or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Lies and the Presidency
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lies and the Presidency - Page 4  

post #121 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by Gamblor
Where are you getting this from? From the polls I've seen, a pretty large majority (70%) of the American public approves of how the war was handled, and doesn't care if WMDs are ever found.

I'm just listening to what people say here and around me personally. Where do you get your info from?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #122 of 561
The percentage in the upper fifties (usually), Gamblor.

Jimmac:

Quote:
These guys just don't get it. It's out in the open now. And guess what? The public doesn't like it.

Most people don't do things like this thinking they'll be impeached ( I'm sure Nixon didn't think he'd get into trouble ). They do it because they're stupid enough to think they'll get away with it.

Jimmac, this is another unsupported statement. You don't even to preface it with "I think that...". You just go ahead and state it as fact. In reality, it's not true. What you mean is that YOU and your liberal friends and associates don't like it. You'll use anything to try and bring Bush down. The man could rescue an infant from a burning car and you'd say he lit the fire or knew who did.

Comparing Bush to Nixon? Wow.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #123 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
I'm just listening to what people say here and around me personally. Where do you get your info from?



\


and finally.....




"The following are the results of a recent Jimmac poll. A completely one-sided sample of jimmac and 5 friends who work at a small liberal arts college and drink cappucino at 4.pm. shows":

1. How much do you hate the President?

A. A lot (57%)
B. A bunch (30%)
C. More than you can possiby imagine (10%)
D More than brussell sprouts (3%)


2. Since we all know that Bush is a lying bastard and started an unecessary war for oil, personal glory and political gain, how do you think he should be punished?

A. With a stick. A big stick. (65%)
B. He be impeached and removed. Twice. (10%)
C. He should be eaten by Hannibal Lector. But first, impeached. (20%)
D. He should have to kiss Hillary Clinton and sleep with Dom Delouise

3. How guilty is the President?

A. Real guilty. (10%)
B. Guilty as sin. (45%)
C. Guiltier than O.J. (40%)
D. As guilty, possibly more guilty than Scott Peterson (5%)

4. What are the chances of Bush being reelected?

A. Fair (0%)
B. Poor (0%)
C. Howard Dean will slaughter him. (3%)
D. He was never elected. He stole the election and was appointed by the supreme court. (97%)
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #124 of 561
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
The percentage in the upper fifties (usually), Gamblor.

Jimmac:



Jimmac, this is another unsupported statement. You don't even to preface it with "I think that...". You just go ahead and state it as fact. In reality, it's not true. What you mean is that YOU and your liberal friends and associates don't like it. You'll use anything to try and bring Bush down. The man could rescue an infant from a burning car and you'd say he lit the fire or knew who did.

Comparing Bush to Nixon? Wow.


SDW, this is another unsupported statement. You don't even to preface it with "I think that...". You just go ahead and state it as fact. In reality, it's not true. What you mean is that YOU and your conservative friends and associates don't like it. You'll use anything to try and bring Clinton down. The man could rescue an infant from a burning car and you'd say he lit the fire or knew who did.

Comparing Clinton to Nixon? Wow.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
post #125 of 561
Thread Starter 
SDW, you can't get those percentages from a five person poll.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
post #126 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
SDW, you can't get those percentages from a five person poll.

It was a joke. Relax. And BTW, my statement is supported:


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88778,00.html

Quote:
Even so, 69 percent of the public thinks the war with Iraq was justified without ever finding the banned weapons, and 76 percent say they are more likely to believe the missing weapons have been destroyed or moved rather than that there were no weapons at all (16 percent).


http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030604.asp


Thank you and good night.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #127 of 561
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #128 of 561

Self selected samples statistically have serious flaws. That poll says more about the people who visit infoplease.com & were motivated to vote than anything else.

Quote:
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/ha...dex.asp?PID=370

Here's some more interesting numbers.

Yeah, they're interesting, but they're also almost two months old. What would the responses to the same questions be if the poll were taken today?
post #129 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by Gamblor
Self selected samples statistically have serious flaws. That poll says more about the people who visit infoplease.com & were motivated to vote than anything else.



Yeah, they're interesting, but they're also almost two months old. What would the responses to the same questions be if the poll were taken today?




Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #130 of 561
pfflam:

Quote:
Also we simply don't understand 'honor' as concieved by the Tikritis.

Nor should we give a shit. You're either going to play along with the rules or you're not. If "well I have pride" is a valid defense then the UN-SC is an even bigger joke than I thought.

--

jimmac:

Laughing smileys in place of logical refutation.

--

Since the #s on polls will go Bush's way on this watch "WHAT ABOUT DEMOCRACY!?!?!?" go out the window as an argument when the #s don't go their way.

proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #131 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
pfflam:



Nor should we give a shit. You're either going to play along with the rules or you're not. If "well I have pride" is a valid defense then the UN-SC is an even bigger joke than I thought.

--

jimmac:

Laughing smileys in place of logical refutation.

--

Since the #s on polls will go Bush's way on this watch "WHAT ABOUT DEMOCRACY!?!?!?" go out the window as an argument when the #s don't go their way.


Yeah but sometimes they say it all!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #132 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
]giant,

Why would anyone even try with you. You consider yourself a critical thinker yet I could type your replies before you do because they are nothing but reflexive.

I'm really confused how someone who listens to Anne Coulter that much thinks they have the intelligence to criticize anyone. As for the 'points,' find me one that hasn't already been beaten to death here on AI. Do you think pretending this is something new actually gives it any credibility? If anything, it just exposes your weaknesses.

Oh, and the only thing that resembled a 'point' was addressed. Don't try to BS anyone, their not as gullible as you. Pick a topic and we'll discuss it. Until you do, you are just playing kid games.
post #133 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman

There were plenty of folks here and in the Sunday talk shows and newspaper editorial columns saying this would be another Vietnam or at minimum there would be casualties both from "urban warfare" to borrow the favored 24 hour news phrase and also from chemical weapons.

What is with you people that try to lie about events from just TWO MONTHS AGO?!?!

In the lead up to war there were a large number of scenarios that were discussed, and this was one of them. This was not a right/left wing issue. This was not a war/anti-war topic but a tactical one that some people said could make the war too deadly for the expected payoff.

Hell, the Iraqi possible use of chemical weapons was and STILL IS a topic more discussed in military circles and, when on TV, military officers. Or maybe you haven't seen all of the officers on TV saying how surprised they were that nothing was used?!?! Urban warfare was a fear of the military more than anyone as a result of 'black hawk down'.

Who the hell do you think you are fooling? Or are you really that far removed from reality?
post #134 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman


So I have not dismissed history or facts. Saddam had the ability to create and also had used them. He kicked out inspectors in 1998 and could have gladly come clean at any time and be allowed to continue terrorizing his own people just as he had since 1979.

OK, genius, if you pay so much attention to fact AND state that you know the WMD abilities of Iraq, why don't you cite exactly what he had that was a threat? Since you don't ignore the facts that shouldn't be too hard. Give me exact tonage. Cite your source, too.

After that we'll go into the fact that he couldn't produce anymore chemical weapons because the massive facilities needed simply don't exist, just for starters.
post #135 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
What is with you people that try to lie about events from just TWO MONTHS AGO?!?!

In the lead up to war there were a large number of scenarios that were discussed, and this was one of them. This was not a right/left wing issue. This was not a war/anti-war topic but a tactical one that some people said could make the war too deadly for the expected payoff.

Hell, the Iraqi possible use of chemical weapons was and STILL IS a topic more discussed in military circles and, when on TV, military officers. Or maybe you haven't seen all of the officers on TV saying how surprised they were that nothing was used?!?! Urban warfare was a fear of the military more than anyone as a result of 'black hawk down'.

Who the hell do you think you are fooling? Or are you really that far removed from reality?

It's because they choose to see and remember what they want ( selective memory loss ). I think it's just hilarious that they want to sweep this under the rug " Well time has pasted so it doesn't really matter. " Never mind they keep bringing up the Clinton sex scandal and other things he did from years ago. Or of course it doesn't matter because the president lying is " ok " after all. Then of course when you call them on it they start to lose it like groverat did in the last thread.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #136 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
http://www.infoplease.com/pollresult...on&property=IP

Ah, numbers again.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/har...ex.asp?PID=370

Here's some more interesting numbers.


I think everybody should see these polls for themselves. They are ludicrously skewed.

Quote:
"They do not exist. The Bush administration mislead the public, using false and/or exaggerated evidence of WMDs as a pretext for justifying the war.
57%

They exist but have yet to be found.
19%

Not only do they exist, but we've found them?the two trailers, described by the CIA as possible mobile biological-weapon production plants, are proof enough.
14%

They were probably destroyed by Saddam Hussein before the war.
10%

Total votes cast: 618"

I like the first choice best. Infoplease.com? Try www.thispollisutterlyuselesscrap.com



The harris poll is not AS bad, but EVERY "issue" is a negative statment about the war. The choices are also somewhat skewed, as they refer to "how concerned" the respondee is. Hell, I WOULD respond to some of those the same way.

I linked to polls from a major international news organization and an independent, highly regarded polling group. And you are tellijng me that your numbers carry the same weight as mine??? Please.

Jimmac, once again I question whether or not you are seriously telling us that the American public thinks the way your "data" indicates. I wonder if you're just trolling around sometimes...
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #137 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
OK, genius, if you pay so much attention to fact AND state that you know the WMD abilities of Iraq, why don't you cite exactly what he had that was a threat? Since you don't ignore the facts that shouldn't be too hard. Give me exact tonage. Cite your source, too.

After that we'll go into the fact that he couldn't produce anymore chemical weapons because the massive facilities needed simply don't exist, just for starters.

I repeat, giant: ANYONE WHO THINKS SADDAM HUSSEIN DIDN'T HAVE WMD'S IS AN ABSOLUTE FOOL.

There is no argument. Any person on this Earth with half a brain knew and/or knows Saddam had the weapons. This whole argument is nothing more than an intellectual excercise.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #138 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Never mind they keep bringing up the Clinton sex scandal and other things he did from years ago.

Who started the Clinton thing in this thread?

Oh yeah, it was BR in the very first post of the thread.

Try again.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #139 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
I repeat, giant: ANYONE WHO THINKS SADDAM HUSSEIN DIDN'T HAVE WMD'S IS AN ABSOLUTE FOOL.

There is no argument. Any person on this Earth with half a brain knew and/or knows Saddam had the weapons. This whole argument is nothing more than an intellectual excercise.

Really? How do you know that? What kinds of weapons and quantities? Were they degraded?

Of course, it's really just too easy for me to point out that every facility cited by the admin as being upgraded for bio/chem weapons production actually wasn't.

But really, what weapons in what quantities does Iraq have? Since you know that Iraq had these weapons, this shouldn't be too hard to answer.
post #140 of 561
Is there anyway we could at least settle down on when, at the latest SH had CBN (any one of the three)? 98? 99? 00? 01 02? 03? Were the UN inspectors being lied to in 98?
post #141 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
OK, genius, if you pay so much attention to fact AND state that you know the WMD abilities of Iraq, why don't you cite exactly what he had that was a threat? Since you don't ignore the facts that shouldn't be too hard. Give me exact tonage. Cite your source, too.

After that we'll go into the fact that he couldn't produce anymore chemical weapons because the massive facilities needed simply don't exist, just for starters.

You really should try a little harder. All of that was detailed in the Powell speech.

Here is a nice except...

Quote:
First, you will recall that it took UNSCOM four long and frustrating years to pry -- to pry -- an admission out of Iraq that it had biological weapons.

Second, when Iraq finally admitted having these weapons in 1995, the quantities were vast. Less than a teaspoon of dry anthrax, a little bit about this amount -- this is just about the amount of a teaspoon -- less than a teaspoon full of dry anthrax in an envelope shutdown the United States Senate in the fall of 2001. This forced several hundred people to undergo emergency medical treatment and killed two postal workers just from an amount just about this quantity that was inside of an envelope.

Iraq declared 8,500 liters of anthrax, but UNSCOM estimates that Saddam Hussein could have produced 25,000 liters. If concentrated into this dry form, this amount would be enough to fill tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of teaspoons. And Saddam Hussein has not verifiably accounted for even one teaspoon-full of this deadly material.

The speech can be found at that biased conservative source, CNN.

Powell transcript

Note some of the things even in that small quote that refute what some including you have contended here. First Iraq admitted they had chemical and biological weapons to the UN, inthe 90's and after the Gulf War.

Secondly as Powell mentioned Iraq never came clean and it was easy for them to do so. You can read the whole transcript and it is quite detailed.

As for massive facilities, they weren't massive, they were mobile.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #142 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
Is there anyway we could at least settle down on when, at the latest SH had CBN (any one of the three)? 98? 99? 00? 01 02? 03? Were the UN inspectors being lied to in 98?

That's not a realistic question. I can tell you exactly what the Bush admin claimed (which was really just contorting UN info), but I'm waiting for someone who claims that 'everyone knows Iraq had chemical and biological weapons' to come out with the actual details that make them so sure that Iraq was a threat.
post #143 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
You really should try a little harder. All of that was detailed in the Powell speech.

That's exactly what I was waiting for from you.
Quote:
Evaluation.

(1) Production before 1991

In his update to the Security Council on 27 January 2003, Dr Blix stated:

"There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist."

There are two sets of allegations relating to Iraq's production of anthrax that are relevant in assessing whether Iraq is likely to have produced more anthrax than it declared. Firstly, there is a claim that Iraq used its fermenters at al-Hakam, its known anthrax production site, at a greater capacity than it has declared previously: this is the source of the allegation from the US and UK that Iraq could have produced 25,000 litres of anthrax. Secondly, there is the more recent claim that Iraq could have produced anthrax in the period from 1 to 15 January 1991, a period in which it denies producing anthrax, both at al-Hakam and at another biological weapons site - al-Dawra Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Plant. Both claims rely upon an assessment that Iraq has not adequately accounted for its anthrax growth media, a claim that is itself disputable (see below).

The first case is that Iraq may have used its fermentors at a greater capacity than it has declared previously: this is the only explanation provided by UNSCOM for the possibility of a greater volume of anthrax spores being produced by Iraq than it has declared. In its January 1999 report to the Security Council (Appendix III), UNSCOM details how Iraq produced anthrax spores on an industrial scale from September 1990 until a few weeks before the start of the Gulf War in January 1991. The volume of the fermentors in use at al-Hakam (where Iraq's anthrax was produced) is described in this UNSCOM report:

"According to a document provided by Iraq two such fermentors were planned to produce Agent A (botulinum toxin) and one for Agent B (Bacillus anthracis spores). This is described as industrial scale production and implicit is that it satisfied the minimum military requirement for Iraq. [...] In the event the fermentation line from the Al-Kindi Company was installed comprising seven 1480 litre fermentors and two 1850 litre fermentors (i.e., a total of 14060 litres) which is a similar overall volume confirming the operational scale requirement. Operating at a 5-day cycle about 820,000 litres of agent could be produced per year equivalent to 82000 litres of 10-fold concentrated agent. Assuming an annual replenishment of agent it would appear the initial annual capacity of the factory would be about 80,000 litres."

Iraq claimed that it produced 8,445 litres of anthrax spores at al-Hakam, material which UNSCOM had some evidence that Iraq destroyed:

"There are various accounts derived from both [Iraq's declaration to UNSCOM] and independent Iraqi testimony concerning the destruction of bulk Agent B [ie, Bacillus anthracis spores]. Laboratory analysis of samples obtained at Al-Hakam has demonstrated the presence of viable Bacillus anthracis spores at an alleged bulk agent disposal site."


However, using UNSCOM's figures above about the size of Iraq's fermentors, Iraq could have produced three times this amount. Iraq had a period of around 120 days at which, according to a statement made to UNSCOM by Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel Hassan - who defected from Iraq in 1995 - its biological programme worked at full capacity. UNSCOM states that Iraq has not been able to demonstrate that it did not use its programme in this way:

"There is no corroborating documentation to support the less than optimal bulk agent production levels reported in [Iraq's declaration on biological weapons production to UNSCOM]".

However, Iraq's claim that it actually did not produce anthrax spores at the level at which its fermentors could have operated is substantiated by the only documentation found relating to that production. A 1990 annual report from al-Hakam indicates the levels of production at this facility in that year. It appears that this is the source of Iraq's estimate of the total amount of anthrax spores produced. UNSCOM criticised Iraq for using this report for the "extrapolations into 1989 and earlier". As production of anthrax prior to 1990 seems - by UNSCOM's own account - to have been only operating at "pilot scale" from 1988, the levels of production prior to 1990 are somewhat immaterial compared to the large-scale production after September 1990. It is unclear why UNSCOM did not consider the 1990 al-Hakam report reliable, as it used it to verify other points about Iraq's biological weapons production. It seems that the only documentary evidence from 1990 that is available appears to endorse the Iraqi claim about the level of production of anthrax spores.

The second case for the production of a greater volume of anthrax is made in UNMOVIC's working document, "Unresolved Disarmament Issues" (6 March 2003), p.95-98. UNMOVIC claim that Iraq could have used its fermenters at al-Hakam and al-Dawra in the period from 1-15 January 1991 to produce 7,000 litres of anthrax, and that Iraq has not declared this anthrax. This report seems to accept that Iraq did produce 8,445 litres of anthrax in al-Hakam in 1990, on the basis of the al-Hakam annual report - which it refers to as a "credible document" (ibid., p.96); it focuses solely on what could have been produced in the fifteen days prior to the deadline imposed by Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) for the start of war.

This argument depends upon three interlinked claims:

1. that "after August 1990, anthrax production was given a high priority", and it would "not seem plausible" that Iraq stopped producing anthrax at the end of 1990 (p.96; also p.124);

2. that "UNSCOM found evidence of anthrax in two fermenters and a mobile storage tank at the Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine (FMDV) plant at Al Daura" (p.95);

3. that the quantity of growth media that could have been used at these two sites in that time period is roughly consistent with the amount that Iraq claims was lost or stolen (p.97; also p.125).

How plausible are these claims? For the above claims to be true, the following must also be valid, although they may seem to be implausible:

1. that Iraq did not move its anthrax production equipment out of its facilities in advance of the conflict, as it had claimed. "Iraq has declared that 'all dangerous munitions and materials and essential assets' were instructed to be evacuated from BW programme establishments by 15 January 1991. Accordingly, equipment including fermenters, and materials, such as bacterial growth media, were said to have been removed from Al Hakam facilities." (ibid., p.97). UNMOVIC provide no indication why this is not a plausible explanation of Iraq's claim that it stopped producing anthrax in advance of the deadline for conflict.

2. UNMOVIC accepts that "it is evident that anthrax was not produced at FMDV in that year [1990]" (ibid., p.96), despite the high priority given to anthrax production from August 1990. UNMOVIC's claim is tenable only if it would have been credible for Iraq to move part of its anthrax production to another site on 1 January 1991, and not before that date, even though Iraq knew that the deadline for war was only 15 days away. It seems much more plausible that Iraq either started its anthrax production at FMDV in or soon after August 1990, or it decided not to use that facility at all. UNMOVIC accepts that the evidence presented by Iraq rules out the first possibility.

3. that Iraq managed to use all of its growth media without any loss or spoilage.

4. that the traces of anthrax at al-Dawra FMDV are from industrial-scale production rather than from research work that was carried out over 1990. No evidence is presented to indicate that the latter explanation is not credible, although the size of the fermenters at FMDV is undisclosed. Hussein Kamel, to whom UNSCOM (and implicitly UNMOVIC) attributed some significance in his presentation of the high priority for the production of anthrax, seems to connect the work at al-Dawra in anthrax to research in the only publicly available transcript of an interview with UNSCOM (pp.6 and 7 of the transcript).

The uncertain nature of the claims made in the 6 March report is evidenced by the different figures used by Hans Blix five weeks earlier. In his update to the Security Council on 27 January 2003, Dr Blix provides a different set of figures from both the 6 March report and the US. He states that "the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax." This is less than one-fifth of the material that the US has claimed that Iraq could produce, and 2,000 litres less than that claimed in the 6 March report. It is possible that this involves a different assessment of Iraq's capacity prior to 1991.
post #144 of 561
continued
Quote:
The assessment by Professor Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) seems to discount the possibility that the anthrax produced in bulk prior to 1991 can still be effectively weaponised:

"Anthrax spores are extremely hardy and can achieve 65% to 80% lethality against untreated patients for years. Fortunately, Iraq does not seem to have produced dry, storable agents and only seems to have deployed wet Anthrax agents, which have a relatively limited life."

"Iraq's Past and Future Biological Weapons Capabilities" (1998 ), p.13, at: http://www.csis.org/stratassessment/.../iraq_bios.pdf

This assessment of the degradability of wet anthrax is not accepted by the entire expert community. The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) dossier of 9 September 2002 states that "wet anthrax from [the 1989-90] period - if stored properly - would still be infectious." (p.40). Similarly, UNMOVIC record: "As a liquid suspension, anthrax spores produced 15 years ago could still be viable today if properly stored." ("Unresolved Disarmament Issues", 6 March 2003, p.98 ).

There have been allegations that Iraq was researching drying technologies for anthrax. However, Iraqi attempts to purchase a dryer seem to have failed. As UNMOVIC record, "a foreign company was approached in 1989 in an attempt to acquire a special dust-free spray dryer suitable for the safe drying of anthrax spores. Documentation shows that, in 1990, the company could not obtain an export license for the dryer and the order lapsed. Iraq declared that no bulk spray drying was carried out, either of pathogenic or of non-pathogenic bacteria." ("Unresolved Disarmament Issues", 6 March 2003, p.119).

As a result, UNMOVIC reached the following conclusions:

"It is most likely that, as it had declared, Iraq was unsuccessful in 1989/90 in acquiring a special dust-free spray dryer to safely dry large quantities of anthrax. [...] In any event, it seems likely that no bulk drying of agent took place in either 1989 or 1990. Apparently, in 1989, large-scale BW agent production was in its initial phase and Iraq was expecting to obtain from an overseas company a special dryer for its future requirements. Therefore, there seemed to be little reason, at that time, to modify existing dryers to make them safe for BW agent drying. An Al Hakam annual report for 1990 makes no reference to large scale drying of BW agents, implying that no drying occurred in that year either. The annual report, which UNMOVIC considers reliable, indicates that research into the drying of anthrax continued in 1990, but even this ceased for that year when the foreign company failed to supply the special dryer." (ibid., p.120)

Because no records of the Al Hakam facility exist for the first fifteen days of 1991, before the deadline for the commencement of the Gulf War, it has not been possible to conclude so firmly that no anthrax drying took place in that period. However, UNMOVIC appear to acknowledge that this is unlikely:

"UNMOVIC has no evidence that drying of anthrax or any other agent in bulk was conducted." (ibid., p.120)

In the absence of evidence that Iraq produced dried anthrax, Secretary Powell's comments about a teaspoon of anthrax to the Security Council of 5 February 2003 are irrelevant.

Since late February, the Iraqi government has been provided documentation to demonstrate its claim that it destroyed its anthrax stocks in 1991. An account was provided by Hans Blix in his 7 March 2003 statement to the Security Council:

"More papers on anthrax [..] have recently been provided. [...] Iraq proposed an investigation using advanced technology to quantify the amount of unilaterally destroyed anthrax dumped at a site. However, even if the use of advanced technology could quantify the amount of anthrax said to be dumped at the site, the results would still be open to interpretation. Defining the quantity of anthrax destroyed must, of course, be followed by efforts to establish what quantity was actually produced."

(2) Growth media unaccounted for

The UNSCOM report of January 1999 (Appendix III) claimed that Iraq could not account for 520kg of yeast extract, the growth media used for making anthrax spores.

Iraq claims that it unilaterally destroyed a quantity of growth media at a site adjacent to al-Hakam prior to the arrival of inspectors in 1991. UNSCOM was not able to account for how much material was destroyed at this site; it "confirmed that media was burnt and buried there but the types and quantities are not known", and thus could not reduce the quantity of material still classified as unaccounted for (in its January 1999 report, Appendix III).

The seemingly large amount of the yeast extract that remains unaccounted for (520kg) - with the potential to produce anthrax spores - amounts to less than 11% of the total amount of yeast extract destroyed under UNSCOM supervision in 1996 (4942 kg). Whether this quantity is within a reasonable margin of error - particularly given that UNSCOM acknowledged that its understanding of Iraq's destruction of weapons in mid-1991 was of "considerable uncertainty" - is open to question. In particular, UNMOVIC admitted that "about 1400 kilogrammes of 'unknown' media components were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision" ("Unresolved Disarmament Issues", 6 March 2003, p.124).

These factors, including especially the acceptance that unknown growth media has already been destroyed, indicate that any growth media that Iraq continues to hold will be considerable less than the quantity claimed by the UK and US. UNSCOM's own process for deriving the figure of 520kg for unaccounted yeast extract is itself far from transparent.

And maybe you didn't notice with the anthrax letters that even the HIGHEST quality anthrax is not very effective.

Keep up the shitty work
post #145 of 561
15,000+ chars? If you can't make you point in a couple of paragraphs you're wasting our time.

A few "money quotes" should suffice.
post #146 of 561
What planet do you live on?

You ask for proof of biological weapons and the declare it "shitty" because you want to debate whether it is wet or dry anthrax, 5000 liters vs 8500, vs. 25,000.

The point is they had it, could produce it and wouldn't destroy it.

You also prove your own lack of point about Bush "lying." They could simply have dumped it in the desert after they attack began.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #147 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Who started the Clinton thing in this thread?

Oh yeah, it was BR in the very first post of the thread.

Try again.

Sorry. You've been harping on Clinton ( while you accuse me of being partisan ) all a long. Try again yourself.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #148 of 561
The "giant bomb" has gone off again!




Quote:
ally? How do you know that? What kinds of weapons and quantities? Were they degraded?

Of course, it's really just too easy for me to point out that every facility cited by the admin as being upgraded for bio/chem weapons production actually wasn't.

But really, what weapons in what quantities does Iraq have? Since you know that Iraq had these weapons, this shouldn't be too hard to answer.


I know that and everyone else knows that....except you.

I know because he used them in 1988. He had them in 1991. He had them in 1995. He had them in 1998. Then, the inspectors left for....wait for it...FIVE WHOLE YEARS.

And you are telling me he destroyed them? We know the nature of Saddam. I'm sure even you agree he was a maniac who slaughtered his own people with chemical weapons. Now you are saying he doesn't have them anymore? What kind of sense does that make?

Let me ask you, what evidence shows that? The fact that we haven't found them yet? I'll say it again: Any reasonable person on this Earth that was acting in an intellectually honest manner would have to come the conclusion that Saddam has/had these weapons. The only question, perhaps, is the amount he had. On this point, it doesn't seem very likely he'd destroy much in the five years inspectors were not in his country. What reasons would he have? Did he change? Is that what you are saying?

There are only two sides to this. Either he has them or he doesn't. At this point, you've got it backwards: There is no evidence that Saddam DIDN'T have WMD.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #149 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
What planet do you live on?

You ask for proof of biological weapons and the declare it "shitty" because you want to debate whether it is wet or dry anthrax, 5000 liters vs 8500, vs. 25,000.

The point is they had it, could produce it and wouldn't destroy it.

You also prove your own lack of point about Bush "lying." They could simply have dumped it in the desert after they attack began.

Nick

I knew it would come to this. If they found a switch blade they'd declare it a WOMD!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #150 of 561
Let me follow up on this question:

The case for Saddam having WMD:

1) He used them in 1988.
2) We know he still had them in 1991
3) We know he didn't cooperate fully with inspectors from 1991-1998
4) We know he had them in 1995
5) We know he had them in 1998
6) He presented no evidence of destruction of such weapons
7) He did not cooperate fuly with inspectors upon their return
8 ) There were no events that indicated he disarmed between 1998-2003 except the word of the highly suspect Iraqi officials.
9) We've found chemical suits in Iraq, even though he knows we don't
use chem weapons.
10) We found two highly suspect trailers, which the CIA concluded could
have no conceivable purpose other than WMD production.

Evidence against him having WMD:

1) We haven't found them yet.
2) He said, as did his "government" that he didn't have them anymore.



Hmmmmm.

\
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #151 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
I knew it would come to this. If they found a switch blade they'd declare it a WOMD!


?


I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #152 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
I think everybody should see these polls for themselves. They are ludicrously skewed.



I like the first choice best. Infoplease.com? Try www.thispollisutterlyuselesscrap.com



The harris poll is not AS bad, but EVERY "issue" is a negative statment about the war. The choices are also somewhat skewed, as they refer to "how concerned" the respondee is. Hell, I WOULD respond to some of those the same way.

I linked to polls from a major international news organization and an independent, highly regarded polling group. And you are tellijng me that your numbers carry the same weight as mine??? Please.

Jimmac, once again I question whether or not you are seriously telling us that the American public thinks the way your "data" indicates. I wonder if you're just trolling around sometimes...


The Harris poll is highly regarded also. I brought it up to show that numbers can be skewed in ether direction to help support an argument. But because of that may not be indicative of the truth. Please!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #153 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
?




Hey! Pssst! It's a joke.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #154 of 561
Good job, ladies! You've fully demonstrated that actually informing your opinion is not something you think is important. SDW, you've got to be the funniest. No matter how unbelievably wrong you are, you still insist that the world is flat. And trumpetman, skimming doesn't count. BTW: details are what it's all about. If you reality is too complicated for you, too ****ing bad.

Not that you two had any credibility to begin with. Ena doesn't really count since he's younger than 15.


SDW, what exactly did saddam have last march that justified a war? Hell, go to admin officials and get their claims like trumpetman tried to. Repeating hazy BS just shows you don't know what you are talking about.
post #155 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Good job, ladies! You've fully demonstrated that actually informing your opinion is not something you think is important. SDW, you've got to be the funniest. No matter how unbelievably wrong you are, you still insist that the world is flat.

Not that you two had any credibility to begin with. Ena doesn't really count since he's younger than 15.


SDW, what exactly did saddam have last march that justified a war? Hell, go to admin officials and get their claims like trumpetman tried to. Repeating hazy BS just shows you don't know what you are talking about.

Interesting...

My evidence shows they have anthrax...
Your evidence shows they have anthrax..

Your evidence shows Blix mentioning testing sites where spores are found indicating they dumped the anthrax.

We (as in everyone else who doesn't agree with you) are not "credible" when we believe he had anthrax and dumped it in the desert.

Strange....

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #156 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Let me follow up on this question:

The case for Saddam having WMD:

1) He used them in 1988.
2) We know he still had them in 1991
3) We know he didn't cooperate fully with inspectors from 1991-1998
4) We know he had them in 1995
5) We know he had them in 1998
6) He presented no evidence of destruction of such weapons
7) He did not cooperate fuly with inspectors upon their return
8 ) There were no events that indicated he disarmed between 1998-2003 except the word of the highly suspect Iraqi officials.
9) We've found chemical suits in Iraq, even though he knows we don't
use chem weapons.
10) We found two highly suspect trailers, which the CIA concluded could
have no conceivable purpose other than WMD production.

Evidence against him having WMD:

1) We haven't found them yet.
2) He said, as did his "government" that he didn't have them anymore.



Hmmmmm.

\


You forgot most of the inspectors have said there isn't anything to find. We all know he had them at one time. That's obvious. The relevent question is did he have them at a time close to the start of this war ( that would mean months before not years ) and did he have a way to deliver them to make him a threat to us? To give justification to this war. I think we already know the answer.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #157 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Interesting...

My evidence shows they have anthrax...
Your evidence shows they have anthrax..

Your evidence shows Blix mentioning testing sites where spores are found indicating they dumped the anthrax.

We (as in everyone else who doesn't agree with you) are not "credible" when we believe he had anthrax and dumped it in the desert.

Strange....

Nick

Your evidence ( if I'm reading this correctly ) is 4 years old.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #158 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
You forgot most of the inspectors have said there isn't anything to find. We all know he had them at one time. That's obivious. The relevent question is did he have them at a time close to the start of this war ( that would mean months before not years ) and did he have a way to deliver them to make him a threat to us? I think we already know the answer.

He keeps on repeating garbage with no figures to back it up. It's obvious none of these people have ever really studied Iraq's weapons programs and they have blatantly said that it is too much for them. They flat out say that it's too much work to inform their opinions, but still can't admit that their opinions are completely uninformed! Amazing.
post #159 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman


My evidence shows they have anthrax...
Your evidence shows they have anthrax..

Actually, if you read it again, it directly contradicts Powell's claims. What you posted is also not evidence since powell is trying to cite the same reports, reports that contradict his statements.

Which brings us back to your (apparently compulsive) lying. Why do you do it when the info is right there above your post?

BTW: UNMOVIC docs show that all evidence points to the discontinuation of the anthrax program while little, if any, points to a current one (at the time). The info is all right here on this page.
post #160 of 561
yet more info showing that the trailers were hydrogen generators:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/forei...973196,00.html

Interesting parts include:

Quote:
But chemical weapons experts, engineers, chemists and military systems experts contacted by The Observer over the past week, say the layout and equipment found on the trailers is entirely inconsistent with the vehicles being mobile labs...

[some more reasons (as if we needed more):]


· The lack of any trace of pathogens found in the fermentation tanks. According to experts, when weapons inspectors checked tanks in the mid-Nineties that had been scoured to disguise their real use, traces of pathogens were still detectable.

· The use of canvas sides on vehicles where technicians would be working with dangerous germ cultures.

· A shortage of pumps required to create vacuum conditions required for working with germ cultures and other processes usually associated with making biological weapons.

· The lack of an autoclave for steam sterilisation, normally a prerequisite for any kind of biological production. Its lack of availability between production runs would threaten to let in germ contaminants, resulting in failed weapons.

· The lack of any easy way for technicians to remove germ fluids from the processing tank.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Lies and the Presidency