Protecting Intelligence Sources...

Why would they promise to show evidence, then?

 

BJ,

If they know that very concealable WMD are there, and know they can convince the world, tell me what good it does to present it to the world in prelude to weeks of politicians debating their response to go in and destroy them for 10yr old material breach on the UN's demands.

there is a valid military argument to be made that, if they have evidence, they should not reveal it until all their forces are in position to attack, and Iraq should be given 24 hours to comply at that point. You do not want those weapons on the move, if they are there and you are definitely going to attack.

How would you reveal the information, if it is indeed incontrovertible?

 

what HeyP said

 

I'M contradicting myself??? Good lord, man. How bad do you need to believe in these guys?

If presenting the evidence they supposedly have will harm us or our interests in any way, WHY in the name of Zeus did they promise to present it? And if it wouldn't harm our interests, why haven't they?

But I'm contradicting myself. Sure thing, sailor.

 

Yeah, that's pretty much on the money, haven.

 

what HeyP said

 

HP:

Please forgive my cynicism. (I'm being sincere here.)

I do not believe them.

The last time we went to war with Iraq, there were several incidences of made up reasons for it, to boost the PR campaign. I often cite the bogus incubator story, which was crafted in part by a US PR firm, but there are others. They were lies.

We were told there was real proof of a 9/11 connect. Any reason not to present that to us? That's right. It turned out to be a false alarm.

We were told there was a viable nukes program. The CIA said they had no evidence of that and didn't know where the White House got it from. The White House has now pretty much backed off the viability of what appears to be a made up program.

And now it's down to WMD and liberating the Iraqi people.

Forgive my cynicism. I do not believe them.

 

122 mm rockets with warheads that are designed to carry a chemical weapon's load. You call them insignificant cannisters.

With people spinning stories this haphazardly, it's no wonder the administration is cautious with what they release.

 

No, he said why they shouldn't show it...he didn't say why they should promise to show it, then not. You can argue by saying you have evidence but not showing it can do just as much harm. If Saddam does have WMD, I don't see him hearing Bush saying they have evidence, not showing it, and then sitting back hoping they really don't.

 

Neither you nor HeyP has answered the question. Why did they promise to present evidence if it would be damaging to do so? They promised to share it with Congress, the UN and the American public to build support for the war. Is it your position that support was supposed to appear within this magic 24 hours with bombs already in the air? If that's the position of the administration, it has CHANGED with no explanation except a sort of 'how dare you question us' attitude. It is no wonder people find this president and this administration so arrogant.

 

The informers don't have to be exposed at all. Suggesting to the inspectors go to location 'x' won't expose who lead them to that location or if anyone lead them there at all. Once the inspectors arrive at that location they can gather whatever solid proof they need, without exposing anyone.

I heard a senator mention that perhaps inspectors can stay in Iraq for decades and continue monitoring just to make sure that once they leave the Iraqi weapons program doesn't escalate again. That sounds preferable to a war, and having inspectors constantly going around the country, Iraq won't really be able to mobilize to use anything they manage to hide anyway.

Of course if the upcoming evidence to be released by the whitehouse could provide people with the case that they want to see.

 

I think your question needs to be answered with another. Or at least you need to refine your question.

When and how much evidence was promised? And to whom was it promised too? I'm asking this becuase I honestly don't recall.

If it was promised to the UN, when was the promise made, and when was the promise supposed to be fulfilled? How do we know it wasn't fulfilled? (how did they find those rockets?) How much evidence and of what kind was promised? Same thing for Congress and the American people.

I'm not asking this because there may not be answers to those questions. Again, I don't know.

If the promise was open-ended (meaning, there was no definitive timetable for delivery), then we get right back to what HP, myself, and others have been saying. Your peace of mind be damned, intelligence gathering damaging evidence will not be dissimenated until we're ready to attack or until such time as it's release is no longer damaging.

If the promise was was definitive (x amount of evidence delivered at y place in time), and it wasn't delivered, then I agree, that's bad politics....and certainly a viable point for more people to be against this war.

 

I would think that U.S. Intelligence Agencies would be interested in cooperating with the weapons inspectors so that the U.N. inspectors could find the incontrovertible proof that Bush needs to regain world support for his war.

There's no need to disclose everything on C.N.N. but there is a need to show the world and the American citizens that we aren't putting American lives on the line so the Bush administrations friends in the oil/energy business can make a healthy profit.

 

They haven't said that they ARENT releasing any info...they just said (as a matter of fact, Foxnews just had a report that backs this up) that they will release the intelligence that they have gathered to the public when the time is right. That tells me that anything revealed at this time would compromise our gameplan

 

Don't quote me on this but Foxnews just reported was that the promised intelligence (they didnt refer to it as "promised intelligence" but they said some intelligence) info and evidence that supports Iraq's ties to Al Queda will be released in the next week or so.

EDIT: they just said in the next week or so...not next week

 

One mroe thing....on one hand you (BJ, rm95) say that you don;t believe anything that comes out of the White House. On the other hand, you say that you want them to present evidence proving their case against Iraq. Are you going to believe anything they tell you anyway? If no, then why the hangup about wanting to see evidence?

 

Did we see anything when Clinton attacked Iraq in 98?

 

That was a limited strike, and not a full scale invasion. I do think that were numerous people raising questions against Clinton after the strike that took out that pharmaceudical plant.

 

When making this credibility determination maybe we should rely on a quote from Donald Rumsfeld in his role in the Nixon-Haldmenan WhiteHouse! (Can you believe the old fart involvement with dirty crap goes back that far!)

Talking to [President] Nixon, H.R. Haldeman, his chief of staff, paraphrased a staff colleague's ( RUMSFELD) judgment of the impact of the Pentagon Papers after the first two days of reporting on them by The New York Times: "[O]ut of the gobbledygook comes a very clear thing: you can't trust the government; you can't believe what they say; and you can't rely on their judgment. And the implicit infallibility of presidents, which has been an accepted thing in America, is badly hurt by this, because it shows that people do things the president wants to do even though it's wrong, and the president can be wrong."

The article by Elsberg is an excellent one on the role of truth telling and war by the government.




Rumsfeld _Haldeman on Lying by the gov

 

Hey NJ, how do I feel about war with Iraq?

Thanks.