Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Shhh... I ALMOST hear the sound of Geezer's neurons working!

The "program" smuggling charge is- like everything else in this article- unsupported. A "program" is the a combination of components, know-how, and intention. (means, motive, opportunity).

Since UNMOVIC had control of all those components while they were in Iraq, Saddam didn't "have" WMD, he couldn't' make WMD, and he didn't have a "program" to make WMD because his conventional and dual-use items were tagged and monitored. Saddam's WMD threat to the US was zilch. Zero. Nada.

HOWEVER, once those items move out of UNMOVIC control, they might be used to activate a program elsewhere. That occurred before, during AND AFTER the US invasion, including during times when Saddam was in prison. The articles make it sound like Saddam is orchestrating a massive WMD transfer to Syria, when that is very far from the truth.

And please don't hide behind others' opinions when they're really yours.

---

Quote:

---

What I 'make' of that is perhaps a thinly veiled slap at Bush...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/columns/040618.shtml?ID=13323

UN Confirms: WMDs Smuggled Out of Iraq
--------------------------------------------
© June 18, 2004, Rod D. Martin

---

Quote:

---

Late last week, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC)

---

Quote:

---

But did he HAVE WMD or an active program to produce them?? NO, HE DID NOT. You can point to "mountains" of evidence but NONE of it points to Saddam "having" WMD.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghoulman:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/columns/040618.shtml?ID=13323

UN Confirms: WMDs Smuggled Out of Iraq
--------------------------------------------
© June 18, 2004, Rod D. Martin

---

This is a while ago. Why would this information be relevant now that the facts have been proven?

Quote:

---

Late last week, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC)

---

Why should anyone take this UNMOVIC seriously?

And, gotta say, it's HI-larious you anti-UN guys pull this out as a defence to the WMD+Saddam arguement. An arguement that is already won.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Well, AURaptor, as usual, you only got part of the story. What I like when people provide links is matching up what they said was in the link with what was really there.
So, a google search on: "demetrius perricos" un "security council" provided me with many, many news items. (Edited to add: Demetrius Perricos took over from Hans Blix.)
The first listing, oddly enough, addressed the second issue you failed to respond to at all, the issue of whether or not force was necessary, since UN inspectors were in Iraq verifying compliance.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/UN%20Security%20Council%20Re
solution%201441
It gives a good timeline of the events leading to the atack on Iraq. In part it says that because France had already stated they would veto ANY resolution which authorized immediate advance to war absent a second resolution, the US had to pull their request for an authorization. Instead, the US did this: SNIP!!!

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote: ALLEGEDLY posted by rue:
So, a google search on: "demetrius perricos" un "security council" provided me with many, many news items...
http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/columns/040618.shtml?ID=13323

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Rue, you might want to remove the Vanguard link from your list of cites, since it disagrees with just about everything you said. Or were you just checking to see if we're still awake?

---

Quote:

---

and when we asked him to show proof of their destruction or of their existance and to hand what he DID have over to the U.N., Saddam balked

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
So I'll just ask you straight out - are you stupid or dishonest?

---

Quote:

---

In a report which might alternately be termed “stunning” or “terrifying”, United Nations weapons inspectors

---

Quote:

---

confirmed last week not merely that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,

---

Quote:

---

but that he smuggled them out of his country, before, during and after the war.

---

Quote:

---

Late last week, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) briefed the Security Council on Saddam's lightning-fast dismantling of missile and WMD sites before and during the war.

---

Quote:

---

UNMOVIC executive chairman Demetrius Perricos detailed not only the export of thousands of tons of missile components, nuclear reactor vessels and fermenters for chemical and biological warheads, but also the discovery of many (but not most) of these items - with UN inspection tags still on them -- as far afield as Jordan, Turkey and even Holland.

---

Quote:

---

Notably absent from that list is Iraq's western neighbor Syria, ruled by its own Baath Party just like Saddam's and closed to even the thought of an UNMOVIC inspection. Israeli intelligence has been reporting the large-scale smuggling of Saddam's WMD program across the Syrian border since at least two months before the war. Syria has long been the world's foremost state-sponsor of terrorism.

---

Quote:

---

Perricos highlighted the proliferation danger to the Security Council, as well he should: UNMOVIC has no idea where most of the WMD material is today, just that it exists and it's gone; and anything in Syria is likely to be in Jerusalem or New York tomorrow.

---

Quote:

---

This is the biggest news story of 2004 so far. Yet you haven't heard about it, have you? You probably haven't heard about Canada's Prime Minister Paul Martin either -- a socialist and no friend of America. Addressing a group of 700 university researchers and business leaders in Montreal last month, Martin stated bluntly that terrorists have acquired WMDs from Saddam. “The fact is that there is now, we know well, a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that many weapons that Saddam Hussein had, we don't know where they are…. [T]errorists have access to all of them,” the Canadian premier warned.

---

Quote:

---

The tip of this terrorist sword was scarcely deflected on April 26th, when Jordanian intelligence broke up an al Qaeda conspiracy to detonate a large chemical device in the capital city of Amman. Directed by al Qaeda terrorist leader Abu al-Zarqawi -- the same man who personally beheaded American Nicholas Berg in Iraq last month -- the plotters sought to use a massive explosion to spread a “toxic cloud”, meant to wipe out the U.S. embassy, the Jordanian prime minister's office, the Jordanian intelligence headquarters, and at least 20,000 civilians (by contrast, only 3,000 died on 9/11).

---

Quote:

---

Over twenty tons of chemical weapons were seized from the conspirators, who were just days away from carrying out their plot.

---

Quote:

---

One wonders where CNN and USA Today think twenty tons of nerve gas and sarin came from: Chemical Weapons-Mart? Yet their coverage, like most major media outlets, mentioned not a word about Saddam's smuggled WMDs, which -- according to liberal dogma -- “don't exist.”

---

Quote:

---

Even though the UN says they do exist,

---

Quote:

---

now spread around the world.
It's not just the UN. Bill Clinton says they exist

---

Quote:

---

even after the war: in a July 2003 interview with Larry King, the ex-president uncharacteristically defended George Bush, saying “it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there (was)…a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for” in Iraq.

---

Quote:

---

Every intelligence agency in the world -- French, British, German, Russian, Czech, you name it -- agreed before the war; Jordanian intelligence can certainly confirm their opinion today.
So what's the deal? Why the relentless pretence that “Bush lied”

---

Quote:

---

when even the UN and Bill Clinton say he didn't?

---

Quote:

---

Why the absolute silence about “inconvenient” parts of various UN reports, such as the discovery of chemical and biological weapons plans

---

Quote:

---

, recipes and equipment; of bio-weapons agents in an Iraqi scientist's house;

---

Quote:

---

of a prison lab for testing bio weapons on humans;

---

Quote:

---

of complexes for manufacturing fuel for prohibited long-range missiles; of artillery rounds containing enough sarin to kill thousands of people,

---

Quote:

---

of similar shells containing mustard gas, two (but far from the only) of which were used in a terrorist attack against U.S. forces just weeks ago?

---

Quote:

---

America cannot afford the answer to this “why”: that many on the left consider George W. Bush's defeat more urgent than al Qaeda's, his political death more essential than the possible physical death of millions of Americans.

---

Quote:

---

The character of our foreign enemies has never been in doubt. The character of the enemy within -- from Dan Rather to Michael Moore

---

Quote:

---

-- has never been clearer. And the stakes are the highest they've ever been.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
A lot has happened since I last visited this fine site.

Where to begin ...

It's so nice to be misquoted. Bush does that all the time to phony an argument. Taking lessons from your master, Geezer?

---

Quote:

---

I could go around and around with all sorts of quotes, examples, links, and reason, but you know Geezer, that doesn't fly anywhere with you. So I'll just ask you straight out - are you stupid or dishonest?

---

Quote:

---

Did you not go to ANY OTHER LINK I posted ?? Do you not see the value of looking to MANY sources, sieving out the points of concurrence and leaving the chaff behind? Did you not read my summary where I SAID - upfront, that I took the best supported information and left out the 'stuff'?

In general I work from original documents. I presume you know enough about the media to be skeptical of the news yourself. The AP wire said that AP had obtained the text of the report, but didn't post a link. So we, you and I, are stuck with parsimonious quotes squeezed onto the news, and reams of paraphrases, spin, editorializing, speculation and all sorts of 'stuff' that doesn't have anything to do with reality. Like a newspaper analyst for the CIA, one has to read A LOT to find the news. There were two links just dripping with 'stuff'. The Vanguard was one of them. I'm surprised you're not harping about the other one as well.

---

Quote:

---

To go on to the claim of WMD that you (Auraptor)made:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122311,00.html
http://www.novogate.com/exco/thread.php?forumid=2302&threadid=60906
http://www.fbbn.com/cgi-bin/viewnews.cgi?category=17&id=1072101891
http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/columns/040618.shtml?ID=13323
Even the most right-wing of these, dripping with sarcasm and innuendo, repeat the same facts (speculation and innuendo stripped):

---

Quote:

---

. As the quote below reveals, your assertion that 'WMDs were shipped out of Iraq' before, during and after the invasion are not supported by the UN report.

---

Quote:

---

: “In a report which might alternately be termed “stunning” or “terrifying”, United Nations weapons inspectors confirmed last week not merely that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but that he smuggled them out of his country, before, during and after the war.

Late last week, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) briefed the Security Council on Saddam's lightning-fast dismantling of missile and WMD sites before and during the war.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- I can't speak for Rue, but I think she (?) already answered that question with the part of her post that said- Have you never looked at multiple articles to find the parts that were consistent?

Having become familiar with Rue's style of posting, I think the point was to link to ALL sources of information so that people with opposing viewpoints couldn't claim that she missed or censored dissenting views.

I really don't understand why you're making such a big deal about this, it seems very obvious to me.

---

Quote:

---

Geezer- are YOU awake?? Grab some coffee, bring your normal skepticism to the table, and read this CAREFULLY:


Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Late last week, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) briefed the Security Council on Saddam's lightning-fast dismantling of missile and WMD sites before and during the war. UNMOVIC executive chairman Demetrius Perricos detailed not only the export of thousands of tons of missile components, nuclear reactor vessels and fermenters for chemical and biological warheads, but also the discovery of many (but not most) of these items - with UN inspection tags still on them -- as far afield as Jordan, Turkey and even Holland.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Now, where did it say that WMD were removed? It said that "missile components", "nuclear reactor vessels" and "fermenters" "WITH UN INSPECTION TAGS STILL ON THEM" went missing.

Missiles, fermenters, and nuclear reactor vessels are NOT.. repeat NOT... WMD. Missiles are, well, missiles. Saddam was allowed missiles (Samoud or S2) for defensive purposes provided that they didn't exceed a certain range (I think it was 120 miles) and carried conventional warheads. Every nation in the world has missiles. You may at times see Saddam's missiles referred to as "ballistic" missiles, making them sound even scarier because we all think about "intercontinental ballistic missiles" or ICBMs, but "ballistic" simply means unguided: It get shot high up into the air and lands where the initial trajectory pointed it.

Nuclear reactor vessels are part of CIVILIAN nuclear power generation and medical research, and that is many, many many many steps removed from nuclear weapons. A number of universities in the USA have nuclear reactors to make isotopes and create gamma rays for medical purposes, for example.

Fermenters have a number of legitimate uses, including brewing beer and culturing mold-based antibiotics like penicillin. The part of the article that says: "fermenters for chemical and biological warheads" is a lie. The UN had already assessed that these items were NOT part of a WMD program.

It's just like the 380 tons of high explosives that disappreared from under USA noses. It COULD be used to detonate a nuclear device and will likely be portrayed as a "WMD" or "WMD component" in right-wing newspapers, but that was not what it was being used for in Iraq, and like the other missing items it had been tagged and was being monitored by the UN (intil the USA screwed them up).

BTW- our lab has already had to sign several export license agreements for "dual use" items like pressure sensors (it COULD be used in a nuclear reactor!) and chemical detectors (they COULD be used for making CWA!). My gosh- may as well tag our lab too!

---

Quote:

---

Regarding the foiled attack in Jordan:


Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One wonders where CNN and USA Today think twenty tons of nerve gas and sarin came from
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



First of all, it wasn't 20 tons of "nerve gas and sarin". That was never in any news stories. The chemicals were stated as "a mixture of 71 different chemicals" including several tons of sulfuric acid, "nerve agents" and "blister agents". If the terrorists actually had their hands on sarin and nerve gas, they wouldn't NEED 20 tons. Several 55-gallon drums would be sufficient.

The chemicals were almost certainly industrial. To get a rough order of magnitude on industrial chemical injuries, the chemical disaster at Bhopal killed more than 10,000 people and injured 600,000 from a leak of 40 tons of methyl isocynate which is a "blistering agent" (causes blistering of the lungs, pulmonary edema and death due to drowning).

Now, I'm not going to provide a recipe for how to create a toxic cloud from basic industial chemicals, but since I am a chemist working on both a CWA anti-terrorism project AND industrial releases, some of the chemicals that could be used to create a toxic cloud of "blistering agents" and "nerve agents" are as close as your kitchen sink and garage. Sarin and mustard gas are not necessary, especially in "ton" quantities.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CapnRahn:
One quick question to anyone {either side} who deigns to answer. And yes, it could be considered germaine to the thread. If spun correctly!

Which phrase do you REALLY believe MOST in:

"Might Makes Right"
OR
"With Great Power come Great Responsibility"

Just curious ... and thanks for your input!

"Remember, there is only ONE absolute - There ARE NO absolutes!!!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Geezer,

...Got it now ? Or do I have to make this even simpler?

---

Quote:

---

2. I read the Vanguard article (which seemed the "most right-wing") and note that it doesn't "repeat the same facts." That it actually contradicts most of your points. I wonder about this and ask for clarification.

3. After a few skirmishes with SignyM, you return and, following the usual preliminary insults, proceed to deconstruct the Vanguard article, which you originally stated "repeat(ed) the same facts" and show how every sentence is either a lie, an opinion, or an incomplete description.

---

Quote:

---

From what I recall of The Vanguard, they're about polar opposites from you and Rue on most stuff, and I reserve the same skeptcism for their positions that I do for yours.

---

Quote:

---

The psychologists then began the brainwashing procedure {on Ghoulman} and discovered...well...let’s just say you can’t wash what you can’t find.... Just kiddin', Ghoul.

---

Quote:

---

Is she really a closet Bushie trying to slip one in on us, or did she just not read it completely before she cited it? I suspect the latter. I just wanted her to check it out and see if she really wanted to include it as a reference. I even put the little winky guy on there (the universal symbol of "not being serious").

What concerns me even more than politics right now is that fact that so many people can't take a F'ing joke.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I guess I expected more of you, oh vaunted skeptic. When you pointed to the Vanguard article I assumed that you would bring to it the same magnifying glass that you bring to more left-wing opinions, and realize that the article even contradicted ITSELF (referring to WMD in one para and WMD program components in another).

---

Quote:

---

Come on. Even someone as "stupid" as I can see that the Vanguard story is as biased as a Michael Moore documentory. The stuff about "One wonders where CNN and USA Today think twenty tons of nerve gas and sarin came from: Chemical Weapons-Mart?" is revealed as bogus from the original news reports about the Jordanian incident.

What's really funny in that in your Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 21:22 post you completely refute the Vanguard article. And what's even funnier is that I agree with you about most of it. Which leaves us with the original question; why did you use it as cite to support your position in the first place? That's all I really wanted to know.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"Even the most right-wing of these, dripping with sarcasm and innuendo, repeat the same facts."
AGAIN, it's so nice to be misquoted. What I ACTUALLY wrote was:
"Even the most right-wing of these, dripping with sarcasm and innuendo, repeat the same facts (speculation and innuendo stripped)"
I then go on to list the points of concurrence.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, I guess I can't say that you NEVER tell an anti-Bush joke! Hahahahaha!!!

OK, OK... Let's go have a beer or something!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
SIGH.

First you accuse me of posting things that DON'T support my views, now you accuse me of only posting things that I agree with. Which is it?

And, for the record, what I did with my analysis was 1) pick out all the direct quotes as the most likely areas of truth, 2) delete items that were contradicted by those direct quotes 3) delete items identified by the individual news report as NOT from the UN report (from, for example Israeli intelligence) 4) delete items not directly related to the UN report (general editorializing about the state of Iraq, the UN, the world etc) and 5) delete items contradicted by the majority of the other unique news reports.

You should go thru this some day. You might learn something.

Out of curiosity, do you have any SUBSTANTIVE points to make?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
I'm ok with wear and tear on a fella's body. FDR was not any less of a man for the loss of the use of his legs.
What I do not like is being lied to at every turn.
Make of that what you will.

---

What I 'make' of that is perhaps a thinly veiled slap at Bush ( since that's been parrotted so often ), yet never does anyone actually present a 'lie' from him. Go figure.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

---

I regret that I do not have the time right now to present the staggeringly long list (c'mon, AURaptor, what rock have you been hiding under?) but I have one that should be fresh in anyone's mind: in the last debate W shamelessly acted as if he had no recolection of his having deprioritized Osama B. on national television. But then, I feel that your statement that nobody presents any lies from W is absolutely just as disingenuous--or just plain ignorant.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, I'll be attending a single malt whiskey tasting soon. Anything you'd like me to try for you? A sea-wrack and peat, or a sherry-casked whiskey?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BrownShirtsRock:
I would imagine that by about the year 2032, our candidates will be monkeys.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BrownShirtsRock:
I would imagine that by about the year 2032, our candidates will be monkeys.

---

This, Sir, is an insult to monkeys everywhere!

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---