If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#272
|
|||
|
|||
Mary Malmros wrote:
BrritSki wrote: John Red-Horse wrote: In article , wrote: There's only been one quote provided so far. That was Blix' statement of Feb 2003 to the Security Council. In it he did NOT say there were no WMDs, only that he didn't find any which is an entirely different thing. I have not moved any goalposts or shifted my ground in any way. On the contrary, I started out asking Ant to quote from her posts here and I've now widened it. Let me repeat - show me 1 quote from anyone, anywhere and I'll be happy to be proved wrong. Okay, Walt's given you Usenet posts, but there certainly were people during the time of the debate who were arguing that Hussein wasn't, as posed by our own government, an immediate threat to the US. Robert Scheer, the progressive (former) LA Times columnist, apparently wrote this in one of his own columns in August of 2002. Here's a quote from an article on FAIR's website, which discusses his firing in mid-Nov: Scheer's forceful and independent commentary has often placed him in the middle of national debates. He has been one of the strongest critics of the White House over the Iraq War. For instance, in a pre-war column (8/6/02) that undercuts the current notion that everyone got the WMD story wrong, Scheer wrote that "a consensus of experts" told the Senate that Iraq's chemical and biological arsenals were "almost totally destroyed during eight years of inspections." And I distinctly remember some of Scheer's columns picking apart of the Administrations claims for a then-current Iragi nuclear capability as well during the build up to the fiasco^wwar. I can try to look these up for you if you'd like... No, no need. Thanks for the quote above, that's the kind of intelligent argument I was interesting in having before I got sidetracked by Ant an Mary. I never believed Iraq had a nuclear capability, or 45 minute claims and so on, and I freely admit that I didn't hear any arguments that none existed from any serious commentators pre-war, in particular Hans Blix who seemed (to me) to blow with the wind. Quote? Before the war his reports and actions indicated that he needed to keep looking. See the url Walt posted dated Feb 23rd 2003 for evidence. In May 2003 he was starting to have doubts: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,962405,00.html (for those who don't know, the Guardian is a serious left-wing newspaper in GB that is seriously anti Bush & Blair. Then almost a year later when he has a book to sell his story changes again (interesting story, no idea of the political leanings and credibnility of the website, but I remember the BBC interview: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/apostolou200402180915.asp What I meant by "blow with the wind" was that his views changed to suit the prevailing situation. It took me but a few minutes to back up my assertion, why was it so difficult for you to do the same ? Was it easier to start bleating about intellectual dishonesty and so on before you'd even seen an answer? Or did you mix me up with some of the other people in this discussion ? If you look back up the thread you'll find that apart from being rude to Astro (arse on a plate) and the cheap shot against you earlier (apologies - my knee was hurting and I'd just learnt that the local hill is not opening tomorrow) I've not been calling people names, just asking questions, putting an opposing POV and asking for quotes politely. SHeesh. |
#273
|
|||
|
|||
BrritSki wrote Hans Blix
Before the war his reports and actions indicated that he needed to keep looking. See the url Walt posted dated Feb 23rd 2003 for evidence. In May 2003 he was starting to have doubts: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,962405,00.html (for those who don't know, the Guardian is a serious left-wing newspaper in GB that is seriously anti Bush & Blair. Then almost a year later when he has a book to sell his story changes again (interesting story, no idea of the political leanings and credibnility of the website, but I remember the BBC interview: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/apostolou200402180915.asp What I meant by "blow with the wind" was that his views changed to suit the prevailing situation. Hmmm. You cite one article from "a serious left-wing newspaper" and another from The National Review (Bill Buckley's ultra-right vanity press) and complain that they present an inconsistent view of Blix's position. Are you sure it's Blix that's the variable here, and not the agendas of the Guardian and the NR? 'Cause you're going to find everthing and everybody in the world "blows with the wind" using that methodology. //Walt |
#274
|
|||
|
|||
Walt wrote:
BrritSki wrote Hans Blix Before the war his reports and actions indicated that he needed to keep looking. See the url Walt posted dated Feb 23rd 2003 for evidence. In May 2003 he was starting to have doubts: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,962405,00.html (for those who don't know, the Guardian is a serious left-wing newspaper in GB that is seriously anti Bush & Blair. Then almost a year later when he has a book to sell his story changes again (interesting story, no idea of the political leanings and credibnility of the website, but I remember the BBC interview: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/apostolou200402180915.asp What I meant by "blow with the wind" was that his views changed to suit the prevailing situation. Hmmm. You cite one article from "a serious left-wing newspaper" and another from The National Review (Bill Buckley's ultra-right vanity press) and complain that they present an inconsistent view of Blix's position. Are you sure it's Blix that's the variable here, and not the agendas of the Guardian and the NR? 'Cause you're going to find everthing and everybody in the world "blows with the wind" using that methodology. Yes you're right, but I did say that I didn't know what the National Review was. I also said that I remembered the BBC interview - "are you saying I'm a liar?" Actually, here is the transcript of the BBC interview: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast_with_frost/3470051.stm Having read this interview and the NR article again, I found that I AM guilty of misrepresenting St. Hans' position: in fact he is saying that "we" now know that there were no WMDs, but they didn't know before the war actually started, which is what I've been arguing all along. Sorry. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
bern oberland r exit options | Hookipa | European Ski Resorts | 2 | April 18th 04 05:42 PM |
Spring Break Options - Keystone Mar 6-13 | David Leach | North American Ski Resorts | 3 | January 5th 04 02:55 PM |