Liar Liar Pants On Fire Dept: Moller

[Bret Ludwig]

From his website:

"Moller International has developed the first and only feasible,
personally affordable, personal vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL)
vehicle the world has ever seen."


This is a lie, pure and simple.

[Denny]

On Sep 1, 1:21 am, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
> From his website:
>
> "Moller International has developed the first and only feasible,
> personally affordable, personal vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL)
> vehicle the world has ever seen."
>
> This is a lie, pure and simple.

Moller has run out of suckers in the USA and feels that europe is his
next best bet afor the fleecing...

denny

[Harry K]

On Aug 31, 10:21 pm, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
> From his website:
>
> "Moller International has developed the first and only feasible,
> personally affordable, personal vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL)
> vehicle the world has ever seen."
>
> This is a lie, pure and simple.

Looks like more than one lie in there.

Harry K

[Jim Logajan]

Denny > wrote:
> Moller has run out of suckers in the USA [...]

That hardly seems possible. ;-)

And here I thought P. T. Barnum was the source for the appropriate comeback
quote, but not so, according to these sites:

http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There's_a_sucker_born_every_minute

[JohnO]

On Sep 2, 1:38 am, Denny > wrote:
> On Sep 1, 1:21 am, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
>
> > From his website:
>
> > "Moller International has developed the first and only feasible,
> > personally affordable, personal vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL)
> > vehicle the world has ever seen."
>
> > This is a lie, pure and simple.
>
> Moller has run out of suckers in the USA and feels that europe is his
> next best bet afor the fleecing...
>
> denny

The world has an unending supply of suckers.

But how does he fleece? How is he getting money out of it - investors?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"JohnO" > wrote

> But how does he fleece? How is he getting money out of it - investors?

Yep. Big time investors, sometimes. Millions lost. (all totaled together)
--
Jim in NC

[Robert Barker]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "JohnO" > wrote
>
>> But how does he fleece? How is he getting money out of it - investors?
>
> Yep. Big time investors, sometimes. Millions lost. (all totaled
> together)
> --
> Jim in NC
>

Don't forget those ads he used to run in Playboy and Discovery magazines...

[Bret Ludwig]

On Sep 2, 4:34 pm, JohnO > wrote:
> On Sep 2, 1:38 am, Denny > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 1, 1:21 am, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
>
> > > From his website:
>
> > > "Moller International has developed the first and only feasible,
> > > personally affordable, personal vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL)
> > > vehicle the world has ever seen."
>
> > > This is a lie, pure and simple.
>
> > Moller has run out of suckers in the USA and feels that europe is his
> > next best bet afor the fleecing...
>
> > denny
>
> The world has an unending supply of suckers.

The late Prof. Revilo Oliver has an interesting take on this. You
will of course overlook the political specifics:



Now, a serious examination of the problem of "liberal intellectuals"
must, I believe, begin with recognition of one fundamental fact --
that we are dealing with the phenomenon that is know in biology as
*symbiosis*. In other words, we are examining not one species, but
two, that are interdependent, just as in the example of symbiosis that
will come to everyone's mind: many species of ants maintain aphids in
their nests, and in such an arrangement, the ants could not live
without the aphids nor the aphids without the ants.

As I have said, I consider this symbiosis as the fundamental fact in
our problem tonight, so let me illustrate it with two or three
examples that will make it clear.

In the second half of the 19th Century lived a distinguished French
mathematician, Professor Michel Chasles. He was the author of a number
of treatises that you will find cited in any reasonably complete work
on geometrical theory, prisms, or conic sections. He developed a
method of analytical geometry independent of the calculus, and his
treatise on the displacement of solids is regarded as a mathematical
classic. He was a member of the French Acad,mie des Sciences, which
means that he was recognized as one of the 66 best scientific minds in
all France, and he was furthermore the recipient of the highest honor
that the Royal Society of London could bestow.

Now Professor Chasles was quite wealthy, and one day there came to him
an enterprising young intellectual named Vrain-Lucas, who was -- he
said -- a specialist in finding old documents, particularly
autographs. He sold the good professor an original letter which proved
that Descartes had anticipated all the discoveries of Newton.
Professor Chasles was elated to be the possessor of a document of such
vast significance in the history of science, and his appetite was
whetted for more. So he made Vrain-Lucas promise to bring to him all
his sensational finds. Vrain-Lucas did; he supplied remarkable
documents, first, one at a time, then by the dozen, and then by the
score.

In a few years, M. Chasles had a much smaller balance at his bankers,
but he owned a collection of treasures unmatched in the world, unique
documents, almost all of them autographs, written by the great figures
of history. He had original letters by Pascal, by Montaigne, by
Amerigo Vespucci, by Charlemagne, by St. Jerome, by Plato, by
Socrates, and by many others. It would be hard to say which item in
his collection of more than 600 letters was the most remarkable, but
my favorite is the autographic love-letter written by Cleopatra to
Julius Caesar -- a letter that Cleopatra wrote with her own fair hand
-- with a steel pen -- on rag paper -- in 16th-Century French!

Now it may not be fair to single out the French mathematician from
among the thousands of men like him, but just the same, if I had
anything to do with running a college, I would see to it that a statue
of Professor Chasles stood at the gates as a reminder of what
education can do for a man.

If you ask which was the "intellectual," Professor Chasles or Vrain-
Lucas, the answer, of course, is both of them. They are complementary
types, like the *yin* and *yang* in the Chinese monogram, and one
could scarcely exist without the other. One, indeed, is to a large
extent the cause of the other.

Our (society) always has been, and probable always will be, afflicted
with well-meaning people, usually well educated and sometimes
brilliant, who simply cannot keep their imaginations under control.
They are born to be the dupes of any scoundrel or adventurer who takes
the trouble to put out a little bait for them, and they are often so
generous that they do more than half his work for him and practically
dupe themselves.

<<snip>>


Now I have not mentioned these fur examples, out of the many hundreds
that could be cited, merely to amuse you. I intended them to
illustrate the principle of symbiosis. The phenomenon that is called
"liberal intellectualism" depends on the conjunction of two distinct
species, the intellectual sucker and the intellectual shyster. Of
course, in all societies there is a copious supply of both species.
The late P.T. Barnum used to utter the philosophic dictum that a
sucker was born every minute, but, as we all know, since Barnum's day
the birth rate has increased enormously.

((For "liberal intellectualism", "Financial suckerism" may be
interchanged here-Bret))

Some years ago, it was customary for fast-talking confidence men to
find some chump with five or ten thousand dollars in cash and sell him
the Brooklyn Bridge or the Holland Tunnel. And I hear that when the
Pennsylvania Railroad began to demolish its station in New York City,
someone bought it for $25,000 cash. Now the swindlers in all those
cases are undoubtedly wicked men. They deserve exemplary punishment.
But, you know, there must have been something wrong with the
purchasers too. Much as we may sympathize with them, we shall have to
agree, I think, that they were not overly bright."

[Welleeeeerrr]

Bret Ludwig > wrote in news:1188782671.017336.233470@
50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:

>
>
>
> Now, a serious examination of the problem of "liberal intellectuals"

Liberal intellectuals?


So, only liberals can be duped by someone like Moller?




You'd make a great propoganda minister.

[Dale Alexander]

No...liberals can be duped by just about anybody or anything...just look at
all of their "religious beliefs".

Dale Alexander

"Welleeeeerrr" > wrote in message
.. .
> Bret Ludwig > wrote in news:1188782671.017336.233470@
> 50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Now, a serious examination of the problem of "liberal intellectuals"
>
> Liberal intellectuals?
>
>
> So, only liberals can be duped by someone like Moller?
>
>
>
>
> You'd make a great propoganda minister.
>
>
>
>

[Weeeeelerrrrrrr]

"Dale Alexander" > wrote in
:

> No...liberals can be duped by just about anybody or anything...just
> look at all of their "religious beliefs".

Good grief.



Aside from your appalling ignorance, the lack of imagination you're
displaying is , to put it bluntly, frightening.



Wonder what you would have made of the Wrights?


Or Copernicus.

Moller's car is obviously a piece of crap, but a technology may arive in
the future that makes it, or some similar contraption, viable.



Just like all the people that went before the Wrights that were
ridiculed, moller may have laid down a contribution that turns out to be
more than a footnote in years to come.

I doubt it, of course, but it is possible..

Bet you would have laughed at the guys investing in IBM back in '49,
too..


Asshole.

[Stuart & Kathryn Fields]

Moller's advertising, like some others, is comparable to the Wright
Brother's advertising supersonic capability while still trying to develop
their glider.
All this would be much more entertaining if the designers like Moller would
perform the demonstration flights themselves and then brag about it.
--
Stuart & Kathryn Fields, Publishers
Experimental Helo magazine
P. O. Box 1585
Inyokern, CA 93527
(760) 377-4478 ph
(760) 408-9747 publication cell
(760) 608-1299 technical cell
www.experimentalhelo.com
www.vkss.com


"Weeeeelerrrrrrr" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Dale Alexander" > wrote in
> :
>
>> No...liberals can be duped by just about anybody or anything...just
>> look at all of their "religious beliefs".
>
> Good grief.
>
>
>
> Aside from your appalling ignorance, the lack of imagination you're
> displaying is , to put it bluntly, frightening.
>
>
>
> Wonder what you would have made of the Wrights?
>
>
> Or Copernicus.
>
> Moller's car is obviously a piece of crap, but a technology may arive in
> the future that makes it, or some similar contraption, viable.
>
>
>
> Just like all the people that went before the Wrights that were
> ridiculed, moller may have laid down a contribution that turns out to be
> more than a footnote in years to come.
>
> I doubt it, of course, but it is possible..
>
> Bet you would have laughed at the guys investing in IBM back in '49,
> too..
>
>
> Asshole.
>
>
>

[Weeeelleeereere]

"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" > wrote in
:

> Moller's advertising, like some others, is comparable to the Wright
> Brother's advertising supersonic capability while still trying to
> develop their glider.
> All this would be much more entertaining if the designers like Moller
> would perform the demonstration flights themselves and then brag about
> it.



You're missing the point, the previous posters manipulated their argument
to have a political slant, whilst , at the same time, dispaying a lack of
imagination that really deserves only pity.

If they have evidence that only "liberals" invested in the aircar, they
should post it, if they don't, they should shut he **** up.

[Tim Ward[_1_]]

"Weeeeelerrrrrrr" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Dale Alexander" > wrote in
> :
>
> > No...liberals can be duped by just about anybody or anything...just
> > look at all of their "religious beliefs".
>
> Good grief.
>
>
>
> Aside from your appalling ignorance, the lack of imagination you're
> displaying is , to put it bluntly, frightening.
>
>
>
> Wonder what you would have made of the Wrights?

I wonder what you would have made of Augustus Herring?

Tim Ward

[Dan[_2_]]

Tim Ward wrote:
> "Weeeeelerrrrrrr" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Dale Alexander" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> No...liberals can be duped by just about anybody or anything...just
>>> look at all of their "religious beliefs".
>> Good grief.
>>
>>
>>
>> Aside from your appalling ignorance, the lack of imagination you're
>> displaying is , to put it bluntly, frightening.
>>
>>
>>
>> Wonder what you would have made of the Wrights?
>
> I wonder what you would have made of Augustus Herring?
>
> Tim Ward
>
>
Sounds like a red herring to me.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Weeelerreeiiie]

"Tim Ward" > wrote in :

>
> "Weeeeelerrrrrrr" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Dale Alexander" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > No...liberals can be duped by just about anybody or anything...just
>> > look at all of their "religious beliefs".
>>
>> Good grief.
>>
>>
>>
>> Aside from your appalling ignorance, the lack of imagination you're
>> displaying is , to put it bluntly, frightening.
>>
>>
>>
>> Wonder what you would have made of the Wrights?
>
> I wonder what you would have made of Augustus Herring?
>

A sandwich with a litle lettuce and a tomato?



Or maybe you meant Augustus Hering.

Yes, been to he spot where he may have flown.

[Dan[_2_]]

Weeelerreeiiie wrote:
> "Tim Ward" > wrote in :
>
>> "Weeeeelerrrrrrr" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> "Dale Alexander" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> No...liberals can be duped by just about anybody or anything...just
>>>> look at all of their "religious beliefs".
>>> Good grief.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Aside from your appalling ignorance, the lack of imagination you're
>>> displaying is , to put it bluntly, frightening.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Wonder what you would have made of the Wrights?
>> I wonder what you would have made of Augustus Herring?
>>
>
> A sandwich with a litle lettuce and a tomato?
>
>
>
> Or maybe you meant Augustus Hering.
>
> Yes, been to he spot where he may have flown.
>
>
Wasn't Hering head of the Nazi air forces?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Richard Isakson" > wrote in message
om...
>
<...>
> There is no valid comparison between the Wrights and Moller so your
> argument
> is meaningless. Now, if you'd like to compare Moller with Jim Bede ...
>
>

Some of Jim Bede's designs turned out to be pretty good. So Moller comes up
short on that one...

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Richard Isakson]

"Weeeeelerrrrrrr" wrote ...
> Just like all the people that went before the Wrights that were
> ridiculed, moller may have laid down a contribution that turns out to be
> more than a footnote in years to come.

There is no valid comparison between the Wrights and Moller so your argument
is meaningless. Now, if you'd like to compare Moller with Jim Bede ...

Rich

[Weeeelerieeeireireirierie]

"Richard Isakson" > wrote in
om:

>
> "Weeeeelerrrrrrr" wrote ...
>> Just like all the people that went before the Wrights that were
>> ridiculed, moller may have laid down a contribution that turns out to
>> be more than a footnote in years to come.
>
> There is no valid comparison between the Wrights and Moller so your
> argument is meaningless. Now, if you'd like to compare Moller with
> Jim Bede ...

I wasn't comparing the Wrights with Moller, merely pointing out that
ignorant people in their time would have had a similar opinion of the two.
They did, it's a fact.


Moller's car doesn't work and I don't think it ever will The point I am
making is that that poster's lack of imagination is nauseating, but even
that pales in comparison to his reprehensible use of Moller's dishonesty to
tar a political view opposing his own.

That make him a ****heel first class.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Richard Isakson
says...
>
>
>"Weeeeelerrrrrrr" wrote ...
>> Just like all the people that went before the Wrights that were
>> ridiculed, moller may have laid down a contribution that turns out to be
>> more than a footnote in years to come.
>
>There is no valid comparison between the Wrights and Moller so your argument
>is meaningless. Now, if you'd like to compare Moller with Jim Bede ...
>
>Rich

....or with zoom campbell :-)

Chuck S

[Bret Ludwig]

On Sep 3, 8:08 am, Welleeeeerrr > wrote:
> Bret Ludwig > wrote in news:1188782671.017336.233470@
> 50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > Now, a serious examination of the problem of "liberal intellectuals"
>
> Liberal intellectuals?
>
> So, only liberals can be duped by someone like Moller?
>
> You'd make a great propoganda minister.

What part of "You will of course overlook the political specifics"
and ((For "liberal intellectualism", "Financial suckerism" may be
interchanged here-Bret)) did not seem clear to you? I am not defending
or advocating his politics here but the concept of symbiosis of the
deluded and deluders.

[Bret Ludwig]

On Sep 3, 11:53 am, Weeeeelerrrrrrr > wrote:
> "Dale Alexander" > wrote :
>
> > No...liberals can be duped by just about anybody or anything...just
> > look at all of their "religious beliefs".
>
> Good grief.
>
> Aside from your appalling ignorance, the lack of imagination you're
> displaying is , to put it bluntly, frightening.
>
> Wonder what you would have made of the Wrights?
>
> Or Copernicus.
>
> Moller's car is obviously a piece of crap, but a technology may arive in
> the future that makes it, or some similar contraption, viable.


Bell invented as similar a contraption as needs or is going to be
invented. It's called the Bell 47. If numerous movie stars can be
taught to fly them anyone can.

[Bret Ludwig]

On Sep 3, 12:09 pm, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" > wrote:
> Moller's advertising, like some others, is comparable to the Wright
> Brother's advertising supersonic capability while still trying to develop
> their glider.
> All this would be much more entertaining if the designers like Moller would
> perform the demonstration flights themselves and then brag about it.

That's just it. He has no intention of flying. Just like that German
fraud Michael Zoche and his engine.

[Bret Ludwig]

On Sep 3, 5:54 pm, "Richard Isakson" > wrote:
> "Weeeeelerrrrrrr" wrote ...
>
> > Just like all the people that went before the Wrights that were
> > ridiculed, moller may have laid down a contribution that turns out to be
> > more than a footnote in years to come.
>
> There is no valid comparison between the Wrights and Moller so your argument
> is meaningless. Now, if you'd like to compare Moller with Jim Bede ...


Bede is a con man and has killed several people, not on purpose but
negligently for sure. Nevertheless his machines fly-sort of.

[Bret Ludwig]

On Sep 3, 6:26 pm, Weeeelerieeeireireirierie > wrote:
> "Richard Isakson" > wrote innews:iuudnWPrdvwyE0HbnZ2dnUVZ_uygnZ2d@whidbeytel .com:
>
>
>
> > "Weeeeelerrrrrrr" wrote ...
> >> Just like all the people that went before the Wrights that were
> >> ridiculed, moller may have laid down a contribution that turns out to
> >> be more than a footnote in years to come.
>
> > There is no valid comparison between the Wrights and Moller so your
> > argument is meaningless. Now, if you'd like to compare Moller with
> > Jim Bede ...
>
> I wasn't comparing the Wrights with Moller, merely pointing out that
> ignorant people in their time would have had a similar opinion of the two.
> They did, it's a fact.
>
> Moller's car doesn't work and I don't think it ever will The point I am
> making is that that poster's lack of imagination is nauseating, but even
> that pales in comparison to his reprehensible use of Moller's dishonesty to
> tar a political view opposing his own.
>
> That make him a ****heel first class.

No politics were intended. I do have political beliefs-which are in
fact pretty close to Revvilo Oliver's-but they are not my purpose here
at all. The issue is con men and their marks.

[Weeeeleeerieew]

Bret Ludwig > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Sep 3, 6:26 pm, Weeeelerieeeireireirierie > wrote:
>> "Richard Isakson" > wrote
>> innews:iuudnWPrdvwyE0HbnZ2dnUVZ_uygnZ2d@whidbeytel .com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Weeeeelerrrrrrr" wrote ...
>> >> Just like all the people that went before the Wrights that were
>> >> ridiculed, moller may have laid down a contribution that turns out
>> >> to be more than a footnote in years to come.
>>
>> > There is no valid comparison between the Wrights and Moller so your
>> > argument is meaningless. Now, if you'd like to compare Moller with
>> > Jim Bede ...
>>
>> I wasn't comparing the Wrights with Moller, merely pointing out that
>> ignorant people in their time would have had a similar opinion of the
>> two. They did, it's a fact.
>>
>> Moller's car doesn't work and I don't think it ever will The point I
>> am making is that that poster's lack of imagination is nauseating,
>> but even that pales in comparison to his reprehensible use of
>> Moller's dishonesty to tar a political view opposing his own.
>>
>> That make him a ****heel first class.
>
> No politics were intended. I do have political beliefs-which are in
> fact pretty close to Revvilo Oliver's-but they are not my purpose here
> at all. The issue is con men and their marks.

Bull****.





>
>
>

[WWWWWWeeeeeeeelllerieieieiieieie]

Bret Ludwig > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Sep 3, 8:08 am, Welleeeeerrr > wrote:
>> Bret Ludwig > wrote in
>> news:1188782671.017336.233470@ 50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Now, a serious examination of the problem of "liberal
>> > intellectuals"
>>
>> Liberal intellectuals?
>>
>> So, only liberals can be duped by someone like Moller?
>>
>> You'd make a great propoganda minister.
>
> What part of "You will of course overlook the political specifics"



> and ((For "liberal intellectualism", "Financial suckerism" may be
> interchanged here-Bret



Anh, another one.


he's an asshole

You will of course, overlook the anatomical analogy.


Especiall since the anatomical version serves a useful purpose.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article . com>,
Bret Ludwig > wrote:

> On Sep 3, 12:09 pm, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" > wrote:
> > Moller's advertising, like some others, is comparable to the Wright
> > Brother's advertising supersonic capability while still trying to develop
> > their glider.
> > All this would be much more entertaining if the designers like Moller would
> > perform the demonstration flights themselves and then brag about it.
>
> That's just it. He has no intention of flying. Just like that German
> fraud Michael Zoche and his engine.

But Michael Zoche is duping only the government bureaucrats, not common
stockholders. Of course, Moller, IIRC, has duped the US Government, too.

Pacific Flyer recently featured another scam, this one the DP-2, by
duPont Aerospace, in San Diego, with another "VTOL craft." This one got
$63 million through Rep. Duncan Hunter and convicted Rep. Randy
Cunningham.

[Peter Dohm]

The fact that a large number of people calling themselves "conservatives"
appear to have fallen into similar traps is true; but does not detract in
any way from Bret's point.

If anything, it further supports that point.

Peter

[Robert Barker]

"Dale Alexander" > wrote in message
...
> No...liberals can be duped by just about anybody or anything...just look
> at all of their "religious beliefs".
>
> Dale Alexander
>
And conservatives can be duped by anyone with a smile. As evidence, look at
the people who voted for the Shrub and still think that Iraq was part or
9/11.

[Peter Dohm]

"Robert Barker" > wrote in message
...
> "Dale Alexander" > wrote in message
> ...
> > No...liberals can be duped by just about anybody or anything...just look
> > at all of their "religious beliefs".
> >
> > Dale Alexander
> >
> And conservatives can be duped by anyone with a smile. As evidence, look
at
> the people who voted for the Shrub and still think that Iraq was part or
> 9/11.
>
>

Plonk!

[Harry K]

On Sep 3, 9:53 am, Weeeeelerrrrrrr > wrote:
> "Dale Alexander" > wrote :
>
> > No...liberals can be duped by just about anybody or anything...just
> > look at all of their "religious beliefs".
>
> Good grief.
>
> Aside from your appalling ignorance, the lack of imagination you're
> displaying is , to put it bluntly, frightening.
>
> Wonder what you would have made of the Wrights?
>
> Or Copernicus.
>
> Moller's car is obviously a piece of crap, but a technology may arive in
> the future that makes it, or some similar contraption, viable.
>
> Just like all the people that went before the Wrights that were
> ridiculed, moller may have laid down a contribution that turns out to be
> more than a footnote in years to come.
>
> I doubt it, of course, but it is possible..
>
> Bet you would have laughed at the guys investing in IBM back in '49,
> too..
>
> Asshole.

Just what 'contribution' did he lay down? There is no new aerodynamic
information there, there is no new info on propulsion systems,
actually I can't think of anything at all that is new to the
industry.

What is new is a clumsy, non-flying machine that looks like it was put
together by some 'inventor' in a garage while ignoring common
engineering practices, mainly KISS. Only a nut case would try to
build something using EIGHT! small engines.

Harry K

[Harry K]

On Sep 3, 3:54 pm, "Richard Isakson" > wrote:
> "Weeeeelerrrrrrr" wrote ...
>
> > Just like all the people that went before the Wrights that were
> > ridiculed, moller may have laid down a contribution that turns out to be
> > more than a footnote in years to come.
>
> There is no valid comparison between the Wrights and Moller so your argument
> is meaningless. Now, if you'd like to compare Moller with Jim Bede ...
>
> Rich

Also no comaprison, both of those (Bede and Wrights) actually made
flying machines. Moller has built what exactly?

Harry K

[Whoooowhiee.]

Harry K > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Sep 3, 9:53 am, Weeeeelerrrrrrr > wrote:
>> "Dale Alexander" > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > No...liberals can be duped by just about anybody or anything...just
>> > look at all of their "religious beliefs".
>>
>> Good grief.
>>
>> Aside from your appalling ignorance, the lack of imagination you're
>> displaying is , to put it bluntly, frightening.
>>
>> Wonder what you would have made of the Wrights?
>>
>> Or Copernicus.
>>
>> Moller's car is obviously a piece of crap, but a technology may arive
>> in the future that makes it, or some similar contraption, viable.
>>
>> Just like all the people that went before the Wrights that were
>> ridiculed, moller may have laid down a contribution that turns out to
>> be more than a footnote in years to come.
>>
>> I doubt it, of course, but it is possible..
>>
>> Bet you would have laughed at the guys investing in IBM back in '49,
>> too..
>>
>> Asshole.
>
> Just what 'contribution' did he lay down? There is no new aerodynamic
> information there, there is no new info on propulsion systems,
> actually I can't think of anything at all that is new to the
> industry.
>
> What is new is a clumsy, non-flying machine that looks like it was put
> together by some 'inventor' in a garage while ignoring common
> engineering practices, mainly KISS. Only a nut case would try to
> build something using EIGHT! small engines.
>

Fine, doesn't matter...


I think it's a piece of **** too, doesn't alter my argument.

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Harry K wrote:

> Just what 'contribution' did he lay down? There is no new aerodynamic
> information there, there is no new info on propulsion systems,
> actually I can't think of anything at all that is new to the
> industry.
>
> What is new is a clumsy, non-flying machine that looks like it was put
> together by some 'inventor' in a garage while ignoring common
> engineering practices, mainly KISS. Only a nut case would try to
> build something using EIGHT! small engines.
>
> Harry K
>

Awwww....

So my 1/3 scale Dornier DO-X proves I'm nuts?

Oh.

Ok, I see what you mean...

[Whoooopwhheewhwhwhhw]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in news:eg2Di.79549$jH3.70015
@bignews6.bellsouth.net:

> The fact that a large number of people calling themselves "conservatives"
> appear to have fallen into similar traps is true; but does not detract in
> any way from Bret's point.
>
> If anything, it further supports that point.
>

What that intelectual liberals are the sort that support Moller?




Bull****.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" <> wrote

> ...or with zoom campbell :-)

Nah, sorry Chuck.

Jim Campbell is just a sleaze with no accomplishments to his name. At least
the other two had a dream and some talent to go along with their sleaze, but
came up well short of the mark.

Jim doesn't even know where a mark is.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Dohm]

>
> What is new is a clumsy, non-flying machine that looks like it was put
> together by some 'inventor' in a garage while ignoring common
> engineering practices, mainly KISS. Only a nut case would try to
> build something using EIGHT! small engines.
>
> Harry K
>
EIGHT does seem a bit extreme, and I am no fan of Moller.

But I seem to recall that, back in the early days of the ultralight
movement, someone did build an ultralight using FIVE very small
Briggs&Straton engines--which flew quite well as did his later designs...

Peter

[Whooopsedoo.]

Ernest Christley > wrote in news:46dcc4ef$0$17145
:

> Whoooowhiee. wrote:
>> Harry K > wrote in
>
>>> What is new is a clumsy, non-flying machine that looks like it was
put
>>> together by some 'inventor' in a garage while ignoring common
>>> engineering practices, mainly KISS. Only a nut case would try to
>>> build something using EIGHT! small engines.
>>>
>>
>> Fine, doesn't matter...
>>
>>
>> I think it's a piece of **** too, doesn't alter my argument.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> No. It most certainly does alter your argument. It completely
> invalidates it.


No, it doesn't.


>
> You compared Moller to the Wright Brothers,


No, I didn't

and accused anyone that
> would accost Moller as lacking of imagination.


No, I didn't


The truth is that by all
> accounts the Wright Brothers spent a great deal of time studying the
> work of others, experimenting and actually advancing the science.
Their
> creation wasn't a pipe-dream come true. It was the fruition of years
of
> study and built upon engineering principles uncovered by others.
>
> Moller has spent a great deal of time molding pretty fiberglass parts,
> and choosing the best shade of red paint to impress journalist and
> potential investors. His design flies in the face of common sense,
let
> alone basic engineering principles. He has a design that depends on
> full-time flawless performance from at least four engines. Damn-it,
> that is a deathtrap waiting to spring. It is not sound engineering.
> It's not even sane engineering. He has not advance the science or
> produced anything worthy of note. If anything he has leached energy
> that could have gone to engineers that could develop something.



Learn to read


>

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 22:29:24 -0400, "Morgans" > wrote:

>
> "ChuckSlusarczyk" <> wrote
>
> > ...or with zoom campbell :-)
>
> Nah, sorry Chuck.
>
> Jim Campbell is just a sleaze with no accomplishments to his name. At least
> the other two had a dream and some talent to go along with their sleaze, but
> came up well short of the mark.
>
> Jim doesn't even know where a mark is.

I take exception to that. I think Jim is excellent at picking out marks.

Ron wanttaja

[Mark Hickey]

"Robert Barker" > wrote:

>"Dale Alexander" > wrote in message
...
>> No...liberals can be duped by just about anybody or anything...just look
>> at all of their "religious beliefs".
>>
>> Dale Alexander
>>
>And conservatives can be duped by anyone with a smile. As evidence, look at
>the people who voted for the Shrub and still think that Iraq was part or
>9/11.

Thanks to the media, not the administration.

I've bet dozens of people that they couldn't find ONE quote from the
Bush administration claiming Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
There are plenty of quotes from the Bush administration clearly
stating that there's no reason to believe that Iraq was involved, but
don't let that influence your "relligion".

Mark "just the facts" Hickey

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Morgans says...
>
>
>"ChuckSlusarczyk" <> wrote
>
>> ...or with zoom campbell :-)
>
>Nah, sorry Chuck.
>
>Jim Campbell is just a sleaze with no accomplishments to his name. At least
>the other two had a dream and some talent to go along with their sleaze, but
>came up well short of the mark.
>
>Jim doesn't even know where a mark is.

zoom seems to know how to con people into supporting him. Since the demise of US
Aviator he's managed to start ANN and get advertizers,got involved with Rutans
Spaceship ,the zero G ride project and the Rocket Racing League. That much he
has a talent for .How he manages to dupe new people is amazing but I seen him do
it over and over.

Chuck

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mark Hickey > wrote in
:

> "Robert Barker" > wrote:
>
>>"Dale Alexander" > wrote in message
...
>>> No...liberals can be duped by just about anybody or anything...just
>>> look at all of their "religious beliefs".
>>>
>>> Dale Alexander
>>>
>>And conservatives can be duped by anyone with a smile. As evidence,
>>look at the people who voted for the Shrub and still think that Iraq
>>was part or 9/11.
>
> Thanks to the media, not the administration.
>
> I've bet dozens of people that they couldn't find ONE quote from the
> Bush administration claiming Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.


This is disingenuous.


They associated the two in theminds of the populace by saying that the
war in Iraq was part of the war on terror, whatever the **** that is..


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070724-3.html


> There are plenty of quotes from the Bush administration clearly
> stating that there's no reason to believe that Iraq was involved, but
> don't let that influence your "relligion".


Bwawhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahhwhah!


Bertie

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, said:
>I've bet dozens of people that they couldn't find ONE quote from the
>Bush administration claiming Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons
of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other
top administration officials have often asserted that there were
extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's
terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link
was "overwhelming."
....
In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that Sept. 11
mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official
before the attacks, in April 2000 in Prague; Cheney later said the
meeting could not be proved or disproved.

Bush, in his speech aboard an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, asserted:
"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against
terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of
terrorist funding."

In September, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "If we're successful
in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of
the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us
under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/
But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised
interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning
"more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the
Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials
who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.



What do I win?

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
If NT is your answer, you don't understand the question

[Morgans[_2_]]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" <> wrote

> zoom seems to know how to con people into supporting him. Since the demise
> of US
> Aviator he's managed to start ANN and get advertizers,got involved with
> Rutans
> Spaceship ,the zero G ride project and the Rocket Racing League. That much
> he
> has a talent for .How he manages to dupe new people is amazing but I seen
> him do
> it over and over.

I guess that _mark_ was a poor word to use, in this context.

By mark, I was meaning "a goal", used like, "his actual work fell way short
of the _mark_."

It would be easy to see how it could be used for him, as in, "His next
_mark_ to be fooled with his current con game was gullible, and easy to
dupe."

I'll have to be careful, (NOT !) or I will find myself being told to
"govern yourself accordingly."
;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote

> EIGHT does seem a bit extreme, and I am no fan of Moller.
>
> But I seem to recall that, back in the early days of the ultralight
> movement, someone did build an ultralight using FIVE very small
> Briggs&Straton engines--which flew quite well as did his later designs...

With a wing to hold up the craft, losing an engine or two, or even all of
them is not a great problem. The aircraft can be landed with a minimal
amount of energy.

With the engines holding up the craft, when they quit, it is like sawing off
the wing of an airplane. It is going to "land" with a great deal of energy,
and probably kill the pilot. That is why it has only flown on the tether.
--
Jim in NC

[Frank Stutzman[_2_]]

Paul Tomblin > wrote:

[much snippage citing some very credible press sources]

> What do I win?

Got me.

But humor me and reconcile your above snipped cites with the
following exchange that happend at a white house press conferance
held January 31, 2003 with the president and Tony Blair:

Q: One question for both of you. Do you believe that there
is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link,
and the men who attached on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.

For the full context see
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html


--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Frank Stutzman > said:
>Paul Tomblin > wrote:
>[much snippage citing some very credible press sources]
>
>> What do I win?
>
>Got me.
>
>But humor me and reconcile your above snipped cites with the
>following exchange that happend at a white house press conferance
>held January 31, 2003 with the president and Tony Blair:
>
> Q: One question for both of you. Do you believe that there
> is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link,
> and the men who attached on September the 11th?
>
> THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

Reconcile it? He's a politician. Therefore, he lies for a living. This
is one such lie.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
I once successfully declined a departmental retreat, saying that on
that day I planned instead to advance.
-- Alan J. Rosenthal

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Frank Stutzman > wrote in news:fbk548$2v43$1
@stationair.kjsl.com:

> Paul Tomblin > wrote:
>
> [much snippage citing some very credible press sources]
>
>> What do I win?
>
> Got me.
>
> But humor me and reconcile your above snipped cites with the
> following exchange that happend at a white house press conferance
> held January 31, 2003 with the president and Tony Blair:
>
> Q: One question for both of you. Do you believe that there
> is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link,
> and the men who attached on September the 11th?
>
> THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
>
> THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.

This after he was caught lying for the umpteumpth time.


Is there anyone left that still thinks any part of this was a good idea?


Bertie

[Jim Logajan]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Is there anyone left that still thinks any part of this was a good idea?

Nope; it is never a good idea to quote the "late Prof. Revilo Oliver" and
expect anyone on Usenet to "overlook the political specifics."

:-)

[Montblack]

("cavelamb himself" wrote)
> So my 1/3 scale Dornier DO-X proves I'm nuts?


Cool, a four engine homebuilt flying "ship".

<http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH9906/FR9906d.htm>
Dornier DO-X


Paul-Mont

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Is there anyone left that still thinks any part of this was a good
>> idea?
>
> Nope; it is never a good idea to quote the "late Prof. Revilo Oliver"
> and expect anyone on Usenet to "overlook the political specifics."
>
>:-)
>


Very true,

I did mean di anyone think the invasion if Iraq was a good idea at this
juncture?


bertie

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Montblack wrote:
> ("cavelamb himself" wrote)
>
>>So my 1/3 scale Dornier DO-X proves I'm nuts?
>
>
>
> Cool, a four engine homebuilt flying "ship".
>
> <http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH9906/FR9906d.htm>
> Dornier DO-X
>
>
> Paul-Mont
>
>
Uhm, well, actually, would you believe 12 engines???

[Jim Logajan]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> Is there anyone left that still thinks any part of this was a good
>>> idea?
>>
>> Nope; it is never a good idea to quote the "late Prof. Revilo Oliver"
>> and expect anyone on Usenet to "overlook the political specifics."
>>
>>:-)
>
> Very true,
>
> I did mean di anyone think the invasion if Iraq was a good idea at this
> juncture?

I knew what you meant - sorry, was just playing games with your post.

All I remember is that when the Iraq invasion was started I thought our
military would have no problem winning (but worried a great deal about a
good friend who was serving in the military at the time) - but I had this
gut feel that what was planned to happen afterword was clear as mud.

I believed they'd find WMD. My thinking was: "No way would this
administration launch a war without absolute certainty they would turn up
WMD. I mean really - if they didn't they'd be absolute toast, finished, and
kaput politically."

But no WMD were found and yet they weren't fried politically. There's a
lesson in there somewhere.

[Montblack]

("cavelamb himself" wrote)
> Uhm, well, actually, would you believe 12 engines???


>> Cool, a four engine homebuilt flying "ship".
>>
>> <http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH9906/FR9906d.htm>
>> Dornier DO-X


1/3 scale .... :-)


Paul-Mont

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Montblack wrote:
> ("cavelamb himself" wrote)
>
>>Uhm, well, actually, would you believe 12 engines???
>
>
>
>>>Cool, a four engine homebuilt flying "ship".
>>>
>>><http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH9906/FR9906d.htm>
>>>Dornier DO-X
>
>
>
> 1/3 scale .... :-)
>
>
> Paul-Mont
>
>

Ahhh (removes foor from mouth)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> Is there anyone left that still thinks any part of this was a good
>>>> idea?
>>>
>>> Nope; it is never a good idea to quote the "late Prof. Revilo
>>> Oliver" and expect anyone on Usenet to "overlook the political
>>> specifics."
>>>
>>>:-)
>>
>> Very true,
>>
>> I did mean di anyone think the invasion if Iraq was a good idea at
>> this juncture?
>
> I knew what you meant - sorry, was just playing games with your post.
>
> All I remember is that when the Iraq invasion was started I thought
> our military would have no problem winning (but worried a great deal
> about a good friend who was serving in the military at the time) - but
> I had this gut feel that what was planned to happen afterword was
> clear as mud.
>
> I believed they'd find WMD. My thinking was: "No way would this
> administration launch a war without absolute certainty they would turn
> up WMD. I mean really - if they didn't they'd be absolute toast,
> finished, and kaput politically."
>
> But no WMD were found and yet they weren't fried politically. There's
> a lesson in there somewhere.
>

I suppose it's "make your lie big enough and popular enough and it won't
matter"

I too thought they'd find weapons of mass destruction, but even if they
found chemical weapons, it'd be in a fine old traditon. Winston
Churchill authorised thier use in Iraq in the thirties.

His rationale? (i'm too lazy to look it up so I'll paraphrase) It#s not
like we're gassing people who matter.....

actually, IIRC what he actually said is evn more shocking.



Bertie

[Mark Hickey]

(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

>In a previous article, said:
>>I've bet dozens of people that they couldn't find ONE quote from the
>>Bush administration claiming Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
> Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons
> of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other
> top administration officials have often asserted that there were
> extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's
> terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link
> was "overwhelming."
>...
> In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that Sept. 11
> mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official
> before the attacks, in April 2000 in Prague; Cheney later said the
> meeting could not be proved or disproved.

Atta met with a lot of people who weren't intimately involved in
carrying out the 9/11 attacks.

> Bush, in his speech aboard an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, asserted:
> "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against
> terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of
> terrorist funding."

Sorry, I missed the reference to being involved in the 9/11 attacks in
that reference. And I hope you don't have doubts about Iraq's funding
of other terrorist organizations... state sponsorship of terrorism is
the biggest security risk to the civilized world today. I hope that
doesn't become clearer than it already is.

> In September, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "If we're successful
> in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of
> the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us
> under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Funny thing - I've had more than a few people throw that quote up as
the best proof of their position. Funny thing is, they all leave out
the rest of the exchange, immediately following:

"MR. RUSSERT: So the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who
were responsible for 9/11?"

"VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, I was careful not to say that. With respect
to 9/11, 9/11, as I said at the beginning of the show, changed
everything. And one of the things it changed is we recognized that
time was not on our side, that in this part of the world, in
particular, given the problems we’ve encountered in Afghanistan,
which forced us to go in and take action there, as well as in
Iraq, that we, in fact, had to move on it. The relevance for 9/11
is that what 9/11 marked was the beginning of a struggle in which
the terrorists come at us and strike us here on our home
territory. And it’s a global operation.

THAT explains the "connection", but those who traffic in sound bites
to get their political opinions tend to miss the nuance. OTOH, the
vast majority of links on the 'net that include the Cheney quote you
included do NOT include the following clarification. You'd almost
think the press and the bloggers were trying to change the meaning of
the interview, huh? Check out Wikipedia, for example - the first half
is there ("proving" the point you're trying to make), but they
conveniently leave out the second half of the story.

>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/
> But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised
> interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning
> "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the
> Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials
> who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.

To quote VP Cheney in that very article:

"We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in
terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know."

Besides, the article makes no claim that Cheney claims a direct
involvement in the 9/11 attacks by Iraq, only that they had reason to
believe that Al Qaeda operatives met wtih Iraqi officials.

>What do I win?

A nice second-place trophy. It was a two-man race though.

Mark "would you prefer a cigar?" Hickey

[Tim Ward[_1_]]

"Weeelerreeiiie" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Tim Ward" > wrote in
:
> >>
> >> Wonder what you would have made of the Wrights?
> >
> > I wonder what you would have made of Augustus Herring?
> >
>
> A sandwich with a litle lettuce and a tomato?
>
>
>
> Or maybe you meant Augustus Hering.
>
> Yes, been to he spot where he may have flown.
>
>
No, I meant Augustus Herring. http://tinyurl.com/24mj5q
I suppose it's possible that like the young Indiana Jones, everybody's lost
except for you.
http://tinyurl.com/2znaru


Tim Ward

[Mark Hickey]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>Frank Stutzman > wrote in news:fbk548$2v43$1
:
>
>> Paul Tomblin > wrote:
>>
>> [much snippage citing some very credible press sources]
>>
>>> What do I win?
>>
>> Got me.
>>
>> But humor me and reconcile your above snipped cites with the
>> following exchange that happend at a white house press conferance
>> held January 31, 2003 with the president and Tony Blair:
>>
>> Q: One question for both of you. Do you believe that there
>> is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link,
>> and the men who attached on September the 11th?
>>
>> THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
>>
>> THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.
>
>This after he was caught lying for the umpteumpth time.

OK, just show us the quote where he's "caught lying" about Iraq's
direct connection to the 9/11 attacks. So far, no one's been able to
show a single quote. I'm guessing you won't do any better (though you
seem to be VERY certain of your position - I'm not sure how big a
number "umpteum" is, but all you need is one quote - should be a piece
of cake, right?).

>Is there anyone left that still thinks any part of this was a good idea?

We'll know in 20-40 years. If we lose a major city to state-sponsored
terrorism suddenly it's going to be a race to blame whoever is in
power for not doing MORE preemptive strikes to stop it.

Mark "I really, really hope I'm wrong" Hickey

>Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mark Hickey > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>Frank Stutzman > wrote in news:fbk548$2v43
$1
:
>>
>>> Paul Tomblin > wrote:
>>>
>>> [much snippage citing some very credible press sources]
>>>
>>>> What do I win?
>>>
>>> Got me.
>>>
>>> But humor me and reconcile your above snipped cites with the
>>> following exchange that happend at a white house press conferance
>>> held January 31, 2003 with the president and Tony Blair:
>>>
>>> Q: One question for both of you. Do you believe that there
>>> is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link,
>>> and the men who attached on September the 11th?
>>>
>>> THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
>>>
>>> THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.
>>
>>This after he was caught lying for the umpteumpth time.
>
> OK, just show us the quote where he's "caught lying" about Iraq's
> direct connection to the 9/11 attacks.



He didn't , that was he clever bit.

He insinuated, he superimposed, he obfuscated, and dickheads like you
believed him.




So far, no one's been able to
> show a single quote. I'm guessing you won't do any better (though you
> seem to be VERY certain of your position - I'm not sure how big a
> number "umpteum" is, but all you need is one quote - should be a piece
> of cake, right?).


Yep

http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html


>
>>Is there anyone left that still thinks any part of this was a good
idea?
>
> We'll know in 20-40 years.


What, 20 -40 years after the brits tried the same ****?

that ship has sailed..

If we lose a major city to state-sponsored
> terrorism suddenly it's going to be a race to blame whoever is in
> power for not doing MORE preemptive strikes to stop it.
>
> Mark "I really, really hope I'm wrong" Hickey


Rest asssured.



Bertie
>
>>Bertie
>
>

[Dale Alexander]

I posted my reply some time ago to flush people like you out. Glad it
worked. Trapping liberals is too easy. Hope I never have the opportunity to
meet you at a fly-in.

Dale Alexander


"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Mark Hickey > wrote in
> :

Snip

>
>
>
> He didn't , that was he clever bit.
>
> He insinuated, he superimposed, he obfuscated, and dickheads like you
> believed him.
>
>
>
>

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Sep 3, 10:49 pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way
d0t com> wrote:
> "Richard Isakson" > wrote in message
>
> om...
>
>
>
> <...>
> > There is no valid comparison between the Wrights and Moller so your
> > argument
> > is meaningless. Now, if you'd like to compare Moller with Jim Bede ...
>
> Some of Jim Bede's designs turned out to be pretty good. So Moller comes up
> short on that one...
>

Yes.

But they both make exaggerated performance claims.

AFAIK the Wright brothers did not.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Sep 4, 1:24 pm, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> "Robert Barker" > wrote:
> >"Dale Alexander" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> No...liberals can be duped by just about anybody or anything...just look
> >> at all of their "religious beliefs".
>
> >> Dale Alexander
>
> >And conservatives can be duped by anyone with a smile. As evidence, look at
> >the people who voted for the Shrub and still think that Iraq was part or
> >9/11.
>
> Thanks to the media, not the administration.
>
> I've bet dozens of people that they couldn't find ONE quote from the
> Bush administration claiming Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
> There are plenty of quotes from the Bush administration clearly
> stating that there's no reason to believe that Iraq was involved, but
> don't let that influence your "relligion".
>

FWIW I heard John Edwards , in his televised debate with Dick
Cheney, attribute the attacks to Saddam Hussein. It was clearly
a slip of the tongue as he said it immediately after accusing
Cheney of deliberately confusing the two.

Other persons have noted Rumsfeld and Condoleesa Rice making
similar slips.

See also:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/browse_thread/thread/d71481d2e4a9e846/0db4ff1505b47563?lnk=st&q=rush+limbaugh+saddam+hussein+author%3Afredfighte r%40spamcop.net&rnum=30&hl=en#0db4ff1505b47563


Mr Limbaugh can deny claiming Saddam Hussein was responsible since
it was a statement by someone else that he played on his show. But
it is clear WHY he played it and also WHY he played it in the manner
that he did.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Sep 4, 5:37 pm, Frank Stutzman > wrote:
> Paul Tomblin > wrote:
>
> [much snippage citing some very credible press sources]
>
> > What do I win?
>
> Got me.
>
> But humor me and reconcile your above snipped cites with the
> following exchange that happend at a white house press conferance
> held January 31, 2003 with the president and Tony Blair:
>
> Q: One question for both of you. Do you believe that there
> is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link,
> and the men who attached on September the 11th?
>
> THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
>
> THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.
>
> For the full context seehttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html
>
>

So?

That they sometimes denied that there is a connection does not
disprove that they also sometimes claimed that there was one.

I've seen the tape of Cheney denying that he ever said the
alleged meeting between Atta and Iraqi intelligence in Prague
was "pretty well confirmed", and I have also seen the tape
in which he says it was"pretty well confirmed".

--


FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Sep 5, 1:16 am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > Jim Logajan > wrote:
....
>
> > I did mean di anyone think the invasion if Iraq was a good idea at this
> > juncture?
>
> I knew what you meant - sorry, was just playing games with your post.

Sadly, some people do still think it was a good idea. Mostly those
who want to see a worldwide religious war between supposed Christians
and supposed Muslims. Osama bin Laden, for instance, is no doubt
pleased a punch.

>
> All I remember is that when the Iraq invasion was started I thought our
> military would have no problem winning (but worried a great deal about a
> good friend who was serving in the military at the time) - but I had this
> gut feel that what was planned to happen afterword was clear as mud.
>
> I believed they'd find WMD. My thinking was: "No way would this
> administration launch a war without absolute certainty they would turn up
> WMD. I mean really - if they didn't they'd be absolute toast, finished, and
> kaput politically."
>
> But no WMD were found and yet they weren't fried politically. There's a
> lesson in there somewhere.

I figured that they would NOT find WMD.

First of all, I read an analysis of the evidence and agreed
with the authors that is was not persuasive.

Secondly, UNMOVIC, using helicopters, arrived at alleged WMD
sites within hours of receiving the latest US intel but found nothing.
No weapon, no factories, no residues. Many of the sites the US
claimed to be active were in the same deserted bombed out
non functional condition that they were when UNSCOM last
visited.

Third, we were caught submitting forged documents to the IAEA.
something that would plainly not have been done had there been'
real evidence.

Fourth, if Saddam Hussein really had fearsome chemical and
biological weapons the Bush administration would not have risked
massive US casualties by invading.

Any lingering doubt was gone by the time Baghdad fell. If Saddam
Hussein had any WMD, surely he would have used them by then.
What would he save them for, the next US invasion?

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Sep 5, 4:07 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote :
>
>
>
> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Jim Logajan > wrote:
> >>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >>>> Is there anyone left that still thinks any part of this was a good
> >>>> idea?
>
> >>> Nope; it is never a good idea to quote the "late Prof. Revilo
> >>> Oliver" and expect anyone on Usenet to "overlook the political
> >>> specifics."
>
> >>>:-)
>
> >> Very true,
>
> >> I did mean di anyone think the invasion if Iraq was a good idea at
> >> this juncture?
>
> > I knew what you meant - sorry, was just playing games with your post.
>
> > All I remember is that when the Iraq invasion was started I thought
> > our military would have no problem winning (but worried a great deal
> > about a good friend who was serving in the military at the time) - but
> > I had this gut feel that what was planned to happen afterword was
> > clear as mud.
>
> > I believed they'd find WMD. My thinking was: "No way would this
> > administration launch a war without absolute certainty they would turn
> > up WMD. I mean really - if they didn't they'd be absolute toast,
> > finished, and kaput politically."
>
> > But no WMD were found and yet they weren't fried politically. There's
> > a lesson in there somewhere.
>
> I suppose it's "make your lie big enough and popular enough and it won't
> matter"
>
> I too thought they'd find weapons of mass destruction, but even if they
> found chemical weapons, it'd be in a fine old traditon. Winston
> Churchill authorised thier use in Iraq in the thirties.
>
> His rationale? (i'm too lazy to look it up so I'll paraphrase) It#s not
> like we're gassing people who matter.....
>
> actually, IIRC what he actually said is evn more shocking.
>

IIRC he advocated using mustard gas against 'savages' in Africa.
His rationale was that it was less lethal, but caused more suffering
than other weapons so that the population could be subjugated
with fewer casualties. Dunno about WMD elsewhere in the world.

I'm not inclined to defend his argument.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Sep 5, 4:37 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
> >In a previous article, said:
> >>I've bet dozens of people that they couldn't find ONE quote from the
> >>Bush administration claiming Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
>
> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
> > Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons
> > of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other
> > top administration officials have often asserted that there were
> > extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's
> > terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link
> > was "overwhelming."
> >...
> > In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that Sept. 11
> > mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official
> > before the attacks, in April 2000 in Prague; Cheney later said the
> > meeting could not be proved or disproved.
>
> Atta met with a lot of people who weren't intimately involved in
> carrying out the 9/11 attacks.

Such as?

>
> > Bush, in his speech aboard an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, asserted:
> > "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against
> > terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of
> > terrorist funding."
>
> Sorry, I missed the reference to being involved in the 9/11 attacks in
> that reference. And I hope you don't have doubts about Iraq's funding
> of other terrorist organizations... state sponsorship of terrorism is
> the biggest security risk to the civilized world today. I hope that
> doesn't become clearer than it already is.

I hope you understand that Iraq was NOT (yet) an ally of al Queda

>
> > In September, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "If we're successful
> > in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of
> > the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us
> > under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
>
> Funny thing - I've had more than a few people throw that quote up as
> the best proof of their position. Funny thing is, they all leave out
> the rest of the exchange, immediately following:
>
> "MR. RUSSERT: So the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who
> were responsible for 9/11?"
>
> "VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, I was careful not to say that. With respect
> to 9/11, 9/11, as I said at the beginning of the show, changed
> everything. And one of the things it changed is we recognized that
> time was not on our side, that in this part of the world, in
> particular, given the problems we've encountered in Afghanistan,
> which forced us to go in and take action there, as well as in
> Iraq, that we, in fact, had to move on it. The relevance for 9/11
> is that what 9/11 marked was the beginning of a struggle in which
> the terrorists come at us and strike us here on our home
> territory. And it's a global operation.
>
> THAT explains the "connection", but those who traffic in sound bites
> to get their political opinions tend to miss the nuance.

My explanation is duplicity. He wants people to THINK there
Iraq was an ally of al Queda and so he plainly says so in a
simple, easy to understand, concise statement. . Then, he
gives a vague rambling dishevling 'claificiation' that contradicts
his earlier unambiguous statement so that he and his apologists
can deny that he made the claim which preceded it.

> OTOH, the
> vast majority of links on the 'net that include the Cheney quote you
> included do NOT include the following clarification. You'd almost
> think the press and the bloggers were trying to change the meaning of
> the interview, huh? Check out Wikipedia, for example - the first half
> is there ("proving" the point you're trying to make), but they
> conveniently leave out the second half of the story.
>
> >http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_...
> > But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised
> > interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning
> > "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the
> > Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials
> > who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.

Critics aren't the only people who ignore the second part. Some
(probably by now, most) of those who continue to support the
administration ALSO ignore the second part and uncritically accept
the first part as true.

I would wager that the percentage of Americans who think that
Saddam Hussein was responsible, at least in part, for the attacks
of September 11, 2001 is as high or higher than the percentage
who give GWB a favorable rating. Further, I daresay there is
a very large intersection between the two sets.

>
> To quote VP Cheney in that very article:
>
> "We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in
> terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know."
>
> Besides, the article makes no claim that Cheney claims a direct
> involvement in the 9/11 attacks by Iraq, only that they had reason to
> believe that Al Qaeda operatives met wtih Iraqi officials.

Why did he make the claim, in the context of justification for
the invasion of Iraq?

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Sep 5, 4:41 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> ...
>
>
> >This after he was caught lying for the umpteumpth time.
>
> OK, just show us the quote where he's "caught lying" about Iraq's
> direct connection to the 9/11 attacks. So far, no one's been able to
> show a single quote. I'm guessing you won't do any better (though you
> seem to be VERY certain of your position - I'm not sure how big a
> number "umpteum" is, but all you need is one quote - should be a piece
> of cake, right?).
>
> >Is there anyone left that still thinks any part of this was a good idea?
>
> We'll know in 20-40 years. If we lose a major city to state-sponsored
> terrorism suddenly it's going to be a race to blame whoever is in
> power for not doing MORE preemptive strikes to stop it.
>

An invasion is only a pre-emptive strike if the invaded country was or
harbored a threat. Iraq was not and did not.

The invasion of Iraq was NOT a pre-emptive strike.

--

FF

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> An invasion is only a pre-emptive strike if the invaded country was or
> harbored a threat. Iraq was not and did not.
>
> The invasion of Iraq was NOT a pre-emptive strike.
>
>

Right, Saddam ruled a magical kingdom that only wished the US well and in no
way harbored ill will for us kicking his ass out of Kuwait.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Sep 5, 6:08 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
>
> > An invasion is only a pre-emptive strike if the invaded country was or
> > harbored a threat. Iraq was not and did not.
>
> > The invasion of Iraq was NOT a pre-emptive strike.
>
> Right, Saddam ruled a magical kingdom that only wished the US well and in no
> way harbored ill will for us kicking his ass out of Kuwait.

I disagree.

Saddam Hussein had no means with which to attack
the US, and knew from the bitter experience of the
Iraqi-Kuwaiti war that if he provoked us, the result would
be devastating. That is why when faced with imminent
invasion, he caved and allowed UNMOVIC full, unfettered
access, a level of cooperation characterized by Blix
as "unprecedented". Then we invaded anyhow.

What exactly do you think was pre-empted--a scud
missile attack on Chicago?

A threat to the US? He didn't even control the
Northern third of his own country! He couldn't
fly a military aircraft over or turn on a targetting
radar in two thirds of his won country without it
being shot down or blown up.

The worse he did outside of Iraq was promise
to pay some teenager's families if they went
over to Israel and blew himself up. That's pretty
foul but it pales in comparison to the actions
of the likes of Bashir.

--

FF

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> I disagree.
>
> Saddam Hussein had no means with which to attack
> the US, and knew from the bitter experience of the
> Iraqi-Kuwaiti war that if he provoked us, the result would
> be devastating. That is why when faced with imminent
> invasion, he caved and allowed UNMOVIC full, unfettered
> access, a level of cooperation characterized by Blix
> as "unprecedented". Then we invaded anyhow.
>
> What exactly do you think was pre-empted--a scud
> missile attack on Chicago?
>
> A threat to the US? He didn't even control the
> Northern third of his own country! He couldn't
> fly a military aircraft over or turn on a targetting
> radar in two thirds of his won country without it
> being shot down or blown up.
>
> The worse he did outside of Iraq was promise
> to pay some teenager's families if they went
> over to Israel and blew himself up. That's pretty
> foul but it pales in comparison to the actions
> of the likes of Bashir.
>
> FF

But he could have easlily moved some of those mobile labs of the type that
were found in Iraq and truck loads of WMD to Iran just as he bugged out most
of his air force during the '91 war.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Fred the Red Shirt > said:
>The worse he did outside of Iraq was promise
>to pay some teenager's families if they went
>over to Israel and blew himself up. That's pretty
>foul but it pales in comparison to the actions
>of the likes of Bashir.

And it's also something that our buddies the Saud Family also does.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"Belligerent Design: The theory that life was put on this planet by an
external sentient force just to **** me off." - Lore Brand Comics

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> said:
>But he could have easlily moved some of those mobile labs of the type
>that were found in Iraq and truck loads of WMD to Iran just as he bugged

The only "mobile labs" that were found in Iraq were weather balloon launch
trucks.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"Very sad life. Probably have very sad death. But at least there is
symmetry. Go, Go, Zathras take care."

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote
>
> Any lingering doubt was gone by the time Baghdad fell. If Saddam
> Hussein had any WMD, surely he would have used them by then.
> What would he save them for, the next US invasion?

Perhaps he would not have used them because of the hinted threat that the US
might consider using tactical nukes if he did.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote

> That is why when faced with imminent
> invasion, he caved and allowed UNMOVIC full, unfettered
> access, a level of cooperation characterized by Blix
> as "unprecedented".

What? You mean delayed inspections, with truck convoys leaving the compound
before allowing the inspectors to enter?

That is full and unfettered access? Unprecedented cooperation.

Please.

That alone was enough for me to believe that he was hiding something. I'm
still not convinced that the WMD's didn't leave for neighboring terrorist
states.
--
Jim in NC

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Sep 5, 8:31 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I disagree.
>
> > Saddam Hussein had no means with which to attack
> > the US, and knew from the bitter experience of the
> > Iraqi-Kuwaiti war that if he provoked us, the result would
> > be devastating. That is why when faced with imminent
> > invasion, he caved and allowed UNMOVIC full, unfettered
> > access, a level of cooperation characterized by Blix
> > as "unprecedented". Then we invaded anyhow.
>
> > What exactly do you think was pre-empted--a scud
> > missile attack on Chicago?
>
> > A threat to the US? He didn't even control the
> > Northern third of his own country! He couldn't
> > fly a military aircraft over or turn on a targetting
> > radar in two thirds of his won country without it
> > being shot down or blown up.
>
> > The worse he did outside of Iraq was promise
> > to pay some teenager's families if they went
> > over to Israel and blew himself up. That's pretty
> > foul but it pales in comparison to the actions
> > of the likes of Bashir.
>
> > FF
>
> But he could have easlily moved some of those
> mobile labs of the type that were found in Iraq

The Vatican could also easily be hiding a massive cache of
WMD. There is no evidence for that, just like there is no
evidence that Iraq shipped WMD to Iran.

The mobile labs found in Iraq had nothing to do with WMD.
So it really doesn't matter if he moved any anywhere now
does it?

> and truck loads of WMD to Iran just as he bugged out most
> of his air force during the '91 war.

How did he make them, magic? How did he destroy the evidence
of their manufacture, magic? Why is it that we have Iraqi nuclear
scientists and rocket scientists who came forward with bits
and pieces leftover from Iraq's nuclear and missile programs
but not one person has produced any evidence of WMD being
made in Iraq in the ten years before the invasion?

And finally, although Saddam Hussein was not known for his
military brilliance, can you suggest why he would ship his
most fearsome weapons to an other country, putting them
out of his reach, on the eve of invasion when he was about
to need them more than ever?

Why not accept the simplest explanation consistent with the
facts?

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Sep 5, 9:58 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote
>
> > That is why when faced with imminent
> > invasion, he caved and allowed UNMOVIC full, unfettered
> > access, a level of cooperation characterized by Blix
> > as "unprecedented".
>
> What? You mean delayed inspections, with truck convoys leaving the compound
> before allowing the inspectors to enter?

No, I do not.

>
> That is full and unfettered access? Unprecedented cooperation.
>
> Please.

Please tell us the DATE of the incident to which you refer.

>
> That alone was enough for me to believe that he was hiding something. I'm
> still not convinced that the WMD's didn't leave for neighboring terrorist
> states.
>

--

FF

[Mark Hickey]

Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:

>On Sep 5, 6:08 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
>wrote:
>> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>>
>> > An invasion is only a pre-emptive strike if the invaded country was or
>> > harbored a threat. Iraq was not and did not.
>>
>> > The invasion of Iraq was NOT a pre-emptive strike.
>>
>> Right, Saddam ruled a magical kingdom that only wished the US well and in no
>> way harbored ill will for us kicking his ass out of Kuwait.

And it didn't try to assassinate an ex-president, either I suppose.
LOL.

>I disagree.
>
>Saddam Hussein had no means with which to attack
>the US, and knew from the bitter experience of the
>Iraqi-Kuwaiti war that if he provoked us, the result would
>be devastating. That is why when faced with imminent
>invasion, he caved and allowed UNMOVIC full, unfettered
>access, a level of cooperation characterized by Blix
>as "unprecedented". Then we invaded anyhow.

You have to stop getting your history from www.revisionist.com... ;-)

If you're REALLY interested in what UNMOVIC thought at the time of the
invasion, you should read their March 2003 report Not only does it
blow your "unfettered access" claim out of the water - errrr, air
(this is a flying ng, after all), but they stated that Iraq probably
had (among many other things) 10,000 liters of anthrax ready to
deploy... and the abilty to manufacture LOTS of WMD in short order in
one of their many "dual-use" facilities.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/cluster6mar.pdf

Of course, those whose "true religion" the above HISTORICAL FACTS
upset will get their knickers in a twist and call me names for having
the audacity to cite actual history instead of media spin.

>What exactly do you think was pre-empted--a scud
>missile attack on Chicago?

Read the report above.

>A threat to the US? He didn't even control the
>Northern third of his own country! He couldn't
>fly a military aircraft over or turn on a targetting
>radar in two thirds of his won country without it
>being shot down or blown up.
>
>The worse he did outside of Iraq was promise
>to pay some teenager's families if they went
>over to Israel and blew himself up. That's pretty
>foul but it pales in comparison to the actions
>of the likes of Bashir.

So if Iraq wasn't a threat, why did all the following people say:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17,
1998

Iraq is a long way from [here], 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." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18,
1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser,
Feb, 18,1998

"[WE] urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton,
signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D -
MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep.
Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies." > - Madeline Albright,
Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In
addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is
doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop
longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our
allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D,
FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D,
MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible
to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as
Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA),
Sept. 27, 2002


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course
to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John
F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10,
2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if
left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity
to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to
develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[Mark Hickey]

Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:

>On Sep 4, 1:24 pm, Mark Hickey > wrote:
>> "Robert Barker" > wrote:
>> >"Dale Alexander" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> No...liberals can be duped by just about anybody or anything...just look
>> >> at all of their "religious beliefs".
>>
>> >> Dale Alexander
>>
>> >And conservatives can be duped by anyone with a smile. As evidence, look at
>> >the people who voted for the Shrub and still think that Iraq was part or
>> >9/11.
>>
>> Thanks to the media, not the administration.
>>
>> I've bet dozens of people that they couldn't find ONE quote from the
>> Bush administration claiming Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
>> There are plenty of quotes from the Bush administration clearly
>> stating that there's no reason to believe that Iraq was involved, but
>> don't let that influence your "relligion".
>>
>
>FWIW I heard John Edwards , in his televised debate with Dick
>Cheney, attribute the attacks to Saddam Hussein. It was clearly
>a slip of the tongue as he said it immediately after accusing
>Cheney of deliberately confusing the two.

Kinda makes you believe in karma, doesn't it?

>Other persons have noted Rumsfeld and Condoleesa Rice making
>similar slips.

It's hard to believe that they did say something that could be snipped
out of context and "prove the point"... if the (mis)quotes existed,
they'd be used incessantly by those trying to discredit the Bush
administration. Pretty much like the Cheney quote that started this
discussion was.

>See also:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/browse_thread/thread/d71481d2e4a9e846/0db4ff1505b47563?lnk=st&q=rush+limbaugh+saddam+hussein+author%3Afredfighte r%40spamcop.net&rnum=30&hl=en#0db4ff1505b47563

C'mon... that's the very definition of grasping at straws... an
unidentified sound bite on a political entertainer's show? Besides,
no one has "blown up the World Trade Center" since 1993 or so.

>Mr Limbaugh can deny claiming Saddam Hussein was responsible since
>it was a statement by someone else that he played on his show. But
>it is clear WHY he played it and also WHY he played it in the manner
>that he did.

I dunno - I suppose someone should ask him. But when we start mixing
Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken with historical political discussions,
we're off in the weeds, don'tcha think? ;-)

Mark "let's get it from the horse's mouth, not its... " Hickey

[Mark Hickey]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>Mark Hickey > wrote in
:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>>>Frank Stutzman > wrote

>>>> But humor me and reconcile your above snipped cites with the
>>>> following exchange that happend at a white house press conferance
>>>> held January 31, 2003 with the president and Tony Blair:
>>>>
>>>> Q: One question for both of you. Do you believe that there
>>>> is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link,
>>>> and the men who attached on September the 11th?
>>>>
>>>> THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
>>>>
>>>> THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.
>>>
>>>This after he was caught lying for the umpteumpth time.
>>
>> OK, just show us the quote where he's "caught lying" about Iraq's
>> direct connection to the 9/11 attacks.
>
>He didn't , that was he clever bit.
>
>He insinuated, he superimposed, he obfuscated, and dickheads like you
>believed him.

So lemme see if I got this right. The POTUS that you think is an
idiot who can't complete a proper sentence managed to convince
millions of people of something he never said. By never even saying
anything that could be pointed out as a clever obfuscation, too. So
which is GWB? Bumbling idiot or evil genius?

> So far, no one's been able to
>> show a single quote. I'm guessing you won't do any better (though you
>> seem to be VERY certain of your position - I'm not sure how big a
>> number "umpteum" is, but all you need is one quote - should be a piece
>> of cake, right?).
>
>
>Yep
>
>http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html

Is it a reading comprehension problem, or do you think "WMD" is an
acronym that has something to do with flying airplanes into buildings?

>>>Is there anyone left that still thinks any part of this was a good
>idea?
>>
>> We'll know in 20-40 years.
>
>
>What, 20 -40 years after the brits tried the same ****?
>
>that ship has sailed..
>
>If we lose a major city to state-sponsored
>> terrorism suddenly it's going to be a race to blame whoever is in
>> power for not doing MORE preemptive strikes to stop it.
>>
>> Mark "I really, really hope I'm wrong" Hickey
>
>
>Rest asssured.

Yeah, NOW I feel better....

Mark "hope I don't get to say I told you so" Hickey

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Sep 6, 4:17 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:
>
> ...
>
>
> >FWIW I heard John Edwards , in his televised debate with Dick
> >Cheney, attribute the attacks to Saddam Hussein. It was clearly
> >a slip of the tongue as he said it immediately after accusing
> >Cheney of deliberately confusing the two.
>
> Kinda makes you believe in karma, doesn't it?
>
> >Other persons have noted Rumsfeld and Condoleesa Rice making
> >similar slips.
>
> It's hard to believe that they did say something that could be snipped
> out of context and "prove the point"...

Yet you had NO trouble believing that Edwards did it....

> ...
>
> >See also:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/browse_thread/th...
>
> C'mon... that's the very definition of grasping at straws... an
> unidentified sound bite on a political entertainer's show? Besides,
> no one has "blown up the World Trade Center" since 1993 or so.

One of the follow-ups noted that is Limbaugh's schtick. I remind
you that Newt Gingrich credited Limbaugh for being a major
contributor
to the success of the Republican Party during the "Contract
with America" campaign.

>
> >Mr Limbaugh can deny claiming Saddam Hussein was responsible since
> >it was a statement by someone else that he played on his show. But
> >it is clear WHY he played it and also WHY he played it in the manner
> >that he did.
>
> I dunno - I suppose someone should ask him. But when we start mixing
> Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken with historical political discussions,
> we're off in the weeds, don'tcha think? ;-)

See above.

Someone like Michael Moore exercises a strong but episodic influence.
Limbaugh is a constant and coordinated influence.

Yes, they are entertainers and so idally should have
virtually NO influence but the reality is very different.

It is like name-recognition at the polls. If some bozo
changes his name to John F Kennedy it really shouldn't
give him an edge in the election, but do you suppose it
did?

An idiot's vote counts just as much as a thoughtful person's
and can be had with much less effort.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Sep 6, 12:36 pm, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
> ...
>
>
> >He insinuated, he superimposed, he obfuscated, and dickheads like you
> >believed him.
>
> So lemme see if I got this right. The POTUS that you think is an
> idiot who can't complete a proper sentence managed to convince
> millions of people of something he never said. ...

Millions of people are idiots.

I challenge you to find a major newspaper that does NOT
publish horoscopes.

Mind you, _I_ personally do NOT think GWB is an idiot.
He isn't brilliant but his SAT scores indicate that he is
brighter than the average college-educated person, on
par with John Kerry, with whom he also shares nearly
equal GPAs at Yale. . I remain curious as to the
cause of his aphasia and if it was a life-long disability
or something developed in adulthood.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Sep 6, 1:35 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:
>
> >On Sep 5, 6:08 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> >wrote:
> >> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> >> > An invasion is only a pre-emptive strike if the invaded country was or
> >> > harbored a threat. Iraq was not and did not.
>
> >> > The invasion of Iraq was NOT a pre-emptive strike.
>
> >> Right, Saddam ruled a magical kingdom that only wished the US well and in no
> >> way harbored ill will for us kicking his ass out of Kuwait.
>
> And it didn't try to assassinate an ex-president, either I suppose.

When?

Yes, I know he answer, I just want to see i you are willing to
post it yourself.

>
> >I disagree.
>
> >Saddam Hussein had no means with which to attack
> >the US, and knew from the bitter experience of the
> >Iraqi-Kuwaiti war that if he provoked us, the result would
> >be devastating. That is why when faced with imminent
> >invasion, he caved and allowed UNMOVIC full, unfettered
> >access, a level of cooperation characterized by Blix
> >as "unprecedented". Then we invaded anyhow.
>
> You have to stop getting your history fromwww.revisionist.com... ;-)

You should start getting yours from:

http://www.unmovic.org/
http://www.iaea.org/

>
> If you're REALLY interested in what UNMOVIC thought at the time of the
> invasion, you should read their March 2003 report Not only does it
> blow your "unfettered access" claim out of the water - errrr, air
> (this is a flying ng, after all), but they stated that Iraq probably

"Unprecedented" is the exact word Hans Blix, then head of
UNMOVIC used to describe the Iraqi cooperation in his
report to the UN.

Where in the report do you think you see anything that contradicts
his statement.

> but they stated that Iraq probably
> had (among many other things) 10,000 liters of anthrax ready to
> deploy... and the abilty to manufacture LOTS of WMD in short order in
> one of their many "dual-use" facilities.
>
> http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/cluster6mar.pdf

I suppose you mean this
>From pages 97-98

Destruction

....Iraq declared that the decision to destroy
bulk BW agent unilaterally was made in early July 1991,
and the actual destruction of the agent was said to have
been carried out at Al Hakam in July/August 1991.

However, it seems improbable that the bulk agent that
had been deployed out in the field would have been returned
to Al Hakam for destruction in July 1991. The first UNSCOM
CW inspection was conducted at Al Muthanna in early June
1991 and, according to Iraq, Al Hakam was busily being cleaned
at that time to remove or cover up any signs of a BW programme.
Iraq would have reasonably expected a BW team to arrive at Al
Hakam at any time from June 1991 onwards, and to have had
any agent there after that date would have posed a high risk
of discovery.

It, therefore, seems highly probable that the destruction of bulk
agent, including anthrax, stated by Iraq to be at Al Hakam in
July/August 1991, did not occur. Based on all the available
evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres
of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist. As a liquid
suspension, anthrax spores produced 15 years ago could still
be viable today if properly stored. Iraq experimented with the
drying of anthrax simulants and if anthrax had been dried,
then it could be stored indefinitely.

You are correct, UNMOVIC concluded that it was highly
probable that Iraq HAD 10,000 liters of anthrax -- IN 1991,
FOURTTEEN years earlier.

Regarding 2003 they concluded that it MAY still exist
it COULD still be viable IF properly stored etc. There is
no question that in 2003 there were many clusters of un-
resolved issues. Logic does not permit the proof of
a negative hypothesis. Iraq could never PROVE that
it had no WMD. Neither can your or I.

If you accept GWB's oft-stated position that Iraq had
to prove it had no WMDs then there was never any
point the inspection program in the first place
as that could never be proved, even if true.

As to dual use capability--no ****! My kitchen is a dual
use facility, it can be used to make rocket fuel, culture
anthrax and so on. Botulinum toxin is sometimes
produced entirely by accident, and with often tragic
results, in dual use facilities around the world.

Conspicuously absent from the report is any evidence
that Iraq DID have anthrax in 2003, or that it was hiding
any, in 2003, right?

>
> Of course, those whose "true religion" the above HISTORICAL FACTS
> upset will get their knickers in a twist and call me names for having
> the audacity to cite actual history instead of media spin.

How about if you stop spinning the UNMOVIC report and read
what it actually says, eh?

>
> >What exactly do you think was pre-empted--a scud
> >missile attack on Chicago?
>
> Read the report above.

Again, what, exactly do you think was pre-empted?

>
> >A threat to the US? He didn't even control the
> >Northern third of his own country! He couldn't
> >fly a military aircraft over or turn on a targetting
> >radar in two thirds of his won country without it
> >being shot down or blown up.
>
> >The worse he did outside of Iraq was promise
> >to pay some teenager's families if they went
> >over to Israel and blew himself up. That's pretty
> >foul but it pales in comparison to the actions
> >of the likes of Bashir.
>
> So if Iraq wasn't a threat, why did all the following people say:

Why not ask them?

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Sep 6, 1:35 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:
>
> ...
>
> If you're REALLY interested in what UNMOVIC thought at the time of the
> invasion, you should read their March 2003 report Not only does it
> blow your "unfettered access" claim out of the water - errrr, air
> (this is a flying ng, after all), but they stated that Iraq probably
> had (among many other things) 10,000 liters of anthrax ready to
> deploy... and the abilty to manufacture LOTS of WMD in short order in
> one of their many "dual-use" facilities.
>
> http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/cluster6mar.pdf
>


6 March 2003
APPENDIX
A (sic) HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF IRAQ'S PROSCRIBED WEAPONS PROGRAMMES
....

Destruction
....
During the bombing campaign the main CW facilities at
Al Muthanna and Al Fallujah were heavily damaged. In
addition, some of the CW weapons stored at airfields and
other locations were also destroyed. However, Iraq had
evacuated [note: 'evacuated' to other locations in Iraq,FF]
much of its strategic materials and equipment prior to the
war...

Thus, several hundreds of tonnes of Mustard and Sarin
were buried in the desert surrounding Al Muthanna during t
he war and survived the bombing. The agents was (sic)
subsequently destroyed by UNSCOM. ...

.. It was clear, even from this first inspection, that the site had
been severely disabled, but not completely destroyed. The
scene was one of smashed production plants and leaking...
the second chemical inspection team visited the precursor
plants at Al Fullujah and inspected similar destruction levels.

....

Before UNSCOM could begin its work on the elimination remaining
CW capabilities, Iraq secretly began its own unilateral destruction.
Iraq declared that, in July 1991, under instruction from
Lieutenant-
General Hussein Kamal, it began the unilateral destruction of
selected
chemicals and munitions; this activity was not disclosed to UNSCOM
at the time. ...It is probable that one of the reasons for this
unilateral
destruction was an effort to bring what UNSCOM might find more
into line with the serious inadequacies in Iraq's initial
declaration
of its holdings of proscribed weapons and materials. ...
In all, Iraq declared the destruction of over 28,000 filled and
unfilled
munitions, about 30 tonnes of bulk chemical precursors for Sarin
and Cyclosarin, and over 200 tonnes of key precursors relating to
Vx.
[I presume this refers to a subsequent declaration, perhaps as late as
2002, FF]
....
The remaining weapons, materials and equipment declared by Iraq,
that could be identified and located by UNSCOM, were destroyed
under its supervision, mainly between 1992 and 1994. Thus, over
28,000
munitions, 480 tonnes of CW agent and 100,000 tonnes of precursor
chemicals were disposed of. About 400 major pieces of chemical
processing equipment and some hundreds of items of other equipment,
such as bomb-making machinery, were also destroyed under UNSCOM s
upervision.
....
Dual-use capabilities to 1998
....

Much of this civilian chemical industry used dual-capable technology
and was, therefore, under monitoring by UNSCOM until the end of
1998.

Herein lay the concern, that during tthe gap between UNSCOM and
UNMOVIC Iraq might have converted dual-use facilities to CW
production,
or rebuilt the destroyed factories. NO evidence to support those
fears
was found by UNMOVIC before the invasion or ISG afterwards. As
noted by Dr David Kay, " no factories, no weapons.". ]


Conclusions

UNMOVIC has a good understanding of the nature and scope
of Iraq's CW programme. The areas of greatest uncertainty
relate to questions of material balance and whether there may
be items still remaining. In this regard, Iraq's unilateral
destruction
of large quantities of chemicals and weapons, in July 1991, has
complicated the accountancy problem. The questions of uncertainty
are discussed further in the Clusters of Unresolved Disarmament
Issues.

Understand???

....
By some standards, the technology levels achieved by Iraq in the
production of its CW agents and weapons, were not high. The agents
were often impure and had a limited shelf-life. ...

[IOW, CW not disposed of during the 1990s would no longer be
effective by 2003. No new factories, no new weapons, FF]
...

It is evident that Iraq's CW capabilities posed a significant
regional threat.

[ IN 1991, not in 2003! ]

IRAQ'S BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAMME

....

Iraq went to considerable lengths, including the destruction of
documents and the forging of other documents, to conceal its
BW efforts from UNSCOM. After intensive investigations by
UNSCOM, Iraq disclosed some details of its offensive BW
programme on, 1 July 1995. ... in August 1995, Iraq
revealed a much more comprehensive BW programme.

[Note: UNSCOM pre-dated UNMOVIC and ceased activity
in Iraq in 1998. The secrecy and obstruction pre-dated
UNMOVIC.]

Iraq's efforts to conceal the programme, particularly the
destruction of documentation and its declared unilateral
destruction of BW weapons and agents, have complicated
UNMOVIC's task of piecing together a coherent and accurate
account of its BW programme.
....
In May/June 1996, all of the facilities, related equipment and
materials declared by Iraq as belonging to its BW programme
were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. Thus, the vaccine f
ermenters at Al Daura that Iraq had declared had produced
botulinum toxin were destroyed, as was the entire Al Hakam
complex, including all its equipment and materials.
....
These (other ostensibly civilian, FF] facilities were included in
routine monitoring by UNSCOM; no proscribed activities were
detected at these sites up to the end of inspections in December
1998.

[Once again the concern was that during the gap between UNSCOM
and UNMVIC, Iraq could have resumed production of BW. Again,
UNMOVIC found NO EVIDENCE of renewed production.]


Uncertainties regarding Iraq's BW programme

Unilateral destruction

The almost complete lack of documentation on unilateral
destruction activities in 1991 gives rise to the greatest
uncertainties
regarding Iraq's declaration of BW activities. Although there
is physical evidence that some such destruction took place,
it was difficult for UNSCOM inspectors to quantify the numbers
and amounts. This, in turn, has repercussions on assessment
of material balance and whether all materials and weapons
have been accounted for.


***

In summary, the numerous unresolved WMD
issues in the report are ubiquitously matters
left over from UNSCOM 1990s and in no way
constitute evidence of post turn of the century
WMD production or obstruction of UNMOVIC.

THAT is what the report says.

The argument that Iraq was a threat in 2003 relied on
confabulating UNSCOM of the 1990s with UNMOVIC
of 2002-3, ignoring the short shelf-life of Iraqi munitions,
ignoring the absence of manufacturing facilities, ignoring
the 'unprecedented' cooperation with UNMOVIC and
requiring that Iraq achieve the logical impossibility of
proving a negative hypothesis.

To argue that the March 2003 UNMOVIC report was
evidence that Iraq was a threat to the United States,
defies reason.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Sep 5, 9:52 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote
>
>
>
> > Any lingering doubt was gone by the time Baghdad fell. If Saddam
> > Hussein had any WMD, surely he would have used them by then.
> > What would he save them for, the next US invasion?
>
> Perhaps he would not have used them because of the hinted threat that the US
> might consider using tactical nukes if he did.
>

Supposedly that was the case in 1991.

In 2003, he knew we were going to kill him if we
won. He had nothing to loose.

--

FF

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Sep 5, 6:40 pm, Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:
> On Sep 5, 4:07 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jim Logajan > wrote :
>
> > > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> > >> Jim Logajan > wrote:
> > >>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> > >>>> Is there anyone left that still thinks any part of this was a good
> > >>>> idea?
>
> > >>> Nope; it is never a good idea to quote the "late Prof. Revilo
> > >>> Oliver" and expect anyone on Usenet to "overlook the political
> > >>> specifics."
>
> > >>>:-)
>
> > >> Very true,
>
> > >> I did mean di anyone think the invasion if Iraq was a good idea at
> > >> this juncture?
>
> > > I knew what you meant - sorry, was just playing games with your post.
>
> > > All I remember is that when the Iraq invasion was started I thought
> > > our military would have no problem winning (but worried a great deal
> > > about a good friend who was serving in the military at the time) - but
> > > I had this gut feel that what was planned to happen afterword was
> > > clear as mud.
>
> > > I believed they'd find WMD. My thinking was: "No way would this
> > > administration launch a war without absolute certainty they would turn
> > > up WMD. I mean really - if they didn't they'd be absolute toast,
> > > finished, and kaput politically."
>
> > > But no WMD were found and yet they weren't fried politically. There's
> > > a lesson in there somewhere.
>
> > I suppose it's "make your lie big enough and popular enough and it won't
> > matter"
>
> > I too thought they'd find weapons of mass destruction, but even if they
> > found chemical weapons, it'd be in a fine old traditon. Winston
> > Churchill authorised thier use in Iraq in the thirties.
>
> > His rationale? (i'm too lazy to look it up so I'll paraphrase) It#s not
> > like we're gassing people who matter.....
>
> > actually, IIRC what he actually said is evn more shocking.
>
> IIRC he advocated using mustard gas against 'savages' in Africa.
> His rationale was that it was less lethal, but caused more suffering
> than other weapons so that the population could be subjugated
> with fewer casualties. Dunno about WMD elsewhere in the world.
>
> I'm not inclined to defend his argument.
>

Hw could anyone? Well, Winnie excepted. The man was an absolute
****heel, and by today´s standards would be in the dock in the
Hague..

anyhow, here´s the document I mentioned in it's entirety. In the
second half, the uncivilised tribes part, he´s talking about the Kurds

Enjoy.

Winston Churchill's Secret Poison Gas Memo

[stamp] PRIME MINISTER'S PERSONAL MINUTE

[stamp, pen] Serial No. D. 217/4

[Seal of Prime Minister]

10 Downing Street, Whitehall [gothic script]

GENERAL ISMAY FOR C.O.S. COMMITTEE [underlined]

1. I want you to think very seriously over this question of poison
gas. I would not use it unless it could be shown either that (a) it
was life or death for us, or (b) that it would shorten the war by a
year.

2. It is absurd to consider morality on this topic when everybody
used it in the last war without a word of complaint from the moralists
or the Church. On the other hand, in the last war bombing of open
cities was regarded as forbidden. Now everybody does it as a matter of
course. It is simply a question of fashion changing as she does
between long and short skirts for women.

3. I want a cold-blooded calculation made as to how it would pay us
to use poison gas, by which I mean principally mustard. We will want
to gain more ground in Normandy so as not to be cooped up in a small
area. We could probably deliver 20 tons to their 1 and for the sake of
the 1 they would bring their bomber aircraft into the area against our
superiority, thus paying a heavy toll.

4. Why have the Germans not used it? Not certainly out of moral
scruples or affection for us. They have not used it because it does
not pay them. The greatest temptation ever offered to them was the
beaches of Normandy. This they could have drenched with gas greatly to
the hindrance of the troops. That they thought about it is certain and
that they prepared against our use of gas is also certain. But they
only reason they have not used it against us is that they fear the
retaliation. What is to their detriment is to our advantage.

5. Although one sees how unpleasant it is to receive poison gas
attacks, from which nearly everyone recovers, it is useless to protest
that an equal amount of H. E. will not inflict greater casualties and
sufferings on troops and civilians. One really must not be bound
within silly conventions of the mind whether they be those that ruled
in the last war or those in reverse which rule in this.

6. If the bombardment of London became a serious nuisance and great
rockets with far-reaching and devastating effect fell on many centres
of Government and labour, I should be prepared to do [underline]
anything [stop underline] that would hit the enemy in a murderous
place. I may certainly have to ask you to support me in using poison
gas. We could drench the cities of the Ruhr and many other cities in
Germany in such a way that most of the population would be requiring
constant medical attention. We could stop all work at the flying bomb
starting points. I do not see why we should have the disadvantages of
being the gentleman while they have all the advantages of being the
cad. There are times when this may be so but not now.

7. I quite agree that it may be several weeks or even months before
I shall ask you to drench Germany with poison gas, and if we do it,
let us do it one hundred per cent. In the meanwhile, I want the matter
studied in cold blood by sensible people and not by that particular
set of psalm-singing uniformed defeatists which one runs across now
here now there. Pray address yourself to this. It is a big thing and
can only be discarded for a big reason. I shall of course have to
square Uncle Joe and the President; but you need not bring this into
your calculations at the present time. Just try to find out what it is
like on its merits.

[signed] Winston Churchill

6.7.44 [underlined]

Source: photographic copy of original 4 page memo, in Guenther W.
Gellermann, "Der Krieg, der nicht stattfand", Bernard & Graefe Verlag,
1986, pp. 249-251




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Winston S. Churchill: departmental minute (Churchill papers: 16/16) 12
May 1919 War Office

I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have
definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in
favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is
sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a
bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of
lachrymatory gas.

I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised
tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life
should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the
most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience
and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious
permanent effects on most of those affected.



from Companion Volume 4, Part 1 of the official biography, WINSTON S.
CHURCHILL, by Martin Gilbert (London: Heinemann, 1976)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Henry Gonzalez, US Congressman, referred to this in the House of
Representatives on March 24, 1992:

"But there again, where is the moral right? The first one to use gas
against Arabs was Winston Churchill, the British, in the early 1920's.
They were Iraq Arabs they used them against."
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920324g.htm

"Moral right" is of course the reason this piece of history has now
been dredged up again - by people who see contradictions in the pious
arguments of Messrs. Bush, Blair et al. And this seems only fair. In
1998 Clinton denounced opponents to his planned attack on Iraq for
"not remembering the past".
[i]
> I remain unconvinced that the UK used chemical weapons > in the middle east in the 1920s.... > but I'm open to correction.

Not easy. And if you'd rather not...

Churchill thought of it as poison gas - and so, apparently did
everyone else. The idea of using it was his alone. And he is also is
also to have given the authorization to the RAF. He wanted gas to be
used in addition to regular bombing: "against recalcitrant Arabs as
experiment". According to Simons, gas was not dispensed in bombs.

The intention was to quell a growing rebellion in remote villages. He
met with objections but maintained that "we cannot in any
circumstances acquiesce in the non-utilisation of any weapons which
are available to procure a speedy termination of the disorder which
prevails on the frontier".

It seems Churchill wanted to cause "disablement", "discomfort or
illness, but not death".

In any case, to Churchill this was not a moral issue. Here is part of
a memo, so you can see it through his eyes. He wrote this during WWII,
when he contemplated using poison gas, but never did:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpts below by www.informationwar.org

BACKGROUND: In 1917, following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the
British occupied Iraq and established a colonial government. The Arab
and Kurdish people of Iraq resisted the British occupation, and by
1920 this had developed into a full scale national revolt, which cost
the British dearly. As the Iraqi resistance gained strength, the
British resorted to increasingly repressive measures, including the
use of posion gas.] NB: Because of formatting problems, quotation
marks will appear as stars * All quotes in the excerpt are properly
footnoted in the original book, with full references to British
archives and papers. Excerpt from pages 179-181 of Simons, Geoff.
*IRAQ: FROM SUMER TO SUDAN*. London: St. Martins Press, 1994:

Winston Churchill, as colonial secretary, was sensitive to the
cost of policing the Empire; and was in consequence keen to exploit
the potential of modern technology. This strategy had particular
relevance to operations in Iraq. On 19 February, 1920, before the
start of the Arab uprising, Churchill (then Secretary for War and Air)
wrote to Sir Hugh Trenchard, the pioneer of air warfare. Would it be
possible for Trenchard to take control of Iraq? This would entail *the
provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs calculated to cause
disablement of some kind but not death...for use in preliminary
operations against turbulent tribes.*

Churchill was in no doubt that gas could be profitably employed
against the Kurds and Iraqis (as well as against other peoples in the
Empire): *I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas.
I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised
tribes.* Henry Wilson shared Churchills enthusiasm for gas as an
instrument of colonial control but the British cabinet was reluctant
to sanction the use of a weapon that had caused such misery and
revulsion in the First World War. Churchill himself was keen to argue
that gas, fired from ground-based guns or dropped from aircraft, would
cause *only discomfort or illness, but not death* to dissident
tribespeople; but his optimistic view of the effects of gas were
mistaken. It was likely that the suggested gas would permanently
damage eyesight and *kill children and sickly persons, more especially
as the people against whom we intend to use it have no medical
knowledge with which to supply antidotes.*

Churchill remained unimpressed by such considerations, arguing
that the use of gas, a *scientific expedient,* should not be prevented
*by the prejudices of those who do not think clearly*. In the event,
gas was used against the Iraqi rebels with excellent moral effect*
though gas shells were not dropped from aircraft because of practical
difficulties [.....]

Today in 1993 there are still Iraqis and Kurds who remember being
bombed and machine-gunned by the RAF in the 1920s. A Kurd from the
Korak mountains commented, seventy years after the event: *They were
bombing here in the Kaniya Khoran...Sometimes they raided three times
a day.* Wing Commander Lewis, then of 30 Squadron (RAF), Iraq, recalls
how quite often *one would get a signal that a certain Kurdish village
would have to be bombed...*, the RAF pilots being ordered to bomb any
Kurd who looked hostile. In the same vein, Squadron-Leader Kendal of
30 Squadron recalls that if the tribespeople were doing something they
ought not be doing then you shot them.*

Similarly, Wing-Commander Gale, also of 30 Squadron: *If the
Kurds hadn't learned by our example to behave themselves in a
civilised way then we had to spank their bottoms. This was done by
bombs and guns.

Wing-Commander Sir Arthur Harris (later Bomber Harris, head of
wartime Bomber Command) was happy to emphasise that *The Arab and
Kurd now know what real bombing means in casualties and damage.
Within forty-five minutes a full-size village can be practically
wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured.* It was
an easy matter to bomb and machine-gun the tribespeople, because they
had no means of defence or retalitation. Iraq and Kurdistan were also
useful laboratories for new weapons; devices specifically developed by
the Air Ministry for use against tribal villages. The ministry drew up
a list of possible weapons, some of them the forerunners of napalm and
air-to-ground missiles:

Phosphorus bombs, war rockets, metal crowsfeet [to maim livestock]
man-killing shrapnel, liquid fire, delay-action bombs. Many of these
weapons were first used in Kurdistan.

Excerpt from pages 179-181 of Simons, Geoff. *Iraq: From Sumer to
Saddam*.

London: St. Martins Press, 1994.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Sep 5, 4:10 pm, "Dale Alexander" > wrote:
> I posted my reply some time ago to flush people like you out. Glad it
> worked. Trapping liberals is too easy. Hope I never have the opportunity to
> meet you at a fly-in.

Yeah, you´re a strategic genius, you are.


Oh, and BTW, I'm a republican.

Fjukkwit.


Bertie
>
> Dale Alexander
>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in 6.130...
>
> > Mark Hickey > wrote in
> :
>
> Snip
>
>
>
>
>
> > He didn't , that was he clever bit.
>
> > He insinuated, he superimposed, he obfuscated, and dickheads like you
> > believed him.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Sep 6, 2:36 pm, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Mark Hickey > wrote in
> :
>
> >> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >>>Frank Stutzman > wrote
> >>>> But humor me and reconcile your above snipped cites with the
> >>>> following exchange that happend at a white house press conferance
> >>>> held January 31, 2003 with the president and Tony Blair:
>
> >>>> Q: One question for both of you. Do you believe that there
> >>>> is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link,
> >>>> and the men who attached on September the 11th?
>
> >>>> THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
>
> >>>> THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.
>
> >>>This after he was caught lying for the umpteumpth time.
>
> >> OK, just show us the quote where he's "caught lying" about Iraq's
> >> direct connection to the 9/11 attacks.
>
> >He didn't , that was he clever bit.
>
> >He insinuated, he superimposed, he obfuscated, and dickheads like you
> >believed him.
>
> So lemme see if I got this right. The POTUS that you think is an
> idiot who can't complete a proper sentence managed to convince
> millions of people of something he never said. By never even saying
> anything that could be pointed out as a clever obfuscation, too. So
> which is GWB? Bumbling idiot or evil genius?


good grief, I thought that his had been well established at this
juncture.

>
> > So far, no one's been able to
> >> show a single quote. I'm guessing you won't do any better (though you
> >> seem to be VERY certain of your position - I'm not sure how big a
> >> number "umpteum" is, but all you need is one quote - should be a piece
> >> of cake, right?).
>
> >Yep
>
> >http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html
>
> Is it a reading comprehension problem, or do you think "WMD" is an
> acronym that has something to do with flying airplanes into buildings?
>
>
>

Nope, I read jjust fine.

What WMDs, btw?


>
>
> >>>Is there anyone left that still thinks any part of this was a good
> >idea?
>
> >> We'll know in 20-40 years.
>
> >What, 20 -40 years after the brits tried the same ****?
>
> >that ship has sailed..
>
> >If we lose a major city to state-sponsored
> >> terrorism suddenly it's going to be a race to blame whoever is in
> >> power for not doing MORE preemptive strikes to stop it.
>
> >> Mark "I really, really hope I'm wrong" Hickey
>
> >Rest asssured.
>
> Yeah, NOW I feel better....
>

Good, glad I could help`.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Sep 6, 9:12 pm, Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:
> On Sep 6, 12:36 pm, Mark Hickey > wrote:
>
> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > >He insinuated, he superimposed, he obfuscated, and dickheads like you
> > >believed him.
>
> > So lemme see if I got this right. The POTUS that you think is an
> > idiot who can't complete a proper sentence managed to convince
> > millions of people of something he never said. ...
>
> Millions of people are idiots.
>
> I challenge you to find a major newspaper that does NOT
> publish horoscopes.
>
> Mind you, _I_ personally do NOT think GWB is an idiot.
> He isn't brilliant but his SAT scores indicate that he is
> brighter than the average college-educated person, on
> par with John Kerry, with whom he also shares nearly
> equal GPAs at Yale. . I remain curious as to the
> cause of his aphasia and if it was a life-long disability
> or something developed in adulthood.
>

More than likely the years of substance abuse.. But really, I think
that the majority of the damage was caused by having such a narrow
point of view..


bertie

Bertie

[Mark Hickey]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>On Sep 6, 2:36 pm, Mark Hickey > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>> > So far, no one's been able to
>> >> show a single quote. I'm guessing you won't do any better (though you
>> >> seem to be VERY certain of your position - I'm not sure how big a
>> >> number "umpteum" is, but all you need is one quote - should be a piece
>> >> of cake, right?).
>>
>> >Yep
>>
>> >http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html
>>
>> Is it a reading comprehension problem, or do you think "WMD" is an
>> acronym that has something to do with flying airplanes into buildings?
>>
>
>Nope, I read jjust fine.
>
>What WMDs, btw?

The ones that the link you referenced above was talking about (rather
than the 9/11 attack, which is the subject of the question).

Thread drift, indeed...

Mark "focus, Bernie, focus" Hickey

[Mark Hickey]

Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:

>On Sep 6, 1:35 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
>> Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> If you're REALLY interested in what UNMOVIC thought at the time of the
>> invasion, you should read their March 2003 report Not only does it
>> blow your "unfettered access" claim out of the water - errrr, air
>> (this is a flying ng, after all), but they stated that Iraq probably
>> had (among many other things) 10,000 liters of anthrax ready to
>> deploy... and the abilty to manufacture LOTS of WMD in short order in
>> one of their many "dual-use" facilities.
>>
>> http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/cluster6mar.pdf

I think it's kinda funny that the best you can find in the report
supports my position (that no one could verify that Iraq had actually
destroyed their WMDs and the production facilities, other than those
that we destroyed or the minority that there was actual evidence for
the destruction).

Which WAS the whole point, after all.

I think those who've actually read the entire report have seen what
they need to see, and now realize that the whole "Bush lied" mantra is
just another wild fabrication when it comes to the disposition of
Iraq's WMDs prior to the invasion. Virtually every intelligence
agency in the civilized world came to the same conclusions as
UNMOVIC... that there was no reason to believe or trust that Iraq had
in fact destroyed their WMDs and production capabilities (as clearly
evidenced by the quotes you provide from the report below).

I'll let the report speak for itself - I don't really have anything
else to add.

Mark "facts is facts" Hickey

>6 March 2003
>APPENDIX
>A (sic) HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF IRAQ'S PROSCRIBED WEAPONS PROGRAMMES
>...
>
>Destruction
>...
> During the bombing campaign the main CW facilities at
> Al Muthanna and Al Fallujah were heavily damaged. In
> addition, some of the CW weapons stored at airfields and
> other locations were also destroyed. However, Iraq had
> evacuated [note: 'evacuated' to other locations in Iraq,FF]
> much of its strategic materials and equipment prior to the
> war...
>
> Thus, several hundreds of tonnes of Mustard and Sarin
> were buried in the desert surrounding Al Muthanna during t
> he war and survived the bombing. The agents was (sic)
> subsequently destroyed by UNSCOM. ...
>
>. It was clear, even from this first inspection, that the site had
> been severely disabled, but not completely destroyed. The
> scene was one of smashed production plants and leaking...
> the second chemical inspection team visited the precursor
> plants at Al Fullujah and inspected similar destruction levels.
>
>...
>
> Before UNSCOM could begin its work on the elimination remaining
> CW capabilities, Iraq secretly began its own unilateral destruction.
> Iraq declared that, in July 1991, under instruction from
>Lieutenant-
> General Hussein Kamal, it began the unilateral destruction of
>selected
> chemicals and munitions; this activity was not disclosed to UNSCOM
> at the time. ...It is probable that one of the reasons for this
>unilateral
> destruction was an effort to bring what UNSCOM might find more
> into line with the serious inadequacies in Iraq's initial
>declaration
> of its holdings of proscribed weapons and materials. ...
> In all, Iraq declared the destruction of over 28,000 filled and
>unfilled
> munitions, about 30 tonnes of bulk chemical precursors for Sarin
> and Cyclosarin, and over 200 tonnes of key precursors relating to
>Vx.
>[I presume this refers to a subsequent declaration, perhaps as late as
>2002, FF]
>...
> The remaining weapons, materials and equipment declared by Iraq,
> that could be identified and located by UNSCOM, were destroyed
> under its supervision, mainly between 1992 and 1994. Thus, over
>28,000
> munitions, 480 tonnes of CW agent and 100,000 tonnes of precursor
> chemicals were disposed of. About 400 major pieces of chemical
> processing equipment and some hundreds of items of other equipment,
> such as bomb-making machinery, were also destroyed under UNSCOM s
> upervision.
>...
>Dual-use capabilities to 1998
>...
>
> Much of this civilian chemical industry used dual-capable technology
> and was, therefore, under monitoring by UNSCOM until the end of
>1998.
>
>Herein lay the concern, that during tthe gap between UNSCOM and
>UNMOVIC Iraq might have converted dual-use facilities to CW
>production,
>or rebuilt the destroyed factories. NO evidence to support those
>fears
>was found by UNMOVIC before the invasion or ISG afterwards. As
>noted by Dr David Kay, " no factories, no weapons.". ]
>
>
>Conclusions
>
> UNMOVIC has a good understanding of the nature and scope
> of Iraq's CW programme. The areas of greatest uncertainty
> relate to questions of material balance and whether there may
> be items still remaining. In this regard, Iraq's unilateral
>destruction
> of large quantities of chemicals and weapons, in July 1991, has
> complicated the accountancy problem. The questions of uncertainty
> are discussed further in the Clusters of Unresolved Disarmament
> Issues.
>
>Understand???
>
>...
> By some standards, the technology levels achieved by Iraq in the
> production of its CW agents and weapons, were not high. The agents
> were often impure and had a limited shelf-life. ...
>
>[IOW, CW not disposed of during the 1990s would no longer be
>effective by 2003. No new factories, no new weapons, FF]
>..
>
> It is evident that Iraq's CW capabilities posed a significant
>regional threat.
>
>[ IN 1991, not in 2003! ]
>
>IRAQ'S BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAMME
>
>...
>
> Iraq went to considerable lengths, including the destruction of
> documents and the forging of other documents, to conceal its
> BW efforts from UNSCOM. After intensive investigations by
> UNSCOM, Iraq disclosed some details of its offensive BW
> programme on, 1 July 1995. ... in August 1995, Iraq
> revealed a much more comprehensive BW programme.
>
>[Note: UNSCOM pre-dated UNMOVIC and ceased activity
>in Iraq in 1998. The secrecy and obstruction pre-dated
>UNMOVIC.]
>
> Iraq's efforts to conceal the programme, particularly the
> destruction of documentation and its declared unilateral
> destruction of BW weapons and agents, have complicated
> UNMOVIC's task of piecing together a coherent and accurate
> account of its BW programme.
>...
> In May/June 1996, all of the facilities, related equipment and
> materials declared by Iraq as belonging to its BW programme
> were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. Thus, the vaccine f
> ermenters at Al Daura that Iraq had declared had produced
> botulinum toxin were destroyed, as was the entire Al Hakam
> complex, including all its equipment and materials.
>...
> These (other ostensibly civilian, FF] facilities were included in
> routine monitoring by UNSCOM; no proscribed activities were
> detected at these sites up to the end of inspections in December
> 1998.
>
>[Once again the concern was that during the gap between UNSCOM
>and UNMVIC, Iraq could have resumed production of BW. Again,
>UNMOVIC found NO EVIDENCE of renewed production.]
>
>
>Uncertainties regarding Iraq's BW programme
>
>Unilateral destruction
>
> The almost complete lack of documentation on unilateral
> destruction activities in 1991 gives rise to the greatest
>uncertainties
> regarding Iraq's declaration of BW activities. Although there
> is physical evidence that some such destruction took place,
> it was difficult for UNSCOM inspectors to quantify the numbers
> and amounts. This, in turn, has repercussions on assessment
> of material balance and whether all materials and weapons
> have been accounted for.
>
>
>***
>
>In summary, the numerous unresolved WMD
>issues in the report are ubiquitously matters
>left over from UNSCOM 1990s and in no way
>constitute evidence of post turn of the century
>WMD production or obstruction of UNMOVIC.
>
>THAT is what the report says.
>
>The argument that Iraq was a threat in 2003 relied on
>confabulating UNSCOM of the 1990s with UNMOVIC
>of 2002-3, ignoring the short shelf-life of Iraqi munitions,
>ignoring the absence of manufacturing facilities, ignoring
>the 'unprecedented' cooperation with UNMOVIC and
>requiring that Iraq achieve the logical impossibility of
>proving a negative hypothesis.
>
>To argue that the March 2003 UNMOVIC report was
>evidence that Iraq was a threat to the United States,
>defies reason.

[Mark Hickey]

Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:

>On Sep 6, 4:17 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
>> Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>> >FWIW I heard John Edwards , in his televised debate with Dick
>> >Cheney, attribute the attacks to Saddam Hussein. It was clearly
>> >a slip of the tongue as he said it immediately after accusing
>> >Cheney of deliberately confusing the two.
>>
>> Kinda makes you believe in karma, doesn't it?
>>
>> >Other persons have noted Rumsfeld and Condoleesa Rice making
>> >similar slips.
>>
>> It's hard to believe that they did say something that could be snipped
>> out of context and "prove the point"...
>
>Yet you had NO trouble believing that Edwards did it....

Sure, but why would the mainstream press jump his bones? That
wouldn't be characteristic.

>> >See also:
>>
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/browse_thread/th...
>>
>> C'mon... that's the very definition of grasping at straws... an
>> unidentified sound bite on a political entertainer's show? Besides,
>> no one has "blown up the World Trade Center" since 1993 or so.
>
>One of the follow-ups noted that is Limbaugh's schtick. I remind
>you that Newt Gingrich credited Limbaugh for being a major
>contributor
>to the success of the Republican Party during the "Contract
>with America" campaign.

What's your point? If Kerry would have won (shuuuudder), they would
have said the same about Michael Moore (who's been shown to be a lot
more factually challenged than even Rush).

>> >Mr Limbaugh can deny claiming Saddam Hussein was responsible since
>> >it was a statement by someone else that he played on his show. But
>> >it is clear WHY he played it and also WHY he played it in the manner
>> >that he did.
>>
>> I dunno - I suppose someone should ask him. But when we start mixing
>> Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken with historical political discussions,
>> we're off in the weeds, don'tcha think? ;-)
>
>See above.
>
>Someone like Michael Moore exercises a strong but episodic influence.

Oh, yeah, he's really faded into the woodwork... LOL.

>Limbaugh is a constant and coordinated influence.

As is Air America... oh, wait...

>Yes, they are entertainers and so idally should have
>virtually NO influence but the reality is very different.

The difference is when Ann Coulter writes something, conservatives all
laugh at some very sardonic political satire. When Michael Moore does
the same thing, he gets an Academy Award for "Best Documentary". It
would be funny if about half the US didn't get the joke.

>It is like name-recognition at the polls. If some bozo
>changes his name to John F Kennedy it really shouldn't
>give him an edge in the election, but do you suppose it
>did?
>
>An idiot's vote counts just as much as a thoughtful person's
>and can be had with much less effort.

Or for a nominal payment (examples abound). This is why the founding
fathers didn't really envision a true "one man, one vote" democracy,
but rather figured to limit the voting to the successful and educated.
Horribly non-PC, but not without merit either.

I agree entirely with you about the dangers of the voting public - the
average voter's grasp of actual facts is frighteningly shallow. They
form opinions watching (choke) political advertisements, and of
course, listening to talking heads spin the news and reporting to
match their own ideology. In the end about all you can count on for
sure is that either side would sell us all down the river for an
advantage at the polls.

Mark "pragmatist" Hickey

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 7 sep, 07:35, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 6, 2:36 pm, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> >> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> > So far, no one's been able to
> >> >> show a single quote. I'm guessing you won't do any better (though you
> >> >> seem to be VERY certain of your position - I'm not sure how big a
> >> >> number "umpteum" is, but all you need is one quote - should be a piece
> >> >> of cake, right?).
>
> >> >Yep
>
> >> >http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html
>
> >> Is it a reading comprehension problem, or do you think "WMD" is an
> >> acronym that has something to do with flying airplanes into buildings?
>
> >Nope, I read jjust fine.
>
> >What WMDs, btw?
>
> The ones that the link you referenced above was talking about (rather
> than the 9/11 attack, which is the subject of the question).

No, it isn't. It's what you're trying to make the question.
>
> Thread drift, indeed...
>
> Mark "focus, Bernie, focus" Hickey-

Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -

I'm perfectly focused.


I've also got the big picture.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 7 sep, 07:54, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 6, 4:17 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> >> Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:
>
> >> ...
>
> >> >FWIW I heard John Edwards , in his televised debate with Dick
> >> >Cheney, attribute the attacks to Saddam Hussein. It was clearly
> >> >a slip of the tongue as he said it immediately after accusing
> >> >Cheney of deliberately confusing the two.
>
> >> Kinda makes you believe in karma, doesn't it?
>
> >> >Other persons have noted Rumsfeld and Condoleesa Rice making
> >> >similar slips.
>
> >> It's hard to believe that they did say something that could be snipped
> >> out of context and "prove the point"...
>
> >Yet you had NO trouble believing that Edwards did it....
>
> Sure, but why would the mainstream press jump his bones? That
> wouldn't be characteristic.
>
> >> >See also:
>
> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/browse_thread/th...
>
> >> C'mon... that's the very definition of grasping at straws... an
> >> unidentified sound bite on a political entertainer's show? Besides,
> >> no one has "blown up the World Trade Center" since 1993 or so.
>
> >One of the follow-ups noted that is Limbaugh's schtick. I remind
> >you that Newt Gingrich credited Limbaugh for being a major
> >contributor
> >to the success of the Republican Party during the "Contract
> >with America" campaign.
>
> What's your point? If Kerry would have won (shuuuudder), they would
> have said the same about Michael Moore (who's been shown to be a lot
> more factually challenged than even Rush).
>
> >> >Mr Limbaugh can deny claiming Saddam Hussein was responsible since
> >> >it was a statement by someone else that he played on his show. But
> >> >it is clear WHY he played it and also WHY he played it in the manner
> >> >that he did.
>
> >> I dunno - I suppose someone should ask him. But when we start mixing
> >> Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken with historical political discussions,
> >> we're off in the weeds, don'tcha think? ;-)
>
> >See above.
>
> >Someone like Michael Moore exercises a strong but episodic influence.
>
> Oh, yeah, he's really faded into the woodwork... LOL.
>
> >Limbaugh is a constant and coordinated influence.
>
> As is Air America... oh, wait...
>
> >Yes, they are entertainers and so idally should have
> >virtually NO influence but the reality is very different.
>
> The difference is when Ann Coulter writes something, conservatives all
> laugh at some very sardonic political satire. When Michael Moore does
> the same thing, he gets an Academy Award for "Best Documentary". It
> would be funny if about half the US didn't get the joke.
>
> >It is like name-recognition at the polls. If some bozo
> >changes his name to John F Kennedy it really shouldn't
> >give him an edge in the election, but do you suppose it
> >did?
>
> >An idiot's vote counts just as much as a thoughtful person's
> >and can be had with much less effort.
>
> Or for a nominal payment (examples abound). This is why the founding
> fathers didn't really envision a true "one man, one vote" democracy,
> but rather figured to limit the voting to the successful and educated.
> Horribly non-PC, but not without merit either.
>
> I agree entirely with you about the dangers of the voting public - the
> average voter's grasp of actual facts is frighteningly shallow. They
> form opinions watching (choke) political advertisements, and of
> course, listening to talking heads spin the news and reporting to
> match their own ideology. In the end about all you can count on for
> sure is that either side would sell us all down the river for an
> advantage at the polls.
>
> Mark "pragmatist" Hickey- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -

Bush is a liar. A chronic habitual liar.


and if you expect me to believe any of this crap, so are you.



Bertie

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Sep 7, 5:54 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sep 6, 4:17 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> >> Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:
>
> >> ...
>
> >> >FWIW I heard John Edwards , in his televised debate with Dick
> >> >Cheney, attribute the attacks to Saddam Hussein. It was clearly
> >> >a slip of the tongue as he said it immediately after accusing
> >> >Cheney of deliberately confusing the two.
>
> >> Kinda makes you believe in karma, doesn't it?
>
> >> >Other persons have noted Rumsfeld and Condoleesa Rice making
> >> >similar slips.
>
> >> It's hard to believe that they did say something that could be snipped
> >> out of context and "prove the point"...
>
> >Yet you had NO trouble believing that Edwards did it....
>
> Sure, but why would the mainstream press jump his bones?
> That wouldn't be characteristic.

Do you include FOX in the MSM? They might not have for the
same reasons that others didn't jump on Rumsfeld and Rice,
it would backfire on them when it was made clear what actually
happened.

The problem is, some people hearing that slip, don't realize it
was a slip.

>
> >> >See also:
>
> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/browse_thread/th...
>
> >> C'mon... that's the very definition of grasping at straws... an
> >> unidentified sound bite on a political entertainer's show? Besides,
> >> no one has "blown up the World Trade Center" since 1993 or so.
>
> >One of the follow-ups noted that is Limbaugh's schtick. I remind
> >you that Newt Gingrich credited Limbaugh for being a major
> >contributor
> >to the success of the Republican Party during the "Contract
> >with America" campaign.
>
> What's your point? If Kerry would have won (shuuuudder), they would
> have said the same about Michael Moore (who's been shown to be a lot
> more factually challenged than even Rush).

That is my point.

> ...
>
> >Limbaugh is a constant and coordinated influence.
>
> As is Air America... oh, wait...

Indeed. Perhaps we agree that political entertainers
are unduly influential.

>
> >Yes, they are entertainers and so idally should have
> >virtually NO influence but the reality is very different.
>
> The difference is when Ann Coulter writes something, conservatives all
> laugh at some very sardonic political satire. When Michael Moore does
> the same thing, he gets an Academy Award for "Best Documentary". It
> would be funny if about half the US didn't get the joke.

Ann Coulter wrote an editorial about how those
convicted in the notorious Central Park 'wilding'
case should not have had their convictions set
aside after the guilty party (who acted alone)
confessed and was matched to the DNA evidence.
She used the same arguments typically advanced
for limiting appeals from death row.

Was that satire? If so, given that she was writing
about a case in which the fact of innocence was
not in dispute, not even by her, it was indeed a
powerful defense of the appeals system..

>
> >It is like name-recognition at the polls. If some bozo
> >changes his name to John F Kennedy it really shouldn't
> >give him an edge in the election, but do you suppose it
> >did?
>
> >An idiot's vote counts just as much as a thoughtful person's
> >and can be had with much less effort.
>
> Or for a nominal payment (examples abound).

Perhaps you can present some as I am not aware of any.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Note follow-ups

On Sep 7, 5:44 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:
>
> >On Sep 6, 1:35 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> >> Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:
>
> >> ...
>
> >> If you're REALLY interested in what UNMOVIC thought at the time of the
> >> invasion, you should read their March 2003 report Not only does it
> >> blow your "unfettered access" claim out of the water - errrr, air
> >> (this is a flying ng, after all), but they stated that Iraq probably
> >> had (among many other things) 10,000 liters of anthrax ready to
> >> deploy... and the abilty to manufacture LOTS of WMD in short order in
> >> one of their many "dual-use" facilities.
>
> >>http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/cluster6mar.pdf
>
> I think it's kinda funny that the best you can find in the report
> supports my position (that no one could verify that Iraq had actually
> destroyed their WMDs and the production facilities, other than those
> that we destroyed or the minority that there was actual evidence for
> the destruction).

False.

The report leaves no doubt whatsoever that the
production facilities were destroyed.

Lingering doubts that some fifteen-year old materials
might not have been destroyed at the time and place
reported to UNSCOM years earlier are mitigated by
the short shelf-life of Iraqi WMD.

>
> Which WAS the whole point, after all.

Indeed. That Iraq was not a threat to the US, was
exacltly the point. In fact, Irraq was not a credible
threatto any of its neighbors either.

>
> I think those who've actually read the entire report have seen what
> they need to see,

Rather, you see what you want to see.

> and now realize that the whole "Bush lied" mantra is
> just another wild fabrication when it comes to the disposition of
> Iraq's WMDs prior to the invasion. Virtually every intelligence
> agency in the civilized world came to the same conclusions as
> UNMOVIC...

Really? How did you become privy to the conclusions reached
by EVERY intelligence agency in the world?

In 1995, Saddam Hussein's son -in law, Hussein
Kamel al-Majid, who directed Iraq's clandestine
weapons program defected. He claimed that Iraq
had destroyed all of its WMD stockpiles. Later
he was persuaded to return to Iraq, where he was
executed.

Some years before the 2003 invasion, Iraqi Foreign Minister
Naji Sabri became a mole for US intelligence. He confirmed
what al-Majid had said--Iraq had no WMD.

The US also had a third source, code-names 'curveball',
an Iraqi exile living in Germany. Curveball claimed to have
worked in the Iraqi BW program and to have intimate knowledge
of the Iraqi CW program. Despite the evidence that he had
not left Germany for fifteen years and the fact that German
intelligence had characterized him as a 'crazy drunk'

The October, 2002 NIE on Iraq, or to be more accurate, the
declassified portions of it, rely entirely on Curveball and
ignore the other two sources.

Why do YOU suppose that is?

> that there was no reason to believe or trust that Iraq had
> in fact destroyed their WMDs and production capabilities
> (as clearly> evidenced by the quotes you provide from the
> report below).

The report leaves no doubt as to the destruction of production
facilities and makes it clear that unresolved issues are
SPECULATIVE .

>
> I'll let the report speak for itself - I don't really have anything
> else to add.

Before you go, could you please point to the part of report that
supports your earlier claim that the report that blows my clain of
unfettered access with UNMOVIC out of the air?

Also, please refer us to the parts that cast doubt on the conclusion
that the Iraqi production facilities were destroyed and not rebuilt?

>
> Mark "facts is facts" Hickey

The fact is that you have not presented evidence that Iraq
was a threat.

>
> >6 March 2003
> >APPENDIX
> >A (sic) HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF IRAQ'S PROSCRIBED WEAPONS PROGRAMMES
> >...
>
> >Destruction
> >...
> > During the bombing campaign the main CW facilities at
> > Al Muthanna and Al Fallujah were heavily damaged. In
> > addition, some of the CW weapons stored at airfields and
> > other locations were also destroyed. However, Iraq had
> > evacuated [note: 'evacuated' to other locations in Iraq,FF]
> > much of its strategic materials and equipment prior to the
> > war...
>
> > Thus, several hundreds of tonnes of Mustard and Sarin
> > were buried in the desert surrounding Al Muthanna during t
> > he war and survived the bombing. The agents was (sic)
> > subsequently destroyed by UNSCOM. ...
>
> >. It was clear, even from this first inspection, that the site had
> > been severely disabled, but not completely destroyed. The
> > scene was one of smashed production plants and leaking...
> > the second chemical inspection team visited the precursor
> > plants at Al Fullujah and inspected similar destruction levels.
>
> >...
>
> > Before UNSCOM could begin its work on the elimination remaining
> > CW capabilities, Iraq secretly began its own unilateral destruction.
> > Iraq declared that, in July 1991, under instruction from
> > Lieutenant- General Hussein Kamal, it began the unilateral destruction
> > of selected chemicals and munitions; this activity was not disclosed
> > to UNSCOM at the time. ...It is probable that one of the reasons
for
> > this unilateral destruction was an effort to bring what UNSCOM
> > might find more into line with the serious inadequacies in Iraq's initial
> > declaration of its holdings of proscribed weapons and materials. ...
> > In all, Iraq declared the destruction of over 28,000 filled and
> > unfilled munitions, about 30 tonnes of bulk chemical precursors for Sarin
> > and Cyclosarin, and over 200 tonnes of key precursors relating to
> >Vx.
> >[I presume this refers to a subsequent declaration, perhaps as late as
> >2002, FF]
> >...
> > The remaining weapons, materials and equipment declared by Iraq,
> > that could be identified and located by UNSCOM, were destroyed
> > under its supervision, mainly between 1992 and 1994. Thus, over
> >28,000
> > munitions, 480 tonnes of CW agent and 100,000 tonnes of precursor
> > chemicals were disposed of. About 400 major pieces of chemical
> > processing equipment and some hundreds of items of other equipment,
> > such as bomb-making machinery, were also destroyed under UNSCOM s
> > upervision.
> >...
> >Dual-use capabilities to 1998
> >...
>
> > Much of this civilian chemical industry used dual-capable technology
> > and was, therefore, under monitoring by UNSCOM until the end of
> >1998.
>
> >Herein lay the concern, that during tthe gap between UNSCOM and
> >UNMOVIC Iraq might have converted dual-use facilities to CW
> >production,
> >or rebuilt the destroyed factories. NO evidence to support those
> >fears
> >was found by UNMOVIC before the invasion or ISG afterwards. As
> >noted by Dr David Kay, " no factories, no weapons.". ]
>
> >Conclusions
>
> > UNMOVIC has a good understanding of the nature and scope
> > of Iraq's CW programme. The areas of greatest uncertainty
> > relate to questions of material balance and whether there may
> > be items still remaining. In this regard, Iraq's unilateral
> >destruction
> > of large quantities of chemicals and weapons, in July 1991, has
> > complicated the accountancy problem. The questions of uncertainty
> > are discussed further in the Clusters of Unresolved Disarmament
> > Issues.
>
> >Understand???
>
> >...
> > By some standards, the technology levels achieved by Iraq in the
> > production of its CW agents and weapons, were not high. The agents
> > were often impure and had a limited shelf-life. ...
>
> >[IOW, CW not disposed of during the 1990s would no longer be
> >effective by 2003. No new factories, no new weapons, FF]
> >..
>
> > It is evident that Iraq's CW capabilities posed a significant
> >regional threat.
>
> >[ IN 1991, not in 2003! ]
>
> >IRAQ'S BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAMME
>
> >...
>
> > Iraq went to considerable lengths, including the destruction of
> > documents and the forging of other documents, to conceal its
> > BW efforts from UNSCOM. After intensive investigations by
> > UNSCOM, Iraq disclosed some details of its offensive BW
> > programme on, 1 July 1995. ... in August 1995, Iraq
> > revealed a much more comprehensive BW programme.
>
> >[Note: UNSCOM pre-dated UNMOVIC and ceased activity
> >in Iraq in 1998. The secrecy and obstruction pre-dated
> >UNMOVIC.]
>
> > Iraq's efforts to conceal the programme, particularly the
> > destruction of documentation and its declared unilateral
> > destruction of BW weapons and agents, have complicated
> > UNMOVIC's task of piecing together a coherent and accurate
> > account of its BW programme.
> >...
> > In May/June 1996, all of the facilities, related equipment and
> > materials declared by Iraq as belonging to its BW programme
> > were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. Thus, the vaccine f
> > ermenters at Al Daura that Iraq had declared had produced
> > botulinum toxin were destroyed, as was the entire Al Hakam
> > complex, including all its equipment and materials.
> >...
> > These (other ostensibly civilian, FF] facilities were included in
> > routine monitoring by UNSCOM; no proscribed activities were
> > detected at these sites up to the end of inspections in December
> > 1998.
>
> >[Once again the concern was that during the gap between UNSCOM
> >and UNMVIC, Iraq could have resumed production of BW. Again,
> >UNMOVIC found NO EVIDENCE of renewed production.]
>
> >Uncertainties regarding Iraq's BW programme
>
> >Unilateral destruction
>
> > The almost complete lack of documentation on unilateral
> > destruction activities in 1991 gives rise to the greatest
> >uncertainties
> > regarding Iraq's declaration of BW activities. Although there
> > is physical evidence that some such destruction took place,
> > it was difficult for UNSCOM inspectors to quantify the numbers
> > and amounts. This, in turn, has repercussions on assessment
> > of material balance and whether all materials and weapons
> > have been accounted for.
>
> >***
>
> >In summary, the numerous unresolved WMD
> >issues in the report are ubiquitously matters
> >left over from UNSCOM 1990s and in no way
> >constitute evidence of post turn of the century
> >WMD production or obstruction of UNMOVIC.
>
> >THAT is what the report says.
>
> >The argument that Iraq was a threat in 2003 relied on
> >confabulating UNSCOM of the 1990s with UNMOVIC
> >of 2002-3, ignoring the short shelf-life of Iraqi munitions,
> >ignoring the absence of manufacturing facilities, ignoring
> >the 'unprecedented' cooperation with UNMOVIC and
> >requiring that Iraq achieve the logical impossibility of
> >proving a negative hypothesis.
>
> >To argue that the March 2003 UNMOVIC report was
> >evidence that Iraq was a threat to the United States,
> >defies reason.

>

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Sep 6, 12:45 am, Fred the Red Shirt >
wrote:
> On Sep 5, 9:58 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote
>
> > > That is why when faced with imminent
> > > invasion, he caved and allowed UNMOVIC full, unfettered
> > > access, a level of cooperation characterized by Blix
> > > as "unprecedented".
>
> > What? You mean delayed inspections, with truck convoys leaving the compound
> > before allowing the inspectors to enter?
>
> No, I do not.
>
>
>
> > That is full and unfettered access? Unprecedented cooperation.
>
> > Please.
>
> Please tell us the DATE of the incident to which you refer.
>


Perhaps I was too subtle. The point being that you were
most likely confabulating UNSCOM incidents from the
1990s with the UNMOVIC inspections of 2003.

"Full and unfettered access" refers to the latter, not the
former.

--

FF

[Mark Hickey]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>On 7 sep, 07:35, Mark Hickey > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >On Sep 6, 2:36 pm, Mark Hickey > wrote:
>> >> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> > So far, no one's been able to
>> >> >> show a single quote. I'm guessing you won't do any better (though you
>> >> >> seem to be VERY certain of your position - I'm not sure how big a
>> >> >> number "umpteum" is, but all you need is one quote - should be a piece
>> >> >> of cake, right?).
>>
>> >> >Yep
>>
>> >> >http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html
>>
>> >> Is it a reading comprehension problem, or do you think "WMD" is an
>> >> acronym that has something to do with flying airplanes into buildings?
>>
>> >Nope, I read jjust fine.
>>
>> >What WMDs, btw?
>>
>> The ones that the link you referenced above was talking about (rather
>> than the 9/11 attack, which is the subject of the question).
>
>No, it isn't. It's what you're trying to make the question.

Ummm... look above. I am asking for a SINGLE quote to prove your
assertion that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.

You reply with a geocities.com link above that has not a thing to do
with the 9/11 attack.

Then you deny it and accuse ME of "trying to make (it) the question.

I'm trying to figure out if you're being disingenuous or just trying
to ignore the fact you couldn't come up with a single quote out of the
"umpteum" examples out there...

Mark "what passes for logic these days" Hickey

[Mark Hickey]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:


>Bush is a liar. A chronic habitual liar.

And here I gave you an opportunity to actually back up your assertion
by providing only ONE of the "umpteum" examples that you were
absolutely sure about... yet, you didn't provide a single example to
back up your claim.

>and if you expect me to believe any of this crap, so are you.

Throwing in the towel, huh, Bertie? Those who are actually interested
in knowing the facts often thank me for providing the facts and some
perspective, even if they don't align with their political perspective
or agenda.

Guess you're not one of them.

Mark "willful ignorance is a sad thing" Hickey

[Mark Hickey]

Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:

>On Sep 7, 5:54 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
>> Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sep 6, 4:17 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
>> >> Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:
>>
>> >> ...
>>
>> >> >FWIW I heard John Edwards , in his televised debate with Dick
>> >> >Cheney, attribute the attacks to Saddam Hussein. It was clearly
>> >> >a slip of the tongue as he said it immediately after accusing
>> >> >Cheney of deliberately confusing the two.
>>
>> >> Kinda makes you believe in karma, doesn't it?
>>
>> >> >Other persons have noted Rumsfeld and Condoleesa Rice making
>> >> >similar slips.
>>
>> >> It's hard to believe that they did say something that could be snipped
>> >> out of context and "prove the point"...
>>
>> >Yet you had NO trouble believing that Edwards did it....
>>
>> Sure, but why would the mainstream press jump his bones?
>> That wouldn't be characteristic.
>
>Do you include FOX in the MSM? They might not have for the
>same reasons that others didn't jump on Rumsfeld and Rice,
>it would backfire on them when it was made clear what actually
>happened.
>
>The problem is, some people hearing that slip, don't realize it
>was a slip.

It all depends on how it's presented, and in what context. See the
wikipedia example (quoting half the Cheney comments).

>> >> >See also:
>>
>> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/browse_thread/th...
>>
>> >> C'mon... that's the very definition of grasping at straws... an
>> >> unidentified sound bite on a political entertainer's show? Besides,
>> >> no one has "blown up the World Trade Center" since 1993 or so.
>>
>> >One of the follow-ups noted that is Limbaugh's schtick. I remind
>> >you that Newt Gingrich credited Limbaugh for being a major
>> >contributor
>> >to the success of the Republican Party during the "Contract
>> >with America" campaign.
>>
>> What's your point? If Kerry would have won (shuuuudder), they would
>> have said the same about Michael Moore (who's been shown to be a lot
>> more factually challenged than even Rush).
>
>That is my point.
>
>> ...
>>
>> >Limbaugh is a constant and coordinated influence.
>>
>> As is Air America... oh, wait...
>
>Indeed. Perhaps we agree that political entertainers
>are unduly influential.

Absolutely. It's a little like alcohol - a little here or there is
good for a laugh or two - a steady diet of it will kill you.

>> >Yes, they are entertainers and so idally should have
>> >virtually NO influence but the reality is very different.
>>
>> The difference is when Ann Coulter writes something, conservatives all
>> laugh at some very sardonic political satire. When Michael Moore does
>> the same thing, he gets an Academy Award for "Best Documentary". It
>> would be funny if about half the US didn't get the joke.
>
>Ann Coulter wrote an editorial about how those
>convicted in the notorious Central Park 'wilding'
>case should not have had their convictions set
>aside after the guilty party (who acted alone)
>confessed and was matched to the DNA evidence.
>She used the same arguments typically advanced
>for limiting appeals from death row.
>
>Was that satire? If so, given that she was writing
>about a case in which the fact of innocence was
>not in dispute, not even by her, it was indeed a
>powerful defense of the appeals system..

I have no idea about the context of that. Could you provide a link?
It sounds like it might be hyperbole (she is known for a bit of that
now and then...). ;-)

Ann is another one who's constantly taken out of context. After the
uproar over her (lame, IMHO) comparison of John Edwards to a "gay
person", she took a lot of heat (which I don't have a problem with).
When she commented that those on the left get a free pass for saying
outrageous things - "Now, that would be mean. But about the same time
-- you know -- [HBO host] Bill Maher was not joking and saying he
wished [Vice President] Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist
attack. So I've learned my lesson. If I'm going to say anything about
John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a
terrorist assassination plot."

Her point was the horrendous double standard in the media - which then
helped prove it by splashing only the last sentence around like
Coulter really wished Edwards would be killed, rather than the fact
she was actually speaking about the media's bias and penchant for
sensationalism.

>> >It is like name-recognition at the polls. If some bozo
>> >changes his name to John F Kennedy it really shouldn't
>> >give him an edge in the election, but do you suppose it
>> >did?
>>
>> >An idiot's vote counts just as much as a thoughtful person's
>> >and can be had with much less effort.
>>
>> Or for a nominal payment (examples abound).
>
>Perhaps you can present some as I am not aware of any.

Seriously? I typed "pay for votes" into google and got over 38,000
hits. I had a buddy who was paid to register dead people in Chicago,
for example.

Mark "can you imagine having to do a recount in Cook County" Hickey

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Sep 8, 5:12 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sep 7, 5:54 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> >> Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:
>
> >> >On Sep 6, 4:17 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> >> >> Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:
>
> >> >> ...
>
> >> >> >FWIW I heard John Edwards , in his televised debate with Dick
> >> >> >Cheney, attribute the attacks to Saddam Hussein. It was clearly
> >> >> >a slip of the tongue as he said it immediately after accusing
> >> >> >Cheney of deliberately confusing the two.
>
> >> >> Kinda makes you believe in karma, doesn't it?
>
> >> >> >Other persons have noted Rumsfeld and Condoleesa Rice making
> >> >> >similar slips.
>
> >> >> It's hard to believe that they did say something that could be snipped
> >> >> out of context and "prove the point"...
>
> >> >Yet you had NO trouble believing that Edwards did it....
>
> >> Sure, but why would the mainstream press jump his bones?
> >> That wouldn't be characteristic.
>
> >Do you include FOX in the MSM? They might not have for the
> >same reasons that others didn't jump on Rumsfeld and Rice,
> >it would backfire on them when it was made clear what actually
> >happened.
>
> >The problem is, some people hearing that slip, don't realize it
> >was a slip.
>
> It all depends on how it's presented, and in what context. See the
> wikipedia example (quoting half the Cheney comments).
>

See my earlier discussions if this incident:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.homebuilt/msg/3d31089054765c98?dmode=source&hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.homebuilt/msg/85de40a8d62e1513?dmode=source&hl=en

..
>
> >Ann Coulter wrote an editorial about how those
> >convicted in the notorious Central Park 'wilding'
> >case should not have had their convictions set
> >aside after the guilty party (who acted alone)
> >confessed and was matched to the DNA evidence.
> >She used the same arguments typically advanced
> >for limiting appeals from death row.
>
> >Was that satire? If so, given that she was writing
> >about a case in which the fact of innocence was
> >not in dispute, not even by her, it was indeed a
> >powerful defense of the appeals system..
>
> I have no idea about the context of that. Could you provide a link?
> It sounds like it might be hyperbole (she is known for a bit of that
> now and then...). ;-)

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/crimelaw/features/n_7836/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matias_Reyes
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter120502.asp

> ...
>
> >> >It is like name-recognition at the polls. If some bozo
> >> >changes his name to John F Kennedy it really shouldn't
> >> >give him an edge in the election, but do you suppose it
> >> >did?
>
> >> >An idiot's vote counts just as much as a thoughtful person's
> >> >and can be had with much less effort.
>
> >> Or for a nominal payment (examples abound).
>
> >Perhaps you can present some as I am not aware of any.
>
> Seriously? I typed "pay for votes" into google and got over 38,000
> hits.

So? I googled "mark hickey apostle", and got over 55,000 hits.

> I had a buddy who was paid to register dead people in Chicago,
> for example.
>

He WAS, or he said he was? You see the problem
is that if we presume your buddy to be honest, then he
would not have done that, and if we presume him to be
dishonest then we cannot take his word for it.

BTW, Did you turn him in? If not, should we take your
word at face value?

If we are going to continue this, it ought to be posted
to misc.legal.moderated, do you think?

--

FF

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Sep 8, 6:58 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >Bush is a liar. A chronic habitual liar.
>
> And here I gave you an opportunity to actually back up your assertion
> by providing only ONE of the "umpteum" examples that you were
> absolutely sure about... yet, you didn't provide a single example to
> back up your claim.

Yes I did, and you pretending not to notice or trying to narrow it as
if it were a barroom bet doen't alter that.

>
> >and if you expect me to believe any of this crap, so are you.
>
> Throwing in the towel, huh, Bertie?

Moi?

You don't know me very well, do you?

Those who are actually interested
> in knowing the facts often thank me for providing the facts and some
> perspective, even if they don't align with their political perspective
> or agenda.
>
> Guess you're not one of them.

That's right, i'm not going to thank you for provinding me with the
"facts"

as if you'd know one if it bit you in the ass.


I wasn't cvommenting on your poloitical perspective or agenda, just
yuor idiocy.
>
> Mark "willful ignorance is a sad thing" Hickey

I dunno, in your case i find it immensely entertaining.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Sep 8, 5:56 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 7 sep, 07:35, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> >> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> >On Sep 6, 2:36 pm, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> >> >> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> > So far, no one's been able to
> >> >> >> show a single quote. I'm guessing you won't do any better (though you
> >> >> >> seem to be VERY certain of your position - I'm not sure how big a
> >> >> >> number "umpteum" is, but all you need is one quote - should be a piece
> >> >> >> of cake, right?).
>
> >> >> >Yep
>
> >> >> >http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html
>
> >> >> Is it a reading comprehension problem, or do you think "WMD" is an
> >> >> acronym that has something to do with flying airplanes into buildings?
>
> >> >Nope, I read jjust fine.
>
> >> >What WMDs, btw?
>
> >> The ones that the link you referenced above was talking about (rather
> >> than the 9/11 attack, which is the subject of the question).
>
> >No, it isn't. It's what you're trying to make the question.
>
> Ummm... look above. I am asking for a SINGLE quote to prove your
> assertion that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Ask away. I didn't make thaqt assertation, fjukkwit.

You really are as dumm as dishwater, aintcha>?


>
> You reply with a geocities.com link above that has not a thing to do
> with the 9/11 attack.

Didn't say it did, fjukkktard.
>
> Then you deny it and accuse ME of "trying to make (it) the question.
>
> I'm trying to figure out if you're being disingenuous or just trying
> to ignore the fact you couldn't come up with a single quote out of the
> "umpteum" examples out there...


I'm being Bertie the Bunyip.

I'm always being Bertie the Bunyip.
>

It's a pure and noble calling.

> Mark "what passes for logic these days" Hickey- Hide quoted text -


Nice try, propoganda minister.

Oh wait, it wasn't


Bertie

[Mark Hickey]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>On Sep 8, 5:56 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>

>> >On 7 sep, 07:35, Mark Hickey > wrote:
>> >> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Sep 6, 2:36 pm, Mark Hickey > wrote:
>> >> >> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> > So far, no one's been able to
>> >> >> >> show a single quote. I'm guessing you won't do any better (though you
>> >> >> >> seem to be VERY certain of your position - I'm not sure how big a
>> >> >> >> number "umpteum" is, but all you need is one quote - should be a piece
>> >> >> >> of cake, right?).
>>
>> >> >> >Yep
>>
>> >> >> >http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html
>>
>> >> >> Is it a reading comprehension problem, or do you think "WMD" is an
>> >> >> acronym that has something to do with flying airplanes into buildings?
>>
>> >> >Nope, I read jjust fine.
>>
>> >> >What WMDs, btw?
>>
>> >> The ones that the link you referenced above was talking about (rather
>> >> than the 9/11 attack, which is the subject of the question).
>>
>> >No, it isn't. It's what you're trying to make the question.
>>
>> Ummm... look above. I am asking for a SINGLE quote to prove your
>> assertion that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.
>
>Ask away. I didn't make thaqt assertation, fjukkwit.
>
>You really are as dumm as dishwater, aintcha>?

Smart enough to confuse you, it seems. Above, I suggest it should be
a piece of cake to show ONE quote where the administration claims a
link between 9/11 and Iraq. You agree, and post a link to WMD which
has nothing to do with 9/11. And you're STILL confused.

>> You reply with a geocities.com link above that has not a thing to do
>> with the 9/11 attack.
>
>Didn't say it did, fjukkktard.

You do directly above.

>> Then you deny it and accuse ME of "trying to make (it) the question.
>>
>> I'm trying to figure out if you're being disingenuous or just trying
>> to ignore the fact you couldn't come up with a single quote out of the
>> "umpteum" examples out there...
>>
>I'm being Bertie the Bunyip.
>
>I'm always being Bertie the Bunyip.
>
>It's a pure and noble calling.

Sadly, it's one that many have...

>> Mark "what passes for logic these days" Hickey- Hide quoted text -
>
>
>Nice try, propoganda minister.
>
>Oh wait, it wasn't

Just facts.

Mark "the only one I am called to be" Hickey

[Mark Hickey]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>On Sep 8, 6:58 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:

>Those who are actually interested
>> in knowing the facts often thank me for providing the facts and some
>> perspective, even if they don't align with their political perspective
>> or agenda.
>>
>> Guess you're not one of them.
>
>That's right, i'm not going to thank you for provinding me with the
>"facts"
>
>as if you'd know one if it bit you in the ass.

Yeah, it's really subjective posting direct quotes from the UNMOVIC
report. LOL. You're the one who can't back up his claim.

>I wasn't cvommenting on your poloitical perspective or agenda, just
>yuor idiocy.
>>
>> Mark "willful ignorance is a sad thing" Hickey
>
>I dunno, in your case i find it immensely entertaining.

Hey, it's giving me the chance to correct some people's misperception
of the events of 2003. You're just the comic relief.

Mark "I know you're not REALLY as dumb as you come off" Hickey

[Mark Hickey]

Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:

>On Sep 8, 5:12 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:

>> >Ann Coulter wrote an editorial about how those
>> >convicted in the notorious Central Park 'wilding'
>> >case should not have had their convictions set
>> >aside after the guilty party (who acted alone)
>> >confessed and was matched to the DNA evidence.
>> >She used the same arguments typically advanced
>> >for limiting appeals from death row.
>>
>> >Was that satire? If so, given that she was writing
>> >about a case in which the fact of innocence was
>> >not in dispute, not even by her, it was indeed a
>> >powerful defense of the appeals system..

Yeah, I'd say it was satire... some quotes:

"As part of the media's continuing series on how every criminal is
innocent, except asbestos manufacturers and abortion clinic
protesters, ..."

"But wait! The "Innocence Project" has produced an 11th-hour
confession from a sixth rapist, Matias Reyes. Stunning no one but
gullible reporters, he claims he acted alone. As is always the
case with surprise confessions exonerating others, Reyes faces no
penalty for this confession. To the contrary, Reyes is surely the
toast of his cellblock -- where, by happenstance, he is serving
time with another Central Park rapist, Kharey Wise. The statute of
limitations has run on the rape and Reyes is already serving life
in prison."

>> I have no idea about the context of that. Could you provide a link?
>> It sounds like it might be hyperbole (she is known for a bit of that
>> now and then...). ;-)
>
>http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/crimelaw/features/n_7836/
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matias_Reyes
>http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter120502.asp

I'm finding hard to feel too sorry for those who were found guilty by
five unanimous juries. Coulter makes the point that if there was any
indication that the confessions were improperly obtained, they would
have been thrown out in the appeals process (which they weren't).

This particular article is more of an indictment of the media for
seemingly rooting for the criminals than it is of the guys who were
found guilty in this case (IMHO of course).

>> >> >It is like name-recognition at the polls. If some bozo
>> >> >changes his name to John F Kennedy it really shouldn't
>> >> >give him an edge in the election, but do you suppose it
>> >> >did?
>>
>> >> >An idiot's vote counts just as much as a thoughtful person's
>> >> >and can be had with much less effort.
>>
>> >> Or for a nominal payment (examples abound).
>>
>> >Perhaps you can present some as I am not aware of any.
>>
>> Seriously? I typed "pay for votes" into google and got over 38,000
>> hits.
>
>So? I googled "mark hickey apostle", and got over 55,000 hits.

Coool, I've been promoted.

Oh wait... I put my name in quotes and I'm down to 47 hits. Sigh...

>> I had a buddy who was paid to register dead people in Chicago,
>> for example.
>
>He WAS, or he said he was? You see the problem
>is that if we presume your buddy to be honest, then he
>would not have done that, and if we presume him to be
>dishonest then we cannot take his word for it.
>
>BTW, Did you turn him in? If not, should we take your
>word at face value?
>
>If we are going to continue this, it ought to be posted
>to misc.legal.moderated, do you think?

I guess I'll never really know if he did it or if it was just bravado
on his part. Either way, I don't really need his direct testimony
(and/or conviction) to know that there are problems with the voting
process in Chicago.

"voter fraud" chicago - this search yields 186,000 hits.

Mark "not an apostle yet, apparently" Hickey

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Follow-ups set to misc.legal

On Sep 9, 2:34 pm, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:
>
> >On Sep 8, 5:12 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> >> >Ann Coulter wrote an editorial about how those
> >> >convicted in the notorious Central Park 'wilding'
> >> >case should not have had their convictions set
> >> >aside after the guilty party (who acted alone)
> >> >confessed and was matched to the DNA evidence.
> >> >She used the same arguments typically advanced
> >> >for limiting appeals from death row.
>
> >> >Was that satire? If so, given that she was writing
> >> >about a case in which the fact of innocence was
> >> >not in dispute, not even by her, it was indeed a
> >> >powerful defense of the appeals system..
>
> Yeah, I'd say it was satire... some quotes:

OK, so she is ridiculing those who argue against
overturning the convictions, right?

>
> "As part of the media's continuing series on how every criminal is
> innocent, except asbestos manufacturers and abortion clinic
> protesters, ..."
>
> "But wait! The "Innocence Project" has produced an 11th-hour
> confession from a sixth rapist, Matias Reyes. Stunning no one but
> gullible reporters, he claims he acted alone. As is always the
> case with surprise confessions exonerating others, Reyes faces no
> penalty for this confession. To the contrary, Reyes is surely the
> toast of his cellblock -- where, by happenstance, he is serving
> time with another Central Park rapist, Kharey Wise. The statute of
> limitations has run on the rape and Reyes is already serving life
> in prison."

Does it sound to you like maybe she wants people to suppose that
Reyes is lying about being involved it the crime at all?

>
> >> I have no idea about the context of that. Could you provide a link?
> >> It sounds like it might be hyperbole (she is known for a bit of that
> >> now and then...). ;-)
>
> >http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/crimelaw/features/n_7836/
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matias_Reyes
> >http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter120502.asp
>
> I'm finding hard to feel too sorry for those who were found guilty by
> five unanimous juries. Coulter makes the point that if there was any
> indication that the confessions were improperly obtained, they would
> have been thrown out in the appeals process (which they weren't).

'Proper' is not a legal term of art. The tactics used
did not render the confessions inadmissible.

Here is how the confessions were obtained:

The suspects were separated and accused of the crime.
At first each denied involvement of knowledge of the crime.
After extensive questioning, each was told that one or more
of the others had already confessed to being an accessory,
but had named the suspect currently being questioned
as the ringleader. That suspect was then told that the
police suspected the OTHER suspect of being the true
ringlieader. They were then each told that the prosecution
would go easy on them IF they admitted their role and
implicated the others. Otherwise, each was told, he
was going to take the full blame for the crime based on
the testimony of his 'friend' who had ratted on him.

Using this tactic, some number (five IIRC) confessed,.

It is also commonplace for police to claim to have witnesses
who have identified the suspect(s), when in fact they do
not. IMHO these tactics are far more likely to elicit a
false confession than most people realize, because most
people imagine (correctly or not) that they would not
confess falsely under those circumstances. Perhaps
MOST people would not. But MOST people are never
interrogated as criminal suspects, and that is not due
to mere chance.

>
> This particular article is more of an indictment of the media for
> seemingly rooting for the criminals than it is of the guys who were
> found guilty in this case (IMHO of course).

Rooting for Reyes? I don't think so.

>
> ...
> >> >> >An idiot's vote counts just as much as a thoughtful person's
> >> >> >and can be had with much less effort.
>
> >> >> Or for a nominal payment (examples abound).
>
> >> >Perhaps you can present some as I am not aware of any.
>
> >> Seriously? I typed "pay for votes" into google and got over 38,000
> >> hits.
>
> >So? I googled "mark hickey apostle", and got over 55,000 hits.
>
> Coool, I've been promoted.
>
> Oh wait... I put my name in quotes and I'm down to 47 hits. Sigh...
>
> >> I had a buddy who was paid to register dead people in Chicago,
> >> for example.
>
> >He WAS, or he said he was? You see the problem
> >is that if we presume your buddy to be honest, then he
> >would not have done that, and if we presume him to be
> >dishonest then we cannot take his word for it.
>
> >BTW, Did you turn him in? If not, should we take your
> >word at face value?
>
> >If we are going to continue this, it ought to be posted
> >to misc.legal.moderated, do you think?
>
> I guess I'll never really know if he did it or if it was just bravado
> on his part.

Indeed.

> Either way, I don't really need his direct testimony
> (and/or conviction) to know that there are problems with the voting
> process in Chicago.
>
> "voter fraud" chicago - this search yields 186,000 hits.
>

Regardless, the issue in contention is your statement
that votes could be obtained "for a nominal payment
(examples abound)."

I inferred that you meant paying people to cast votes,
bu I'll allow as the more plausible phenomenon of
bribing people within the election system to
stuff the ballot box wold also count.

I had always assumed that fraudulent voting was motivated
by ideology, not money. But upon further reflection, the
latter does not seem implausible.

However, since examples abound, please cite a couple
of examples where voter fraud was purchased, rather than
volunteered.

--


FF

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Sep 9, 4:11 pm, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 8, 5:56 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> >> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> >On 7 sep, 07:35, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> >> >> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Sep 6, 2:36 pm, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> >> >> >> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> >> > So far, no one's been able to
> >> >> >> >> show a single quote. I'm guessing you won't do any better (though you
> >> >> >> >> seem to be VERY certain of your position - I'm not sure how big a
> >> >> >> >> number "umpteum" is, but all you need is one quote - should be a piece
> >> >> >> >> of cake, right?).
>
> >> >> >> >Yep
>
> >> >> >> >http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html
>
> >> >> >> Is it a reading comprehension problem, or do you think "WMD" is an
> >> >> >> acronym that has something to do with flying airplanes into buildings?
>
> >> >> >Nope, I read jjust fine.
>
> >> >> >What WMDs, btw?
>
> >> >> The ones that the link you referenced above was talking about (rather
> >> >> than the 9/11 attack, which is the subject of the question).
>
> >> >No, it isn't. It's what you're trying to make the question.
>
> >> Ummm... look above. I am asking for a SINGLE quote to prove your
> >> assertion that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.
>
> >Ask away. I didn't make thaqt assertation, fjukkwit.
>
> >You really are as dumm as dishwater, aintcha>?
>
> Smart enough to confuse you, it seems. Above, I suggest it should be
> a piece of cake to show ONE quote where the administration claims a
> link between 9/11 and Iraq. You agree, and post a link to WMD which
> has nothing to do with 9/11. And you're STILL confused.
>
> >> You reply with a geocities.com link above that has not a thing to do
> >> with the 9/11 attack.
>
> >Didn't say it did, fjukkktard.
>
> You do directly above.

Nope, never said that 9/11 had anything to do with Iraq.

Ever.



>
> >> Then you deny it and accuse ME of "trying to make (it) the question.
>
> >> I'm trying to figure out if you're being disingenuous or just trying
> >> to ignore the fact you couldn't come up with a single quote out of the
> >> "umpteum" examples out there...
>
> >I'm being Bertie the Bunyip.
>
> >I'm always being Bertie the Bunyip.
>
> >It's a pure and noble calling.
>
> Sadly, it's one that many have...
>
> >> Mark "what passes for logic these days" Hickey- Hide quoted text -
>
> >Nice try, propoganda minister.
>
> >Oh wait, it wasn't
>
> Just facts.
>
> Mark "the only one I am called to be" Hickey- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Nice try snipmeister.

You are a liar. Same sorts of lies your buddie tried, BTW.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Sep 9, 4:18 pm, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >On Sep 8, 6:58 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> >Those who are actually interested
> >> in knowing the facts often thank me for providing the facts and some
> >> perspective, even if they don't align with their political perspective
> >> or agenda.
>
> >> Guess you're not one of them.
>
> >That's right, i'm not going to thank you for provinding me with the
> >"facts"
>
> >as if you'd know one if it bit you in the ass.
>
> Yeah, it's really subjective posting direct quotes from the UNMOVIC
> report. LOL. You're the one who can't back up his claim.
>
> >I wasn't cvommenting on your poloitical perspective or agenda, just
> >yuor idiocy.
>
> >> Mark "willful ignorance is a sad thing" Hickey
>
> >I dunno, in your case i find it immensely entertaining.
>
> Hey, it's giving me the chance to correct some people's misperception
> of the events of 2003. You're just the comic relief.
>

Yeah, sure liar boi .

Nice snypping BTW, pussy boi.



Bertie

[Mark Hickey]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>On Sep 9, 4:18 pm, Mark Hickey > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >On Sep 8, 6:58 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
>> >Those who are actually interested
>> >> in knowing the facts often thank me for providing the facts and some
>> >> perspective, even if they don't align with their political perspective
>> >> or agenda.
>>
>> >> Guess you're not one of them.
>>
>> >That's right, i'm not going to thank you for provinding me with the
>> >"facts"
>>
>> >as if you'd know one if it bit you in the ass.
>>
>> Yeah, it's really subjective posting direct quotes from the UNMOVIC
>> report. LOL. You're the one who can't back up his claim.
>>
>> >I wasn't cvommenting on your poloitical perspective or agenda, just
>> >yuor idiocy.
>>
>> >> Mark "willful ignorance is a sad thing" Hickey
>>
>> >I dunno, in your case i find it immensely entertaining.
>>
>> Hey, it's giving me the chance to correct some people's misperception
>> of the events of 2003. You're just the comic relief.
>>
>
>Yeah, sure liar boi .
>
>Nice snypping BTW, pussy boi.

I'm not the one cowering behind a screen name. You are.

And since you've still not been able to refute a single thing I've
said (since they were 100% historical fact from the actual document),
I'll just suggest you're not worth any more effort on my part to
remove your willful ignorance of history.

Carry on.

Mark "you can lead a horse to water" Hickey

[Jim Logajan]

Mark Hickey > wrote:
> [...] willful ignorance of history.

Speaking of history (and ignorance, I suppose), I believe _the_ reason
stated for invading Iraq was to neutralize their WMD. None found. So why
are U.S. forces still occupying that country? Isn't the job done? Shouldn't
we have ended this cosmic tragi-comedy years ago something like this:

"And so the Great Powers and the people of Shanklin, Isle of Wight, drew
their net in ever-tightening circles around the most dangerous threat to
peace the world has ever faced. They bombed Cairo, Bangkok, Cape Town,
Buenos Aires, Harrow, Hammersmith, Stepney, Wandsworth and Enfield... But
always it was the wrong place.

<Cut to an area of smoking rubble. A van with the words 'US Air Force' on
the side trundles through the rubble. It has a loudspeaker on the top of
it.>

Loudspeaker: Sorry Enfield!... We apologize for any inconvenience caused by
our bombing... sorry..."




....but always it was the wrong place....

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Jim Logajan > wrote:

> Mark Hickey > wrote:
> > [...] willful ignorance of history.
>
> Speaking of history (and ignorance, I suppose), I believe _the_ reason
> stated for invading Iraq was to neutralize their WMD.

Nope. It was one of a list of a dozen or sixteen items, and not the
first on the list. Mind, the press in general grabbed that one item and
ran with it, pretty much ignoring the rest of the list, including things
like Iraq's open and long-time ongoing support for terrorism all over
the place, having started and fought a couple three wars with neighbors,
and so on.

> None found.

Not quite. Actually several bits, here and there, mostly leftovers from
the Iran/Iraq matches of the 80s.

Don't forget that essentially every national (as in various nations in
both hemispheres) intelligence service figured from the evidence they
managed to dig up that if they didn't have WMDs in stock and ready to
use (the majority consensus), they could gin 'em up pretty quickly. Iraq
certainly showed no reluctance to use chemical weapons in particular
against either the Iranians or against various of their own citizens.
Repeatedly.

Heck, Saddam's generals pretty much all believed that he had them; and
the division next to them had the weapons. They were wrong on that, but
he had his own military going there.

This is all open-source information.

> So why are U.S. forces still occupying that country?

See below.

> Isn't the job done?

Nope.

Wouldn't make much sense to drop things and let some Saddam wannabe
start the whole thing over again.

The last few months, if you talk to those serving on the the ground,
things have been turning around a bit; enough in some used-to-be very
bad areas that the politicians have a chance to get a grip. If progress
continues in this vein, maybe some other of the politicians and
bureaucrats might be able to get their collective thumbs out and get
something done right.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Sep 10, 6:24 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 9, 4:18 pm, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> >> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> >On Sep 8, 6:58 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> >> >Those who are actually interested
> >> >> in knowing the facts often thank me for providing the facts and some
> >> >> perspective, even if they don't align with their political perspective
> >> >> or agenda.
>
> >> >> Guess you're not one of them.
>
> >> >That's right, i'm not going to thank you for provinding me with the
> >> >"facts"
>
> >> >as if you'd know one if it bit you in the ass.
>
> >> Yeah, it's really subjective posting direct quotes from the UNMOVIC
> >> report. LOL. You're the one who can't back up his claim.
>
> >> >I wasn't cvommenting on your poloitical perspective or agenda, just
> >> >yuor idiocy.
>
> >> >> Mark "willful ignorance is a sad thing" Hickey
>
> >> >I dunno, in your case i find it immensely entertaining.
>
> >> Hey, it's giving me the chance to correct some people's misperception
> >> of the events of 2003. You're just the comic relief.
>
> >Yeah, sure liar boi .
>
> >Nice snypping BTW, pussy boi.
>
> I'm not the one cowering behind a screen name. You are.

Bwaahwahwahwhahwhahwhhawhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwha hwha|!



>
> And since you've still not been able to refute a single thing I've
> said (since they were 100% historical fact from the actual document),
> I'll just suggest you're not worth any more effort on my part to
> remove your willful ignorance of history.


Yeah, i'm sure that's it.





>
> Carry on.
>
> Mark "you can lead a horse to water"

But you can't make him think.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Sep 10, 8:43 am, Steve Hix >
wrote:
> In article >,
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
> > Mark Hickey > wrote:
> > > [...] willful ignorance of history.
>
> > Speaking of history (and ignorance, I suppose), I believe _the_ reason
> > stated for invading Iraq was to neutralize their WMD.
>
> Nope. It was one of a list of a dozen or sixteen items, and not the
> first on the list. Mind, the press in general grabbed that one item and
> ran with it, pretty much ignoring the rest of the list, including things
> like Iraq's open and long-time ongoing support for terrorism all over
> the place, having started and fought a couple three wars with neighbors,
> and so on.

In that case they should have invaded England first.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Sep 7, 7:44 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:
>
> >On Sep 6, 1:35 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:[i]
> >> Fred the Red Shirt > wrote:
>
> >> ...
>
> >> If you're REALLY interested in what UNMOVIC thought at the time of the
> >> invasion, you should read their March 2003 report Not only does it
> >> blow your "unfettered access" claim out of the water - errrr, air
> >> (this is a flying ng, after all), but they stated that Iraq probably
> >> had (among many other things) 10,000 liters of anthrax ready to
> >> deploy... and the abilty to manufacture LOTS of WMD in short order in
> >> one of their many "dual-use" facilities.
>
> >>http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/cluster6mar.pdf
>
> I think it's kinda funny that the best you can find in the report
> supports my position (that no one could verify that Iraq had actually
> destroyed their WMDs and the production facilities, other than those
> that we destroyed or the minority that there was actual evidence for
> the destruction).
>
> Which WAS the whole point, after all.
>
> I think those who've actually read the entire report have seen what
> they need to see, and now realize that the whole "Bush lied" mantra is
> just another wild fabrication when it comes to the disposition of
> Iraq's WMDs prior to the invasion. Virtually every intelligence
> agency in the civilized world came to the same conclusions as
> UNMOVIC... that there was no reason to believe or trust that Iraq had
> in fact destroyed their WMDs and production capabilities (as clearly
> evidenced by the quotes you provide from the report below).
>
> I'll let the report speak for itself - I don't really have anything
> else to add.
>
> Mark "facts is facts" Hickey
>
>
>
> >6 March 2003
> >APPENDIX
> >A (sic) HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF IRAQ'S PROSCRIBED WEAPONS PROGRAMMES
> >...
>
> >Destruction
> >...
> > During the bombing campaign the main CW facilities at
> > Al Muthanna and Al Fallujah were heavily damaged. In
> > addition, some of the CW weapons stored at airfields and
> > other locations were also destroyed. However, Iraq had
> > evacuated [note: 'evacuated' to other locations in Iraq,FF]
> > much of its strategic materials and equipment prior to the
> > war...
>
> > Thus, several hundreds of tonnes of Mustard and Sarin
> > were buried in the desert surrounding Al Muthanna during t
> > he war and survived the bombing. The agents was (sic)
> > subsequently destroyed by UNSCOM. ...
>
> >. It was clear, even from this first inspection, that the site had
> > been severely disabled, but not completely destroyed. The
> > scene was one of smashed production plants and leaking...
> > the second chemical inspection team visited the precursor
> > plants at Al Fullujah and inspected similar destruction levels.
>
> >...
>
> > Before UNSCOM could begin its work on the elimination remaining
> > CW capabilities, Iraq secretly began its own unilateral destruction.
> > Iraq declared that, in July 1991, under instruction from
> >Lieutenant-
> > General Hussein Kamal, it began the unilateral destruction of
> >selected
> > chemicals and munitions; this activity was not disclosed to UNSCOM
> > at the time. ...It is probable that one of the reasons for this
> >unilateral
> > destruction was an effort to bring what UNSCOM might find more
> > into line with the serious inadequacies in Iraq's initial
> >declaration
> > of its holdings of proscribed weapons and materials. ...
> > In all, Iraq declared the destruction of over 28,000 filled and
> >unfilled
> > munitions, about 30 tonnes of bulk chemical precursors for Sarin
> > and Cyclosarin, and over 200 tonnes of key precursors relating to
> >Vx.
> >
> >...
> > The remaining weapons, materials and equipment declared by Iraq,
> > that could be identified and located by UNSCOM, were destroyed
> > under its supervision, mainly between 1992 and 1994. Thus, over
> >28,000
> > munitions, 480 tonnes of CW agent and 100,000 tonnes of precursor
> > chemicals were disposed of. About 400 major pieces of chemical
> > processing equipment and some hundreds of items of other equipment,
> > such as bomb-making machinery, were also destroyed under UNSCOM s
> > upervision.
> >...
> >Dual-use capabilities to 1998
> >...
>
> > Much of this civilian chemical industry used dual-capable technology
> > and was, therefore, under monitoring by UNSCOM until the end of
> >1998.
>
> >Herein lay the concern, that during tthe gap between UNSCOM and
> >UNMOVIC Iraq might have converted dual-use facilities to CW
> >production,
> >or rebuilt the destroyed factories. NO evidence to support those
> >fears
> >was found by UNMOVIC before the invasion or ISG afterwards. As
> >noted by Dr David Kay, " no factories, no weapons.". ]
>
> >Conclusions
>
> > UNMOVIC has a good understanding of the nature and scope
> > of Iraq's CW programme. The areas of greatest uncertainty
> > relate to questions of material balance and whether there may
> > be items still remaining. In this regard, Iraq's unilateral
> >destruction
> > of large quantities of chemicals and weapons, in July 1991, has
> > complicated the accountancy problem. The questions of uncertainty
> > are discussed further in the Clusters of Unresolved Disarmament
> > Issues.
>
> >Understand???
>
> >...
> > By some standards, the technology levels achieved by Iraq in the
> > production of its CW agents and weapons, were not high. The agents
> > were often impure and had a limited shelf-life. ...
>
> >[IOW, CW not disposed of during the 1990s would no longer be
> >effective by 2003. No new factories, no new weapons, FF]
> >..
>
> > It is evident that Iraq's CW capabilities posed a significant
> >regional threat.
>
> >[ IN 1991, not in 2003! ]
>
> >IRAQ'S BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAMME
>
> >...
>
> > Iraq went to considerable lengths, including the destruction of
> > documents and the forging of other documents, to conceal its
> > BW efforts from UNSCOM. After intensive investigations by
> > UNSCOM, Iraq disclosed some details of its offensive BW
> > programme on, 1 July 1995. ... in August 1995, Iraq
> > revealed a much more comprehensive BW programme.
>
> >[Note: UNSCOM pre-dated UNMOVIC and ceased activity
> >in Iraq in 1998. The secrecy and obstruction pre-dated
> >UNMOVIC.]
>
> > Iraq's efforts to conceal the programme, particularly the
> > destruction of documentation and its declared unilateral
> > destruction of BW weapons and agents, have complicated
> > UNMOVIC's task of piecing together a coherent and accurate
> > account of its BW programme.
> >...
> > In May/June 1996, all of the facilities, related equipment and
> > materials declared by Iraq as belonging to its BW programme
> > were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. Thus, the vaccine f
> > ermenters at Al Daura that Iraq had declared had produced
> > botulinum toxin were destroyed, as was the entire Al Hakam
> > complex, including all its equipment and materials.
> >...
> > These (other ostensibly civilian, FF] facilities were included in
> > routine monitoring by UNSCOM; no proscribed activities were
> > detected at these sites up to the end of inspections in December
> > 1998.
>
> >[Once again the concern was that during the gap between UNSCOM
> >and UNMVIC, Iraq could have resumed production of BW. Again,
> >UNMOVIC found NO EVIDENCE of renewed production.]
>
> >Uncertainties regarding Iraq's BW programme
>
> >Unilateral destruction
>
> > The almost complete lack of documentation on unilateral
> > destruction activities in 1991 gives rise to the greatest
> >uncertainties
> > regarding Iraq's declaration of BW activities. Although there
> > is physical evidence that some such destruction took place,
> > it was difficult for UNSCOM inspectors to quantify the numbers
> > and amounts. This, in turn, has repercussions on assessment
> > of material balance and whether all materials and weapons
> > have been accounted for.
>
> >***
>
> >In summary, the numerous unresolved WMD
> >issues in the report are ubiquitously matters
> >left over from UNSCOM 1990s and in no way
> >constitute evidence of post turn of the century
> >WMD production or obstruction of UNMOVIC.
>
> >THAT is what the report says.
>
> >The argument that Iraq was a threat in 2003 relied on
> >confabulating UNSCOM of the 1990s with UNMOVIC
> >of 2002-3, ignoring the short shelf-life of Iraqi munitions,
> >ignoring the absence of manufacturing facilities, ignoring
> >the 'unprecedented' cooperation with UNMOVIC and
> >requiring that Iraq achieve the logical impossibility of
> >proving a negative hypothesis.
>

You're lying, or you're seriously deluded.


Don't really give a fjukk which.

Bertie

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> You're lying, or you're seriously deluded.
>
>
> Don't really give a fjukk which.
>
> Bertie
>

That's the problem with these political diatribes.

They always seem to degenerate into name calling.

And they settle absolutely = nothing.


Richard
Unimpressed with the whole bunch og you guys.

)removes cross post to alt.politics)

[Jim Logajan]

Mark Hickey > wrote:
> I've bet dozens of people that they couldn't find ONE quote from the
> Bush administration claiming Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

"Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces
Against Iraq"

....
"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety
of American citizens;"

From:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

That resolution was sought by the administration. The tie-in between Iraq
and the 9-11 attacks is repeated in Bush's letter to congress on the eve of
the attack on Iraq:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

Ergo the Bush administration at a minimum agreed with the connection, and
other statements and actions indicates they had a clear intent to create a
psychological connection between Iraq and the 9-11 attacks. There is no
question in any reasonable reading that the resolution authorizing the
attack on Iraq makes it clear that Iraq's actions made it partly
responsible for the 9-11 attacks.

The time for disengenuous word games is long past. A lot of good people are
now dead who should not have died for motivations by others that were
shallow and self-delusional. When you can bring those people back to life,
then maybe we can discuss your word games.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Sep 10, 5:43 pm, cavelamb himself > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> > You're lying, or you're seriously deluded.
>
> > Don't really give a fjukk which.
>
> > Bertie
>
> That's the problem with these political diatribes.
>
> They always seem to degenerate into name calling.
>
> And they settle absolutely = nothing.
>
> Richard
> Unimpressed with the whole bunch og you guys.
>
> )removes cross post to alt.politics)


Be fair, I started off namecalling and never deviated once.

Bertie

[Anthony W]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>> )removes cross post to alt.politics)
>
>
> Be fair, I started off namecalling and never deviated once.
>
> Bertie

I guess the I'm the same. "Liberalism is mental disorder."

Hover I don't bother joining in on ****ing contests. This my first and
last post on this subject...

[Mark Hickey]

Jim Logajan > wrote:

>Mark Hickey > wrote:
>> I've bet dozens of people that they couldn't find ONE quote from the
>> Bush administration claiming Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
>
>"Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces
>Against Iraq"
>
>...
>"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
>attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the
>attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
>
>Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
>organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety
>of American citizens;"
>
>From:
>http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
>
>That resolution was sought by the administration. The tie-in between Iraq
>and the 9-11 attacks is repeated in Bush's letter to congress on the eve of
>the attack on Iraq:
>
>http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html
>
>Ergo the Bush administration at a minimum agreed with the connection, and
>other statements and actions indicates they had a clear intent to create a
>psychological connection between Iraq and the 9-11 attacks. There is no
>question in any reasonable reading that the resolution authorizing the
>attack on Iraq makes it clear that Iraq's actions made it partly
>responsible for the 9-11 attacks.

Not at all. The thing 9/11 changed was our ability to wait and see
what would happen... it no longer seemed (nor does it now) a prudent
thing to do.

>The time for disengenuous word games is long past.

Apparently not - see above.

>A lot of good people are
>now dead who should not have died for motivations by others that were
>shallow and self-delusional. When you can bring those people back to life,
>then maybe we can discuss your word games.

No reasonable person would read the administration quote above and
conclude that it implies that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack.
It says what it says - that Iraq has been known to support and harbor
known terrorist organizations that have killed Americans (not all of
which ended up being true, but enough was to satisfy me that we
couldn't let Saddam go unchecked).

If I were to find out that you had been supporting the IRA in the
'70s, and mentioned that the IRA had killed X number of Americans in a
particular attack, would I *really* be accusing you of participating
in that particular attack? Not in my world.

Mark "sorry, no cigar" Hickey

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Sep 11, 3:12 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
> >Mark Hickey > wrote:
> >> I've bet dozens of people that they couldn't find ONE quote from the
> >> Bush administration claiming Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
>
> >"Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces
> >Against Iraq"
>
> >...
> >"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
> >attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the
> >attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
>
> >Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
> >organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety
> >of American citizens;"
>
> >From:
> >http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
>
> >That resolution was sought by the administration. The tie-in between Iraq
> >and the 9-11 attacks is repeated in Bush's letter to congress on the eve of
> >the attack on Iraq:
>
> >http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html
>
> >Ergo the Bush administration at a minimum agreed with the connection, and
> >other statements and actions indicates they had a clear intent to create a
> >psychological connection between Iraq and the 9-11 attacks. There is no
> >question in any reasonable reading that the resolution authorizing the
> >attack on Iraq makes it clear that Iraq's actions made it partly
> >responsible for the 9-11 attacks.
>
> Not at all. The thing 9/11 changed was our ability to wait and see
> what would happen... it no longer seemed (nor does it now) a prudent
> thing to do.
>
> >The time for disengenuous word games is long past.
>
> Apparently not - see above.
>
> >A lot of good people are
> >now dead who should not have died for motivations by others that were
> >shallow and self-delusional. When you can bring those people back to life,
> >then maybe we can discuss your word games.
>
> No reasonable person would read the administration quote above and
> conclude that it implies that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack.
> It says what it says - that Iraq has been known to support and harbor
> known terrorist organizations that have killed Americans (not all of
> which ended up being true, but enough was to satisfy me that we
> couldn't let Saddam go unchecked).

Bull****. You're molding the facts to justify your buddy bush's
private little war.
>
> If I were to find out that you had been supporting the IRA in the
> '70s, and mentioned that the IRA had killed X number of Americans in a
> particular attack, would I *really* be accusing you of participating
> in that particular attack? Not in my world.
>
> Mark "sorry, no cigar" Hickey- Hide quoted text -

Bwawhawhhahwhahwhawhhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwah hwhawhhawhhahwahwhahwhahhwhawhhahw!


God I love usenet.


Bertie

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Sep 10, 6:43 am, Steve Hix >
wrote:
> In article >,
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
> > Mark Hickey > wrote:
> > > [...] willful ignorance of history.
>
> > Speaking of history (and ignorance, I suppose), I believe _the_ reason
> > stated for invading Iraq was to neutralize their WMD.
>
> Nope. It was one of a list of a dozen or sixteen items, and not the
> first on the list.

How about if you refer us to that specific list? That way
we can check on how many of those 16 items have been
addressed.

> Mind, the press in general grabbed that one item and
> ran with it, pretty much ignoring the rest of the list, including things
> like Iraq's open and long-time ongoing support for terrorism all over
> the place,

"All over the place?" Where, besides Israel?

>
> having started and fought a couple three wars with neighbors,
> and so on.

Two, I think, see below.

>
> > None found.
>
> Not quite. Actually several bits, here and there, mostly leftovers from
> the Iran/Iraq matches of the 80s.
>
> Don't forget that essentially every national (as in various nations in
> both hemispheres) intelligence service figured from the evidence they
> managed to dig up that if they didn't have WMDs in stock and ready to
> use (the majority consensus), they could gin 'em up pretty quickly.

What they said, and what they thought, are not necessarily the
same. Deception is an essential component of intelligence
activities.

> Iraq
> certainly showed no reluctance to use chemical weapons in particular
> against either the Iranians or against various of their own citizens.
> Repeatedly.
>

It is important to note that hte last use of Iraqi WMD was in 1989,
thirteen years prior to the invasion. While he might have been
able to 'gin them up quickly' we were also capable of bombing
the crap out of him, even quicker.

By 2003, Iraq lad lost the capacity to threaten military action
against neighboring states. Saddam Hussein didn't even
control the Northern third of his own country, and couldn't
fly a military aircraft over or turn on a military radar in two
thirds of his country without having it shot down or blown
up.

--

FF

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mark Hickey > wrote in
:


>
> "voter fraud" chicago - this search yields 186,000 hits.
>
> Mark "not an apostle yet, apparently" Hickey


Well, here's another lefty that's seen the light...


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece



Bertie
>

[Craig[_3_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> On Sep 8, 5:56 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >On 7 sep, 07:35, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> > >> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >
> > >> >On Sep 6, 2:36 pm, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> > >> >> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> > >> >> > So far, no one's been able to
> > >> >> >> show a single quote. I'm guessing you won't do any better (though you
> > >> >> >> seem to be VERY certain of your position - I'm not sure how big a
> > >> >> >> number "umpteum" is, but all you need is one quote - should be a piece
> > >> >> >> of cake, right?).
> >
> > >> >> >Yep
> >
> > >> >> >http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html
> >
> > >> >> Is it a reading comprehension problem, or do you think "WMD" is an
> > >> >> acronym that has something to do with flying airplanes into buildings?
> >
> > >> >Nope, I read jjust fine.
> >
> > >> >What WMDs, btw?
> >
> > >> The ones that the link you referenced above was talking about (rather
> > >> than the 9/11 attack, which is the subject of the question).
> >
> > >No, it isn't. It's what you're trying to make the question.
> >
> > Ummm... look above. I am asking for a SINGLE quote to prove your
> > assertion that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.
>
> Ask away. I didn't make thaqt assertation, fjukkwit.
>
> You really are as dumm as dishwater, aintcha>?
>
> >
> > You reply with a geocities.com link above that has not a thing to do
> > with the 9/11 attack.
>
> Didn't say it did, fjukkktard.
> >
> > Then you deny it and accuse ME of "trying to make (it) the question.
> >
> > I'm trying to figure out if you're being disingenuous or just trying
> > to ignore the fact you couldn't come up with a single quote out of the
> > "umpteum" examples out there...
>
> I'm being Bertie the Bunyip.
>
> I'm always being Bertie the Bunyip.
> >
>
> It's a pure and noble calling.

Almost as good as being a fake air safety guru! Or splap regulator.

Craig

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Craig > wrote in :

>
>
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> On Sep 8, 5:56 am, Mark Hickey > wrote:
>> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >On 7 sep, 07:35, Mark Hickey > wrote:
>> > >> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >
>> > >> >On Sep 6, 2:36 pm, Mark Hickey > wrote:
>> > >> >> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> > >> >> > So far, no one's been able to
>> > >> >> >> show a single quote. I'm guessing you won't do any better
>> > >> >> >> (though you seem to be VERY certain of your position - I'm
>> > >> >> >> not sure how big a number "umpteum" is, but all you need
>> > >> >> >> is one quote - should be a piece of cake, right?).
>> >
>> > >> >> >Yep
>> >
>> > >> >> >http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html
>> >
>> > >> >> Is it a reading comprehension problem, or do you think "WMD"
>> > >> >> is an acronym that has something to do with flying airplanes
>> > >> >> into buildings?
>> >
>> > >> >Nope, I read jjust fine.
>> >
>> > >> >What WMDs, btw?
>> >
>> > >> The ones that the link you referenced above was talking about
>> > >> (rather than the 9/11 attack, which is the subject of the
>> > >> question).
>> >
>> > >No, it isn't. It's what you're trying to make the question.
>> >
>> > Ummm... look above. I am asking for a SINGLE quote to prove your
>> > assertion that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.
>>
>> Ask away. I didn't make thaqt assertation, fjukkwit.
>>
>> You really are as dumm as dishwater, aintcha>?
>>
>> >
>> > You reply with a geocities.com link above that has not a thing to
>> > do with the 9/11 attack.
>>
>> Didn't say it did, fjukkktard.
>> >
>> > Then you deny it and accuse ME of "trying to make (it) the
>> > question.
>> >
>> > I'm trying to figure out if you're being disingenuous or just
>> > trying to ignore the fact you couldn't come up with a single quote
>> > out of the "umpteum" examples out there...
>>
>> I'm being Bertie the Bunyip.
>>
>> I'm always being Bertie the Bunyip.
>> >
>>
>> It's a pure and noble calling.
>
> Almost as good as being a fake air safety guru! Or splap regulator.
>


I wish!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mark Hickey > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>On 7 sep, 07:35, Mark Hickey > wrote:
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Sep 6, 2:36 pm, Mark Hickey > wrote:
>>> >> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> >> > So far, no one's been able to
>>> >> >> show a single quote. I'm guessing you won't do any better
>>> >> >> (though you seem to be VERY certain of your position - I'm not
>>> >> >> sure how big a number "umpteum" is, but all you need is one
>>> >> >> quote - should be a piece of cake, right?).
>>>
>>> >> >Yep
>>>
>>> >> >http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html
>>>
>>> >> Is it a reading comprehension problem, or do you think "WMD" is
>>> >> an acronym that has something to do with flying airplanes into
>>> >> buildings?
>>>
>>> >Nope, I read jjust fine.
>>>
>>> >What WMDs, btw?
>>>
>>> The ones that the link you referenced above was talking about
>>> (rather than the 9/11 attack, which is the subject of the question).
>>
>>No, it isn't. It's what you're trying to make the question.
>
> Ummm... look above. I am asking for a SINGLE quote to prove your
> assertion that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.


Here you go,

If you deny this you're as big an idiot or bigger than Bush



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vefD3WSiis



Bertie

[Mark Hickey]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>Mark Hickey > wrote in
:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>>>On 7 sep, 07:35, Mark Hickey > wrote:
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Sep 6, 2:36 pm, Mark Hickey > wrote:
>>>> >> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> >> > So far, no one's been able to
>>>> >> >> show a single quote. I'm guessing you won't do any better
>>>> >> >> (though you seem to be VERY certain of your position - I'm not
>>>> >> >> sure how big a number "umpteum" is, but all you need is one
>>>> >> >> quote - should be a piece of cake, right?).
>>>>
>>>> >> >Yep
>>>>
>>>> >> >http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html
>>>>
>>>> >> Is it a reading comprehension problem, or do you think "WMD" is
>>>> >> an acronym that has something to do with flying airplanes into
>>>> >> buildings?
>>>>
>>>> >Nope, I read jjust fine.
>>>>
>>>> >What WMDs, btw?
>>>>
>>>> The ones that the link you referenced above was talking about
>>>> (rather than the 9/11 attack, which is the subject of the question).
>>>
>>>No, it isn't. It's what you're trying to make the question.
>>
>> Ummm... look above. I am asking for a SINGLE quote to prove your
>> assertion that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.
>
>Here you go,
>
>If you deny this you're as big an idiot or bigger than Bush
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vefD3WSiis

While I'm sure that virtually everyone in the US watched and was
influenced by an 11 minute interview on Irish television (LOL), you're
only proving my point by not being able to produce a single quote.

C'mon Bertie... it can't be THAT hard to actually type out the actual
WORDS that prove your point, now can it? Even W could do that with
ease. Errrr, if they actually existed. I know you're hoping that we
won't have the time to watch a boring 11 minute interview (I don't) to
see that you're STILL wrong.

Mark "antiobfuscation" Hickey

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mark Hickey > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>Mark Hickey > wrote in
:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 7 sep, 07:35, Mark Hickey > wrote:
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >On Sep 6, 2:36 pm, Mark Hickey > wrote:
>>>>> >> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>> >> > So far, no one's been able to
>>>>> >> >> show a single quote. I'm guessing you won't do any better
>>>>> >> >> (though you seem to be VERY certain of your position - I'm
not
>>>>> >> >> sure how big a number "umpteum" is, but all you need is one
>>>>> >> >> quote - should be a piece of cake, right?).
>>>>>
>>>>> >> >Yep
>>>>>
>>>>> >> >http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html
>>>>>
>>>>> >> Is it a reading comprehension problem, or do you think "WMD" is
>>>>> >> an acronym that has something to do with flying airplanes into
>>>>> >> buildings?
>>>>>
>>>>> >Nope, I read jjust fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> >What WMDs, btw?
>>>>>
>>>>> The ones that the link you referenced above was talking about
>>>>> (rather than the 9/11 attack, which is the subject of the
question).
>>>>
>>>>No, it isn't. It's what you're trying to make the question.
>>>
>>> Ummm... look above. I am asking for a SINGLE quote to prove your
>>> assertion that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.
>>
>>Here you go,
>>
>>If you deny this you're as big an idiot or bigger than Bush
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vefD3WSiis
>
> While I'm sure that virtually everyone in the US watched and was
> influenced by an 11 minute interview on Irish television (LOL), you're
> only proving my point by not being able to produce a single quote.


Yeah, right. Figured you would say that.


And, BTW, it was picked up by CNN.
and I'm sure most people didn;t watch it or anything else that might
offer a point of view that might upset the apple cart.
Which would go a long way towards explaining why a dip**** like that got
elected in the first place.



Bertie
>

[Mark Hickey]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>Mark Hickey > wrote in
:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>>>Mark Hickey > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 7 sep, 07:35, Mark Hickey > wrote:

>>>> Ummm... look above. I am asking for a SINGLE quote to prove your
>>>> assertion that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.
>>>
>>>Here you go,
>>>
>>>If you deny this you're as big an idiot or bigger than Bush
>>>
>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vefD3WSiis
>>
>> While I'm sure that virtually everyone in the US watched and was
>> influenced by an 11 minute interview on Irish television (LOL), you're
>> only proving my point by not being able to produce a single quote.
>
>Yeah, right. Figured you would say that.

Why wouldn't I? There's nothing in that interview even REMOTELY
connecting Iraq and 9/11 other than the fact they are both mentioned
during the course of the interview... (I couldn't help myself and
watched it). The only segment in which both were mentioned in any
proximity to each other:

"On September the eleventh 2001 we were attacked in an unprovoked
fashion. Everybody thought the world was calm. And then there
had been bombings since then. Not because of my response to
Iraq... there were bombings in Madrid, there were bombings in
Istanbul, there were bombings in Bali, there were killings in
Pakistan."

Is THAT supposed to be your "smoking gun"??? LOL.

>And, BTW, it was picked up by CNN.
> and I'm sure most people didn;t watch it or anything else that might
>offer a point of view that might upset the apple cart.
>Which would go a long way towards explaining why a dip**** like that got
>elected in the first place.

Speaking of which - have you found a quote that backs up your "slam
dunk" position yet? Just one? C'mon, Bertie... what'll everyone
think if you come off so convinced of your point, and then totally
fall flat on your face when it comes to backing it up to a mental
midget like me?

Mark "I guess it's all relative" Hickey

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mark Hickey > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>Mark Hickey > wrote in
:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 7 sep, 07:35, Mark Hickey > wrote:
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >On Sep 6, 2:36 pm, Mark Hickey > wrote:
>>>>> >> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>> >> > So far, no one's been able to
>>>>> >> >> show a single quote. I'm guessing you won't do any better
>>>>> >> >> (though you seem to be VERY certain of your position - I'm
not
>>>>> >> >> sure how big a number "umpteum" is, but all you need is one
>>>>> >> >> quote - should be a piece of cake, right?).
>>>>>
>>>>> >> >Yep
>>>>>
>>>>> >> >http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html
>>>>>
>>>>> >> Is it a reading comprehension problem, or do you think "WMD" is
>>>>> >> an acronym that has something to do with flying airplanes into
>>>>> >> buildings?
>>>>>
>>>>> >Nope, I read jjust fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> >What WMDs, btw?
>>>>>
>>>>> The ones that the link you referenced above was talking about
>>>>> (rather than the 9/11 attack, which is the subject of the
question).
>>>>
>>>>No, it isn't. It's what you're trying to make the question.
>>>
>>> Ummm... look above. I am asking for a SINGLE quote to prove your
>>> assertion that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.
>>
>>Here you go,
>>
>>If you deny this you're as big an idiot or bigger than Bush
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vefD3WSiis
>
> While I'm sure that virtually everyone in the US watched and was
> influenced by an 11 minute interview on Irish television (LOL), you're
> only proving my point by not being able to produce a single quote.
>
> C'mon Bertie... it can't be THAT hard to actually type out the actual
> WORDS that prove your point, now can it? Even W could do that with
> ease. Errrr, if they actually existed. I know you're hoping that we
> won't have the time to watch a boring 11 minute interview (I don't) to
> see that you're STILL wrong.


Oh, and BTW, how many world leaders are wimpy enough to komplain to the
embassy of a reporter's nation after an interview?

Talk about yer tinpot...





Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mark Hickey > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>Mark Hickey > wrote in
:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Mark Hickey > wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 7 sep, 07:35, Mark Hickey > wrote:
>
>>>>> Ummm... look above. I am asking for a SINGLE quote to prove your
>>>>> assertion that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.
>>>>
>>>>Here you go,
>>>>
>>>>If you deny this you're as big an idiot or bigger than Bush
>>>>
>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vefD3WSiis
>>>
>>> While I'm sure that virtually everyone in the US watched and was
>>> influenced by an 11 minute interview on Irish television (LOL),
you're
>>> only proving my point by not being able to produce a single quote.
>>
>>Yeah, right. Figured you would say that.
>
> Why wouldn't I? There's nothing in that interview even REMOTELY
> connecting Iraq and 9/11 other than the fact they are both mentioned
> during the course of the interview... (I couldn't help myself and
> watched it). The only segment in which both were mentioned in any
> proximity to each other:
>
> "On September the eleventh 2001 we were attacked in an unprovoked
> fashion. Everybody thought the world was calm. And then there
> had been bombings since then. Not because of my response to
> Iraq... there were bombings in Madrid, there were bombings in
> Istanbul, there were bombings in Bali, there were killings in
> Pakistan."
>
> Is THAT supposed to be your "smoking gun"??? LOL.


But you said you dind't look at it.

And that you wouldn't


A
>
>>And, BTW, it was picked up by CNN.
>> and I'm sure most people didn;t watch it or anything else that might
>>offer a point of view that might upset the apple cart.
>>Which would go a long way towards explaining why a dip**** like that
got
>>elected in the first place.
>
> Speaking of which - have you found a quote that backs up your "slam
> dunk" position yet? Just one? C'mon, Bertie...


Yep.


what'll everyone
> think if you come off so convinced of your point, and then totally
> fall flat on your face when it comes to backing it up to a mental
> midget like me?
>

Don't actually care. They can make their own mind up.


Gotta have one first, of course..


> Mark "I guess it's all relative" Hickey
>

[Mark Hickey]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>Mark Hickey > wrote in
:

>> Why wouldn't I? There's nothing in that interview even REMOTELY
>> connecting Iraq and 9/11 other than the fact they are both mentioned
>> during the course of the interview... (I couldn't help myself and
>> watched it). The only segment in which both were mentioned in any
>> proximity to each other:
>>
>> "On September the eleventh 2001 we were attacked in an unprovoked
>> fashion. Everybody thought the world was calm. And then there
>> had been bombings since then. Not because of my response to
>> Iraq... there were bombings in Madrid, there were bombings in
>> Istanbul, there were bombings in Bali, there were killings in
>> Pakistan."
>>
>> Is THAT supposed to be your "smoking gun"??? LOL.
>
>
>But you said you dind't look at it.
>
>And that you wouldn't

Got a reading comprehension issue, Bertie?

Here's the totality of what I said on THAT subject:

"I know you're hoping that we won't have the time to watch a
boring 11 minute interview (I don't) to see that you're STILL
wrong."

>> Speaking of which - have you found a quote that backs up your "slam
>> dunk" position yet? Just one? C'mon, Bertie...
>
>Yep.

LOL. Of COURSE you do (rolling eyes). You're just keeping it a
secret from the rest of the world, right?

> what'll everyone
>> think if you come off so convinced of your point, and then totally
>> fall flat on your face when it comes to backing it up to a mental
>> midget like me?
>
>Don't actually care. They can make their own mind up.

Y'see, history doesn't actually work that way (contrary to what you
and many others contend - repeating a lie enough times doesn't make it
true). Either a historical fact / quote happened, or it didn't. I
challenged you (and anyone else who thinks I'm wrong) to come up with
ONE quote... yet you (and everyone else) haven't been able to do so.

If someone can "make their own mind up" to come to a conclusion other
than that "it never happened", then they can also convince themselves
of virtually anything (the 9/11 "truthers" spring to mind).
Convenient, but sad.

>Gotta have one first, of course..

True enough. The mind is what keeps us from believing in things that
cause cognitive dissonance (like firmly believing in things that never
actually happened even in the face of overwhelming lack of evidence).

Enjoy that!

Mark "I prefer the real world" Hickey

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mark Hickey > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>Mark Hickey > wrote in
:
>
>>> Why wouldn't I? There's nothing in that interview even REMOTELY
>>> connecting Iraq and 9/11 other than the fact they are both mentioned
>>> during the course of the interview... (I couldn't help myself and
>>> watched it). The only segment in which both were mentioned in any
>>> proximity to each other:
>>>
>>> "On September the eleventh 2001 we were attacked in an
unprovoked
>>> fashion. Everybody thought the world was calm. And then there
>>> had been bombings since then. Not because of my response to
>>> Iraq... there were bombings in Madrid, there were bombings in
>>> Istanbul, there were bombings in Bali, there were killings in
>>> Pakistan."
>>>
>>> Is THAT supposed to be your "smoking gun"??? LOL.
>>
>>
>>But you said you dind't look at it.
>>
>>And that you wouldn't
>
> Got a reading comprehension issue, Bertie?

Nope.


>
> Here's the totality of what I said on THAT subject:
>
> "I know you're hoping that we won't have the time to watch a
> boring 11 minute interview (I don't) to see that you're STILL
> wrong."
>

Yep, that's what you said.


>>> Speaking of which - have you found a quote that backs up your "slam
>>> dunk" position yet? Just one? C'mon, Bertie...
>>
>>Yep.
>
> LOL. Of COURSE you do (rolling eyes). You're just keeping it a
> secret from the rest of the world, right?


It's not a secret, 'cept from you maybe.


>
>> what'll everyone
>>> think if you come off so convinced of your point, and then totally
>>> fall flat on your face when it comes to backing it up to a mental
>>> midget like me?
>>
>>Don't actually care. They can make their own mind up.
>
> Y'see, history doesn't actually work that way (contrary to what you
> and many others contend - repeating a lie enough times doesn't make it
> true). Either a historical fact / quote happened, or it didn't. I
> challenged you (and anyone else who thinks I'm wrong) to come up with
> ONE quote... yet you (and everyone else) haven't been able to do so.
>

So, he didn't invade Iraq, eh?


they're going to hav a **** of a time hiding that one.



> If someone can "make their own mind up"


Yeh, I know that's anathema to you, but many people do.


Bertie

[Stuart & Kathryn Fields]

It is hard to be absolutely sure of a point. Siegfried and Roy proved that
before your eyes and not just before your ears.
Someone in history, Anatole France? said "The trouble with the world is that
the fools are cocksure and the intelligent people full of doubt". Quote may
not be exact but I think the meaning is there.


"Mark Hickey" > wrote in message
...
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>Mark Hickey > wrote in
:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Mark Hickey > wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 7 sep, 07:35, Mark Hickey > wrote:
>
>>>>> Ummm... look above. I am asking for a SINGLE quote to prove your
>>>>> assertion that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.
>>>>
>>>>Here you go,
>>>>
>>>>If you deny this you're as big an idiot or bigger than Bush
>>>>
>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vefD3WSiis
>>>
>>> While I'm sure that virtually everyone in the US watched and was
>>> influenced by an 11 minute interview on Irish television (LOL), you're
>>> only proving my point by not being able to produce a single quote.
>>
>>Yeah, right. Figured you would say that.
>
> Why wouldn't I? There's nothing in that interview even REMOTELY
> connecting Iraq and 9/11 other than the fact they are both mentioned
> during the course of the interview... (I couldn't help myself and
> watched it). The only segment in which both were mentioned in any
> proximity to each other:
>
> "On September the eleventh 2001 we were attacked in an unprovoked
> fashion. Everybody thought the world was calm. And then there
> had been bombings since then. Not because of my response to
> Iraq... there were bombings in Madrid, there were bombings in
> Istanbul, there were bombings in Bali, there were killings in
> Pakistan."
>
> Is THAT supposed to be your "smoking gun"??? LOL.
>
>>And, BTW, it was picked up by CNN.
>> and I'm sure most people didn;t watch it or anything else that might
>>offer a point of view that might upset the apple cart.
>>Which would go a long way towards explaining why a dip**** like that got
>>elected in the first place.
>
> Speaking of which - have you found a quote that backs up your "slam
> dunk" position yet? Just one? C'mon, Bertie... what'll everyone
> think if you come off so convinced of your point, and then totally
> fall flat on your face when it comes to backing it up to a mental
> midget like me?
>
> Mark "I guess it's all relative" Hickey

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" > wrote in
:

> It is hard to be absolutely sure of a point. Siegfried and Roy proved
> that before your eyes and not just before your ears.
> Someone in history, Anatole France? said "The trouble with the world
> is that the fools are cocksure and the intelligent people full of
> doubt". Quote may not be exact but I think the meaning is there.
>
>


Then you can't PROVE that they said it therefore it's not true


Bertie