Did Al Gore have what it takes to be President?

[Admiral Yi]

Okay we are not on the same wavelength here, because rather then an explanation that really came off as a challenge.

So when I wrote: "I said they were restricted to their hotel at the time they decided to leave." you felt I wasn't explaining when they were restricted to their hotels?

[Razgovory]

Okay we are not on the same wavelength here, because rather then an explanation that really came off as a challenge.

So when I wrote: "I said they were restricted to their hotel at the time they decided to leave." you felt I wasn't explaining when they were restricted to their hotels?

I felt you made a assertion then challenged me to discount it.  I'm not sure it's even true, or how relevant it is. If they were restricted to the hotel for a day so they wouldn't get lost before taking the next plane out of there, it's not exactly relevant.  What sort of impression were trying to give when you made your statements?  How does it square with the seven years of inspections where they found, documented and destroyed material?

[grumbler]

Okay we are not on the same wavelength here, because rather then an explanation that really came off as a challenge.

So when I wrote: "I said they were restricted to their hotel at the time they decided to leave." you felt I wasn't explaining when they were restricted to their hotels?

  You are walking into it, eyes, wide shut.

[Admiral Yi]

I felt you made a assertion then challenged me to discount it.  I'm not sure it's even true, or how relevant it is. If they were restricted to the hotel for a day so they wouldn't get lost before taking the next plane out of there, it's not exactly relevant.  What sort of impression were trying to give when you made your statements?  How does it square with the seven years of inspections where they found, documented and destroyed material?

Do all those fascinating questions you just raised somehow get you to "Yi was trying to give a false impression and I called him on that?"

[Razgovory]

I felt you made a assertion then challenged me to discount it.  I'm not sure it's even true, or how relevant it is. If they were restricted to the hotel for a day so they wouldn't get lost before taking the next plane out of there, it's not exactly relevant.  What sort of impression were trying to give when you made your statements?  How does it square with the seven years of inspections where they found, documented and destroyed material?

Do all those fascinating questions you just raised somehow get you to "Yi was trying to give a false impression and I called him on that?"

Yes.  If the statement you made is not relevant or not true I would suspect you are trying to give a false impression.  Again I ask, what impression were you trying to give when you stated

"This is seriously overegging the pudding.  The inspectors left years before because they felt they had thoroughly inspected their hotel rooms for WMD and were not allowed anywhere else."

By itself the statement is not particularly ambiguous.  The Inspectors were not allowed out of their hotel rooms and thus could not do their jobs.  However, the inspections went on from 1992-1998 and they inspected several sites, documented materials and had equipment and chemicals destroyed.  They obviously had to have left the hotels at some point to do this and were not staying in them for the entire period.  If I were to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant that they were only closed in the hotel for a fraction of that time period I would naturally need clarification of what fraction of that time, why they were in the hotels and if that is relevant.

[Admiral Yi]

Raz, we've been through this routine before.  You say something like "Yi is lying," or "Yi made that up," then when I ask what the fuck you're talking about, you say you need more clarification, or you're confused.  An accusation is not a request for clarification or an expression of confusion.  It's an accusation.

As to your question, by my count I've answered it three times already.  The inspectors did conduct inspections before they were confined to their hotel.  However, in your post that started this whole mess you used the fact that the inspectors left Iraq as evidence that the threat posed by Saddam was neutralized, as if they had inspected everything they wanted to and had certified Iraq to be free of WMD.  It was nothing of the sort.  They left because Saddam was not letting them do their job.

[Razgovory]

We have been through this routine before, about Iraq in fact it was regarding torture.

  However, I am not saying that the because the inspectors left the threat from Saddam was neutralized (though the threat of WMD had been neutralized, the inspectors did not know this and the causation is quite that direct), my point was that nobody cared back in 1998.  There was some perfunctory airstrikes, but stuff had been going on before.  Hell, it got lost in the news about Kosovo war, the ongoing Impeachment issue, and the Republican rage that Bill Clinton might be distracting the country from the Lewensky case with talk of killing some terrorist name Osama Bin Laden.  If an inevitable war came from the inspectors leaving then it was pretty carefully hidden under the radar.  You and I are both old enough to remember 1999 and 2000 and I don't recall some mounting crisis that was on everyone's lips.  If this terrible war was coming you'd think it would have been a top issue in 2000 presidential elections, but it wasn't.  It was assumed that Saddam had these weapons, but it bothered very few. Nobody in the US was cowering at the fear of Iraqi mustard gas.  More people were scared of computers going nuts then a dictator who's army had been destroyed less then a decade prior.  The crisis only occurred in 2002 when the Bush administration resurrected the issue.  While there is great disagreement why he wanted to go to war true devotion to upholding the credibility of the UN is not one that gets toss around much.

[Admiral Yi]

Same diff Raz.  How does the fact that the inspectors left support the assertion that "nobody cared?"

[Razgovory]

Same diff Raz.  How does the fact that the inspectors left support the assertion that "nobody cared?"

That's the wrong question.  The inspector's leaving doesn't support the assertion that nobody cared.  The fact that not much was done supports the assertion that nobody cared.  There was no crisis.  Neither Gore nor Bush ran on preventing Saddam from building nukes.  If it was indeed crisis that could be solved only through war, it would have been important prior to 2002.  If Bush intended to invade Iraq before 9/11 he kept it.  Do you remember the cry for war in 1999 and 2000?  I do not.

[Admiral Yi]

If it doesn't support the assertion that nobody cared, then why did you include it in your post about no one caring?

[Razgovory]

If it doesn't support the assertion that nobody cared, then why did you include it in your post about no one caring?

It's the long period between them leaving and the and the crisis.  To do that I have to establish the fact they did in fact leave.

[Admiral Yi]

It's the long period between them leaving and the and the crisis.  To do that I have to establish the fact they did in fact leave.

What's the long period between them leaving and the crisis?

[Razgovory]

It's the long period between them leaving and the and the crisis.  To do that I have to establish the fact they did in fact leave.

What's the long period between them leaving and the crisis?

1998-2002 that period of years when invading Iraq was not on everyone's mind.

[Admiral Yi]

1998-2002 that period of years when invading Iraq was not on everyone's mind.

Have you changed your mind about the inspectors leaving supporting your assertion?

[MadImmortalMan]

1998-2002 that period of years when invading Iraq was not on everyone's mind.

Um. He was violating the ceasefire nearly every day during that period. Clinton nearly invaded.