well may have been, and they hadn't tried...
There was no major harm done by trying to get him.
Yes there were some casualties, but nothing like the war in Iraq.

Invading a country on faulty intelligence is an entirely different situation IMO, and should be done as a last resort, due to the numerous side effects of starting a war (huge cost in terms of casualties, huge financial cost among a number of other negative side effects).

My two cents.

[VEFF]

You have to love Cheney's terrible memory
One of his harshest criticisms of Edwards - that he had NEVER met him before the debate even though they were both senators at the same time - was a lie and will no doubt come back to bite him; the democrats are already planning to use it as a signature that they hope will be associated with Cheney.
Cheney had met Edwards before, not just once but THREE documented times! There are even photos of the meetings in today's papers to prove it.

Also his feeble defense of Halliburton's (he was the former CEO for those who aren't familiar with it) fines for a number of inappropriate, if not illegal, actions was deplorable, if you ask me.
The fact that they got $7 BILLION worth of no bid contracts for work in Iraq is a true outrage.
Halliburton itself even acknowledged accepting kickbacks of $6 million for the $7 billion no bid contract.
The articles are at USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2004-01-23-halliburton-kickbacks_x.htm
the Boston Globe and CBS.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of Edwards claims during the debate were also distorted, but Cheney has taken a hit in the press for a few outright lies.

I do think that the Cheney Edwards debate didn't have the same impact
on undecided voters as the Kerry Bush debate, where Kerry clearly dominated according to the 'debate winner' polls.

I think the outsourcing issue might be a big factor in terms of the deciding how people working in IT (Information Technology) will vote; Bush/Cheney support it strongly, Kerry/Edwards are against it.

[LoneWolf]

I know I'm putting my foot in it, but, seeing as I have issues with BOTH candidates, I'll say a few things.

First off, regarding Haliburton: Like them or not, there are some things which they are the ONLY company capable of accomplishing; that is, they are the only ones capable of providing certain services. In a case like this, you wouldn't bid it out, as there's only one place to go. The Democrats are milking this one for all it's worth.

I don't think anyone's 100% out-and-out lied; both of them though have stretched the truth so far that the public doesn't believe either of them, unless they're living in a dream world. Cheney didn't say he'd NEVER met Edwards; he said he couldn't recall or couldn't remember meeting Edwards. Typical political doublespeak, and it left a hole open. Both sides have run political ads that are so misleading that it's ridiculous. The truth of the matter is that NEITHER side is being fully open and fully honest with the American people. It's a sad thing that politicians forget they are governing America's people. Not just its businesses; not its lobbyists, it's people. And one step further: America's government has been called "of the people, by the people, for the people" if I have it right. How many politicians remember not only who "the people" are? I sure don't think many of our politicans are "the people" anymore, which makes it easy to see why they aren't governing for "the people".

LoneWolf (McCain/Feingold, 2004)

[MonteLDS]

someone correct me if I am wrong but it was intelgence pretty insurring that their were WMD's out there? It sounds to me that almost any president would be willing to back up their intelgents and go after this guy

[VEFF]

Cheney didn't say he'd NEVER met Edwards; he said he couldn't recall or couldn't remember meeting Edwards. Typical political doublespeak, and it left a hole open.
LoneWolf (McCain/Feingold, 2004)

Good points in your full post.

One correction though, specifically to the portion of your post that I quoted above:
Cheney DID clearly say he had never met Edwards
Besides which, he met Edward THREE separate times and stood right next to him on one occassion on the stage; he even directly addressed Edwards in one of the meetings; anyone who can honestly forget that shouldn't be in office or he was telling an outright lie.
I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session," said Cheney, turning to Edwards, D-N.C., whom he faulted for skipping lots of votes. "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight."

[jase]

someone correct me if I am wrong but it was intelgence pretty insurring that their were WMD's out there? It sounds to me that almost any president would be willing to back up their intelgents and go after this guy

Can't speak for Bush but one of the areas that's coming back to bite Blair in the arse is that he stated the evidence was clear and immediate, when in fact, as has been acknowledged since, the intelligence was often vague and inconclusive.

An interesting outcome of the report was the finding that Saddam wanted to recreate his WMD programme in order to once again rival his neighbouring states, notably Iran ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 722850.stm ). Ironically, if Saddam hadn't invaded Kuwait, we could well be finding ourselves in a position now in which the US would actually be backing Iraq once again as an ally against Iran (a proven funder of terrorist groups), in much the same way as we are backing Pakistan, a current holder of nuclear weapons and potentially unstable dictatorial regime.

I'm also interested in the link stated in the report concerning bribes offered by Saddam to France, Russia, China etc. Very serious allegations.

[dodecahedron]

Ironically, if Saddam hadn't invaded Kuwait, we could well be finding ourselves in a position now in which the US would actually be backing Iraq once again as an ally against Iran (a proven funder of terrorist groups), in much the same way as we are backing Pakistan, a current holder of nuclear weapons and potentially unstable dictatorial regime.

the emphasis - my own.

[JamieW]

Anyone else find it ironic and amusing that Monte can't spell "intelligence?"

[VEFF]

Anyone else find it ironic and amusing that Monte can't spell "intelligence?"

Now that you made me scrutinize his post, I am surprised by his misuse of "their" since his posts are normally fine (aren't they?) ; however, I myself have occasionally accidentally caught myself making a mistake simply because my mind was preoccupied (or was typing a post discretely from work and having one eye on my back), even though I know full well the distinction between the two (they're vs. their or accept vs. except or then vs. than).

[aviationwiz]

or was typing a post discretely from work and having one eye on my back

Now you know what I have to do when I (rarely) post from school.

[jase]

discretely

discreetly?

[VEFF]

or was typing a post discretely from work and having one eye on my back

Now you know what I have to do when I (rarely) post from school.

As long as your studies don't suffer, I think it can be a good release from studying and writing papers etc.

I keep any web surfing at work limited to when I have some spare time or after having worked hard for several hours straight without even a coffee break or trip to the bathroom e.g.
I don't go on smoke breaks, like others, so this is my 'smoke break'.

I never put the net before any work, and I also stay at work late whenever pressing or last minute work/problems have not been completed/resolved.
I also get calls at night, rarely fortunately, when there is an issue that needs to be resolved which can't wait till the next morning. There is no extra pay for this, but I do it without making a fuss.
Last, but not least, nobody has ever had any complaints about my job performance at this company (I don't want to come across conceited, so I'll leave it at that; I just wanted to make the point that I don't let the net impact my job performance; I feel fortunate to have had my career work out the way it has, so I don't want to jeopardize an ideal job).

[jase]

I have work breaks, inbetween bouts of surfing personally

(Mainly because I'm in support, and can get jobs done twice as quickly as most other people, and I'm on my own now so there's plenty of spare time -- no chance of redundancy because it's a 5-year contract and they need me, hehe. I'll get one or two days a week totally rushed off my feet, and then the rest of it is restville).