Investor's Business Daily
WMD Truth Is Out
Posted 7/25/2006
[excerpt] WMD: Americans are waking up from a distorted reality. Half
now believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That's
up sharply from last year, when only 36% believed that he had banned
weapons.
The numbers, from a Harris Poll conducted earlier this month, showed
- again - that the "Bush lied" crowd doesn't have a good handle on
the truth. [end excerpt]
Full article:
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=2&issue=20060725
.
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Investor's Business Daily: WMD Truth is Out |
31 Jul 2006 08:38:06 PM |
|
|
Lone Ranger wrote:
On 29 Jul 2006 07:03:16 -0700, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote:
As the article I posted in this
thread mentions, David Kay and Charles Duelfer both believed there
was strong evidence that some WMD were moved to Syria prior to the
invasion.
That's a lie! Neither David Kay nor Charles Duelfer ever said that
there was strong evidence that some WMD were moved to Syria prior to
the invasion.
I should have said "credible" evidence. And they certainly did believe
there was credible evidence for the *possibility* that some WMD were
moved to Syria prior to the invasion.
[quoting] "There is ample evidence of movement to Syria before the war
-- satellite photographs, reports on the ground of a constant stream of
trucks, cars, rail traffic across the border. We simply don't know what
was moved," Kay said.
But, he said, "the Syrian government there has shown absolutely no
interest in helping us resolve this issue." [end quoting]
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/
The Duelfer Report could not rule it out as a possibility:
Comprehensive Report
Addendums to the of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD
March 2005
Prewar Movement of WMD Material Out of Iraq
[excerpt] The investigation centered on the possibility that WMD
materials were moved to Syria. As is obvious from other sections of the
Comprehensive Report, Syria was involved in transactions and shipments
of military and other material to Iraq in contravention of the UN
sanctions. This indicated a flexibility with respect to international
law and a strong willingness to work with Iraq - at least when there
was considerable profit for those involved.
Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or
other reasons has yet to be determined. There was evidence of a
discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security
officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of
Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment
of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit
further investigation. [end excerpt]
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/
(see "Addenda to the Comprehensive Report")
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Kat" |
|
| Title: Re: Investor's Business Daily: WMD Truth is Out |
01 Aug 2006 01:02:49 AM |
|
|
On 31 Jul 2006 18:38:06 -0700, "Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com>
wrote:
I should have said "credible" evidence. And they certainly did believe
there was credible evidence for the *possibility* that some WMD were
moved to Syria prior to the invasion.
Bush and his intelligence people (is THAT ever an oxymoron)
believed there were WMDs, because that's what Bush wanted.
They totally ignored ALL evidence that said there weren't any.
Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.
This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity...
Remove XYZ to email me
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Investor's Business Daily: WMD Truth is Out |
01 Aug 2006 09:39:50 AM |
|
|
The Kat wrote:
On 31 Jul 2006 18:38:06 -0700, "Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com>
wrote:
I should have said "credible" evidence. And they certainly did believe
there was credible evidence for the *possibility* that some WMD were
moved to Syria prior to the invasion.
Bush and his intelligence people (is THAT ever an oxymoron)
believed there were WMDs, because that's what Bush wanted.
They totally ignored ALL evidence that said there weren't any.
I understand that. But if there is plenty of evidence that there WERE
WMD, which all those foreign intelligence agencies also believed, what
should a president do? Hesitate, and HOPE all that intelligence is
wrong and the smaller portions of evidence that say otherwise are
correct? And when you have Democratic Senators like Jay Rockefeller
saying we can't afford to wait for further evidence, what should a
president do? Hesistate, and then find out all those foreign
intelligence agencies were correct after all, get attacked, and then
have the Demoracts who voted to authorize the war ask the president why
he hesitated and allowed us to be attacked? Talk about grounds for
impeachment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Kat" |
|
| Title: Re: Investor's Business Daily: WMD Truth is Out |
01 Aug 2006 05:16:36 PM |
|
|
On 1 Aug 2006 07:39:50 -0700, "Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com>
wrote:
I understand that. But if there is plenty of evidence that there WERE
WMD, which all those foreign intelligence agencies also believed,
No, 'all those' ALSO said, many times, that there were no WMDs.
The President did NOT want to hear that, so ignored those reports.
There WERE lots of those reports.
No one has ever said there was LOTS of evidence FOR WMDs, except the
President.
THEN, of course, there's the little hitch that the President CAN NOT
declare war on anyone. Only CONGRESS can do that, and they never DID
do that, so the entire invasion of Iraq was unconstitutional right
from the start.
Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.
This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity...
Remove XYZ to email me
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Investor's Business Daily: WMD Truth is Out |
01 Aug 2006 09:08:00 PM |
|
|
The Kat wrote:
On 1 Aug 2006 07:39:50 -0700, "Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com>
wrote:
I understand that. But if there is plenty of evidence that there WERE
WMD, which all those foreign intelligence agencies also believed,
No, 'all those' ALSO said, many times, that there were no WMDs.
I don't think they were quite that definitive, since their leaders were
not convinced there were no WMDs:
JACQUES CHIRAC: "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat
Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime
did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead
to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of
international inspectors, this country has continued armament
programs." -- From an interview with Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
GERHARD SCHROEDER: "There are indications that Iraq might be capable of
producing other weapons of mass destruction... Iraq must cooperate
comprehensively and actively with the UN Security Council and the
weapons inspectors. We need absolute clarity about Iraqi weapons of
mass destruction, and, if they exist, their final destruction." -- From
a speech by Gerhard Schroeder, February 13, 2003
Article:
By KIM HOUSEGO, Associated Press Writer
Monday, February 10, 2003
=A92003 Associated Press
(02-10) 10:13 PST PARIS (AP) -- France, Russia and Germany on Monday
called for strengthened U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq, part of a
diplomatic initiative aimed at disarming Saddam Hussein without war.
French President Jacques Chirac, reading a joint declaration alongside
Russian President Vladimir Putin, said Iraq's weapons capability must
be neutralized as quickly as possible but that waging war to achieve
the objective should be considered only as a last resort.
"Russia, Germany and France are in favor of pursuing inspections with a
substantial strengthening of human and technical capacity by all means
and in consultation with the inspectors, within the limits of
Resolution 1441," Chirac said. The declaration did not specify how
weapons inspections were to be bolstered.
U=2EN. Security Council Resolution 1441, adopted unanimously in November,
warns Iraq of "serious consequences" if it fails to cooperate with
inspectors and provide them with an accurate accounting of its weapons
programs.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/10/sprj.irq.france.putin/index.html
The President did NOT want to hear that, so ignored those reports.
There WERE lots of those reports.
There were also these reports:
RICHARD GEPHARDT: "Now, I didn't listen to him about the weapons of
mass destruction. I went to the CIA, talked to George Tenet, I talked
with his top people. I talked to former Clinton officials. I became
convinced that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or components of
weapons that could wind up in the United States. We cannot have a
weapon of mass destruction used in the United States, and I'll do
anything in my power to prevent that from happening."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3979910/
JAY ROCKEFELLER: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a
threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but
I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly
outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are
targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and
demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on
further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we
afford to take that chance? We cannot!"
http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html
If Bush had failed to act when we had statements from Democrats like
the two examples above, and the event those Democrats feared had
occurred, I'd have been leading the charge in calling for the
impeachment of Bush.
No one has ever said there was LOTS of evidence FOR WMDs, except the
President.
David Kay: 'We Were Almost All Wrong'
Former Weapons Inspector Says Search in Iraq Exposes Gaps in U.S.
Intelligence
By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
[excerpt] "Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I
certainly include myself here," Kay said. "It turns out that we were
all wrong . . . and that is most disturbing."
As for the view that "analysts were pressured to reach conclusions that
would fit the political agenda of one or another administration," Kay
said, "I deeply think that is a wrong explanation." He said that
"innumerable analysts" had apologized to him about their faulty
estimates of Iraq's capability, but none had said, "I was pressured to
do this." Instead, Kay said, the explanation usually was that "limited
data" had led to their conclusions, and that they now realized there
was another explanation.
"And you know, almost in a perverse way, I wish it had been undue
influence, because we know how to correct that," Kay said. "The fact
that it wasn't tells me that we've got a much more fundamental problem
of understanding what went wrong." [end excerpt]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=3Darticle&contentId=3DA56=
311-2004Jan28¬Found=3Dtrue
THEN, of course, there's the little hitch that the President CAN NOT
declare war on anyone. Only CONGRESS can do that, and they never DID
do that, so the entire invasion of Iraq was unconstitutional right
from the start.
Congress authorized the war. Those two Democrats (one Democratic Leader
in the House of Representatives, the other an important committee
ranking member in the Senate) voted to authorize the war. So did 2004
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, and his running mate John
Edwards, among others.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Investor's Business Daily: WMD Truth is Out |
01 Aug 2006 09:57:27 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
The Kat wrote:
On 1 Aug 2006 07:39:50 -0700, "Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com>
wrote:
I understand that. But if there is plenty of evidence that there WERE
WMD, which all those foreign intelligence agencies also believed,
No, 'all those' ALSO said, many times, that there were no WMDs.
I don't think they were quite that definitive, since their leaders were
not convinced there were no WMDs:
Interesting that all these statements about WMD's occurred after
several years of the Bush spin and lie machine in action.
Do you have some quotes from BEFORE Bush started talking about
mushroom clouds over Baltimore ??
JACQUES CHIRAC: "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat
Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime
did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead
to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of
international inspectors, this country has continued armament
programs." -- From an interview with Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
GERHARD SCHROEDER: "There are indications that Iraq might be capable of
producing other weapons of mass destruction... Iraq must cooperate
comprehensively and actively with the UN Security Council and the
weapons inspectors. We need absolute clarity about Iraqi weapons of
mass destruction, and, if they exist, their final destruction." -- From
a speech by Gerhard Schroeder, February 13, 2003
Article:
By KIM HOUSEGO, Associated Press Writer
Monday, February 10, 2003
©2003 Associated Press
(02-10) 10:13 PST PARIS (AP) -- France, Russia and Germany on Monday
called for strengthened U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq, part of a
diplomatic initiative aimed at disarming Saddam Hussein without war.
French President Jacques Chirac, reading a joint declaration alongside
Russian President Vladimir Putin, said Iraq's weapons capability must
be neutralized as quickly as possible but that waging war to achieve
the objective should be considered only as a last resort.
"Russia, Germany and France are in favor of pursuing inspections with a
substantial strengthening of human and technical capacity by all means
and in consultation with the inspectors, within the limits of
Resolution 1441," Chirac said. The declaration did not specify how
weapons inspections were to be bolstered.
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, adopted unanimously in November,
warns Iraq of "serious consequences" if it fails to cooperate with
inspectors and provide them with an accurate accounting of its weapons
programs.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/10/sprj.irq.france.putin/index.ht
m
l
The President did NOT want to hear that, so ignored those reports.
There WERE lots of those reports.
There were also these reports:
RICHARD GEPHARDT: "Now, I didn't listen to him about the weapons of
mass destruction. I went to the CIA, talked to George Tenet, I talked
with his top people. I talked to former Clinton officials. I became
convinced that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or components of
weapons that could wind up in the United States. We cannot have a
weapon of mass destruction used in the United States, and I'll do
anything in my power to prevent that from happening."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3979910/
JAY ROCKEFELLER: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a
threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but
I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly
outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are
targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and
demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on
further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we
afford to take that chance? We cannot!"
http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html
If Bush had failed to act when we had statements from Democrats like
the two examples above, and the event those Democrats feared had
occurred, I'd have been leading the charge in calling for the
impeachment of Bush.
No one has ever said there was LOTS of evidence FOR WMDs, except the
President.
David Kay: 'We Were Almost All Wrong'
Former Weapons Inspector Says Search in Iraq Exposes Gaps in U.S.
Intelligence
By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
[excerpt] "Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I
certainly include myself here," Kay said. "It turns out that we were
all wrong . . . and that is most disturbing."
As for the view that "analysts were pressured to reach conclusions that
would fit the political agenda of one or another administration," Kay
said, "I deeply think that is a wrong explanation." He said that
"innumerable analysts" had apologized to him about their faulty
estimates of Iraq's capability, but none had said, "I was pressured to
do this." Instead, Kay said, the explanation usually was that "limited
data" had led to their conclusions, and that they now realized there
was another explanation.
"And you know, almost in a perverse way, I wish it had been undue
influence, because we know how to correct that," Kay said. "The fact
that it wasn't tells me that we've got a much more fundamental problem
of understanding what went wrong." [end excerpt]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?
pagename=article&contentId=A5631
1-2004Jan28¬Found=true
THEN, of course, there's the little hitch that the President CAN NOT
declare war on anyone. Only CONGRESS can do that, and they never DID
do that, so the entire invasion of Iraq was unconstitutional right
from the start.
Congress authorized the war. Those two Democrats (one Democratic Leader
in the House of Representatives, the other an important committee
ranking member in the Senate) voted to authorize the war. So did 2004
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, and his running mate John
Edwards, among others.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Investor's Business Daily: WMD Truth is Out |
01 Aug 2006 10:26:13 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
The Kat wrote:
On 1 Aug 2006 07:39:50 -0700, "Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com>
wrote:
I understand that. But if there is plenty of evidence that there WERE
WMD, which all those foreign intelligence agencies also believed,
No, 'all those' ALSO said, many times, that there were no WMDs.
I don't think they were quite that definitive, since their leaders were
not convinced there were no WMDs:
Interesting that all these statements about WMD's occurred after
several years of the Bush spin and lie machine in action.
Do you have some quotes from BEFORE Bush started talking about
mushroom clouds over Baltimore ??
Oh, you didn't notice that Gephardt said he didn't rely on Bush for his
intelligence, but went directly to the CIA director and other Clinton
administration officials? Bush had nothing to do with Gephardt's
conclusions. And you think the leaders of France and Germany only
believed Saddam might have WMD because of something Bush said? They
have their own intelligence agencies, you know.
But since you mentioned Baltimore, I remembered this quote by the
President a few years ago, in which he just happened to mention
Baltimore during one of those times when Saddam was refusing to
cooperate with the UN inspectors ...
The President had this to say: "....But if the inspectors are not
permitted to visit suspect sites or monitor compliance at known
production facilities, they may as well be in Baltimore, not Baghdad.
That would open a window of opportunity for Iraq to rebuild its arsenal
of weapons and delivery systems in months -- I say again, in months --
not years. A failure to respond could embolden Saddam to act
recklessly, signalling to him that he can with impunity develop these
weapons of mass destruction or threaten his neighbors, and this is very
important in an age when we look forward to weapons of mass destruction
being a significant threat to civilized people everywhere. And it would
permanently damage the credibility of the United Nations Security
Council to act as a force for promoting international peace and
security. We continue to hope, indeed pray, that Saddam will comply,
but we must be prepared to act if he does not."
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/11/981111-wh1.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Investor's Business Daily: WMD Truth is Out |
02 Aug 2006 07:31:12 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
The Kat wrote:
On 1 Aug 2006 07:39:50 -0700, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com>
wrote:
I understand that. But if there is plenty of evidence that there
WERE
WMD, which all those foreign intelligence agencies also believed,
No, 'all those' ALSO said, many times, that there were no WMDs.
I don't think they were quite that definitive, since their leaders
were
not convinced there were no WMDs:
Interesting that all these statements about WMD's occurred after
several years of the Bush spin and lie machine in action.
Do you have some quotes from BEFORE Bush started talking about
mushroom clouds over Baltimore ??
Oh, you didn't notice that Gephardt said he didn't rely on Bush for his
intelligence, but went directly to the CIA director and other Clinton
administration officials? Bush had nothing to do with Gephardt's
conclusions. And you think the leaders of France and Germany only
believed Saddam might have WMD because of something Bush said? They
have their own intelligence agencies, you know.
This is why I was looking for some quotes from prior to when
Bush started his spin, lie, and create fear campaign (hey, creating
fear is the same as being a terrorist). I guess you don't have any
though because they would undermine your arguments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Investor's Business Daily: WMD Truth is Out |
02 Aug 2006 10:07:44 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
The Kat wrote:
On 1 Aug 2006 07:39:50 -0700, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com>
wrote:
I understand that. But if there is plenty of evidence that there
WERE
WMD, which all those foreign intelligence agencies also believed,
No, 'all those' ALSO said, many times, that there were no WMDs.
I don't think they were quite that definitive, since their leaders
were not convinced there were no WMDs:
Interesting that all these statements about WMD's occurred after
several years of the Bush spin and lie machine in action.
Do you have some quotes from BEFORE Bush started talking about
mushroom clouds over Baltimore ??
Oh, you didn't notice that Gephardt said he didn't rely on Bush for his
intelligence, but went directly to the CIA director and other Clinton
administration officials? Bush had nothing to do with Gephardt's
conclusions. And you think the leaders of France and Germany only
believed Saddam might have WMD because of something Bush said? They
have their own intelligence agencies, you know.
This is why I was looking for some quotes from prior to when
Bush started his spin, lie, and create fear campaign (hey, creating
fear is the same as being a terrorist). I guess you don't have any
though because they would undermine your arguments.
Well, there was this time the Secretary of State, the Secretary of
Defense, and the National Security Advisor made a joint appearance
before some group in Ohio. The Secretary of State had this to say:
"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face."
Later, the National Security Advisor made this comment: "Imagine the
consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will
be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will.
He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some
day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has
ten times since 1983."
And finally, the Secretary of Defense responded to a question about how
many times we'll be willing to send our children to fight Saddam before
we finally take care of him the right way: "What we have to be
concerned about is, how long are we prepared to stay the course to make
sure that he doesn't develop weapons of mass destruction, chemical and
biologicals, which will pose a grave threat to your children and
grandchildren. And that's why we're taking the action necessary in
order to build up the diplomatic initiative or possibly a military
option if necessary. So we are there to protect your children and
grandchildren from one of the most grievous types of threats that we'll
ever see in the future that is weapons of mass destruction."
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "WH" |
|
| Title: Re: Investor's Business Daily: WMD Truth is Out |
01 Aug 2006 07:56:27 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas skrev:
Lone Ranger wrote:
On 29 Jul 2006 07:03:16 -0700, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote:
As the article I posted in this
thread mentions, David Kay and Charles Duelfer both believed there
was strong evidence that some WMD were moved to Syria prior to the
invasion.
That's a lie! Neither David Kay nor Charles Duelfer ever said that
there was strong evidence that some WMD were moved to Syria prior toastard douglas...
the invasion.
I should have said "credible" evidence. And they certainly did believe
there was credible evidence for the *possibility* that some WMD were
moved to Syria prior to the invasion.
Caught with your ***** in an apple pie there douglas!
You're a lyin' ***** douglas...spin, spin, spin...you're always at
it. Like the time you claimed the Balfour declaration was a "promise"
to the Jews from the Brits...spin, spin, spin. Mad O'reilly would be
proud of ya!!!!
WH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Investor's Business Daily: WMD Truth is Out |
01 Aug 2006 09:32:39 AM |
|
|
WH wrote:
Steven Douglas skrev:
Lone Ranger wrote:
On 29 Jul 2006 07:03:16 -0700, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote:
As the article I posted in this
thread mentions, David Kay and Charles Duelfer both believed there
was strong evidence that some WMD were moved to Syria prior to the
invasion.
That's a lie! Neither David Kay nor Charles Duelfer ever said that
there was strong evidence that some WMD were moved to Syria prior toastard douglas...
the invasion.
I should have said "credible" evidence. And they certainly did believe
there was credible evidence for the *possibility* that some WMD were
moved to Syria prior to the invasion.
Caught with your ***** in an apple pie there douglas!
No, my correction was correct -- David Kay and Chalers Duelfer actually
DID say there was credible evidence that Iraqi WMD were moved to Syria.
Comment on that?
You're a lyin' ***** douglas...spin, spin, spin...you're always at
it. Like the time you claimed the Balfour declaration was a "promise"
to the Jews from the Brits...spin, spin, spin. Mad O'reilly would be
proud of ya!!!!
I suppose each of us will have to decide for ourselves whether the
Balfour Declaration was a "promise" to the Jews ... since it did say it
was the position of the British government that a homeland for the Jews
be created, I interpret that as a promise. And if you choose to twist
it into something else, so be it. That would be your opinion, and
anyone who says "so what" about the use of innocent human shields
doesn't have much standing as far as opinions go, in my opinion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "WH" |
|
| Title: Re: Investor's Business Daily: WMD Truth is Out |
01 Aug 2006 11:07:10 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas skrev:
WH wrote:
Steven Douglas skrev:
Lone Ranger wrote:
On 29 Jul 2006 07:03:16 -0700, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote:
As the article I posted in this
thread mentions, David Kay and Charles Duelfer both believed there
was strong evidence that some WMD were moved to Syria prior to the
invasion.
That's a lie! Neither David Kay nor Charles Duelfer ever said that
there was strong evidence that some WMD were moved to Syria prior toastard douglas...
the invasion.
I should have said "credible" evidence. And they certainly did believe
there was credible evidence for the *possibility* that some WMD were
moved to Syria prior to the invasion.
Caught with your ***** in an apple pie there douglas!
No, my correction was correct -- David Kay and Chalers Duelfer actually
DID say there was credible evidence that Iraqi WMD were moved to Syria.
Comment on that?
You said they "believed" douglas. That's what you do, you portray
something as being more than it actually is.
You're a lyin' ***** douglas...spin, spin, spin...you're always at
it. Like the time you claimed the Balfour declaration was a "promise"
to the Jews from the Brits...spin, spin, spin. Mad O'reilly would be
proud of ya!!!!
I suppose each of us will have to decide for ourselves whether the
Balfour Declaration was a "promise" to the Jews ... since it did say it
was the position of the British government that a homeland for the Jews
be created, I interpret that as a promise. And if you choose to twist
it into something else, so be it. That would be your opinion, and
anyone who says "so what" about the use of innocent human shields
doesn't have much standing as far as opinions go, in my opinion.
You do understand English you think eh? Anyone with any grasp of the
English language would not see a promise in that! Only the Jews and
their apologists maintain that it was a promise despite the actual
declaration, but then again it's in you interests isin't it.
WH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Investor's Business Daily: WMD Truth is Out |
01 Aug 2006 09:12:47 PM |
|
|
WH wrote:
Steven Douglas skrev:
WH wrote:
Steven Douglas skrev:
Lone Ranger wrote:
On 29 Jul 2006 07:03:16 -0700, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote:
As the article I posted in this
thread mentions, David Kay and Charles Duelfer both believed there
was strong evidence that some WMD were moved to Syria prior to the
invasion.
That's a lie! Neither David Kay nor Charles Duelfer ever said that
there was strong evidence that some WMD were moved to Syria prior toastard douglas...
the invasion.
I should have said "credible" evidence. And they certainly did believe
there was credible evidence for the *possibility* that some WMD were
moved to Syria prior to the invasion.
Caught with your ***** in an apple pie there douglas!
No, my correction was correct -- David Kay and Chalers Duelfer actually
DID say there was credible evidence that Iraqi WMD were moved to Syria.
Comment on that?
You said they "believed" douglas. That's what you do, you portray
something as being more than it actually is.
I actually provided their own words. Here they are again:
[quoting] "There is ample evidence of movement to Syria before the war
-- satellite photographs, reports on the ground of a constant stream of
trucks, cars, rail traffic across the border. We simply don't know what
was moved," Kay said.
But, he said, "the Syrian government there has shown absolutely no
interest in helping us resolve this issue." [end quoting]
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/
The Duelfer Report could not rule it out as a possibility:
Comprehensive Report
Addendums to the of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD
March 2005
Prewar Movement of WMD Material Out of Iraq
[excerpt] The investigation centered on the possibility that WMD
materials were moved to Syria. As is obvious from other sections of the
Comprehensive Report, Syria was involved in transactions and shipments
of military and other material to Iraq in contravention of the UN
sanctions. This indicated a flexibility with respect to international
law and a strong willingness to work with Iraq - at least when there
was considerable profit for those involved.
Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or
other reasons has yet to be determined. There was evidence of a
discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security
officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of
Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment
of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit
further investigation. [end excerpt]
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/
(see "Addenda to the Comprehensive Report")
You're a lyin' ***** douglas...spin, spin, spin...you're always at
it. Like the time you claimed the Balfour declaration was a "promise"
to the Jews from the Brits...spin, spin, spin. Mad O'reilly would be
proud of ya!!!!
I suppose each of us will have to decide for ourselves whether the
Balfour Declaration was a "promise" to the Jews ... since it did say it
was the position of the British government that a homeland for the Jews
be created, I interpret that as a promise. And if you choose to twist
it into something else, so be it. That would be your opinion, and
anyone who says "so what" about the use of innocent human shields
doesn't have much standing as far as opinions go, in my opinion.
You do understand English you think eh? Anyone with any grasp of the
English language would not see a promise in that! Only the Jews and
their apologists maintain that it was a promise despite the actual
declaration, but then again it's in you interests isin't it.
It was a declaration of the position of the British government. I think
that can be interpreted as a promise. Of course it doesn't fit your
narrow view, because you don't want the Jews to have their homeland.
You're a terrorist supporter, so you must agree with the terrorists'
position that Israel should be destroyed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Investor's Business Daily: WMD Truth is Out |
01 Aug 2006 10:02:37 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
[quoting] "There is ample evidence of movement to Syria before the war
-- satellite photographs, reports on the ground of a constant stream of
trucks, cars, rail traffic across the border. We simply don't know what
was moved," Kay said.
But, he said, "the Syrian government there has shown absolutely no
interest in helping us resolve this issue." [end quoting]
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/
The Duelfer Report could not rule it out as a possibility:
That's the Cheney 1% Doctrine right there. If we can't rule it
out, then it must be true, right ?
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2120605&page=1
In his heralded new book, "The One Percent Doctrine," Ron Suskind
writes that Vice President ***** Cheney forcefully stated that the
war on terror empowered the Bush administration to act without the
need for evidence or extensive analysis.
Suskind describes the Cheney doctrine as follows: "Even if there's
just a 1 percent chance of the unimaginable coming due, act as if
it is a certainty. It's not about 'our analysis,' as Cheney said.
It's about 'our response.' … Justified or not, fact-based or not,
'our response' is what matters. As to 'evidence,' the bar was set
so low that the word itself almost didn't apply."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charly the Bastard" |
|
| Title: Re: Investor's Business Daily: WMD Truth is Out |
28 Jul 2006 07:00:24 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
bye wrote:
The numbers, from a Harris Poll conducted earlier this month, showed
- again - that the "Bush lied" crowd doesn't have a good handle on
the truth. [end excerpt]
To the best of my knowledge, opinions don't change facts, not even one iota
Of course you're right -- that is exactly why the opinions of the "Bush
lied' crowd are in the process of being proven false.
Well, where are they (the WMDs)? A truckload of old binary chem rounds does not
a '45 minute imminent threat to the CONUS' make. Where are the industrial
facilities for the manufacture of these weapons? WMDs are not something you can
whip out in your garage with parts from Radio Smack. Send in the news crews,
let's have a look. Show us the bones, then we'll believe that the Dragon was
real. But you can't do that, can you? Grandiose planss and bad intentions are
not the same as missiles in the silos, and they never will be. It 's about the
oil, and who is in charge of the valve on the pipe. BTW, binary chem rounds don't
make a credible IED either. You can't just slap a stick of simtex to the side and
expect it to work. Binary shells are specifically designed to not work unless
they're fired from a cannon, and the Tangos don't have any cannons.
Get a grip, W lied us into a war over oil.
Charly
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Investor's Business Daily: WMD Truth is Out |
28 Jul 2006 08:00:47 AM |
|
|
Charly the ***** wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
bye wrote:
The numbers, from a Harris Poll conducted earlier this month, showed
- again - that the "Bush lied" crowd doesn't have a good handle on
the truth. [end excerpt]
To the best of my knowledge, opinions don't change facts, not even one iota
Of course you're right -- that is exactly why the opinions of the "Bush
lied' crowd are in the process of being proven false.
Well, where are they (the WMDs)? A truckload of old binary chem rounds does not
a '45 minute imminent threat to the CONUS' make. Where are the industrial
facilities for the manufacture of these weapons? WMDs are not something you can
whip out in your garage with parts from Radio Smack. Send in the news crews,
let's have a look. Show us the bones, then we'll believe that the Dragon was
real. But you can't do that, can you? Grandiose planss and bad intentions are
not the same as missiles in the silos, and they never will be. It 's about the
oil, and who is in charge of the valve on the pipe. BTW, binary chem rounds don't
make a credible IED either. You can't just slap a stick of simtex to the side and
expect it to work. Binary shells are specifically designed to not work unless
they're fired from a cannon, and the Tangos don't have any cannons.
Get a grip, W lied us into a war over oil.
Listen, I'm really not a big fan of ol' W. I have plenty of problems
with the guy. But in the case of Saddam's suspected WMD, the world's
intelligence agencies overwhemingly agreed that Saddam had WMD in late
2002/early 2003. And I don't buy the "oil" excuse. Saddam would have
been happy to sell us his oil if the sanctions had been dropped. But if
the sanctions had been dropped that would have opened up a new can of
worms. As it is now, the oil belongs to the Iraqi people, and that's
the way it should be.
Here is an article written by a former Clinton administration official.
He is no fan of Bush, and all the libs who post here will find
something to like in the article. I actually agree with his moderate
view, and I hope anyone who'd like to respond will read the entire
article before responding.
[except] U.S. government analysts were not alone in these views. In the
late spring of 2002 I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi
WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the
United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in
1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior
people put a question to the group: Did anyone in the room doubt that
Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did.
Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret
calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes).
Other nations' intelligence services were similarly aligned with U.S.
views. Somewhat remarkably, given how adamantly Germany would oppose
the war, the German Federal Intelligence Service held the bleakest view
of all, arguing that Iraq might be able to build a nuclear weapon
within three years. Israel, Russia, Britain, China, and even France
held positions similar to that of the United States; France's President
Jacques Chirac told Time magazine last February, "There is a
problem-the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an
uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right ...
in having decided Iraq should be disarmed." In sum, no one doubted that
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. [end excerpt]
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/pollack
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lone Ranger" |
|
| Title: Re: Investor's Business Daily: WMD Truth is Out |
31 Jul 2006 05:12:11 PM |
|
|
On 28 Jul 2006 06:00:47 -0700, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote:
Well, where are they (the WMDs)? A truckload of old binary chem rounds does not
a '45 minute imminent threat to the CONUS' make. Where are the industrial
facilities for the manufacture of these weapons? WMDs are not something you can
whip out in your garage with parts from Radio Smack. Send in the news crews,
let's have a look. Show us the bones, then we'll believe that the Dragon was
real. But you can't do that, can you? Grandiose planss and bad intentions are
not the same as missiles in the silos, and they never will be. It 's about the
oil, and who is in charge of the valve on the pipe. BTW, binary chem rounds don't
make a credible IED either. You can't just slap a stick of simtex to the side and
expect it to work. Binary shells are specifically designed to not work unless
they're fired from a cannon, and the Tangos don't have any cannons.
Listen, I'm really not a big fan of ol' W. I have plenty of problems
with the guy. But in the case of Saddam's suspected WMD, the world's
intelligence agencies overwhemingly agreed that Saddam had WMD
in late 2002/early 2003.
That's correct. They *believed* that Saddam had WMD. Lots of it.
And that's why the U.N. weapons inspectors were sent back to Iraq to
look for these alleged weapons. But they didn't find anything! They
reported back the simple fact that they couldn't find any weapons,
and that's why countries like France, Germany and Russia wouldn't
support Bush's war. They acknowledged that they had been wrong
about Saddam's alleged WMD. But Bush wouldn't listen. He had
already made up his mind about going to war.
Believing something - like the world's intelligence agencies did - is
*not* proof of the existence of WMD. That's why you can't hide behind
an argument like ".. but they all agreed that ..." in order to claim
that Bush was in good faith when he invaded Iraq. He wasn't!
Yes, Bush lied. He had already made up his mind about going to war. He
just needed a reason, and he thought he could use the WMD issue in
order to get his war. And now more than 2500 American soldiers have
died because of Bush's lies, and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians
have been killed in the aftermath of this meaningless war. The
American people should be outraged, and the president should be
impeached.
Here is an article written by a former Clinton administration official.
He is no fan of Bush, and all the libs who post here will find
something to like in the article. I actually agree with his moderate
view, and I hope anyone who'd like to respond will read the entire
article before responding.
[except] U.S. government analysts were not alone in these views. In the
late spring of 2002 I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi
WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the
United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in
1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior
people put a question to the group: Did anyone in the room doubt that
Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did.
Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret
calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes).
Exactly! They *believed* that Iraq had this secret plant, but what did
they have to support the alleged "fact" that Saddam really had such a
plant? Nothing!
Other nations' intelligence services were similarly aligned with U.S.
views. Somewhat remarkably, given how adamantly Germany would oppose
the war, the German Federal Intelligence Service held the bleakest view
of all, arguing that Iraq might be able to build a nuclear weapon
within three years. Israel, Russia, Britain, China, and even France
held positions similar to that of the United States; France's President
Jacques Chirac told Time magazine last February, "There is a
problem-the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an
uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right ...
in having decided Iraq should be disarmed." In sum, no one doubted that
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. [end excerpt]
The *probable* possession of weapons of mass destruction. There you
have it. They didn't know for sure, but hey *believed* it was true. So
why not send the U.N. weapons inspectors back to Iraq to find out more
about these alleged weapons? Oh wait, that's exactly what they did!
And what did the weapons inspectors come up with? They didn't find any
of the alleged WMD.
--
Hi-Yo, Silver! Away!
--
The Curse of Tecumseh
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/curse.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charly the Bastard" |
|
| Title: Re: Investor's Business Daily: WMD Truth is Out |
31 Jul 2006 08:03:00 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Charly the ***** wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
bye wrote:
The numbers, from a Harris Poll conducted earlier this month, showed
- again - that the "Bush lied" crowd doesn't have a good handle on
the truth. [end excerpt]
To the best of my knowledge, opinions don't change facts, not even one iota
Of course you're right -- that is exactly why the opinions of the "Bush
lied' crowd are in the process of being proven false.
Well, where are they (the WMDs)? A truckload of old binary chem rounds does not
a '45 minute imminent threat to the CONUS' make. Where are the industrial
facilities for the manufacture of these weapons? WMDs are not something you can
whip out in your garage with parts from Radio Smack. Send in the news crews,
let's have a look. Show us the bones, then we'll believe that the Dragon was
real. But you can't do that, can you? Grandiose planss and bad intentions are
not the same as missiles in the silos, and they never will be. It 's about the
oil, and who is in charge of the valve on the pipe. BTW, binary chem rounds don't
make a credible IED either. You can't just slap a stick of simtex to the side and
expect it to work. Binary shells are specifically designed to not work unless
they're fired from a cannon, and the Tangos don't have any cannons.
Get a grip, W lied us into a war over oil.
Listen, I'm really not a big fan of ol' W. I have plenty of problems
with the guy. But in the case of Saddam's suspected WMD, the world's
intelligence agencies overwhemingly agreed that Saddam had WMD in late
2002/early 2003. And I don't buy the "oil" excuse. Saddam would have
been happy to sell us his oil if the sanctions had been dropped. But if
the sanctions had been dropped that would have opened up a new can of
worms. As it is now, the oil belongs to the Iraqi people, and that's
the way it should be.
Here is an article written by a former Clinton administration official.
He is no fan of Bush, and all the libs who post here will find
something to like in the article. I actually agree with his moderate
view, and I hope anyone who'd like to respond will read the entire
article before responding.
[except] U.S. government analysts were not alone in these views. In the
late spring of 2002 I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi
WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the
United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in
1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior
people put a question to the group: Did anyone in the room doubt that
Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did.
Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret
calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes).
Other nations' intelligence services were similarly aligned with U.S.
views. Somewhat remarkably, given how adamantly Germany would oppose
the war, the German Federal Intelligence Service held the bleakest view
of all, arguing that Iraq might be able to build a nuclear weapon
within three years. Israel, Russia, Britain, China, and even France
held positions similar to that of the United States; France's President
Jacques Chirac told Time magazine last February, "There is a
problem-the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an
uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right ...
in having decided Iraq should be disarmed." In sum, no one doubted that
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. [end excerpt]
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/pollack
So where is the secret centrifuge? Did it get blown up in the air campaign? We've been
in Iraq for over three years (1260 days as of 1SEP06) and you'd think by now we would
have found something. It appears more and more likely that Saddam snookered all of the
'Intelligence Community' with an elaborate cover story designed for scaring us into
leaving him alone. Well, he scared us alright, into invading his country and toppling
his government. And look what it's gotten us. We were supposed to be greeted as
liberators, we were gonna fix the infrastructure and the oil revenues were gonna pay
for the war. the Iraqis were gonna put aside their centuries old emnities and sing
"Cumbaya" in the streets and play nice, because they were gonna be a DEMOCRACY, which
we all know is the best of all possible worlds. There's no water or sewer, there's no
electricity, there's no oil, there's no democracy, everyone is blowing themselves up by
the hundreds every day, and we're caught in the middle with no way out. I'm coming
around to the view that Islam is culturally incompatible with democracy, mainly because
it doesn't recognise the concept of plurality. I hope I'm wromg, but the smart money is
betting the other horse.
Charly
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Investor's Business Daily: WMD Truth is Out |
28 Jul 2006 04:46:27 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:32:12 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Investor's Business Daily
WMD Truth Is Out
Posted 7/25/2006
[excerpt] WMD: Americans are waking up from a distorted reality. Half
now believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That's
up sharply from last year, when only 36% believed that he had banned
weapons.
And in related news, as of the last poll on the subject, 60% of
Americans believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lone Ranger" |
|
| Title: Re: Investor's Business Daily: WMD Truth is Out |
31 Jul 2006 05:12:14 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:46:27 GMT, Woodswun <woodswun@tepidmail.com>
wrote:
[excerpt] WMD: Americans are waking up from a distorted reality. Half
now believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That's
up sharply from last year, when only 36% believed that he had banned
weapons.
And in related news, as of the last poll on the subject, 60% of
Americans believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
Propaganda is always a useful tool when the leaders are planning
for war.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm
Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders
of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple
matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and
exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same way in any
country.
-Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
--
Hi-Yo, Silver! Away!
--
The Curse of Tecumseh
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/curse.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "WH" |
|
| Title: Re: Investor's Business Daily: WMD Truth is Out |
31 Jul 2006 10:57:30 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas skrev:
Investor's Business Daily
WMD Truth Is Out
Posted 7/25/2006
[excerpt] WMD: Americans are waking up from a distorted reality. Half
now believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That's
up sharply from last year, when only 36% believed that he had banned
weapons.
The numbers, from a Harris Poll conducted earlier this month, showed
- again - that the "Bush lied" crowd doesn't have a good handle on
the truth. [end excerpt]
Full article:
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=2&issue=20060725
Yeah, coming from a country where most of the inhabitants think
Disneyland is a real country. Why am I not surprised?
WH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Investor's Business Daily: WMD Truth is Out |
31 Jul 2006 04:10:29 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:57:30 -0700, WH wrote:
Steven Douglas skrev:
Investor's Business Daily
WMD Truth Is Out
Posted 7/25/2006
[excerpt] WMD: Americans are waking up from a distorted reality. Half
now believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That's
up sharply from last year, when only 36% believed that he had banned
weapons.
The numbers, from a Harris Poll conducted earlier this month, showed
- again - that the "Bush lied" crowd doesn't have a good handle on
the truth. [end excerpt]
Full article:
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=2&issue=20060725
Yeah, coming from a country where most of the inhabitants think
Disneyland is a real country. Why am I not surprised?
Get out of town!! Where did you hear that anyone thought Disneyland was
a real country?!? LOL!
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "bye" |
|
| Title: Re: Investor's Business Daily: WMD Truth is Out |
31 Jul 2006 05:24:56 PM |
|
|
Get out of town!! Where did you hear that anyone thought Disneyland was
a real country?!? LOL!
I always thought that it was. You mean it's not?
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.31.21.10.27.219232@tepidmail.com...
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:57:30 -0700, WH wrote:
Steven Douglas skrev:
Investor's Business Daily
WMD Truth Is Out
Posted 7/25/2006
[excerpt] WMD: Americans are waking up from a distorted reality. Half
now believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That's
up sharply from last year, when only 36% believed that he had banned
weapons.
The numbers, from a Harris Poll conducted earlier this month, showed
- again - that the "Bush lied" crowd doesn't have a good handle on
the truth. [end excerpt]
Full article:
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=2&issue=20060725
Yeah, coming from a country where most of the inhabitants think
Disneyland is a real country. Why am I not surprised?
Get out of town!! Where did you hear that anyone thought Disneyland was
a real country?!? LOL!
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Investor's Business Daily: WMD Truth is Out |
31 Jul 2006 07:07:28 PM |
|
|
Woodswun <woodswun@tepidmail.com> Spat the Words
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:57:30 -0700, WH wrote:
Steven Douglas skrev:
Investor's Business Daily
WMD Truth Is Out
Posted 7/25/2006
[excerpt] WMD: Americans are waking up from a distorted reality. Half
now believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
That's up sharply from last year, when only 36% believed that he had
banned weapons.
The numbers, from a Harris Poll conducted earlier this month, showed
- again - that the "Bush lied" crowd doesn't have a good handle on
the truth. [end excerpt]
Full article:
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=2
&i
ssue=20060725
Yeah, coming from a country where most of the inhabitants think
Disneyland is a real country. Why am I not surprised?
Get out of town!! Where did you hear that anyone thought Disneyland was
a real country?!? LOL!
Disneyland isn't a real country ? I have been SO lied to.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "bye" |
|
| Title: Re: Investor's Business Daily: WMD Truth is Out |
31 Jul 2006 10:07:45 PM |
|
|
Disneyland isn't a real country ? I have been SO lied to.
I suspect that 'Fantasy Island' might not be real either!
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9811B85F6B5E5rrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
Woodswun <woodswun@tepidmail.com> Spat the Words
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:57:30 -0700, WH wrote:
Steven Douglas skrev:
Investor's Business Daily
WMD Truth Is Out
Posted 7/25/2006
[excerpt] WMD: Americans are waking up from a distorted reality. Half
now believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
That's up sharply from last year, when only 36% believed that he had
banned weapons.
The numbers, from a Harris Poll conducted earlier this month, showed
- again - that the "Bush lied" crowd doesn't have a good handle on
the truth. [end excerpt]
Full article:
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=2
&i
ssue=20060725
Yeah, coming from a country where most of the inhabitants think
Disneyland is a real country. Why am I not surprised?
Get out of town!! Where did you hear that anyone thought Disneyland was
a real country?!? LOL!
Disneyland isn't a real country ? I have been SO lied to.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Styrbj=F6rn?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Investor's Business Daily: WMD Truth is Out |
01 Aug 2006 07:01:46 AM |
|
|
bye wrote / skrev:
Disneyland isn't a real country ? I have been SO lied to.
I suspect that 'Fantasy Island' might not be real either!
Fantasy Island? Ireland you mean?
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9811B85F6B5E5rrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
Woodswun <woodswun@tepidmail.com> Spat the Words
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:57:30 -0700, WH wrote:
Steven Douglas skrev:
Investor's Business Daily
WMD Truth Is Out
Posted 7/25/2006
[excerpt] WMD: Americans are waking up from a distorted reality. Half
now believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
That's up sharply from last year, when only 36% believed that he had
banned weapons.
The numbers, from a Harris Poll conducted earlier this month, showed
- again - that the "Bush lied" crowd doesn't have a good handle on
the truth. [end excerpt]
Full article:
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=2
&i
ssue=20060725
Yeah, coming from a country where most of the inhabitants think
Disneyland is a real country. Why am I not surprised?
Get out of town!! Where did you hear that anyone thought Disneyland was
a real country?!? LOL!
Disneyland isn't a real country ? I have been SO lied to.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Investor's Business Daily: WMD Truth is Out |
01 Aug 2006 04:04:50 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 12:01:46 +0000, Styrbjörn wrote:
bye wrote / skrev:
Disneyland isn't a real country ? I have been SO lied to.
I suspect that 'Fantasy Island' might not be real either!
Fantasy Island? Ireland you mean?
Not sure if you're joking, or if you haven't gotten that show in
syndication where you are - but Fantasy Island was a TV show. Kind of
like Love Boat, only on an island and using Deus Ex Machina, via Khan
(from The Wrath of Khan - can't remember the guy's name) as the
mechanism for making things happen (instead of a cruise ship crew).
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Investor's Business Daily: WMD Truth is Out |
01 Aug 2006 08:27:56 PM |
|
|
Woodswun <woodswun@tepidmail.com> Spat the Words
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 12:01:46 +0000, Styrbjörn wrote:
bye wrote / skrev:
Disneyland isn't a real country ? I have been SO lied to.
I suspect that 'Fantasy Island' might not be real either!
Fantasy Island? Ireland you mean?
Not sure if you're joking, or if you haven't gotten that show in
syndication where you are - but Fantasy Island was a TV show. Kind of
like Love Boat, only on an island and using Deus Ex Machina, via Khan
(from The Wrath of Khan - can't remember the guy's name) as the
mechanism for making things happen (instead of a cruise ship crew).
Ricardo Montalbahn. The show was one of a string of hit shows
produced by Tori Spelling's dad (can't remember his first name)
who died recently. Was it Aaron Spelling ? Anyway, it's a pretty
old show. Ricardo's sidekick was the guy who played the evil
midget in the James Bond movies. "The Plane, The Plane !"
Dang, we must be getting old woods !
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Styrbj=F6rn?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Investor's Business Daily: WMD Truth is Out |
01 Aug 2006 04:11:05 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote / skrev:
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 12:01:46 +0000, Styrbjörn wrote:
bye wrote / skrev:
Disneyland isn't a real country ? I have been SO lied to.
I suspect that 'Fantasy Island' might not be real either!
Fantasy Island? Ireland you mean?
Not sure if you're joking, or if you haven't gotten that show in
syndication where you are - but Fantasy Island was a TV show. Kind of
like Love Boat, only on an island and using Deus Ex Machina, via Khan
(from The Wrath of Khan - can't remember the guy's name) as the
mechanism for making things happen (instead of a cruise ship crew).
Woods
I haven't seen the show. I'm dead serious. I named it after WH, the
ignorant vulture.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Investor's Business Daily: WMD Truth is Out |
01 Aug 2006 07:32:56 AM |
|
|
Styrbjörn <tribe@war.soon> Spat the Words
bye wrote / skrev:
Disneyland isn't a real country ? I have been SO lied to.
I suspect that 'Fantasy Island' might not be real either!
Fantasy Island? Ireland you mean?
Fantasy Island isn't real ? Oh, I'm going to have a serious
talk with my agent.
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9811B85F6B5E5rrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
Woodswun <woodswun@tepidmail.com> Spat the Words
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:57:30 -0700, WH wrote:
Steven Douglas skrev:
Investor's Business Daily
WMD Truth Is Out
Posted 7/25/2006
[excerpt] WMD: Americans are waking up from a distorted reality.
Half
now believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
That's up sharply from last year, when only 36% believed that he had
banned weapons.
The numbers, from a Harris Poll conducted earlier this month, showed
- again - that the "Bush lied" crowd doesn't have a good handle on
the truth. [end excerpt]
Full article:
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=
2
&i
ssue=20060725
Yeah, coming from a country where most of the inhabitants think
Disneyland is a real country. Why am I not surprised?
Get out of town!! Where did you hear that anyone thought Disneyland
was
a real country?!? LOL!
Disneyland isn't a real country ? I have been SO lied to.
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
