OT: Weapons Of Mass Destruction

--
mike hide
http://members.tripod.com/mikehide2


"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mike Hide" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<wJASa.93276$OZ2.19910@rwcrnsc54>...
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Lawrence A. Ramsey <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> > > > It's a BIG country and they have the patience of Job. Lots and lots
of
> > > > room to bury stuff and dig it up years later. Kill the laborers who
> > > > bury it and only one or two know where it is.
> > > The number of people required to conceal the hundreds of tons of
> > > alleged material is not trivial. If the claims were substantively
> > > true something would have been found by now.
> >
> > What twenty guys with bulldozers and backhoes.
>
> Plus all the people who worked in the program, delivered material
> to it, dismantled and decontaminated the factories, etc etc. Plus
> the people who killed all those people and disposed of their
> bodies.
>
> Its like an episode of 'The Invaders'.

how about all the pirate treasures, same deal, same thing especially if the
tyrant is still on the loose with his henchmen


> >
> >
> > > So far, any claim IRT WMDs that has been investigated has been
> > > falsified. I.E. the 'truck mounted bioweapons labs' have been
> > > identified as trucks sold by the Brittish to Iraq for generating
> > > Hydrogen in the field for weather balloons. The claim that Iraq
> > > was negotiating to purchase Uranium from Niger was an outright
> > > lie.
again where is YOUR proof, please dont tell me the washington post, thats
about as reliable as the NY Times


How many liars do you know who tell only one lie?
> >
> > Perhaps with your souces Fred you should be appearing on capitol hill
and
> > testifying, obviously you know more than the CIA and MI6 people. The
problem
> > is the British will not share sources the US, probably because they do
not
> > like who the US shares info with. mjh
>
> As you may know, it was the Brittish who supplied us with the
> forged Niger communcations.

Are you saying the British [just one T] supplied the "forged" Niger
documentation .or other documentation , the source they will not divulge
concerning Niger ?


It was also the Brittish who, circa
> 2002, released a white paper on the subject of current Iraqi
> arms programs that included material plagiarized from a graduate
> student's masters thesis from 1991.

Lets see now how many graduate students do the CIA or MI6 employ, probably
hundreds if not thousands. so what exactly is your point ? . So if you dont
trust graduate research ,whos do you trust, anyones ?


The sale of those trucks
> to Iraq was _not_ secret--no sources would have been compromised
> by properly identifying them.
>
> Fool me once, shame on them. Fool me twice, shame on me.
> --
> probably thre or four times at least
> FF
>
> "Gulf of Tonkin."

No we are not all familiar with OSP ,perhaps in yor infinite wisdom you
could enlighten us and specifically tell us why they should lie to the
nation ......mjh

--
mike hide
http://members.tripod.com/mikehide2


"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You're familiar with the Office of Special Plans? Created by Cheney
> to reinterpret and massage intelligence data to justify the war.
> WHen the State Dept or CIA disagreed, they were cut completely out of
> the loop. Supposedly, as the war drew nearer, nearly all the data
> used in support of the war came from OSP
>
> Renata
>
> On 21 Jul 2003 09:54:49 -0700, [email protected] (Fred the Red
> Shirt) wrote:
> --snip--
> >Meanwhile, I'd like to pont out to Joe that according to the Washington
> >Post, Itallian intelligence has revealed that they gave the Niger
> >documents to the Brittish. The documents were purchased from a
> >former official at the Niger embassy who had since returned to
> >Niger. Evidently the Italians got ripped off as the IAEA easily
> >determined they were forgeries. For one thing, the dates and day
> >of week on some of the emails do not agree.
> >
> >It is simply not credible to suppose that the Brittish or the CIA
> >thought they were authentic.
> >
> >As you may recall, Tennet accepted blame for the reference in the
> >SOTU speech. He said he should have urged the administration to
> >pull the reference from the speech but instead said nothing.
> >
> >OTOH in his Senate testimony, under oath, he said that he never
> >saw the speech befor Bush delivered it.
> >
> >Bush says that he retains full confidence in Tennet. No Wonder.
> >
> >Powell and Rice continued to refer to the Niger correspondence up
> >until a few days befor the IAEA declared it to be forged.
> >
> >It is unsubstantiated in large measure because the proffered
> >proof has been shown to be false.
> >
> >I'll prove that Iraq has no WMD just as soon as you prove the
> >_Plan Nine from Outer Space_ never really happened.
> >
> >--
> >
> >FF
>

While I'm certain that it's now politically expedient for the Wannabees
to ignore their own statements as well as documentary evidence compiled
over 12 years by the UN, the Brits, the French, and the Clintonistas, the
quotes I referenced pretty much lay out the case that most everyone knew
that Saddam was an imminent threat and that 'something' had to be done.
You'll pretty much have to support the Green-ola Party candidate in the
next election to avoid casting a vote for a warmonger.

Reality Check 101: I can find an intel report that says just about
anything about anyone, because for any blue action, my intel weenies will
come up with 1000 different plausible red counteractions and excellent
arguments to support them, leading to a million or so possible
counter-counteractions on my part. Ultimately, a commander must take the
assessments of the staff and subordinate commanders and decide on most
likely, most advantageous, and most dangerous, them plan with those in
mind.

Following the operation, there will always be some pinhead willing to
verify that you did exactly the wrong thing at the wrong time, and to the
wrong enemy. Putting up with this crap, as well as making the decision
in the first place is called leadership.


Renata wrote:

> Seems to me that we went to war RIGHT NOW because ole Saddy was a
> IMMINENT threat , was right on the IMMEDIATE verge of setting off a
> nuclear weapon in the US and couldn't even afford to WAIT just a bit
> longer for the weapons inspectors to look a bit more.
>
> Much of the administrations rhetoric to support this immediate threat
> has been or is being proven to be just a stretch if not an outright,
> dare I say the word, lie.
> Not to mention the CIA (?) report that stated the ole WMD would be
> more likely distributed about to the bad guys only IF we attacked.
>
> And, we had our priorities in order when we got there, yes sir; guard
> the sites with potential weapons and nuclear materiel - oh no siree -
> gotta make sure the oil is safe.
>
> This is far beyond politics.
>
> Renata
>
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:37:40 -0400, Todd Stock <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Just to collection of quotes...enjoy!
> --snip of tons of quotes mainly dealing with WMD (I think) --
> (no stain for email)

But France couldn't be a military threat to anyone. They've
demonstrated that time and again.

Phil

Renata wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 04:20:41 GMT, bonomi@c-ns. (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> --snip--
>
>>>I say it is just the tip of the iceberg as virtually none of the
>>>other *claims* made by Bush and Blair have been proven. It is
>>>time to move on and examine those other claims.
>>
>>By the same token, none of the claims have been _disproven_, either.
>>(The obvious: one cannot prove a negative, applies)
>>
>
> Well now - there's a hell of a stretch. Perhaps next we'll have
> claims that, oh, say, France is an imminent threat and since no one
> can prove otherwise....
>
> It does seem that every single last claim made by this administration
> to justify the attack on Iraq is falling apart. And their reaction is
> like that of a 6 year old caught lying.
>
>
> Renata

Sort of like earth quakes on the Left Coast - they keep happening - means,
method, and motivation remain the same.


kenR wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > While I'm certain that it's now politically expedient for the Wannabees
> > to ignore their own statements as well as documentary evidence compiled
> > over 12 years by the UN, the Brits, the French, and the Clintonistas, the
> > quotes I referenced pretty much lay out the case that most everyone knew
> > that Saddam was an imminent threat and that 'something' had to be done.
> > You'll pretty much have to support the Green-ola Party candidate in the
> > next election to avoid casting a vote for a warmonger.
> >
>
> Um, how can someone be an imminent threat for 12 years.
>
> Reminds me of a previous boss that promised me a raise "real soon now".

But their weapons show up in the oddest places...

Galileo - the Euro's version of GPS - will allow France to get around one of
the restrictions imposed under NATO and US GPS technology export rules - the
ability to sell precision guided munitions (think down-tech versions of
JDAM, JSOW, etc.) to nations outside NATO. Now I recognize that the French
would never sell high technology weapons to some rogue nation
(Urpp-roland...excuse me), but with the wine boycott, you never can tell
what a group of cash strapped socialists might consider.

PC wrote:

> But France couldn't be a military threat to anyone. They've
> demonstrated that time and again.
>
> Phil

The root of their political perfidy lies in consistent military failure.

"Lawrence A. Ramsey" wrote:

> Gen George Patton once stated the "I would rather have a German
> division in front of me than a French division behind me." I figure
> he was "on the scene" and was qualified to make an accurate appraisal
> of the situation. Haven't seen anything yet to make me change my mind.
> What about Dien ben Phu, Panama Canal ? Bailed them out of that. And
> WWI & WW II. They forget easily. BUT, soon they will be answering to a
> Moslem ruler and that should prove interesting.
>
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 10:38:00 -0400, Todd Stock <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >But their weapons show up in the oddest places...
> >
> >Galileo - the Euro's version of GPS - will allow France to get around one of
> >the restrictions imposed under NATO and US GPS technology export rules - the
> >ability to sell precision guided munitions (think down-tech versions of
> >JDAM, JSOW, etc.) to nations outside NATO. Now I recognize that the French
> >would never sell high technology weapons to some rogue nation
> >(Urpp-roland...excuse me), but with the wine boycott, you never can tell
> >what a group of cash strapped socialists might consider.
> >
> >PC wrote:
> >
> >> But France couldn't be a military threat to anyone. They've
> >> demonstrated that time and again.
> >>
> >> Phil

Perhaps you would like to share your souces for these outrageous allegations
...mjh

--
mike hide
http://members.tripod.com/mikehide2


"Joe28" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > The claim that Iraq was negotiating to purchase Uranium from Niger was
an
> outright lie.
>
> Or an unsubstantiated truth. There is a difference.
>
>

On 22 Jul 2003 10:51:45 -0700, [email protected] (David Hall)
wrote:

>Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>Let me ask... If these actions of the past 3 years were committed by a
>>Democrat president, would you be as equally supportive? Would
>>Republicans have toned down the rhetoric regarding national security pre
>>& post 9/11; would the aircraft landing off California not have been
>>criticized; would the "who knew what and when" of the State of the Union
>>comment have passed unchallenged; no questioning of the VP's closed door
>>meetings with industry leaders with regard to energy policy? Do you not
>>believe that if WMD had not been found by now there would be quite the
>>Republican outcry for misleading America and the world - sending our
>>troops into harms way without solid proof?

>I would like to believe that I would treat a Democrat president the
>same on national security if (and it would be a big if) he were taking
>the same or similar actions to protect national security as GWB.

He didn't ask only about security, which BTW is apparently not so
good (not enough money, for one). It's about the major lies, upon
major lies, upon major lies, more of which seem to come out every day.
Many used to justify the war.
And it's all coming tumbling down...


-snip-

>> My suspicion is that the Ken Starr-like investigations would have been
>> revived.

>When GWB becomes so good at the lies that he can credibly ask what the
>"meaning of is is" , I imagine they will be.

Oh, he's quite skilled. Look at all the believers. Have to wonder
what it takes til he becomes a not so moral (isn't lying mentioned in
the 10 commandments) and upright man. (only 16 words, no WMD, tax
cuts will help unemployment (sure, once we redefine unemployment -
speaking of what is is), Iraquis waving little American flags, etc.)
Hey wait; "I did not have sex with that woman" is only 8 words...

Renata

No "infinte" wisdom here, nor did I (mean to) imply it. Gave the
briefest intro. below; I'm sure a web search will yield much more.

You don't think the government lies to you? Ever?!?!
The short answer for this particular instance seems to be that they
really, really, really wanted a war in Iraq.

Renata

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 00:00:59 GMT, "Mike Hide" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>No we are not all familiar with OSP ,perhaps in yor infinite wisdom you
>could enlighten us and specifically tell us why they should lie to the
>nation ......mjh
>
>--
>mike hide
>http://members.tripod.com/mikehide2
>
>
>"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> You're familiar with the Office of Special Plans? Created by Cheney
>> to reinterpret and massage intelligence data to justify the war.
>> WHen the State Dept or CIA disagreed, they were cut completely out of
>> the loop. Supposedly, as the war drew nearer, nearly all the data
>> used in support of the war came from OSP
>>
>> Renata
>>
>> On 21 Jul 2003 09:54:49 -0700, [email protected] (Fred the Red
>> Shirt) wrote:
>> --snip--
>> >Meanwhile, I'd like to pont out to Joe that according to the Washington
>> >Post, Itallian intelligence has revealed that they gave the Niger
>> >documents to the Brittish. The documents were purchased from a
>> >former official at the Niger embassy who had since returned to
>> >Niger. Evidently the Italians got ripped off as the IAEA easily
>> >determined they were forgeries. For one thing, the dates and day
>> >of week on some of the emails do not agree.
>> >
>> >It is simply not credible to suppose that the Brittish or the CIA
>> >thought they were authentic.
>> >
>> >As you may recall, Tennet accepted blame for the reference in the
>> >SOTU speech. He said he should have urged the administration to
>> >pull the reference from the speech but instead said nothing.
>> >
>> >OTOH in his Senate testimony, under oath, he said that he never
>> >saw the speech befor Bush delivered it.
>> >
>> >Bush says that he retains full confidence in Tennet. No Wonder.
>> >
>> >Powell and Rice continued to refer to the Niger correspondence up
>> >until a few days befor the IAEA declared it to be forged.
>> >
>> >It is unsubstantiated in large measure because the proffered
>> >proof has been shown to be false.
>> >
>> >I'll prove that Iraq has no WMD just as soon as you prove the
>> >_Plan Nine from Outer Space_ never really happened.
>> >
>> >--
>> >
>> >FF
>>
>

like not letting inspectors in ?

Renata

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:34:17 GMT, "Doug Winterburn"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:20:01 +0000, Renata wrote:
>
>> No "infinte" wisdom here, nor did I (mean to) imply it. Gave the briefest
>> intro. below; I'm sure a web search will yield much more.
>>
>> You don't think the government lies to you? Ever?!?! The short answer for
>> this particular instance seems to be that they really, really, really
>> wanted a war in Iraq.
>
>They really, really, really wanted Iraq to quit ignoring the 19 UN
>resolutions so they wouldn't have to do the "or else" stated in those
>resolutions. A web search will chronicle those events for you.
>
>-Doug

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:43:21 GMT, Mike Jones <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, bonomi@c-ns.
>says...
--snip--
>> Nobody in their right mind would trust a 'cheater' to _only_ cheat in one
>> limited area.
>
>Which is exactly why finding one thoroughly bogus claim in the State of
>the Union address is a big deal.
>
Oh no, no, no. I do believe there were a few more than just one
thoroghly bogus claim in that ole SOTUA. For example,

"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that
Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program,
had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different
methods of enriching uranium for a bomb."

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase
high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and
statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids
and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."

and so on...

Wait! Now you're equating politicians with your wife and kids?
Heavens, who ARE you married to and what kind of little devils :-)
did you produce?

Renata

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:37:59 GMT, "Mike Hide" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>The likes of you probably dont even trust your wives or kids ,exactly where
>do you draw the line. Perhaps you and the pliticos are one of the same
>.....]mjh
>
>--
>mike hide
>http://members.tripod.com/mikehide2
>
>
>"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <%[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>> > No we are not all familiar with OSP ,perhaps in yor infinite wisdom you
>> > could enlighten us and specifically tell us why they should lie to the
>> > nation ......mjh
>> >
>> Mike, I have to say I envy someone who trusts a politician to tell the
>> truth. However enviable, it's also a sign that you live in another world
>> :-).
>>
>> --
>> Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
>

I suppose that's why they're here and not there. Don't you suppose
that most of the folks that made there way to the US didn't come
because they're anti-US?

renata

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:06:29 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
--snip--
>Now with Iraq, ..... Iraqis in the US say yes, try, do your best.
>
--snip--
>Wes

Common sentiment in Iraq (among Iraqis, at least) seems to be that not
only are things generally worse than before the war (Sadamm aside),
things are now worse than during the war.

Renata

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 08:24:12 GMT, R <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:06:29 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
--snip--
>>>
>>>>2. Do you want us to leave?
>>>Like, yesterday, man!
>>
>>You really think so?
>
> Some probably do, some don't. The military hasn't exactly done a
>stellar job thus far at nationbuilding, and the people there are
>rightly distressed. You can only live so many days in a city without
>a police force before you start demanding change.
>
> That said, they'd take the current situation any day of the week
>before they would willingly go back to Saddam.
>>>
--snip--

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 04:20:41 GMT, bonomi@c-ns. (Robert Bonomi) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
--snip--
>
>>I say it is just the tip of the iceberg as virtually none of the
>>other *claims* made by Bush and Blair have been proven. It is
>>time to move on and examine those other claims.
>
>By the same token, none of the claims have been _disproven_, either.
>(The obvious: one cannot prove a negative, applies)
>
Well now - there's a hell of a stretch. Perhaps next we'll have
claims that, oh, say, France is an imminent threat and since no one
can prove otherwise....

It does seem that every single last claim made by this administration
to justify the attack on Iraq is falling apart. And their reaction is
like that of a 6 year old caught lying.


Renata

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:20:01 +0000, Renata wrote:

> No "infinte" wisdom here, nor did I (mean to) imply it. Gave the briefest
> intro. below; I'm sure a web search will yield much more.
>
> You don't think the government lies to you? Ever?!?! The short answer for
> this particular instance seems to be that they really, really, really
> wanted a war in Iraq.

They really, really, really wanted Iraq to quit ignoring the 19 UN
resolutions so they wouldn't have to do the "or else" stated in those
resolutions. A web search will chronicle those events for you.

-Doug

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:54:46 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:


> My guess is that they would not allow themselves to be taken alive, nor
> will Saddam Hussein.

In this, I suspect you are correct, and so much the better as he will not
provide fodder for a new reality show or some of Johnny Cochoran's antics.

-Doug

Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > GWB is trying to bring it back and
> > the liberals are trying hard to drag him into the dirt.
>
> Let me ask... If these actions of the past 3 years were committed by a
> Democrat president, would you be as equally supportive?
Heck no, I'm a Republican :)
> Would Republicans have toned down the rhetoric regarding national security pre
> & post 9/11;
I would like to believe that I would treat a Democrat president the
same on national security if (and it would be a big if) he were taking
the same or similar actions to protect national security as GWB.
> would the aircraft landing off California not have been
> criticized;
Are you telling me that Democrat presidents haven't used as much CinC
dress-up and play acting as GWB?
>would the "who knew what and when" of the State of the Union
> comment have passed unchallenged;
NO. However it would have quickly been pointed out by the liberal
press that this was months after Congress had already authorized the
Iraq war and the whole tempest in a teapot would have disappeared in 1
or 2 newsdays.
> no questioning of the VP's closed door meetings with industry leaders with >regard to energy policy?
What? Like Clinton or any other president didn't discuss policy with
those affected? Like Hilly didn't have closed door meetings in trying
to take over the entire health care industry? Like Al didn't talk to
computer geeks while inventing the interne.....Oh, sorry I
digressed...
>Do you not believe that if WMD had not been found by now there would
be quite >the Republican outcry for misleading America and the world -
sending our
> troops into harms way without solid proof?
As so well pointed out by (I think) William Safire, just because they
haven't been found yet does not mean they don't exist. We haven't
found Saddam yet, but are you doubting his existence? We haven't found
Osama, are we to conclude that he was a figment of some politician's
imagination? We have captured lots of people who should be able to
tell us where these two are, but they haven't - so I guess that the
intelligence that said they were ever born must have been made up?
>
> My suspicion is that the Ken Starr-like investigations would have been
> revived.

When GWB becomes so good at the lies that he can credibly ask what the
"meaning of is is" , I imagine they will be.

Dave Hall

In article <[email protected]>,
Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:20:01 +0000, Renata wrote:
>>
>> > No "infinte" wisdom here, nor did I (mean to) imply it. Gave the briefest
>> > intro. below; I'm sure a web search will yield much more.
>> >
>> > You don't think the government lies to you? Ever?!?! The short answer for
>> > this particular instance seems to be that they really, really, really
>> > wanted a war in Iraq.
>
>According to Powell the administration had planned to invade Iraq
>from their first day in office. My guess is we would have invaded
>a year earlier were it not for the attack on September 11, 2001 and
>the resulting Afganistan Campaign.
>
>>
>> They really, really, really wanted Iraq to quit ignoring the 19 UN
>> resolutions so they wouldn't have to do the "or else" stated in those
>> resolutions. A web search will chronicle those events for you.
>>
>
>A websearch shows that the UN folks in charge of determining whether
>or not Iraq was cooperating found that Iraq was cooperating and was
>not ignoring those resolutions.

Of course, subsequent *FACTS* (not opinions) showed otherwise.

Fully *half* the SCUDS actually launched in the recent campaign were of
a class that they swore they'd destroyed _all_ of some eight years previously.

They can't even claim 'abandoned and overlooked', since those weapons were
in active military inventory, and _were_ used.


OPINION: I figure it is *highly*unlikely* that they were in 'material breach'
of *ONLY* that area of weapons policy.

Nobody in their right mind would trust a 'cheater' to _only_ cheat in one
limited area.

"Dennis [email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mike Hide" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:sT_Sa.115031$ye4.84431@sccrnsc01...
> > so again to support the allegations what is your source? after all you
are
> > in effect calling the president a liar .
> >
> > The British are many times reluctatant to share info with the US,
> basically
> > for the simple reason who you share info with, namely the certain middle
> > east countries...mjh
>
> So, the British are willing to let this wonderful relationship
> with the US both Bush and Blair are fond of proclaiming
> go completely to hell-in-a-handbasket rather than give some
> sort of idea how they know about the U? OK, makes sense
> to me. After all, the Brits have still have the French and the
> Germans on their, oops!
>
> Dennis Vogel

What the hell is this oops stuff . the only time the brits got along with
the French was when they took the country over ,as far as the Germans go
they fought two wars against them because they did not agree with then and
things have not changed much since then .

As far as the Brits not revealing sources , I hear rumors that it came from
a third country and promises made that the source would not be revealed .
So why can't you accept the information based on someones word. If not seems
to me you are basing the situation on your own values or perhaps how others
accept your word. mjh

I wonder what the chances are that they got melted down or burned up during
and by the attacks in the war?

[snip]
BUT, soon they will be answering to a
> Moslem ruler and that should prove interesting.
>
This is the second time I have heard this bit of fear mongering. A
member of the church I go to heard it from "some preacher at a prayer
breakfast". Do you know who is promoting this?
mahalo,
jo4hn

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Even more telling is the observation that allied forces gave
> > such a low priority to securing the sites where those WMDs
> > were supposedly located. One nuclear site was not visited
> > until weeks after Bush declared the 'first phase' over. Contrast
> > that with the alacrity with which the oil fields were occupied.
>
> I'm surprised not much was made of that. The Iraqi Oil
> Ministry was one of the first sites secured in Baghdad.
> I guess they wanted good office space for Cheney's buddies
> from Hallinurton to move into. Screw the priceless artifacts
> at the Museum. But keep the records of where the wells
> are located. Gotta get those priorities right.
>
> Dennis Vogel
>
>
>

Not only that, but a rather large number of the troops are currently
providing escort duty to Haliburton repair crews. After all, we
wouldn't want to cut into the profits in this no-bid war would we.

I'm just glad my relatives managed to get back stateside in one piece.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Lawrence A. Ramsey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > As far as the numer of peole need to do this deed of burying stuff,
> > you only need a forklift and driver, truck and driver and backhoe
> > operator and backhoe. I could bury MANY truckloads of stuff with these
> > 3 machines and operators
>
> Aren't there special imaging satellites that can tell when plots of
> earth have been disturbed from their surroundings? Seems such images
> would have been poured over - as well as taking into consideration all
> the satellite surveillance the past 10 years of Iraq (ala Cuban Missle
> Crisis) - seems kinda hard to get away with something like that.

Plus there's the little matter of people to give the orders. We have a
lot of the order-givers in custody now, and there were plenty of
predictions that they would tell us all about the WMD. So where are
they?

--
Mike Jones - http:18minutegap.blogspot.com
Not all conservatives are stupid people,
but most stupid people are conservatives.
- John Stuart Mill

In article <[email protected]>, bonomi@c-ns.
says...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:<[email protected]>...
> >> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:20:01 +0000, Renata wrote:
> >>
> >> > No "infinte" wisdom here, nor did I (mean to) imply it. Gave the briefest
> >> > intro. below; I'm sure a web search will yield much more.
> >> >
> >> > You don't think the government lies to you? Ever?!?! The short answer for
> >> > this particular instance seems to be that they really, really, really
> >> > wanted a war in Iraq.
> >
> >According to Powell the administration had planned to invade Iraq
> >from their first day in office. My guess is we would have invaded
> >a year earlier were it not for the attack on September 11, 2001 and
> >the resulting Afganistan Campaign.
> >
> >>
> >> They really, really, really wanted Iraq to quit ignoring the 19 UN
> >> resolutions so they wouldn't have to do the "or else" stated in those
> >> resolutions. A web search will chronicle those events for you.
> >>
> >
> >A websearch shows that the UN folks in charge of determining whether
> >or not Iraq was cooperating found that Iraq was cooperating and was
> >not ignoring those resolutions.
>
> Of course, subsequent *FACTS* (not opinions) showed otherwise.
>
> Fully *half* the SCUDS actually launched in the recent campaign were of
> a class that they swore they'd destroyed _all_ of some eight years previously.

Hm? Do you have a cite for this, by chance? I can't recall any confirmed
launches of SCUDs during the recent conflict. There were several I do
recall as having been initially reported as SCUDs but which were later
corrected to Al Samouds.

> Nobody in their right mind would trust a 'cheater' to _only_ cheat in one
> limited area.

Which is exactly why finding one thoroughly bogus claim in the State of
the Union address is a big deal.

--
Mike Jones - http:18minutegap.blogspot.com
Not all conservatives are stupid people,
but most stupid people are conservatives.
- John Stuart Mill

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Renata) wrote:
> >On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:43:21 GMT, Mike Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>In article <[email protected]>, bonomi@c-ns.
> >>says...
> >--snip--
> >>> Nobody in their right mind would trust a 'cheater' to _only_ cheat in one
> >>> limited area.
> >>
> >>Which is exactly why finding one thoroughly bogus claim in the State of
> >>the Union address is a big deal.
> >>
> >Oh no, no, no. I do believe there were a few more than just one
> >thoroghly bogus claim in that ole SOTUA. For example,
> >
> >"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that
> >Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program,
> >had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different
> >methods of enriching uranium for a bomb."
> >
> True.
>
> >"Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase
> >high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
>
> True. Weren't you paying attention to Colin Powell's speeches at the UN? It
> just stuns me that people assume that Saddam Hussein was telling the truth,
> and Colin Powell was lying.

No assumption at all. The US Department of Energy experts said those
tubes were not suitable for uranium centrifuges, which was the role they
were allegedly to play in nuclear weapons production.

--
Mike Jones - http:18minutegap.blogspot.com
Not all conservatives are stupid people,
but most stupid people are conservatives.
- John Stuart Mill

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
>
>
> "Mike Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <jH0Ua.138056$N7.19998@sccrnsc03>, [email protected]
> > says...
> >
> > > > Hm? Do you have a cite for this, by chance? I can't recall any
> confirmed
> > > > launches of SCUDs during the recent conflict. There were several I do
> > > > recall as having been initially reported as SCUDs but which were later
> > > > corrected to Al Samouds.
> > >
> > > > > Nobody in their right mind would trust a 'cheater' to _only_ cheat
> in
> > > one
> > > > > limited area.
> > > >
> > > > Which is exactly why finding one thoroughly bogus claim in the State
> of
> > > > the Union address is a big deal.
> > > >
> > > So does it matter What kind of missiles were lauched at the Kuwait
> > > headquarters other Kuwaiti targets , the fact of the matter is that they
> > > could launch missiles within 45 minutes of going to war was true . The
> fact
> > > we had no idea of the existance of the Al Samoud missile let alone its
> > > advanced performance was another surprise ...mjh
> >
> > You are hallucinatory. We knew all about the al Samoud. It's just that a
> > lot of people in the media were calling anything in the air coming from
> > Iraq a "SCUD" at the beginning of the war. And the claim was never that
> > "they could launch missiles" within 45 minutes, but that they could
> > stage an attack with WMD in 45 minutes
>
> God people are stupid ,you dont launch a missile at a target to lauch a
> missile ,you launch a missile becuase it carries a warhead .
> a missile launched with a nuclear ,biological ,poisonous gas warhead makes
> it a weapon of mass destruction.
> You probably think the North Koreans are going to launch missiles at west
> coast cities with no warheads . hey man whats the worry !!!!
>
> So if you launch an attack with a missile with a WMD warhead ,so you dont
> consider that an attack ? now tell me who is hallucinating ...............

Apparently you still are, as there have been no "WMD warheads"
discovered. If there were none, then Saddam could not have launched a
WMD attack in 45 minutes.

--
Mike Jones - http:18minutegap.blogspot.com
Not all conservatives are stupid people,
but most stupid people are conservatives.
- John Stuart Mill

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> While I'm certain that it's now politically expedient for the Wannabees
> to ignore their own statements as well as documentary evidence compiled
> over 12 years by the UN, the Brits, the French, and the Clintonistas, the
> quotes I referenced pretty much lay out the case that most everyone knew
> that Saddam was an imminent threat and that 'something' had to be done.
> You'll pretty much have to support the Green-ola Party candidate in the
> next election to avoid casting a vote for a warmonger.
>

Um, how can someone be an imminent threat for 12 years.

Reminds me of a previous boss that promised me a raise "real soon now".

"JackD" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> > Here's another theory, which I would just *love* to be true. What if we
> > have hard evidence of WMD, but the Bush administration is holding it
back
> > until enough Democratic presidential hopefuls have made it the keystone
of
> > their campaign. Then in October, the information is released and the
> > Democrats all just go away.
> >
> > todd
>
> Why would you *love* it if the Bush administration is concealing the facts
> in order to manipulate public opinion for their own personal gain?
> Do you like to be manipulated?
> Do you like being lied to?
> I certainly do not.
>
> -Jack Dahlgren

Because it would shut up a bunch of Democrats who were all for getting rid
of Saddam while Clinton was in office, but now that a Republican has done it
are looking for any way to criticize, and they think WMD is the way to do
it.

todd

"Lawrence A. Ramsey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It's a BIG country and they have the patience of Job. Lots and lots of
> room to bury stuff and dig it up years later. Kill the laborers who
> bury it and only one or two know where it is. The temple treasure from
> Jerusalem was buried (they believe) about 2000 years ago and we
> haven't found it either but strongly suspect it is buried on the
> Temple Mount.

The Second Temple was burned to the ground in a fire started by a Roman
soldier. What was rescued was taken to Rome and was the focus of a grand
parade celebrating the victory of Titus. You can see the giant gold menorah
and other trophies on the Arch of Titus in Rome.
http://billmon.org.v.sabren.com/archives/000172.html

The Palestinians have been excavating under Temple Mount/Haram al Sharif for
more than a decade, dumping thousands of tons of artifacts. There's a fear
that they're undermining the Wailing Wall. If it collapses, there's going to
be hell to pay. http://www.therefinersfire.org/wailing_wall.htm

>Why all the fuss about
> WMD? Everyone knows he pursued it, bought it and, in some cases
> (Iran), used it. So, why the fuss? Maybe we ought to be thankful that
> we haven't. But, that is NOT the reason we started the war anyway.

The current administration said nothing else during the buildup to the war.
There was "clear and present danger" to the United States from them:

http://billmon.org.v.sabren.com/archives/000172.html

The sudden backtracking was due to the "massive stores of WsMD" being
largely a figment of someone's overheated imagination.
-- Ernie

"> No assumption at all. The US Department of Energy experts said those
> tubes were not suitable for uranium centrifuges, which was the role they
> were allegedly to play in nuclear weapons production.
>
> --
Probably the same group that were not aware the North Koreans had a nuclear
weapons program until they started bragging about it .....mjh

In article <[email protected]>,
Mike Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, bonomi@c-ns.
>says...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:<[email protected]>...
>> >> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:20:01 +0000, Renata wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > No "infinte" wisdom here, nor did I (mean to) imply it. Gave the
>briefest
>> >> > intro. below; I'm sure a web search will yield much more.
>> >> >
>> >> > You don't think the government lies to you? Ever?!?! The short
>answer for
>> >> > this particular instance seems to be that they really, really, really
>> >> > wanted a war in Iraq.
>> >
>> >According to Powell the administration had planned to invade Iraq
>> >from their first day in office. My guess is we would have invaded
>> >a year earlier were it not for the attack on September 11, 2001 and
>> >the resulting Afganistan Campaign.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> They really, really, really wanted Iraq to quit ignoring the 19 UN
>> >> resolutions so they wouldn't have to do the "or else" stated in those
>> >> resolutions. A web search will chronicle those events for you.
>> >>
>> >
>> >A websearch shows that the UN folks in charge of determining whether
>> >or not Iraq was cooperating found that Iraq was cooperating and was
>> >not ignoring those resolutions.
>>
>> Of course, subsequent *FACTS* (not opinions) showed otherwise.
>>
>> Fully *half* the SCUDS actually launched in the recent campaign were of
>> a class that they swore they'd destroyed _all_ of some eight years previously.
>
>Hm? Do you have a cite for this, by chance? I can't recall any confirmed
>launches of SCUDs during the recent conflict. There were several I do
>recall as having been initially reported as SCUDs but which were later
>corrected to Al Samouds.

To be precise, Iraq was prohibited from having _any_ missles (without regard
to 'name' / type) with a range greater than a specified value.

Iraq certified, _repeatedly_, that they had destroyed all such missles.

Of the missles Iraq launched, fully half of them flew _more_ than the
'legal' maximum distance. The vast majority of those 'non-existant'
missles flew more than 150% of the permissable range.

>
>> Nobody in their right mind would trust a 'cheater' to _only_ cheat in one
>> limited area.
>
>Which is exactly why finding one thoroughly bogus claim in the State of
>the Union address is a big deal.

You know, _everything_ I've seen on the subject indicates that "that claim"
may have been based, *IN*PART*, on information that was defective, unreliable,
or 'manufactured' by a 3rd party.

I havn't seen *any* _knowledgable_ source that has stated that said 'defective'
information was the *ONLY* basis for "that claim".

I'm willing to admit I "know what I _don't_ know", on the matter -- and *not*
jump to conclusions based on incomplete, and/or partial information.


I've also got enough experience with _large_ bureaucracies, particularly
government ones, to know how an 'innocent' oversight/goof by a low-level
staffer can replicate itself up to the highest levels, with neither 'malice',
nor 'deliberate intent' to deceive, on *anyone's* part.

On Tue 22 Jul 2003 08:56:47a, [email protected] wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I am happy for anyone that gets out with their butts intact. Sadam
> killed a lot of people for objecting to his rule. Would you like to
> live under his idea of free speach? Doubt it.

No, and I don't much care for W's idea of it either.

But hey, the troops still got a sense of humor out there:
http://utterlyboring.com/blog/archives/000704.php

Dan

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

>A websearch shows that the UN folks in charge of determining whether
>or not Iraq was cooperating found that Iraq was cooperating and was
>not ignoring those resolutions.

While it's true that a highly selective web search, in which one ignores
data that do not fit with one's own a priori biases, might support such a
statement, it's also true that this statement is pretty near to being the the
_exact_opposite_ of what they actually said. The UNMOVIC reports actually
document at best partial compliance by the government of Iraq with the UN
resolutions, and describe a pattern of repeated failure to provide information
and evidence which they were required to provide.

Examples:

Regarding Iraq's weapons declaration of 7 Dec 2002, UNMOVIC said, in part,
"UNMOVIC experts have found little new significant information in the part of
the declaration relating to proscribed weapons programmes ... largely the same
content as Iraq's 1996 missile declaration ..." This is diplomat-speak for
"they aren't telling us what they're supposed to tell us."

"As there is little new substantive information in the weapons part of Iraq's
declaration, or new supporting documentation, the issues that were identified
as unresolved in [previous reports] remain. In most cases, the issues remain
unresolved because there is a lack of supporting evidence." This is
diplomat-speak for "they didn't tell us what they were supposed to have told
us the last time, and what they have told us, they can't prove."

The text of the actual UNMOVIC report of 23 Feb 2003 is available at
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2003-232.pdf

Other UNMOVIC reports are available at
http://www.unmovic.org



--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW

"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Go to Google.
>
> Use the search terms "weapons of mass destruction" (without the
> quotes).
>
> Click the I'm Feeling Lucky button.
>
> Enjoy.

Also try "French military victories"
-- Ernie

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>[email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
>
>Well they might just have a concern about their lives but NYC
>councilemen??? BTW, Diane Feinstein had a California carry permit
>while supporting an anti gun agenda.

Imagine my surprise.
>>
>>
>>And if Carl Rowan had been a poor woman who shot someone in self-defense
>>he'd have gone to prison.
>
>Is he not the newsy or columnist that shot some one in DC for comming
>in his yard. Another anti gunner?
>
Correct (or nearly so) on both counts. IIRC, he shot someone trying to break
into his house. But definitely Carl Rowan is very anti-gun, at least anti
anyone *else* having a gun. He hasn't been quite so vocal about it since that
happened, for some reason.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW

Seems to me that we went to war RIGHT NOW because ole Saddy was a
IMMINENT threat , was right on the IMMEDIATE verge of setting off a
nuclear weapon in the US and couldn't even afford to WAIT just a bit
longer for the weapons inspectors to look a bit more.

Much of the administrations rhetoric to support this immediate threat
has been or is being proven to be just a stretch if not an outright,
dare I say the word, lie.
Not to mention the CIA (?) report that stated the ole WMD would be
more likely distributed about to the bad guys only IF we attacked.

And, we had our priorities in order when we got there, yes sir; guard
the sites with potential weapons and nuclear materiel - oh no siree -
gotta make sure the oil is safe.

This is far beyond politics.

Renata

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:37:40 -0400, Todd Stock <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Just to collection of quotes...enjoy!
--snip of tons of quotes mainly dealing with WMD (I think) --
(no stain for email)

It's a BIG country and they have the patience of Job. Lots and lots of
room to bury stuff and dig it up years later. Kill the laborers who
bury it and only one or two know where it is. The temple treasure from
Jerusalem was buried (they believe) about 2000 years ago and we
haven't found it either but strongly suspect it is buried on the
Temple Mount. Dirt can hide a lot of stuff and if buried in plastic,
our satellietes won't be able to pick it up. Why all the fuss about
WMD? Everyone knows he pursued it, bought it and, in some cases
(Iran), used it. So, why the fuss? Maybe we ought to be thankful that
we haven't. But, that is NOT the reason we started the war anyway. The
reason was a dictator who had some of the lowest morals and ethics in
the world. Many, I repeaet MANY countries have WMD. Anyone can make
one if they know what they are doing; it is not rocket science. We are
dealing with the total depravity of man.


On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:23:34 -0500, "todd"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Go to Google.
>>
>> Use the search terms "weapons of mass destruction" (without the
>> quotes).
>>
>> Click the I'm Feeling Lucky button.
>>
>> Enjoy.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards, Tom
>> Thomas J. Watson - Cabinetmaker
>> Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
>> http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
>> Remove CLUETOKEN to reply to email.
>
>Hey, Tom, you're about a week late on this one.
>
>You know, they haven't found Saddam yet. Maybe he never existed either.
>
>Since we're already OT, my big concern is that that no WMD have been found,
>but not because I think they didn't have them. I mean, c'mon, _nobody_
>close to the process, including Hans Blix, the French, the UN, etc. thinks
>that they didn't have them. What worries me is, where the hell are they?
>They had 18 months to get ready thanks to our appeasement of the UN.
>
>todd
>

In article <[email protected]>, PC <[email protected]> wrote:
>But France couldn't be a military threat to anyone. They've
>demonstrated that time and again.
>
Yeah, but they do have weapons of mass destruction. I say we take them out
now, before they can become any more of a threat to world stability than they
already are.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW

The likes of you probably dont even trust your wives or kids ,exactly where
do you draw the line. Perhaps you and the pliticos are one of the same
.....]mjh

--
mike hide
http://members.tripod.com/mikehide2


"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <%[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > No we are not all familiar with OSP ,perhaps in yor infinite wisdom you
> > could enlighten us and specifically tell us why they should lie to the
> > nation ......mjh
> >
> Mike, I have to say I envy someone who trusts a politician to tell the
> truth. However enviable, it's also a sign that you live in another world
> :-).
>
> --
> Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "todd" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Sadam could not have put his country though the hell of restrictions
> unless he really had something unless he was really, really crazy.

Unless he really, really, really *wanted* everyone
to think he had them. It's called bluffing. Is it
totally out of the realm of belief that he might have
wanted to keep his neighbors scared and wanted
himself and his country to appear powerful? The
entire US and British governments seemed to
have overlooked this perfect explanation. Even
though they liked to spout about his grandiose
image of himself with the white horses and statues
an all. I wish I had a US soldier's life back for
ever time I heard "there's no reason why Saddam
would try to prevent inspections unless he was
trying to hide weapons." Sheesh.

Dennis Vogel

> Here's another theory, which I would just *love* to be true. What if we
> have hard evidence of WMD, but the Bush administration is holding it back
> until enough Democratic presidential hopefuls have made it the keystone of
> their campaign. Then in October, the information is released and the
> Democrats all just go away.
>
> todd

Why would you *love* it if the Bush administration is concealing the facts
in order to manipulate public opinion for their own personal gain?
Do you like to be manipulated?
Do you like being lied to?
I certainly do not.

-Jack Dahlgren

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Even more telling is the observation that allied forces gave
> such a low priority to securing the sites where those WMDs
> were supposedly located. One nuclear site was not visited
> until weeks after Bush declared the 'first phase' over. Contrast
> that with the alacrity with which the oil fields were occupied.

I'm surprised not much was made of that. The Iraqi Oil
Ministry was one of the first sites secured in Baghdad.
I guess they wanted good office space for Cheney's buddies
from Hallinurton to move into. Screw the priceless artifacts
at the Museum. But keep the records of where the wells
are located. Gotta get those priorities right.

Dennis Vogel

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> As you may recall, Tennet accepted blame for the reference in the
> SOTU speech. He said he should have urged the administration to
> pull the reference from the speech but instead said nothing.
>
> OTOH in his Senate testimony, under oath, he said that he never
> saw the speech befor Bush delivered it.

So much for the little Shrub being of such great character
and integrity. Remember when that was a campaign issue?
Now we see how he reacts when there's a little pressure
on him. He's pointing fingers at everyone he can find.
Everyone of his people is doing it; Rice, Tenet, Bush.
Gee Bubya's motto should be "Buck? What buck? I didn't
see any buck and I never want to see it."

Dennis Vogel

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Plus all the people who worked in the program, delivered material
> to it, dismantled and decontaminated the factories, etc etc. Plus
> the people who killed all those people and disposed of their
> bodies.

To have removed every scintilla of evidence of chem and
bio weapons, which you have to believe if you think they
were there, is a monumental feat. I've been saying for a
long time that we should hire these folks and put them to
work on the many contaminated superfund sites we have
in abundance around the US.

Dennis Vogel

"Mike Hide" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:sT_Sa.115031$ye4.84431@sccrnsc01...
> so again to support the allegations what is your source? after all you are
> in effect calling the president a liar .
>
> The British are many times reluctatant to share info with the US,
basically
> for the simple reason who you share info with, namely the certain middle
> east countries...mjh

So, the British are willing to let this wonderful relationship
with the US both Bush and Blair are fond of proclaiming
go completely to hell-in-a-handbasket rather than give some
sort of idea how they know about the U? OK, makes sense
to me. After all, the Brits have still have the French and the
Germans on their, oops!

Dennis Vogel

Oooooh, you got me. I misspelled "Halliburton". Wow.

And, what's a "white house"? Maybe you meant "White House?"

Dennis Vogel

"Mike Hide" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:zi%Sa.115550$Ph3.14802@sccrnsc04...
> Who is Hallinurton ? and what exactly is the problem with museum
artifacts,
> they seem to be all accounted for. Its a shame the artifacts in the white
> house were not accounted for when the Clintons left office ,some they were
> forced to return but where are the rest ???

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> As far as stealing things, they got their graft. A few plates and
> things is small time. Book deals is big time, they are experts in
> channeling money. Hillary has a lot of experince in hog futures or
> something like it. They took the respectibility of the Presidency and
> I can not forgive them for that. GWB is trying to bring it back and
> the liberals are trying hard to drag him into the dirt.

Oh, yes, Mr. Integrity. Help me with something. How
is ducking blame for something that is clearly his responsibility
bringing back respectability? Little Shrub is a perfect
example of "when the going gets tough the tough get going."
It's absolutely shameful to blame a subordinate for
something that is clearly your responsibility. Only a
little, little man would do this.

Dennis Vogel

"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Lawrence A. Ramsey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > As far as the numer of peole need to do this deed of burying stuff,
> > you only need a forklift and driver, truck and driver and backhoe
> > operator and backhoe. I could bury MANY truckloads of stuff with these
> > 3 machines and operators
>
> Aren't there special imaging satellites that can tell when plots of
> earth have been disturbed from their surroundings?

Yes. Colin Powell famously showed such photographs at
the UN to make the case for invading Iraq.

> Seems such images
> would have been poured over - as well as taking into consideration all
> the satellite surveillance the past 10 years of Iraq (ala Cuban Missle
> Crisis) - seems kinda hard to get away with something like that.

Shhh, you'll give away the game. The longer we look, the longer
we can keep up the story that those guys were really, really
good at hiding the stuff. Just like we said they were. Proof!

Dennis Vogel

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> They took the respectibility of the Presidency and
> I can not forgive them for that.
>
I thought that was Andrew Jackson :-).

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Meanwhile, I'd like to pont out to Joe that according to the Washington
> Post, Itallian intelligence has revealed that they gave the Niger
> documents to the Brittish. The documents were purchased from a
> former official at the Niger embassy who had since returned to
> Niger. Evidently the Italians got ripped off as the IAEA easily
> determined they were forgeries. For one thing, the dates and day
> of week on some of the emails do not agree.

There were many other problems with the docs such as one
person's name was someone who had left the Niger government
a decade earlier. Here's a few more:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/07/274380.html

> It is not credible that either Brittish Intelligence or the CIA
> actually thought those documents were authentic.

They showed these docs on the News Hour last night.
One glaringly obvious clue is the handdrawn pen and
ink line drawing of the supposed Niger seal. It is a
joke compared to the real thing. Anyone who thought
this was legit really wanted it to be true.

> Now, since you seem to miss the significance of that, let me
> explain. The President's statement that the Brittish have
> learned that Iraq secretly sought to obtain Uranium from Africa
> is a lie because the administration must have known that the
> information actually obtained by the Brittish was false.

And he said it for a reason. Not just to fill time. He did
it to scare people and make them think it was necessary
to go to war sooner rather than later. People who are
saying "it's only 16 words" don't seem to explain why
he said them if they supposed to be meaningless.

Dennis Vogel

"David Hall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Are you telling me that Democrat presidents haven't used as much CinC
> dress-up and play acting as GWB?

I can't remember anyone who did it with so much, uh, partisanship
as Gee Dubya. Hell, you could practically spot which clips will
be pulled for the re-election ads. And the lame excuse for why
he flew instead of taking a boat was, well, lame! So lame that
the WH retracted it within days.

> As so well pointed out by (I think) William Safire, just because they
> haven't been found yet does not mean they don't exist. We haven't
> found Saddam yet, but are you doubting his existence? We haven't found
> Osama, are we to conclude that he was a figment of some politician's
> imagination? We have captured lots of people who should be able to
> tell us where these two are, but they haven't - so I guess that the
> intelligence that said they were ever born must have been made up?

This is stunning logic. I must add it to my list of Bush-type
logic that is used to justify wars and explain away things
that seem obvious to most people. Thanks for informing us
that neither Saddam nor Osama exist. That should save us
a lot of time and expense. One flaw with that logic; we're
still looking for Saddam and Osama and offering BIG rewards
for them. Can you explain why that is?

> When GWB becomes so good at the lies that he can credibly ask what the
> "meaning of is is" , I imagine they will be.

You mean the fiasco about uranium in the SOTU speech isn't
on the same level? First they said it shouldn't have been
said. Then they said "no biggie; what he said was technically
correct" (implication--*everyone* misheard and drew the
totally wrong conclusion). This president is quickly coming
up to the level of word parsing that Reps jumped over
Clinton for. I think he's got it in him to surpass Clinton.
Stay tuned.

Dennis Vogel

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
>
> Well uday and quesay (pardon me if I misspelled their names) are no
> longer there to be loyal to. I am sure there are some that will miss
> them but I don't expect a big crowd at the funeral.

Well, we'll never know, will we. Seems they are being
removed from Iraq. Gummint isn't saying where they
are being taken or why they are being removed. Anyone
want to offer reasons for this odd behavior? And, while
we're on the subject, last I heard there were only 4 people
in the building where they were. Could we have waited
them out or gassed them out? We claimed they knew a
lot about the now famous WMDs and other Iraq secrets.
Don't you think we could have gotten more out of these
guys alive?

Dennis Vogel

In article <%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> No we are not all familiar with OSP ,perhaps in yor infinite wisdom you
> could enlighten us and specifically tell us why they should lie to the
> nation ......mjh
>
Mike, I have to say I envy someone who trusts a politician to tell the
truth. However enviable, it's also a sign that you live in another world
:-).

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article <bK0Ua.138083$N7.19193@sccrnsc03>, [email protected]
says...
> The likes of you probably dont even trust your wives or kids ,exactly where
> do you draw the line. Perhaps you and the pliticos are one of the same
>
I need to keep reminding myself it does me no good to use logic against a
true believer. I give up.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

"JackD" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> > Here's another theory, which I would just *love* to be true. What if we
> > have hard evidence of WMD, but the Bush administration is holding it
back
> > until enough Democratic presidential hopefuls have made it the keystone
of
> > their campaign. Then in October, the information is released and the
> > Democrats all just go away.
> >
> > todd
>
> Why would you *love* it if the Bush administration is concealing the facts
> in order to manipulate public opinion for their own personal gain?
> Do you like to be manipulated?
> Do you like being lied to?
> I certainly do not.

Let's see... "Monicagate" cost the taxpayers $35 million and
"Whitewatergate" cost $70 million. I think it's only fair that the "WMDgate"
prosecution is given $105 million for their task. :-)
-- Ernie

"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> You know, they haven't found Saddam yet. Maybe he never existed either.

If he didn't exist it would be necessary to create him.

>
> Since we're already OT, my big concern is that that no WMD have been found,
> but not because I think they didn't have them. I mean, c'mon, _nobody_
> close to the process, including Hans Blix, the French, the UN, etc. thinks
> that they didn't have them. What worries me is, where the hell are they?
> They had 18 months to get ready thanks to our appeasement of the UN.
>

There is a school of thought that while Iraq did produce chemical
weapons prior to 1991, they did not have the technology to produce
them with the high purity required for long-term storage. Defunct
chemical weapons are worse than none at all so they may actually
have been telling the truth when they claimed they had destroyed
them. The UN inspectors found evidence in the form of residue at
the putative destruction site but were unable to estimate the
quantity destroyed.

Given that Iraq had no air force and their ground forces were all
but destroyed in 1991 Saddam Hussein _may_ have wanted to maintain
the suspicion that he still had chemical weapons as a deterrant.
Recall the reports that chemical weapons had been moved up to
field positions and field commanders authorized to use them
at their own discretion. No such weapons were found at any of
the _numerous_ hastily abandoned field positions. Those reports
seem to have been a bluff, perhaps to make us think twice befor
bombing ammunition dumps. If he was bluffing about WMD altogether,
his plan backfired rather badly but so did most of his other
military strategies.

It was always clear that he didn't have nuclear weapons. Even
Bush's speaches made it clear we knew he didn't. Iraq certainly
was only a few month away from making a working atomic bomb IF
only they had sufficient fissile material. So am I. JOAT can
probably find plans for one on the web. If we REALLY thought
Iraq had partial nuclear weapons or even fissile material
then capturing the nuclear facilites would have been a priority.
Instead, those sites were abandoned for several days, weeks even,
before we went there.

--

FF

Lawrence A. Ramsey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> It's a BIG country and they have the patience of Job. Lots and lots of
> room to bury stuff and dig it up years later. Kill the laborers who
> bury it and only one or two know where it is.

The number of people required to conceal the hundreds of tons of
aleged material is not trivial. If the claims were substantively
true something would have been found by now.

Even more telling is the observation that allied forces gave
such a low priority to securing the sites where those WMDs
were supposedly located. One nuclear site was not visited
until weeks after Bush declared the 'first phase' over. Contrast
that with the alacrity with which the oil fields were occupied.

So far, any claim IRT WMDs that has been investigated has been
falsified. I.E. the 'truck mounted bioweapons labs' have been
identified as trucks sold by the Brittish to Iraq for generating
Hydrogen in the field for weather balloons. The claim that Iraq
was negotiating to purchase Uranium from Niger was an outright
lie. How many liars do you know who tell only one lie?

--

FF

"Mike Hide" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<wJASa.93276$OZ2.19910@rwcrnsc54>...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Lawrence A. Ramsey <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > It's a BIG country and they have the patience of Job. Lots and lots of
> > > room to bury stuff and dig it up years later. Kill the laborers who
> > > bury it and only one or two know where it is.
> > The number of people required to conceal the hundreds of tons of
> > alleged material is not trivial. If the claims were substantively
> > true something would have been found by now.
>
> What twenty guys with bulldozers and backhoes.

Plus all the people who worked in the program, delivered material
to it, dismantled and decontaminated the factories, etc etc. Plus
the people who killed all those people and disposed of their
bodies.

Its like an episode of 'The Invaders'.

>
>
>
> > So far, any claim IRT WMDs that has been investigated has been
> > falsified. I.E. the 'truck mounted bioweapons labs' have been
> > identified as trucks sold by the Brittish to Iraq for generating
> > Hydrogen in the field for weather balloons. The claim that Iraq
> > was negotiating to purchase Uranium from Niger was an outright
> > lie. How many liars do you know who tell only one lie?
>
> Perhaps with your souces Fred you should be appearing on capitol hill and
> testifying, obviously you know more than the CIA and MI6 people. The problem
> is the British will not share sources the US, probably because they do not
> like who the US shares info with. mjh

As you may know, it was the Brittish who supplied us with the
forged Niger communcations. It was also the Brittish who, circa
2002, released a white paper on the subject of current Iraqi
arms programs that included material plagiarized from a graduate
student's masters thesis from 1991. The sale of those trucks
to Iraq was _not_ secret--no sources would have been compromised
by properly identifying them.

Fool me once, shame on them. Fool me twice, shame on me.

--

FF

"Gulf of Tonkin."

"Mike Hide" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Perhaps you would like to share your souces for these outrageous allegations
> ...mjh
>
> --
> mike hide
> http://members.tripod.com/mikehide2
>
>
> "Joe28" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > The claim that Iraq was negotiating to purchase Uranium from Niger was
> an
> > outright lie.
> >
> > Or an unsubstantiated truth. There is a difference.
> >

I'll leave it to Joe to answer the question Mike asked him above.

Meanwhile, I'd like to pont out to Joe that according to the Washington
Post, Itallian intelligence has revealed that they gave the Niger
documents to the Brittish. The documents were purchased from a
former official at the Niger embassy who had since returned to
Niger. Evidently the Italians got ripped off as the IAEA easily
determined they were forgeries. For one thing, the dates and day
of week on some of the emails do not agree.

It is simply not credible to suppose that the Brittish or the CIA
thought they were authentic.

As you may recall, Tennet accepted blame for the reference in the
SOTU speech. He said he should have urged the administration to
pull the reference from the speech but instead said nothing.

OTOH in his Senate testimony, under oath, he said that he never
saw the speech befor Bush delivered it.

Bush says that he retains full confidence in Tennet. No Wonder.

Powell and Rice continued to refer to the Niger correspondence up
until a few days befor the IAEA declared it to be forged.

It is unsubstantiated in large measure because the proffered
proof has been shown to be false.

I'll prove that Iraq has no WMD just as soon as you prove the
_Plan Nine from Outer Space_ never really happened.

--

FF

"Joe28" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Mike Hide" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > Perhaps you would like to share your souces for these outrageous
> allegations
> > > ...mjh
> > >
> > > --
> > > mike hide
> > > http://members.tripod.com/mikehide2
> > >
> > >
> > > "Joe28" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > *I* wrote:
> > > > > The claim that Iraq was negotiating to purchase Uranium from Niger
> was
> an
> > > > outright lie.
> > > >
> > > > Or an unsubstantiated truth. There is a difference.
> > > >
> >
> > I'll leave it to Joe to answer the question Mike asked him above.
> >
> > Meanwhile, I'd like to pont out to Joe that according to the Washington
> > Post, Itallian intelligence has revealed that they gave the Niger
> > documents to the Brittish. The documents were purchased from a
> > former official at the Niger embassy who had since returned to
> > Niger. Evidently the Italians got ripped off as the IAEA easily
> > determined they were forgeries. For one thing, the dates and day
> > of week on some of the emails do not agree.
> >
> > It is simply not credible to suppose that the Brittish or the CIA
> > thought they were authentic.
>
> I agree. But the claim above was that it is a lie that Iraq negotiated to
> purchase uranium from Niger. That hasn't been disproved. The forgeries
> suggest that somebody wanted to prove it and couldn't. That doesn't make it
> false. It could mean that Sadaam successfully covered his tracks. It's
> quite possible to "know" something and not be able to prove it. Blair
> insists it's true despite the forgeries. But he doesn't offer proof.
> Joe28

That's what I call the Plan Nine Argument. Can I prove that Iraq did not
engage in such negotiations? Of course not. I cannot prove that Iraq did
not negotiate to buy corbomite weapons from the Romulan Empire either.

As it stands now, Blair and Bush would have better credibility if
they had offered no evidence at all.

--

FF

"Mike Hide" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<sT_Sa.115031$ye4.84431@sccrnsc01>...
> so again to support the allegations what is your source? after all you are
> in effect calling the president a liar .

If you watch him on television you can tell when he's lying.

His lips move.

As I wrote before:

Meanwhile, I'd like to pont out to Joe that according to the Washington
Post, Itallian intelligence has revealed that they gave the Niger
documents to the Brittish. The documents were purchased from a
former official at the Niger embassy who had since returned to
Niger. Evidently the Italians got ripped off as the IAEA easily
determined they were forgeries. For one thing, the dates and day
of week on some of the emails do not agree.

It is not credible that either Brittish Intelligence or the CIA
actually thought those documents were authentic.

Now, since you seem to miss the significance of that, let me
explain. The President's statement that the Brittish have
learned that Iraq secretly sought to obtain Uranium from Africa
is a lie because the administration must have known that the
information actually obtained by the Brittish was false.

> The British are many times reluctatant to share info with the US, basically
> for the simple reason who you share info with, namely the certain middle
> east countries...mjh
>

Can you provide evidence to support that statement?

--

FF

"Mike Hide" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<Vd%Sa.117362$H17.35937@sccrnsc02>...
>
> >
> > To have removed every scintilla of evidence of chem and
> > bio weapons, which you have to believe if you think they
> > were there, is a monumental feat. I've been saying for a
> > long time that we should hire these folks and put them to
> > work on the many contaminated superfund sites we have
> > in abundance around the US.
>
>
> Yep you Fred and the rest would make a great team to solve the whole
> superfund ,WMD thing ,as you all know more than God ........mjh
> >

Do you suppose it would be OK with God if you would share what
she has told you with us?

Seriously Mike, I think I know how you feel. I trusted Richard
Nixon.

--

FF

"Is argument from authority still a fallacy when the authority is divine?"

Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <zi%Sa.115550$Ph3.14802@sccrnsc04>,
> "Mike Hide" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Its a shame the artifacts in the white
> > house were not accounted for when the Clintons left office ,some they were
> > forced to return but where are the rest ???
>
> IIRC, the final report on this issue stated that few items were
> unaccounted for within the White House collection. The Clintons stated
> that they believed the few items they did remove were personal gifts and
> not gifts to the White House collections - they returned all disputed
> items promptly.

He got to keep Checkers, er Buddy.

--

FF

"Mike Hide" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<%7%Sa.115489$Ph3.14077@sccrnsc04>...
>
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Its like an episode of 'The Invaders'.
>
> how about all the pirate treasures, same deal, same thing especially if the
> tyrant is still on the loose with his henchmen

Two less after yesterday, it would seem.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > So far, any claim IRT WMDs that has been investigated has been
> > > > falsified. I.E. the 'truck mounted bioweapons labs' have been
> > > > identified as trucks sold by the Brittish to Iraq for generating
> > > > Hydrogen in the field for weather balloons. The claim that Iraq
> > > > was negotiating to purchase Uranium from Niger was an outright
> > > > lie.
> again where is YOUR proof, please dont tell me the washington post, thats
> about as reliable as the NY Times

I'll continue to tell you the truth without regard to whether you
want to hear it. Surely you can use google to find information
online and you can go to the library and read about the issues at
hand in whatever newpapers you prefer.

>
>
> How many liars do you know who tell only one lie?
> > >
> > > Perhaps with your souces Fred you should be appearing on capitol hill
> and
> > > testifying, obviously you know more than the CIA and MI6 people. The
> problem
> > > is the British will not share sources the US, probably because they do
> not
> > > like who the US shares info with. mjh
> >
> > As you may know, it was the Brittish who supplied us with the
> > forged Niger communcations.
>
> Are you saying the British [just one T] supplied the "forged" Niger
> documentation .or other documentation , the source they will not divulge
> concerning Niger ?

Yes, and no, respectively.

>
>
> It was also the Brittish who, circa
> > 2002, released a white paper on the subject of current Iraqi
> > arms programs that included material plagiarized from a graduate
> > student's masters thesis from 1991.
>
> Lets see now how many graduate students do the CIA or MI6 employ, probably
> hundreds if not thousands. so what exactly is your point ? . So if you dont
> trust graduate research ,whos do you trust, anyones ?

It seems you are unclear on the concept of plagiarism. If the
sections of the report in question were written by a graduate
student employed by MI6 the material would not have been plagiarized.
In fact, Marashi was completely unaware that his paper served as
the core of the January 2003 'dossier.'

I was mistaken as to the date. Marashi's paper was published in
Septemer, 2002. Much of _his source material_ dates from 1991
or befor.

See:

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2003/msg00457.html

also:

http://www.computerbytesman.com/privacy/blair.htm

But I still encourage you to research this yourself.

--

FF

[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> kenR <[email protected]> wrote:
>

Clearly Saddam Hussein chose to not blow the wells. We got there fast,
but no one could there fast enough to stop sabotuers already on site.

>
> >
> >I'm just glad my relatives managed to get back stateside in one piece.
>
> I am happy for anyone that gets out with their butts intact. Sadam
> killed a lot of people for objecting to his rule. Would you like to
> live under his idea of free speach? Doubt it.

If he ran for President I'd vote against him just like I voted
against Bush.

>
>
> We should try to hold an poll. Might have to use biometrics to
> control overvote but the answer to the following three questions ought
> to make it clear if they want us.
>
> 1. Do you want Sadam back?
> 2. Do you want us to leave?
> 3. Do you want us to try as best we can?
>
>
> I bet more want us to keep trying while they bitch about our
> performance then just pull up and leave.
>

We now have a great opportunity. My worse fears, that Saddam
Hussein would make a stand at Baghdad and force either a long
seige or a brutal assault were not realized. This guerilla
war can fail because there are too few Iraqis who really want
Saddam Hussein back in power.

The key is the orderly transfer of power back to Iraqis loyal
to Iraq, instead of loyal to Hussein, fast as can be done.

--

FF

"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Whatever they may have known, they likely wouldn't tell without using
> means that you'd be bitching about if we did it.
>

And rightly so. If we adopt the methods of our enemies we become
no better than our enemies.

My guess is that they would not allow themselves to be taken alive,
nor will Saddam Hussein.

--

FF

"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:20:01 +0000, Renata wrote:
>
> > No "infinte" wisdom here, nor did I (mean to) imply it. Gave the briefest
> > intro. below; I'm sure a web search will yield much more.
> >
> > You don't think the government lies to you? Ever?!?! The short answer for
> > this particular instance seems to be that they really, really, really
> > wanted a war in Iraq.

According to Powell the administration had planned to invade Iraq
from their first day in office. My guess is we would have invaded
a year earlier were it not for the attack on September 11, 2001 and
the resulting Afganistan Campaign.

>
> They really, really, really wanted Iraq to quit ignoring the 19 UN
> resolutions so they wouldn't have to do the "or else" stated in those
> resolutions. A web search will chronicle those events for you.
>

A websearch shows that the UN folks in charge of determining whether
or not Iraq was cooperating found that Iraq was cooperating and was
not ignoring those resolutions.

In part, see:
http://www.fourthfreedom.org/php/plain.php?hinc=traprock.full.hinc#nexistqaim

Lest you misunderstand me, I was quite disgusted by our unconditional
diplomatic and military support of Saddam Hussein during the Reagan
years. I believe that his reign in Iraq was largely our fault. I also
agree that the manner in which he ruled Iraq was itself sufficient
moral justification to invade. My fear was that the war and its
aftermath would cost many more lives than it did. Those fears were
not realized, perhaps largely becasue Iraq did not have WMDs.

I believe the world and especially Iraq will be a better place in the
future as a result of the invasion, and deposing Saddam Hussein.

I also believe that the campaign of lies and deception directed at
the United Nations, the US Congress, the British Parliment, and us,
was wrong.

--

FF

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
>
> >A websearch shows that the UN folks in charge of determining whether
> >or not Iraq was cooperating found that Iraq was cooperating and was
> >not ignoring those resolutions.
>
> While it's true that a highly selective web search, in which one ignores
> data that do not fit with one's own a priori biases, might support such a
> statement, it's also true that this statement is pretty near to being the the
> _exact_opposite_ of what they actually said. The UNMOVIC reports actually
> document at best partial compliance by the government of Iraq with the UN
> resolutions, and describe a pattern of repeated failure to provide information
> and evidence which they were required to provide.
>
> Examples:
>
> Regarding Iraq's weapons declaration of 7 Dec 2002, UNMOVIC said, in part,
> "UNMOVIC experts have found little new significant information in the part of
> the declaration relating to proscribed weapons programmes ... largely the same
> content as Iraq's 1996 missile declaration ..." This is diplomat-speak for
> "they aren't telling us what they're supposed to tell us."

Actually, it means they do not confirm our suspicions. Students of
logic will note that such a failure is equally consistant with those
supicions being wrong, as it is with concealment.

>
> "As there is little new substantive information in the weapons part of Iraq's
> declaration, or new supporting documentation, the issues that were identified
> as unresolved in [previous reports] remain. In most cases, the issues remain
> unresolved because there is a lack of supporting evidence." This is
> diplomat-speak for "they didn't tell us what they were supposed to have told
> us the last time, and what they have told us, they can't prove."

Students of logic will understand that if there is no evidence if there
is nothing there.

>
> The text of the actual UNMOVIC report of 23 Feb 2003 is available at
> http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2003-232.pdf
>
> Other UNMOVIC reports are available at
> http://www.unmovic.org

What has been discovered in Iraq, since the war, that was not in the
2002 declaration by Iraq?

There is still no evidence that the 2002 declaration was substantively
decpetive.

--

FF

bonomi@c-ns. (Robert Bonomi) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:<[email protected]>...
> >> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:20:01 +0000, Renata wrote:
> >>
> >> > No "infinte" wisdom here, nor did I (mean to) imply it. Gave the briefest
> >> > intro. below; I'm sure a web search will yield much more.
> >> >
> >> > You don't think the government lies to you? Ever?!?! The short answer for
> >> > this particular instance seems to be that they really, really, really
> >> > wanted a war in Iraq.
> >
> >According to Powell the administration had planned to invade Iraq
> >from their first day in office. My guess is we would have invaded
> >a year earlier were it not for the attack on September 11, 2001 and
> >the resulting Afganistan Campaign.
> >
> >>
> >> They really, really, really wanted Iraq to quit ignoring the 19 UN
> >> resolutions so they wouldn't have to do the "or else" stated in those
> >> resolutions. A web search will chronicle those events for you.
> >>
> >
> >A websearch shows that the UN folks in charge of determining whether
> >or not Iraq was cooperating found that Iraq was cooperating and was
> >not ignoring those resolutions.
>
> Of course, subsequent *FACTS* (not opinions) showed otherwise.
>
> Fully *half* the SCUDS actually launched in the recent campaign were of
> a class that they swore they'd destroyed _all_ of some eight years previously.

I'm interseted in your source as I have not seen those missles identifed
previously. IN particular, have those missles been identified by
UN persons?

--

FF

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >[email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
> >
> >>And if Carl Rowan had been a poor woman who shot someone in self-defense
> >>he'd have gone to prison.
> >
> >Is he not the newsy or columnist that shot some one in DC for comming
> >in his yard. Another anti gunner?
> >
> Correct (or nearly so) on both counts. IIRC, he shot someone trying to break
> into his house. But definitely Carl Rowan is very anti-gun, at least anti
> anyone *else* having a gun. He hasn't been quite so vocal about it since that
> happened, for some reason.

As I understand it Mr Rowan obtained a .22 caliber handgun from his son,
an FBI agent, after he had received some sort of threat. Some time
later, some kids climbed over his fence and were swimming in his pool
in the middle of the night. He went out gun in had, to run them off
and when one of the kids moved toward him he fired, wounding the kid
in the wrist. Tresspass, yes, no attempted break-in. Rowan was
not charged. Dunno what happened to the gun.

--

FF

[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
>
> >[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >>
> >> Just to toss some more fire on this thread since those that object
> >> should have used their software to ignore it.
> >
> >If I had objected, which of my software should I have used?
>
> Well, I use agent (paid version) you can tell it to ignore a thread
> and it quits downloading headers for that thread.
> >

And I, on the other hand, do not use agent. Imagine that.

--

FF

Phisherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I just hope we find them before the next Presidential campaign,
> otherwise I can't believe anything (else) he says. Hmm, I wonder if
> Hilary is a liar?

Remember the cattle futures?

--

FF

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Renata) wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:43:21 GMT, Mike Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, bonomi@c-ns.
>>says...
>--snip--
>>> Nobody in their right mind would trust a 'cheater' to _only_ cheat in one
>>> limited area.
>>
>>Which is exactly why finding one thoroughly bogus claim in the State of
>>the Union address is a big deal.
>>
>Oh no, no, no. I do believe there were a few more than just one
>thoroghly bogus claim in that ole SOTUA. For example,
>
>"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that
>Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program,
>had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different
>methods of enriching uranium for a bomb."
>
True.

>"Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase
>high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

True. Weren't you paying attention to Colin Powell's speeches at the UN? It
just stuns me that people assume that Saddam Hussein was telling the truth,
and Colin Powell was lying.

>
>"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and
>statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids
>and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."

True. Are you unaware of Saddam's long-established payments to the families of
Palestinian suicide bombers? Payola for acts of terrorism = "aiding
terrorists".

>and so on...

What was your point here, exactly? If you wanted to demonstrate false
statements by the President, you picked some pretty poor examples.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW

Brings back memories of a war started and "escalated" by Democrats.

Sensors and photos indicated the NVA _must_ have had a bulldozer along one
piece of the trail. Acoustic sensors monitored the noise, photos confirmed
the repairs. But where _was_ the damn thing?

IR sensor flights in early morning found a strange hot spot. Seems they
would bury the 'dozer each morning, then dig it up at night.

One cell of B52s made a lot of gravel for that stretch of road, though the
'dozer to spread it seemed to have perished in the attack.

"Mike Hide" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:wJASa.93276$OZ2.19910@rwcrnsc54...

> What twenty guys with bulldozers and backhoes.
>
>

Gen George Patton once stated the "I would rather have a German
division in front of me than a French division behind me." I figure
he was "on the scene" and was qualified to make an accurate appraisal
of the situation. Haven't seen anything yet to make me change my mind.
What about Dien ben Phu, Panama Canal ? Bailed them out of that. And
WWI & WW II. They forget easily. BUT, soon they will be answering to a
Moslem ruler and that should prove interesting.

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 10:38:00 -0400, Todd Stock <[email protected]>
wrote:

>But their weapons show up in the oddest places...
>
>Galileo - the Euro's version of GPS - will allow France to get around one of
>the restrictions imposed under NATO and US GPS technology export rules - the
>ability to sell precision guided munitions (think down-tech versions of
>JDAM, JSOW, etc.) to nations outside NATO. Now I recognize that the French
>would never sell high technology weapons to some rogue nation
>(Urpp-roland...excuse me), but with the wine boycott, you never can tell
>what a group of cash strapped socialists might consider.
>
>PC wrote:
>
>> But France couldn't be a military threat to anyone. They've
>> demonstrated that time and again.
>>
>> Phil

"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Go to Google.
>
> Use the search terms "weapons of mass destruction" (without the
> quotes).
>
> Click the I'm Feeling Lucky button.
>
> Enjoy.
>
>
>
> Regards, Tom
> Thomas J. Watson - Cabinetmaker
> Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
> http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
> Remove CLUETOKEN to reply to email.

Hey, Tom, you're about a week late on this one.

You know, they haven't found Saddam yet. Maybe he never existed either.

Since we're already OT, my big concern is that that no WMD have been found,
but not because I think they didn't have them. I mean, c'mon, _nobody_
close to the process, including Hans Blix, the French, the UN, etc. thinks
that they didn't have them. What worries me is, where the hell are they?
They had 18 months to get ready thanks to our appeasement of the UN.

todd

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:33:38 -0500, Lawrence A. Ramsey
<[email protected]> wrote:

> He needed to be eliminated one way or the other.

If only that was known to have happened, I'd feel a tad better about
the whole sad and sorry mess. Not that what I feel matters per se.


Take Care,
Gnube
{too thick for linux}

Funny thing about France. They just adopted a law that legalizes the
Moslem party. I think I read somewhere that France is or almost is
predominatly Moslem-not Catholic. So, the Moslem world now has another
country-France. Scary, huh?

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:26:31 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, PC <[email protected]> wrote:
>>But France couldn't be a military threat to anyone. They've
>>demonstrated that time and again.
>>
>Yeah, but they do have weapons of mass destruction. I say we take them out
>now, before they can become any more of a threat to world stability than they
>already are.

>
> Hm? Do you have a cite for this, by chance? I can't recall any confirmed
> launches of SCUDs during the recent conflict. There were several I do
> recall as having been initially reported as SCUDs but which were later
> corrected to Al Samouds.

> > Nobody in their right mind would trust a 'cheater' to _only_ cheat in
one
> > limited area.
>
> Which is exactly why finding one thoroughly bogus claim in the State of
> the Union address is a big deal.
>
So does it matter What kind of missiles were lauched at the Kuwait
headquarters other Kuwaiti targets , the fact of the matter is that they
could launch missiles within 45 minutes of going to war was true . The fact
we had no idea of the existance of the Al Samoud missile let alone its
advanced performance was another surprise ...mjh

Unless you like an explosion of damn pop-ups
don't hit the "Regime change" button.

Art

"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Go to Google.
>
> Use the search terms "weapons of mass destruction" (without the
> quotes).
>
> Click the I'm Feeling Lucky button.
>
> Enjoy.
>
>
>
> Regards, Tom
> Thomas J. Watson - Cabinetmaker
> Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
> http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
> Remove CLUETOKEN to reply to email.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:

> GWB is trying to bring it back and
> the liberals are trying hard to drag him into the dirt.

Let me ask... If these actions of the past 3 years were committed by a
Democrat president, would you be as equally supportive? Would
Republicans have toned down the rhetoric regarding national security pre
& post 9/11; would the aircraft landing off California not have been
criticized; would the "who knew what and when" of the State of the Union
comment have passed unchallenged; no questioning of the VP's closed door
meetings with industry leaders with regard to energy policy? Do you not
believe that if WMD had not been found by now there would be quite the
Republican outcry for misleading America and the world - sending our
troops into harms way without solid proof?

My suspicion is that the Ken Starr-like investigations would have been
revived.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (David Hall) wrote:

> Are you telling me that Democrat presidents haven't used as much CinC
> dress-up and play acting as GWB?

Oh my heavens, no. The Dems do everything the Reps do and vice-versa. My
objective was to point out that those so staunchly supporting our
current president prolly wouldn't be so supportive if the opposing party
was doing the deeds and giving the speeches. Just try to keep an
objectivite mind.

The deal on the Cheney energy meetings is that the GAO formally
requested the information and the WH blew them off. As a west coaster
whos home electric bill made one spectacular jump of 33% for residential
and 50% for business in the fall of '01 (or was it '02?), I'm quite
interested in what was said.

As to the Starr investigations - doubtful they'd ever be revived as long
as the majority party of Congress is the same as that of the presidency.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>

In article <zi%Sa.115550$Ph3.14802@sccrnsc04>,
"Mike Hide" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Its a shame the artifacts in the white
> house were not accounted for when the Clintons left office ,some they were
> forced to return but where are the rest ???

IIRC, the final report on this issue stated that few items were
unaccounted for within the White House collection. The Clintons stated
that they believed the few items they did remove were personal gifts and
not gifts to the White House collections - they returned all disputed
items promptly.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>

so again to support the allegations what is your source? after all you are
in effect calling the president a liar .

The British are many times reluctatant to share info with the US, basically
for the simple reason who you share info with, namely the certain middle
east countries...mjh

--
mike hide
http://members.tripod.com/mikehide2


"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mike Hide" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > Perhaps you would like to share your souces for these outrageous
allegations
> > ...mjh
> >
> > --
> > mike hide
> > http://members.tripod.com/mikehide2
> >
> >
> > "Joe28" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > > The claim that Iraq was negotiating to purchase Uranium from Niger
was
> > an
> > > outright lie.
> > >
> > > Or an unsubstantiated truth. There is a difference.
> > >
>
> I'll leave it to Joe to answer the question Mike asked him above.
>
> Meanwhile, I'd like to pont out to Joe that according to the Washington
> Post, Itallian intelligence has revealed that they gave the Niger
> documents to the Brittish. The documents were purchased from a
> former official at the Niger embassy who had since returned to
> Niger. Evidently the Italians got ripped off as the IAEA easily
> determined they were forgeries. For one thing, the dates and day
> of week on some of the emails do not agree.
>
> It is simply not credible to suppose that the Brittish or the CIA
> thought they were authentic.
>
> As you may recall, Tennet accepted blame for the reference in the
> SOTU speech. He said he should have urged the administration to
> pull the reference from the speech but instead said nothing.
>
> OTOH in his Senate testimony, under oath, he said that he never
> saw the speech befor Bush delivered it.
>
> Bush says that he retains full confidence in Tennet. No Wonder.
>
> Powell and Rice continued to refer to the Niger correspondence up
> until a few days befor the IAEA declared it to be forged.
>
> It is unsubstantiated in large measure because the proffered
> proof has been shown to be false.
>
> I'll prove that Iraq has no WMD just as soon as you prove the
> _Plan Nine from Outer Space_ never really happened.
>
> --
>
> FF

Fed- you just hit on the biggest asopect of this thing. The total and
complete untrustworthiness of these people. Sodom (sp?) may not have
known exactly what he had but the man had no scruples, morals, ethics
or love for anyone except himself. When we went to war, I aid I hoped
he wasn't dead so he could see his empire crumble aroound him Then I
realized that he is so paranoid and sick that it really didn't matter
to him. He was so totally afraid he couldn't enjoy what he had anyway.
As far as the numer of peole need to do this deed of burying stuff,
you only need a forklift and driver, truck and driver and backhoe
operator and backhoe. I could bury MANY truckloads of stuff with these
3 machines and operators. In the MiddleEast, people see only what they
want to see. He may not have have instantly useable WMD, but no one
doubts that he would use them if he needed to. He needed to be
eliminated one way or the other. It was the threat and not just what
he had; we, the USA, need to be able to protect ourselves. We MUST!


On 19 Jul 2003 10:58:49 -0700, [email protected] (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

>Lawrence A. Ramsey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> It's a BIG country and they have the patience of Job. Lots and lots of
>> room to bury stuff and dig it up years later. Kill the laborers who
>> bury it and only one or two know where it is.
>
>The number of people required to conceal the hundreds of tons of
>aleged material is not trivial. If the claims were substantively
>true something would have been found by now.
>
>Even more telling is the observation that allied forces gave
>such a low priority to securing the sites where those WMDs
>were supposedly located. One nuclear site was not visited
>until weeks after Bush declared the 'first phase' over. Contrast
>that with the alacrity with which the oil fields were occupied.
>
>So far, any claim IRT WMDs that has been investigated has been
>falsified. I.E. the 'truck mounted bioweapons labs' have been
>identified as trucks sold by the Brittish to Iraq for generating
>Hydrogen in the field for weather balloons. The claim that Iraq
>was negotiating to purchase Uranium from Niger was an outright
>lie. How many liars do you know who tell only one lie?

In article <[email protected]>,
Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>bonomi@c-ns. (Robert Bonomi) wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Mike Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >In article <[email protected]>, bonomi@c-ns.
>> >says...
>> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:<[email protected]>...
>> >> >> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:20:01 +0000, Renata wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > No "infinte" wisdom here, nor did I (mean to) imply it. Gave the
>> briefest
>> >> >> > intro. below; I'm sure a web search will yield much more.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You don't think the government lies to you? Ever?!?! The short
>> answer for
>> >> >> > this particular instance seems to be that they really, really, really
>> >> >> > wanted a war in Iraq.
>> >> >
>> >> >According to Powell the administration had planned to invade Iraq
>> >> >from their first day in office. My guess is we would have invaded
>> >> >a year earlier were it not for the attack on September 11, 2001 and
>> >> >the resulting Afganistan Campaign.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> They really, really, really wanted Iraq to quit ignoring the 19 UN
>> >> >> resolutions so they wouldn't have to do the "or else" stated in those
>> >> >> resolutions. A web search will chronicle those events for you.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >A websearch shows that the UN folks in charge of determining whether
>> >> >or not Iraq was cooperating found that Iraq was cooperating and was
>> >> >not ignoring those resolutions.
>> >>
>> >> Of course, subsequent *FACTS* (not opinions) showed otherwise.
>> >>
>> >> Fully *half* the SCUDS actually launched in the recent campaign were of
>> >> a class that they swore they'd destroyed _all_ of some eight years
>previously.
>> >
>> >Hm? Do you have a cite for this, by chance? I can't recall any confirmed
>> >launches of SCUDs during the recent conflict. There were several I do
>> >recall as having been initially reported as SCUDs but which were later
>> >corrected to Al Samouds.
>>
>> To be precise, Iraq was prohibited from having _any_ missles (without regard
>> to 'name' / type) with a range greater than a specified value.
>>
>> Iraq certified, _repeatedly_, that they had destroyed all such missles.
>>
>> Of the missles Iraq launched, fully half of them flew _more_ than the
>> 'legal' maximum distance. The vast majority of those 'non-existant'
>> missles flew more than 150% of the permissable range.
>
>Can you site a source for this? I never did see that a determination of
>the locations of the launchers had been made. I'm willing to believe it,
>I just need evidence.

Radar tracks fairly closely identify the launch point -- how precisely depends
on the trajectory, but flight distance before radar pick-up is a _small_
number of kilometers. And any flight distance _before_ the start of the track
just adds to the distance flown.

These are _NOT_ low-flying terrain-following 'cruse missles'.

Contemporaneous 'major source' news reporting had graphics on the tv, showing
tracks that ran for far more than the allowed distances. It's safe to assume
that they _not_ launched 'downstream' from the point of the start of the radar
track. <grin>

>> >> Nobody in their right mind would trust a 'cheater' to _only_ cheat in one
>> >> limited area.
>> >
>> >Which is exactly why finding one thoroughly bogus claim in the State of
>> >the Union address is a big deal.
>>
>> You know, _everything_ I've seen on the subject indicates that "that claim"
>> may have been based, *IN*PART*, on information that was defective, unreliable,
>> or 'manufactured' by a 3rd party.
>
>'Forged' is the word used by the IAEA. I trust their claims.

That description was applied to _some_ documents, yes.

And, obviously, is limited to _what_they_saw_.


>> I havn't seen *any* _knowledgable_ source that has stated that said
>'defective'
>> information was the *ONLY* basis for "that claim".
>
>I have seen no other basis.

Which is utterly meaningless, as far as 'proof' of *anything* is concerned.

Unless you wish to assert "because I havn't seen it, it _cannot_ exist."

as I said ...
>> I'm willing to admit I "know what I _don't_ know", on the matter -- and *not*
>> jump to conclusions based on incomplete, and/or partial information.

>> I've also got enough experience with _large_ bureaucracies, particularly
>> government ones, to know how an 'innocent' oversight/goof by a low-level
>> staffer can replicate itself up to the highest levels, with neither 'malice',
>> nor 'deliberate intent' to deceive, on *anyone's* part.
>
>Consider the nature of the rhetoric itself. All sorts of folks have
>apologized for not taking the statement out of the SOTU speech.
>*No one* has yet come forward to admit putting it in to the speech
>in the first place.

Not the least bit surprising, in the bureaucracy.

>I say it is just the tip of the iceberg as virtually none of the
>other *claims* made by Bush and Blair have been proven. It is
>time to move on and examine those other claims.

By the same token, none of the claims have been _disproven_, either.
(The obvious: one cannot prove a negative, applies)

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mike Hide" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<sT_Sa.115031$ye4.84431@sccrnsc01>...
> > so again to support the allegations what is your source? after all you
are
> > in effect calling the president a liar .
>
> If you watch him on television you can tell when he's lying.
>
> His lips move.
>
> As I wrote before:
>
> Meanwhile, I'd like to pont out to Joe that according to the Washington
> Post, Itallian intelligence has revealed that they gave the Niger
> documents to the Brittish. The documents were purchased from a
> former official at the Niger embassy who had since returned to
> Niger. Evidently the Italians got ripped off as the IAEA easily
> determined they were forgeries. For one thing, the dates and day
> of week on some of the emails do not agree.
>
> It is not credible that either Brittish Intelligence or the CIA
> actually thought those documents were authentic.
>
> Now, since you seem to miss the significance of that, let me
> explain. The President's statement that the Brittish have
> learned that Iraq secretly sought to obtain Uranium from Africa
> is a lie because the administration must have known that the
> information actually obtained by the Brittish was false.
>
> > The British are many times reluctatant to share info with the US,
basically
> > for the simple reason who you share info with, namely the certain middle
> > east countries...mjh
> >
>
> Can you provide evidence to support that statement?

So what are you wasting your time on this news group for obviously you
should be working for the CIA .From your correspondance you are admirably
much more qualified to access intelligence data than those currently working
there .

The US shares most intelligence with Israel which many times the UK
government does not see eye to eye with .

The US /Israel relationship is very close to whit Israel is the only country
that sits at the appropriation table when the US is doleing out foreign aid
to ensure they get their "fair share ." with in the last few months for
instance the US generously gave 3 billion to Iraq to rebuild war damage ,at
the same time they gave Israel 10 billion in loans and loan guarantees
,basically a gift from the US taxpayer . Congress some time ago passed a
law forgiving any israeli debt owed to the US.

Sharing defence information and intelligenceinformation allows a country
such as Israel to offer the Chinese advanced technology products such as the
recent air to air missile system which the US finally had quoshed and
similarly an advancd AWACs system ,knowing full well their most likely use
would be against US aircraft ....mjh

I wonder what you would have done if you had been in charge of the
operation , after the first shot probably run to the bathroom with an acute
case of diarrhea. mjh

--
mike hide
http://members.tripod.com/mikehide2


"Dennis [email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
> >
> > Well uday and quesay (pardon me if I misspelled their names) are no
> > longer there to be loyal to. I am sure there are some that will miss
> > them but I don't expect a big crowd at the funeral.
>
> Well, we'll never know, will we. Seems they are being
> removed from Iraq. Gummint isn't saying where they
> are being taken or why they are being removed. Anyone
> want to offer reasons for this odd behavior? And, while
> we're on the subject, last I heard there were only 4 people
> in the building where they were. Could we have waited
> them out or gassed them out? We claimed they knew a
> lot about the now famous WMDs and other Iraq secrets.
> Don't you think we could have gotten more out of these
> guys alive?
>
> Dennis Vogel
>
>