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

"bushlied" wrote:

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

Let's look again. He wanted socialized medicine, gays in the
military, etc, etc. If Clinton wasn't a liberal he put up a damned
good front of being one.

Clinton's problem was that he compromised everyplace he shouldn't have
and wouldn't compromise everywhere he should have.

--
You are
What you do
When it counts.

--
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

wrote:

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

Yeah, they love it so much they don't want to spend any money at all
on it.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

--
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.

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.

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

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

Fred J. McCall wrote in
:

Mitchell Holman wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote in
m:
:
: "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
:
::
::"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
m...
::
:: 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?
:


crickets


:
:
: 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?



The Dept of Defense says they aren't WMD's.

The Sec of Defense says they aren't WMD's.

Do you know something they don't?

Fred J. McCall wrote:
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?

The question is moot. Does the DoD consider this cache to qualify as
"WMD?"

Fred J. McCall wrote:
(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?

Nuclear weapons or chemical weapons. How much uranium did they find?
How much sarin or other chemicals did they find? A single small jar in
a scientist's refrigerator is NOT WMD.

What they found we sold them to tip some munitions back during the
Iran/Iraq war of the 1980s.


:: 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?

A small amount of chemcials we supplied them doesn't constitute WMD.

Answer your own damn question! And then answer the question what we
found, and then tell me that they were trying to make WMD. You can't do
it!

Eric


--
"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