OT - one last time

More likely, Fred will pretend he hasn't seen any "evidence", and deny that
it exists.

Kevin
--
=====
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 10:13:57 GMT, Glen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> >> I am not aware of any statements by Klinton, can you refer me to some?
> >
> > I can, as well as some others.
>
> (snip of page after page of quotes with dates, thanks for digging that
> up Glen).
> Prediction: Fred will evade the issue and say "Waaaaah, Dave said Klinton,
> which isn't the same as Clinton, waaaah", and completely fail to address
> that which you have provided. Any takers?
>

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

> joey writes:
>
> >Then this
> >http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/
> >
> >
>
> I know how centrifuges work, but I don't know a thing about how a centrifuge
> works to "draw off" enriched uranium, nor, obviously, does the reporter. After
> a dozen years underground, too, one has to wonder about the capacities of the
> unit.

It's not easy. They first convert the uranium ore to the metal, and
then react it with fluorine to make uranium hexaflourinde, a (very
heavy) gas. The gas is let into a centrifuge, which is spun at maybe
50,000 rpm, serving to separate the lighter U235 isotope from the
heavier but non-fissile u238. Since the U238 constitutes less than 1%
of the total uranium mass they have to pass the slightly enriched gas
through a cascade of maybe 1000 more centrifuges to concentrate it
sufficiently to make weapons-grade U235.

--
Vince Heuring To email, remove the Vince.

joey writes:

>Then this
>http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/
>
>

I know how centrifuges work, but I don't know a thing about how a centrifuge
works to "draw off" enriched uranium, nor, obviously, does the reporter. After
a dozen years underground, too, one has to wonder about the capacities of the
unit.

Too, if it was a part and parcel of a WMD system, why aren't Bush and his
Babies pounding the jungle drums to get the message out? There's something
missing, I think.

Charlie Self
"Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as
distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others." Ambrose
Bierce

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
> I think you are political degenerates who put your pissant partisan
> politics above truth, justice, reality, the good of your own
> country and basic human decency. You are traitors in spirit to
> the very values that set America and most of her allies apart
> from despotic dictatorships.




You give them too much credit.

I feel the real reason the collective wanted to go into Iraq was revenge. Truth,
justice and reality have nothing to do with it.



--

Mark

N.E. Ohio

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice
there is.

Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)

On 13 Jul 2004 20:53:17 GMT, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I know how centrifuges work, but I don't know a thing about how a centrifuge
> works to "draw off" enriched uranium, nor, obviously, does the reporter.

Well, the heavy stuff goes to the outside, so one would expect they either
take out the stuff on the inside to leave heavier stuff, or draw heavier
stuff off the outside to leave the lighter stuff.

> After
> a dozen years underground, too, one has to wonder about the capacities of the
> unit.

Right, because it's impossible to store something in a desert in such a
way that it won't degrade. Seen pictures of the Mig 25's they had buried
over there, by the way?
http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Stories1/001-100/019_IraqiMig-25/story019.htm

> Too, if it was a part and parcel of a WMD system, why aren't Bush and his
> Babies pounding the jungle drums to get the message out? There's something
> missing, I think.

Yes, it's an issue of "selective emphasis". As in, "We can't make
too much of the centrifuge, or the fissionable material, or the
trailers mothballed and buried which were designed for and capable
of producing biological weapons, or of the several shells of
chemical weapons, because if we do people will realize that
there was, in fact, a WMD program or three in Iraq".

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 22:59:26 GMT, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Don't have to see MASDAC to know there's a big difference between what's done in
> the Sonora desert and digging a pit and burying something in direct contact with
> the earth.

You must have missed the part about the centrifuge being buried in a _drum_
in the desert.

> You do seem selectively stupid.

And you seem to ignore realities that don't support your point of view.

On 16 Jul 2004 01:10:38 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>>
>> Yes, it's an issue of "selective emphasis". As in, "We can't make
>> too much of the centrifuge,
>
> Because they didn't have a uranium centrifuge they had some parts
> buried in somebody's yard.

Stored in a drum, yes. Parts that could be used for specifically
that purpose, it's not like it's some hospital lab centrifuge, it's
a specialized piece of a WMD production effort.

> Because no one ever argued that Saddam
> Hussein would not make a nuclear weapon or restart a nuclear weapons
> program if he could, that was one of Bush's lies.

You're aware of Kerry and Klinton's statements on the topic, are you
not?

> The argument was
> that he could not make a nuclear weapon, had not restarted a nuclear
> weapons program, and could not restart such a program without
> discovery.

So...you disregard the chem and bio stuff because all we've found
is the means to produce it, shells they said they didn't have,
trailers buried in the sand all set up to make more, and so on
(nice selective snip above, by the way), but you also disregard
the nuke stuff because we also have evidence of a nuke program
but it _wasn't_ mentioned by Bush? You're inconsistant and
self-contradictory, Fred.

> Because it was not fissile material, it was not useable for weapons.

Wrong. It could be used in a dirty bomb, which has huge
psychological effect as a weapon, just the sort of thing that
is attractive to terrorists - easy to make, big psych impact.

>> or the
>> trailers mothballed and buried which were designed for and capable
>> of producing biological weapons,

> Because there were none.

Really, so that which we saw on the news was what exactly then,
Fred?

>> or of the several shells of
>> chemical weapons,

> Becasue those several are thus far one (1) fifteen-year-old
> sarin shell that was misidentified as HE

...which had enough sarin in it to kill 3000 people...

> and one (1) mustard
> shell similarly misidentified. UNMOVIC had noted a discrepency
> indicating that some small number of mustard gas shells possibly
> still existed. The obsolete sarin shell was a surprise, but
> for all we know, had Saddam Hussein discovered it, it may have
> been a surprise to him too.


Riiiight, it's just coincidence that it happened to be there. Whoopsie!

> Firing an obsolete chemical shells
> is worse than firing no shell at all. It doesn't hurt the enemy
> but it gives away your position.

Please provide a cite which shows that a binary Sarin shell will
degrade in 10 years. Same for Mustard. Show your work. Hint:
MoveOn.org's website is not a _credible_ cite.

>> because if we do people will realize that
>> there was, in fact, a WMD program or three in Iraq".
>
> If there were WMD programs in Iraq, where are the manufacturing
> facilites?

Buried in the sand, but you choose to disregard the ones we've
already found.

> Do you really think our people are too stupid to look
> for trace evidence in soil and water and follow it back to the
> factories?

Go get yourself a map, would ya? Big place, Fred, and your boy
Clinton gave him all the time in the world to hide what he had.

On 17 Jul 2004 00:06:56 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>> Stored in a drum, yes. Parts that could be used for specifically
>> that purpose, it's not like it's some hospital lab centrifuge, it's
>> a specialized piece of a WMD production effort.
>
> Specifically they were parts for a uranium centrifuge stored in
> a drum and buried in the guy's yard. We covered that already.

And the guy whose yard it was buried in was a subject matter expert
in using it.

> The were parts for a centrifuge and they were buried. Thus the
> centrifuge using those parts was disassembled. Thus that centrifuge
> was not usable.

Yeah, because once a machine is disassembled, it's never gonna go
back together.

> Thus it wasn't being used. Clearly given the
> opportunity, Saddam Hussein would have resumed the Iraqi nuclear
> weapons program.

Ya think?

>> You're aware of Kerry and Klinton's statements on the topic, are you
>> not?
>
> I am aware that Kerry made statements which showed that he believed that
> Saddam Hussein had operational WMD programs and that he based those
> statements on information provided by the Bush and Clinton admininstrations.
>
> I am not aware of any statements by Klinton, can you refer me to some?

Evasion and self-contradiction noted.

>> So...you disregard the chem and bio stuff because all we've found
>> is the means to produce it,
>
> No, you haven't shown that the means to produce it have been found.
> You claim (below) that it is buried in the desert, though you
> refuse to specify where. In fact, you haven't indicated any
> evidence at all to support that claim. Oh, I know, the evidence
> that it is there is the fact that is hasn't been found.

You disregard the biological agent lab trailers then?

>> shells they said they didn't have,
>
> As noted many times before, UNMOVIC had noted the possiblity
> or probablilty of several hundred mustard gas sells or bombs.
> The one (1) mustard gas shell found was therefor not much of
> a surprise. The sarin shell was a surprise.

Yeah, and I'm sure it was purely an accident. Whoopsie!

>> trailers buried in the sand all set up to make more,

> No one has found trailers buried in the sand all set up to
> make biological or chemical weapons.

So those were fabricated then? CNN Made 'em up, did they?

> Too many pronouns with unclear antecedents. If you have something
> to write please do so unambiguously so I can rebut it.

You are either lying, or have been effectively lied to. Better now?
>
> Regarding consistency, Google is your friend. Check back to my
> pre-invasion arguments.

Your writing isn't worth reading _now_, let alone reading _again_.

> Aside from which, a 'dirty' bomb is not a nuclear weapon.

It's a weapon using nuclear materials. FFS, Fred, it's like arguing
over what the definition of the word "is" is with you.

>> > Becasue those several are thus far one (1) fifteen-year-old
>> > sarin shell that was misidentified as HE
>>
>> ...which had enough sarin in it to kill 3000 people...
>
> Bullshit. There is no way you could expose 3000 people to
> the contents of one shell.

I didn't say that, Fred. Try reading the words that are there
next time.

>> Go get yourself a map, would ya? Big place, Fred, and your boy
>> Clinton gave him all the time in the world to hide what he had.
>
> Do you really think our people are too stupid to look
> for trace evidence in soil and water and follow it back to the
> factories? Do you think you can build a factory out in the
> desert without any supporting infrastructure? No electricity,
> no water, no sewage, no people to do the work? And then
> operate it with no effluent, no byproducts no leftover feedstocks,
> and finally make it vanish beneath the sand like a desert Atlantis?

Yeah, because there's no way a chem plant could look like, say, a
chem plant or something.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 10:13:57 GMT, Glen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

>> I am not aware of any statements by Klinton, can you refer me to some?
>
> I can, as well as some others.

(snip of page after page of quotes with dates, thanks for digging that
up Glen).
Prediction: Fred will evade the issue and say "Waaaaah, Dave said Klinton,
which isn't the same as Clinton, waaaah", and completely fail to address
that which you have provided. Any takers?

On 19 Jul 2004 16:04:42 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
> Glen <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>> Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction

(snip a bunch-o-quotes, and the predictable tapdancing from Fred)

> The last statement in that paragraph was shown to be wrong by the
> 2003 IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections program. Do you have evidence
> that refutes their conclusions?

See, even when your people are shown to be wrong, you say "See? They
were wrong, so what's your point", but when Bush, who had the same
information as kerry and klinton gets it wrong, it's OK because the
UN said they were wrong, or something.

> Now, the sarin shell and the mustard shell found show that Iraq had
> retained some WMDs from befor the 1991 war. It would be prudent to
> continue to search for more, now that we have the opportunity.

First thing you've said that made any sense at all. By the way,
did you change your posting ID or something?

On 20 Jul 2004 12:15:02 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>> (snip a bunch-o-quotes, and the predictable tapdancing from Fred)
>> See, even when your people are shown to be wrong, you say "See? They
>> were wrong, so what's your point", but when Bush, who had the same
>> information as kerry and klinton gets it wrong, it's OK because the
>> UN said they were wrong, or something.
>
> Huh? Who do you think are 'my people'?

The ones whose errors you blindly accept as OK, Fred.

> Prior to the 2003 UNMOVIC inspections *I* thought it likely,
> indeed all but certain, that Iraq had an active chemical and
> biological weapons program. As it turned out, *I* was wrong,
> just like everyone else you cited.

They weren't my cites, Fred, you must have me confused with someone
else.

> The difference between you and I is that I am willing to admit
> I was wrong.

Were you? You ignore that which has been found, or dismiss it.
The very evidence which is turning up to show you that the
material is there, you disregard.

>> By the way,
>> did you change your posting ID or something?

> No, does something look not right?

Yeah, I'm seeing your posts. It was "fred the redshirt" or something,
now it's just "fred the red". No problem that a broader filter won't
deal with. Bye again, Fred, you're still not worth the bother, no
matter what you post as.

You were doing fine until you reversed the percentages. The U-235 is <1%.
U238 is also used in weapons of a certain type.

OR 1,000 times through the same centrifuge....

Charlie has never seen D-M AFB, nor does he recall the remarkable degree of
preservation of the grave goods of Tutankhamen, which were buried in the
desert.


"Vince Heuring" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:130720041545066033%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Charlie Self
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I know how centrifuges work, but I don't know a thing about how a
centrifuge
> > works to "draw off" enriched uranium, nor, obviously, does the reporter.
After
> > a dozen years underground, too, one has to wonder about the capacities
of the
> > unit.
>
> It's not easy. They first convert the uranium ore to the metal, and
> then react it with fluorine to make uranium hexaflourinde, a (very
> heavy) gas. The gas is let into a centrifuge, which is spun at maybe
> 50,000 rpm, serving to separate the lighter U235 isotope from the
> heavier but non-fissile u238. Since the U238 constitutes less than 1%
> of the total uranium mass they have to pass the slightly enriched gas
> through a cascade of maybe 1000 more centrifuges to concentrate it
> sufficiently to make weapons-grade U235.
>
> --
> Vince Heuring To email, remove the Vince.

ROTFLMAO!

You, sir, seem spherically so. The same from any angle.

"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> You do seem selectively stupid.
>

Just renewed the sanctions against Myanmar

We must care about the Sudan, we bombed their pharmaceutical plant. Of
course you should can the racist rhetoric.

"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> > As for despotic governments that are inhumane to their people we
> > have several from which to choose. Among them Myanmar, but in 2003
> > Iraq's contracts for petroleum exports were owned by France, Russia
> > and China whereas those for Myanmar were (and are) owned by the US
> > and UK.
>
>
> Shhhhhhh .... Not suppose to talk of such things.
>
>
> These people carrying on about how Saddam was so inhumane to his people
don't
> seem to give a damn about Sudanese blacks. Genocide in the Sudan and no
one
> gives a damn ....

Jeez, Fred, read the friggin' news.

Even through the bias, Wilson comes up strange.

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> You also have thus far declined to give us any indication of
> what you meant by Wilson being a 'fibber' on 'a lot of things'.
>
> Afraid to?
>
> --
>
> FF

On 16 Jul 2004 01:28:44 -0700, [email protected] (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

>Or worse. Maybe you know damn well that Bush lied to get his
>invasion of Iraq, but that's OK with you.



unfortunately, that seems to be the case.

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

> As for despotic governments that are inhumane to their people we
> have several from which to choose. Among them Myanmar, but in 2003
> Iraq's contracts for petroleum exports were owned by France, Russia
> and China whereas those for Myanmar were (and are) owned by the US
> and UK.


Shhhhhhh .... Not suppose to talk of such things.


These people carrying on about how Saddam was so inhumane to his people don't
seem to give a damn about Sudanese blacks. Genocide in the Sudan and no one
gives a damn ....


I wonder how many more examples of mass murder actively being carried out by
governments, that no one cares about, I can find?




--

Mark

N.E. Ohio

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice
there is.

Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:


>
>
> I am aware that Kerry made statements which showed that he believed that
> Saddam Hussein had operational WMD programs and that he based those
> statements on information provided by the Bush and Clinton admininstrations.
>
> I am not aware of any statements by Klinton, can you refer me to some?
>

I can, as well as some others.

Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle,
John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and
he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In
addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless
using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range
missiles that will threaten the United States and ou allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and
others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam
is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years... We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do"
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including
al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Because I think Bush and his people are idiots because of theirlack of
communication to the American people. I also can't stand this WMD term they
use it's like unless we discover armed ICBM missles in silos then every
thing is OkeeDokee. A little material for dirty bombs, uranium that could be
enriched into higher grades, stock piles of gas masks,possible mobile chem
labs etc... people go well no WMD ok no prob


"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> joey writes:
>
> >Then this
> >http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/
> >
> >
>
> I know how centrifuges work, but I don't know a thing about how a
centrifuge
> works to "draw off" enriched uranium, nor, obviously, does the reporter.
After
> a dozen years underground, too, one has to wonder about the capacities of
the
> unit.
>
> Too, if it was a part and parcel of a WMD system, why aren't Bush and his
> Babies pounding the jungle drums to get the message out? There's something
> missing, I think.
>
> Charlie Self
> "Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as
> distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others."
Ambrose
> Bierce

[email protected] wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 21:02:58 GMT, Mark <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> hell, they didn't give a damn about how inhumane saddam was as long as
> he was buying hit nerve gas from us....
>

Who's they?

George wrote:
> Just renewed the sanctions against Myanmar
>
> We must care about the Sudan, we bombed their pharmaceutical plant. Of
> course you should can the racist rhetoric.




Racist?



--

Mark

N.E. Ohio

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice
there is.

Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>
> Yes, it's an issue of "selective emphasis". As in, "We can't make
> too much of the centrifuge,

Because they didn't have a uranium centrifuge they had some parts
buried in somebody's yard. Because no one ever argued that Saddam
Hussein would not make a nuclear weapon or restart a nuclear weapons
program if he could, that was one of Bush's lies. The argument was
that he could not make a nuclear weapon, had not restarted a nuclear
weapons program, and could not restart such a program without
discovery.

That argument was sound and the Bush administration beleived it.
Why else were the Iraqi nuclear facilities such a low-priority in
the invasion plan? Weeks after Baghdad fell the Coalition still
had not visited, let alone secured, the Iraqi nuclear facilities.

The whole world knew it too, because the IAEA had said so weeks
earlier.

Recall Bush's prewar rhetoric: "Saddam Hussein could
have a nucular weapon within 3 months if only he had sufficient
weapons grapd material" NO shit! The same is true of every
nation, many major corporations and a few individuals. Obtaining
the fissile material is the only technologically daugnting task
in the construction of a simple fission bomb. Iraq had none and
Bush knew it.

No one, not one person who actually examined the supposed Niger-Iraq
uranium documents has ever had the gall to state publicly that they
thought there was even a remote chance they were genuine. But the
Bush administration turned them over to the IAEA, and then publicly
chided the IAEA for not acting on it.

Obviously the Bush administration obstructed the Iraqi weapons in-
spection program by feeding the IAEA and UNMOVIC false information.

Obviously this was done to try to stop the IAEA and UNMOVIC from
certifying that Iraq was in compliance with the relevent UN
mandates.

The IAEA did so anyway, but the strategy succeeded with UNMOVIC,
they were kept busy visiting site after site, none of which showed
any WMD activity, until the Coalition invaded.

> or the fissionable material,

Because it was not fissile material, it was not useable for weapons.

> or the
> trailers mothballed and buried which were designed for and capable
> of producing biological weapons,

Because there were none.

> or of the several shells of
> chemical weapons,

Becasue those several are thus far one (1) fifteen-year-old
sarin shell that was misidentified as HE and one (1) mustard
shell similarly misidentified. UNMOVIC had noted a discrepency
indicating that some small number of mustard gas shells possibly
still existed. The obsolete sarin shell was a surprise, but
for all we know, had Saddam Hussein discovered it, it may have
been a surprise to him too. Firing an obsolete chemical shells
is worse than firing no shell at all. It doesn't hurt the enemy
but it gives away your position.

> because if we do people will realize that
> there was, in fact, a WMD program or three in Iraq".

If there were WMD programs in Iraq, where are the manufacturing
facilites? Do you really think our people are too stupid to look
for trace evidence in soil and water and follow it back to the
factories? Do you think that Iraq had technology so advanced
that they could produce WMDs without any byproducts, effluent,
facilites, or personell?

--

FF

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 22:59:26 GMT, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Don't have to see MASDAC to know there's a big difference between what's done in
> > the Sonora desert and digging a pit and burying something in direct contact with
> > the earth.
>
> You must have missed the part about the centrifuge being buried in a _drum_
> in the desert.


You seem to have missed the part about it being buried in the guy's
yard. But more importantly, the part about it being cenrifuge
_parts_ that were _buried_.

That means no centrifuge, no program, no fissile material, no bomb.

Sure, there were some parts hidden away for use if the program could
be restarted, no one ever expected any different. No one trusted
Saddam Hussein, that was one of Bush's lies. The argument was that
he had been contained, which he was, rendered harmless to neighboring
states, which he was, and was not an imminent threat to us, which
he was not.

Whereas there are imminent threats to us, such as AL Qeada, and
nations that are an imminent threat to their neighbors, such as
North Korea.

As for despotic governments that are inhumane to their people we
have several from which to choose. Among them Myanmar, but in 2003
Iraq's contracts for petroleum exports were owned by France, Russia
and China whereas those for Myanmar were (and are) owned by the US
and UK.

--

FF

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 22:59:26 GMT, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Don't have to see MASDAC to know there's a big difference between what's done in
> > the Sonora desert and digging a pit and burying something in direct contact with
> > the earth.
>
> You must have missed the part about the centrifuge being buried in a _drum_
> in the desert.


You seem to have missed the part about it being buried in the guy's
yard. But more importantly, the part about it being cenrifuge
_parts_ that were _buried_.

That means no centrifuge, no program, no fissile material, no bomb.

Sure, there were some parts hidden away for use if the program could
be restarted, no one ever expected any different. No one trusted
Saddam Hussein, that was one of Bush's lies. The argument was that
he had been contained, which he was, rendered harmless to neighboring
states, which he was, and was not an imminent threat to us, which
he was not.

Whereas there are imminent threats to us, such as AL Qeada, and
nations that are an imminent threat to their neighbors, such as
North Korea.

As for despotic governments that are inhumane to their people we
have several from which to choose. Among them Myanmar, but in 2003
Iraq's contracts for petroleum exports were owned by France, Russia
and China whereas those for Myanmar were (and are) owned by the US
and UK.

--

FF

"Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> First, you complained that the Bush administration said there were WMD, or
> the means to make them, but they couldn't be found. Now that they've found
> the evidence, you complain that it's suspicious that the Bush administration
> isn't saying enough about it!
>

They didn't find the evidence. Not even the Bush administration
(other than Bush himself) claims to have found evidence of a WMD
program in Iraq. Just a few lunkheads who think finding materials
the IAEA had inventoried and sealed ten years befor the war is
newsworthy. Or who hear on the news that WMD shells have been
found and don't bother to read the news to find out that (all
but two shells) the report was a false alarm. And don't care
that the two real WMD shells predate the 1991 war, the last time
there really was a WMD program in Iraq. Or they read
an article about how now that the US is in charge missile parts
that were scrapped with UNMOVIC as a witness are now being stolen
right from under our noses and sold to scrapyards in Jordan. Or
they hear on the news (probably FOX) that WMD vans have been found
but don't read the follow up that the vans, manufactured in the
UK, were made for generating hydrogen. Or they hear on the news
about a vial of botullinum bacillus being found in a doctor's
refrigerator and they are too ignorant to know that botulinum
bacillus is found in the soil throughout the world, it is easily
cultured (on purpose) by anyone with a BS in microbiology, and
(by accident) by unlucky home canners, the toxin produced is used
theraputically, and the strain discovered was one of the less toxic
varieties not one optimal for weapons. They think that a third
world country that cannot even build a decent sewage treatment
plant for their capital city can manufacutrer WMDS without
any residual trace evidence, no effluent, no polution, not
to mention no facilties. Or they think that bin Laded is linked
to Saddam Hussein because they're both Arabs or just because Bush
said so and he woudn't lie

These are the same idiots that listened to Bush say "Saddam Hussein
has to prove that he has no WMDs" and "UNMOVIC cannot find any
WMDs in Iraq so that proves Saddam Hussein is hiding them" and
never stopped to consider just how stupid those statments were.

These are the same idiots that listened to George Tenet say that
it was he (Tenet) should have told Bush to remove a false statement
from his State of the Union Address, and never considered that Tenet
never reviewed the State of the Union address and never knew that
statement was in there in the first place. And it is way too much
to expect those morons to extrapolate from that and suppose that
when Tenet tells Bernstein that Tenet that the case to WMDs
in Iraq is a 'slam dunk' Tenet just might be lying again.

So here's a challenge to Bush:

Prove you didn't tell the CIA to only provide you with information
indicating WMD programs in Iraq and not to give you any information
to the contrary.

Sheesh. Bush can piss on your head and tell you it's raining
and you guys say "Great! We needed rain."

Or worse. Maybe you know damn well that Bush lied to get his
invasion of Iraq, but that's OK with you.

--

FF

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 16 Jul 2004 01:10:38 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, it's an issue of "selective emphasis". As in, "We can't make
> >> too much of the centrifuge,
> >
> > Because they didn't have a uranium centrifuge they had some parts
> > buried in somebody's yard.
>
> Stored in a drum, yes. Parts that could be used for specifically
> that purpose, it's not like it's some hospital lab centrifuge, it's
> a specialized piece of a WMD production effort.

Specifically they were parts for a uranium centrifuge stored in
a drum and buried in the guy's yard. We covered that already.

The were parts for a centrifuge and they were buried. Thus the
centrifuge using those parts was disassembled. Thus that centrifuge
was not usable. Thus it wasn't being used. Clearly given the
opportunity, Saddam Hussein would have resumed the Iraqi nuclear
weapons program.

No one ever argued that Saddam Hussein would not make a nuclear
weapon or restart a nuclear weapons program if he could, that was
one of Bush's lies. The argument was that he could not make a
nuclear weapon, had not restarted a nuclear weapons program, and
could not restart such a program without discovery.

Nothing found in Iraq refutes that argument.

>
> > Because no one ever argued that Saddam
> > Hussein would not make a nuclear weapon or restart a nuclear weapons
> > program if he could, that was one of Bush's lies.
>
> You're aware of Kerry and Klinton's statements on the topic, are you
> not?

I am aware that Kerry made statements which showed that he believed that
Saddam Hussein had operational WMD programs and that he based those
statements on information provided by the Bush and Clinton admininstrations.

I am not aware of any statements by Klinton, can you refer me to some?

>
> > The argument was
> > that he could not make a nuclear weapon, had not restarted a nuclear
> > weapons program, and could not restart such a program without
> > discovery.
>
> So...you disregard the chem and bio stuff because all we've found
> is the means to produce it,

No, you haven't shown that the means to produce it have been found.
You claim (below) that it is buried in the desert, though you
refuse to specify where. In fact, you haven't indicated any
evidence at all to support that claim. Oh, I know, the evidence
that it is there is the fact that is hasn't been found.

> shells they said they didn't have,

As noted many times before, UNMOVIC had noted the possiblity
or probablilty of several hundred mustard gas sells or bombs.
The one (1) mustard gas shell found was therefor not much of
a surprise. The sarin shell was a surprise.

HOWEVER, both predated the 1991 war therefor neither is evidence
of a post 19991 weapons program. Sorry I didn't point that out
before, thought it was obvious.

> trailers buried in the sand all set up to make more,

No one has found trailers buried in the sand all set up to
make biological or chemical weapons.

> and so on
> (nice selective snip above, by the way), but you also disregard
> the nuke stuff because we also have evidence of a nuke program

WHAT nuke stuff? We do NOT have evidence of a nuke program. The
fact that the centrifuge parts were still buried in his yard is
evidence that the nuclear weapons program had not been resumed,
not proof that it had been resumed.

> but it _wasn't_ mentioned by Bush? You're inconsistant and
> self-contradictory, Fred.

Too many pronouns with unclear antecedents. If you have something
to write please do so unambiguously so I can rebut it.

Regarding consistency, Google is your friend. Check back to my
pre-invasion arguments.

>
> > Because it was not fissile material, it was not useable for weapons.
>
> Wrong. It could be used in a dirty bomb, which has huge
> psychological effect as a weapon, just the sort of thing that
> is attractive to terrorists - easy to make, big psych impact.

What a colossally stupid plan! Collect and refine redioactive waste
from Iraq instead of just stealing already refined and conveniently
contained and packaged Cs-131 from any of thousands of hospitals
with radiation therapy units. Dumb.

Aside from which, a 'dirty' bomb is not a nuclear weapon. The Uranium
and radioactive waste at those sites is not evidence of an active
nuclear weapons program. Those materials had been inventoried and
sealed by the IAEA in the 1990's and then in 2003 the IAEA reinspected
and found that the materials were still there. They were not hidden,
they had been declared, they were not being used. IN 2003 the IAEA
certified that Iraq was in compliance with the UN mandates IRT nuclear
weapons and a few weeks later Bush invaded befor UNMOVIC could do the
same IRT chemical and biological weapons.

This, the IAEA did right after announcing that the Bush administration
had supplied them with forged documents. While it is true that
the documents were forged by a minor Niger official, and not by
the Bush administration the fact that the Bush administration
misreprented the forged document as authentic is absolute proof
of bad faith on the part of the Bush administration.

>
> >> or the
> >> trailers mothballed and buried which were designed for and capable
> >> of producing biological weapons,
>
> > Because there were none.
>
> Really, so that which we saw on the news was what exactly then,
> Fred?

What do you mean 'we'? I saw nothing of the sort and do not believe
that you did either.

>
> >> or of the several shells of
> >> chemical weapons,
>
> > Becasue those several are thus far one (1) fifteen-year-old
> > sarin shell that was misidentified as HE
>
> ...which had enough sarin in it to kill 3000 people...

Bullshit. There is no way you could expose 3000 people to
the contents of one shell.

Two liters of botulinum A are enough to kill everyone but you
cannot possible distribute in such way as to harm everyone.

>
> > and one (1) mustard
> > shell similarly misidentified. UNMOVIC had noted a discrepency
> > indicating that some small number of mustard gas shells possibly
> > still existed. The obsolete sarin shell was a surprise, but
> > for all we know, had Saddam Hussein discovered it, it may have
> > been a surprise to him too.
>
>
> Riiiight, it's just coincidence that it happened to be there. Whoopsie!

What do you mean? Clearly the people who used the sarin shell
and the mustard shell mistook them for HE -- they used
them in IEDs. That mistake may well have saved some of our
soldier's lives.

The fact is that munitions that predate the 1991 war are not evidence
of the post 1991 production program Bush insisted existed. Sorry
I didn't point that out befor.

>
> > Firing an obsolete chemical shells
> > is worse than firing no shell at all. It doesn't hurt the enemy
> > but it gives away your position.
>
> Please provide a cite which shows that a binary Sarin shell will
> degrade in 10 years. Same for Mustard. Show your work. Hint:
> MoveOn.org's website is not a _credible_ cite.

You may be right about the Mustard shells stil being usable though
it takes a substantial barrage to be militarily effective. You may
be right about about the sarin shell but you'll have to show me
some analysis of actual Iraqi ordinance by some competent persons
to convince me.

However it is inarguable that shells that predate the 1991 war
are not evidence of the post 1991 production Bush claimed to
be taking place in Iraq. Sorry I dind't point that out befor,
I thought it was obvious.

It is also the case that effective use of chemical weapons requires
a massive barrage.

>
> >> because if we do people will realize that
> >> there was, in fact, a WMD program or three in Iraq".
> >
> > If there were WMD programs in Iraq, where are the manufacturing
> > facilites?
>
> Buried in the sand, but you choose to disregard the ones we've
> already found.

There is that 'we' again. AFAICT by 'we' you mean yourself and
you found these things in your imagination. Or maybe on FOX TV.

>
> > Do you really think our people are too stupid to look
> > for trace evidence in soil and water and follow it back to the
> > factories?
>
> Go get yourself a map, would ya? Big place, Fred, and your boy
> Clinton gave him all the time in the world to hide what he had.

Do you really think our people are too stupid to look
for trace evidence in soil and water and follow it back to the
factories? Do you think you can build a factory out in the
desert without any supporting infrastructure? No electricity,
no water, no sewage, no people to do the work? And then
operate it with no effluent, no byproducts no leftover feedstocks,
and finally make it vanish beneath the sand like a desert Atlantis?

--

FF

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 16 Jul 2004 01:10:38 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, it's an issue of "selective emphasis". As in, "We can't make
> >> too much of the centrifuge,
> >
> > Because they didn't have a uranium centrifuge they had some parts
> > buried in somebody's yard.
>
> Stored in a drum, yes. Parts that could be used for specifically
> that purpose, it's not like it's some hospital lab centrifuge, it's
> a specialized piece of a WMD production effort.

Specifically they were parts for a uranium centrifuge stored in
a drum and buried in the guy's yard. We covered that already.

The were parts for a centrifuge and they were buried. Thus the
centrifuge using those parts was disassembled. Thus that centrifuge
was not usable. Thus it wasn't being used. Clearly given the
opportunity, Saddam Hussein would have resumed the Iraqi nuclear
weapons program.

No one ever argued that Saddam Hussein would not make a nuclear
weapon or restart a nuclear weapons program if he could, that was
one of Bush's lies. The argument was that he could not make a
nuclear weapon, had not restarted a nuclear weapons program, and
could not restart such a program without discovery.

Nothing found in Iraq refutes that argument.

>
> > Because no one ever argued that Saddam
> > Hussein would not make a nuclear weapon or restart a nuclear weapons
> > program if he could, that was one of Bush's lies.
>
> You're aware of Kerry and Klinton's statements on the topic, are you
> not?

I am aware that Kerry made statements which showed that he believed that
Saddam Hussein had operational WMD programs and that he based those
statements on information provided by the Bush and Clinton admininstrations.

I am not aware of any statements by Klinton, can you refer me to some?

>
> > The argument was
> > that he could not make a nuclear weapon, had not restarted a nuclear
> > weapons program, and could not restart such a program without
> > discovery.
>
> So...you disregard the chem and bio stuff because all we've found
> is the means to produce it,

No, you haven't shown that the means to produce it have been found.
You claim (below) that it is buried in the desert, though you
refuse to specify where. In fact, you haven't indicated any
evidence at all to support that claim. Oh, I know, the evidence
that it is there is the fact that is hasn't been found.

> shells they said they didn't have,

As noted many times before, UNMOVIC had noted the possiblity
or probablilty of several hundred mustard gas sells or bombs.
The one (1) mustard gas shell found was therefor not much of
a surprise. The sarin shell was a surprise.

HOWEVER, both predated the 1991 war therefor neither is evidence
of a post 19991 weapons program. Sorry I didn't point that out
before, thought it was obvious.

> trailers buried in the sand all set up to make more,

No one has found trailers buried in the sand all set up to
make biological or chemical weapons.

> and so on
> (nice selective snip above, by the way), but you also disregard
> the nuke stuff because we also have evidence of a nuke program

WHAT nuke stuff? We do NOT have evidence of a nuke program. The
fact that the centrifuge parts were still buried in his yard is
evidence that the nuclear weapons program had not been resumed,
not proof that it had been resumed.

> but it _wasn't_ mentioned by Bush? You're inconsistant and
> self-contradictory, Fred.

Too many pronouns with unclear antecedents. If you have something
to write please do so unambiguously so I can rebut it.

Regarding consistency, Google is your friend. Check back to my
pre-invasion arguments.

>
> > Because it was not fissile material, it was not useable for weapons.
>
> Wrong. It could be used in a dirty bomb, which has huge
> psychological effect as a weapon, just the sort of thing that
> is attractive to terrorists - easy to make, big psych impact.

What a colossally stupid plan! Collect and refine redioactive waste
from Iraq instead of just stealing already refined and conveniently
contained and packaged Cs-131 from any of thousands of hospitals
with radiation therapy units. Dumb.

Aside from which, a 'dirty' bomb is not a nuclear weapon. The Uranium
and radioactive waste at those sites is not evidence of an active
nuclear weapons program. Those materials had been inventoried and
sealed by the IAEA in the 1990's and then in 2003 the IAEA reinspected
and found that the materials were still there. They were not hidden,
they had been declared, they were not being used. IN 2003 the IAEA
certified that Iraq was in compliance with the UN mandates IRT nuclear
weapons and a few weeks later Bush invaded befor UNMOVIC could do the
same IRT chemical and biological weapons.

This, the IAEA did right after announcing that the Bush administration
had supplied them with forged documents. While it is true that
the documents were forged by a minor Niger official, and not by
the Bush administration the fact that the Bush administration
misreprented the forged document as authentic is absolute proof
of bad faith on the part of the Bush administration.

>
> >> or the
> >> trailers mothballed and buried which were designed for and capable
> >> of producing biological weapons,
>
> > Because there were none.
>
> Really, so that which we saw on the news was what exactly then,
> Fred?

What do you mean 'we'? I saw nothing of the sort and do not believe
that you did either.

>
> >> or of the several shells of
> >> chemical weapons,
>
> > Becasue those several are thus far one (1) fifteen-year-old
> > sarin shell that was misidentified as HE
>
> ...which had enough sarin in it to kill 3000 people...

Bullshit. There is no way you could expose 3000 people to
the contents of one shell.

Two liters of botulinum A are enough to kill everyone but you
cannot possible distribute in such way as to harm everyone.

>
> > and one (1) mustard
> > shell similarly misidentified. UNMOVIC had noted a discrepency
> > indicating that some small number of mustard gas shells possibly
> > still existed. The obsolete sarin shell was a surprise, but
> > for all we know, had Saddam Hussein discovered it, it may have
> > been a surprise to him too.
>
>
> Riiiight, it's just coincidence that it happened to be there. Whoopsie!

What do you mean? Clearly the people who used the sarin shell
and the mustard shell mistook them for HE -- they used
them in IEDs. That mistake may well have saved some of our
soldier's lives.

The fact is that munitions that predate the 1991 war are not evidence
of the post 1991 production program Bush insisted existed. Sorry
I didn't point that out befor.

>
> > Firing an obsolete chemical shells
> > is worse than firing no shell at all. It doesn't hurt the enemy
> > but it gives away your position.
>
> Please provide a cite which shows that a binary Sarin shell will
> degrade in 10 years. Same for Mustard. Show your work. Hint:
> MoveOn.org's website is not a _credible_ cite.

You may be right about the Mustard shells stil being usable though
it takes a substantial barrage to be militarily effective. You may
be right about about the sarin shell but you'll have to show me
some analysis of actual Iraqi ordinance by some competent persons
to convince me.

However it is inarguable that shells that predate the 1991 war
are not evidence of the post 1991 production Bush claimed to
be taking place in Iraq. Sorry I dind't point that out befor,
I thought it was obvious.

It is also the case that effective use of chemical weapons requires
a massive barrage.

>
> >> because if we do people will realize that
> >> there was, in fact, a WMD program or three in Iraq".
> >
> > If there were WMD programs in Iraq, where are the manufacturing
> > facilites?
>
> Buried in the sand, but you choose to disregard the ones we've
> already found.

There is that 'we' again. AFAICT by 'we' you mean yourself and
you found these things in your imagination. Or maybe on FOX TV.

>
> > Do you really think our people are too stupid to look
> > for trace evidence in soil and water and follow it back to the
> > factories?
>
> Go get yourself a map, would ya? Big place, Fred, and your boy
> Clinton gave him all the time in the world to hide what he had.

Do you really think our people are too stupid to look
for trace evidence in soil and water and follow it back to the
factories? Do you think you can build a factory out in the
desert without any supporting infrastructure? No electricity,
no water, no sewage, no people to do the work? And then
operate it with no effluent, no byproducts no leftover feedstocks,
and finally make it vanish beneath the sand like a desert Atlantis?

--

FF

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 17 Jul 2004 00:06:56 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >>
> >> Stored in a drum, yes. Parts that could be used for specifically
> >> that purpose, it's not like it's some hospital lab centrifuge, it's
> >> a specialized piece of a WMD production effort.
> >
> > Specifically they were parts for a uranium centrifuge stored in
> > a drum and buried in the guy's yard. We covered that already.
>
> And the guy whose yard it was buried in was a subject matter expert
> in using it.

Yes. One amusing aspect is that, evidently, the regime had destroyed
all documentation of the parts. It is not clear that anybody else in
the government would have remembered it was buried there if the
progam had been restarted in, say, another five years or so. Sort
like a squirrel who forgets where he buried his nuts.

>
> > The were parts for a centrifuge and they were buried. Thus the
> > centrifuge using those parts was disassembled. Thus that centrifuge
> > was not usable.
>
> Yeah, because once a machine is disassembled, it's never gonna go
> back together.

That is incorrect. There was always and still is the possibility that
Iraq would restart the banned nuclear weapons program. Continued
monitoring was and will continue to be, a necessity.

However, if you have been following the news about the N Korean
nuclear program you will understand that it is impossible for such
a program to operate a reactor or reprocessing fuel rods or even
stockpile sufficient raw uranium and escape detection. This is
how we know the Bush administration knew, with certainty, that
Iraq was nowhere near producing their own nuclear weapons.

A more likely scenario would be an exchange of oil for nukes
with North Korea.

> ...
> >
> > I am aware that Kerry made statements which showed that he believed that
> > Saddam Hussein had operational WMD programs and that he based those
> > statements on information provided by the Bush and Clinton admininstrations.
> >
> > I am not aware of any statements by Klinton, can you refer me to some?
>
> Evasion and self-contradiction noted.

Huh?

>
> You disregard the biological agent lab trailers then?

No. None have been found. There is no evidenc ethey ever existed.


>
> The sarin shell was a surprise.
>
> Yeah, and I'm sure it was purely an accident. Whoopsie!

But undoubtably it WAS purely an accident, and a fortunate one
for us, that the sarin shell was mistaken for HE by the insurgents.
Otherwise they might have killed more of our people.

>
> >> trailers buried in the sand all set up to make more,
>
> > No one has found trailers buried in the sand all set up to
> > make biological or chemical weapons.
>
> So those were fabricated then? CNN Made 'em up, did they?

No, the last I read the trailers were make up, that is,
manufactured in the UK and sold to Iraq. You are refering to
the portable hydrogen generators used for ballons for artillery
spotting aren't you?

>
> > Too many pronouns with unclear antecedents. If you have something
> > to write please do so unambiguously so I can rebut it.
>
> You are either lying, or have been effectively lied to. Better now?

Thank you for admitting it.


> > Aside from which, a 'dirty' bomb is not a nuclear weapon.
>
> It's a weapon using nuclear materials. FFS, Fred, it's like arguing
> over what the definition of the word "is" is with you.

Bullshit.

1) There is no comparison between the potential for harm
associated with a chemical bomb that scatters radioactive
material and a nuclear weapon that kills 100,000 people in
an instant.

2) There was never any question that there was radioactive waste
in Iraq. That waste and other nuclear materials left over from the
Iraqi nuclear program was inventoried and sealed by the IAEA in
the 1990's then reinspected and found to not have been tampered
with early in 2003. Your contention that the presence of this
radioactive waste in Iraq, which was declared to the world,
inventoried and sealed by the IAEA, and useless for military
purposes is completely dishonest. Those lies can only deceive
someone who is so scared of the words 'nuclear' and 'radiation'
that they cannot bring themselves to learn anything about either.

3) Persons wanting to make a radioactive dirty bomb have commericial
and medical sources already refined for them and available worldwide.
To make their own from scratch starting with waste would not only
be a formidible task, but pretty darned stupid too.


> >>
> >> ...which had enough sarin in it to kill 3000 people...
> >
> > Bullshit. There is no way you could expose 3000 people to
> > the contents of one shell.
>
> I didn't say that, Fred. Try reading the words that are there
> next time.

I didn't say you said _that_. I pointed out why what you said
was misleading.

> >
> > Do you really think our people are too stupid to look
> > for trace evidence in soil and water and follow it back to the
> > factories? Do you think you can build a factory out in the
> > desert without any supporting infrastructure? No electricity,
> > no water, no sewage, no people to do the work? And then
> > operate it with no effluent, no byproducts no leftover feedstocks,
> > and finally make it vanish beneath the sand like a desert Atlantis?
>
> Yeah, because there's no way a chem plant could look like, say, a
> chem plant or something.

You do not have any concept as to the capability of our forensic
experts, do you?

--

FF

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

>
> Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction
>
> "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
> develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
> That is our bottom line."
> - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

Good. It was entirely appropriate to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction. Was there ever any question
that this was consitantly the US policy when the Democraps were in
the White House? After all, it is the Republicans who (thankfully)
reversed themselves on that issue.

Remember no one ever claimed that Iraq had or would voluntarily
abandon WMD programs. No one ever argued that Saddam Hussein could
be trusted. That was one of Bush's lies.

In 2003 UNMOVIC and IAEA proved that Iraq had been successfully
denied the capacity to develope WMDs. The closest they had come
to developing missles that violated the UN sanctions were the
AL Husseins, which only barely exceeded the range limit when
tested without a payload or guidance system.

Remind me, did you ever argue that Clinton had allowed Saddam Hussein to
develop WMDs?

>
> "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
> We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
> destruction program."
> - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Again, a good policy. AS you know, when push came to shove,
Iraq chose peace. Iraq chose to allow UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections
in 2003, largely one presumes due to the threat of force by the
Bush administration backed by the US COngress, including Kerry.
Iraq cooperated with those inspections. The UNMOVIC inspectors
in the field in Iraq described the level of cooperation they received
as 'unprecedented'. But don't believe me. Go back and read the
reports in the newspapers from 2003. And what the IAEA and UNMOVIC
found was that the threat Clinton had pledged to diminish was
in fact diminished to near non-existance.

Did you have a reason to post this quote? What was it?

>
> "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great
> deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
> nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
> greatest security threat we face."
> - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

While I don't agree with parts of this, again, why post it? It
is a very general statemetn and includes no evidence, nor any
pointers to evidence of WMD programs in Iraq.

>
> "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
> times since 1983."
> - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

Happily, that is a prediction that proved false, so far. But don't
forget, he's not dead yet.

>
> "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
> U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
> appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
> effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
> mass destruction programs."
> - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle,
> John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

The evidence is now clear that Kerry, Levin, Daschle, and Clinton
had underestimated the effectiveness of the UN sanctions. Note that
this letter predates the 2003 IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections. Bush's
decision to invade Iraq also predates those inspections, according to
Powell he had planned to invade Iraq from his first day in office,
evidently the attacks of September 11, 2001 forced a delay of a year
or so. The invasion of Iraq itself post-dates the 2003 inspections
and went ahead despite the evidence of those inspections.

Again, what is the point of posting this? It does not show or
point to any evidence of a WMD progarm in Iraq. Did the Senators
offer any evidence in support of their contention?

>
> "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
> destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and
> he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
> - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

What evidence sis Rep Pelosi offer in support of the claim?
Evidently that statement was factually incorrect. Note also
that it predates the 2003 IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections, which
showed it to be factually incorrect.

>
> "Hussein has... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
> destruction and palaces for his cronies."
> - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Looks to have been half right. Again the statement predates the 2003
IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections which showed that Iraq had been unable
to resume or sustain a WMD program. And again, did Ms Albright offer
any evidence in support of her statement?

>
> "There is no doubt that... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
> programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
> programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In
> addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless
> using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range
> missiles that will threaten the United States and ou allies."
> - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and
> others, December 5, 2001

Well they may have had no doubts in 2001 and up until 2003 I personally
had little doubt but the IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections of 2003 pretty much
reversed that. There was then little reason to suppose Iraq had
recently manufactured WMDs or had an operational WMD program and
their missile program was being reigned in right at the range limit
imposed by the UN sanctions, right?

Aside from which, even in 2001, did Sen Graham and others offer
any evidence in support of the claim?

>
> "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
> threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
> mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
> destruction and the means of delivering them."
> - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

Pretty much no one disagrees with the first part. I pretty much
presumed that the second part was also true well past September,
2002. Therefor I was much relieved, and more than a little bit
surprised when the IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections in 2003 proved I
was wrong, though by then I realized from Bush's statements alone
that the US knew Iraq was nowhere near to having a nuclear weapon.

But even back in Sept 2002, did Sen Levin offer evidence to support
his statement? If not, what is the point to quoting it now?

>
> "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
> weapons throughout his country."
> - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Clearly Gore was wrong, as the 2003 inspections showed. Did he
offer any evidence in support of his claim? If not, why post
the claim, other than to discredit Gore whom, I remind you,
does not hold public office and is not running for public office.

If Gore did offer evidence to support his claim, why not post
that evidence?

>
> "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
> deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam
> is in power."
> - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Yes, the 'search' was impossible to deter, but we managed quite
effectively to see to it that the search produced as we saw when
IAEA and UNMOVIC inspected in 2003.

>
> "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
> developing weapons of mass destruction."
> - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

AFAICT, that is stil true today, though evading execution is probably
a higher priority for him at the moment. So?

>
> "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
> confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
> biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
> build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
> reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
> - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

Byrd was wrong about biological weapons. The sarin shell and the
mustard shell retained priovide evidence that there were some (pre-1991)
chemical munitions in Iraq.

As the IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections showed in 2003, Iraq was no
longer producing chemical weapons. Forensic evidence obtained
by UNMOVIC (and I was remiss in not pointing this out earlier)
did show that post-1991 Iraq did produce and destroy VX, but there
was no evidence of recent production and the presumed shelf life
of Iraqi VX left little to worry about.

Did Byrd offer evidence to support his statemtn? If so, what was
it?

>
> "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
> authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein
> because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
> in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
> - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

Good for Kerry. Clearly that authorization helped to convince
Saddam Hyussein to allow the IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections. Bush
was right to force a resumption of those inspections on Iraq.
Bush did the right thing seeking the cooperationand support of
the UN in this endeavor.

But Bush subsequently abused that authority by proceeding with
the use of force after obtaining clear evidence that Kerry's
belief was wrong and the invasion was not necessary to accomplish
the stated goal IRT WMDs. In fact, the evidence has shown that
the Bush administration, by providing false information to IAEA
and UNMOVIC, sabotaged that very inspection program it had insisted
upon.

Then, disatisfied that the truth was insufficient to justify an
invasion of Iraq, Bush proceeded to condemn that same inspection
program he had promoted only month befor, and proceeded with the
invasion.

Note the qualification in Kerry's statement '-- if necessary --'.
A declaration of War would have mandated military action. This
authorization presumed that Bush would only use force as necessary.

>
> "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
> aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
> weapons within the next five years... We also should remember we have
> always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
> weapons of mass destruction."
> - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

There is unmistakable evidence (stated elswhere in this thread) that
Sen Rockefeller was wrong. I note also that you did nor include
any indication as to what evidence Sen Rockefeller had in mind.
Did you accept his statement at face value without asking for
the supporting evidence?

>
> "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
> every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
> destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
> This he has refused to do"
> - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

I accept that Rep Waxman said that. So? Did Waxman offer actual
evidence of nuclear weapons and other WMDs in Iraq?

>
> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
> that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
> weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
> He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including
> al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
> Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
> chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
> - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

What evidence did Sen Clinton have to offer in support of that
statement. Note also that her statement predates the 2003
inspections.

>
> "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
> Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
> capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
> - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

So, if he is not keeping that evidence secret, let's see it.

>
> "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
> murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He presents a
> particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
> miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
> continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
> destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
> destruction is real..."
> - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

The last statement in that paragraph was shown to be wrong by the
2003 IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections program. Do you have evidence
that refutes their conclusions?

Now, the sarin shell and the mustard shell found show that Iraq had
retained some WMDs from befor the 1991 war. It would be prudent to
continue to search for more, now that we have the opportunity.



--


FF

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 19 Jul 2004 16:04:42 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Glen <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> >> Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction
>
> (snip a bunch-o-quotes, and the predictable tapdancing from Fred)
>
> > The last statement in that paragraph was shown to be wrong by the
> > 2003 IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections program. Do you have evidence
> > that refutes their conclusions?
>
> See, even when your people are shown to be wrong, you say "See? They
> were wrong, so what's your point", but when Bush, who had the same
> information as kerry and klinton gets it wrong, it's OK because the
> UN said they were wrong, or something.

Huh? Who do you think are 'my people'?

Prior to the 2003 UNMOVIC inspections *I* thought it likely,
indeed all but certain, that Iraq had an active chemical and
biological weapons program. As it turned out, *I* was wrong,
just like everyone else you cited.

The difference between you and I is that I am willing to admit
I was wrong.

> By the way,
> did you change your posting ID or something?

No, does something look not right?

--

FF

"Henry St.Pierre" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 21:02:58 GMT, Mark <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > hell, they didn't give a damn about how inhumane saddam was as long as
> > he was buying hit nerve gas from us....
> >
>
> Who's they?

Rumsfeld for one. Pretty much everybody with authority in the Reagan
DOD and Comerce Departments. The State Departmant under Shultz opposed
the sales of WMD precursors to Iraq but was overruled.

Hmm, maybe Powell should have a talk with Shultz.

--

FF

Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 01:28:44 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
> > These are the same idiots that listened to George Tenet say that it was he
> > (Tenet) should have told Bush to remove a false statement from his State
> > of the Union Address, and never considered that Tenet never reviewed the
> > State of the Union address and never knew that statement was in there in
> > the first place. And it is way too much to expect those morons to
> > extrapolate from that and suppose that when Tenet tells Bernstein that
> > Tenet that the case to WMDs in Iraq is a 'slam dunk' Tenet just might be
> > lying again.
>
> Check out the NBC News and the Washington Post reports that in fact GWB
> was correct in his State of the Union message comments about British
> reports that Iraq was attempting to buy Yellow Cake from an African
> nation, and it turns out Joe Wilson who perpetrated all this was the
> fibber - about a lot of things.
>

It helps to read past the headline.

I did (online) and you're the fibber here. The 'evidence' that
supports the contention is that an Iraqi delegation went to Niger
to discuss trade.

There is no evidence that Uranium was discussed, or that the the
discussions were followed up with anything.

Given the something like 2/3 of Niger's exports is Uranium it
seems likely that had a formal trading relationship between
Iraq and Niger been established Uranium exportation from Niger
to Iraq would have been discussed.

But that is only speculation about where the talks might have led,
no evidence has been presented that Uranium was discussed.

It is still true that George Tenet and the CIA did not review
Bush's State of the Union speech and therefor still true that
Tenet was covering for Bush when he publicly took the blame for
that deception.

The forged documents the US sent to the IAEA are still forged
documents.

Digressing, has anyone other than Bush or Tenet confirmed the
'slam dunk' claim?

Please elaborate on your 'a lot of things' comment.

--

FF

Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:41:06 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> >
> > It helps to read past the headline.
> > I did (online) and you're the fibber here. The 'evidence'
> > that supports the contention is that an Iraqi delegation
> > went to Niger to discuss trade.
> >
> > There is no evidence that Uranium was discussed, or that the
> > discussions were followed up with anything.

>
> I did on half dozen reports of the facts as presented by our Senate
> invesigating comittee and British intelligence as well as French
> intelligence.

Clearly none of those contradicted what I wrote above or you would
have said so, right?

> The difference is that after seeing the evidence, I didn't
> stick my fingers in my ears and go "la la la la". I really doubt the
> Iraqis were attempting to acquire Nigers other export - goats.

As you recall I also wrote:

> > Given the something like 2/3 of Niger's exports is Uranium it
> > seems likely that had a formal trading relationship between
> > Iraq and Niger been established Uranium exportation from Niger
> > to Iraq would have been discussed.
> >

No one ever argued that Iraq would not resume a nuclear weapons program
if it could--that was oe of Bush's lies. No one ever argued that
Saddam Hussein could be trusted--that is another of Bush's lies.

The argument was that Iraq had not resumed and could not resume
its nuclear weapons program.

>
> You really aren't worth the trouble Fred, bye.
>

As you can see, unlike you and your buddies in the Bush administration
I'm not afraid to have the whole story presented. I do not selectively
edit the information to promote misconstruction and false conclusions.

--

FF

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

You also have thus far declined to give us any indication of
what you meant by Wilson being a 'fibber' on 'a lot of things'.

Afraid to?

--

FF

"George" <george@least> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Jeez, Fred, read the friggin' news.
>
> Even through the bias, Wilson comes up strange.
>
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > You also have thus far declined to give us any indication of
> > what you meant by Wilson being a 'fibber' on 'a lot of things'.
> >
> > Afraid to?
> >

A simple 'yes' would have been adequate.

--

FF

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 20 Jul 2004 12:15:02 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >>
> >> (snip a bunch-o-quotes, and the predictable tapdancing from Fred)
> >> See, even when your people are shown to be wrong, you say "See? They
> >> were wrong, so what's your point", but when Bush, who had the same
> >> information as kerry and klinton gets it wrong, it's OK because the
> >> UN said they were wrong, or something.
> >
> > Huh? Who do you think are 'my people'?
>
> The ones whose errors you blindly accept as OK, Fred.

I accept that people, with the appropriate expertise, who went
to Iraq in 2003 both befor and after the invasion, were and are
in a far better position to know something about the issues
that a bunch of talking heads pandering for publicity,
befor 2003.

Is David Kay one of 'your people'?

...

Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong,
and I certainly include myself here.

Sen. [Edward] Kennedy knows very directly. Senator
Kennedy and I talked on several occasions prior to
the war that my view was that the best evidence that
I had seen was that Iraq indeed had weapons of mass
destruction.

I would also point out that many governments that
chose not to support this war -- certainly, the
French president, [Jacques] Chirac, as I recall
in April of last year, referred to Iraq's possession
of WMD.

The Germans certainly -- the intelligence service
believed that there were WMD.

It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in
my judgment, and that is most disturbing.

...

Former top U.S. weapons inspector David Kay in testimony
Wednesday, January 28, 2004 before the Senate Armed
Services Committee

As you will recall, though I am sure you are loathe to admit it,
Hans Blix, UNMOVIC and the IAEA reached the same conclusions a
year earlier.

These are people who have been to Iraq. They have supervised people
in Iraq who were actually doing the searching, and checking on the
'intelligence' such as it was. These are people intimately familiar
with the search for WMDs in Iraq in 2003, befor and after the invasion.

David Kay made his statement under oath.

But you and your ilk seem to think that instead it is better to rely
on statements that a handful of politicians, few or none of whom had
ever even been to Iraq, and who wouldn't know the difference between
an atomic bomb and an atomic clock if you dropped one on their foot,
and which statements were made to the press, not under oath, and
during a period in which the all inspectors had been ordered out of
Iraq, by Clinton, and none yet sent back in.

Why?

I suggest that in the absence of any other explanation that you
do not give a damn about truth, justice, or America.

I think you are political degenerates who put your pissant partisan
politics above truth, justice, reality, the good of your own
country and basic human decency. You are traitors in spirit to
the very values that set America and most of her allies apart
from despotic dictatorships.

Good and Evil are not established by name, nationality or social
privilege but by conduct.

--

FF

George wrote:

>
> Charlie has never seen D-M AFB,



Don't have to see MASDAC to know there's a big difference between what's done in
the Sonora desert and digging a pit and burying something in direct contact with
the earth.

You do seem selectively stupid.



--
{neatly edited}
--

Mark

N.E. Ohio

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice
there is.

Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 21:02:58 GMT, Mark <[email protected]>
wrote:


>These people carrying on about how Saddam was so inhumane to his people don't
>seem to give a damn about Sudanese blacks. Genocide in the Sudan and no one
>gives a damn ....

hell, they didn't give a damn about how inhumane saddam was as long as
he was buying hit nerve gas from us....

In article <[email protected]>, "George" <george@least>
wrote:

> Just renewed the sanctions against Myanmar

Yeah! You better look out Myanmar... You don't want to end up like
Fidel, do ya?

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 01:28:44 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:


> These are the same idiots that listened to George Tenet say that it was he
> (Tenet) should have told Bush to remove a false statement from his State
> of the Union Address, and never considered that Tenet never reviewed the
> State of the Union address and never knew that statement was in there in
> the first place. And it is way too much to expect those morons to
> extrapolate from that and suppose that when Tenet tells Bernstein that
> Tenet that the case to WMDs in Iraq is a 'slam dunk' Tenet just might be
> lying again.

Check out the NBC News and the Washington Post reports that in fact GWB
was correct in his State of the Union message comments about British
reports that Iraq was attempting to buy Yellow Cake from an African
nation, and it turns out Joe Wilson who perpetrated all this was the
fibber - about a lot of things.

-Doug

--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:41:06 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

>
> It helps to read past the headline.

I did on half dozen reports of the facts as presented by our Senate
invesigating comittee and British intelligence as well as French
intelligence. The difference is that after seeing the evidence, I didn't
stick my fingers in my ears and go "la la la la". I really doubt the
Iraqis were attempting to acquire Nigers other export - goats.

You really aren't worth the trouble Fred, bye.

-Doug

--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 06:50:47 -0400, George wrote:

I don't see Fred's posts any more, but all he has to do to find out what I
meant is google up "+joe +wilson +discredited". To save him the effort,
go to:

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle>

-Doug

> Jeez, Fred, read the friggin' news.
>
> Even through the bias, Wilson comes up strange.
>
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>> You also have thus far declined to give us any indication of what you
>> meant by Wilson being a 'fibber' on 'a lot of things'.
>>
>> Afraid to?
>>
>> --
>>
>> FF

--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw

On 17 Jul 2004 13:04:10 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 10:13:57 GMT, Glen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>>> I am not aware of any statements by Klinton, can you refer me to some?
>>
>> I can, as well as some others.
>
>(snip of page after page of quotes with dates, thanks for digging that
>up Glen).
>Prediction: Fred will evade the issue and say "Waaaaah, Dave said Klinton,
>which isn't the same as Clinton, waaaah", and completely fail to address
>that which you have provided. Any takers?


That, or the Bush administration lied to Clinton and mislead him into
thinking that an active WMD program existed. Oh, wait, you mean Bush
wasn't president when Clinton made those pronouncements? How could this
be? It's only the eeevil Bush administration that tried to mislead the
American people.

He's a truth-dodging Clintonite. There's no logic or reason to be found,
here. Best move on.

Kevin
--
=====
Found: Iraqi WMDs! Please appear in person to claim!
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 19 Jul 2004 16:04:42 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt
<[email protected]> wrote:
> > Glen <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> >> Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction
>
> (snip a bunch-o-quotes, and the predictable tapdancing from Fred)
>
> > The last statement in that paragraph was shown to be wrong by the
> > 2003 IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections program. Do you have evidence
> > that refutes their conclusions?
>
> See, even when your people are shown to be wrong, you say "See? They
> were wrong, so what's your point", but when Bush, who had the same
> information as kerry and klinton gets it wrong, it's OK because the
> UN said they were wrong, or something.
>
> > Now, the sarin shell and the mustard shell found show that Iraq had
> > retained some WMDs from befor the 1991 war. It would be prudent to
> > continue to search for more, now that we have the opportunity.
>
> First thing you've said that made any sense at all. By the way,
> did you change your posting ID or something?
>

First, you complained that the Bush administration said there were WMD, or
the means to make them, but they couldn't be found. Now that they've found
the evidence, you complain that it's suspicious that the Bush administration
isn't saying enough about it!

There's no pleasing you, Charlie!

Kevin
--
=====
Found: Iraqi WMDs! Please appear in person to claim!
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Too, if it was a part and parcel of a WMD system, why aren't Bush and his
> Babies pounding the jungle drums to get the message out? There's something
> missing, I think.