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:
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.

evidence?

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 19:33:19 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

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

Which is not the same things as no WMDs full stop.

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.

On 6 Aug 2006 04:41:28 -0700, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

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

No, the question is not moot. Answer it. Yes or no?

Yes, the question is moot. We found canisters. 500 corrodeded (sp)
unusable canisters. We have not yet found what we were told was there,
reinstigated facilities for the creation of WMD that could attack our
people in 45 minutes. Finding those (if they in fact exist) will
justify this war and it's death and carnage. Finding some unusable
cannisters will not.

Whether the war was justified is a completely separate issue. The
only issue here is whether or not there were WMDs in Iraq. There
were.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in news:44e23469.109676947
@news.giganews.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.


"We have high confidence that they have weapons
of mass destruction. That is what this war was
about and it is about."
White House Press Briefing
April 10, 2003

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 13:37:22 -0500, in a place far, far away, Mitchell
Holman made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

We invaded Iraq for many reasons.


"We have high confidence that they have weapons
of mass destruction. That is what this war was
about and it is about."

Sorry, but we invaded Iraq for many reasons. One rhetorical slip up
doesn't change that.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in news:44e437ec.110575969
@news.giganews.com:

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 13:37:22 -0500, in a place far, far away, Mitchell
Holman made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

We invaded Iraq for many reasons.


"We have high confidence that they have weapons
of mass destruction. That is what this war was
about and it is about."

Sorry, but we invaded Iraq for many reasons. One rhetorical slip up
doesn't change that.



And what "many reasons" are those? Because
we owed it to the Iraqi people? Because of Bush's
abiding need to enforce UN sanctions (but only
if they involve countries with lots of oil)?
9/11? An "Osama Got Away" distraction?

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

Mitchell Holman wrote:
h (Rand Simberg) wrote in news:44e437ec.110575969
@news.giganews.com:

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 13:37:22 -0500, in a place far, far away, Mitchell
Holman made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

We invaded Iraq for many reasons.


"We have high confidence that they have weapons
of mass destruction. That is what this war was
about and it is about."

Sorry, but we invaded Iraq for many reasons. One rhetorical slip up
doesn't change that.



And what "many reasons" are those? Because
we owed it to the Iraqi people? Because of Bush's
abiding need to enforce UN sanctions (but only
if they involve countries with lots of oil)?
9/11? An "Osama Got Away" distraction?

Because once Bush realized there weren't any "new facilities" making
weapons that could "attack us in 45 minutes," he had to come up with
other points to justify invasion.