By the end of March 2003, the IAEA had sent inspectors into Iraq and had already determined that Iraq had no nuclear program.
So, believed or not at the time of presentation, we already knew before the invasion that all of the nuclear scare talk was crap.
Let's also review Powell's speech to the UN: He had two main lines of evidence relating to Saddam's nuclear designs: the aluminum tubes and information given some defectors.
The aluminum tubes we knew at the time were distputed, Powell certainly knew it.
The specific defectors had already been classified as unreliable sources, we now know.
Powell would have gone before the UN and the world to represent the USA with the very best evidence we had.
Conclusion from Powell's speech therefore is that we had nothing on Saddam's nuclear plans, and there's no way Powell could have believed otherwise. He and the rest of the administration knowingly tried to deceive the world.
On the first google results page I went to all of the links and copied all of the Kerry quotes, all of which are apparantly from the primaries:
"The difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at the extraordinary cost, so far, of $166 billion."
But who challenged Dean immediately? John Kerry. On December 16, at Drake University in Iowa, Kerry asserted that "those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."
"Governor Dean and some other people didn't even think it was great. They didn't even know that it was good to get rid of Saddam Hussein.... I personally have said all along that saying 'no' is not a policy. And Howard Dean has only basically been saying 'no' and been angry about the war."
Kerry, who admitted that "my position is complicated," tried to explain how he squared that vote with his continuing opposition to unilateral U.S. intervention in Iraq.
"I don't regret my vote," he said. "I regret the way this country has conducted its foreign policy and given the back of its hand to virtually every country from the day of that vote."
Kerry said he believes Saddam Hussein is "a long-term threat to the United States and the region." Still, he added, "the United States of America should never go to war because it wants to go to war. We should go to war because we have to go to war."
All of these quotes match up with his position.
My guess is you see a contradiction when Kerry said he thought the capture of Saddam made us safer, with his later statements that he thought the war had made us less safe.
This only seems like a contradiction if you make the mistake of conflating the capture of Saddam with the war (which, in retrospect, is the same mistake that Howard Dean made).
But the capture of Saddam was just one among many results of the war.
I followed your link, copied the quotes for you, even the ones from the Weekly Standard, do you have any real contradictions to point out?
Not at all. Bush told Kerry that he knew the weapons were there, and that he would use war only as a last resort. He lied on both counts.
What you're arguing is that a senator should not trust the president in matters of national security. Well, in hindsight, he shouldn't have. But if the Senate cannot trust the president, then we really don't have a foreign policy at all.
Have you read the resolution? It's not a vote for war. In fact, the President assured the Senate that he would only use the powers granted to him by the resolution as a last resort.
Also, the resolution imposed terms on the president's use of force, and this article goes a long way towards demonstrating that he did not satisfy those terms.
He let precious minutes fly by while the nation was under attack. There were several actions he could have taken to defend the country that he didn't because he sat motionless in a classroom.
2. He doesn't waffle on the issues
Bush said war was a last resort, but rushed to war, pulling out the UN inspectors when they wanted more time and had seen increasing cooperation.
Bush said he'd go after any country that helped the terrorists, but he's covered up involvement by the Saudi government in 9/11.
Bush attacked Saddam for phony nukes, while North Korea has an assembly line. Bush knew about the NK nukes weeks before the Iraq vote but decided not to disclose it.
Bush was against Homeland Security Department until it started hurting him in the polls.
Bush was against a Senate 9/11 investigation until it started hurting him in the polls.
Bush was against the 9/11 commission until it started hurting him in the polls.
Bush was against Condi testifying to the commission until it started hurting him in the polls.
Bush imposed steel tariffs until it started hurting him in the polls, he quickly repealed them.
We attacked Iraq to disarm a dicator. Bush told Saddam if he disarmed we wouldn't attack.
We attacked Iraq because "of 9/11".
We attacked Iraq to bring Democracy to the mid-east.
Bush couldn't handle France's input on Iraq, but apparntly from Thursday's debate, he won't bat an eye lash towards North Korea without Chinese approval.
3. George is unpolished
George is a product of Yale, Andover, Harvard, and the state of Connecticut. Look at any private video of him before his first gubernatorial run.
4. George is a personally moral man
Q: when your not talking politics, what do you and [your father] talk about?"
BUSH: "pussy"
-to david fink of the hartford courant, at the 1998 republican convention, salon, 9 april 2000
Bush famously does not go to church.
5. He tells us we can succeed, not that we will fail
George Bush believes that what we are doing in Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Sudan is the best that we can do. That it's Hard Work. We all know that we can do better. That we could have donebetter.
Whats the heat of fusion for ICE-9? Seems to me that the water would have quickly reached melting temperature, and that ICE-9 would have spread at a more liesurly pace from then on.
And is the heat of fusion for this new stuff negative?
That's the same problem I had with it. He just had to wax Gredo preemptively, but now he runs into Jabba himself, and gets away with a little sweet talk?
Bill Clinton, Al Gore, George W. Bush, and John Kerry were all pot smokers back in the day.
And Dick Cheney and Ralph Nader really ought to take a hit now and then.
It's time to legalalize the stuff.
I've noticed that an artists favorite work is rarely what is considered his or her best work.
Artists are generally in love with the idea they had in their head when they were creating, but fans grow to love a work because of the ideas and emotions that flow through it, quite often without the artist's knowing.
A piece connects with something inside each individiual audience member, and it's hardly surprising that the artists don't have a firm grasp as to how that works.
If they try to rationalize it, they'll likely screw up whatever it was that was working.
Can someone explain to me how the space elevator is going to make up for changes in rotational momemntum as the elevator moves up and down? Are they going to have rockets on it to counter-act coreolis forces?
I gave an excellent condition "Fiend Folio" to a friend when I graduated from high school only to hear that that was an exceedingly rare and valuable book as D&D books go.
Could the article have it wrong? Perhaps they misunderstood the scientists. The photons move at the speed of light, but the entanglement effect ought to be instantaneous since from one way of thinking the distant photon was already in the same state as the input photon.
Re:'Star Wars - Interactive' - God help us...
on
Star Wars on DVD
·
· Score: 1
The problem is not that Greedo shoots first, it's that he shoots first and misses. His blaster is leveled right at Han's chest, barely a foot away, and Han isn't moving, and Greedo isn't exactly twitchy.
No way Greedo misses, which is why Han *has* to shoot first. It's a major plot hole.
Related LOAF as spam filter, a quick look into Bloom filters suggests that it might be trivially easy to creat a LOAF hash that returns a positive for all email addresses.
We should do the proper calculations first, or the internet could pass through an asteroid field or bounce into a supernova. This isn't exactly dusting crops.
An RTS came out came out a few years ago, it was a Star Craft ripoff, but it had multiple maps connected by warp points and you had to keep you units supplied.
I downloaded a bootleg and loved it. After a few days I decided to throw some cash their way, so I bought a CD. Never could get the legit copy to run.
In December, at the height of his power, I overheard Dean tell Chris Matthews (?!) that he was going to put a stop to rampant media conglomeration. At that point I knew he was a dead duck. It didn't take them that long to get him.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, we ain't dead yet, and the future's coming whether we want it to or not.
By the end of March 2003, the IAEA had sent inspectors into Iraq and had already determined that Iraq had no nuclear program.
So, believed or not at the time of presentation, we already knew before the invasion that all of the nuclear scare talk was crap.
Let's also review Powell's speech to the UN: He had two main lines of evidence relating to Saddam's nuclear designs: the aluminum tubes and information given some defectors.
The aluminum tubes we knew at the time were distputed, Powell certainly knew it.
The specific defectors had already been classified as unreliable sources, we now know.
Powell would have gone before the UN and the world to represent the USA with the very best evidence we had.
Conclusion from Powell's speech therefore is that we had nothing on Saddam's nuclear plans, and there's no way Powell could have believed otherwise. He and the rest of the administration knowingly tried to deceive the world.
My guess is you see a contradiction when Kerry said he thought the capture of Saddam made us safer, with his later statements that he thought the war had made us less safe.
This only seems like a contradiction if you make the mistake of conflating the capture of Saddam with the war (which, in retrospect, is the same mistake that Howard Dean made).
But the capture of Saddam was just one among many results of the war.
I followed your link, copied the quotes for you, even the ones from the Weekly Standard, do you have any real contradictions to point out?
What you're arguing is that a senator should not trust the president in matters of national security. Well, in hindsight, he shouldn't have. But if the Senate cannot trust the president, then we really don't have a foreign policy at all.
What conflicting statements?
Have you read the resolution? It's not a vote for war. In fact, the President assured the Senate that he would only use the powers granted to him by the resolution as a last resort. Also, the resolution imposed terms on the president's use of force, and this article goes a long way towards demonstrating that he did not satisfy those terms.
He let precious minutes fly by while the nation was under attack. There were several actions he could have taken to defend the country that he didn't because he sat motionless in a classroom.
2. He doesn't waffle on the issues
Bush said war was a last resort, but rushed to war, pulling out the UN inspectors when they wanted more time and had seen increasing cooperation.
Bush said he'd go after any country that helped the terrorists, but he's covered up involvement by the Saudi government in 9/11.
Bush attacked Saddam for phony nukes, while North Korea has an assembly line. Bush knew about the NK nukes weeks before the Iraq vote but decided not to disclose it.
Bush was against Homeland Security Department until it started hurting him in the polls.
Bush was against a Senate 9/11 investigation until it started hurting him in the polls.
Bush was against the 9/11 commission until it started hurting him in the polls.
Bush was against Condi testifying to the commission until it started hurting him in the polls.
Bush imposed steel tariffs until it started hurting him in the polls, he quickly repealed them.
We attacked Iraq to disarm a dicator. Bush told Saddam if he disarmed we wouldn't attack.
We attacked Iraq because "of 9/11".
We attacked Iraq to bring Democracy to the mid-east.
Bush couldn't handle France's input on Iraq, but apparntly from Thursday's debate, he won't bat an eye lash towards North Korea without Chinese approval.
3. George is unpolished
George is a product of Yale, Andover, Harvard, and the state of Connecticut. Look at any private video of him before his first gubernatorial run.
4. George is a personally moral man
Q: when your not talking politics, what do you and [your father] talk about?"
BUSH: "pussy"
-to david fink of the hartford courant, at the 1998 republican convention, salon, 9 april 2000
Bush famously does not go to church.
5. He tells us we can succeed, not that we will fail
George Bush believes that what we are doing in Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Sudan is the best that we can do. That it's Hard Work. We all know that we can do better. That we could have donebetter.
I learned that you could win the entire game without manipulating anything. Darned game played itself.
True, but that's subjective. Objectively, very few people have been sterilized or euthanized by housecats.
Mr. President, how has your faith guided you through these troubled times?
And is the heat of fusion for this new stuff negative?
That's the same problem I had with it. He just had to wax Gredo preemptively, but now he runs into Jabba himself, and gets away with a little sweet talk?
Bill Clinton, Al Gore, George W. Bush, and John Kerry were all pot smokers back in the day. And Dick Cheney and Ralph Nader really ought to take a hit now and then. It's time to legalalize the stuff.
I've noticed that an artists favorite work is rarely what is considered his or her best work. Artists are generally in love with the idea they had in their head when they were creating, but fans grow to love a work because of the ideas and emotions that flow through it, quite often without the artist's knowing. A piece connects with something inside each individiual audience member, and it's hardly surprising that the artists don't have a firm grasp as to how that works. If they try to rationalize it, they'll likely screw up whatever it was that was working.
They'd either need some kind of propulsion, or some sort of anti-slingshot effect.
Can someone explain to me how the space elevator is going to make up for changes in rotational momemntum as the elevator moves up and down? Are they going to have rockets on it to counter-act coreolis forces?
Sure. The trick is, you just don't lead them so much.
Dude, you need a spoiler alert. Those of us unfamiliar with rot13 won't get the hint until it's to late.
I gave an excellent condition "Fiend Folio" to a friend when I graduated from high school only to hear that that was an exceedingly rare and valuable book as D&D books go.
Could the article have it wrong? Perhaps they misunderstood the scientists. The photons move at the speed of light, but the entanglement effect ought to be instantaneous since from one way of thinking the distant photon was already in the same state as the input photon.
No way Greedo misses, which is why Han *has* to shoot first. It's a major plot hole.
Related LOAF as spam filter, a quick look into Bloom filters suggests that it might be trivially easy to creat a LOAF hash that returns a positive for all email addresses.
We should do the proper calculations first, or the internet could pass through an asteroid field or bounce into a supernova. This isn't exactly dusting crops.
I downloaded a bootleg and loved it. After a few days I decided to throw some cash their way, so I bought a CD. Never could get the legit copy to run.
In December, at the height of his power, I overheard Dean tell Chris Matthews (?!) that he was going to put a stop to rampant media conglomeration. At that point I knew he was a dead duck. It didn't take them that long to get him.