Clean, Space Shuttle mission ! Liberals bummed out.....

Mitchell Holman wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote in
:
:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
::Rand Simberg ) wrote:
::: On 17 Jul 2006 10:49:28 -0700, in a place far, far away, "BC"
::: made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
::: way as to indicate that:
::
:::
::: Rand Simberg wrote:
::: On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:28:09 GMT, in a place far, far away,
::: "Bernard Spilman" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
::: in such a way as to indicate that:
:::
::: Indeed, making stuff up is more the current administration's
::: specialty -- such as WMD
:::
::: Which, it now turns out, existed.
:::
::: Then where the **** are they? If they are there, then produce
::: them.
:::
:::
::: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...06/06/30/AR200
::: 6063001528.html
:::
::: Those are old, degraded munitions from the Iran-Iraq
::: war.
::
::: They were part of what Saddam was obligated to turn in as fulfillment
::: of the UNSC resolutions. His continuing failure to do so was the
::: primary justification for his removal, per those resolutions.
::
::But they weren't WMD.
:
: They weren't? Did they change the definition?
:
::: The stuff you keep under your sink is likely more
::: lethal now. Do you really think this motly collection of
::: long lost and misplaced, filled & unfilled leftovers from
::: a messy 20yr-old war are the same "WMD's" that Bush
::: and his people have been warning against since 2002?
::
::: No. I'm simply disputing the continuing lie that there were no WMDs
::: in Iraq.
::
::That wasn't a lie. You're a dupe.
:
: Ok, Eric, where's your threshold for how many have to be found in
: order for them to constitute WMD? Or have you just adopted a
: definition which says there could NEVER be WMD, no matter what is
: found?
:
:
:"It turns out that we have not found weapons
f mass destruction."
efense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Oct. 4, 2004.

How about the 500 or so that they've found?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Fred J. McCall wrote in
:

Mitchell Holman wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote in
m:
:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
::Rand Simberg ) wrote:
::: On 17 Jul 2006 10:49:28 -0700, in a place far, far away, "BC"
::: made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
::: way as to indicate that:
::
:::
::: Rand Simberg wrote:
::: On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:28:09 GMT, in a place far, far away,
::: "Bernard Spilman" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
::: in such a way as to indicate that:
:::
::: Indeed, making stuff up is more the current administration's
::: specialty -- such as WMD
:::
::: Which, it now turns out, existed.
:::
::: Then where the **** are they? If they are there, then produce
::: them.
:::
:::
::: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR200
::: 6063001528.html
:::
::: Those are old, degraded munitions from the Iran-Iraq
::: war.
::
::: They were part of what Saddam was obligated to turn in as fulfillment
::: of the UNSC resolutions. His continuing failure to do so was the
::: primary justification for his removal, per those resolutions.
::
::But they weren't WMD.
:
: They weren't? Did they change the definition?
:
::: The stuff you keep under your sink is likely more
::: lethal now. Do you really think this motly collection of
::: long lost and misplaced, filled & unfilled leftovers from
::: a messy 20yr-old war are the same "WMD's" that Bush
::: and his people have been warning against since 2002?
::
::: No. I'm simply disputing the continuing lie that there were no WMDs
::: in Iraq.
::
::That wasn't a lie. You're a dupe.
:
: Ok, Eric, where's your threshold for how many have to be found in
: order for them to constitute WMD? Or have you just adopted a
: definition which says there could NEVER be WMD, no matter what is
: found?
:
:
:"It turns out that we have not found weapons
f mass destruction."
efense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Oct. 4, 2004.

How about the 500 or so that they've found?




Officials: U.S. didn’t find WMDs, despite claims
NBC News
June 22, 2006

WASHINGTON - Senior U.S. intelligence officials said
Thursday they have no evidence that Iraq produced chemical
weapons after the 1991 Gulf War, despite recent reports
from media outlets and Republican lawmakers.

Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Rep. Peter Hoekstra
of Michigan on Wednesday pointed to a newly declassified
report that says coalition forces have found 500 munitions ---
in Iraq that contained degraded sarin or mustard nerve agents.

But defense officials said Thursday that the weapons were not
considered likely to be dangerous because of their age, which
they determined to be pre-1991.

Pentagon officials told NBC News that the munitions are the
same kind of ordnance the U.S. military has been gathering in
Iraq for the past several years, and "not the WMD we were
looking for when we went in this time."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/

Mitchell Holman wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote in
:
:
: Mitchell Holman wrote:
:
::Fred J. McCall wrote in
:
::
:: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
::
:::Rand Simberg ) wrote:
:::: On 17 Jul 2006 10:49:28 -0700, in a place far, far away, "BC"
:::: made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
:::: way as to indicate that:
:::
::::
:::: Rand Simberg wrote:
:::: On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:28:09 GMT, in a place far, far away,
:::: "Bernard Spilman" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
:::: in such a way as to indicate that:
::::
:::: Indeed, making stuff up is more the current administration's
:::: specialty -- such as WMD
::::
:::: Which, it now turns out, existed.
::::
:::: Then where the **** are they? If they are there, then produce
:::: them.
::::
::::
:::: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...063001528.html
::::
:::: Those are old, degraded munitions from the Iran-Iraq
:::: war.
:::
:::: They were part of what Saddam was obligated to turn in as fulfillment
:::: of the UNSC resolutions. His continuing failure to do so was the
:::: primary justification for his removal, per those resolutions.
:::
:::But they weren't WMD.
::
:: They weren't? Did they change the definition?
::
:::: The stuff you keep under your sink is likely more
:::: lethal now. Do you really think this motly collection of
:::: long lost and misplaced, filled & unfilled leftovers from
:::: a messy 20yr-old war are the same "WMD's" that Bush
:::: and his people have been warning against since 2002?
:::
:::: No. I'm simply disputing the continuing lie that there were no WMDs
:::: in Iraq.
:::
:::That wasn't a lie. You're a dupe.
::
:: Ok, Eric, where's your threshold for how many have to be found in
:: order for them to constitute WMD? Or have you just adopted a
:: definition which says there could NEVER be WMD, no matter what is
:: found?
::
::
::"It turns out that we have not found weapons
:f mass destruction."
:efense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Oct. 4, 2004.
:
: How about the 500 or so that they've found?
:
:Officials: U.S. didn’t find WMDs, despite claims
:NBC News
:June 22, 2006
:
:WASHINGTON - Senior U.S. intelligence officials said
:Thursday they have no evidence that Iraq produced chemical
:weapons after the 1991 Gulf War, despite recent reports
:from media outlets and Republican lawmakers.

I'll simply note that the headline is at odds with the story. The
headline says "U.S. didn't find WMDs". That isn't what the story
says. The story says that they found "no evidence that Iraq produced
chemical weapons after the 1991 Gulf War".

Those two things are not the same thing.

Again, what about the 500 or so that they've found?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...

I'll simply note that the headline is at odds with the story. The
headline says "U.S. didn't find WMDs". That isn't what the story
says. The story says that they found "no evidence that Iraq produced
chemical weapons after the 1991 Gulf War".

Those two things are not the same thing.

Again, what about the 500 or so that they've found?

I'll simply note that you clipped the relevant part.

Pentagon officials told NBC News that the munitions are the
same kind of ordnance the U.S. military has been gathering in
Iraq for the past several years, and "not the WMD we were
looking for when we went in this time."


So, we did not find the WMDs that we went looking for.

That's what the war was (among other reasons) about.



--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
:
: I'll simply note that the headline is at odds with the story. The
: headline says "U.S. didn't find WMDs". That isn't what the story
: says. The story says that they found "no evidence that Iraq produced
: chemical weapons after the 1991 Gulf War".
:
: Those two things are not the same thing.
:
: Again, what about the 500 or so that they've found?
:
:I'll simply note that you clipped the relevant part.

I'll simply note that you are continuing to try to change the
question. The statement in question was the claim that we did not
find WMDs.

:Pentagon officials told NBC News that the munitions are the
:same kind of ordnance the U.S. military has been gathering in
:Iraq for the past several years, and "not the WMD we were
:looking for when we went in this time."
:
:So, we did not find the WMDs that we went looking for.

But we did find WMDs. People who claim we did not are merely ignoring
the facts for political expediency.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
:
: I'll simply note that the headline is at odds with the story. The
: headline says "U.S. didn't find WMDs". That isn't what the story
: says. The story says that they found "no evidence that Iraq produced
: chemical weapons after the 1991 Gulf War".
:
: Those two things are not the same thing.
:
: Again, what about the 500 or so that they've found?
:
:I'll simply note that you clipped the relevant part.

I'll simply note that you are continuing to try to change the
question. The statement in question was the claim that we did not
find WMDs.

:Pentagon officials told NBC News that the munitions are the
:same kind of ordnance the U.S. military has been gathering in
:Iraq for the past several years, and "not the WMD we were
:looking for when we went in this time."
:
:So, we did not find the WMDs that we went looking for.

But we did find WMDs. People who claim we did not are merely ignoring
the facts for political expediency.

But we didn't invade Iraq because he had old WMD. We invaded Iraq
because he was "reinstigating" his chemical weapons facilities. Colin
Powell went before Congress and said "We know he has these plants. We
know where they are. We can't tell you where they are because that
would threaten our intelligence sources, but we know." We were also
told he (Saadam) had "Weapons of mass destruction with which he could
attack our troops within 45 minutes." These rusted, corroded pre-1991
canisters could hardly have been used within 45 minutes. It's doubtful
anyone in Saadam's regime even remembered they were there. So where is
the "reinstigated" WMD program? Where are the faciliites? Where are the
newly produced shells? Produce those and this is one liberal who will
apologize and state that he was wrong to critize W and his war.

....but I'm not holding my breath waiting.

wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
:
: :
: :"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
: .. .
: :
: : I'll simply note that the headline is at odds with the story. The
: : headline says "U.S. didn't find WMDs". That isn't what the story
: : says. The story says that they found "no evidence that Iraq produced
: : chemical weapons after the 1991 Gulf War".
: :
: : Those two things are not the same thing.
: :
: : Again, what about the 500 or so that they've found?
: :
: :I'll simply note that you clipped the relevant part.
:
: I'll simply note that you are continuing to try to change the
: question. The statement in question was the claim that we did not
: find WMDs.
:
: :Pentagon officials told NBC News that the munitions are the
: :same kind of ordnance the U.S. military has been gathering in
: :Iraq for the past several years, and "not the WMD we were
: :looking for when we went in this time."
: :
: :So, we did not find the WMDs that we went looking for.
:
: But we did find WMDs. People who claim we did not are merely ignoring
: the facts for political expediency.
:
:But we didn't invade Iraq because he had old WMD.

Actually, it was one of many reasons - unaccounted for weapons.

:We invaded Iraq
:because he was "reinstigating" his chemical weapons facilities. Colin
:Powell went before Congress and said "We know he has these plants. We
:know where they are. We can't tell you where they are because that
:would threaten our intelligence sources, but we know." We were also
:told he (Saadam) had "Weapons of mass destruction with which he could
:attack our troops within 45 minutes." These rusted, corroded pre-1991
:canisters could hardly have been used within 45 minutes. It's doubtful
:anyone in Saadam's regime even remembered they were there. So where is
:the "reinstigated" WMD program? Where are the faciliites? Where are the
:newly produced shells? Produce those and this is one liberal who will
:apologize and state that he was wrong to critize W and his war.
:
:...but I'm not holding my breath waiting.

So your line moves. But that's not the issue under discussion at the
moment.

Answer the question. Have we or have we not found WMD in Iraq: Yes
or no?

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 24 Jul 2006 02:22:30 -0700, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

But we did find WMDs. People who claim we did not are merely ignoring
the facts for political expediency.

But we didn't invade Iraq because he had old WMD. We invaded Iraq
because he was "reinstigating" his chemical weapons facilities.

We invaded Iraq for many reasons. One of them was that he was obliged
by the 1990 truce and many UNSCR resolutions to turn in all WMDs that
he had from before the first Gulf War, or declare their disposition.
He did neither, instead simply keeping them.

Fred J. McCall wrote in
:

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
. ..
:
: I'll simply note that the headline is at odds with the story. The
: headline says "U.S. didn't find WMDs". That isn't what the story
: says. The story says that they found "no evidence that Iraq produced
: chemical weapons after the 1991 Gulf War".
:
: Those two things are not the same thing.
:
: Again, what about the 500 or so that they've found?
:
:I'll simply note that you clipped the relevant part.

I'll simply note that you are continuing to try to change the
question. The statement in question was the claim that we did not
find WMDs.

:Pentagon officials told NBC News that the munitions are the
:same kind of ordnance the U.S. military has been gathering in
:Iraq for the past several years, and "not the WMD we were
:looking for when we went in this time."
:
:So, we did not find the WMDs that we went looking for.

But we did find WMDs. People who claim we did not are merely ignoring
the facts for political expediency.



Huh?

Why would the people who claimed for years
that Saddam had WMD's find it "politically expedient"
to continue to admit they were wrong?



Mitchell Holman

"We found the weapons of mass destruction."
George Bush, 5/31/03

vs.....

"It turns out that we have not found weapons
of mass destruction."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Oct. 4, 2004.

Mitchell Holman wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote in
:
:
: "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
:
::
::"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
::
:: I'll simply note that the headline is at odds with the story. The
:: headline says "U.S. didn't find WMDs". That isn't what the story
:: says. The story says that they found "no evidence that Iraq produced
:: chemical weapons after the 1991 Gulf War".
::
:: Those two things are not the same thing.
::
:: Again, what about the 500 or so that they've found?
::
::I'll simply note that you clipped the relevant part.
:
: I'll simply note that you are continuing to try to change the
: question. The statement in question was the claim that we did not
: find WMDs.
:
::Pentagon officials told NBC News that the munitions are the
::same kind of ordnance the U.S. military has been gathering in
::Iraq for the past several years, and "not the WMD we were
::looking for when we went in this time."
::
::So, we did not find the WMDs that we went looking for.
:
: But we did find WMDs. People who claim we did not are merely ignoring
: the facts for political expediency.
:
: Huh?
:
: Why would the people who claimed for years
:that Saddam had WMD's find it "politically expedient"
:to continue to admit they were wrong?
:
:
:
: Mitchell Holman
:
:"We found the weapons of mass destruction."
:George Bush, 5/31/03
:
: vs.....
:
:"It turns out that we have not found weapons
f mass destruction."
efense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Oct. 4, 2004.

So what do you want to call the 500+ that were found? Twinkies?

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com