Condy Rice has something to hide

[mysecondstar]

i was listening to the radio on Sunday. Condy Rice was the guest speaker along with a columnist from the the New York Times. the host asked Condy Rice whether or not the United States was being forthcoming with all the information it had on iraq and if there was anything more intelligence the US had that it wasn't telling the people. Dr. Rice hesitated for about half a second and continued to say something along the lines of, "everything the US public needs to know is out there" stating all the things that were visible to us right now was enough reason to start war in the Middle East. the host kept on insisting that Dr. Rice answer his question and she kept skirting the issue. her explanation was that there were some things that had to be kept quiet in order to protect its source. only some things. not all things.

my question is what could the White House know that would be detrimental if the public knew about it?

[mightypotato]

Of course she has something to hide! She's not going to say EVERYTHING that the United States knows, you realize that quite a few things are confidential, secret, top secret etc...? She can only say what has been cleared to say to the public. So yes, she is hiding something.

[TheEvilOne]

At 3/10/03 11:37 AM, mysecondstar wrote: my question is what could the White House know that would be detrimental if the public knew about it?

Plenty. People are always asking for enough evidence to prove that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, as if Iraq was a criminal on trial. The problem is that we are about to be at war. And there are things that, for strategic reasons, the public absolutely must not know. Think of it like this: imagine if the public demanded that the government tell them exactly how many weapons Iraq has, and where, in order to prove the justification for war. If information about the location of Iraq's weapons were to be leaked to the public, then Iraq would doubtlessly find out about this, and they could move the weapons to another location. That would create problems for when we try to take these weapons out during the war.

In my opinion, the evidence that has already been made available to the public is all the justification we need, according to the terms of UN Resolution 1441. There is no need to release any more information and jeopardize the war effort.

[mysecondstar]

i'll be more clear. the United States has always claimed that they had proof that iraq was hiding WMD. yet, there hasn't been any "smoking gun" to prove that theory.

if the US were to provide information to their whereabouts and, perhaps, assist the UN weapons inspectors with their search then, in my opinoin, war would be justified.

because let's be honest. first, the US will not target these locations due to the fact that they need their smoking gun. second, iraq will, more likely than not, destroy their stock piles before the Americans reach them. therefore there will be no smoking gun and the US invasion will not be justified.

the one scenario i see is the the US will not divulge information regarding the location of such weapons because it is vital to their attack strategy to storm and maintain these location as quickly as possible as not to have them destroyed by the iraqis to quickly.

[mysecondstar]

or perhaps show incriminating evidence (their smoking gun) that the WMD exist and present them and then attack quickly and get this mess on and over with. and if they do move them, its only a matter of time before they find and destroy it.

[JMHX]

The American media already reveals too much already. We need to keep SOME things secret, and if the public doesn't like it, too bad. Some of the things we're revealing on MSNBC would have been illegal back in the 1940's.

[Jlop985]

At 3/10/03 04:18 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: The American media already reveals too much already. We need to keep SOME things secret, and if the public doesn't like it, too bad. Some of the things we're revealing on MSNBC would have been illegal back in the 1940's.

And thank God for that, cause the media helps keep the government in check.

[mysecondstar]

At 3/11/03 11:12 PM, Jlop985 wrote: And thank God for that, cause the media helps keep the government in check.

but when does it come to the point when it's too much? or too little?

[JMHX]

It reveals too much when it puts the welfare of our soldiers at risk. Like telling the world where all of the bases are, and where the soldier encampments are.

[Jimsween]

At 3/10/03 12:02 PM, mysecondstar wrote:

because let's be honest. first, the US will not target these locations due to the fact that they need their smoking gun. second, iraq will, more likely than not, destroy their stock piles before the Americans reach them. therefore there will be no smoking gun and the US invasion will not be justified.

Thats not neccesarily true because saddam has nothing to lose. To me it seems like he doesnt actually hate america but he either hates mankind or wants attention. So its probable that hell use all his weapons either on the troops or his people and then use his biological defense strategy to make the land inhabitable. Think of it this way would you rather be forgotten or hatefully remembered by most people.

[mysecondstar]

At 3/12/03 04:45 PM, jimsween wrote: Thats not neccesarily true because saddam has nothing to lose. To me it seems like he doesnt actually hate america but he either hates mankind or wants attention. So its probable that hell use all his weapons either on the troops or his people and then use his biological defense strategy to make the land inhabitable. Think of it this way would you rather be forgotten or hatefully remembered by most people.

he wants power. above all. and if he can take on the US without repercussion, then he wins. we don't need another cocky ruler that thinks that they can do whatever they want to.

[Commander-K25]

About the "smoking gun..."

I "love" how certain phrases seem to catch on in the media and among politicians. One we've seen a lot of recently is "smoking gun." People keep saying that one must be produced or discovered for Iraq to be declared non-compliant. However, this is not the case.

This "smoking gun" does not need to be produced because we know Saddam has it held "under the table," so to speak. We discovered it, i.e. biological/nuclear weapons and weapons programs at the end of the first Gulf War. We ordered him to get rid of them in plain sight so that his compliance could be documented. He hasn't done that. Therefore, if he had the gun twelve years ago and hasn't lain it on the table as we have asked, then he must still have it hidden. It's a simple process of elimination and logic.

[mysecondstar]

At 3/12/03 08:51 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: About the "smoking gun..."

well, the main problem with this is that most people chose to ignore history. it's like a refresher course on World History 101. many countries believe that 12 years still isn't enough time to disarm. my arguement is that the US kindly remind all the treachery and deceit of saddam hussein. they say seeing is believing. we've been through that. but what we need to do again is to remind the world...again. annoying? yes. necessary to get the world on our side? it would help a lot.

[Jimsween]

"the problem with a smoking gun is that you dont see the smoke" donald rumsfeld. All this time and he still hasnt gotten the smoking gun metaphor right.

[Commander-K25]

At 3/12/03 09:16 PM, jimsween wrote: "the problem with a smoking gun is that you dont see the smoke" donald rumsfeld. All this time and he still hasnt gotten the smoking gun metaphor right.

I think it was something more along the lines of "The problem with a smoking gun is that you dont see the smoke until its too late."