Bush and Uranium

[John Ho]

Any comments on the White House admitting his SOTU speech was wrong about Iraq trying to buy uranium from Africa?

The nation deserves an explanation from Bush himself...not his damn aides.

[andyfox]

Former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson revealed last weekend that he was the person that the CIA sent to Niger to investigate the document that showed Iraw was trying to get uranium, under pressure from Cheny. The coument was a forgery and Wilson says that the CIA, the State Dept., the National Secuirty Countil and CHeney's office were all informed that the Niger-Iraq conneciton was phony.

So Bush must have lied about the connection in his SOTU speech.

BTW, Wilson had been praised by Bush 41 when he confronted Saddam Hussein face-to-face after the invasion of Kuwait. Said Regular Bush, "What you are doing day in and day out under the most trying conditions is truly inspring. Keep fighting the good fight."

It's not, of course, unusual that presidents lie. Johnson and Nixon perfected it to an art form, and passed the technique down to Clinton. But let's at least admit the evident truth: the justification for the Iraq attack was hooey. We have come to expect no less, and no more, from our leaders.

[MMMMMM]

While what you say may be true, andy, there appear to be two rather large holes in your stated reasoning.

The first is that since Wilson said something, Bush was necessarily lying. Mightn't just one possible explanation be that Wilson is lying, or at least exagerrating? Mightn't another be that Bush's top aides didn't tell him everything?

The problem with your other conclusion--that the evidence for the Iraq attack was hooey--is that even if some of the evidence is invalid, that doesn't mean all the evidence is invalid. Heck, even German intelligence, as far back as around 1999, if I recall, was saying that Iraq would have nuclear weapons by 2004 or 2005 at the latest. I think there are lots of reasons the CIA, German intelligence, British intelligence, Israeli intelligence, and Australian intelligence all reached a similar conclusion: that Saddam had a WMD program. Also, they reached this conclusion not just immediately before the war.

It also appears to me that it takes a helluva lot larger leap of faith to presume that Saddam didn't have any WMD programs that that he did. So while some of the evidence may not have existed, I think it's highly dubious to suggest that none existed at all, or that all five intelligence services were either all wet or in conspiracy over all these years.

So, perhaps Bush lied and took the easy way out, but rest assured, Saddam had not unilaterally, completely and secretly discontinued his known WMD programs from the 90's. If he had, why wouldn't he have brayed it to the world, and shown at least a smidgen of evidence, to get those terrible sanctions lifted? It defies all reason to think that this was the case. And apparently the world's major intelligence services didn't think so for a minute, either, not even back in the late 90's. So I submit that you are holding to an unsupportable and rather irrational point of view regarding the WMD programs, although I could certainly sympathize with any feelings of outrage or disappointment if we should find out that Bush actually lied.

[Dr Wogga]

...very logical. Also, let us not forget that the Iraqis themselves had made many declarations of their weapons program to the UN weapons inspectors and the internat'l atomic energy organization. There is no reason to believe that everyone was wrong; that everyone was lying. Wasn't Tony Blair just exonerated? by a parliament that was bent on 'kicking him in the slats'?? If so, the "hooey" comment is officially shot down by the good Dr's Scuttlebutt and Innuendo Pipeline Committee. C'mon Andy. You can do better than that!

[andyfox]

"Mightn't just one possible explanation be that Wilson is lying, or at least exagerrating? Mightn't another be that Bush's top aides didn't tell him everything?"

Bush has a proven track record of lying. American presidents have a proven track record of lying. Cheney knew the report was false. You think he kept this info. from Bush?

I have said all along I think Saddam had weapons. The point is not whether or not he had them but whether he posed a threat sufficient to justify our preemptive war. The administration certainly exaggerated that threat and it appears they used "evidence" they knew was tainted. Again, this should not be surprising. It is a staple of American foreign policy; it would not be surprising to find it a staple of foregin policy of most countries.

"even if some of the evidence is invalid, that doesn't mean all the evidence is invalid."

The main reason given by the adminstration for the war was that Saddam had WMDs and was a danger to us and others. One piece of the evidence was this report. The CIA knew the report was hogwash; so did the NSC; so did Cheney. Doesn't this give one pause about the rest of the evidence?

Again, I have no doubt Saddam had WMDS. But I have doubts about the supposed connection he had with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and with the threat that he posed to us and others. I will not be outraged or disappointed if we find out Bush misled us, anyone who would be surprised by this development is ignorant of the mindset of the hardliners who are running the administration and the way government works.

Unsupportable and irrational are adjectives I would apply to the administration's justifications for the preemptive war.

[Jimbo]

Bush has a proven track record of lying.

Do you mind providing a few proven examples Andy?

[Dr Wogga]

....oops, wrong president. My bad. /forums/images/icons/confused.gif

Of course Jimbo you realize you are pushing the plate with a request for facts. /forums/images/icons/ooo.gif

[andyfox]

http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm is a good place to start.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday that the administration decided to use military force in Iraq because the information about the threat of Saddam's regime was seen with a different perspective after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. "The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," Rumsfeld said. "We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light through the prism of our experience on Sept. 11."

It was thus necessary to connect Saddam Hussein with 9/11, despite the lack of evidence.

Note too that Ari Fleischer said that "this type of information should not have risen to the level of a presidential speech." It wasn't just a presidential speech. It was the State of the Union speech outlining an upconming war. In that speech Bush said there was evidence of Hussein's pursuit of nuclear capability through purchases in Africa. Rumsfeld now says that was not the reason for the war. Which is it?

C'mon Jimbo. This is not a left-right issue. Every president within my lifetime (and I'm an old fart) has lied about military adventures. When the Russians shot the U-2 down, Eisenhower said we didn't have spy planes over Russia, it couldn't be so. We had nothing to do, according to Ike, with the "revolutions" in Guatemala in 1954 and Iran in 1953, both of which were CIA coups. Truman exaggerated the Communist threat in Greece to get Congress to go along. I think we can agree that Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Clinton were recidivistic liars. Reagan lied about Nicaragua and Iran-Contra. It's old news.

[andyfox]

Those of us who deal in facts have no problem recognizing that Clinton was a pathological liar. The fact that my politics may be similar to his does not preclude me from seeing those facts.

BTW, my favorite part of that famous statement was when he added, "Ms. Lewinsky" at the end. Otherwise, it would certainly be hard to determine to which woman he was referring, there being so many "incidents" from which to choose. /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

[Jimbo]

Interesting site Andy, not a left/right issue huh? This website seems to be slanted so far that all the lies I found were the authors. It seems he transposes purported lies by some of those in Bush's administration directly onto Bush, very tricky however innefective to an unbiased observer. In another move he quotes a lie told by Gordon Livingston and uses that to "prove" president Bush was lying. Again very smooth but still inefffective. My favorite is the lie by Noah Smith which is so sweet I must quote it in this text. On April 26, President Bush said in his weekly radio address, "My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax."

That turned out not to be true. According to the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an unspecified number of low- and middle-income families received no tax cut at all because they'd been excluded from an expansion of the child-care tax. --Timothy Noah, 06.03.03

Now the last time I looked the tax rates went down by 2% across the board. If you pay taxes at all they were cut, it is difficult to cut taxes for someone who pays none to begin with.

I agree Andy that Presidents lie, they lie to their wives, they lie to our enemies they even lie in the case of National Security. You seem to imply that Bush lies just for it's own sake. Using your reference material I cannot find laudable proof of even one lie he knowingly told. Of course a site named Bushlies.com would be pretty useless unless it did some lying of it's own.

What I was asking for Andy was not someones perception of a Bush lie but some published quotes which can be verified showing direct contradictions. To qualify this properly if the circumstances changed between two statements or if additional information had been revealed to Bush (such as during the campaign vs after election) then this might naturally lead to a contradiction but not necessarily a lie.

Anyway good attempt at fulfulling my request, Thanks.

[jokerswild]

He's lied about his own desertion from the Texas National Guard. He's lied about his DUI's. He's lied about his cocaine use. He's lied about the 9-6-01 memo outlining 9-11. He's lied about what he did on 9-11. He's lied about the election in Florida. He's lied about WMD. He's lied about Harken energy. He's lied about Enron. He's lied about Halliburton and Dick Cheney. He's lied about his tax cuts. The list goes on and on.

Of course you lie about your hatred of the FBI and the US Government's position that online poker is run by organized criminals and terrorists.

[andyfox]

I said the website was a good place to start. I'll get you some more examples by tomorrow.

I did not mean to imply that Bush lies for the sake of lying. I cannot impute psychological motives to lying. Politicans lie because it suits their purposes.

[andyfox]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2083852/ for the full Noah citation.

[Jimbo]

Jokerswild wrote "Of course you lie about your hatred of the FBI and the US Government's position that online poker is run by organized criminals and terrorists.

I don't have an emotion regarding the FBI one way or another. As for online poker all I ask is that you show me a legal statute applicable to me that I am breaking the law by playing online poker and I will turn my self in. In case there is a reward I'll recommend they send it either to you or the elect Arnold Schwarenegger for Governor of California campaign, whichever you prefer.

You know Jokerswild, you are fast becoming my favorite troll. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[andyfox]

FWIW, my bet is that the next governor of Calfornia will indeed be Arnold Schwarenegger. I believe the recall will qualify for the ballot and that Davis will inded be terminated. He won't be back.

On Bush and Harken: When President Bush sold more than 200,000 shares in Harken Energy Corp. in June 1990, he said he did not know the company was in bad financial shape. But memos from the company show in great detail that he was apprised of how badly the company's fortunes were failing before he sold his stock -- and that he was warned by company lawyers against selling stock based on insider information.

The law requires prompt disclosure of insider sales. Mr Bush did not inform the SEC until 34 weeks later. So technically Mr, Bush was at fault. Bush supporters say that he did fully disclose the transaction, and that "half of corporate America was filing forms late at that time."

A decade ago, Mr Bush blamed the SEC, which he said had lost the forms he had filed. When the story resurfaced last year, the White House admitted that this had not been the case.

[John Ho]

I think war was justified for many reasons...just not the ones Bush declared publicly. That is what really bothers me. Sooner or later we will have to expect more from our leaders or we will head further down a dangerous path.

[Jimbo]

Andy I believe the source from which you acquired the facts regarding President Bush and Harken Energy is although correct in general the specifics you cite are skewed and biased. I will address the inconsistencies by a few paragraphs below:

June 22, 1990: Shortly after getting the transaction approved by Harken's lawyers, Bush sold 212,140 of his 317,152 Harken shares for $848,560.


July 10, 1990: Under SEC requirements, this was the deadline for Bush to publicly report his sale of the stock. He failed to file the report until March of 1991. For reasons Bush has not explained, although he signed the form, he did not date it.


August 20, 1990: Harken publicly announced second quarter losses of just over $23 million. The stock, which had opened at $3 per share, closed at $2.37.


August 21, 1990: Despite the losses reported the day before, Harken's stock price rebounded to $3 per share.

The SEC did launch an investigation in 1991, triggered by Bush's tardy report. Ultimately, SEC investigators concluded that there was not sufficient evidence of insider trading and decided not to pursue the matter. According to a Los Angeles Times report, there were three reasons for this conclusion.

1.Because Harken's shares rebounded the day after the losses were announced, SEC investigators concluded they could not prove that the announcement, and therefore any previous knowledge Bush may have had, affected the stock price.


2.At the June 11 meeting, although Bush was made aware that a "potentially significant" loss was in the offing, the auditors said the amount was not "identifiable."


3.Bush consulted Harken lawyers before making the sale, and they raised no objection to it."

According to SEC reporting requirements, Bush had to file an insider trading form — known as Form 4 — by the 10th day of the month following the sale. Although Bush was about eight months delayed in filing this form, it was and still is common for insiders to file this form late.

(When questioned about the delay, Bush alleged a decade ago that the SEC had lost the forms he filed. However, a Bush spokesperson recently said that the filing delay was due to a mix-up by Harken lawyers.)

It also appears he had a good reason to sell the stock:

A) Bush used the proceeds from the sale of his stock in Harken to pay off a $500,000 bank loan he had taken out to help buy his 1.8% share in the Texas Rangers. (Alterman 10-17-2000; Bumiller 7-4-2002; Coile 7-4-2002; Aloysius 7-13-2002)

In summary he certainly made mistakes but they can easily be attributed to his honest and trusting nature rather than an intent to deceive.

[andyfox]

"The SEC did launch an investigation in 1991, triggered by Bush's tardy report. Ultimately, SEC investigators concluded that there was not sufficient evidence of insider trading and decided not to pursue the matter."

The chairman of the SEC was Richard Breedon, former lawyer with Houston firm Baker and Botts and deputy counsel to Bush's father when he was vice president. Breedon received his SEC appointment after the elder Bush became president.
The SEC investigation of George W. was led by general counsel James R. Doty who neglected to interview any of the Harken directors. Moreover, Doty had previously served as George W. Bush's personal lawyer in the deal involving his Texas Rangers purchase. So, in the end, Dubya was cleared of insider trade wrongdoing by his personal attorney and by his father's vice-presidential counsel.

Bush certainly lied when he said the SEC must have "lost" his timely filings because he knew he hadn't filed them on time.

It's a mystery to me how anyone can look at Bush's Harken dealings and see honest and trusting things. I see the son of a president cashing in with sweetheart deals. Again, not unusual for people with a name and a family with money.

[John Cole]

M,

Saddam would never have been permitted to have nuclear weapons; hence, there would be no date by which he would have nuclear weapons.

John

[brad]

heres a good one. btw, ive heard changing labels like that is a felony but it might just be a misdemeanor but in any case it is against the law.

---------------------------
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=bush+warehouse+made+in+china+made+in+USA& hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3e2f71b7.22598557%40news.io.com&rnum=1

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED JAN 22, 2003 15:02:37 ET XXXXX

PHOTO-OP COVER-UP: BOXES READ 'MADE IN CHINA' NOT 'MADE IN USA'

...

[MMMMMM]

I think Saddam did say his big mistake in invading Kuwait was in not waiting until he first had a nuclear bomb.

[Chris Alger]

Your statements regarding foreign intelligence services are as misleading as Bush's SOU speech because none of these services supplied any verification or support for the African-Iraq connection. The issue isn't whether at some point in time Iraq "had a WMD program," as this nobody, including Saddam Hussein, has denied this. The issue is whether Bush lied about an attempted Niger uranium purchase in order to tirck the public into supporting the war.

"Saddam had not unilaterally, completely and secretly discontinued his known WMD programs from the 90's. If he had, why wouldn't he have brayed it to the world, and shown at least a smidgen of evidence, to get those terrible sanctions lifted?"

You have completely lost it. There are photos all over the web of Saddam's WMD being destroyed (when, for example, UNSCOM blew them up), and reams of documents detailing the circumstances of their destruction. Books have been writted about it, and Saddam "brayed" about their destruction in nearly every address he made for the year before the war.

"...there appear to be two rather large holes in your stated reasoning. The first is that since Wilson said something, Bush was necessarily lying. Mightn't just one possible explanation be that Wilson is lying, or at least exagerrating? Mightn't another be that Bush's top aides didn't tell him everything?"

No, it isn't possible for Wilson to be lying or exagerating because the essential facts of his story have neither been denied or explained by the White House or anyone in the US government. Indeed, Ari Fleisher recently admitted that the reference to African Uraniam had no business being in a Presidential speech. They can't be denied because, as Wilson pointed out, "there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president...." Joseph C. Wilson IV, "What I Didn't Find in Africa," NYT, 7/6/3.

The most daming proof of Bush's lie was that he carefully described the Iraq-Niger connection in his speech in order to make it technically accurate after receiving objections from his own intelligence experts that the claim was substantively false.

According to CBS News, "Before the speech was delivered, the portions dealing with Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were checked with the CIA for accuracy, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin. CIA officials warned members of the President’s National Security Council staff the intelligence was not good enough to make the flat statement Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa. The White House officials responded that a paper issued by the British government contained the unequivocal assertion: “Iraq has ... sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” As long as the statement was attributed to British Intelligence, the White House officials argued, it would be factually accurate. The CIA officials dropped their objections and that’s how it was delivered. “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” Mr. Bush said. The statement was technically correct, since it accurately reflected the British paperavoid is that he attributed the report to British intelligence after US intelligence sources informed him that the report had no basis."

Of course, Bush and his staff knew that the British White Paper was based on the same information that Wilson had reduntantly debunked after its credibility had been rejected by the State Department and the CIA. The British Paliamentary report released a few days ago confirmed that the UK had no basis to allege an African connection other than the forged Niger documents, a fact the report concluded was "very odd indeed."

The CBS report has also not been denied. Indeed, to spin the facts, Rice and other WH sources have been emphasizing that the CIA vetted Bush's speech. Some good it did when the President was determined to lie in order to kill thousands of innocent people.

Thw following is a more detailed comparison of Wilson's description of his mission with Powell's non-denial denial.

Wilson (NY Times):

"In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau ... I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.

In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. ....

The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired. ...

Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau."

In addition to Wilson's direct investigation, there are other facts that completely undermined the Niger memorandum, such as that Niger denied it was authentic, that the signatures include those of officials that weren't in office on the date it was signed, and the subsequent determination -- admitted now by the White House -- that the document was forged.

Here's how Powell responded at a press briefing a few days later:

Q: Mr. Secretary, regarding that erroneous report last January that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium in Niger, does the administration owe Americans and, in fact, the world an apology for making that statement? And should the administration beat Congress to the punch by making a detailed investigation and a detailed explanation of how something so important and so wrong got into a presidential address?

SECRETARY POWELL: I think this is very overwrought and overblown and overdrawn. Intelligence reports flow in from all over. Sometimes they are results of your own intelligence gencies at work. Sometimes you get information from very capable foreign intelligence services. And you get the information, you analyze it. Sometimes it holds up, sometimes it does not hold up. It's a moving train. And you keep trying to establish what is right and what is wrong. Very often it never comes out quite that clean, but you have to make judgments.

(In other words, all intelligence is fallible. Instead of details, Powell has to rely on vague platitudes that appply to any intelligence claim).

And at the time of the President's State of the Union address, a judgment was made that that was an appropriate statement for the President to make.

(Notice: not "true" or "accurrate," but "appropriate.")

There was no effort or attempt on the part of the President, or anyone else in the administration, to mislead or to deceive the American people. The President was presenting what seemed to be a reasonable statement at that time -- and it didn't talk to Niger, it talked specifically about efforts to acquire uranium from nations that had it in Africa.

(Now Powell has to prevaricate in order to hide the original lie by suggesting that the Niger memorandum wasn't the only basis for Bush's statement, although he has no facts to suppoprt it. In other words, he's defending Bush by saying that his statement was too ambiguous to be a lie).

Subsequently, when we looked at it more thoroughly and when I think it's, oh, a week or two later, when I made my presentation to the United Nations and we really went through every single thing we knew about all of the various issues with respect to weapons of mass destruction, we did not believe that it was appropriate to use that example anymore. It was not standing the test of time. And so I didn't use it, and we haven't used it since."

(Powell has to e vague here because it is, of course, preposterous that a report that was thoroughly debunked in Feb 2002 failed to stand a "test of time" consisting of two weeks after the Jan 2003 SOU speech. As for not "using it" since, it was used as one of many layers of propaganda that allowed people like Cheney to lie about "reconstituted nuclear weapons" only days before the invasion. It laid the groundwork for other lies. )

But to think that somehow we went out of our way to insert this single sentence into the State of the Union address for the purpose of deceiving and misleading the American people is an overdrawn, overblown, overwrought conclusion."

(Again, Powell can't offer any facts to show that the conclusion he denies is anything but obvious).

[MMMMMM]

Maybe it's your lawyer background, but that post is almost too damn long to bother refuting every point. It's going to take an effort just to read the whole thing. I know lawyers like to tie things up in court with complexity and delays, but couldn't we break condense our posts into slightly more manageable sizes please?;-)

Just at first glance: The point I was making wasn't regarding to what extent Bush may have been apprised of the uranium issue or may have lied; it was to refute andyfox's claim that the evidence for the war was hooey (since there was plenty more evidence that Saddam had WMD programs even if you ignore the uranium issue).

After Saddam kicked the inspectors out, even UNSCOM stated he still had WMD...and destroying 90% of his WMD isn't the point if the remaining 10% are still capable of causing great harm.

[andyfox]

It took a few days, but I knew I could eventually count on my attorney to make my case.

If only our reporters were as incisive.

[MMMMMM]

Generally speaking, I think Chris is excellent at gathering and posting information--it's the conclusions he derives from such information that I often consider highly questionable.

[andyfox]

Having weapons capable of causing great harm is not the point. We have weapons capable of causing great harm. We have weapons that have caused great harm. Do others have the right to invade us?

We were told that Saddam had WMDs. No WMDS so far. We were told he was a threat to us. We wiped him out instantaneously. Some threat. We were told he had a connection to Bin Laden and 9/11. Not true. We were told he was buying uranium from Nigeria. Not true. We were told getting rid of him would be a shining example that would lead to more democracy in the region. A sort of reverse domino effect. Yep, there sure is a rush to democracy in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. We were told that the Iraqi people would themselves determines, without interference from us, what form their government would take. We banned several hundred thousand people from participating and immediately flew in Chalabi to see to our interests.

Hooey, hooey, and more hooey.

[MMMMMM]

Free liberal democratic-style countries should be the only ones with nuclear capability. Theocracies, totalitarian regimes, dictators should not be allowed to have them. The countries that were so-to-speak "grandfathered in" with nuclear weaponry (Russia and China) have at least proven rational enough not to attack us with them. However I wouldn't want to bet my life--and the foreseeable future--on the rationality of the Mullahcrats or the North Koreans or any other such characters--would you?

That's where the your argument breaks down if you are using "Why shouldn't others have the right to the weapons we have?" as a sort of argument. Not to mention that from a purely practical standpoint it is likely a self-defeating strategy.

[andyfox]

"Free liberal democratic-style countries should be the only ones with nuclear capability."

Why? What evidence is there, either logically or empirically, that they treat people in other countries better than other countries do? Wasn't a democracy the only country to use atomic weapons?

BTW, I always said that there was a much better case to be made for a preemptive strike against North Korea than against Iraq.

[andyfox]

Chris always explains his conclusions carefully. This most recent post is an excellent example. Unlike our "intrepid" reporters, Chris analyzed what Powell said and shows what hooey it is.

[MMMMMM]

First of all, don't forget that totalitarian countries have not (fortunately) had the power to do whatever they wanted to others. And there is plenty of evidence that they do treat their own people worse than democracies do. So by extrapolation one might conjecture that they could easily treat others worse as well--if they were empowered to do so.

However, this alone does not necessarily imply that even democracies should be allowed to have such weapons (although I believe they should, in order to keep the worst and most despotic regimes in check). But even less does it imply that despotic regimes should be allowed to have such weapons merely because relatively free nations have them. You don't really want North Korea to have 1,000 ICBM's loaded with super-nukes, do you? So what is the point of your query if that is not your position, since it seems to be the way your questioning leads?

[MMMMMM]

Chris often explains his conclusions, but I often disagree with not only his conclusions but his explanations of them. I really think he often does not draw truly logical conclusions. As for this latest specific post of his, I am withholding judgment on the latter parts including Powell's statements until I have a chance to read it thoroughly and think about it carefully. That means it will have to wait at least until I finish playing DiabloII/Lord Of Destruction this afternoon, then go to the spa, followed by poker. So we're probably looking at sometime tomorrow;-) You see, I really need to find or shop a Ward Bow since those will be the only fast bows capable of rolling the highest damage modifiers in the soon-to-come version 1.10 of DiabloII/LOD. Since I play Amazons a lot, high-end bows are an essential commodity to me, and Chris' post is too lengthy to really examine carefully in the brief windows of time I have to visit this forum before the game I am in drops due to inactivity;-)

[andyfox]

You said only liberal democracies should be allowed to have WMDs. I'm wondering a) who should do the "allowing"?; and b) why should this be the criterion for such allowing?

The record of Great Britain and the United States in treating others who they have not approved of is less than admirable. These two countries became world powers in part because of that ill-treatment and the gains derived therefrom. The modern, western, non-"backward" countries made the 20th century the bloodiest in history. I see no reason why these countries should be trusted with WMDs over any others. And I see no reason for the U.S. to be the world's policeman and decide who can and who cannot have weapons. After all, we're the most prolific arms providers. The arms we sold to the Shah ended up in the hands of the Ayatollahs. The arms we gave to Bin Laden ended up, well, with Bin Laden.

Of course nobody wants to see North Korea with WMDs. But I am far less trusting of George Bush having WMDs than you are. We want to make all the rules and have them apply to everyone. It's precisely this arrogance and hubris that others see in us.

[Vehn]

As your post seems to indicate you play on battle.net, you are of course aware that many of the interesting new features are only available to the new ladder characters, which means you must start from scratch without item transfers. In other words you're wasting your time /forums/images/icons/smile.gif And I would be surprised if anything ever replaces a Windforce.

Have you downloaded the (single player/TCPIP only) 1.10 beta (http://www.battle.net/diablo2exp/beta/) yet?

- Currently playing:
85 HC barb (Guardian)
79 HC sorc (Guardian)

[MMMMMM]

"The modern, western, non-"backward" countries made the 20th century the bloodiest in history."

Sorry andy, but this is simply wrong. The countries that made the 20th century the bloodiest in history were the USSR and China, followed by Germany. And I doubt you'll argue that all three were not backward ideologically. Chnia too was clearly non-Western, and the USSR was not completely western.

It isn't hubris or arrogance to declare that theocracies and dictatorships are worse, and have less moral right to exist, than governments which derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. It is incumbent upon the free nations to restrain such regimes.

I can't help it if much of the rest of the world has less logical and moral clarity in such matters. Totalitarian governments = bad and that's all there is to it.

[MMMMMM]

I don't play HC due to the fact that I lag die sometimes in SC. It is only very recently that I got DSL.

Ladder will be merged with the standard realms at the end of each ladder season. So ladder-only items will then revert to the standard realms along with the characters which possess them. I've invested too much time to be worried about the ladder or starting from scratch so I'll just wait until the few items merge which can't be otherwise acquired.

WF is of course very nice but rather passe I think. I have 2 legit WF's and a number of cruel bows; my favorite is one I cubed which is a Cruel Shadow Bow of Alacrity, 50% IAS and 374% ED (on my 98 zon). I think really the best matriarchal bows beat WF's in a duel, and I know my level 94 Burizon (54% life leech, 1940 life, 75% DR and all legit items) ripped apart WF zons in duels. However the best matri zons could beat her still.


Now with all the hacked and bugged crap on the realms I am looking forward to the patch, as ITHs will lose their runeword properties and the best runeword bows may be better than zephyrs are now. Also with the new cube formulae it will be possible to cube cruel bows with more than 2 sockets, but according to what I've recently read the only base 0 speed bow which will be able to to this is the Ward.

I haven't DL'ed 1.10 but I've talked to a friend who has, and I've read some posts by players who have extracted various parts of the code, from which some technical specs and limitations can be derived.

It's a great game but truly I should have spent most of the time I spent on it the last 2.5 years playing poker instead. For the record I attribute most of the time thus wasted to a mid-life crisis and to escapism. 99 Zon (MF, migrated from Classic), 98 Zon (coolest one, most original, my fav;-)), 94 Zon (dueler), 92 Zon (ex-dueler), 90 Zon (jav), 90 Sorc (waiting on patch for skill and stat assignments), 87 Barbarian (Iron Skin), 85 Barbarian (Speed Barb for running down zons, etc... I had over 200% faster run on him plus level 14 speed--they often never knew what hit them;-))--all you'd hear would be "WTF???", 86 Necromancer mostly waiting on patch, 82 Sorc (Orb/Static from Classic...when she got to 1.07 she couldn't kill a zombie, now muling), 82 Necromancer (ex-dueler from Classic)....I'm really a nut.

[Vehn]

I've been playing off and on for the past 3 years as well, all HC. If you now have a stable connection I strongly strongly recommend it, it makes for an entirely different challenging game. I play (but haven't much recently) through the abasin (http://www.theamazonbasin.com/d2/) games and therefore don't see all of the hacked crap I know is out there. I'd like to hope it all get solved in 1.10 but I doubt it knowing Blizzard's past. Will be interesting though at least, hopefully will make the HC ladder mean something again.