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

GatherNoMoss wrote:
My opinion of Liberals is so poor....So convinced am I of their
degenerate character...
that I do believe that Liberals are dissappointed that this Space
Shuttle mission was
a success.
Another dead shuttle crew would have fit their political ambitions
quite nicely.
Something else that was "Bush's" fault.

This is what happens when you adopt an "end justifies the means"
attitude as the
radical Leftist have.

Go ahead Lefties, protest...express your indignation.
I KNOW you people. You've dominated the US media for decades.
You taught me the true meaning of "cynical".
Cynical as in " selfishly or callously calculating ".

I'm a liberal, I've been a supporter of NASA since Mercury. And I'm
happy as a clam (how happy are clams, anyway?) to see the Shuttle go
up and come down again safely.

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

wrote:
GatherNoMoss wrote:
My opinion of Liberals is so poor....So convinced am I of their
degenerate character...
that I do believe that Liberals are dissappointed that this Space
Shuttle mission was
a success.
Another dead shuttle crew would have fit their political ambitions
quite nicely.
Something else that was "Bush's" fault.

This is what happens when you adopt an "end justifies the means"
attitude as the
radical Leftist have.

Go ahead Lefties, protest...express your indignation.
I KNOW you people. You've dominated the US media for decades.
You taught me the true meaning of "cynical".
Cynical as in " selfishly or callously calculating ".

I'm a liberal, I've been a supporter of NASA since Mercury. And I'm
happy as a clam (how happy are clams, anyway?) to see the Shuttle go
up and come down again safely.

My contention is that had liberals been in the White House instead of
people like Nixon and Reagan and the Bushes, we would have already been
to Mars

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/

Fred J. McCall wrote:
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?

Lost, misplaced and degraded munitions from a
messy war in the 80's are not the "WMD's" that
Bush and his people had been referring to the past
few years. Also the 500 number is highly dubious
since it includes an unknown quantity of unfilled
shells. Also, if an old chemical weapon has degraded
to the point that it's less of a WMD than a bottle of
bleach or can of Drano, is it still a WMD?

Lastly, might I refer you to this excerpt from the March
2005"Addendums to the Comprehensive Report"
regarding Iraqi WMD's:
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/Duel.../Addendums.pdf
Pages 21-22, (or maybe 17-18 depending on the version
of Acrobat Reader):

****
Residual Pre-1991 CBW Stocks in Iraq

ISG assesses that Iraq and Coalition Forces will
continue to discover small numbers of degraded
chemical weapons, which the former Regime mislaid
or improperly destroyed prior to 1991. ISG believes
the bulk of these weapons were likely abandoned,
forgotten and lost during the Iran-Iraq war because
tens of thousands of CW munitions were forward
deployed along frequently and rapidly shifting battlefronts.

· All but two of the chemical weapons discovered
since OIF were found in southern Iraq where the
majority of CW munitions were used against Iran in
the Iran-Iraq war.

· As the Coalition destroys the thousands of conventional
munitions at depots around the country the
possibility exists that pre-1991 vintage chemical
rounds could be found mixed in with conventional
munitions at these locations.
-ISG identifi ed 43 bunkers and depots where the
Coalition is in the process of destroying conventional
munitions and that were suspected of being
associated with the pre-1991 WMD programs.
However, ISG believes that any remaining chemical
munitions in Iraq do not pose a militarily signifi cant
threat to Coalition Forces because the agent and
munitions are degraded and there are not enough
extant weapons to cause mass casualties. However,
if placed in the hands of insurgents, the use of a single
even ineffectual chemical weapon would likely cause
more terror than deadlier conventional explosives.

· Since May 2004, ISG has recovered 41 Sakr-18
CW rockets and eight Buraq CW rockets. Coalition
military explosive experts doubted the rockets
could be effectively launched because the physical
state of the munitions was degraded from years of
improper storage.

· Since 2003, insurgents have attacked Coalition
Forces with two CW rounds (not including attacks
with riot control agents) that ISG judges were produced
by Iraq prior to 1991. Neither attack caused
casualties and ISG believes the perpetrators did not
know the rounds contained CW agent because the
rounds were not marked to indicate they contained
CW agent and they were used no differently than
insurgents had employed conventional munition
Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs).

· The mustard round used by insurgents as an IED
near Abu Ghurayb Barracks on 2 May 2004 contained
agent degraded to such an extent to be ineffective.

· There continues to be reporting that indicates terrorists
and insurgents possess chemical or biological
weapons, although there is no evidence
indicating that they have obtained "functional"
CBW weapons or agents from the former Regime's
programs. An insurgent captured in Fallujah stated,
"If we had chemical weapons, we would have used
them."

Iraqis seeking rewards have added toxic chemicals to
unfi lled pre-1991 chemical munitions to fool Coalition
Forces into believing that they had found CW
munitions.

· Polish Forces recovered 41 Sakr-18 rockets in June
and July 2004. Of the rockets tested one contained
residual sarin, fi ve contained petroleum and a pesticide,
and the remainders were empty. ISG believes
that the Iraqis who provided the rockets added the
pesticide because we have no previous reporting
indicating that Iraq weaponized pesticides.
ISG has not found evidence to indicate that Iraq
did not destroy its BW weapons or bulk agents.
However, even if biological agents from the former
program do remain they probably have signifi cantly
decreased pathogenicity because Iraq never successfully
formulated its biological agents for long-term
storage.

· According to a former Iraqi BW researcher, Iraq
was not able to acquire drying technology because
of sanctions.

****

Hope this clarifies, but if you're a right winger, facts
don't matter.

-BC

"sss" wrote:

:My contention is that had liberals been in the White House instead of
eople like Nixon and Reagan and the Bushes, we would have already been
:to Mars

Who was the last 'liberal' who spent serious money on manned space
exploration?

What happened during the 8 Clinton years?

Conclusion: Your contention is merely silly.

--
"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

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:
"sss" wrote:

:My contention is that had liberals been in the White House instead of
eople like Nixon and Reagan and the Bushes, we would have already been
:to Mars

Who was the last 'liberal' who spent serious money on manned space
exploration?

What happened during the 8 Clinton years?

Conclusion: Your contention is merely silly.

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

--

Clinton was certainly a Democrat but he sure wasn't a liberal
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

GatherNoMoss wrote:
My opinion of Liberals is so poor....So convinced am I of their
degenerate character...
that I do believe that Liberals are dissappointed that this Space
Shuttle mission was
a success.
Another dead shuttle crew would have fit their political ambitions
quite nicely.
Something else that was "Bush's" fault.

You really are a dullard. Most liberals love the space program.

Baldin Pramer