OT About those missing WMDs
SeeingEyeDog
Those who have bet their political futures that Saddam had no WMD may be
starting to sweat.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0206/jkelly020106.php3
Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=126529
Iraq WMD located in three Syrian sites
http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php
Syria WMD Programs Locations
http://www.2la.org/syria/wmd.html
David
wrote:
Fake. They guy is from the Curveball camp.
Global Climate Change is the only thing we should be worried about.
Not fake enemies and corporate wars.
mcdona...@yahoo.com
More unsubstantiated BS sent out by the Nepocons in The White House..
mcdona...@yahoo.com
- what would you do in the Next ten years about Global Climate Change?
- Just curious . . .
cuh...@webtv.net
normal.We got some rain yesterday and of course,when it rains in the
Winter time,the weather turns colder.As proof of that,my little
doggy,she has done got up under the blankets on her couch and is
sleeping her arse off.Dang,that little Blue Heeler Cattle Doggy is much
smarter than I am.
cuhulin
David
>
>- what would you do in the Next ten years about Global Climate Change?
>
>- Just curious . . .
>
Education would be first step. Get everybody really scared. That's
the only way they'll agree to the necessary sacrifices.
This is Judgement Day.
cuh...@webtv.net
years,so,I wont worry about it.
cuhulin
dxAce
David wrote:
I'm more worried about dumbass 'tard boys such as yourself.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
Al Dykes
These URLS have been floating around for a year. Nobody's done
anything with them. Why Isn't Cheney on FOX TV now saying they's
found Saddams WMDs.
Because Deulfer determined that Saddam didn't have any WMD material as
of 2000, and so he had nothing to send to Syria.
He had to have them to ship them.
How is it that we can find no Iraqi who witnessed WMD activities or
any paper files to support the claim that there was WMD or WMD
manufacturing facility in Iraq after 2000 that we did not find and
destroy before the war? Purchasing or making tons of WMD involves
thousands of people and millions of pages of paperwork for purchasing,
storing, manufacturing, training, etc, over a period of years. If you
*make* WMD you need to buy all the equipment and build facilities and
each ould have it's own witnesses and paper trail. Where is it ? I'm
sure rewards were offered. The Deulfer Report [3] describes the length
the inspectors went through to intergate and crosscheck Iraqi
statements.
Besides, a few plane loads of chemical artillery rounds isn't WMDs.
An estimates 100k tons of the stuff was fired in WWI, and London was
bombed with them, and we survived, and it's just a footnote in
history. We still dig up shells, or even bunkers of shells, in France
to this day.
Here's the Gov't home page for the Duelfer report
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/
Deulfer concludes that no WMD were shipped to Syria or put on ship
Deulfer on Prewar Movement of WMD Material Out of Iraq:
"Based on the evidence available at present (Oct 7, 2004),
ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer
of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However,
ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement
of limited WMD-related material
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/addenda.pdf
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
David
>
>These URLS have been floating around for a year. Nobody's done
>anything with them. Why Isn't Cheney on FOX TV now saying they's
>found Saddams WMDs.
>
>
>Because Deulfer determined that Saddam didn't have any WMD material as
>of 2000, and so he had nothing to send to Syria.
>
>He had to have them to ship them.
>
>How is it that we can find no Iraqi who witnessed WMD activities or
>any paper files to support the claim that there was WMD or WMD
>manufacturing facility in Iraq after 2000 that we did not find and
>destroy before the war? Purchasing or making tons of WMD involves
>thousands of people and millions of pages of paperwork for purchasing,
>storing, manufacturing, training, etc, over a period of years. If you
>*make* WMD you need to buy all the equipment and build facilities and
>each ould have it's own witnesses and paper trail. Where is it ? I'm
>sure rewards were offered. The Deulfer Report [3] describes the length
>the inspectors went through to intergate and crosscheck Iraqi
>statements.
>
>Besides, a few plane loads of chemical artillery rounds isn't WMDs.
>An estimates 100k tons of the stuff was fired in WWI, and London was
>bombed with them, and we survived, and it's just a footnote in
>history. We still dig up shells, or even bunkers of shells, in France
>to this day.
>
You are a shrill unhinged moonbat.
Welcome to Earth.
FDR
"SeeingEyeDog" <loo...@u.org> wrote in message
news:11u9i5u...@corp.supernews.com...
There are no WMD in Syria because if there were we'd be making plans for
invading Syria. I don't see that happening, therefore the WMD are not
there.
dxAce
FrickinDumbassRetard wrote:
Your heads up your ass, so just how the hell can you see, 'tard boy?
LMFAO yet again at the ridiculous liberal stem.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
cuh...@webtv.net
Is It Really Muslim Outrage Or Is It Pallywood Gone Global?
www.homelandsecurityus.com www.seconddraft.org
cuhulin
mi...@sushi.com
to Syria before the war, then the war is de facto a miserable failure
before it even started.
Remember when Rummy and crew said that Syria was supplying night vision
to Iraq? Now don't you find it funny that Rummy and crew could find NV
passing over the border, but not hundreds of thousand of tons of
chemical weapons?
Besides, we "knew" where the WMDs were located. North, west, east and
south of Tikrit, according to Rummy. ;-)
When will you kool-aid drinking Bush ass kissing whack jobs hit bottom
and admit you were lied to? It is the first step to recovery.
barne...@aol.com
>
> There are no WMD in Syria because if there were we'd be making plans for
> invading Syria. I don't see that happening, therefore the WMD are not
> there.
- Well just because there are no WMD's in Syria doesn't Mean we
shouldnt invade them.
Or Iran. Or Libya.. Or Cameroon. . or Tobago..
or ANYWHERE where there might be WMD's..
- I mean, we did this to Iraq, why not use the " Shotgun " approach..
Brian Hill
FDR
That's what they are doing to us right now. Treat us all like crimnals and
spy on us.
Al Dykes
<mi...@sushi.com> wrote:
>The point of the Iraq invasion was to secure the WMDs. If they made it
>to Syria before the war, then the war is de facto a miserable failure
>before it even started.
>
They'd still have records of their existence in Iraq, and the
testimony of military people, scientists and supply clerks. Nothing
has been found to suggest that Saddam had anything significant in the
years running up to the war. The inspectors were in Iraq until the day
before the war and comming up with nothing.
Brian Hill
"Al Dykes" <ady...@panix.com> wrote in message
The inspectors were in Iraq until the day
> before the war and comming up with nothing.
>
And I'm sure Sadam would have revealed any WMD to those inspectors. I don't
know why Sadam always gets a bum rap.
BH
FDR
"Brian Hill" <go...@it.net> wrote in message
news:oXeFf.109$xv3...@fe04.lga...
There are probably forensic signs of programs even if Saddam was not
forthcoming. Even after all this time and analysis there hasn't been
anything concrete found to suggest ther was something going on. We were all
told about how the former commanders and scientisits would break down and
tell them (according to Rummy) where the WMD were. It never happened.
Either this war was based on monumental failures in intelligence (and if
that's so then that makes everything else the NSA/CIA knows suspect) or this
was was based on half truths or even outright fabrications and lies. Take
your pick.
>
> BH
>
mi...@sushi.com
and I'd say DxAss is a scholar and a gentleman.
dxAce
mi...@sushi.com wrote:
> The point of the Iraq invasion was to secure the WMDs. If they made it
> to Syria before the war, then the war is de facto a miserable failure
> before it even started.
>
> Remember when Rummy and crew said that Syria was supplying night vision
> to Iraq? Now don't you find it funny that Rummy and crew could find NV
> passing over the border, but not hundreds of thousand of tons of
> chemical weapons?
>
> Besides, we "knew" where the WMDs were located. North, west, east and
> south of Tikrit, according to Rummy. ;-)
>
> When will you kool-aid drinking Bush ass kissing whack jobs hit bottom
> and admit you were lied to? It is the first step to recovery.
When will you 'tard boys get over the fact that you lost the last two elections?
It's the first step to recovery.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
dxAce
mi...@sushi.com wrote:
> Some of the intelligence came from torture. Shove a drill up my butt
> and I'd say DxAss is a scholar and a gentleman.
And then you'd finally be right about something.
LMFAO at the 'tard boy.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
barne...@aol.com
> > don't know why Sadam always gets a bum rap.
After the U.N. inspectors wrapped up his Weapons programs in the early
90's his Scientitst would come up to him with outlandish plans.
Sadam would fund them lavishly..
- Only there Weren't ANY plans, it was all just lies..
- so, the Scientists would get huge chunks of cash. They's put it in a
Swiss bank account & try to get out of the country !
Then the RUMORS of the plans woould filter down, over to the Rocket
Scientists at The White House ( Jeff Gannon & all)
then the rumors, based on lies would become the reason we invaded..
>
> There are probably forensic signs of programs even if Saddam was not
> forthcoming.
yeah, and there was Scant evidence of same..
Hanz Blik was right
THE FRENCH were right
TRhere Were NO WMD's in Iraq..
David
>The point of the Iraq invasion was to secure the WMDs. If they made it
>to Syria before the war, then the war is de facto a miserable failure
>before it even started.
>
>Remember when Rummy and crew said that Syria was supplying night vision
>to Iraq? Now don't you find it funny that Rummy and crew could find NV
>passing over the border, but not hundreds of thousand of tons of
>chemical weapons?
>
>Besides, we "knew" where the WMDs were located. North, west, east and
>south of Tikrit, according to Rummy. ;-)
>
>When will you kool-aid drinking Bush ass kissing whack jobs hit bottom
>and admit you were lied to? It is the first step to recovery.
>
>
They are Moonies.
dxAce
David wrote:
And you are a Loonie, 'tard boy.
LMFAO at the stupid stem.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
cuh...@webtv.net
cuhulin
David
wrote:
>
>When will you 'tard boys get over the fact that you lost the last two elections?
>It's the first step to recovery.
>
Gore won 2000. Nobody knows who won 2004. Apparently the election
was done without writing anything down. You are too stupid to realize
the country's been stolen.
dxAce
David wrote:
Gore won? Nobody knows? Stupid? Stolen?
I certainly know a paranoid schizo 'tard boy when I run across one!
LMFAO as usual at the stem.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
SeeingEyeDog
are. It is as if they can't read and have the short term memory of a knat.
I blame it on Attention Deficit Disorder and the lack of education of
Liberal brain stems - LOL.
"dxAce" <dx...@milestones.com> wrote in message
news:43E5F2EA...@milestones.com...
SeeingEyeDog
>
> David propagandized:
>
> > Gore won 2000. Nobody knows who won 2004. Apparently the election
> > was done without writing anything down. You are too stupid to realize
> > the country's been stolen.
>
The Electoral College doesn't think so?
clifto
> - what would you do in the Next ten years about Global Climate Change?
>
> - Just curious . . .
Forbid envirowhackos to exhale.
--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.
mi...@sushi.com
consenting adult, but a prostitute enters the Bush White House 138
times and nobody does a thing. Just who was Guckert servicing?
David
>Ah yes, Jeff Gannon Guckert. Clinton gets impeached for sex with a
>consenting adult, but a prostitute enters the Bush White House 138
>times and nobody does a thing. Just who was Guckert servicing?
>
>
196 times
dxAce
mi...@sushi.com wrote:
> Ah yes, Jeff Gannon Guckert. Clinton gets impeached for sex with a
> consenting adult, but a prostitute enters the Bush White House 138
> times and nobody does a thing. Just who was Guckert servicing?
Clinton was not impeached for sex with a consenting adult...
I know you folks have trouble with your facts, and this is just one more shining
example of that.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
Mark S. Holden
> Ah yes, Jeff Gannon Guckert. Clinton gets impeached for sex with a
> consenting adult, but a prostitute enters the Bush White House 138
> times and nobody does a thing. Just who was Guckert servicing?
>
>
President Clinton wasn't impeached for having sex with a consenting adult.
He was impeached because he lied about it under oath as part of
defending himself when he was being sued for sexual harassment.
Had he told the truth, some folks would have snickered, some would have
thought "attaboy", and some would have been appalled, but he wouldn't
have been impeached.
Al Dykes
And we'd have Al Gore as president beginning in 2000.
Wingers should get down on their knees and praise G*d every night for
Clinton getting lucky.
Bush Lied, GIs died.
dxAce
Al Dykes wrote:
> Bush Lied, GIs died.
Another shining example of a lie.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
David
wrote:
>
>
>mi...@sushi.com wrote:
>
>Clinton was not impeached for sex with a consenting adult...
>
He was impeached for not playing along with the usurpers.
David
wrote:
>
>
>Al Dykes wrote:
>
>> Bush Lied, GIs died.
>
>Another shining example of a lie.
>
MnMikew
"David" <ric...@knac.com> wrote in message
news:kjahu1putu2nlqcae...@4ax.com...
too.
David
wrote:
My bias? What are you talking about? I posted a link to a Right Wing
web site.
MnMikew
SeeingEyeDog
"Al Dykes" <ady...@panix.com> wrote
>
> Bush Lied, GIs died.
>
Clinton had sex and lied, civilians got fucked and died.
SeeingEyeDog
"David" <ric...@knac.com> propagandized
> >
> >Another shining example of a lie.
> >
>
That's being redundant.
Telamon
He was also debarred.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
mi...@sushi.com
been "contained." There was no surprise about the use of airplanes
crashing into buildings. There were 8 documented cases prior to 9/11
where this was the goal of terrorists. The most blatant was the G8
conference that Condi Rice attended in Italy. The Italians had set up
SAM sites to protect the conference from airplane attacks.
If you don't believe me about the SAMS, here it is from the CNN
website:
----------
About 15,000 police are on duty as part of the $110 million security
operation. Surface-to-air missiles, fighter jets and naval ships form
part of the security operation, which is also responsible for defending
the summit from attacks by terrorists.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/07/20/genoa.protests/
------------
This was dated July 21, 2001. So Condi attended a conference where
surface to air missiles were set up to protect it from airplanes
crashing into it, yet that lying sack of shit said she never dreamed an
airplane would be used as a weapon prior to 9/11. Then again, the
corrupt GOP leaders let her testify without being under oath, so it
was OK for her to lie.
dxAce
mi...@sushi.com wrote:
> I have no doubt if Al Gore was president...
[Snip]
Gore lost. Get over it you whiny little piece of crap.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
Mark S. Holden
> I have no doubt if Al Gore was president, the 9/11 event would have
> been "contained."
<snip>
I'm curious how you think 9/11 would have been contained.
The Clinton administration he was part of didn't seem to be gifted at
predicting and preventing terrorist attacks.
I can believe our response would have been contained - he'd have sent a
few cruise missiles and saved the rest for the attacks that followed.
David
wrote:
>
>
Did not. The Supreme Court stopped the Florida vote count.
Al Dykes
>
>> I have no doubt if Al Gore was president, the 9/11 event would have
>> been "contained."
>
><snip>
>
>
>I'm curious how you think 9/11 would have been contained.
>
>The Clinton administration he was part of didn't seem to be gifted at
>predicting and preventing terrorist attacks.
There were people trying very hard to blow shit up on the 2000
millenium. Under Clinton we knew this because we had intel and
Clinton made it a top priority and held a all-dept-heads meeting for
FAA, FBI, etc daily to share information and emphisise the serious
nature of the the threat. One consequence was that the troops in the
field were on notice. This meant that when that Bad Guy tried to cross
from Canada he was noticed by a Customs office and caught.
Under Bush, the FAA had 50+ intel warnings in the spring and summer of
2000 and this seems to have been vener shared or acted on.
Priot to 9-11 Bush was given a Presidental Daily Briefing titled
"Osama Determined to Attack in US" and did nothing with it.
Citation provided if you birds don't already know this stuff.
Mark S. Holden
>
>
> Under Bush, the FAA had 50+ intel warnings in the spring and summer of
> 2000 and this seems to have been vener shared or acted on.
>
In 2000, the President was Bill Clinton, and Al Gore was Vice President.
Al Dykes
Opps I meant 2001.
Mark S. Holden
> In article <YmoGf.28$lw...@fe03.lga>, Mark S. Holden <ma...@bmas.org> wrote:
>
>>Al Dykes wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Under Bush, the FAA had 50+ intel warnings in the spring and summer of
>>>2000 and this seems to have been vener shared or acted on.
>>>
>>
>>In 2000, the President was Bill Clinton, and Al Gore was Vice President.
>>
>
>
>
> Opps I meant 2001.
>
>
>
mi...@sushi.com
Bojika. The Clinton Administration did prevent some terrorist attacks,
though Oklahoma City blind sized the feds.
Bojinka wasn't all that different from 9/11. Had Condi (I don't take
oaths) Rice been doing her homework, she would have known that (Doh!)
planes can be used as weapons.
dxAce
David wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 07:47:33 -0500, dxAce <dx...@milestones.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >mi...@sushi.com wrote:
> >
> >> I have no doubt if Al Gore was president...
> >
> >[Snip]
> >
> >Gore lost. Get over it you whiny little piece of crap.
> >
> Did not. The Supreme Court stopped the Florida vote count.
You really need to go out and shop for a clue!
LMFAO at the stem, yet again.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
Mark S. Holden
> How quickly you forget the thwarting of the Millenium bombing and
> Bojika. The Clinton Administration did prevent some terrorist attacks,
> though Oklahoma City blind sized the feds.
>
> Bojinka wasn't all that different from 9/11. Had Condi (I don't take
> oaths) Rice been doing her homework, she would have known that (Doh!)
> planes can be used as weapons.
>
I don't recall the Clinton administration being involved with Bojinka.
Didn't that one fall apart after one of the terrorists set his kitchen
on fire?
In 1993 we had the World Trade Center bombing.
There were a variety of terrorist attacks on US interests overseas
during his term.
My intent isn't to be critical of President Clinton for failing to
thwart these attacks. I do wish he'd made a more forceful response.
On the other hand, I wonder how you feel about President Bush
authorizing wiretaps of phone calls people in the US have with overseas
people identified as being with Al-Qaeda?
Al Dykes
>mi...@sushi.com wrote:
>> How quickly you forget the thwarting of the Millenium bombing and
>> Bojika. The Clinton Administration did prevent some terrorist attacks,
>> though Oklahoma City blind sized the feds.
>>
>> Bojinka wasn't all that different from 9/11. Had Condi (I don't take
>> oaths) Rice been doing her homework, she would have known that (Doh!)
>> planes can be used as weapons.
>>
>
>I don't recall the Clinton administration being involved with Bojinka.
>Didn't that one fall apart after one of the terrorists set his kitchen
>on fire?
>
Bojinka refered to a plan to hijack a bunch of jets and fly them into
buildings. The good guys took this info and other info about plans to
blow something on on New Years and kept everyone on a high state of
alert starting in late 1999. This may have contributed to a customs
agent being alter enough to catch the guy trying to cross from Canada
with a trunk load of explosives and plans to blowe up something at the
LA Airport.
cuh...@webtv.net
RHF
You are correct that "Global Climate Change" is a concern
for All Humanity and All Living Beings and Things on this Planet.
Global Climate Change is a natural occurrence that occurs
in random cycles throughout the Life of a Planet and the
Life of a Sun.
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE IS VERY REAL [.]
However, Global Climate Change is not the same as the
Pseudo-Science Theme of "Global Warming" which that
Tries to put the 'cause' of Global Climate Change on the
current Activities of Mankind.
Global Warming "The Weird Science" of the Environmental Wackos !
In the Reality of Global Climate Change Mankind's Role of
"Global Warming" may only be the Speck-on-the-Gnats-Ass
( Less Than 1% of the Real Total Assignable Causes. )
A Globally Warm Good Morning To You All ~ RHF
.
.
. .
.
David wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 09:28:11 -0600, "SeeingEyeDog" <loo...@u.org>
> wrote:
>
> >About those missing WMDs
> >Those who have bet their political futures that Saddam had no WMD may be
> >starting to sweat.
> >http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0206/jkelly020106.php3
> >
> >Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria
> >http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=126529
> >
> >Iraq WMD located in three Syrian sites
> >http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php
> >
> >Syria WMD Programs Locations
> >http://www.2la.org/syria/wmd.html
> >
> >
> Fake. They guy is from the Curveball camp.
>
> Global Climate Change is the only thing we should be worried about.
> Not fake enemies and corporate wars.
RHF
cuh...@webtv.net
Hey,it's cold weather here in Jackson,send us some warm weather.Anything
below 75 degrees is too cold for me.
cuhulin
MnMikew
"RHF" <rhf-new...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:1139420032.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> David,
>
> You are correct that "Global Climate Change" is a concern
> for All Humanity and All Living Beings and Things on this Planet.
>
> Global Climate Change is a natural occurrence that occurs
> in random cycles throughout the Life of a Planet and the
> Life of a Sun.
>
ST. PETERSBURG, Russia, Feb. 7 (UPI) -- A Russian astronomer has predicted
that Earth will experience a "mini Ice Age" in the middle of this century,
caused by low solar activity.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomic Observatory in St.
Petersburg said Monday that temperatures will begin falling six or seven
years from now, when global warming caused by increased solar activity in
the 20th century reaches its peak, RIA Novosti reported.
The coldest period will occur 15 to 20 years after a major solar output
decline between 2035 and 2045, Abdusamatov said.
Dramatic changes in the earth's surface temperatures are an ordinary
phenomenon, not an anomaly, he said, and result from variations in the sun's
energy output and ultraviolet radiation.
The Northern Hemisphere's most recent cool-down period occurred between 1645
and 1705. The resulting period, known as the Little Ice Age, left canals in
the Netherlands frozen solid and forced people in Greenland to abandon their
houses to glaciers, the scientist said.
MnMikew
<mi...@sushi.com> wrote in message
news:1139379626.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I have no doubt if Al Gore was president, the 9/11 event would have
> been "contained."
BWHAHAHHA. You're delusional.
There was no surprise about the use of airplanes
> crashing into buildings. There were 8 documented cases prior to 9/11
> where this was the goal of terrorists. The most blatant was the G8
> conference that Condi Rice attended in Italy. The Italians had set up
> SAM sites to protect the conference from airplane attacks.
>
G8, Italians? You mean the same folks who said there were WMDs in
Iraq?
Al Dykes
Huh? here are the G8.
Canada
France
Germany
Italy
Japan
Russia
United Kingdom
United States
We now know that the UK knew that Bush was "fixing the facts" to
justify an invasion. Germany was telling the CIA that the guys we
were using as witnesses to WMDs were idiots looking for a visa.
France and Russia knew that Saddam didn't have anything that was a
risk. Canada said we were wrong.
David
wrote:
>Al Dykes wrote:
Bush got 52 warnings in 2001, just about aircraft hijackings.
Ashcroft refused to ask for a warrant to search Moussaui' notebook
computer. Other FBI field offices were also reporting suspicious
activity concerning Arabs and flight schools.
Bush ignored the warnings because he wanted a new Pearl Harbor to
scare Americans into going along with his fiendish pllot to rule the
world.
cuh...@webtv.net
back to around 1960 or 1961.There is a picture on the front page of New
York City,every inch of New York City all the way up past those
buildings solidly encased in ice,and there is an article in the magazine
about is another ice age coming soon? Another one of my old Popular
Science magazines from around 1960 or 1961 has a real picture on the
front of the magazine of when they got a heck of a lot of snow in New
York City and Boston and all those cars completly covered over with
snow,and an article in the magazine about all that snow they got and
more pictures.Dorchester,Massachutesetts was locked down with all that
snow.Traffic in New York City and Boston wasen't hardly going anywhere.
cuhulin
mi...@sushi.com
court.
Some think the Bojika fire was "set" to gain access to the suspects and
belongings. There is plenty of Bojinka information that is not
released.
The 1993 bombing is what made Clinton obsessed wit UBL.
dxAce
mi...@sushi.com wrote:
> I have no problem with wire tapping with a warrant. Just use the FISA
> court.
>
> Some think the Bojika fire was "set" to gain access to the suspects and
> belongings. There is plenty of Bojinka information that is not
> released.
>
> The 1993 bombing is what made Clinton obsessed wit UBL.
Obsessed? Surely you jest?
You Liberals sure do keep the laughs coming.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
MnMikew
"David" <ric...@knac.com> wrote in message
news:cfeku1dotq6u6aul4...@4ax.com...
> Bush got 52 warnings in 2001, just about aircraft hijackings.
And just how did you verify this?
> Ashcroft refused to ask for a warrant to search Moussaui' notebook
> computer.
Unsubstantiated
>
> Bush ignored the warnings because he wanted a new Pearl Harbor to
> scare Americans into going along with his fiendish pllot to rule the
> world.
>
You sound like Natasha on Rocky&Bullwinkle.
Al Dykes
dxAce
Al Dykes wrote:
> In article <43EA5845...@milestones.com>,
> dxAce <dx...@milestones.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >mi...@sushi.com wrote:
> >
> >> I have no problem with wire tapping with a warrant. Just use the FISA
> >> court.
> >>
> >> Some think the Bojika fire was "set" to gain access to the suspects and
> >> belongings. There is plenty of Bojinka information that is not
> >> released.
> >>
> >> The 1993 bombing is what made Clinton obsessed wit UBL.
> >
> >Obsessed? Surely you jest?
> >
> >You Liberals sure do keep the laughs coming.
>
> dxAce, Wrong on the details. All of them.
>
> Stick to radio.
LMFAO at the clueless 'tard, yet again.
Keep trying, boy.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
mi...@sushi.com
No delusion on my part. Gore wasn't a famatic about Sadam. [Shrub
uttered" "He wanted to kill mah daddy!"] Had Gore been elected rather
than Bush being selected, the A team would still be in charge. Oh, and
we would have an extra 480 billion.
cuh...@webtv.net
turns a blind eye to them.Some of them are terrorist too.America IS
being invaded.
cuhulin
dxAce
mi...@sushi.com wrote:
> At one time, there were WMDs in Iraq. We have the receipts.
>
> No delusion on my part. Gore wasn't a famatic about Sadam. [Shrub
> uttered" "He wanted to kill mah daddy!"] Had Gore been elected rather
> than Bush being selected, the A team would still be in charge. Oh, and
> we would have an extra 480 billion.
The "A" team?
Thanks for a great first laugh of the morning!
Keep 'em coming, boy.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
David
wrote:
Thank-you. We seem to have a common cultural heritage. Where did you
go wrong.? Tsk.
David
wrote:
>In 1993 we had the World Trade Center bombing.
>
>There were a variety of terrorist attacks on US interests overseas
>during his term.
>
>My intent isn't to be critical of President Clinton for failing to
>thwart these attacks. I do wish he'd made a more forceful response.
>
>On the other hand, I wonder how you feel about President Bush
>authorizing wiretaps of phone calls people in the US have with overseas
>people identified as being with Al-Qaeda?
That was a couple weeks into Clinton's first term.
Bush needs a paper trail or we don't know what he's doing. The law's
the law. You should be offended he's using your fear against you.
David
wrote:
>
>"RHF" <rhf-new...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:1139420032.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> David,
>>
>> You are correct that "Global Climate Change" is a concern
>> for All Humanity and All Living Beings and Things on this Planet.
>>
>> Global Climate Change is a natural occurrence that occurs
>> in random cycles throughout the Life of a Planet and the
>> Life of a Sun.
>>
More follow-up on the news that NASA was censoring its scientists:
Michael Griffin, NASA Administrator, did the right thing and issued a
strongly-worded statement that publicly-funded scientists should speak
to the public without interference. George Deutsch, the public affairs
officer who had been altering scientists views in press releases turns
out to be a young Texas A&M dropout, political appointee who either
had his own political and religious agenda or was being used as a
patsy by the Bush administration, has resigned. Mr. Deutsch's résumé
claimed he had graduated from Texas A&M. It turns out he had not.
Oops! Gothamist loves how someone at NASA gave the résumé to a
reporter. They must have been eager to see him go. We will let James
Hansen, the NASA scientist who first alleged the problem, have the
last word (as quoted from today's Times):
"He's only a bit player," Dr. Hansen said of Mr. Deutsch. " The
problem is much broader and much deeper and it goes across agencies.
That's what I'm really concerned about."
"On climate, the public has been misinformed and not informed," he
said. "The foundation of a democracy is an informed public, which
obviously means an honestly informed public. That's the big issue
here."
David
wrote:
Like Bush's defense apparatus ain't the Keystone Cops on bad acid...
MnMikew
scientist?
MnMikew
<mi...@sushi.com> wrote in message
news:1139459138.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> At one time, there were WMDs in Iraq. We have the receipts.
>
> No delusion on my part. Gore wasn't a famatic about Sadam. [Shrub
> uttered" "He wanted to kill mah daddy!"] Had Gore been elected rather
> than Bush being selected, the A team would still be in charge. Oh, and
> we would have an extra 480 billion.
>
MnMikew
fiendish Simon Bar Sinister.
Al Dykes
Nope. Nobody was suggesting ending the embargo and inspections that
were effectively preventing him from doing anything in that direction.
He had nothing as of 2003, and even unconstrained it takes years to
set up and operate a uranuim purification industry, and he'd have to
get the uranuim ore from someplace like Niger, and all the countries
that have uranium ore kepp a close eye on who digs it up. The ore for
a nuke program is said to be 10s to a hundred loads in semi trailor
trucks. Hard to hide in Africa where you can count the big trucks on
fingers and toes. There is no lose uranium ore on the market.
David
wrote:
>> Thank-you. We seem to have a common cultural heritage. Where did you
>> go wrong.? Tsk.
>>
>I got up on the right side of the bed one day. You could also double as the
>fiendish Simon Bar Sinister.
>
You lost me there...
David
wrote:
If we have ''nukes'' we can't go around telling others they can't have
''nukes'', can we now?.
David
wrote:
>
>>
>NASA? Um, isnt this NOAAs gig? And explain how this affects a Russian
>scientist?
>
>
NASA has the remote sensing capabilities necessary.
Ever heard the expression ''...ocket science''?
A single Russian scientist negates broad consensus?
dxAce
David wrote:
Losing you should be pretty easy, considering your 'tard boy tendencies.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
dxAce
David wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 10:06:44 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmi...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>
> >NASA? Um, isnt this NOAAs gig? And explain how this affects a Russian
> >scientist?
> >
> >
> NASA has the remote sensing capabilities necessary.
>
> Ever heard the expression ''...ocket science''?
Yeah, that ocket science is big time stuff these days.
LMFAO at the drug addled stem, yet again.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
cuh...@webtv.net
Atomic device under Lake Razzaza in Iraq. google.com Lake Razzaza Iraq
cuhulin
cuh...@webtv.net
new soda pop that will be sold in American stores.France and a few other
Countries have banned that new soda pop from being sold in their
Countries.
cuhulin
David
A new kind of d.ug.
It's called a typo, and if pointing those out is why you get up in the
morning I envy you.
MnMikew
But a single NASA scientist does? You think there are no NOAA satellites
roaming around up there?
MnMikew
MnMikew
"Al Dykes" <ady...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dsfqtv$3sa$1...@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <4517t6F...@individual.net>, MnMikew <mnmi...@aol.com>
wrote:
> >
> ><mi...@sushi.com> wrote in message
> >news:1139459138.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> At one time, there were WMDs in Iraq. We have the receipts.
> >>
> >> No delusion on my part. Gore wasn't a famatic about Sadam. [Shrub
> >> uttered" "He wanted to kill mah daddy!"] Had Gore been elected rather
> >> than Bush being selected, the A team would still be in charge. Oh, and
> >> we would have an extra 480 billion.
> >>
> >And Iraq would have nukes.
>
>
> Nope. Nobody was suggesting ending the embargo and inspections that
> were effectively preventing him from doing anything in that direction.
Effectively? That's debatable.
>
>
> There is no lose uranium ore on the market.
>
And you know this how?
MnMikew
Al Dykes
>
If you don't know who General Zinni is, here's his bio;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinni
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=2208&from_page=../index.cfm
Gen. Anthony Zinni, USMC, (Ret.) Remarks at CDI Board of Directors Dinner, May 12, 2004
"I just came back from giving a lecture at UCLA yesterday, and the
lecture was on the Middle East. I tried to ... for the students
there, step back and take a more strategic view of the Middle East
and the issues out there and maybe give them a perception of the
problems and issues from the eyes of those that live with it
day-to-day, the Arabs, Israelis, all those that make up the peoples
of the Middle East.
On the way back I was thinking about what to talk about here and I
know Iraq is a hot topic and I thought I would stay with Iraq.
...I think the first mistake that was made was misjudging the
success of containment. I heard the president say, not too long
ago, I believe it was with the interview with Tim Russert that
... I'm not sure ... but at some point I heard him say that
"containment did not work." That's not true.
I was responsible, along with everybody from General Schwarzkopf to
his two successors, that were my predecessors, myself, and my
successor, General Franks, up until the war, we were responsible for
containment. And I would like to explain a little bit about that
containment, because I thought we did it pretty well, given the
circumstances. And it began with Bush 41 accepting the UN
resolution to conduct the war, staying within the framework of the
UN resolution, and not after the war, going to Baghdad, breaking the
coalition, ending up inheriting a country that I think he clearly
saw would be a burden on us, our military, our treasure, and would
break relations around the region, and would put him outside what he
considered his international legitimacy for doing this - the
resolution by which he operated and conducted the war, and the
resolution by which we established the sanctions.
>>
>>
>> There is no lose uranium ore on the market.
>>
>And you know this how?
>
--
David
wrote:
Your denial imperils everyone. Why not act prudently ''just in
case''?
----------
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Essays on Science and Society
Also see the archival list of the Essays on Science and Society.
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States,
frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have
used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change,
then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went
through review, there was less consensus on the science and
conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues
might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions
have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such
statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the
scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate
change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by
the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations
Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of
climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on
the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In
its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the
consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being
affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the
concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter
radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50
years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas
concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major
scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears
directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example,
the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An
Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are
accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities,
causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to
rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC
assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and
answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming
of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in
greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking
of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American
Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent
years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate
is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many
opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not
likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the
societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate
dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928
abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and
2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate
change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement
of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation
proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the
consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three
categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus
view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on
current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers
disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or
studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate
change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed
literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the
public statements of their professional societies. Politicians,
economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of
confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that
impression is incorrect.
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of
science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted
for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will
surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of
anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.
Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and
there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better
basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do
about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific
consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate
scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for
the rest of us to listen.
References and Notes
A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy
2 (1), 3 (2003).
See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate
Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions
(National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508
(2003).
American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts
was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because,
although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the
paper was not about climate change.
This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture,
"Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at
the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the
History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to
my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K.
Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J.
Somerville for helpful discussions.
10.1126/science.1103618
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies
Program, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093,
USA. E-mail: nore...@ucsd.edu
dxAce
David wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 12:14:16 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmi...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"David" <ric...@knac.com> wrote in message
> >news:8otmu1pbf709h9i4o...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 10:06:44 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmi...@aol.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >NASA? Um, isnt this NOAAs gig? And explain how this affects a Russian
> >> >scientist?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> NASA has the remote sensing capabilities necessary.
> >>
> >> Ever heard the expression ''...ocket science''?
> >>
> >>
> >> A single Russian scientist negates broad consensus?
> >
> >But a single NASA scientist does? You think there are no NOAA satellites
> >roaming around up there?
> >
> Your denial imperils everyone. Why not act prudently ''just in
> case''?
The prudent thing for you to do would be to take your meds and calm down, 'tard boy.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
MnMikew
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 12:14:16 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmi...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"David" <ric...@knac.com> wrote in message
> >news:8otmu1pbf709h9i4o...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 10:06:44 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmi...@aol.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >NASA? Um, isnt this NOAAs gig? And explain how this affects a Russian
> >> >scientist?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> NASA has the remote sensing capabilities necessary.
> >>
> >> Ever heard the expression ''...ocket science''?
> >>
> >>
> >> A single Russian scientist negates broad consensus?
> >
> >But a single NASA scientist does? You think there are no NOAA satellites
> >roaming around up there?
> >
> Your denial imperils everyone. Why not act prudently ''just in
> case''?
>
all.
David
wrote:
>
>>
>You somehow think this can be fixed overnight. Or that man can fix it at
>all.
>
>
It will take 20 years to find out. Are you suggesting that because we
may fail we shouldn't attempt it?