Return to Osama and Saddam, Yet Again
Re: Prague spring
(#36790)
by Chris Matthew Sciabarra on June 17, 2004 at 5:25 PM
by Chris Matthew Sciabarra on June 17, 2004 at 5:25 PM
Irfan, I must confess that I've not seen the print version of the NY TIMES today, and have tried to access the James Risen article that you mention online... and it appears nowhere on the site. Like you, I would prefer to read the 9/11 Commission report when it comes out; I suspect that it will make a lot of people very unhappy on all ends of this debate.
I, myself, do not believe the case is "closed" to debate; but this is the kind of thing that should have been ~nailed~, intelligence wise, in order to build the case for military action against the Hussein regime.
I don't think one has to be a rocket scientist to know, however, that there is enormous bias going on all over the political map on this question, which is why I think this debate is not going to be put to rest any time soon. Take a look at Maureen Dowd today < http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/17/opinion/17DOWD.html
>, and you'll see the same axe-grinding against Vice President Cheney. I think there's no doubt that the intelligence agencies mangled so much concerning the 9/11 attack. How can anyone feel secure seeing such a massive failure across so many dimensions?
I, myself, do not believe the case is "closed" to debate; but this is the kind of thing that should have been ~nailed~, intelligence wise, in order to build the case for military action against the Hussein regime.
I don't think one has to be a rocket scientist to know, however, that there is enormous bias going on all over the political map on this question, which is why I think this debate is not going to be put to rest any time soon. Take a look at Maureen Dowd today < http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/17/opinion/17DOWD.html
>, and you'll see the same axe-grinding against Vice President Cheney. I think there's no doubt that the intelligence agencies mangled so much concerning the 9/11 attack. How can anyone feel secure seeing such a massive failure across so many dimensions?
Re: Prague spring
(#36792)
by Chris Matthew Sciabarra on June 17, 2004 at 5:55 PM
by Chris Matthew Sciabarra on June 17, 2004 at 5:55 PM
Irfan sent me the link offlist to the Risen article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/17/politics/17prag.html?ex=1402804800&en=56ebe104516cadc8&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND
Now having read this, I do think I'm going to have to read the report when it is issued.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/17/politics/17prag.html?ex=1402804800&en=56ebe104516cadc8&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND
Now having read this, I do think I'm going to have to read the report when it is issued.
Re: Prague spring
(#36816)
by Keith Halderman on June 17, 2004 at 10:03 PM
by Keith Halderman on June 17, 2004 at 10:03 PM
While we are discussing this issue let us keep one thing in mind, those who argue that there was no connection between Bin Laden and Hussein are being asked to prove a negative just as those who said there were no WMDs and therefore no threat. This is impossible and the argument can go on forever.
Even if you could prove that some kind of meeting took place, what would that mean? What did they talk about? Maybe it was the soccer scores.
Even if you could prove that some kind of meeting took place, what would that mean? What did they talk about? Maybe it was the soccer scores.
Re: Prague Spring
(#36866)
by Arnold Shcherban on June 18, 2004 at 1:07 PM
by Arnold Shcherban on June 18, 2004 at 1:07 PM
Keith,
You made an excellent point, when mentioning kind of 'presumption of innocence' issue in regard to the
Bin Laden- Hussein connection and WMD.
I was raising basically the same issue for months by now without receiving a single coherent and logically solid response from any supporter of Bush-Cheney 'legend', who stubbonly maintain the lost position on the issue.
Since when the accused has to prove they are innocent?
Isn't it the full responsibility of the accusers to
prove the guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt', even when
a fate of just one person is concerned, not mentioning
the millions of people?
This should be the focus of the respective discussion, not some circumstantial evidence, even if it is confirmed.
You made an excellent point, when mentioning kind of 'presumption of innocence' issue in regard to the
Bin Laden- Hussein connection and WMD.
I was raising basically the same issue for months by now without receiving a single coherent and logically solid response from any supporter of Bush-Cheney 'legend', who stubbonly maintain the lost position on the issue.
Since when the accused has to prove they are innocent?
Isn't it the full responsibility of the accusers to
prove the guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt', even when
a fate of just one person is concerned, not mentioning
the millions of people?
This should be the focus of the respective discussion, not some circumstantial evidence, even if it is confirmed.
Return to Osama and Saddam, Yet Again
by on