On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 08:25:05 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Scout" wrote in
message ...


"Winston_Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 01:46:08 -0400, Ed Huntresswrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 22:28:56 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 00:42:59 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 22:36:19 -0600, rbowman wrote:

Yeah, I'd seen the movie before. It was called Vietnam. Go in
with no
****ing idea what you're doing and hope for the best. Compared
to
destabilizing the mid-East, Vietnam worked out much better.

I don't remember you speaking up about your superior knowledge
concerning Saddam's supposed WMDs. Did you let your congressman
know
that the entire thing was a hoax?

Oh give me a break. Contrary was all over the place.

We sure didn't hear much contrary evidence about it, did we?

How does one prove something does not exist? There was lots of
proof
that the bogus information Bush made up to prove it did was
inaccurate.

Ok... how about instead you prove it was bogus information made up
by Bush.

After all, if there's lots of proof, then it should be easy for you
to produce it.

Oh, and remember you have to prove he made it up.

Good luck with that.

Bush Derangement Syndrome renders its victims oblivious to Clinton's
1998 statement that he was attacking those WMD programs:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

"That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security
team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the
chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the
national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series
of air strikes against Iraq."
"They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver
weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten
his neighbors."

Apparently he succeeded.


How could he target what didn't exist? Did he commit acts of war based
on a deliberate lie?

In 1998, there was still reason to believe he had them. We had almost
no information to the effect that Saddam actually destroyed his
weapons. By 2004, we had info from Blix's team, which should have been
enough to give us pause.


Bush inherited the same secret intelligence, which supported the false
testimony from Iraqi defector Curveball.

Bush's administration was making it up in a vacuum. It had been a
decade since Saddam claimed to have destroyed them. The intelligence
failed to produce an accurate account of what happened in the years
since.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 08:25:05 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Scout" wrote in
message ...


"Winston_Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 01:46:08 -0400, Ed Huntresswrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 22:28:56 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 00:42:59 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 22:36:19 -0600, rbowman wrote:

Yeah, I'd seen the movie before. It was called Vietnam. Go in
with no
****ing idea what you're doing and hope for the best. Compared
to
destabilizing the mid-East, Vietnam worked out much better.

I don't remember you speaking up about your superior knowledge
concerning Saddam's supposed WMDs. Did you let your congressman
know
that the entire thing was a hoax?

Oh give me a break. Contrary was all over the place.

We sure didn't hear much contrary evidence about it, did we?

How does one prove something does not exist? There was lots of
proof
that the bogus information Bush made up to prove it did was
inaccurate.

Ok... how about instead you prove it was bogus information made up
by Bush.

After all, if there's lots of proof, then it should be easy for
you
to produce it.

Oh, and remember you have to prove he made it up.

Good luck with that.

Bush Derangement Syndrome renders its victims oblivious to Clinton's
1998 statement that he was attacking those WMD programs:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its
neighbors."

"That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national
security
team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the
chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and
the
national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained
series
of air strikes against Iraq."
"They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and
deliver
weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten
his neighbors."

Apparently he succeeded.


How could he target what didn't exist? Did he commit acts of war
based
on a deliberate lie?

In 1998, there was still reason to believe he had them. We had
almost
no information to the effect that Saddam actually destroyed his
weapons. By 2004, we had info from Blix's team, which should have
been
enough to give us pause.


Bush inherited the same secret intelligence, which supported the
false
testimony from Iraqi defector Curveball.

Bush's administration was making it up in a vacuum. It had been a
decade since Saddam claimed to have destroyed them. The intelligence
failed to produce an accurate account of what happened in the years
since.

--
Ed Huntress

Saddam claimed to still have them, to deceive Iran. His mistake was
believing that we knew better.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 08:25:05 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Scout" wrote in
message ...


"Winston_Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 01:46:08 -0400, Ed Huntresswrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 22:28:56 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 00:42:59 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 22:36:19 -0600, rbowman wrote:

Yeah, I'd seen the movie before. It was called Vietnam. Go in
with no
****ing idea what you're doing and hope for the best. Compared
to
destabilizing the mid-East, Vietnam worked out much better.

I don't remember you speaking up about your superior knowledge
concerning Saddam's supposed WMDs. Did you let your congressman
know
that the entire thing was a hoax?

Oh give me a break. Contrary was all over the place.

We sure didn't hear much contrary evidence about it, did we?

How does one prove something does not exist? There was lots of
proof
that the bogus information Bush made up to prove it did was
inaccurate.

Ok... how about instead you prove it was bogus information made up
by Bush.

After all, if there's lots of proof, then it should be easy for
you
to produce it.

Oh, and remember you have to prove he made it up.

Good luck with that.

Bush Derangement Syndrome renders its victims oblivious to Clinton's
1998 statement that he was attacking those WMD programs:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its
neighbors."

"That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national
security
team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the
chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and
the
national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained
series
of air strikes against Iraq."
"They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and
deliver
weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten
his neighbors."

Apparently he succeeded.


How could he target what didn't exist? Did he commit acts of war
based
on a deliberate lie?

In 1998, there was still reason to believe he had them. We had
almost
no information to the effect that Saddam actually destroyed his
weapons. By 2004, we had info from Blix's team, which should have
been
enough to give us pause.


Bush inherited the same secret intelligence, which supported the
false
testimony from Iraqi defector Curveball.

Bush's administration was making it up in a vacuum. It had been a
decade since Saddam claimed to have destroyed them. The intelligence
failed to produce an accurate account of what happened in the years
since.

--
Ed Huntress

You can't admit that you have been seduced by the Big Lie of BDS,
which numbly denies that Bush was following the path so clearly laid
out by Clinton.

Bush inherited and believed Clinton's intelligence failure. His own
intelligence failure, Curveball, was accepted because it concurred
with the existing assessment.
http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2013...s-about-spying

I didn't agree with his decision to provoke a war but I can see how he
supported it. The details aren't as accessible yet as the older events
and decisions that lead to Pearl Harbor and the Tonkin Gulf
Resolution, which I have researched. Those were also intelligence
failures exacerbated by hard-line opinions.

-jsw

On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 11:02:30 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 08:25:05 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Scout" wrote in
message ...


"Winston_Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 01:46:08 -0400, Ed Huntresswrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 22:28:56 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 00:42:59 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 22:36:19 -0600, rbowman wrote:

Yeah, I'd seen the movie before. It was called Vietnam. Go in
with no
****ing idea what you're doing and hope for the best. Compared
to
destabilizing the mid-East, Vietnam worked out much better.

I don't remember you speaking up about your superior knowledge
concerning Saddam's supposed WMDs. Did you let your congressman
know
that the entire thing was a hoax?

Oh give me a break. Contrary was all over the place.

We sure didn't hear much contrary evidence about it, did we?

How does one prove something does not exist? There was lots of
proof
that the bogus information Bush made up to prove it did was
inaccurate.

Ok... how about instead you prove it was bogus information made up
by Bush.

After all, if there's lots of proof, then it should be easy for
you
to produce it.

Oh, and remember you have to prove he made it up.

Good luck with that.

Bush Derangement Syndrome renders its victims oblivious to Clinton's
1998 statement that he was attacking those WMD programs:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its
neighbors."

"That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national
security
team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the
chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and
the
national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained
series
of air strikes against Iraq."
"They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and
deliver
weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten
his neighbors."

Apparently he succeeded.


How could he target what didn't exist? Did he commit acts of war
based
on a deliberate lie?

In 1998, there was still reason to believe he had them. We had
almost
no information to the effect that Saddam actually destroyed his
weapons. By 2004, we had info from Blix's team, which should have
been
enough to give us pause.


Bush inherited the same secret intelligence, which supported the
false
testimony from Iraqi defector Curveball.

Bush's administration was making it up in a vacuum. It had been a
decade since Saddam claimed to have destroyed them. The intelligence
failed to produce an accurate account of what happened in the years
since.

--
Ed Huntress

You can't admit that you have been seduced by the Big Lie ...

Oh, I was suckered. like almost everyone else in the country, around
2003.

...[Big Lie]of BDS,
which numbly denies that Bush was following the path so clearly laid
out by Clinton.

What's "BDS"?


Bush inherited and believed Clinton's intelligence failure. His own
intelligence failure, Curveball, was accepted because it concurred
with the existing assessment.
http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2013...s-about-spying

It was accepted because it's what they wanted to believe.


I didn't agree with his decision to provoke a war but I can see how he
supported it. The details aren't as accessible yet as the older events
and decisions that lead to Pearl Harbor and the Tonkin Gulf
Resolution, which I have researched. Those were also intelligence
failures exacerbated by hard-line opinions.

-jsw

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 11:02:30 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


Bush Derangement Syndrome renders its victims oblivious ...


...[Big Lie]of BDS,
which numbly denies that Bush was following the path so clearly laid
out by Clinton.

What's "BDS"?

Q.E.D.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 11:02:30 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:



Bush inherited and believed Clinton's intelligence failure. His own
intelligence failure, Curveball, was accepted because it concurred
with the existing assessment.
http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2013...s-about-spying

It was accepted because it's what they wanted to believe.

No, they had a plausible and internally consistent case that conformed
to the previous Administration's risk assessment, though both were
based on faulty intel. Delaying action until you can confirm
everything is avoided as "Analysis Paralysis". I'm not saying they
didn't stretch it to justify their intents, that's been standard
practice since the Pharaohs.

Don't confuse Bush with the self-deluding current Administration, who
tried to spin the trail of piddle that marked 0bama's retreat into a
"Line in the Sand".

Republicans have a larger base of sound foreign policy and military
experience to recruit from, while Democrats have more labor lawyers.

-jsw

Welcome to the Matrix...

On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 18:59:38 -0500, Richard
wrote:

Welcome to the Matrix...

Hey, Richard! Still having fun with your laser gun?

--
Ed Huntress

On 4/12/2015 8:46 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
..
In 1998, there was still reason to believe he had them. We had almost
no information to the effect that Saddam actually destroyed his
weapons. By 2004, we had info from Blix's team, which should have been
enough to give us pause.

A bit too late to pause in 2004, we had already returned to Iraq.


Bush inherited the same secret intelligence, which supported the false
testimony from Iraqi defector Curveball.

Bush's administration was making it up in a vacuum. It had been a
decade since Saddam claimed to have destroyed them. The intelligence
failed to produce an accurate account of what happened in the years
since.

Which meant they went with what they (that's a bi-partisan they) thought
was true, which demonstrates that Saddam was a convincing liar. The Dems
were as misled as the Reps.

So Saddam claimed to have had them, which was true, we gave them to him
and he used them against the Kurds.

He claimed to have destroyed them, yet continued to act as if he still
had them. So hard to hide things in a land with lots of convenient
desert. Oh gee, look, we found a Russian made jet fighter totally buried
in a sand dune in the desert.

Of course, that was the only dune in Iraq...wasn't it?

David

On 4/12/2015 8:05 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 18:59:38 -0500,
wrote:

Welcome to the Matrix...

Hey, Richard! Still having fun with your laser gun?

I haven't bought the 450 milliwatt core yet.
They are kinda pricey still.
But the frame is ready.

The 15 MW prototype is fun to show off.
It's safe for the great unwashed masses to play with.