• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lawyers Showed Photos of Covert CIA Officers to Guantanamo Bay Detainees

Well, if the Washington Post says it, then it must be true. :roll:

Are they talking about this 2002 NIE Report???


Key Judgments (from October 2002 NIE) - Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons

And from the Butler Committee:

Global security got it wrong. The niger claim was not apart of the key judgments section which carry greater weight. The key judgments start on page 9 of the NIE which I have posted below. The information you posted regarding that takes place on page 24 of the NIE.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20060407/nie_cia_declass.pdf

Also if you read page 87 of the document you'll see information from the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research stating the claims were highly dubious. At the time there was no consensus and they had been warned that the claims are not established as fact. So even less reason to use it in the State of the Union
 
Global security got it wrong. The niger claim was not apart of the key judgments section which carry greater weight. The key judgments start on page 9 of the NIE which I have posted below. The information you posted regarding that takes place on page 24 of the NIE.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20060407/nie_cia_declass.pdf

Also if you read page 87 of the document you'll see information from the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research stating the claims were highly dubious. At the time there was no consensus and they had been warned that the claims are not established as fact. So even less reason to use it in the State of the Union

Yeah, a document that is 95% redacted and you expect me to believe you???

You've got to be kidding.

But on page 25 is EXACTLY what Global Security quoted:
 
Last edited:
Yeah, a document that is 95% redacted and you expect me to believe you???

You've got to be kidding.

But on page 25 is EXACTLY what Global Security quoted:

That's whats been declassified. Again Global Security said it was a key judgment which it wasn't. Do you understand the designations?
 
That's whats been declassified. Again Global Security said it was a key judgment which it wasn't. Do you understand the designations?

You love to swat at gnats don't you???

The Key Judgements is a summary. The details are in the report. Do YOU understand the difference????
 
You love to swat at gnats don't you???

The Key Judgements is a summary. The details are in the report. Do YOU understand the difference????


The key judgments hold more weight than the rest of the document. The information from global security was not in the key judgment summary but later down in the document. Also the State Department's agency concluded that the claims were dubious further down in the document. Again as according to your original wikipedia link there was conflicting information and not enough proof to even include it in the SOTU
 
The key judgments hold more weight than the rest of the document. The information from global security was not in the key judgment summary but later down in the document. Also the State Department's agency concluded that the claims were dubious further down in the document. Again as according to your original wikipedia link there was conflicting information and not enough proof to even include it in the SOTU

NO, it does not. As I said, the key judgements is just the summary. If you want to know the details, look through the entire report.

You love being obtuse don't you?
 
NO, it does not. As I said, the key judgements is just the summary. If you want to know the details, look through the entire report.

You love being obtuse don't you?

Not being obtuse. If the uranium bit was so credible it would have been in the key judgments section which it was not. Again that information is contradicted by the part in the document where the Bureau of Intelligence and Research stated the uranium claims were highly dubious. Again no clear consensus. There should have been no reason to have it in the SOTU.
 
Quote: Originally Posted by Truth Detector
Got any evidence/facts to support this FALSE assertion?

I didn't make an assertion. I said I wondered how many we've treated the same way. According to the justifications used we could say drug runners and gang members are unlawful combatants and could be detained as well

So you were just engaging in superficial hyperbole. Sorry, I mistook your efforts at debate for substance.
 
Not being obtuse. If the uranium bit was so credible it would have been in the key judgments section which it was not. Again that information is contradicted by the part in the document where the Bureau of Intelligence and Research stated the uranium claims were highly dubious. Again no clear consensus. There should have been no reason to have it in the SOTU.

I am curious by this Niger “yellowcake” argument; is your argument that Saddam didn't have highly enriched Uranium that can be used for weapons grade munitions?

If so, I guess you missed this story from 2008:

a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy.

FOXNews.com - Report: Uranium Stockpile Removed From Iraq in Secret U.S. Mission - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

At Iraq's request, the US military recently transferred hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada in a secret, weeks-long operation, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday.

The 550 metric tons of uranium, which was sold to a Canadian company, was moved by truck convoy to Baghdad's "Green Zone," then flown by military aircraft to a third country where it was put on a ship for Canada, said Bryan Whitman, the spokesman.


France 24 | Iraq sells uranium to Canada | France 24

Which begs the question; if Saddam wasn’t attempting to re-constitute his nuclear WMDs, what was 550 metric tons of “yellowcake” going to be used for; a birthday party?

:rofl
 
Here is what I wrote.

""please post threads started by yourself that expressed outrage or concern for lawbreaking under the Bush Administration?"

Unable to do this....you go off and list 5 lame links where you were criticizing Congress as a whole (your number #1 link) or GOP Congressman after they admitted or were found guilty of wrongdoing (links #2-5)

I'll ask you again!!! Can you please post a link where you were critical or questioning of the Bush Administration for alleged lawbreaking?

Here is you questioning whether it is OK for Government to lie to the public.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/6023-does-government-have-right-lie-its-citizens.html

I need you to post 134 links of threads you have started where you have expressed outrage and/or concern for the scarce evidence of the Unicorn's existence. If you cannot do this, your arguments will be rendered invalid and silly. Good day, sir.
 
Quote: Originally Posted by Truth Detector
Got any evidence/facts to support this FALSE assertion?



So you were just engaging in superficial hyperbole. Sorry, I mistook your efforts at debate for substance.

Not hyperbole either. You want to try this one again? There's no reason why we shouldn't hold gang members as nonlawful combatants according to the rationale being used
 
I am curious by this Niger “yellowcake” argument; is your argument that Saddam didn't have highly enriched Uranium that can be used for weapons grade munitions?

If so, I guess you missed this story from 2008:

a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy.

FOXNews.com - Report: Uranium Stockpile Removed From Iraq in Secret U.S. Mission - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

At Iraq's request, the US military recently transferred hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada in a secret, weeks-long operation, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday.

The 550 metric tons of uranium, which was sold to a Canadian company, was moved by truck convoy to Baghdad's "Green Zone," then flown by military aircraft to a third country where it was put on a ship for Canada, said Bryan Whitman, the spokesman.


France 24 | Iraq sells uranium to Canada | France 24

Which begs the question; if Saddam wasn’t attempting to re-constitute his nuclear WMDs, what was 550 metric tons of “yellowcake” going to be used for; a birthday party?

:rofl


Did you even bother to read your own article? The Iraqi government sold this to a canadian company. The Iraqi government we put in place.

Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.

This yellowcake you speak of was from a stockpile we already knew about, we had control of and had been stored and safeguarded for years on end. Again we're talking about outlawed arms that we had no information on. That was what the problem was. We knew about this stockpile and there was no evidence that he had the means to create weapons grade uranium. Not even fox seems to support your contention. Reading comprehension try it sometime.
 
Here is what I wrote.

""please post threads started by yourself that expressed outrage or concern for lawbreaking under the Bush Administration?"

Unable to do this....you go off and list 5 lame links where you were criticizing Congress as a whole (your number #1 link) or GOP Congressman after they admitted or were found guilty of wrongdoing (links #2-5)

You should work on your reading comprehension.

The first link is criticizing the OMB (part of the Bush Administration,) who was responsible for the proposed rule.

The other links all clearly fall under your request as well.

I'll ask you again!!! Can you please post a link where you were critical or questioning of the Bush Administration for alleged lawbreaking?

Don't ****ing lie to me. You never said "alleged lawbreaking," you said:

Also please post threads started by yourself that expressed outrage or concern for lawbreaking under the Bush Administration?

How do examples 2-5 not fall under that scenario? (I'm reading "Bush administration" broadly, as that was obviously what you were getting at.)

Pay up.

Here is you questioning whether it is OK for Government to lie to the public.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/6023-does-government-have-right-lie-its-citizens.html

A four year old thread where we discuss a perfectly reasonable philosophical question (that I still agree with). Point?


Here is a link where RightinNYC agrees that denying Habes Corpus rights to "suspected" terrorist supects is a good thing to do. He thinks our Government can just hold suspects forever if the President says OK.


http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...a-detaining-terror-suspects-indefinitely.html

Do you understand why Bagram Air Force base is different from the US or Guantanamo (since Hamdan)?

Here is a link of "claimed Conservative" RightinNYC

defending the use of Bush's signing statements...which effectively claim that the President is above the law if he declares so.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archi...may-allow-mail-opening-without-warrant-2.html

And again, signing statements are in and of themselves perfectly legitimate. They were fine under Bush and they're fine under Obama.

Do you notice a pattern here?????

Yes. I notice that you're posting threads where I express opinions on complex issues that you don't understand.

Fake Conservatives are real concerned about law breaking and the weakening of the Constitution when Democrats are in power....but the are fine with erosions of Civil Liberties and reducing checks on Governmental power when their guys are in power.

I know that you're capable of understanding this, so why don't you go back and look at those threads again. If I was really trying to defend it when Conservatives did it and criticize it when Liberals did it, then why am I defending it when Obama did it?

It's called consistency.
 
Back
Top Bottom