Why Cindy's son died.
Claudius Vitalis
and for others to have the right to call her a jackass. Something that Ben
Cohen (Ben & Jerry's ice cream), that is financing all of her antics, would
never understand.
Joseph Welch
"Claudius Vitalis" <jazz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UQ5ef.1727$c27...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Cindy's son died protecting the right for his mother to be a jackass
Bullshit. Iraq was no threat to the rights of any American.
Why do you lie so much, right-wing traitor?
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
brutus
"Joseph Welch" <seattled...@freewebspace.com> wrote in message
news:he7ef.1346$yO2....@fe02.buzzardnews.com...
>
> "Claudius Vitalis" <jazz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:UQ5ef.1727$c27...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>> Cindy's son died protecting the right for his mother to be a jackass
>
> Bullshit. Iraq was no threat to the rights of any American.
>
> Why do you lie so much, right-wing traitor?
>
> --
> JW
Neither was Japan before WWII, right?
Brutus
Joseph Welch
"brutus" <bru...@thebrute.com> wrote in message
news:GMaef.764$jI5...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Bullshit. Iraq was no threat to the rights of any American.
>>
>> Why do you lie so much, right-wing traitor?
> Neither was Japan before WWII, right?
Are you *seriously* trying to compare the highly industrialized and
well-developed military machine of Japan to 2002 Iraq?
How do you do that with a straight face?
Seriously.
brutus
<Knick...@Hang-up.com> wrote in message
news:4mgin1psjjmf228bd...@4ax.com...
>
> What's yer point?
According to intel that our congress accepted - including kennedy, kerry,
and the rest that now say it was "manipulated" - Saddam was a threat. Oh,
that's right, you don't accept that FACT. I forgot, sorry.
Brutus
brutus
>
> "brutus" <bru...@thebrute.com> wrote in message
> news:GMaef.764$jI5...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>> Bullshit. Iraq was no threat to the rights of any American.
>>>
>>> Why do you lie so much, right-wing traitor?
>
>> Neither was Japan before WWII, right?
>
> Are you *seriously* trying to compare the highly industrialized and
> well-developed military machine of Japan to 2002 Iraq?
>
> How do you do that with a straight face?
>
> Seriously.
>
> --
> JW
Jeepers! According to many of the liberal wacko's in this NG out troops are
getting their butts kicked by the "insurgents" that have little more than
crude roadside bombs and small arms. Also, according to Teddy Kennedy, Al
Gore, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and a host more liberal leaders
Saddam had WMD and was on the brink of developing a nuclear arsenal.
Brutus
brutus
<Knick...@Hang-up.com> wrote in message
news:okgin15e34nuc7846...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 19:47:00 GMT, "Claudius Vitalis"
> <jazz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Cindy's son died protecting the right for his mother to be a jackass,
>>and for others to have the right to call her a jackass.
>
>
> Iraq was not threat to us.
>
> Not until your lying sack of shit invaded it.
Sure thing. Tell that to Teddy Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Kerry, Gore, Clinton
et. al.
Brutus
Joseph Welch
>> Are you *seriously* trying to compare the highly industrialized and
>> well-developed military machine of Japan to 2002 Iraq?
>>
>> How do you do that with a straight face?
>>
>> Seriously.
> Jeepers! According to many of the liberal wacko's in this NG out troops
> are getting their butts kicked by the "insurgents" that have little more
> than crude roadside bombs and small arms.
Why are you trying to change the subject you dishonest right-wing traitor
fuck?
> Also, according to Teddy Kennedy, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi,
> John Kerry and a host more liberal leaders Saddam had WMD and was on the
> brink of developing a nuclear arsenal.
Which is exactly the cherry picked "intelligence" that your mentally
retarded hero was feeding them you traitor fuck.
brutus
<Knick...@Hang-up.com> wrote in message
news:0cuin1dddfnidth8c...@4ax.com...
Congress had access to the same intel President Bush did. So did Clinton as
president and Gore as VP. Find a better argument next time.
>
> Saddam wasn't a threat---the truth is that he had no capability
Really? " 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium... 1,500 gallons of chemical
weapons agents... 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent
five times more deadly than sarin gas)... Over 1,000 radioactive materials
in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas... Roadside bombs
loaded with mustard and "conventional" sarin gas assembled in binary
chemical projectiles for maximum potency... ... "
>
> The claim that he did, was manipulated
By the following:
President Clinton
Vice President Gore
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
>
> Hans Blix was ignored.
He was given the attention he deserved - nothing more or less.
Brutus
brutus
<Knick...@Hang-up.com> wrote in message
news:ieuin1l0jg0g6h2oo...@4ax.com...
>
> They were given intel by Bush
No, they saw the same intel as President Bush. Even you can understand the
difference.
>
> They gave bush permission to launch an attack IF he had WMD
Read the text:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107ydCmt2::
>
> Hans Blix, etal, told Bush that NO evidence existed.
>
> Bush ignored it
As he should have - he had more sources, including a number of other
countries, that disagreed with Hans. Plus WMD was only a small part of the
overall reason to remove Saddam. Bill Clinton wanted Saddam removed but
didn't have the guts to do it.
Brutus
brutus
>
> "brutus" <bru...@thebrute.com> wrote in message
> news:wHcef.1657$s14...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>> Are you *seriously* trying to compare the highly industrialized and
>>> well-developed military machine of Japan to 2002 Iraq?
>>>
>>> How do you do that with a straight face?
>>>
>>> Seriously.
>
>> Jeepers! According to many of the liberal wacko's in this NG out troops
>> are getting their butts kicked by the "insurgents" that have little more
>> than crude roadside bombs and small arms.
>
> Why are you trying to change the subject you dishonest right-wing traitor
> fuck?
I'm not.
>
>> Also, according to Teddy Kennedy, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi,
>> John Kerry and a host more liberal leaders Saddam had WMD and was on the
>> brink of developing a nuclear arsenal.
>
> Which is exactly the cherry picked "intelligence" that your mentally
> retarded hero was feeding them you traitor fuck.
You believe that "Bush fed them doctored intel" lie? Whooeee! You are
stupid!
Brutus
Joseph Welch
>> Congress accepted what your lying sack of shit told them.
>
> Congress had access to the same intel President Bush did.
That's a blatant fucking lie.
Joseph Welch
>> They were given intel by Bush
>
> No, they saw the same intel as President Bush.
That's a blatant fucking lie - and you know it you treasonous cocksucker.
Joseph Welch
> You believe that "Bush fed them doctored intel" lie?
I believe it because it's true you lying sack of crap.
Clave
>
> "brutus" <bru...@thebrute.com> wrote in message
> news:9Kqef.2090$c27....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>> They were given intel by Bush
>>
>> No, they saw the same intel as President Bush.
>
> That's a blatant fucking lie - and you know it you treasonous cocksucker.
My, my -- Stupus is getting desperate.
Jim
brutus
>
> "brutus" <bru...@thebrute.com> wrote in message
> news:cHqef.2088$c27....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>> Congress accepted what your lying sack of shit told them.
>>
>> Congress had access to the same intel President Bush did.
>
> That's a blatant fucking lie.
>
> --
> JW
Wrong.
Brutus
brutus
>
> "brutus" <bru...@thebrute.com> wrote in message
> news:9Kqef.2090$c27....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>> They were given intel by Bush
>>
>> No, they saw the same intel as President Bush.
>
> That's a blatant fucking lie - and you know it you treasonous cocksucker.
>
> --
> JW
Wrong.
Brutus
brutus
"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
news:VoqdnV7xfacKMOfe...@cablespeedwa.com...
Clinton and Gore had the same intel and reached the same conslusions.
Brutus
brutus
>
> "brutus" <bru...@thebrute.com> wrote in message
> news:fLqef.2092$c27....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>> You believe that "Bush fed them doctored intel" lie?
>
> I believe it because it's true you lying sack of crap.
>
> --
> JW
Wrong.
Brutus
Paul Mitchum
I doubt that, but regardless of whether that's true, it has nothing to
do with what's being discussed. The discussion is about *congress,* not
ex-Presidents and ex-Vice Presidents.
--
Take the pledge: <http://yesbushcan.com/pledge.shtml>
Paul Mitchum
> Wrong.
Brutus: Why do you think it matters whether congress saw different intel
than the President did?
(I'd also remind Welch that 'cocksucker' isn't nearly the insult he
seems to think it is.)
Clave
You desperate, sputtering boob.
==================================
Bush Resurrects False Claim That Congress Had “Same Intelligence” On Iraq
In his speech today, President Bush claimed that members of Congress who
voted for the 2002 Iraq war resolution “had access to the same intelligence”
as his administration. This is patently false.
Nevermind that much of the intelligence offered to the public and to
Congress was inaccurate and misleading, or that according to the Downing
Street memo and other documents, such intelligence was likely intentionally
“fixed.” It is simply not true to state that Congress received the “same
intelligence” as the White House:
FACT — Dissent From White House Claims on Iraq Nuclear Program Consistently
Withheld from Congress:
[S]everal Congressional and intelligence officials with access to
the 15 assessments [of intel suggesting aluminum tubes showed Iraq
was reconstituting its nuclear program] said not one of them
informed senior policy makers of the Energy Department’s dissent.
They described a series of reports, some with ominous titles, that
failed to convey either the existence or the substance of the
intensifying debate.” [NYT, 10/3/04]
FACT — Sen. Kerrey: Bush “Has Much More Access” to Intel Than Congress:
Former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE), ex-Senate Intelligence Committee
vice chairman: “The president has much more access to intelligence
than members of Congress does. Ask any member of Congress. Ask a
Republican member of Congress, do you get the same access to
intelligence that the president does? Look at these aluminum tube
stories that came out the president delivered to the Congress —
‘We believe these would be used for centrifuges.’ — didn’t deliver
to Congress the full range of objections from the Department of
Energy experts, nuclear weapons experts, that said it’s unlikely
they were for centrifuges, more likely that they were for rockets,
which was a pre-existing use. The president has much more access
to intelligence than any member of Congress.” [10/7/04]
FACT — Rockefeller: PDBs, CIA Intel Withheld From Senate:
Ranking minority member on the Senate Intelligence Committee Jay
Rockefeller (D-WV): “[P]eople say, ‘Well, you know, you all had
the same intelligence that the White House had.’ And I’m here to
tell you that is nowhere near the truth. We not only don’t have,
nor probably should we have, the Presidential Daily Brief. We
don’t have the constant people who are working on intelligence
who are very close to him. They don’t release their — an
administration which tends not to release — not just the White
House, but the CIA, DOD [Department of Defense], others — they
control information. There’s a lot of intelligence that we don’t
get that they have.” [11/04/05]
FACT — War Supporter Ken Pollack: White House Engaged in “Creative Omission”
of Iraq Intel:
In the eyes of Kenneth Pollack, “a Clinton-era National Security
Council member and strong supporter of regime change in Iraq,”
“the Administration consistently engaged in ‘creative omission,’
overstating the imminence of the Iraqi threat, even though it
had evidence to the contrary. ‘The President is responsible for
serving the entire nation,’ Pollack writes. ‘Only the
Administration has access to all the information available to
various agencies of the US government – and withholding or
downplaying some of that information for its own purposes is a
betrayal of that responsibility.’”
[Christian Science Monitor, 1/14/04]
FACT — White House Had Exclusive Access to “Unique” Intel Sources:
“The claim that the White House and Congress saw the ’same
intelligence’ on Iraq is further undermined by the Bush
administration’s use of outside intelligence channels. For more
than year prior to the war, the administration received
intelligence assessments and analysis on Iraq directly from the
Department of Defense’s Office of Special Plans (OSP), run by
then-undersecretary of defense for policy Douglas J. Feith, and
the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a group of Iraqi exiles led
by Ahmed Chalabi.” [MediaMatters, 11/8/05]
All the cites in the world here:
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/11/iraq-intel/
Clave
Out of ammo *again*?
Tsk.
Jim
Al Smith
> "Claudius Vitalis" <jazz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:UQ5ef.1727$c27...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> > Cindy's son died protecting the right for his mother to be a jackass
>
Iraq didn't plot an assassination attempt against Bush41?
> Why do you lie so much, right-wing traitor?
>
Al Smith
This was really easy to find. Is CNN OK?
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and
security targets in Iraq... Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to
threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or
biological weapons."
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
Joseph Welch
>>> Congress had access to the same intel President Bush did.
>>
>> That's a blatant fucking lie.
> Wrong.
You know - it happened again! I looked and looked and looked for the
support of your lie - some kind of quote, link, or explanation of how you
could make such a claim in complete contradiction to the truth - and all I
see is this one word lie.
Did your kitty-cat walk across your keyboard before you had a chance to back
up your bullshit? I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt here and
give you another chance.
Let's see your info.
Joseph Welch
news:VoqdnV7xfacKMOfe...@cablespeedwa.com...
> My, my -- Stupus is getting desperate.
No more so than usual.
Bluto's Usenet MO: "When cornered -lie, then change the subject. If it
continues beyond three days - change your screen name".
Joseph Welch
> Clinton and Gore had the same intel and reached the same conslusions.
Another blatant lie. Neither Clinton nor Gore believed that Saddam was such
a threat to the safety and security of the United States or his own
neighbors that the only solution was full-scale invasion.
Got any more lies?
Joseph Welch
"Al Smith" <caddys...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1132117780....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> > Clinton and Gore had the same intel and reached the same conslusions.
>>
>> I doubt that, but regardless of whether that's true, it has nothing to
>> do with what's being discussed. The discussion is about *congress,* not
>> ex-Presidents and ex-Vice Presidents.
>
> This was really easy to find. Is CNN OK?
>
> "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and
> security targets in Iraq... Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to
> threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or
> biological weapons."
>
> http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
Sorry - I was looking within this link for any report of the United States
launching a full-scale invasion. I couldn't find it.
Could you point it out for me?
Joseph Welch
>>> No, they saw the same intel as President Bush.
>>
>> That's a blatant fucking lie - and you know it you treasonous cocksucker.
>>
>> --
>> JW
>
> Wrong.
Say - um, like this is the third time today when you must have had some
accident or something that prevented you from finishing your post. I'll
keep looking, but the information that you provided to back up your bullshit
lie must have gotten lost somewhere.
Could you re-send it?
Joseph Welch
news:1h634ck.1hnlln5stx0neN%use...@mile23.c0m...
> (I'd also remind Welch that 'cocksucker' isn't nearly the insult he
> seems to think it is.)
Sorry Paul - point taken. I beg your indulgence as this particular online
persona has a tendency to occasionally use words and phrases that will be
perceived as insults by those at whom they are directed - even though any
overly negative connotation may not be shared by the very real and generally
less dramatic real human being behind the 'nym known as 'Joseph Welch'.
Joseph Welch
>> I believe it because it's true you lying sack of crap.
> Wrong.
Wow, that's like FIVE TIMES now the rest of your post must have gotten cut
off.
Could you please re-post the rest of your response?
Joseph Welch
>> Bullshit. Iraq was no threat to the rights of any American.
>
> Iraq didn't plot an assassination attempt against Bush41?
No he didn't, actually. Even if he had - that such a "plot" was
unsuccessful is pretty good evidence he wasn't a threat to anyone's rights.
brutus
> Withheld from Congress:
>
> [S]everal Congressional and intelligence officials with access to
> the 15 assessments [of intel suggesting aluminum tubes showed Iraq
> was reconstituting its nuclear program] said not one of them
> informed senior policy makers of the Energy Department's dissent.
> They described a series of reports, some with ominous titles, that
> failed to convey either the existence or the substance of the
> intensifying debate." [NYT, 10/3/04]
>
>
> Former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE), ex-Senate Intelligence Committee
> vice chairman: "The president has much more access to intelligence
> than members of Congress does. Ask any member of Congress. Ask a
> Republican member of Congress, do you get the same access to
> intelligence that the president does? Look at these aluminum tube
> 'We believe these would be used for centrifuges.' - didn't deliver
> to Congress the full range of objections from the Department of
> Energy experts, nuclear weapons experts, that said it's unlikely
> they were for centrifuges, more likely that they were for rockets,
> which was a pre-existing use. The president has much more access
> to intelligence than any member of Congress." [10/7/04]
>
>
> Ranking minority member on the Senate Intelligence Committee Jay
> Rockefeller (D-WV): "[P]eople say, 'Well, you know, you all had
> the same intelligence that the White House had.' And I'm here to
> tell you that is nowhere near the truth. We not only don't have,
> nor probably should we have, the Presidential Daily Brief. We
> don't have the constant people who are working on intelligence
> administration which tends not to release - not just the White
> House, but the CIA, DOD [Department of Defense], others - they
> control information. There's a lot of intelligence that we don't
> get that they have." [11/04/05]
>
> of Iraq Intel:
>
> In the eyes of Kenneth Pollack, "a Clinton-era National Security
> Council member and strong supporter of regime change in Iraq,"
> "the Administration consistently engaged in 'creative omission,'
> overstating the imminence of the Iraqi threat, even though it
> had evidence to the contrary. 'The President is responsible for
> serving the entire nation,' Pollack writes. 'Only the
> Administration has access to all the information available to
> downplaying some of that information for its own purposes is a
> betrayal of that responsibility.'"
> [Christian Science Monitor, 1/14/04]
>
>
> "The claim that the White House and Congress saw the 'same
> intelligence' on Iraq is further undermined by the Bush
> administration's use of outside intelligence channels. For more
> than year prior to the war, the administration received
> intelligence assessments and analysis on Iraq directly from the
> Department of Defense's Office of Special Plans (OSP), run by
> then-undersecretary of defense for policy Douglas J. Feith, and
> the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a group of Iraqi exiles led
> by Ahmed Chalabi." [MediaMatters, 11/8/05]
>
> All the cites in the world here:
>
> http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/11/iraq-intel/
So the Senators (and President Clinton and Vice-President Gore) took
President Bush's word for it. Sure.
Brutus
brutus
"Paul Mitchum" <use...@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
So President Bush is supposed to be smarter then Clinton? Don't make me dig
up the Clinton statements - you've read them many times and you know what he
said. Same with Kerry and the rest.
Brutus
Al Smith
Joseph Welch wrote:
> "Al Smith" <caddys...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:1132117780....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Clinton and Gore had the same intel and reached the same conslusions.
> >>
> >> I doubt that, but regardless of whether that's true, it has nothing to
> >> do with what's being discussed. The discussion is about *congress,* not
> >> ex-Presidents and ex-Vice Presidents.
> >
> > This was really easy to find. Is CNN OK?
> >
> > "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and
> > security targets in Iraq... Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to
> > threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or
> > biological weapons."
> >
> > http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
>
> Sorry - I was looking within this link for any report of the United States
> launching a full-scale invasion. I couldn't find it.
They came to the same conclusion about WMD's. The difference is that
Bush43 kicked ass and Clinton42 sucked smeggy cigars.
> Could you point it out for me?
I would never do that. You can get a magnafying glass and a private
room all by yourself.
brutus
>
> "brutus" <bru...@thebrute.com> wrote in message
> news:9gyef.1207$jI5...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>> Clinton and Gore had the same intel and reached the same conslusions.
>
> Another blatant lie. Neither Clinton nor Gore believed that Saddam was
> such a threat to the safety and security of the United States or his own
> neighbors that the only solution was full-scale invasion.
>
> Got any more lies?
>
> --
> JW
"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein,
Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9,
1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last
visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has
reinvigorated 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 refine 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 our allies." -- From
a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford,
& Tom Lantos among others
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between
Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to
dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit
monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has
developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological
capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear
weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and
Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while
retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We
cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright,
1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some
day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10
times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all
weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its
agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence
reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet
achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical
and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United
States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were
before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing
nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he
were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would
face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26,
2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with
the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in
the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past
four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has
continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat
Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use
them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and
all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." --
Bill Clinton in 1998
"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,
though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible
events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he
succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security
landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American
security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in
1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a
warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those
trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of
2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass
destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them
against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our
allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam
Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available
means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already
used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build
more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons,
and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John
Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security.
It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a
clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination
to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." --
John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of
mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we
should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to
weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction
has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will
continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 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." -- Bob Graham,
December 2002
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive
his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim
Jeffords, October 8, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he
is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction
cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but
as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and
particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed
to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.
He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing
the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass
destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator,
leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. 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.
That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has
spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and
disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian
Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
"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 mandates
of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the
means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological
weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the
United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors
discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq
was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is
still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to
think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued
biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims
about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq
used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish
population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past,
there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt
that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass
destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the
proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave
importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible
intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still
has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium
perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic
missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these
deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX
substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored
in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains
significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly
reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons
Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to
enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that
difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always
underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of
mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very
real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both
against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop
delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring
these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle
East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards
Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of
international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying
time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United
Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are
simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brutus
Clave
He had the real intel, they didn't.
Not my problem if you can't do the math.
Jim
brutus
> "Clave" <ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
> news:VoqdnV7xfacKMOfe...@cablespeedwa.com...
>
>> My, my -- Stupus is getting desperate.
>
> No more so than usual.
>
> Bluto's Usenet MO: "When cornered -lie, then change the subject. If it
> continues beyond three days - change your screen name".
>
> --
> JW
You have changed your screen name more often then me. You must lie more.
Brutus
Clave
Heh. Having fired the Clinton blank, Stupus clicks on the empty Kerry
chamber.
Jim
brutus
"Paul Mitchum" <use...@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
brutus
> "brutus" <bru...@thebrute.com> wrote in message
> news:Afyef.1206$jI5...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>>> No, they saw the same intel as President Bush.
>>>
>>> That's a blatant fucking lie - and you know it you treasonous
>>> cocksucker.
>>>
>>> --
>>> JW
>>
>> Wrong.
>
> Say - um, like this is the third time today when you must have had some
> accident or something that prevented you from finishing your post. I'll
> keep looking, but the information that you provided to back up your
> bullshit lie must have gotten lost somewhere.
>
> Could you re-send it?
>
> --
> JW
Clave
>
> "Joseph Welch" <seattled...@freewebspace.com> wrote in message
> news:vBzef.243$yx3...@fe02.buzzardnews.com...
>>
>> "brutus" <bru...@thebrute.com> wrote in message
>> news:9gyef.1207$jI5...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>> Clinton and Gore had the same intel and reached the same conslusions.
>>
>> Another blatant lie. Neither Clinton nor Gore believed that Saddam was
>> such a threat to the safety and security of the United States or his own
>> neighbors that the only solution was full-scale invasion.
>>
>> Got any more lies?
>>
>> --
>> JW
>
>
Care to argue with any of this yet, or are you going to pussy out again?
========================================
Bush Resurrects False Claim That Congress Had “Same Intelligence” On Iraq
In his speech today, President Bush claimed that members of Congress who
voted for the 2002 Iraq war resolution “had access to the same intelligence”
as his administration. This is patently false.
Nevermind that much of the intelligence offered to the public and to
Congress was inaccurate and misleading, or that according to the Downing
Street memo and other documents, such intelligence was likely intentionally
“fixed.” It is simply not true to state that Congress received the “same
intelligence” as the White House:
FACT — Dissent From White House Claims on Iraq Nuclear Program Consistently
Withheld from Congress:
[S]everal Congressional and intelligence officials with access to
the 15 assessments [of intel suggesting aluminum tubes showed Iraq
was reconstituting its nuclear program] said not one of them
informed senior policy makers of the Energy Department’s dissent.
They described a series of reports, some with ominous titles, that
failed to convey either the existence or the substance of the
intensifying debate.” [NYT, 10/3/04]
FACT — Sen. Kerrey: Bush “Has Much More Access” to Intel Than Congress:
Former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE), ex-Senate Intelligence Committee
vice chairman: “The president has much more access to intelligence
than members of Congress does. Ask any member of Congress. Ask a
Republican member of Congress, do you get the same access to
intelligence that the president does? Look at these aluminum tube
stories that came out the president delivered to the Congress —
‘We believe these would be used for centrifuges.’ — didn’t deliver
to Congress the full range of objections from the Department of
Energy experts, nuclear weapons experts, that said it’s unlikely
they were for centrifuges, more likely that they were for rockets,
which was a pre-existing use. The president has much more access
to intelligence than any member of Congress.” [10/7/04]
FACT — Rockefeller: PDBs, CIA Intel Withheld From Senate:
Ranking minority member on the Senate Intelligence Committee Jay
Rockefeller (D-WV): “[P]eople say, ‘Well, you know, you all had
the same intelligence that the White House had.’ And I’m here to
tell you that is nowhere near the truth. We not only don’t have,
nor probably should we have, the Presidential Daily Brief. We
don’t have the constant people who are working on intelligence
who are very close to him. They don’t release their — an
administration which tends not to release — not just the White
House, but the CIA, DOD [Department of Defense], others — they
control information. There’s a lot of intelligence that we don’t
get that they have.” [11/04/05]
FACT — War Supporter Ken Pollack: White House Engaged in “Creative Omission”
of Iraq Intel:
In the eyes of Kenneth Pollack, “a Clinton-era National Security
Council member and strong supporter of regime change in Iraq,”
“the Administration consistently engaged in ‘creative omission,’
overstating the imminence of the Iraqi threat, even though it
had evidence to the contrary. ‘The President is responsible for
serving the entire nation,’ Pollack writes. ‘Only the
Administration has access to all the information available to
various agencies of the US government – and withholding or
downplaying some of that information for its own purposes is a
betrayal of that responsibility.’”
[Christian Science Monitor, 1/14/04]
FACT — White House Had Exclusive Access to “Unique” Intel Sources:
Clave
>
> "Paul Mitchum" <use...@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> news:1h634ck.1hnlln5stx0neN%use...@mile23.c0m...
>> brutus <bru...@thebrute.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Joseph Welch" <seattled...@freewebspace.com> wrote in message
>>> news:aYref.24$yx3...@fe02.buzzardnews.com...
>>> > "brutus" <bru...@thebrute.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:9Kqef.2090$c27....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>> >
>>> >>> They were given intel by Bush
>>> >>
>>> >> No, they saw the same intel as President Bush.
>>> >
>>> > That's a blatant fucking lie - and you know it you treasonous
>>> > cocksucker.
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>> Brutus: Why do you think it matters whether congress saw different intel
>> than the President did?
>>
>> (I'd also remind Welch that 'cocksucker' isn't nearly the insult he
>> seems to think it is.)
>
>
Clave
>
> "Joseph Welch" <seattled...@freewebspace.com> wrote in message
> news:1Ezef.245$yx3...@fe02.buzzardnews.com...
>> "brutus" <bru...@thebrute.com> wrote in message
>> news:Afyef.1206$jI5...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>>> No, they saw the same intel as President Bush.
>>>>
>>>> That's a blatant fucking lie - and you know it you treasonous
>>>> cocksucker.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> JW
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>> Say - um, like this is the third time today when you must have had some
>> accident or something that prevented you from finishing your post. I'll
>> keep looking, but the information that you provided to back up your
>> bullshit lie must have gotten lost somewhere.
>>
>> Could you re-send it?
>>
>> --
>> JW
>
>
Paul Mitchum
And your cite about congressmembers having the same intel as Bush DURING
THE RUN-UP TO THE CURRENT WAR IN IRAQ, circa 2003, is where, again?
Quoting Bill Clinton from 1998 won't cut it.
I mean, I know you're not going to find it, ever, but I'm asking to be
nice.
Paul Mitchum
> "Paul Mitchum" <use...@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> news:1h634ck.1hnlln5stx0neN%use...@mile23.c0m...
>
> > (I'd also remind Welch that 'cocksucker' isn't nearly the insult he
> > seems to think it is.)
>
> Sorry Paul - point taken. I beg your indulgence as this particular online
> persona has a tendency to occasionally use words and phrases that will be
> perceived as insults by those at whom they are directed - even though any
> overly negative connotation may not be shared by the very real and
> generally less dramatic real human being behind the 'nym known as 'Joseph
> Welch'.
Earlier you asked someone else how it felt to have someone jump on you
and call you a traitor, and the funny thing is, I'd wager you already
know. Furthermore, they don't care whether you call them traitors or
not. There's no rhetoric that will stick. They're going down with the
ship, and we'll be reading their inane postings about Iraqi WMD in Syria
until... Well, it'll be like the JFK assassination. Oliver Stone will
make a movie about it.
I don't mind you taking this tack, but I think you're losing sight of a
thing or two.
Al Smith
Joseph Welch wrote:
> "Al Smith" <caddys...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:1132117224.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> Bullshit. Iraq was no threat to the rights of any American.
> >
> > Iraq didn't plot an assassination attempt against Bush41?
>
> No he didn't, actually.
"In addition, Clinton launched military strikes on Iraq several times
to punish violations of UN sanctions and an attempt to have former
President George H. W. Bush assassinated. However, because he was
scarred by the US defeat and humiliation in Somalia, he refused to get
the US involved in the Rwandan genocide."
http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-clinton
> Even if he had - that such a "plot" was
> unsuccessful is pretty good evidence he wasn't a threat to anyone's rights.
That's why attempted murder is a crime - "no blood, no foul."
You stupid jackass.
Clave
<...>
> And your cite about congressmembers having the same intel as Bush DURING
> THE RUN-UP TO THE CURRENT WAR IN IRAQ, circa 2003, is where, again?
> Quoting Bill Clinton from 1998 won't cut it.
>
> I mean, I know you're not going to find it, ever, but I'm asking to be
> nice.
Has it ever occurred to you that you can be too fucking nice?
Jim
Joseph Welch
> So the Senators (and President Clinton and Vice-President Gore) took
> President Bush's word for it.
Neither Bill Clinton nor Gore were able to vote on the resolution that gave
Bush the power to go to war with Iraq "if necessary".
The Senators who *did* vote for that resolution did in fact trust the
President to be honest with them, and sincere about his motives.
That was a major mistake - and many are publicly acknowledging that. You'll
see more Republicans doing that as well as they try and distance themselves
from the stain of Bush in the same way that many Dems distanced themselves
from the stain on Monica's dress in the latter months of the 2000 election.
Joseph Welch
>> > http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
>>
>> Sorry - I was looking within this link for any report of the United
>> States
>> launching a full-scale invasion. I couldn't find it.
>
> They came to the same conclusion about WMD's.
Bush came to the conclusiong that the threat of Iraq's WMD's were so
significant that the only solution was full-scale invasion.
I keep looking for that in the cite you provided - no dice. What else ya'
got that says that Clinton and Gore believed that the threat of Saddam's
WMD's was so severe that the only solution was full scale invasion?
> The difference is that Bush43 kicked ass and Clinton42 sucked smeggy
> cigars.
The real difference appears to be that Clinton eliminated the threat without
full scale invasion.
>> Could you point it out for me?
>
> I would never do that.
Because you can't. It never happened.
Joseph Welch
> Has it ever occurred to you that you can be too fucking nice?
Whew. There's another problem *I'll* never have.
Joseph Welch
> So President Bush is supposed to be smarter then Clinton?
I'd settle for "at least as smart".
> Don't make me dig up the Clinton statements
Feel free. Not one of them says that the threat from Saddam's WMD's is so
great that the only solution is full-scale invasion.
Paul Mitchum
> "Paul Mitchum" <use...@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> news:1h6349x.1c56nm54snrr4N%use...@mile23.c0m...
> > brutus <bru...@thebrute.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Clave" <ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
> >> news:VoqdnV7xfacKMOfe...@cablespeedwa.com...
> >> > "Joseph Welch" <seattled...@freewebspace.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:aYref.24$yx3...@fe02.buzzardnews.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> "brutus" <bru...@thebrute.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:9Kqef.2090$c27....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> >>
> >> >>>> They were given intel by Bush
> >> >>>
> >> >>> No, they saw the same intel as President Bush.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's a blatant fucking lie - and you know it you treasonous
> >> >> cocksucker.
> >> >
> >> > My, my -- Stupus is getting desperate.
> >> >
> >> > Jim
> >>
> >> Clinton and Gore had the same intel and reached the same conslusions.
> >
> > I doubt that, but regardless of whether that's true, it has nothing to
> > do with what's being discussed. The discussion is about *congress,* not
> > ex-Presidents and ex-Vice Presidents.
>
> So President Bush is supposed to be smarter then Clinton?
You'd have to be an idiot to reach that conclusion from what I wrote.
> Don't make me dig up the Clinton statements - you've read them many times
> and you know what he said. Same with Kerry and the rest.
Yes, and none of them have anything whatsoever to do with the topic at
hand.
Paul Mitchum
> "Paul Mitchum" <use...@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> news:1h634ck.1hnlln5stx0neN%use...@mile23.c0m...
> > brutus <bru...@thebrute.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Joseph Welch" <seattled...@freewebspace.com> wrote in message
> >> news:aYref.24$yx3...@fe02.buzzardnews.com...
> >> > "brutus" <bru...@thebrute.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:9Kqef.2090$c27....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> >
> >> >>> They were given intel by Bush
> >> >>
> >> >> No, they saw the same intel as President Bush.
> >> >
> >> > That's a blatant fucking lie - and you know it you treasonous
> >> > cocksucker.
> >>
> >> Wrong.
> >
> > Brutus: Why do you think it matters whether congress saw different intel
> > than the President did?
>
> [ ..snip same fucking quotes that don't address the issue at all,
> just like the last time they were quoted..]
Try again. I mean, for real, rather than play-like.
Joseph Welch
>> Another blatant lie. Neither Clinton nor Gore believed that Saddam was
>> such a threat to the safety and security of the United States or his own
>> neighbors that the only solution was full-scale invasion.
>>
>> Got any more lies?
<snippage>
Neither Clinton nor Gore believed that Saddam was such a threat to the
safety and security of the United States or his own
neighbors that the only solution was full-scale invasion.
Right?
Hello?
McFly?
As to the contemporary quotes - they are based on the filtered intelligence
that Bush fed Congresscritters. In spite of your other lies about the
President having the "same intelligence" that they had (the same lie Bush
himself promotes), it's a flat-out lie, and ridiculous on it's face.
Joseph Welch
> You have changed your screen name more often then me.
I've changed my screen name four times in twelve years. Two of those times,
the screen name was either my real name or a variation of it.
Al Smith
If you notice what I was responding to was: "Clinton and Gore had the
same intel and reached the same conclusions."
Addressing your question above, I don't know what intel each member or
committee used to rationalize their vote that allowed the president to
begin war in Iraq - so I haven't commented on it. Naturally the Select
Committee on Intelligence operates independently from the Whitehouse
and probably didn't use all the same intel, weighted identically to the
Whitehouse, to come to their conclusions:
"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. And that may happen sooner if he
can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -
something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also
should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has
made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
October 9, 2002
John D. Rockefeller, IV, D-West Virginia
Vice Chairman, United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
> I mean, I know you're not going to find it, ever, but I'm asking to be
> nice.
Maybe you can find a source where Tenet told Rockefeller not to put
that in his speech, but Bush43 put it back in?
Paul Mitchum
Yah, I think about that from time to time. You'll note that no one walks
over me, however.
Joseph Welch
"Paul Mitchum" <use...@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> Earlier you asked someone else how it felt to have someone jump on you
> and call you a traitor, and the funny thing is, I'd wager you already
> know.
Naturally. Anyone who's spoken against Bush in a public forum does.
> Furthermore, they don't care whether you call them traitors or not.
> There's no rhetoric that will stick.
I'm not so sure, Paul. I personally feel it forces an examination of what
the word actually means - either that, or how ridiculous it is to toss the
word about in the context of political debate (and it is ridiculous he said,
breaking character for just a smidge).
> They're going down with the ship, and we'll be reading their inane
> postings about Iraqi WMD in Syria
> until... Well, it'll be like the JFK assassination.
Right you are, Paul, but if I may say so it isn't the "kinder, gentler
approach" that is helping bring this about.
> I don't mind you taking this tack, but I think you're losing sight of a
> thing or two.
This is an old discussion we've had before, and I know what your take on
tactics is. I don't for a moment begrudge you yours and it's own brand of
effectiveness - and I think mine has validity as well. If not, again I gain
the benefit of catharsis if nothing else. One of the great things about
Usenet (and America, really) is that there is room for many approaches, many
views, and many ways of going about meeting common goals. It also provides
a rather unique opportunity to try out styles of communication that would in
any other context seem everything from silly to sublime. So my own style
floats closer to silly, and your own sublime. There's room for both
extremes, and everything in the middle. I get a lot out of reading your
stuff, Paul, even though it doesn't motivate me to change how I deliver my
own.
As to the "best" way to approach our sociopathic 'friends' who've found faux
legitimacy for their lunatic ideologies of late, ultimately I really do
believe that using their own tactics against them - as well as tossing in
some serious condemnation in serious terms - has an impact, and a positive
one. Would I advocate my online persona's approach to any and all
communications, including what passes through the airwaves? Hell no, that
would be silly. On the other hand - I've seen a real evolution of people
closer to our side of the political freeway get walked on a LOT by sticking
to the so-called "high road" and attempting to counter the ascerbic nitwits
with reasoned and rationed rhetoric. The main problem is that so many of
them don't communicate that way, and (I believe) it can be more effective to
meet them on their own terms, so to speak.
Gee, I hope nobody reads this! I'll be unmasked!
Al Smith
Joseph Welch wrote:
> "Al Smith" <caddys...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:1132122010....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
> >>
> >> Sorry - I was looking within this link for any report of the United
> >> States
> >> launching a full-scale invasion. I couldn't find it.
> >
> > They came to the same conclusion about WMD's.
>
> Bush came to the conclusiong that the threat of Iraq's WMD's were so
> significant that the only solution was full-scale invasion.
They both came to the conclusion that a miltary, not a political,
response was appropriate.
> I keep looking for that in the cite you provided - no dice. What else ya'
> got that says that Clinton and Gore believed that the threat of Saddam's
> WMD's was so severe that the only solution was full scale invasion?
The "full scale invasion" is your strawman inserted after your first
bitch-slapping (by me, anyway) this evening.
> > The difference is that Bush43 kicked ass and Clinton42 sucked smeggy
> > cigars.
>
> The real difference appears to be that Clinton eliminated the threat without
> full scale invasion.
Clinton eliminated the Iraqi threat several times.
> >> Could you point it out for me?
> >
> > I would never do that.
>
> Because you can't. It never happened.
You erect strawmen *ALL THE TIME*
Al Smith
The first rule of leftyism is, "Never let them forget you're an
asshole."
Joseph Welch
>> > They came to the same conclusion about WMD's.
>>
>> Bush came to the conclusiong that the threat of Iraq's WMD's were so
>> significant that the only solution was full-scale invasion.
>
> They both came to the conclusion that a miltary, not a political,
> response was appropriate.
Had Bush engaged in strategic bombing - or at least allowed the inspectors
to finish their job - we wouldn't be having most of these conversations.
Bush came to the conclusion that the threat of Iraq's WMD's were so
significant that the only solution was full-scale invasion.
Bush was wrong. Clinton did *not* come to that conclusion. Clinton was
right. You claim they came to the same conclusion about Iraq. You're a
liar.
> The "full scale invasion" is your strawman inserted after your first
> bitch-slapping (by me, anyway) this evening.
How is a full-scale invasion a "strawman"? You claimed (lied) that both
Bush and Clinton came to the same conclusion about Iraq. Bush invaded -
Clinton did not. Had Clinton believed that Saddam had all of these WMD's
that Bush claimed and that the only way to keep Americans safe was by
invasion - Clinton would have invaded. He didn't.
Your claim that both Bush and Clinton came to the same conclusion about
Saddam's WMD's is false on it's face. The bitch-slap-ee is YOU.
>> The real difference appears to be that Clinton eliminated the threat
>> without
>> full scale invasion.
>
> Clinton eliminated the Iraqi threat several times.
You misspelled "prevented", and all without a full scale invasion.
>> Because you can't. It never happened.
>
> You erect strawmen *ALL THE TIME*
You really need to look up that word. You don't appear to know what it
means. Just because you can't refute the point, doesn't make it a
'strawman'.
Joseph Welch
"Paul Mitchum" <use...@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> Yah, I think about that from time to time. You'll note that no one walks
> over me, however.
While you don't see it that way, and I don't see it that way - a whole lot
of THEM *do* see it that way because they don't see what you do as fighting
back.
Joseph Welch
> If you notice what I was responding to was: "Clinton and Gore had the
> same intel and reached the same conclusions."
Which is a lie.
Bush came to the conclusion that the only way to deal with the threat posed
by Saddam was full scale invasion.
Clinton/Gore did not.
Joseph Welch
>>>>> No, they saw the same intel as President Bush.
>>>>
>>>> That's a blatant fucking lie - and you know it you treasonous
>>>> cocksucker.
>>> Wrong.
>>
>> Say - um, like this is the third time today when you must have had some
>> accident or something that prevented you from finishing your post. I'll
>> keep looking, but the information that you provided to back up your
>> bullshit lie must have gotten lost somewhere.
>>
>> Could you re-send it?
None of your quotes support your claim.
Not one.
Care to try again?
Clave
Long since noted. Just sayin.
Jim
Paul Mitchum
> Paul Mitchum wrote:
> > Al Smith <caddys...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Paul Mitchum wrote:
> > > > brutus <bru...@thebrute.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Clave" <ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:VoqdnV7xfacKMOfe...@cablespeedwa.com...
> > > > > > "Joseph Welch" <seattled...@freewebspace.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:aYref.24$yx3...@fe02.buzzardnews.com...
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> "brutus" <bru...@thebrute.com> wrote in message
> > > > > >> news:9Kqef.2090$c27....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>> They were given intel by Bush
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> No, they saw the same intel as President Bush.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> That's a blatant fucking lie - and you know it you treasonous
> > > > > >> cocksucker.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My, my -- Stupus is getting desperate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jim
> > > > >
> > > > > Clinton and Gore had the same intel and reached the same conslusions.
> > > >
> > > > I doubt that, but regardless of whether that's true, it has nothing to
> > > > do with what's being discussed. The discussion is about *congress,* not
> > > > ex-Presidents and ex-Vice Presidents.
> > >
> > > This was really easy to find. Is CNN OK?
> > > [..]
> > > http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
> >
> > And your cite about congressmembers having the same intel as Bush DURING
> > THE RUN-UP TO THE CURRENT WAR IN IRAQ, circa 2003, is where, again?
> > Quoting Bill Clinton from 1998 won't cut it.
>
> If you notice what I was responding to was: "Clinton and Gore had the
> same intel and reached the same conclusions."
Yes, and AS I POINTED OUT, that's not what's under discussion.
> Addressing your question above, I don't know what intel each member or
> committee used to rationalize their vote that allowed the president to
> begin war in Iraq - so I haven't commented on it. Naturally the Select
> Committee on Intelligence operates independently from the Whitehouse
> and probably didn't use all the same intel, weighted identically to the
> Whitehouse, to come to their conclusions:
>
> "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. And that may happen sooner if he
> can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -
> something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also
> should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has
> made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
>
> October 9, 2002
> John D. Rockefeller, IV, D-West Virginia
> Vice Chairman, United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
When you say 'probably,' what, exactly, do you mean?
See, that's the problem with this issue of who had what intel, and who
believed whom: There's much that is unknown. It seems to me that if Bush
had hard evidence of anything, congress would have seen it, perhaps in
secret. So where did Rockefeller get his info? It's all 100% wrong,
though it does point out that Iraq *wasn't* obtaining uranium from
foreign sources.
> > I mean, I know you're not going to find it, ever, but I'm asking to be
> > nice.
>
> Maybe you can find a source where Tenet told Rockefeller not to put
> that in his speech, but Bush43 put it back in?
Rockefeller's statement is somewhat contradictory to Bush's 16-word
statement about Iraqi yellowcake purchase, isn't it?
Paul Mitchum
> "Paul Mitchum" <use...@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> news:1h639kr.19ir5rp1u3v40N%use...@mile23.c0m...
>
> > Earlier you asked someone else how it felt to have someone jump on you
> > and call you a traitor, and the funny thing is, I'd wager you already
> > know.
>
> Naturally. Anyone who's spoken against Bush in a public forum does.
>
> > Furthermore, they don't care whether you call them traitors or not.
> > There's no rhetoric that will stick.
>
> I'm not so sure, Paul. I personally feel it forces an examination of what
> the word actually means - either that, or how ridiculous it is to toss the
> word about in the context of political debate (and it is ridiculous he
> said, breaking character for just a smidge).
>
> > They're going down with the ship, and we'll be reading their inane
> > postings about Iraqi WMD in Syria until... Well, it'll be like the JFK
> > assassination.
>
> Right you are, Paul, but if I may say so it isn't the "kinder, gentler
> approach" that is helping bring this about.
What I was trying to say is that these WMD cargo-cultists are pretty
much irrelevant in any reasonable sense. Trying to convince them is
effort wasted, doubly so if you get them agitated.
> > I don't mind you taking this tack, but I think you're losing sight of a
> > thing or two.
>
> This is an old discussion we've had before, and I know what your take on
> tactics is. I don't for a moment begrudge you yours and it's own brand of
> effectiveness - and I think mine has validity as well.
Like I said, I don't mind. It takes all kinds. But my point isn't that
calling some guy a cocksucker is morally wrong only because it
denigrates gay people. My point is that Spammy's disease is infectious
if you let it be.
> If not, again I gain the benefit of catharsis if nothing else. [..]
There ye go. :-) I'm with Don Homuth when he calls it amUsenet.
Personally, I'd rather be myself (more or less). The whole online thing
brings some aspects of one's personality out that wouldn't otherwise be
so far forward, and this is understood.
> Gee, I hope nobody reads this! I'll be unmasked!
<http://home.online.no/~mailsnx/images/KISS/Unmasked-Poster-1980.jpg>
Al Smith
Joseph Welch wrote:
> "Al Smith" <caddys...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:1132124621....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > They came to the same conclusion about WMD's.
> >>
> >> Bush came to the conclusiong that the threat of Iraq's WMD's were so
> >> significant that the only solution was full-scale invasion.
> >
> > They both came to the conclusion that a miltary, not a political,
> > response was appropriate.
>
> Had Bush engaged in strategic bombing - or at least allowed the inspectors
> to finish their job - we wouldn't be having most of these conversations.
>
> Bush came to the conclusion that the threat of Iraq's WMD's were so
> significant that the only solution was full-scale invasion.
>
> Bush was wrong. Clinton did *not* come to that conclusion. Clinton was
> right. You claim they came to the same conclusion about Iraq. You're a
> liar.
>
> > The "full scale invasion" is your strawman inserted after your first
> > bitch-slapping (by me, anyway) this evening.
>
> How is a full-scale invasion a "strawman"? You claimed (lied) that both
> Bush and Clinton came to the same conclusion about Iraq.
If you had said, "solution" instead of "conclusion" - we wouldn't be
having most of these conversations.
> Bush invaded -
> Clinton did not. Had Clinton believed that Saddam had all of these WMD's
> that Bush claimed and that the only way to keep Americans safe was by
> invasion - Clinton would have invaded. He didn't.
>
> Your claim that both Bush and Clinton came to the same conclusion about
> Saddam's WMD's is false on it's face. The bitch-slap-ee is YOU.
>
> >> The real difference appears to be that Clinton eliminated the threat
> >> without
> >> full scale invasion.
> >
> > Clinton eliminated the Iraqi threat several times.
>
> You misspelled "prevented", and all without a full scale invasion.
>
> >> Because you can't. It never happened.
> >
> > You erect strawmen *ALL THE TIME*
>
> You really need to look up that word. You don't appear to know what it
> means. Just because you can't refute the point, doesn't make it a
> 'strawman'.
I answered the question that both Clinton and Bush came to the same
conclusion that Saddam had WMD's and military action was the
appropriate response. I met the challenge and disposed of lefty
nonsense. I win, you lose. Too bad, so sad. But wait...
...Welch has an idea... He'll try to save face and move the goal
posts... And in for the first time in the thread, *30* minutes after my
response, he uses the phrase, "full-scale invasion." That's a strawman
because you want me to chase your siliness around.
Sorry, you lose again.
Al Smith
Purely statistical in that the probability of two different agencies
using the same identical information and weighted it identically is
unlikely. I have no idea how they came upon similar conclusions. Maybe
one of the cheated and cribbed the other's notes.
> See, that's the problem with this issue of who had what intel, and who
> believed whom: There's much that is unknown. It seems to me that if Bush
> had hard evidence of anything, congress would have seen it, perhaps in
> secret. So where did Rockefeller get his info? It's all 100% wrong,
> though it does point out that Iraq *wasn't* obtaining uranium from
> foreign sources.
You can read that from the quote?
> > > I mean, I know you're not going to find it, ever, but I'm asking to be
> > > nice.
> >
> > Maybe you can find a source where Tenet told Rockefeller not to put
> > that in his speech, but Bush43 put it back in?
>
> Rockefeller's statement is somewhat contradictory to Bush's 16-word
> statement about Iraqi yellowcake purchase, isn't it?
A nuclear bomb from yellowcake would have likely occured "within the
next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to
enriched uranium."
Of course we now know Iraq had *2 TONS* of enriched uranium.
BTW, you risk me believing that I'm walking all over you because you
aren't acting like a prick.
Paul Mitchum
> "Paul Mitchum" <use...@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> news:1h63bhy.4iq5j7y89xhxN%use...@mile23.c0m...
>
> > Yah, I think about that from time to time. You'll note that no one walks
> > over me, however.
>
> While you don't see it that way, and I don't see it that way - a whole lot
> of THEM *do* see it that way because they don't see what you do as
> fighting back.
I agree completely.
However: Fuck 'em! There are people who will never get it, no matter how
attractive the presentation. I think that politics in general is
geological in timeframe. Things don't change as quickly as we'd like to
think they do. It took the conservatives thirty years of build-up to
fail as grandly as they have in the past 4. It will take another 10 or
so years (and that's with the benefit of the doubt) before they'll even
begin to admit to themselves that they made a mistake, and that'll only
be because young New Conservatives will have come of voting age.
Spammy and his lot will be muttering on streetcorners about Saddam
Hussein and Bill Clinton's penis forever and ever. Or like the guy who
thinks he's Teddy Roosevelt in 'Arsenic and Old Lace,' they'll be
yelling "Won't get fooled again!" as they run up the stairs, as if they
were invading Bagdhad. Meanwhile, the government will still be cutting
Social Security checks, the multi-partisan Debt Elimination Act of 2010
will be in place, President Obama will finally be the first president to
visit Iraq in an official capacity, and Dick Cheney's brain will be
hosting a radio call-in show from its vat aboard a geostationary
satellite.
All of these wonderments will occur after *moderates* figure out what
went wrong, and who was hoodwinked by whom.
Paul Mitchum
Paul Mitchum
> Paul Mitchum wrote:
> > Al Smith <caddys...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[..]
> > > Addressing your question above, I don't know what intel each member or
> > > committee used to rationalize their vote that allowed the president to
> > > begin war in Iraq - so I haven't commented on it. Naturally the Select
> > > Committee on Intelligence operates independently from the Whitehouse
> > > and probably didn't use all the same intel, weighted identically to
> > > the Whitehouse, to come to their conclusions:
> > >
> > > "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. And that may happen sooner if he
> > > can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources - something
> > > that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should
> > > remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in
> > > development of weapons of mass destruction."
> > >
> > > October 9, 2002
> > > John D. Rockefeller, IV, D-West Virginia
> > > Vice Chairman, United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
> >
> > When you say 'probably,' what, exactly, do you mean?
>
> Purely statistical in that the probability of two different agencies
> using the same identical information and weighted it identically is
> unlikely. I have no idea how they came upon similar conclusions. Maybe
> one of the cheated and cribbed the other's notes.
Shorter Al: "I have no idea."
> > See, that's the problem with this issue of who had what intel, and who
> > believed whom: There's much that is unknown. It seems to me that if Bush
> > had hard evidence of anything, congress would have seen it, perhaps in
> > secret. So where did Rockefeller get his info? It's all 100% wrong,
> > though it does point out that Iraq *wasn't* obtaining uranium from
> > foreign sources.
>
> You can read that from the quote?
Ibid: "And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched
uranium from foreign sources [..]"
> > > > I mean, I know you're not going to find it, ever, but I'm asking to be
> > > > nice.
> > >
> > > Maybe you can find a source where Tenet told Rockefeller not to put
> > > that in his speech, but Bush43 put it back in?
> >
> > Rockefeller's statement is somewhat contradictory to Bush's 16-word
> > statement about Iraqi yellowcake purchase, isn't it?
>
> A nuclear bomb from yellowcake would have likely occured "within the
> next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to
> enriched uranium."
>
> Of course we now know Iraq had *2 TONS* of enriched uranium.
That'd be the NYT article I can't get to. However, the commentary about
that article points out that the uranium in question wasn't ready for
bomb-making prime time, and since there was no nuclear weapons program
ongoing in Iraq, it's pretty easy to deduce that this uranium posed no
immediate threat to the US.
> BTW, you risk me believing that I'm walking all over you because you
> aren't acting like a prick.
No, I *am* acting like a prick, it's just that you're too stupid to
notice. See?
Al Smith
Most people don't like assholes. You can disagree, yell and swear at a
friend, but at the end of the day, you still don't want to have a beer
with an asshole.
Rev. 11D Meow
>
> Most people don't like assholes. You can disagree, yell and swear at a
> friend, but at the end of the day, you still don't want to have a beer
> with an asshole.
>
Your oink being?
Al Smith
Anything is possible.
> > > See, that's the problem with this issue of who had what intel, and who
> > > believed whom: There's much that is unknown. It seems to me that if Bush
> > > had hard evidence of anything, congress would have seen it, perhaps in
> > > secret. So where did Rockefeller get his info? It's all 100% wrong,
> > > though it does point out that Iraq *wasn't* obtaining uranium from
> > > foreign sources.
> >
> > You can read that from the quote?
>
> Ibid: "And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched
> uranium from foreign sources [..]"
That means Iraq wasn't trying to get uranium?
> > > > > I mean, I know you're not going to find it, ever, but I'm asking to be
> > > > > nice.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe you can find a source where Tenet told Rockefeller not to put
> > > > that in his speech, but Bush43 put it back in?
> > >
> > > Rockefeller's statement is somewhat contradictory to Bush's 16-word
> > > statement about Iraqi yellowcake purchase, isn't it?
> >
> > A nuclear bomb from yellowcake would have likely occured "within the
> > next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to
> > enriched uranium."
> >
> > Of course we now know Iraq had *2 TONS* of enriched uranium.
>
> That'd be the NYT article I can't get to.
I posted a second link which was a copy of the article.
> However, the commentary about
> that article points out that the uranium in question wasn't ready for
> bomb-making prime time,
That's true.
> and since there was no nuclear weapons program
> ongoing in Iraq, it's pretty easy to deduce that this uranium posed no
> immediate threat to the US.
5 years sounds right.
> > BTW, you risk me believing that I'm walking all over you because you
> > aren't acting like a prick.
>
> No, I *am* acting like a prick, it's just that you're too stupid to
> notice. See?
You're just kidding.
Paul Mitchum
Well, you've defined the difference between assholes and friends (though
I'd disagree about the yelling and swearing being permitted).
However, you haven't answered the question: What's wrong with someone
deciding to be an asshole?
Paul Mitchum
So you're using the Intelligent Design argument: Anything is possible,
so therefore my pet theory must be true.
> > > > See, that's the problem with this issue of who had what intel, and who
> > > > believed whom: There's much that is unknown. It seems to me that if Bush
> > > > had hard evidence of anything, congress would have seen it, perhaps in
> > > > secret. So where did Rockefeller get his info? It's all 100% wrong,
> > > > though it does point out that Iraq *wasn't* obtaining uranium from
> > > > foreign sources.
> > >
> > > You can read that from the quote?
> >
> > Ibid: "And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched
> > uranium from foreign sources [..]"
>
> That means Iraq wasn't trying to get uranium?
That means Iraq wasn't *getting* uranium from foreign sources. Just like
I said. You know how to read, right?
> > > > > > I mean, I know you're not going to find it, ever, but I'm asking
> > > > > > to be nice.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe you can find a source where Tenet told Rockefeller not to
> > > > > put that in his speech, but Bush43 put it back in?
> > > >
> > > > Rockefeller's statement is somewhat contradictory to Bush's 16-word
> > > > statement about Iraqi yellowcake purchase, isn't it?
> > >
> > > A nuclear bomb from yellowcake would have likely occured "within the
> > > next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to
> > > enriched uranium."
> > >
> > > Of course we now know Iraq had *2 TONS* of enriched uranium.
> >
> > That'd be the NYT article I can't get to.
>
> I posted a second link which was a copy of the article.
I didn't see it.
> > However, the commentary about
> > that article points out that the uranium in question wasn't ready for
> > bomb-making prime time,
>
> That's true.
>
> > and since there was no nuclear weapons program
> > ongoing in Iraq, it's pretty easy to deduce that this uranium posed no
> > immediate threat to the US.
>
> 5 years sounds right.
So Bush interrupted the UN inspections to invade, because in 5 years
Iraq *might* have nuclear weapons, once they re-started their nuclear
programs which had laid dormant for years because there wasn't enough
money to keep them operationa.
Yeah, sounds like a good justification for invasion.
But anyway: As to the source of this gloom-inducing proposition of 5
year timetables, the administration was saying the smoking gun would be
a mushroom cloud. That's a very *different* projection. Do you think
Rockefeller had a different source for his intel based on *that*?
> > > BTW, you risk me believing that I'm walking all over you because you
> > > aren't acting like a prick.
> >
> > No, I *am* acting like a prick, it's just that you're too stupid to
> > notice. See?
>
> You're just kidding.
Aww, shucks.
Clave
Just as an aside, I've long since been proud of being the very most bestest
asshole I can be.
It's hard...it's hard work.
Jim
Al Smith
"Probably" true.
> > > > > See, that's the problem with this issue of who had what intel, and who
> > > > > believed whom: There's much that is unknown. It seems to me that if Bush
> > > > > had hard evidence of anything, congress would have seen it, perhaps in
> > > > > secret. So where did Rockefeller get his info? It's all 100% wrong,
> > > > > though it does point out that Iraq *wasn't* obtaining uranium from
> > > > > foreign sources.
> > > >
> > > > You can read that from the quote?
> > >
> > > Ibid: "And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched
> > > uranium from foreign sources [..]"
> >
> > That means Iraq wasn't trying to get uranium?
>
> That means Iraq wasn't *getting* uranium from foreign sources. Just like
> I said. You know how to read, right?
Nobody said Saddam was "getting" uranium. From the President's SOTU:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
> > > > > > > I mean, I know you're not going to find it, ever, but I'm asking
> > > > > > > to be nice.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe you can find a source where Tenet told Rockefeller not to
> > > > > > put that in his speech, but Bush43 put it back in?
> > > > >
> > > > > Rockefeller's statement is somewhat contradictory to Bush's 16-word
> > > > > statement about Iraqi yellowcake purchase, isn't it?
> > > >
> > > > A nuclear bomb from yellowcake would have likely occured "within the
> > > > next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to
> > > > enriched uranium."
> > > >
> > > > Of course we now know Iraq had *2 TONS* of enriched uranium.
> > >
> > > That'd be the NYT article I can't get to.
> >
> > I posted a second link which was a copy of the article.
>
> I didn't see it.
http://www.robincmiller.com/art-iraq/b62.htm
> > > However, the commentary about
> > > that article points out that the uranium in question wasn't ready for
> > > bomb-making prime time,
> >
> > That's true.
> >
> > > and since there was no nuclear weapons program
> > > ongoing in Iraq, it's pretty easy to deduce that this uranium posed no
> > > immediate threat to the US.
> >
> > 5 years sounds right.
>
> So Bush interrupted the UN inspections to invade, because in 5 years
> Iraq *might* have nuclear weapons,
How far along should we let them go? 4.5 years?
> once they re-started their nuclear
> programs which had laid dormant for years because there wasn't enough
> money to keep them operationa.
Saddam had lots of money- much of it diverted from the oil for food
program:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/13/sprj.irq.saddam.money/
> Yeah, sounds like a good justification for invasion.
>
> But anyway: As to the source of this gloom-inducing proposition of 5
> year timetables, the administration was saying the smoking gun would be
> a mushroom cloud.
Dr. Rice said: "But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom
cloud."
Iraq frustrated the inspectors for 12 years. How many more years of
that would we have to endure before we did something about it? In 2003
we thought they were 5 years away. But it wasn't until 2004 that we
learned AQ Kahn brokering his expertise to NK, Iran and Libya which
made previous accusations (Newsweek 1998, UN 2000) that he was doing
the same for Iraq more credible.
> That's a very *different* projection. Do you think
> Rockefeller had a different source for his intel based on *that*?
I think he had many of the same sources of intel available. Certainly,
his conclusion was independent of the Whitehouse.
Al Smith
Here's a classic:
"I'd rather have a child who swears well and appropriately than one
who's been
cowed into believing that there are 'bad words.'"
A tenet of of assholes is to propigate assholism.
brutus
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Congress accepted what your lying sack of shit told them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Congress had access to the same intel President Bush did.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a blatant fucking lie.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> JW
>>>>
>>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>> You desperate, sputtering boob.
>>>
>>> ==================================
>>>
>>> Bush Resurrects False Claim That Congress Had "Same Intelligence" On
>>> Iraq
>>> In his speech today, President Bush claimed that members of Congress who
>>> voted for the 2002 Iraq war resolution "had access to the same
>>> intelligence"
>>> as his administration. This is patently false.
>>>
>>> Nevermind that much of the intelligence offered to the public and to
>>> Congress was inaccurate and misleading, or that according to the Downing
>>> Street memo and other documents, such intelligence was likely
>>> intentionally
>>> "fixed." It is simply not true to state that Congress received the "same
>>> intelligence" as the White House:
>>>
>>> FACT - Dissent From White House Claims on Iraq Nuclear Program
>>> Consistently
>>> Withheld from Congress:
>>>
>>> [S]everal Congressional and intelligence officials with access to
>>> the 15 assessments [of intel suggesting aluminum tubes showed Iraq
>>> was reconstituting its nuclear program] said not one of them
>>> informed senior policy makers of the Energy Department's dissent.
>>> They described a series of reports, some with ominous titles, that
>>> failed to convey either the existence or the substance of the
>>> intensifying debate." [NYT, 10/3/04]
>>>
>>> FACT - Sen. Kerrey: Bush "Has Much More Access" to Intel Than Congress:
>>>
>>> Former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE), ex-Senate Intelligence Committee
>>> vice chairman: "The president has much more access to intelligence
>>> than members of Congress does. Ask any member of Congress. Ask a
>>> Republican member of Congress, do you get the same access to
>>> intelligence that the president does? Look at these aluminum tube
>>> stories that came out the president delivered to the Congress -
>>> 'We believe these would be used for centrifuges.' - didn't deliver
>>> to Congress the full range of objections from the Department of
>>> Energy experts, nuclear weapons experts, that said it's unlikely
>>> they were for centrifuges, more likely that they were for rockets,
>>> which was a pre-existing use. The president has much more access
>>> to intelligence than any member of Congress." [10/7/04]
>>>
>>> FACT - Rockefeller: PDBs, CIA Intel Withheld From Senate:
>>>
>>> Ranking minority member on the Senate Intelligence Committee Jay
>>> Rockefeller (D-WV): "[P]eople say, 'Well, you know, you all had
>>> the same intelligence that the White House had.' And I'm here to
>>> tell you that is nowhere near the truth. We not only don't have,
>>> nor probably should we have, the Presidential Daily Brief. We
>>> don't have the constant people who are working on intelligence
>>> who are very close to him. They don't release their - an
>>> administration which tends not to release - not just the White
>>> House, but the CIA, DOD [Department of Defense], others - they
>>> control information. There's a lot of intelligence that we don't
>>> get that they have." [11/04/05]
>>>
>>> FACT - War Supporter Ken Pollack: White House Engaged in "Creative
>>> Omission"
>>> of Iraq Intel:
>>>
>>> In the eyes of Kenneth Pollack, "a Clinton-era National Security
>>> Council member and strong supporter of regime change in Iraq,"
>>> "the Administration consistently engaged in 'creative omission,'
>>> overstating the imminence of the Iraqi threat, even though it
>>> had evidence to the contrary. 'The President is responsible for
>>> serving the entire nation,' Pollack writes. 'Only the
>>> Administration has access to all the information available to
>>> various agencies of the US government - and withholding or
>>> downplaying some of that information for its own purposes is a
>>> betrayal of that responsibility.'"
>>> [Christian Science Monitor, 1/14/04]
>>>
>>> FACT - White House Had Exclusive Access to "Unique" Intel Sources:
>>>
>>> "The claim that the White House and Congress saw the 'same
>>> intelligence' on Iraq is further undermined by the Bush
>>> administration's use of outside intelligence channels. For more
>>> than year prior to the war, the administration received
>>> intelligence assessments and analysis on Iraq directly from the
>>> Department of Defense's Office of Special Plans (OSP), run by
>>> then-undersecretary of defense for policy Douglas J. Feith, and
>>> the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a group of Iraqi exiles led
>>> by Ahmed Chalabi." [MediaMatters, 11/8/05]
>>>
>>> All the cites in the world here:
>>>
>>> http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/11/iraq-intel/
>>
>> So the Senators (and President Clinton and Vice-President Gore) took
>> President Bush's word for it. Sure.
>
> He had the real intel, they didn't.
>
> Not my problem if you can't do the math.
>
> Jim
So you are claiming that Clinton and Gore did not have the intel that
President Bush did? Interesting...
Brutus
brutus
>
> "brutus" <bru...@thebrute.com> wrote in message
> news:u9Aef.1250$jI5...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>> President Bush's word for it.
>
> gave Bush the power to go to war with Iraq "if necessary".
>
> The Senators who *did* vote for that resolution did in fact trust the
> President to be honest with them, and sincere about his motives.
>
> That was a major mistake - and many are publicly acknowledging that.
> You'll see more Republicans doing that as well as they try and distance
> themselves from the stain of Bush in the same way that many Dems distanced
> themselves from the stain on Monica's dress in the latter months of the
> 2000 election.
>
> --
> JW
Clinton/GOre made the same decision but failed to act on it. Read what they
said and have an adult explain it to you.
Brutus
Joseph Welch
>> How is a full-scale invasion a "strawman"? You claimed (lied) that both
>> Bush and Clinton came to the same conclusion about Iraq.
>
> If you had said, "solution" instead of "conclusion" - we wouldn't be
> having most of these conversations.
Bullshit. Now it's YOU who are tossing strawmen.
Damn, you right-wingers are some dishonest fucks.
Joseph Welch
"Paul Mitchum" <use...@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
> Spammy and his lot will be muttering on streetcorners about Saddam
> Hussein and Bill Clinton's penis forever and ever. Or like the guy who
> thinks he's Teddy Roosevelt in 'Arsenic and Old Lace,' they'll be
> yelling "Won't get fooled again!" as they run up the stairs, as if they
> were invading Bagdhad. Meanwhile, the government will still be cutting
> Social Security checks, the multi-partisan Debt Elimination Act of 2010
> will be in place, President Obama will finally be the first president to
> visit Iraq in an official capacity, and Dick Cheney's brain will be
> hosting a radio call-in show from its vat aboard a geostationary
> satellite.
True enough. I like to keep in mind though that the muttering nabobs aren't
the only audience we reach.
At the outset of the time things started changing both within these forums
and in public discourse in general, I theorized that facts wouldn't be
enough to counter the sociopathic spin of the radical right - their POV
wouldn't just have to be argued out of existence through the force of sheer
logic - it would have to be made *unfashionable*.
I think much validity to that idea remains. Disdain for groupthink or no,
it does exist as a real force.
Joseph Welch
> A tenet of of assholes is to propigate assholism.
One of the long list of problems with you righties is that a) you think
that being an "asshole" involves the use of adult language and not a
person's actions, and b) you seem to think that your own brand of assholes
are just okey-dokey.
Al Smith
Joseph Welch wrote:
> "Al Smith" <caddys...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:1132126848.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> How is a full-scale invasion a "strawman"? You claimed (lied) that both
> >> Bush and Clinton came to the same conclusion about Iraq.
> >
> > If you had said, "solution" instead of "conclusion" - we wouldn't be
> > having most of these conversations.
>
> Bullshit. Now it's YOU who are tossing strawmen.
No, that's hyperbola. If I said, "Welch, you ignorant fuck. You don't
even know what the word 'solution' means." That would be a strawman
because now I'd be trying to get you to start defending your vocabulary
instead of attacking my position.
However, since I destroyed your argument, pointed out your silly
schemes and educated you debate techniques, the score has now been run
up so high there isn't anything for you to discuss that won't make you
look sillier. What can you do now but call names:
Paul Mitchum
Equally fallacious.
> > > > > > See, that's the problem with this issue of who had what intel,
> > > > > > and who believed whom: There's much that is unknown. It seems to
> > > > > > me that if Bush had hard evidence of anything, congress would
> > > > > > have seen it, perhaps in secret. So where did Rockefeller get
> > > > > > his info? It's all 100% wrong, though it does point out that
> > > > > > Iraq *wasn't* obtaining uranium from foreign sources.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can read that from the quote?
> > > >
> > > > Ibid: "And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched
> > > > uranium from foreign sources [..]"
> > >
> > > That means Iraq wasn't trying to get uranium?
> >
> > That means Iraq wasn't *getting* uranium from foreign sources. Just like
> > I said. You know how to read, right?
>
> Nobody said Saddam was "getting" uranium.
Yeah, why would anybody? Since he wasn't and all.
> From the President's SOTU:
>
> "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
> significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Yes, and the threat would be 5 years away if it were true (which it
wasn't), not 46 minutes like the British government said.
> > > > > > > > I mean, I know you're not going to find it, ever, but I'm asking
> > > > > > > > to be nice.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe you can find a source where Tenet told Rockefeller not to
> > > > > > > put that in his speech, but Bush43 put it back in?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rockefeller's statement is somewhat contradictory to Bush's 16-word
> > > > > > statement about Iraqi yellowcake purchase, isn't it?
> > > > >
> > > > > A nuclear bomb from yellowcake would have likely occured "within the
> > > > > next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to
> > > > > enriched uranium."
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course we now know Iraq had *2 TONS* of enriched uranium.
> > > >
> > > > That'd be the NYT article I can't get to.
> > >
> > > I posted a second link which was a copy of the article.
> >
> > I didn't see it.
>
> http://www.robincmiller.com/art-iraq/b62.htm
That's not the 2-tons article. (Actually, it's 1.8 tons.)
> > > > However, the commentary about
> > > > that article points out that the uranium in question wasn't ready for
> > > > bomb-making prime time,
> > >
> > > That's true.
> > >
> > > > and since there was no nuclear weapons program
> > > > ongoing in Iraq, it's pretty easy to deduce that this uranium posed no
> > > > immediate threat to the US.
> > >
> > > 5 years sounds right.
> >
> > So Bush interrupted the UN inspections to invade, because in 5 years
> > Iraq *might* have nuclear weapons,
>
> How far along should we let them go? 4.5 years?
Well, let's see... We're 5 years into a Bush administration that has let
North Korea develop nuclear weapons for that long. So you tell me. In
one case it's a bad idea to interfere (because if we do, then defense
contractors won't get to build a useless defense system), but in another
case it's a good idea to invade and occupy a nation which has no
capacity to build nukes.
> > once they re-started their nuclear
> > programs which had laid dormant for years because there wasn't enough
> > money to keep them operationa.
>
> Saddam had lots of money- much of it diverted from the oil for food
> program:
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/13/sprj.irq.saddam.money/
But not enough money to BUILD NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
> > Yeah, sounds like a good justification for invasion.
> >
> > But anyway: As to the source of this gloom-inducing proposition of 5
> > year timetables, the administration was saying the smoking gun would be
> > a mushroom cloud.
>
> Dr. Rice said: "But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom
> cloud."
Bush never contradicted that. In fact, he used similar language.
> Iraq frustrated the inspectors for 12 years. How many more years of
> that would we have to endure before we did something about it? In 2003
> we thought they were 5 years away. But it wasn't until 2004 that we
> learned AQ Kahn brokering his expertise to NK, Iran and Libya which
> made previous accusations (Newsweek 1998, UN 2000) that he was doing
> the same for Iraq more credible.
>
> > That's a very *different* projection. Do you think
> > Rockefeller had a different source for his intel based on *that*?
>
> I think he had many of the same sources of intel available. Certainly,
> his conclusion was independent of the Whitehouse.
I'm not so sure his conclusion was independent of the White House.
Paul Mitchum
Al Smith
Probably not.
> > > > > > > See, that's the problem with this issue of who had what intel,
> > > > > > > and who believed whom: There's much that is unknown. It seems to
> > > > > > > me that if Bush had hard evidence of anything, congress would
> > > > > > > have seen it, perhaps in secret. So where did Rockefeller get
> > > > > > > his info? It's all 100% wrong, though it does point out that
> > > > > > > Iraq *wasn't* obtaining uranium from foreign sources.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can read that from the quote?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ibid: "And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched
> > > > > uranium from foreign sources [..]"
> > > >
> > > > That means Iraq wasn't trying to get uranium?
> > >
> > > That means Iraq wasn't *getting* uranium from foreign sources. Just like
> > > I said. You know how to read, right?
> >
> > Nobody said Saddam was "getting" uranium.
>
> Yeah, why would anybody?
Are you asking yourself why you said, "That means Iraq wasn't *getting*
uranium from foreign sources."?
Well?
> Since he wasn't and all.
>
> > From the President's SOTU:
> >
> > "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
> > significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
>
> Yes, and the threat would be 5 years away if it were true (which it
> wasn't), not 46 minutes like the British government said.
Rockefeller said that Saddam "...will likely have nuclear weapons
within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain
access to enriched uranium from foreign sources." and he arrived at the
5 year schedule based on the information that Saddam was *PURSUING*
Nigerian yellowcake. Try using all of you mental might... Could you
figure out if Saddam was ahead of, on, or behind Rockefeller's schedule
if Saddam already *POSESSED* 2 tons of *ENRICHED* uranium?
> > > > > > > > > I mean, I know you're not going to find it, ever, but I'm asking
> > > > > > > > > to be nice.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Maybe you can find a source where Tenet told Rockefeller not to
> > > > > > > > put that in his speech, but Bush43 put it back in?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rockefeller's statement is somewhat contradictory to Bush's 16-word
> > > > > > > statement about Iraqi yellowcake purchase, isn't it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A nuclear bomb from yellowcake would have likely occured "within the
> > > > > > next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to
> > > > > > enriched uranium."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course we now know Iraq had *2 TONS* of enriched uranium.
> > > > >
> > > > > That'd be the NYT article I can't get to.
> > > >
> > > > I posted a second link which was a copy of the article.
> > >
> > > I didn't see it.
> >
> > http://www.robincmiller.com/art-iraq/b62.htm
>
> That's not the 2-tons article. (Actually, it's 1.8 tons.)
That's a reprint of this article:
<http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F1081EF935590C718DDDAE0894DB404482>
Which I assumed you couldn't see in it's entirety without a
subscription.
I think you want this then:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm
> > > > > However, the commentary about
> > > > > that article points out that the uranium in question wasn't ready for
> > > > > bomb-making prime time,
> > > >
> > > > That's true.
> > > >
> > > > > and since there was no nuclear weapons program
> > > > > ongoing in Iraq, it's pretty easy to deduce that this uranium posed no
> > > > > immediate threat to the US.
> > > >
> > > > 5 years sounds right.
> > >
> > > So Bush interrupted the UN inspections to invade, because in 5 years
> > > Iraq *might* have nuclear weapons,
> >
> > How far along should we let them go? 4.5 years?
>
> Well, let's see... We're 5 years into a Bush administration that has let
> North Korea develop nuclear weapons for that long.
With North Korea we are taking a diplomatic approach.
> So you tell me.
Obviously, ASAP. Not only to elminate the threat, but to put pressure
on other countries that are developing nucs as well.
> In
> one case it's a bad idea to interfere (because if we do, then defense
> contractors won't get to build a useless defense system),
It's a good idea. There are several countries that have nuclear
capability right now.
> but in another
> case it's a good idea to invade and occupy a nation which has no
> capacity to build nukes.
>
> > > once they re-started their nuclear
> > > programs which had laid dormant for years because there wasn't enough
> > > money to keep them operationa.
> >
> > Saddam had lots of money- much of it diverted from the oil for food
> > program:
> > http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/13/sprj.irq.saddam.money/
>
> But not enough money to BUILD NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
Why's that? North Korea did it. Are you saying they couldn't do it
without Clinton giving them a reactor?
> > > Yeah, sounds like a good justification for invasion.
> > >
> > > But anyway: As to the source of this gloom-inducing proposition of 5
> > > year timetables, the administration was saying the smoking gun would be
> > > a mushroom cloud.
> >
> > Dr. Rice said: "But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom
> > cloud."
>
> Bush never contradicted that. In fact, he used similar language.
>
> > Iraq frustrated the inspectors for 12 years. How many more years of
> > that would we have to endure before we did something about it? In 2003
> > we thought they were 5 years away. But it wasn't until 2004 that we
> > learned AQ Kahn brokering his expertise to NK, Iran and Libya which
> > made previous accusations (Newsweek 1998, UN 2000) that he was doing
> > the same for Iraq more credible.
> >
> > > That's a very *different* projection. Do you think
> > > Rockefeller had a different source for his intel based on *that*?
> >
> > I think he had many of the same sources of intel available. Certainly,
> > his conclusion was independent of the Whitehouse.
>
> I'm not so sure his conclusion was independent of the White House.
A pissant democrat who doesn't understand separation of powers? What?
You think I'm going to argue that?
Paul Mitchum
No, I'm not.
> Well?
Deep subject.
> > Since he wasn't and all.
> >
> > > From the President's SOTU:
> > >
> > > "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
> > > significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
> >
> > Yes, and the threat would be 5 years away if it were true (which it
> > wasn't), not 46 minutes like the British government said.
>
> Rockefeller said that Saddam "...will likely have nuclear weapons
> within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain
> access to enriched uranium from foreign sources." and he arrived at the
> 5 year schedule based on the information that Saddam was *PURSUING*
> Nigerian yellowcake. Try using all of you mental might... Could you
> figure out if Saddam was ahead of, on, or behind Rockefeller's schedule
> if Saddam already *POSESSED* 2 tons of *ENRICHED* uranium?
1.8 tons of uranium that you agreed weren't ready for prime time. So, as
I pointed out, the question was: Did Hussein have a program to turn that
uranium into weapons? The answer was no.
> > > > > > > > > > I mean, I know you're not going to find it, ever, but
> > > > > > > > > > I'm asking to be nice.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Maybe you can find a source where Tenet told Rockefeller
> > > > > > > > > not to put that in his speech, but Bush43 put it back in?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Rockefeller's statement is somewhat contradictory to Bush's
> > > > > > > > 16-word statement about Iraqi yellowcake purchase, isn't it?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A nuclear bomb from yellowcake would have likely occured
> > > > > > > "within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he
> > > > > > > can obtain access to enriched uranium."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course we now know Iraq had *2 TONS* of enriched uranium.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That'd be the NYT article I can't get to.
> > > > >
> > > > > I posted a second link which was a copy of the article.
> > > >
> > > > I didn't see it.
> > >
> > > http://www.robincmiller.com/art-iraq/b62.htm
> >
> > That's not the 2-tons article. (Actually, it's 1.8 tons.)
>
> That's a reprint of this article:
> <http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F1081EF935590C718DDDAE089
> 4DB404482>
>
> Which I assumed you couldn't see in it's entirety without a
> subscription.
Yes, and THAT ARTICLE DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT
2 TONS OF ENRICHED URANIUM.
> I think you want this then:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm
Yah, news of US forces moving uranium, none of which could be used for
weapons in its current form, not even 'dirty bombs,' as the article
points out. And the weapons program to convert this stuff was where,
again? Oh yeah, it DIDN'T EXIST.
> > > > > > However, the commentary about that article points out that the
> > > > > > uranium in question wasn't ready for bomb-making prime time,
> > > > >
> > > > > That's true.
> > > > >
> > > > > > and since there was no nuclear weapons program ongoing in Iraq,
> > > > > > it's pretty easy to deduce that this uranium posed no immediate
> > > > > > threat to the US.
> > > > >
> > > > > 5 years sounds right.
> > > >
> > > > So Bush interrupted the UN inspections to invade, because in 5 years
> > > > Iraq *might* have nuclear weapons,
> > >
> > > How far along should we let them go? 4.5 years?
> >
> > Well, let's see... We're 5 years into a Bush administration that has let
> > North Korea develop nuclear weapons for that long.
>
> With North Korea we are taking a diplomatic approach.
No shit.
> > So you tell me.
>
> Obviously, ASAP. Not only to elminate the threat, but to put pressure
> on other countries that are developing nucs as well.
Look, your point is that we can't sit around and let other countries
develop nukes. But that's EXACTLY WHAT BUSH IS DOING wrt North Korea. If
invasion was appropriate in Iraq, why is it not appropriate in NK?
> > In
> > one case it's a bad idea to interfere (because if we do, then defense
> > contractors won't get to build a useless defense system),
>
> It's a good idea. There are several countries that have nuclear
> capability right now.
>
> > but in another
> > case it's a good idea to invade and occupy a nation which has no
> > capacity to build nukes.
> >
> > > > once they re-started their nuclear
> > > > programs which had laid dormant for years because there wasn't enough
> > > > money to keep them operationa.
> > >
> > > Saddam had lots of money- much of it diverted from the oil for food
> > > program:
> > > http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/13/sprj.irq.saddam.money/
> >
> > But not enough money to BUILD NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
>
> Why's that?
Because it COSTS MONEY.
> North Korea did it.
Yeah. With money.
> Are you saying they couldn't do it without Clinton giving them a reactor?
No, I'm saying IRAQ WASN'T A THREAT TO THE US, much less a threat that
required invasion and occupation.
Al Smith
Then what was Rockefeller talking about?
Obviously that's not the point because the same is true of yellowcake.
> not even 'dirty bombs,' as the article
> points out. And the weapons program to convert this stuff was where,
> again? Oh yeah, it DIDN'T EXIST.
It was 5 years away.
> > > > > > > However, the commentary about that article points out that the
> > > > > > > uranium in question wasn't ready for bomb-making prime time,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's true.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > and since there was no nuclear weapons program ongoing in Iraq,
> > > > > > > it's pretty easy to deduce that this uranium posed no immediate
> > > > > > > threat to the US.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 5 years sounds right.
> > > > >
> > > > > So Bush interrupted the UN inspections to invade, because in 5 years
> > > > > Iraq *might* have nuclear weapons,
> > > >
> > > > How far along should we let them go? 4.5 years?
> > >
> > > Well, let's see... We're 5 years into a Bush administration that has let
> > > North Korea develop nuclear weapons for that long.
> >
> > With North Korea we are taking a diplomatic approach.
>
> No shit.
>
> > > So you tell me.
> >
> > Obviously, ASAP. Not only to elminate the threat, but to put pressure
> > on other countries that are developing nucs as well.
>
> Look, your point is that we can't sit around and let other countries
> develop nukes. But that's EXACTLY WHAT BUSH IS DOING wrt North Korea. If
> invasion was appropriate in Iraq, why is it not appropriate in NK?
Because NK holds political advantages that Iraq does not. Like
functioning nuclear weaponry and missles that can reach Japan.
> > > In
> > > one case it's a bad idea to interfere (because if we do, then defense
> > > contractors won't get to build a useless defense system),
> >
> > It's a good idea. There are several countries that have nuclear
> > capability right now.
> >
> > > but in another
> > > case it's a good idea to invade and occupy a nation which has no
> > > capacity to build nukes.
> > >
> > > > > once they re-started their nuclear
> > > > > programs which had laid dormant for years because there wasn't enough
> > > > > money to keep them operationa.
> > > >
> > > > Saddam had lots of money- much of it diverted from the oil for food
> > > > program:
> > > > http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/13/sprj.irq.saddam.money/
> > >
> > > But not enough money to BUILD NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
> >
> > Why's that?
>
> Because it COSTS MONEY.
And I said Saddam had lots of it... More than NK, yet they have nucs -
maybe because Clinton gave them a leg up.
> > North Korea did it.
>
> Yeah. With money.
What money? NK has a GDP of $40B. Iraq's is $54B.
(source: CIA World Factbook)
> > Are you saying they couldn't do it without Clinton giving them a reactor?
>
> No, I'm saying IRAQ WASN'T A THREAT TO THE US, much less a threat that
> required invasion and occupation.
We may know that now, but we didn't at the time.
brutus
"Paul Mitchum" <use...@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
Answer the question if you expect anyone to take you seriously:
So you are claiming that Clinton and Gore did not have the intel that
President Bush did?
Brutus
Paul Mitchum
> > > Are you saying they couldn't do it without Clinton giving them a reactor?
> >
> > No, I'm saying IRAQ WASN'T A THREAT TO THE US, much less a threat that
> > required invasion and occupation.
>
> We may know that now, but we didn't at the time.
Yes, actually, we had a pretty good idea, which is why there was so much
dbate at the time. And we would have known more if Bush had let the
inspections finish, but of course he couldn't let that happen... He
couldn't let everyone find out how wrong he was.
Joseph Welch
>> points out. And the weapons program to convert this stuff was where,
>> again? Oh yeah, it DIDN'T EXIST.
>
> It was 5 years away.
Even that DIDN'T EXIST.
Sheesh, you're fucking dense. So willing to believe the lies this
adminstration has fed you that you'd sell your own country down the river,
and let your retarded leader get away with murder.
>> Look, your point is that we can't sit around and let other countries
>> develop nukes. But that's EXACTLY WHAT BUSH IS DOING wrt North Korea. If
>> invasion was appropriate in Iraq, why is it not appropriate in NK?
>
> Because NK holds political advantages that Iraq does not. Like
> functioning nuclear weaponry and missles that can reach Japan.
Damn, you're a stupid ass. You just made the argument that if another
country (like say - Iran) wants the upper hand with the Bush
administration - what it needs to do is actually develop nuclear weapons.
Why do you hate America, traitor?