In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
om:

In article . 201,
Nate Perkins wrote:
Doug Miller wrote in
. com:

In article . 201,
says...
[...]

Anyone reading the Cincinatti speech reasonably would
come to the conclusion that WMDs and terror links are the main
theme of the speech.

Anyone reading the Cincinnati speech reasonably would come to the
conclusion that the President *did*, in fact, talk about bringing
freedom and democracy to Iraq.

But you claimed that he didn't.


You are right. The president did mention freedom and democracy in the
Cincinatti speech. I was engaging in hyperbole when I said he didn't
"make a peep" about that. There is a peep there.

No, you were not "engaging in hyperbole" and you know it. You were
lying.

Why do I have the impression that anyone who sees things differently
than you must by "lying?"

This isn't a case of "seeing things differently", Nate. This is a case of
someone (specifically you) making a statement that directly contradicts
observable reality. You claimed that the President said nothing in his speech
about bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq. That claim is utterly false.

What hubris.

No, it's an acknowledgment of objective reality. You made a demonstrably false
statement.

And you're lying now: there's more than "a peep" there, as anyone who
reads the speech can see, and you know it.

Criminy. If the shoe were on the other foot you'd be whining at me
about the definition of "peep" so we could quantify whether or not
there's a "peep" there.

Now you're splitting hairs and playing word games, Nate.

The thesis is clearly not the spread of freedom and democracy.

The subject of the discussion right now is your false claim that the speech
said *nothing* about those topics.

The
thesis is the danger of Iraqi WMDs and Iraqi terror links. You do know
how to spot a thesis? It comes at the beginning of the speech (not in
paragraph 42).

As I said befo if you don't appreciate being called a liar, refrain
from making posts that contain clearly obvious and readily
demonstrable falsehoods.

Yet another insult. Not surprising.

If you tell the truth, no one will have any reason to call you a liar.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article .com,
"Charlie Self" wrote:
Doug Miller spouts:
"Your reality check bounced, Charlie. Bush *never* claimed that
Saddam
Hussein
was linked to the 9/11 attacks."

He didn't

Thank you.

Slim consolation, isn't it, Doug? I mean, when the best defense that
the
Bush supporters can offer is the technical difference between an
outright
lie and a repeated prevarication.

I'm not sure that is their _best_ defense. It is pretty much
beyond dispute that President Bush is not a bad as Saddam Hussein.
They use that defense a lot too. Just exactly which of these lame
defenses is best is of little concern to people who set bar of
acceptability any higher than 'brutal dicatator' or 'bald faced liar'.

--

FF

I'm not sure that is their _best_ defense. It is pretty much
beyond dispute that President Bush is not a bad as Saddam Hussein.

That's debatable. I'd suggest that Bush has caused the death of many more
Iraqi's than Saddam Hussein ever did.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:


I think the death of Yassar Arafat was probably more beneficial
than
any US 'pressure'. More than putting pressure on anyone in
particular

If it were that simple the Israelis could have killed him at any time
and things would have improved.


You can't be serious. You must realize that assassination of Arafat
by the Israelis would not have had the same effect as his death
from natural causes.

I think the Bush administration enabled everyone to rachet up the
violence.

Yeah - it was *really* peaceful before Bush came into office.

When was it that what's his name went to pary at whereever it was
that touched off the most recent flurry of violence?

....



Note that there isn't much pressure on Russia or Turkmenistan
to move toward, nor on Pakistan to move back to Democracy these
days.

Presumably because they do not, at the moment, represent any large
or meaningful threat to the US.

Uh huh. I agree. But there is a moral issue as well as the
practical one. Here, by continuing to support dictatorships
we put ourselves on the immoral side of the issue.

However, the effort to put Democracies in place in Afghanistan
and Iraq is an imporvement compared to past US complacency with
simply substiting a pro-US dictator for an anti-US one.

Bush deserves credit for this.


SNIP

So, just who was iraq going to invade next? Syria? Turkey?
They might have been able to take on Jordan. But I think
Saddam Hussein knew the US wouldn't let them get away with
that either. He wasn't terribly bright, but he wasn't
suicidely stupid either.

No - he was arrogantly stupid. His failure to open his kimono to a
superpower making threats on his front porch was pure ego and hubris.
The invasion was entirely avoidable up until the last moment. Setting
aside the prudence of the war generally, I think Bush was sincere in
his
willingness to stand down our military had SH cooperated as we
wished.

Your statment is contrary to fact. Saddam Hussein did open up
Iraq for inspections. Unlike past inspections, when some places
like the palaces were off-limits, UNMOVIC was never forbidden
access anywhere. They also had immediate access on demand, no
stonewalling.

OTOH, if think I'm not accurately stating the facts, please present
your case. Please specify when where and how UNMOVIC was denied
access or whatever it is on which you base your conclusion.


One of the fascinating psychological profiles of Bush-bashers is that
they inevitably use a double standard when assessing his actions in
contrast with, say, mass-murdering psychopaths. Where was the Left
hue
and cry *before* Bush came into office as regards to SH's human
rights
atrocities, for example. Bill Maher said it very well tonite on his
inaugural show of the season: Disagree with Bush all you like, but go
after the *facts* not the *man*.

See above, regarding facts. There is a kind of mental process that
I refer to as binary thinking. Persons who seem to employ this are
evidently incapable of understanding the consept oc continuous
variation, and moreover, seem unable to deal with more than two
values for any evaluation. Thus Saddam Hussein is bad and George
W Bush is good in that paradigm. Persons who do not suffer from
that extremely limiting mental defect can understand that someone
who is not AS BAD as Saddam Hussein is not necessarily acceptible.



I think Manifest destiny is merely a secular presentation of the
Protestant Doctrine of Predestination, similar to how 'Intelligent

Very few Protestant denominations hold a doctrine of Predestination
as
firmly as you suggest. Only those in the strict Calvinist tradition -
orthodox Presbyterians, the various Reformed movements, and a very
few
of the Reformed-influenced fundamentalist groups. The neo-cons large
do
not spring from these intellectual roots. To the extent that you can
detect it, they seem most aligned in their theology with the various
Baptist and IFCA groups.


OK, but it remains clear that Manifest Destiny and Predestination
are Philosphical soulmates. I recognize that one could believe in
one and not the other, both or neither.


Design' is simply a secular presentation of the Protestant Doctrine
of Creationism. Consider the contrast between the Protestant

Baloney. My undergrad was in technology at a *very* Fundamentalist
school. My graduate degree is in the math/sciences from a nominally
Catholic school. Without resurrecting the entire ID v. Evolution
debate (a truly stupid debate with neither side properly
equipped to understand the other's point of view - both have
some merits and both have some serious flaws), the idea that
Intelligent Design equals Creationism is at least overstated,
and more usually pure paranoia from the scientific establishment
(that always needs a swift kick in the butt to ever make any
progress).

Perhaps it is my lack of imagination but I cannot imagine a
substanitive
distinction between Creationism and Intelligent Design. That is to
say I cannot imagine a testable hypothesis that could distinguish
between the two. Perhaps you can suggest one?





Colonization of Eastern North America and the Catholic colonization
of Western North America. The Protestants simply supplanted
the Native Americans, driving them out. The Catholics herded
them into missions to convert them into Catholics and assimilate
them into the Colonial society. Around the world you'll find
various Protestant sects established in part on the doctrine
that the local natives had no souls.

Another vast overstatement, absent any historical context, and
utterly flawed logically. To whit:

1) The actions of these various religious groups was, on average,
no worse, and often much better, than their secular counterparts
of the same era. How many secular institutions of those times
ever brought large scale food, medicine, and humanitarian
aid the way the missionaries did, for instance?

2) The statement, as written, utterly ignores the human rights
atrocities and abuses practiced by the indigenous peoples
like the Amerinds. These abuses, in part, are likely why some
groups were led to conclude that the "natives had no souls."

3) Bad practice does not invalidate a given worldview. The fact
that some missionaries abused the natives does not inherently
disprove their religious position. Similarly, the lously
philosophy
of science that surrounds much of the theory of Evolution
does not, in and of itself, discredit the theory.


The historical context was rather obviously the colonisation of North
America by Europeans.

The secular pupose served by both the Spanish/Catholic mission system
and the English Protestant displacement approach was the same, to
remove the natives from land the Europeans wished to exploit.

I think the likes of the Spanish Inquisition and Monforte set a
standard for atrocities that remains unequaled by native peoples
around the world. I am not aware of anyone who believes in
thexistance of the soul who ever suggested that the Inquisitors
or Monteforte were souless.

The abuse of natives by missonaries is something you introduced into
the discussion, I do not see why.



The good thing
is that their deep religiosity makes it natural for them to be able

to

spot and name Evil - something the Libs largely don't even believe

exists.

Open your eyes man!

I challenge you to find a Liberal that doesn't quickly agree that
Saddam Hussein is evil or a neo-con who will admit to any evilness

Ward Churchill leaps to mind. Teddy Kennedy is implictly in the same
group, though he may be so consistently drunk these days that nothing
he says can be held seriously.

I did a Web Search and found that Ward Churchill is man who is
getting a lot of publicity recently for something he supposedly
said back in 2001. Not only was not able to find any statments
he may have made about Saddam Hussein, let alone denying he was
evil, but I couldn't even find what he supposedly said that has
all those other people commenting.

Admittedly, I did not look very hard because he is your example
so I figured I'd leave it you to direct me to something he said
that supports your point.

I did not look for any comments by Kennedy about Saddam Hussein.
I really do doubt that whether sober or not, he ever denied that
Saddam Hussein was evil.

Now, there are some like Howard Dean who, if I understand him
correctly, argues that the United States was safer with Saddam
Hussein in charge in iraq than with the surrent state of
anarchy--which in no way implies that Saddam Hussein was
not evil.


in Falwell, Robinson, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Limbaugh,
Limbacher or Gonzales.

I agree or disagree in varying degrees with each of the people you
have
named. But you use the term "evil' in context with them in the same
breath that you named Sadaam as "evil". The implication, of course,
is
that their "evilness" is of a similar degree to Sadaam's.

Odd, that while you seem to recognize the existance of different
degrees of evilness, yet you evidently missed that I wrote
'any evilness' which implies some lesser degree that Saddam
Hussein.


These people
may be wrong, misguided, overly enthusiastic, mindless ideologues,
and
so forth, but their wrongness (when they are wrong) does not begin to
remotely approach that of Sadaam's.

To state but one example, Pat Robertson, the televangelis, has
used Faith Healing fraud to raise money for the 700 club. Inasmuch
as he never actually asked anyone to pay himfor the healing his
actios probably fall short fo the legal defintiotn of fraud but
were still morally wrong, hence evil.


And you wonder why fewer and fewer
of us take the Left seriously?

My experience has been that people use labels like Left and
Right, or Liberal and Conservative, to evade meaningful discussion
of actual issues.



Lots of liberals will freely admit that perjury about a blow-job
is perjury, even if it's not 'bad enough' to justify throwing the
President out of office. But try to find a neo-con that thinks
torturing prisoners is worth even appointing a special prosecutor.


The remainder requires a more detailed discussion that will come later.


They weren't "tortured" except in the lexicon of the Left. They were
*humiliated* and placed under *duress*. No permanent physical harm
came
to any of them as best as I have read. And "they" in this case, were
almost entirely non-uniformed combatants operating during a time of
war
*which means the Geneva conventions do NOT apply to them*. At the
same
time we made these people get naked and blush, their counterparts
were
*beheading* uniformed soldiers and civilians. Once again, your
inability
to practice that great Lefty skill of "nuance" in assessing degrees
of
severity is breathtaking.


Far from being able to spot evil the neo-cons by and large are
either
bland to or (given that they aren't ALL stupid) happy to deny the
most dangerous of evil men in their midst, those that attack the
moral priciples themselves


I don't agree that the Left, however defined (personally I find
such characterisations as Left, Right, Liberal, and neo-con to
be not particularly useful)

Another fascinating thing I have noted in many such debates, both
here on the Net in F2F, is that the Left has suddenly decided
it doesn't like "labels". It used to be that the Left was
proudly so, had a point of view that was clear and identifiable,
and clung to some bedrock of asserted principles. Now you
don't even like the name...


Which is why I fight them. I oppose them as a matter of moral
principle. Deceit and dishonesty are wrong. Torture and murder

I have no idea why you fight them, but "moral principle" cannot be it
-
at least no consistent moral principle. If it were, the Left would
have
been screaming for years about resolving the human rights abuses in
Iraq, the Palestinian suicide bombings, and so forth. One of
the reasons I have finally had it with the Left (which used to be
semi-useful in matters of civil liberties and free speech)
is that its "morality" is quite variable, and the Free Democratic
West is held to some impossibly high standard, but actual despots
and tin pot dictators mostly get a pass. Jimmy Carter - who I
think then and now is a well-intentioned, decent person - condems
US actions on a regular basis, but goes to Cuba and makes common
cause with a murderous despot who has caused the misery of
countless people in his own country. He is a poster child for what
I'm describing...

Lefties that lie, cheat, and steal are wrong too. They typically
do not engage in torture or murder though. That they leave to

No - they usually make nice with the people who *are* torturers and
murderers. As long ago as the FDR administration the US political
Left
was openly in bed with avowed Communists. The KGB had people
operating
in government with the tacit knowledge of the FDR folks (this is
documented in excruciating detail in "The Mitrokhin Archive").
Communism
in its various 20th Century incarnations was responsible for
literally
millions of deaths and many more cases of vast human rights abuses
....
but the Left was always in love with it in varying degrees. The Left
also has - at various times - been in love with the human rights
paradises in Cuba, North Viet Nam, Maoist China, ad infinitum, ad
nauseum. No, they don't actually *do* the torture and murder - they
(in
some degree) enable the hitmen who do it ...


the craven cowards and pucilinious wimps among the neo-cons.

The "neo-cons" are neither conservatives nor are they new in any
real sense. They are also not craven - the are ideologues, they
operate from a consistent set of declared principles. At least
you can have a fair debate with a neo-con - you know their point
of view without a lot of guessing. But Lefthink is the "morality
of the moment, the "principle" of the day, the "whatever gets us
into power" movement of the era. Bush bet his Presidency on
this war and on the bet that a free society of some kind could
emerge - he may be right or wrong, but at least we all know
where he stands. The Left stands wherever the footing is best
at the moment - in the case of Teddy Kennedy, he staggers on
whatever footing is available...

Tonight on Bill Maher's show, no less a leading light of the Left
than
Sen. Joe Biden from DE admitted that while there are Rightwingers who
oppose anyone on the Left, there are just as many Lefties in
government
who hate Bush so much they oppose him, even when what he suggests is
good for the country. To Biden's great credit, he stipulated that the
elections in Iraq were a clear win for Bush policy. We need more
people
in government willing to step outside their narrowly defined
ideologies
and speak in the interest of Freedom like this - and I do *not* in
general care much for anything Biden has to say.




Iran and North Korea are exhibiting their fear by making nukes as
quickly as possible.

And that, of course, was not happening under previous
administrations
right?


Under the previous administration the North Korean program was
stopped dead in its tracks. Dunno about Iran. But, no evidence
of NPT violations by Iran has emrged. Thus far if Iran has any
violations, they have kept them well-hidden while being quite
bold about their actions within the NPT limitations.

Another logical fallacy. The absence of proof is not the same
thing as the absence of the action in question. It is impossible
to believe that the Koreans were "stopped dead in their tracks"
under the previous administration - this would mean that they
spooled up an entire nuclear weapons program from whole cloth
in only the last 4 years - this is very unlikely.

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

So, SH was a threat to the US how?

Renata

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:00:33 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Renata wrote:
I see. Promoting general welfare is heavily restricted, but promoting
common defense can be stretched any which way.

No, you don't see.

The first and most important duty of any government is ensuring the security
of its citizens; that is, providing for the common defense. If government does
not attend to that, and we don't see to it ourselves, there won't be any
general welfare left to promote.

-snip-

In article , Renata wrote:
So, SH was a threat to the US how?

A few days ago, in this thread, Nate posted a link to the speech in which the
President explained that very clearly. Nate didn't read it, though, and I
guess you didn't either.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

OK.. From the speech (see snippets below) the threats, very
specifically, we significant danger to the USA, RIGHT NOW, from
WMD, missiles, support of (one) terrorist, and half a sentence
referring to terrorism against it's own people.

Hmm. So, where ARE those WMD, missiles, nuclear facilities (of which
we have actual photos), in-progress nasty facility building, etc.?

Now, change "Iraq" to "NKorea" and tell me why we're ignoring a
country who might actually prove a much more imminent threat?

It is unbelievable to me that you can read this speech and use it as
justification for attacking Iraq in view of current knowledge. There
are lots of bad people in the world; it's simply not our
responsibility to keep them in line unless there are indeed an urgent
threat to the US. Bush's justifications (clearly spelled out below)
have fallen apart around him and some folks still seem inclined to
ignore this reality.

I ask again - SH was a threat to the US how? Please elaborate
yourself, since your referenced speech does anything but give said
justification.

Renata


from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html

" The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi
regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive
toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for
ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy
its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such
weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi
regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and
produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear
weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices
terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's
eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith."

"We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every
threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering
to America."

"We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten
America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and
atomic weapons. "

""The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime,
itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to
weapons of mass destruction.""

" Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The
danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If
we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do --
does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he
grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"

" And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding
facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological
weapons.
....
Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of
miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other
nations..."

" And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's
links to international terrorist groups. "

" Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or
chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.
Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack
America without leaving any fingerprints."

"... the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon
no later than 1993...
The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear
weapons program. "

" Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem,
why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've
experienced the horror of September the 11th. ...
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering
against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the
final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a
mushroom cloud. "

" After eleven years during which we have tried containment,
sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result
is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and
is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever
closer to developing a nuclear weapon."







On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:46:44 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Renata wrote:
So, SH was a threat to the US how?

A few days ago, in this thread, Nate posted a link to the speech in which the
President explained that very clearly. Nate didn't read it, though, and I
guess you didn't either.

It occurs to me, too, that the administration, in the person of
Rooster, has stated that they made a "mistake" about the WMDs, that
they never did exist, or if so were long gone, but that other
reasons--Saddam is a nasty SOB being foremost--now take precedence in
justifying our invasion.

Ayup. But a lot of the neocons refuse to let go of the WMD excuse.

On 26 Feb 2005 06:12:19 -0800, David Sizemore wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:
Gimme a break.. A bunch of fruitcakes in japan made sarin. It
ain't difficult, and it proved, in the end, to be a less serious
threat than the scaremongers would have you think.

Only because they dispersed it inefficiently.


ummm....hate to weigh in here so late, but this one caught my eye.
The Sarin in the Tokyo subway stations was distributed almost
perfectly. Large group of people, in a crowded station(if you've never
been on a train/subway in Asia, the word "crowd" might mislead you into
thinking that there was a scene something like Grand Central or Penn
Stations. Think more of the crowd at the Super Bowl all crammed into
one stadium bathroom-men, women, children, animals, vendors,
employees), no wind, optimal temperature and environmental conditions.
11 out of 5,500 killed. (http://www.sma.org/smj/97june3.htm)
.2%, if my math works out right.

My understanding is that they got droplets when they should have
been going for vapor.

In article , Renata wrote:
OK.. From the speech (see snippets below) the threats, very
specifically, we significant danger to the USA, RIGHT NOW, from
WMD, missiles, support of (one) terrorist, and half a sentence
referring to terrorism against it's own people.

Hmm. So, where ARE those WMD, missiles, nuclear facilities (of which
we have actual photos), in-progress nasty facility building, etc.?

Beats me, but Syria would be a good guess. Maybe still in Iraq; the SOB had
more than a decade to hide them, after all. Some of that stuff may be in Iran,
too. I never understood why, but during the 1991 Gulf War, the SOB had his air
force fly a lot of jets to Iran. The Iranians never gave them back. I *do*
understand that one. :-) Maybe that's how the Iranians were able to get their
own nuke program ramped up so quickly: by using Saddam's equipment. Hell,
maybe he *sold* it to them.

It could be *lots* of places.

Now, change "Iraq" to "NKorea" and tell me why we're ignoring a
country who might actually prove a much more imminent threat?

Ummm... let me see if I've got this straight. The President did the wrong
thing by invading Iraq. And he's doing the wrong thing by *not* invading
North Korea. Riiiiiiight. I got it.

It is unbelievable to me that you can read this speech and use it as
justification for attacking Iraq in view of current knowledge.

It's unbelievable to me that you can read what I have written and think that
I'm using that as "justification ... in view of CURRENT knowledge" [emphasis
added]. I never said that, or anything remotely similiar. I *do* think that it
was justified in view of what we knew, or thought we knew, _at_that_time_.

There
are lots of bad people in the world; it's simply not our
responsibility to keep them in line unless there are indeed an urgent
threat to the US.

And it appeared _at_that_time_ that there was such a threat.

Bush's justifications (clearly spelled out below)
have fallen apart around him and some folks still seem inclined to
ignore this reality.

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could see into the future as clearly as you
see into the past. You're ignoring a basic reality: that *nobody* can make
decisions based on anything other than what is known to him at the time of the
decision.

I ask again - SH was a threat to the US how? Please elaborate
yourself, since your referenced speech does anything but give said
justification.

Absolutely that speech gives justification, in light of what was known
_at_that_time_. No further elaboration is needed.

from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html

" The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi
regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive
toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for
ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy
its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such
weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi
regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and
produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear
weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices
terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's
eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith."

"We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every
threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering
to America."

"We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten
America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and
atomic weapons. "

""The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime,
itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to
weapons of mass destruction.""

" Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The
danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If
we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do --
does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he
grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"

" And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding
facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological
weapons.
....
Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of
miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other
nations..."

" And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's
links to international terrorist groups. "

" Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or
chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.
Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack
America without leaving any fingerprints."

"... the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon
no later than 1993...
The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear
weapons program. "

" Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem,
why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've
experienced the horror of September the 11th. ...
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering
against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the
final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a
mushroom cloud. "

" After eleven years during which we have tried containment,
sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result
is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and
is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever
closer to developing a nuclear weapon."







On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:46:44 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Renata
wrote:
So, SH was a threat to the US how?

A few days ago, in this thread, Nate posted a link to the speech in which the
President explained that very clearly. Nate didn't read it, though, and I
guess you didn't either.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

In article .com, "Charlie Self" wrote:
It occurs to me, too, that the administration, in the person of
Rooster, has stated that they made a "mistake" about the WMDs, that
they never did exist, or if so were long gone, but that other
reasons--Saddam is a nasty SOB being foremost--now take precedence in
justifying our invasion.

Ayup. But a lot of the neocons refuse to let go of the WMD excuse.

Yeah, and a lot of the neolibs keep harping on that, falsely claiming that it
was "the" reason we went to war.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

In article ,
says...
Now, change "Iraq" to "NKorea" and tell me why we're ignoring a
country who might actually prove a much more imminent threat?

Ummm... let me see if I've got this straight. The President did the wrong
thing by invading Iraq. And he's doing the wrong thing by *not* invading
North Korea. Riiiiiiight. I got it.

Now, Doug. You can't answer him by parroting his question back. How
about the real reasons?

1. North Korea has a powerful and touchy neighbor.

2. North Korea has a very large army and fairly modern equipment.

3. North Korea, unlike Iraq, really does have WMD.

4. Replacing the government in North Korea won't destabilize the regimes
in surrounding countries, unlike the hopes (forlorn?) the administration
has for Iraq.

5. North Korea has no oil. They don't even have a pot to **** in.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article , Larry Blanchard wrote:
In article ,
says...
Now, change "Iraq" to "NKorea" and tell me why we're ignoring a
country who might actually prove a much more imminent threat?

Ummm... let me see if I've got this straight. The President did the wrong
thing by invading Iraq. And he's doing the wrong thing by *not* invading
North Korea. Riiiiiiight. I got it.

Now, Doug. You can't answer him by parroting his question back. How
about the real reasons?

1. North Korea has a powerful and touchy neighbor.

... who doesn't like the idea of a nuke-armed NK terribly much more than we
do. It's no more in China's interest to have nuclear arms in the hands of Kim
Jong Mentally Ill, than it would be in your interest to have a loaded .45 in
the hands of the toddler next door.

2. North Korea has a very large army and fairly modern equipment.

Large army, yes. Well-fed large army, maybe not. Modern equipment? In a pig's
eye.

3. North Korea, unlike Iraq, really does have WMD.

Incorrect in several respects.

NK has yet to conduct an actual test of an atomic weapon, so the only thing
that can be said at this point is that they claim to have them. We believe
that the claim is probably true, but there's no proof of it yet.

And of course Iraq *did* have WMDs: the Sarin shell, and a few other items
that Fred and Dave were discussing, among others. The only thing that can be
regarded as *proven* (as distinguished from "possible" or "probable") with
respect to Iraqi WMDs is that we haven't found any yet in the places where
we've been looking. Doesn't mean they were not in those places in the past.
Doesn't mean they're not in some other places now.

4. Replacing the government in North Korea won't destabilize the regimes
in surrounding countries, unlike the hopes (forlorn?) the administration
has for Iraq.

This is a good thing. It is not in the interest of the United States to
destabliize the governments of any of NK's neighbors.

5. North Korea has no oil. They don't even have a pot to **** in.

All the more reason to work diplomatically, as the Presidient is doing, to
isolate them even further, while we wait for their economy to collapse.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Subject

Time to start plonking all you Neanderthal political fish **** types.

Lew

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article . 201,
Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
. com:

In article . 201,
Nate Perkins wrote:
Doug Miller wrote in
.com:

In article . 201,
says...
[...]

Anyone reading the Cincinatti speech reasonably would
come to the conclusion that WMDs and terror links are the main
theme of the speech.

Anyone reading the Cincinnati speech reasonably would come to the
conclusion that the President *did*, in fact, talk about bringing
freedom and democracy to Iraq.

But you claimed that he didn't.


You are right. The president did mention freedom and democracy in
the Cincinatti speech. I was engaging in hyperbole when I said he
didn't "make a peep" about that. There is a peep there.

No, you were not "engaging in hyperbole" and you know it. You were
lying.

Why do I have the impression that anyone who sees things differently
than you must by "lying?"

This isn't a case of "seeing things differently", Nate. This is a case
of someone (specifically you) making a statement that directly
contradicts observable reality. You claimed that the President said
nothing in his speech about bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq.
That claim is utterly false.

Actually I said that according to the speech the primary reasons for
invading were the threat of Iraqi WMDs and terror links. Which is of
course the thesis laid out near the beginning of the speech. On this
point you called me a liar.

Then I said that the reason was not to spread freedom and democracy, and
I made the mistake of using the hyperbole "not a peep." This is of
course hyperbole, because peeping was not literally involved and
figuratively the peep occurs in, what, paragraph 42? Of course on this
point you are eager to again call me a liar.

Amazing to me that you cannot admit the simple truth that WMDs and
terror links were the primary justifications given for the invasion, and
that both are now fairly thoroughly discredited. On this point, you'll
equivocate endlessly, try to divert, split hairs, etc etc.


What hubris.

No, it's an acknowledgment of objective reality. You made a
demonstrably false statement.

Hubris: "An arrogance due to excessive pride and an insolence toward
others." Obviously this is a comment on your style.


And you're lying now: there's more than "a peep" there, as anyone
who reads the speech can see, and you know it.

Criminy. If the shoe were on the other foot you'd be whining at me
about the definition of "peep" so we could quantify whether or not
there's a "peep" there.

Now you're splitting hairs and playing word games, Nate.

Such irony.


The thesis is clearly not the spread of freedom and democracy.

The subject of the discussion right now is your false claim that the
speech said *nothing* about those topics.

Of course that's what you'd like to change the discussion to.


The
thesis is the danger of Iraqi WMDs and Iraqi terror links. You do
know how to spot a thesis? It comes at the beginning of the speech
(not in paragraph 42).

As I said befo if you don't appreciate being called a liar,
refrain from making posts that contain clearly obvious and readily
demonstrable falsehoods.

Yet another insult. Not surprising.

If you tell the truth, no one will have any reason to call you a liar.

More hubris.

(Doug Miller) wrote in
. com:

In article .com,
"Charlie Self" wrote:
Ayup. But a lot of the neocons refuse to let go of the WMD excuse.

Yeah, and a lot of the neolibs keep harping on that, falsely claiming
that it was "the" reason we went to war.

Of course it was the reason we went to war. You think all the speeches the
administration gave about "mushroom clouds" were just window dressing?

If recognizing reality makes me a "neolib," then I'll take the label.

Nate Perkins notes:

(Doug Miller) wrote in
. com:

In article .com,
"Charlie Self" wrote:
Ayup. But a lot of the neocons refuse to let go of the WMD excuse.

Yeah, and a lot of the neolibs keep harping on that, falsely claiming

that it was "the" reason we went to war.

Of course it was the reason we went to war. You think all the speeches
the
administration gave about "mushroom clouds" were just window dressing?

If recognizing reality makes me a "neolib," then I'll take the label.

I won't. Nothing "neo" about me being a liberal. And I'm proud of it.
I'd hate to be in Bush's corner when judgment day comes. But the false
reasons we went to war aren't mine or any other liberal's. They're
Bush's.

I will give Rooster Bush credit in one area, though. He is great at
making reality seem like a hinderance to him doing great things. He and
his buddies managed to make a combat vet look like a coward...yet he is
essentially a draft dodger! He has created, with lots of help, the same
sort of twisting presentation on Iraq changing horses in mid-stream and
dropping WMDs and immediate threats as justification while picking up
an absolute fact---Saddam Hussein was a nasty and brutal dictator, so
we're justified in spending billions of bucks and thousands of lives.

But his lock-step followers go to paragraph 42 at the start to pick up
a hint of what is later the lead reason given.

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:17:36 -0800, Larry Blanchard
wrote:


5. North Korea has no oil. They don't even have a pot to **** in.


Yeah, but they have a real army that will fight back effectively,
and no Republican president is going to invade a country
that can do so.

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 01:40:23 GMT, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Subject

Time to start plonking all you Neanderthal political fish **** types.

Wouldn't it be easier, and less stressful for you, to tell your newsreader
to ignore subjects with " OT " or "OT:" in the subject line?

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 20:23:44 GMT, Ned wrote:
On 1 Mar 2005 15:44:27 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Wouldn't it be easier for you if you just admit not only the Iraq war
really unnecessary but also illegal war and you get on with your life?

Wouldn't it be easier to follow the flow of a conversation if you
didn't top-post?

In article , GregP wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:17:36 -0800, Larry Blanchard
wrote:


5. North Korea has no oil. They don't even have a pot to **** in.

Yeah, but they have a real army that will fight back effectively,

Unproven assumption, as they haven't fought any kind of war in half a century.
Before 1991, the Iraqi Republican Guard was supposed to be pretty damn good,
too, but it didn't quite turn out that way once the shooting started.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

On 1 Mar 2005 15:44:27 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Wouldn't it be easier for you if you just admit not only the Iraq war
really unnecessary but also illegal war and you get on with your life?

Are we winning yet and are we really better off now?


On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 01:40:23 GMT, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Subject

Time to start plonking all you Neanderthal political fish **** types.

Wouldn't it be easier, and less stressful for you, to tell your newsreader
to ignore subjects with " OT " or "OT:" in the subject line?

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:42:49 -0500, GregP
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:17:36 -0800, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

5. North Korea has no oil. They don't even have a pot to **** in.

Yeah, but they have a real army that will fight back effectively,
and no Republican president is going to invade a country
that can do so.

If no willing to face the N. Korea, Do you think Bush, Cheney, Don
Rumsfeld together with Paul Wolfowitz take on the N. Korea all by
themselves?

In article ,
says...
Wouldn't it be easier for you if you just admit not only the Iraq war
really unnecessary but also illegal war and you get on with your life?

Wouldn't it be easier to follow the flow of a conversation if you
didn't top-post?


BTW, Dave, I didn't see you respond when I gave you the url of a site
where the "mobile weapons labs" were debunked. Did I miss your response
or has the cat got your tongue?

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

GregP wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:17:36 -0800, Larry Blanchard
wrote:


5. North Korea has no oil. They don't even have a pot to **** in.


Yeah, but they have a real army that will fight back effectively,
and no Republican president is going to invade a country
that can do so.

More to the point, they have real atom bombs.

--

FF

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Renata
wrote:
OK.. From the speech (see snippets below) the threats, very
specifically, we significant danger to the USA, RIGHT NOW, from
WMD, missiles, support of (one) terrorist, and half a sentence
referring to terrorism against it's own people.

Hmm. So, where ARE those WMD, missiles, nuclear facilities (of
which
we have actual photos), in-progress nasty facility building, etc.?

Beats me, but Syria would be a good guess.

Why? Why he send his most fearsome weapons out of his country
on the eve of invasion?

Maybe still in Iraq; the SOB had
more than a decade to hide them,

The last UNSCOM inpsections were in the Early summer of 1998,
the first UNMOVIC inspections were in NOvember or December 2002.

That 4 1/2 years, not more than a decade.


It could be *lots* of places.

Now, change "Iraq" to "NKorea" and tell me why we're ignoring a
country who might actually prove a much more imminent threat?

Ummm... let me see if I've got this straight. The President did the
wrong
thing by invading Iraq. And he's doing the wrong thing by *not*
invading
North Korea. Riiiiiiight. I got it.

He invaded a country without WMD while ignoring a country known to
be building atom bombs. Probably, becuase he was confident that
North Korea had one or more atomic bombs.


It is unbelievable to me that you can read this speech and use it as
justification for attacking Iraq in view of current knowledge.

It's unbelievable to me that you can read what I have written and
think that
I'm using that as "justification ... in view of CURRENT knowledge"
[emphasis
added]. I never said that, or anything remotely similiar. I *do*
think that it
was justified in view of what we knew, or thought we knew,
_at_that_time_.


No. It was based on a misrepresentation of what was known to the
US government at that time.

http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/5403731

--

FF

In article .com, wrote:

GregP wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:17:36 -0800, Larry Blanchard
wrote:


5. North Korea has no oil. They don't even have a pot to **** in.


Yeah, but they have a real army that will fight back effectively,
and no Republican president is going to invade a country
that can do so.

More to the point, they have real atom bombs.

Do they? They *claim* they do, but, while we believe they're probably telling
the truth, AFAIK they haven't yet conducted any tests that would prove it.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Doug Miller responds:

More to the point, they have real atom bombs.

Do they? They *claim* they do, but, while we believe they're probably
telling
the truth, AFAIK they haven't yet conducted any tests that would prove
it.

There's a logic here that baffles me. We had no proof that Saddass
Insane had WMDs, and, in fact, he didn't in any way, shape or form that
threatened the US, but we invaded anyway.

In article .com, "Charlie Self" wrote:
Doug Miller responds:

More to the point, they have real atom bombs.

Do they? They *claim* they do, but, while we believe they're probably
telling
the truth, AFAIK they haven't yet conducted any tests that would prove
it.

There's a logic here that baffles me. We had no proof that Saddass
Insane had WMDs, and, in fact, he didn't in any way, shape or form that
threatened the US, but we invaded anyway.

I'm sorry to hear you're so easily baffled. I'll try again; maybe this will
clear things up.

It was categorically stated as fact that North Korea has nuclear weapons. I'm
pointing out that, since they haven't actually tested one yet, this statement
falls into the category of unproven assumptions, not known facts.

But speaking of baffling logic... you seem to be suggesting that the President
did the wrong thing by invading Iraq, and he's doing the wrong thing by *not*
invading North Korea.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Doug Miller states:

But speaking of baffling logic... you seem to be suggesting that the
President
did the wrong thing by invading Iraq, and he's doing the wrong thing by
*not*
invading North Korea.

You do live in an "either/or" world, don't you?

I am not suggesting he did the wrong thing in invading Iraq. I am
stating it. I am making no presentation of what might be done with or
about NK.

On a personal basis, I'd strongly suggest a sniper at about half a mile
to lift the top of the pipsqueak's head even further off his brain, but
I realize that's not acceptable international policy. It's much better
to spend billions and kill many thousands for similar dubious results.

In article .com, "Charlie Self" wrote:
Doug Miller states:

But speaking of baffling logic... you seem to be suggesting that the
President
did the wrong thing by invading Iraq, and he's doing the wrong thing by
*not*
invading North Korea.

You do live in an "either/or" world, don't you?

As contrasted to the world in which you live, one in which no matter *what*
the President does, it's wrong?

I am not suggesting he did the wrong thing in invading Iraq. I am
stating it. I am making no presentation of what might be done with or
about NK.

Give me a break. If you're "making no presentation" WRT North Korea, then what
was your point in mentioning the invasion of Iraq in response to a discussion
of whether NK does, or does not, have nukes?

On a personal basis, I'd strongly suggest a sniper at about half a mile
to lift the top of the pipsqueak's head even further off his brain, but

I trust you're referring to Kim Jong Mentally Ill here...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:27:37 -0800, Larry Blanchard wrote:
In article ,
says...
Wouldn't it be easier for you if you just admit not only the Iraq war
really unnecessary but also illegal war and you get on with your life?

Wouldn't it be easier to follow the flow of a conversation if you
didn't top-post?

BTW, Dave, I didn't see you respond when I gave you the url of a site
where the "mobile weapons labs" were debunked. Did I miss your response
or has the cat got your tongue?

Was that the link at the Washington Post? I don't see that it'd go
anywhere positive to get into a "whose source is more definative than
the other" spitting contest, would it? I mean, a left-leaning source will
say one thing, the CIA says another, and neither of us really have a
chance of finding out the real facts. In either case, just like with
Michael Jackson, there's a hell of a lot of smoke in the neighborhood,
and if something's not on fire, then the smoke wouldn't be there.

Obviously, you're not going to convince me that SH was lilly-white on
this one, and I'm not going to convince you that there's a real chance
that there were and are still hidden WMD in Iraq.

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 11:39:26 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com, wrote:

GregP wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:17:36 -0800, Larry Blanchard
wrote:


5. North Korea has no oil. They don't even have a pot to **** in.


Yeah, but they have a real army that will fight back effectively,
and no Republican president is going to invade a country
that can do so.

More to the point, they have real atom bombs.

Do they? They *claim* they do, but, while we believe they're probably telling
the truth, AFAIK they haven't yet conducted any tests that would prove it.

You'd think people would learn that bluffing about that sort of thing is
dangerous...

Dave Hinz responds:

You'd think people would learn that bluffing about that sort of thing
is
dangerous...

I have a feeling the pointy hair dwarf is even crazier than SH is.

People like that are pret' near incapable of learning anything that
extends beyond the next 30 minutes or so.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...

I'm sorry to hear you're so easily baffled. I'll try again; maybe this
will
clear things up.

It was categorically stated as fact that North Korea has nuclear weapons.
I'm
pointing out that, since they haven't actually tested one yet, this
statement
falls into the category of unproven assumptions, not known facts.

No - by their admission, it now falls into category of fact. What if they
tested one? What would that prove? The one they test could be the only one
they have. After it was tested - which is your standard of proof, they'd
really have none - so your proof would have failed you. So, they haven't
tested one yet with a big boom. So what? Does anyone really believe that
in this day and age a country does not posess the technical skill to develop
a nuclear warhead?


But speaking of baffling logic... you seem to be suggesting that the
President
did the wrong thing by invading Iraq, and he's doing the wrong thing by
*not*
invading North Korea.


That is not at all what the preceding statements suggested. You need to get
your logic receiver tweaked Doug.
--

-Mike-

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

GregP wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:17:36 -0800, Larry Blanchard
wrote:


5. North Korea has no oil. They don't even have a pot to ****
in.


Yeah, but they have a real army that will fight back effectively,
and no Republican president is going to invade a country
that can do so.

More to the point, they have real atom bombs.

Do they? They *claim* they do, but, while we believe they're probably
telling
the truth, AFAIK they haven't yet conducted any tests that would
prove it.



AFAIK no nation that has developed atomic bombs has failed to detonate
one on their first attempt. The rapid assembly design is particularly
reliable.

The evidence available from off-shore monitoring has made it clear
that North Korea has the materials needed. Obtaining the materials
is the only technologically daughnting aspect of the process.

IOW, it was quite clear that North Korea had atomic bombs BEFORE
they admitted to it. Only someone who was not paying attention
to the issue would doubt that.

--

FF

In article , "Mike Marlow" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. com...

I'm sorry to hear you're so easily baffled. I'll try again; maybe this
will
clear things up.

It was categorically stated as fact that North Korea has nuclear weapons.
I'm
pointing out that, since they haven't actually tested one yet, this
statement
falls into the category of unproven assumptions, not known facts.

No - by their admission, it now falls into category of fact.

Obviously it is nothing of the kind. Without a test, or some other form of
independent confirmation (such as an on-site inspection by experts), there's
no proof. It's still an unverified claim.

What if they
tested one? What would that prove?

Obviously it would prove that they had at least one, and, more importantly, it
would also prove that they have the ability to make them.

The one they test could be the only one
they have. After it was tested - which is your standard of proof, they'd
really have none - so your proof would have failed you.

Obviously not. If they can make one, they can make others.

So, they haven't
tested one yet with a big boom. So what? Does anyone really believe that
in this day and age a country does not posess the technical skill to develop
a nuclear warhead?

Making the warhead isn't difficult. It's producing the fissionable material
that presents the challenge.


But speaking of baffling logic... you seem to be suggesting that the
President
did the wrong thing by invading Iraq, and he's doing the wrong thing by
*not*
invading North Korea.


That is not at all what the preceding statements suggested. You need to get
your logic receiver tweaked Doug.

Hmmmm.... then what *was* the point of referencing the invasion of Iraq, in
response to a statement regarding whether NK has nukes or not?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Charlie Self wrote:
...

On a personal basis, I'd strongly suggest a sniper at about half a
mile
to lift the top of the pipsqueak's head even further off his brain,
but
I realize that's not acceptable international policy. It's much
better
to spend billions and kill many thousands for similar dubious
results.

It has been suggested that pipsqeak isn't really running things,
there is a junta of generals who actually run things and simply
keep pipsqeak around as a figurehead, putting on a show for him
wherever he goes so HE and the people think he's in charge.

--

FF

Dave Hinz wrote:

Was that the link at the Washington Post? I don't see that it'd go
anywhere positive to get into a "whose source is more definative than
the other" spitting contest, would it? I mean, a left-leaning source
will
say one thing, the CIA says another, and neither of us really have a
chance of finding out the real facts.

On one of the rare occaisions I watched FOX cable news I saw
an interview with four persons identified as 'regular contributors'
to FOX news. They were discussing bias in the press. The interviewer
asked them to name a major newspaper they thought was relatively
unbiased and accurate. Two of them named the Washington Post.

Your presumption that one cannot know facts is also wrong. You
can learn objective facts about WMD production and compare that
to what various sources are claiming. You can look at the door
on the side of the reaction vessel in the CIA photo and ask
youself, does that look like it was for adding or removing
liquids like growth media or does it look like it was for
adding or removing chunks of solid material like aluminum?

As another example, Padilla is accused of conspiring to make a
radiological dispersion weapon (aka dirty bomb) by wrapping
a quantity of Uranium with high explosives. Since wrapping
Uranium with high explosives is not how one makes a radiological
dispersion device there is somehting seriously wrong with the
prosecutor's claims. But if you don't pay attention, you'd
never know that.


Obviously, you're not going to convince me that SH was lilly-white on

this one, ...

Which of course no one has tried to do, that is precisely the
sort of exaggeration that one expects from a person who cannot
back up his remarks with fact.

--

FF

In article ,
says...
Was that the link at the Washington Post?

Actually, it was a link to a British newspaper, and since a British
company built those "labs", I thought it was reasonably definitive.

I have no idea whether it is labor or conservative party biased - I
don't normally read British papers :-).

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description