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

"enchomko" wrote:

:
: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?
:
:500 what?

500 chemical filled artillery rounds, dumbass. Do try to keep up,
won't you?

:Are you saying Rumsfeld didn't quote the above?

Did I say that? If you want to know what I'm saying, Eric, try
pulling your head out and actually reading it.

:You have the damn Sec. of Def. stating what we are saying and here you
:are saying he's wrong!

No, I'm saying that clots like you are ignoring the context in which
he said it.

--
"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:
"enchomko" wrote:

:
: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?
:
:500 what?

500 chemical filled artillery rounds, dumbass. Do try to keep up,
won't you?

:Are you saying Rumsfeld didn't quote the above?

Did I say that? If you want to know what I'm saying, Eric, try
pulling your head out and actually reading it.

:You have the damn Sec. of Def. stating what we are saying and here you
:are saying he's wrong!

No, I'm saying that clots like you are ignoring the context in which
he said it.

By all accounts those old munitions have degraded
to the point that they *don't* meet the most common
definitions of "Weapons of Mass Destruction"
http://debate.uvm.edu/handbookfile/WMD2002/020a.htm

Remember back in 2004 when some insurgents tried
to make IED's out of a couple of old found chemical
munitions they apparently thought were conventional
shells?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004May17.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0521/p09s01-coop.html

Being a track star in the 80's doesn't mean you're a
track star now.

"Ex-WMD" is the most accurate description.

-BC

Fred J. McCall wrote:
"enchomko" wrote:

:
: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?
:
:500 what?

500 chemical filled artillery rounds, dumbass. Do try to keep up,
won't you?

How old were they? Left over from 1988?


:Are you saying Rumsfeld didn't quote the above?

Did I say that? If you want to know what I'm saying, Eric, try
pulling your head out and actually reading it.


Backpeddling I see.

:You have the damn Sec. of Def. stating what we are saying and here you
:are saying he's wrong!

No, I'm saying that clots like you are ignoring the context in which
he said it.


No, you have Rumsfeld actually admitting that they were wrong. Sorry
you can't admit it yourself.

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