The Telegraph as Fox News? Or the Smoking Gun?

[Because They Are Hirsute]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/04/27/ixportaltop.html


Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime

The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad.

One Western intelligence official contacted last night described the file as "sensational", adding: "Baghdad clearly sought out the meeting. The regime would have wanted it to happen in the capital as it's only there they would feel safe from surveillance by Western intelligence."

[Captain Cookiepants]

Separately, The Sunday Times reported that its own journalists had found documents in the Iraqi foreign ministry that indicate that France gave Saddam Hussein's regime regular reports on its dealings with American officials.

The newspaper said the documents reveal that Paris shared with Baghdad the contents of private transatlantic meetings and diplomatic traffic from Washington.

One document, dated Sept. 25, 2001, from Iraqi foreign minister Naji Sabri to Saddam's palace, was based on a briefing from the French ambassador in Baghdad and covered talks between presidents Jacques Chirac and George W. Bush.

[Daniel Morris]

I'm sorry, I thought it was taken for granted that al Qaeda and Saddam were mortal enemies who could not conceivably be doing any business together.

[Woolen Horde]

The Telegraph is a friggin' scoop-o-rama lately.

I think it was all the 'Graph that broke the news that Scottish MP George Galloway was on Saddam's take. Galloway was so pro-Iraq that when Tony Blair was addressing Parliament recently, someone asked him about Iraq surrendering. Tony said he didn't know of any Iraqi leader available to surrender, cause they were all in hiding. But then some unknown rascal yelled out "George Galloway!" and the entire House of Commons just collapsed in laughter.

[Jason McCullough]

This is news to the CIA. We'll see if it holds up. For all we know, maybe it's true but it didn't work out in 1998.

Edit: Ha ha, forget about the baby incubator thing.

[Brian Rucker]

I'll believe it when there's some confirmation. Ya'll should remember that the Telegraph was also the paper with the Kuwaiti baby incubator 'scoop' which turned out to be a PR scam. Maybe it's true, maybe it ain't. May be a bit too soon to crow.

Edit: Actually, the Fox News comparison isn't too far off the mark. I did some more homework and found out that the publisher is a very activist pro-Tory conservative named Conrad Black cut from a similiar cloth as Rupert Murdoch. Richard Perle is on the board of directors of his communications holding company and Black's got a long history of of disdain for investigative journalism as well as controlling the nature of the stories in his paper. This doesn't mean the stories aren't true, again, but it does cast things in the proper light.

[Rywill]

CNN has picked this up as well. I think it's much more likely than not that this is true. The folks out there saying "Well, I don't believe it yet" should probably fold.

Even so, though, this doesn't justify the war. I mean, I think everyone would have to concede that the Bush administration had no credible evidence of a Saddam-al Qaeda link prior to the war. The war was justified because Saddam is crazy and a terrible dictator. The fact that he turns out to be in league with terrorists is just icing on the cake, really.

[Brian Rucker]

Well, I couldn't find much about CNN's coverage but there was a seperate story in the Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0425/p01s04-woiq.htm) which is a pretty reputable publication.*

Galloway has also responded (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/media/story/0,12123,943738,00.html) to the CSM story in The Guardian, The Telegraph's liberal siamese twin (they even share costs on printing but have different owners - how odd is that?).

*An interesting aside, the CSM writer is a freelancer named Philip Smucker who has also freelanced for both the Washington Times and The Telegraph among other papers in the past. Also interesting is that his stories tended to cover aspects of Afghanistan and the 'war on terror' that are actually critical of the administration's activities (including the Yemeni government's reaction to the assassination via Predator drone of Al Qaida operatives and a story about how the military dropped the ball when hunting Bin Laden). Even more interesting, he's one of the 'unilateral' or unembedded reporters that was removed by the military from Iraq for revealing too much information in a live discussion with CNN and NPR on seperate occasions. Smucker's also done many stories involving the CIA from Kosovo on and not all of them terribly flattering. I've also encountered a mention that his father was arrested recently for protesting the war. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything but it's amazing what you can find out these days.

[Rywill]

CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/26/sprj.irq.britain.iraq.ap/index.html)

[Brian Rucker]

Yeah, that's really not much. They're just reporting that this story was reported by somebody else. There doesn't seem to be any independant reporting or fact checking there.

[Rywill]

True, but I don't think they'd pick it up if they thought it wasn't true; and if they think it's true, I think it's more likely than not true. CNN rarely reports stuff that turns out to be false.

[Woolen Horde]

Anyone else see the stories circulating that the French were feeding the Iraqi's intelligence big time, including the contents of US-French meetings regarding Iraq. The Republicans in Congress are already in a froth over it.

Our-So-Called-Allies have shot themselves in the foot again.

[Desslock]

The Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?GXHC_gx_session_id_=e1badb90f5968b24&pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1051125568646&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154) is claiming a similar finding today by its repporters. I don't know if they were with the Telegraph guys, or they are referring to additional material.

[Rywill]

I did see that thing about France, but I just went, "Well, what a surprise, they're amoral assholes in bed with Iraq. Stop the presses."

An interesting angle on it, though, is that it seems like more and more of the politicians who were opposed to war in Iraq and really tried to stop it from happening were also secretly allied with Hussein.

[Daniel Morris]

it seems like more and more of the politicians who were opposed to war in Iraq and really tried to stop it from happening were also secretly allied with Hussein.

You don't say?

[Jason McCullough]

Here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,944741,00.html).


Western intelligence officials are playing down the significance of documents appearing to show that Saddam Hussein's regime met an al-Qaida envoy in Baghdad in 1998 and sought to arrange a meeting with Osama bin Laden.

"We are aware of fleeting contacts [between Baghdad and al-Qaida] in the past, but there were were no long-term official contacts," a well-placed source told the Guardian yesterday. "The documents do not take things further forward"

British security and intelligence agencies have persistently dismissed attempts by hawks in the White House to link Saddam's regime with al-Qaida, a link which would help London and Washington to argue that Iraq had posed an imminent threat.

According to the documents found by the Sunday Telegraph an envoy from al-Qaida went to Baghdad from the Sudanese capital Khartoum in March 1998 - two years after Sudan, under pressure from Saudia Arabia, ordered Bin Laden out and he returned to Afghanistan.

Intelligence officials acknowledge that al-Qaida and Iraq shared a mutual hostility towards Saudi Arabia and the US after the 1991 Gulf war, but they say Saddam distrusted the terrorist network and there was little love lost between Bin Laden, an Islamist fundamentalist, and Saddam's secular regime.

Intelligence sources also played down the significance of documents found by the Sunday Times in the Iraqi foreign ministry which suggest France gave the regime regular reports on its dealings with American officials.

The sources described them as ordinary diplomatic traffic from the Iraqi ambassador in Paris.

[Dirt]

Please. The USA had relations with both Saddam and Osama. It's all a part of running a country.

So far, the smoking gun is still just shooting blanks.

[TimElhajj]

I'm sorry, I thought it was taken for granted that al Qaeda and Saddam were mortal enemies who could not conceivably be doing any business together.

No, they just don't trust one another. Go read Pollack's book you misinformed hawk!

[TimElhajj]

An interesting angle on it, though, is that it seems like more and more of the politicians who were opposed to war in Iraq and really tried to stop it from happening were also secretly allied with Hussein.

An interesting angle only if you're ready to equate stands against the war with being allied with Hussein. It's amazing Iraq was able to lose the war with such a huge coalition of allies!

[Rywill]

I'm more equating conducting espionage on Saddam's behalf as being allied with Hussein, but thanks for throwing that out there anyway. Did you not read the posts you were responding to?

[TimElhajj]

I'm more equating conducting espionage on Saddam's behalf as being allied with Hussein, but thanks for throwing that out there anyway. Did you not read the posts you were responding to?

Is that what you meant when you said more and more politicians who tried to stop the war where secretly allied with Hussein? So if I am against the war and a polititian, I am conducting espionage for Saddam. That is what you said, those are the words you choose. Or did you really have some other interesting angle you wanted people to consider?

[Ben Sones]

So if I am against the war and a polititian...

...and feeding intelligence to the Iraqi ministry of information, as politicians from both Russia and France evidently did...


I am conducting espionage for Saddam.

Yeah. That's pretty much capsule dictionary definition of espionage, your bizarre attempt to misrepresent Ry's argument nonwithstanding.


Did you not read the posts you were responding to?

I'd guess not.

[TimElhajj]

You bet, Ben Sones. Twist my quotes into whatever you want them to say. The fact of the matter is that Rywill's orignal statement implies being against an invasion is the same as being for a cruel despot.


Intelligence sources also played down the significance of documents found by the Sunday Times in the Iraqi foreign ministry which suggest France gave the regime regular reports on its dealings with American officials

Don't let the fact that Western Intelegence is now calling that "ordinary diplomatic traffic" mess with your carefully constructed theories. If I were to listen to you, I'd believe that Iraq was this close -> <- to creating nuclear weapons!

[Rywill]

I'm more equating conducting espionage on Saddam's behalf as being allied with Hussein, but thanks for throwing that out there anyway. Did you not read the posts you were responding to?

Is that what you meant when you said more and more politicians who tried to stop the war where secretly allied with Hussein? So if I am against the war and a polititian, I am conducting espionage for Saddam. That is what you said, those are the words you choose. Or did you really have some other interesting angle you wanted people to consider?

Although Ben already pretty much said it, I can't believe you're such an idiot. The posts in this thread and the prior ones about Russia and Britain concerned allegations that:

* A British MP (I think it was), who was the most outspoken opponent of the war, was secretly taking bribes from Saddam in exchange for his antiwar stance.

* The Russians, who were staunchly antiwar, were also secretly providing classified intelligence about American intentions to Saddam.

* The French, who were staunchly antiwar, were also secretly providing classified intelligence about American meetings and communications to Saddam.

I am not saying that being antiwar is the same as engaging in espionage on Saddam's behalf. I am saying that many people who were antiwar were, in fact, engaged in espionage on Saddam's behalf, and that I think that's an interesting angle on this story.

IIRC, this is the second time in the past couple of months that you have tried to take some Iraq-related quote from these forums, and completely misconstrue it in order to support your antiwar position. I have no objection to honest debates with intelligent folks, but you don't fulfill any of those requirements, so I won't be responding to your posts anymore.

[Jason McCullough]

British intelligence says France *wasn't* doing espionage for Saddam. If they were, great, they're horrible people, but for chrissakes, who do you believe? Professional spies or an ideological newspaper?

[Rywill]

We're not even up to that point yet. I mean, I understand that all of this stuff is just allegations and that, between the time I originally posted and now, conflicting reports have come from various sources. All well and good. The argument I've been having with Tim is simply over whether, if the original allegations are true, it means that several antiwar politicians were actually secretly in league with Saddam. He seems to think no.

Whether the allegations are actually true is a separate issue. I don't know whether they are or not. It sounds like the British allegations are true, the French allegations may or may not be true, and the Russian allegations are probably true but may have been done with the intent simply to avert the war by getting Saddam to back down.

[Brian Rucker]

I think proving the allegations true is the first order of business. They'll be even more interesting, imho, if they're proven false and following the trail back to where they came from would be most illuminating if the press has the attention span for it.

[TimElhajj]

Whether the allegations are true is precisely the point. I bring this up today because Jason posted a link to the story where British officials indicate that these allegations of spying are not valid. I can’t believe you actually reiterated the thread for me this morning but ignored this point! While you may be comfortable with blanket statements condemning politicians who came out against the war, I am going to call bullshit. Furthermore, the US was pretty much alone in their position to invade Iraq. Thus, most of the world’s politicians took an antiwar stance.

I take the allegations of spying just like I take the allegations of Iraq having a nuclear weapons program. Show me the proof. When someone is actually hauled into court and accused of spying, that is when I say that’s fucked up. When you can show me that Iraq had an ongoing nuclear weapons program, I will actually say I was wrong and we were right to invade. I imagine if we poke around long enough we may actually find some chemical weapons that have not been destroyed, but I would like to see a credible argument for how those weapons threatened the US.

Now this is the second time you have told me you are not going to respond to any more of my posts. Have at it my friend. For my part, I will continue to call bullshit on your posts when they seem like bullshit.

For example, look at the bullshit you posted this morning. In one message you're saying that it's a fact politicians are spying:


I am not saying that being antiwar is the same as engaging in espionage on Saddam's behalf. I am saying that many people who were antiwar were, in fact, engaged in espionage on Saddam's behalf, and that I think that's an interesting angle on this story.

You don't say? Apparently you really do not say, because a couple of hours later you're apparently agreeing with me that these are “simply allegations,” “may or may not be true,” “looking at intent of the Russians.”

And don't even bring up the nuclear weapons angle you and whoever tried to run with in the other threads. With nary a WMD to be found--much less evidence of a nuclear program--I called those hand wringing posts of yours exactly right when I said there were nothing but fear based non-arguments to drum up support for an invasion.

For someone who seems like a reasonably intelligent person on other issues, you sure are a fucking pin head on this.

[Rywill]

All right, I just can't resist. Here's the issue, Tim: we're not talking about whether any of the substantive arguments are true or false. We're talking about your habit of lying about what people have said. For example, when someone (I think it was actually Ben) said that if Iraq developed a nuke, the inspection program would be a failure, you quoted him out of context and tried to make it look like Ben said Iraq currently has nukes. But that wasn't what Ben had said. That was a lie on your part. You lied by putting ridiculous words in Ben's mouth so that you could denounce him as an idiot. But the statement you were ridiculing was actually made up by you.

Similarly, here, I said that there were now three allegations that prominent antiwar politicians were secretly allied with Saddam / committing espionage for Saddam. You tried to twist my statement to make it look like I said "taking an antiwar stance is committing espionage for Saddam." But that's not what I said. That was a lie on your part. You lied by putting ridiculous words in my mouth so that you could denounce me as an idiot. But the statement you're ridiculing was actually made up by you.

Having been confronted with both of those lies--and it's pretty much irrefutable that you lied, since the statements are all recorded on the board--you are now trying to ignore the fact that you lied by pretending that this whole argument has been about whether Iraq was in fact working on nukes and whether politicians were in fact in cahoots with Saddam.

But that's not what we've been discussing. We're discussing the way that you lie about what others have said in order to try and make your point sound stronger. When I said in the prior thread that I wouldn't respond to you in that thread anymore, and when I said the same thing in this thread, it wasn't because I thought you were wrong (although I do). It was because I don't see the point in arguing with someone who is going to lie about what I said or someone else said.

[TimElhajj]

I love it! This morning, according to Rywill, the politicians are "in fact" spying, then two hours later "you don't know whether they are or not." And now you want to discuss my credibility?

Lying? How the heck does one lie on a message board? Someone please explain to me how you lie on a message board when everything you say is written down.

You are one piece of work, Rywill. I can be obsessive and pedantic at times, but at least I can admit when I am doing so. You just don't like that I call bullshit when you make rash and stupid statements. The obvious answer here is that you should think before you post.


You lied by putting ridiculous words in my mouth so that you could denounce me as an idiot.

I actually never did denounce you as an idiot. But if I wanted to denounce you as an idiot, I could do so without putting ridiculous words in your mouth. I just wanted to clear that up. :)

Edit: Wanted to explicitly state for the record that it was not I who denounced Rywill as an idiot.

[Anders Hallin]

When you can show me that Iraq had an ongoing nuclear weapons program, I will actually say I was wrong and we were right to invade.
Unlike me, for instance :)

[Ben Sones]

I love it! This morning, according to Rywill, the politicians are "in fact" spying, then two hours later "you don't know whether they are or not."

When you put something in quotes when referring to a statement made by another individual--"in fact," for instance--this usually denotes that the individual used those words. Ry "in fact" did not, though he did say that "it seems" that certain politicians had been spying for Iraq.

But again, you are dodging the issue. Ry said that based on allegations made by certain news agencies, "it seems" that certain anti-war politicians were actually passing information on to Saddam Hussein. You then said that Ry was claiming that if someone--anyone--is against the war, then they are guilty of espionage. This is, "in fact," almost the exact opposite of what Ry actually said. All of the posts are right up there--just scroll up.


And now you want to discuss my credibility?

To discuss your credibility, you would have to possess some.


Lying? How the heck does one lie on a message board?

See above for practical example.


Someone please explain to me how you lie on a message board when everything you say is written down.

Yeah, it seems pretty dumb to me, too, but you keep doing it. Then you act all surprised when people would rather address the way that you lie about the things they have said rather than continue the original debate as though nothing had happened. Again, see above post for example.

[TimElhajj]

When you put something in quotes when referring to a statement made by another individual--"in fact," for instance--this usually denotes that the individual used those words. Ry "in fact" did not, though he did say that "it seems" that certain politicians had been spying for Iraq.

post (http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=73595#73595).


I am saying that many people who were antiwar were, in fact, engaged in espionage on Saddam's behalf, and that I think that's an interesting angle on this story.

Like I say, it's hard to lie when it's all written down. Or to borrow a line from Daniel Morris...

Read 'em and weep.

But you go right ahead and attack my character. Clearly you have none of your own Ben Sones.

[TimElhajj]

When you can show me that Iraq had an ongoing nuclear weapons program, I will actually say I was wrong and we were right to invade.
Unlike me, for instance :)

;)

[Rywill]

When are you going to stop avoiding the issue? I'll try to clear it up again. The issue here is this: when the France story was first reported, I noted that there were more and more reports coming out saying that various antiwar politicians had been spying for Saddam. You transformed that into "Rywill says all antiwar politicians are spying for Saddam." That was a lie. In fact, here's your lie word for word:


So if I am against the war and a polititian, I am conducting espionage for Saddam. That is what you said, those are the words you choose.

Here is what I am saying, Tim:

1. The above quote is a factual statement. It states that I said certain things.

2. I did not actually say those things.

In other words, you lied. Will you or will you not admit that you lied about what I said? While we're on the subject, I see you ignored the stuff about how you lied about what Ben said re: Iraqi nukes. Will you or will you not admit that you lied about what Ben said? Because that is the subject I've been trying to discuss for the last several posts, but which you keep avoiding: whether or not Tim Elhajj habitually lies about what other posters have said. Did you or didn't you? I say I have irrefutable evidence that you did. What is your response?

I notice that you use a typical deflection tactic by saying "Well, even if I did lie, so did you." I'll point out for the record that I didn't. I read initial news reports saying that French, Russian, and British politicians had commited espionage, and I believed them because they were uncontradicted. Eventually, a conflicting report surfaced about France, and in response to that new evidence, I said that the France espionage now seemed up in the air to me--maybe it happened, maybe it didn't. The other allegations of spying remained (and remain) believeable, and I believe they happened, although Jason pointed out at one point that the Russian spying might have had a benevolent motive. Maybe it did, although it's still spying and still bad. But all of that stuff is not a lie. It's me revising a position in response to new data.

What you did was make a knowingly untrue statement. I never did that.
Not only were your statements lies, they were foolish statements which you attributed to people who never made them, just so you can denounce those straw-man arguments in hopes of making yourself look smarter or your position look more sound. I never did that.

Cornered by your continuing lies in an attempt to avoid admitting you lied the first time, I see you are now making ridiculous claims like "It is not possible to lie on a messageboard" (!) and "I never denounced you." I don't think I even need to respond to those ridiculous claims, but I will point them out as continuing evidence that you are a deceitful and craven person.

[TimElhajj]

I am not avoiding anything. As far as I am concerned, you are trying to cast an aspersion on antiwar politicians. It’s an opinion. If you want to call it a lie, have at it. You’re badly in need of a dictionary, though.

Nice quote job you did on me. You left out the part where I used your exact words. Is this that message board lying thing you’re on about? You, at least, seem pretty good at it!

I am better with just the conventional lies. Stuff like when you say this:


I read initial news reports saying that French, Russian, and British politicians had commited espionage, and I believed them because they were uncontradicted. Eventually, a conflicting report surfaced about France, and in response to that new evidence, I said that the France espionage now seemed up in the air to me--maybe it happened, maybe it didn't.

When really your reaction to the conflicting report was closer to this (http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=73595#73595):


I am saying that many people who were antiwar were, in fact, engaged in espionage on Saddam's behalf

Is that what you mean when you say "revising a position in response to new data." I know this is going to elicit a 500 word essay from you on why you really didn’t mean what you just said. I know you’ve got a good explanation for why you waited for Jason to point out (http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=73613#73613) how ridiculous your position was becoming. Please, enlighten me!

I have no idea what you are talking about with Ben and nukes. In this thread, Ben has made a fool of himself by calling me a liar, when he clearly has not bothered to read the posts he wants to discuss.


Cornered by your continuing lies in an attempt to avoid admitting you lied the first time, I see you are now making ridiculous claims like "It is not possible to lie on a messageboard" (!) and "I never denounced you." I don't think I even need to respond to those ridiculous claims, but I will point them out as continuing evidence that you are a deceitful and craven person

This is my favorite part of your whole post. I actually asked how it was possible to lie on a message board. You showed me: get creative with the quotes! Again, I never did denounce you as an idiot; you did that. I called you a pinhead and a piece of work. Well, you’ve got me cornered now, Rywill. How much longer can I keep this up?


You then said that Ry was claiming that if someone--anyone--is against the war, then they are guilty of espionage.

I never said anything of the kind. I see you’ve chosen not to quote me, but to just go ahead and make something up. Nice. Is this more of that message board lying stuff? Did you and Rywill learn this stuff in college?

Here is a quote for you, if you can be bothered to actually read it. Rywill is trying to cast an aspersion on antiwar politicians. I have seen very little in this thread to change my mind.

[TimElhajj]

For example, when someone (I think it was actually Ben) said that if Iraq developed a nuke, the inspection program would be a failure, you quoted him out of context and tried to make it look like Ben said Iraq currently has nukes.

This was in a completely different thread. You want to go back here? Fine. This is exactly what Ben Sones said. (http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=59573#59573)


They did work in what way? Did they eliminate 100% of all forbidden weapon programs from Iraq? Could Blix say that? Would he? If so, why are we still looking for (and finding, as recently as a week or two ago) weapons that Iraq has said that it no longer possesses? Why are there still chemical and biological agents that Iraq cannot account for? If they were so effective, would we even be having this conversation, or would Iraq be a non-issue today?

Because as I pointed out above, a high rate of effectiveness is equal to 100% failure if the inspectors miss even one nuke.

I asked him to stop making up facts. As in, stop saying if the “inspectors miss one nuke” then the inspection program is worthless. Why? Because Iraq doesn’t have nuclear weapons capabilities. It seems like a fair request to me. As far as I am concerned, he’s raising the stakes to an outlandish level with this statement. If he were to tone down the hyperbole, his statement would have to read something like this: a high rate of effectiveness is equal to 100% failure if the inspectors miss any evidence of a nuclear program. It doesn’t have quite the same scary ring to it when you put it that way.

To me this seems like a reasonable request. As I remember, Ben’s response was to just completely ignore my point and act as if he never said this at all. After repeatedly posting my point and this quote, I still got no response (some might call that a lie of ommision, but not me). Now your position is that I have somehow told a lie. To say the least, I am unconvinced.

[Captain Cookiepants]

http://www.screamingmonkeylabs.com/2.jpg

[Ben Sones]

I asked him to stop making up facts. As in, stop saying if the “inspectors miss one nuke” then the inspection program is worthless. Why? Because Iraq doesn’t have nuclear weapons capabilities.

This is a great example, because in your quote above, you cut out the one line--from the same message, no less--where I make it plainly clear that I do not believe that Iraq currently has nuclear weapons capabilities. My point, which you went on to ignore, and have once again willfully misrepresented here, was that Iraq could have nuclear weapons in the future. They have tried to develop them in the past, and have successfully hidden their nuclear program from inspectors in the past. My point was not (and never was) that I think that Iraq has nuclear weapons capabilities right now, or that they will have them tomorrow. My point was that if inspectors fail to find and dismantle an Iraqi nuclear program at any point in the future, then the inspections would be a 100% failure.


Now your position is that I have somehow told a lie. To say the least, I am unconvinced.

Because you have. Frankly, I'm not getting into this crap again. I stopped reading the last thread when it became clear that you were going to continue to put words in my mouth rather than address my actual arguments. Anyone interested in this bout of deja vu can go read the original thread here:

http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2696&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30

[Rywill]

Okay, Cookie's right. Tim Elhajj is turning into my Khan, and that seems pretty useless. Besides, I already have an arch-nemesis in Jason McCollough.

[Tyjenks]

Okay, Cookie's right.

Wow! Never thought I would hear anyone say that.

I was kinda hoping this thread would at least continue at this pace through my workday tomorrow. Sad to see it end. Maybe Sones can pick up the baton for the rest of the way. Tim seems to be game for an indefinite "debate".

[Ben Sones]

Nah, I'm done. These Iraq threads stopped being interesting a long time ago, and the debate above is largely academic at this point.

[Tyjenks]

Nah, I'm done. These Iraq threads stopped being interesting a long time ago, and the debate above is largely academic at this point.

A good ol' semantics debate never gets old.

To sum up for those who do not want to read the whole thread:

You lied
No I didn't.
He's right. You lied.
No I didn't.
Pretty sure you did.
Prove it.
How 'bout this...?
Not convinced.
You lied.
No I didn't.

Repeat. :wink:

[TimElhajj]

This is a great example, because in your quote above, you cut out the one line--from the same message, no less--where I make it plainly clear that I do not believe that Iraq currently has nuclear weapons capabilities.

If I was trying to say this is what you believed, this point would be relevant. However, my point is that your inept arguments rely on scare tactics instead of actual facts.

We started this entire "debate" when you claimed there were no good arguments for peace (http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=59350#59350). How ironic that your last post--and most of our conversation on this subject--would be marked by your pointed refusal to make a good argument.

[Captain Cookiepants]

http://www.screamingmonkeylabs.com/4.jpg

[TimElhajj]

I love it! This morning, according to Rywill, the politicians are "in fact" spying, then two hours later "you don't know whether they are or not."

When you put something in quotes when referring to a statement made by another individual--"in fact," for instance--this usually denotes that the individual used those words. Ry "in fact" did not, though he did say that "it seems" that certain politicians had been spying for Iraq.

But again, you are dodging the issue. Ry said that based on allegations made by certain news agencies, "it seems" that certain anti-war politicians were actually passing information on to Saddam Hussein. You then said that Ry was claiming that if someone--anyone--is against the war, then they are guilty of espionage. This is, "in fact," almost the exact opposite of what Ry actually said. All of the posts are right up there--just scroll up.


And now you want to discuss my credibility?

To discuss your credibility, you would have to possess some.


Lying? How the heck does one lie on a message board?

See above for practical example.


Someone please explain to me how you lie on a message board when everything you say is written down.

Yeah, it seems pretty dumb to me, too, but you keep doing it. Then you act all surprised when people would rather address the way that you lie about the things they have said rather than continue the original debate as though nothing had happened. Again, see above post for example.

And you say I make you look like an idiot.

[TimElhajj]

Okay, Cookie's right.

Wow! Never thought I would hear anyone say that.

Exactly. Grasping for straws!

[TimElhajj]

Okay, Cookie's right. Tim Elhajj is turning into my Khan, and that seems pretty useless. Besides, I already have an arch-nemesis in Jason McCollough.

Don't stop now! You've got me cornered.

[Brad Grenz]

Okay, Cookie's right. Tim Elhajj is turning into my Khan, and that seems pretty useless. Besides, I already have an arch-nemesis in Jason McCollough.

Wait, I thought Jason was my arch nemesis. Does this mean we have to share?

[Jason McCullough]

Now now, there's plenty of schoolin' to be had by everyone.

[Rywill]

Wait, I thought Jason was my arch nemesis. Does this mean we have to share?

I tell you what: whoever scores highest on Denny's political leanings test can have Jason as their arch-nemesis. I hope it's me, though, because Jason is a much cooler arch-nemesis than Tim. I think there may be precedent for a single person being arch-nemesis to two other people, though. Like, wasn't Dr. Doom the arch-nemesis of the whole Fantastic Four and also Spider-Man? I can't really remember.

"Well, seeing as how we're nemesises...nemes--...nemisi?"

[Brad Grenz]

Yeah, I think we have to become a superhero team.

[Brian Rucker]

From today's Washington Post's Howard Kurtz's Media Notes: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25608-2003Jun24.html?nav=hptop_ts)


Another media blunder, as we see in this AP account:

"The Christian Science Monitor reported on its Web site last week that documents it relied on in reporting that Iraq authorized six payments to a British lawmaker totaling more than $10 million dollars were fraudulent.

"'When new information cast doubt on the documents, we conducted an extensive investigation of their authenticity which culminated this week in the virtual certainty that they were forged,' Monitor editor Paul Van Slambrouck wrote in an editor's note accompanying the Boston-based newspaper's account of its internal investigation of the documents.

"On April 25, the Monitor said it had been given documents discovered in the Baghdad house of Qusai Hussein, one of Saddam Hussein's two sons, that showed Saddam's government authorized six payments to Labor lawmaker George Galloway totaling more than $10 million, between July 1992 and last January.

"According to the newspaper report, a document in January authorized a check of $3 million in recognition of Galloway's 'courageous and daring stands against the enemies of Iraq, like (Tony) Blair, the British prime minister, and for his opposition in the House of Commons and Lords against all outrageous lies against our patient people.'"