Bad news for liberals.

[Ronnie Raygun]

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/sto...Y&SECTION=HOME

[Jeanette X]

He said the planes were not considered weapons of mass destruction for which coalition troops have been searching for months, "but they are weapons (Iraq) tried to hide."

I am not impressed.

[mburbank]

I thought you meant you.

Before you piss me off so much I have to scream, how are you doing? We were all concerned.

[Ronnie Raygun]

thx Max....I just haven't been in the mood to fight with people.

I just heard this today.......it's probable that it's just an example of things to come. And I've got a feeling that WMD will be found at the most inopportune time for the democrats.....because the closer we get to the election the most confident and more outspoken the left will become......it's also true that the onger allied troops are in Iraq, the greater the chances of us finding something becomes.

Just a simple observation.

[mburbank]

I still hope we DO find WMD, no matter who it 'helps' or 'hurts'. I'd sleep a whole lot easier if I thought all that death and destruction and distraction from Al Quaeda paid for by tax dollars was about something real.

"it's also true that the onger allied troops are in Iraq, the greater the chances of us finding something becomes. "

That's only true if something's there to be found. If there isn't, the chances stay exactly the same every day. It's also true the longer we stay there WITHOUT finding anything the further credability is stretched.

I'd wager if something isn't found by a month before the election something will suddenly turn up. And if it turns out to be just more Nigerian Yellowcake, well, we won't know that until after the election is over. The closer they get to the election the more suspect the claim will be. THAT's why the yellowcake fiasco is SO stupid. W. could have made his case without it, but because somebody HAD to go with it (Chenney?) now whatever claims are made are instantly tainted.

I hope they find something massive, incontravertable and soon. The Blowback for our country if they don't may even be more severe than another W. administration.

[The One and Only...]

Umm... there's worse news, lefties. This is just the beginning:

Dead U.K. Expert: Saddam Built a Dirty Bomb
Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com
Monday, Aug. 4, 2003
New evidence of Saddam Hussein’s possession of weapons of mass destruction was provided last June by a top weapons expert, now dead, and it could have an enormous impact on the 2004 presidential election.
The stunning revelation by the British scientist, who committed suicide last month over the issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction could have anti-war Democrats running for cover.

According to Britain's Sunday Times, Dr. David Kelly had amassed convincing evidence that Saddam Hussein had built and tested a dirty nuclear bomb as long ago as 1987, and was perfectly capable of building the deadly weapons right up to the final months of his regime. Moreover the radiological weapons could have been used by terrorists to create panic and widespread contamination in a crowded city.

Dr. Kelly presented evidence of the bomb to the British government back in 1995 and recommended to Foreign Office officials that it be highlighted in the government's intelligence dossier on Iraq, which spelled out the reasons justifying an attack on Saddam's regime. However, the Times reports, despite secret Iraqi documents being produced to prove its existence, for unexplained reasons it was not included.

In a June interview with the newspaper, Kelly revealed that Saddam originally built the dread weapon capable of causing cancer and birth defects for use against Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq war as a tactical weapon and an instrument of terror.

Moreover Kelly insisted that said Iraq still "possessed the know-how and the materials to build a radiological weapon, "adding that the threat posed by such weapons was potentially more serious than some other weapons of mass destruction because Iraq still retained the main ingredients to build dirty bombs such as nuclear material and high explosives.

When the Times asked why this shocking information was not featured in the British government's case for going to war against Iraq, Kelly said he did not know, but added that there were people in government who were skeptical about the potency of such a weapon.

In Private

In private, Kelly is said to have believed the evidence should have been included in the dossier because of the possibility that Iraq could reactivate the program even after it had been stripped of other non-conventional weapons.

Later, in July, during his testimony to a Parliamentary foreign affairs select committee in remarks which the Times says have been largely overlooked, Kelly told John Maples, a former Conservative spokesman on defense and foreign affairs:


"On one inspection that I led...the acknowledgment was made by General Fahi Shaheen, together with Brigadier Hassan (two senior Iraqi weapons specialists), that they had undertaken experiments with radiological weapons in 1987."

And the Times added that when Maples asked: "Do you think that is true?" Kelly replied: "Undoubtedly it is true." Maples pressed Kelly for details as to why the matter of the dirty bombs had not been included in the government's dossier, saying, "A dirty nuclear bomb, I would have thought, was pretty significant." Kelly explained only, "You cannot include everything."

Maples told the Times this weekend that he remained puzzled and uneasy over why the government had excluded evidence of the dirty bomb from its dossier: "It is a mystery why this issue (of the dirty bomb) was not picked up by the government and why Kelly gave me the answer he did - that there was lots of other stuff that had to be included."

"They (the government) were obviously looking for ways of making the dossier as attractive as they could, and as threatening as they could, and you would have thought Iraq's ability to let off a dirty nuclear weapon was pretty serious." The Times said that Iraq's dirty bomb was made from a material called radioactive zirconium which was packed into a bomb casing with high explosives. Iraq had access to zirconium stored at its Al-Tarmiya reactor site - under United Nations safeguards - ostensibly for use in its peaceful nuclear power program.

The revelation that Saddam had the capability of building dirty bombs and had once done so and tested the lethal weapons that could have been supplied to terrorists groups could provide convincing proof that Iraq did indeed have weapons of mass destruction - a fact being discounted by Democrat presidential candidates and many in their party.

As the Times noted, one of the main reasons for invading Iraq cited by both the British and American governments was the danger that Saddam could pass weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaida terrorists. Kelly's revelations bolster that claim.

......

Stolen off Newsfilter.

[AChimp]

I know how to make gunpowder and I have all the ingredients to do so here in my house. Does that mean that I have gunpowder?

Revelations from a dead man are convenient to the cause of pro-war folk simply because no one can ask they guy for clarification, and the he isn't around to potentially recant statements or change his mind.

[Mungus the Foon]

this shouldn't have been a surprise.
the iraqi air force was hidden in the first gulf war too.
WHO CARES if someone has weapons of mass destruction?
i think that all countries should have at least one nuclear weapon, nuclear proliferation breeds stability. the whole point of having WMD is to NOT HAVE TO USE THEM. if anyone did then they would be wiped off the face of the earth. these weapons are a useful deterrent to the escalation of warfare to the point where they might be used. look at the india pakistan situation, they are constantly shooting at each other but never go too far because each knows that the other could do serious damage. is anyone going to invade china or russia for having WMD? i doubt it. using the humanitarian excuse for iraq is a load of shit too when you look at the record of the russians with the chechnyans, recently using chemical weapons against them (kind of like saddam and the kurds) and the chinese against pretty much everybody at some point or another. it is only the little countries which ever get threatened, even during the cold war everything was played out through proxy wars. korea, vietnam, afghanistan etc it looks to me like the only surviving superpower from this era is still desperately attempting to find its place in a multi polar world.
why oh why did the USSR have to collapse everything would have been so much simpler if it remained.
DAMN YOU GORBACHEV!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

"STOCKPILES"

[VinceZeb]

Mungus..... that kind of thinking will cause mushroom clouds in peaceful countries.

Why does China need nukes? Why should Cuba have them? Does N. Korea have a strong case to have nukes?

If psychos and utter nutjobs have nukes, the world is a more dangerous place. If sane people have nukes, they will use them as a deterrent and nothing more. We have used nukes 2 times in the 50+ year history we have had them. I think it can be easily said that we use them with a bit of thought behind it.

[Zero Signal]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

If psychos and utter nutjobs have nukes, the world is a more dangerous place.

Like Bush?

[VinceZeb]

Yes, just like Bush. Because Bush has been out there murdering hundreds of thousands of countrymen while living in a big palace.

I'm glad you don't matter in the grand scheme of things. If anyone was forced to hear your opinion, their would be a direct rise in mental insitution patients.

[Zero Signal]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Yes, just like Bush. Because Bush has been out there murdering hundreds of thousands of countrymen while living in a big palace.

He murders a few every single day that we occupy a sovereign nation that we invaded under false pretenses, all while doing it from the White House (palace). To quote a friend of mine: "just because we have mansions instead of castles in this country doesn't mean they function any differently"

I'm glad you don't matter in the grand scheme of things. If anyone was forced to hear your opinion, their would be a direct rise in mental insitution patients.

You make it sound like YOU even matter. Please, Vinth, you will only ever matter to the bacteria that will decompose your body when you leave this existence.

"their would be a direct rise in mental insitution patients."

Maybe there should be a direct rise in grammar school students instead.

Regardless, I got EXACTLY the response I was looking for from you.

[ranxer]

this sucks,
1 USA is the only Nutjob that used nukes.
2 nobody told anybody that we were going to use the bomb.. it wasnt a deterrent until after we used it. despite the stories we told about dropping leaflets.. they arent true.
3 Japan was ready to end the war before we dropped the bomb on a non-military target. damn.
4 the morning of the day we dropped the second bomb japan had said ok we'll sign unconditional surrender.. we dropped it anyway. the folks that dropped the bomb for us should have been hanged for massive warcrimes. oh well so much for keeping the bomb out of the hands of psychos.

If anyone was forced to hear your opinion, their would be a direct rise in mental insitution patients.

that's pathetic.. bush is the greatest simpleton enabler in the history of america. do you even know anything about who bush is?? have you learned anything about his college record? business record? his military record? damn dude..

all that aside there's no reason for us to have hundreds of nuclear bombs.

oh and for an update on reasons to Impeach the bastard, checkout the TOP 40 at http://www.citypages.com/databank/24...ticle11417.asp

[VinceZeb]

Zero, Ranxer: Which one of you went to Harvard? Which one of you ran businesses? Which one of you has a Master's Degree?


You do realize your "great pundits" are usually high school dropouts, college dropouts, or college grads that graduate in something idiotic like "underwater basket weaving".

Ranxer, Japan wasnt ready to end the war before we dropped nukes. Why do you think we dropped two, and had a third ready for toyko? Have you ever opened a fucking history book?

ranxer, you are the biggest puppet I have ever seen in my life. As much as I agree with the people I admire, I can at least think for myself and come up with a logical conclusion. I even disagree with a lot of the people I dislike. But you are a fucking tool. Any moron that says "I hate Bush" can jam their hand up your ass and you will sit on their lap and put on a great show.

Zero, what the fuck are you talking about? You act like we had no reason to go into Iraq. There has been more evidence mounting every day and supposedly in a few weeks the bombshell is supposed to drop. If/when that does, will you admit that you were wrong? Will you admit that you are a vapid idiot that hates Bush and will act like you are doing something "brave" by bashing him?

No, you wont. You are a liberal and thus a spineless, group-thinking idiot who can be easily replaced in any societal setting.

Oh man, you got the response you were looking for! Oh man, you are great! I bet you tell women about that when you try to pick them up. Although by the pictures I have seen of the men and women on this board, I bet asexual reproduction is a basic tenant.

[kellychaos]

Money is a good thing. It can buy you into good schools, make you a leader of commerce and state and buy you out of DUIs.

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by ranxer

this sucks,
1 USA is the only Nutjob that used nukes.

For the love of God, this crap again.

2 nobody told anybody that we were going to use the bomb.. it wasnt a deterrent until after we used it. despite the stories we told about dropping leaflets.. they arent true.

OK, I'll take your word for it over the pilots who claimed to have done it.

3 Japan was ready to end the war before we dropped the bomb on a non-military target. damn.

BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLSHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT TTTTTTTT

And the cities we hit were industrial centers supplying the Japanese military.

What makes you think that Japan was ready to end it? The fact that they were putting teenage boys into boats and planes full of explosive and then slamming those into our battle ships? Or the way the survivors committed ritual suicide?

4 the morning of the day we dropped the second bomb japan had said ok we'll sign unconditional surrender.. we dropped it anyway. the folks that dropped the bomb for us should have been hanged for massive warcrimes. oh well so much for keeping the bomb out of the hands of psychos.

I'm sure the email from them got to us promptly.


Stop reading your pamphlets and watching your alternative attention whores....er I mean editorials.....fuck it again, "news sources", and actually talk to real people who go through this shit. I can assure you its a remarkable experiance.

[Zero Signal]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

You act like we had no reason to go into Iraq.

Sure, we did. It is an organic black liquid formed from the decomposition of planet and animal matter over the course of millions of years.

There has been more evidence mounting every day and supposedly in a few weeks the bombshell is supposed to drop. If/when that does, will you admit that you were wrong?

The administration claimed that they knew Iraq had them and that they knew they would find them when they rolled in to seize control. Where are the WMDs? Oh, I forgot. It is so conveniant for you Bush lapdogs to just forget about those and point to the liberation of the Iraqi people (who want us to leave immediately) rather than answer that question. In your closed, little world, the ends justify the means; no price is too high for you.

Dropping a bombshell would be suspicious. It seems like they are either giving themselves time to make something up, or giving a vague timeline that will last until they find something.

Will you admit that you are a vapid idiot that hates Bush and will act like you are doing something "brave" by bashing him?

Will you admit that you are nothing more than a sheep in Little Bush Peep's flock of ignorant mouthpieces?

No, you wont. You are a liberal and thus a spineless, group-thinking idiot who can be easily replaced in any societal setting.

"a spineless, group-thinking idiot"
This is coming from someone that does nothing but quote Boortz because you have nothing useful to say from yourself.

"who can be easily replaced in any societal setting."
Do not be so vain as to think that you are something so special that you cannot be replaced.

Although by the pictures I have seen of the men and women on this board, I bet asexual reproduction is a basic tenant.

You have already used this lie before. You said that you have not seen any pictures.

[Zero Signal]

Originally Posted by ranxer

3 Japan was ready to end the war before we dropped the bomb on a non-military target. damn.
4 the morning of the day we dropped the second bomb japan had said ok we'll sign unconditional surrender.. we dropped it anyway. the folks that dropped the bomb for us should have been hanged for massive warcrimes. oh well so much for keeping the bomb out of the hands of psychos.

"After the first nuclear bomb was dropped, the Japanese government
held a cabinet meeting in which they summoned Nishina, head of the
atomic program, and asked him if he could duplicate atomic weapons
within a few months.

After two nuclear weapons had been dropped on Japan, the cabinet concluded
that Japan faced utter destruction with nuclear weapons, and some advocated
surrender. But according to emperor Hirohito

"At the time of the surrender, there was no prospect of agreement"

Even with two nuclear weapons, surrender was far from assured. It was touch
and go: Had the coup succeeded, Japan would not have surrendered, and
a considerably more nuclear bombing would have been necessary. The bullet
holes in the imperial palace testify that even after two nuclear bombs,
there was a substantial faction of the government determined not to surrender.

It was certainly true that Japan was defeated, and reasonable people may
disagree on justice of using nuclear weapons under these circumstances, but
to claim, as Alperovitz claims, that Japan was on the verge of surrender,
is not a mere difference of opinion on the interpretation of the facts, but
a simple, crude, barefaced, blatant lie."

http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1.../msg00347.html

[mburbank]

"Which one of you went to Harvard? Which one of you ran businesses? Which one of you has a Master's Degree? "
-Vinth Thtupid

And you still think he could have done ANY of those things if he wasn't Poppies son? It's all that got him into Harvard, Poppies buddies fronted the casdh for his business and bailed him out when they failed. Vinth, if your dad was Poppy YOU could have done those things, and you're a retarded monkey

[Zero Signal]

Max, he also forgot to ask "Which one of you went AWOL for a year and had Poppy arrange that nothing happen to you?"

[The One and Only...]

More bad news for liberals. Stolen from Walt Bryars at newsfilter:

A typical argument against affirmative action is that it really doesn't help "disadvantaged" blacks. This is completely true.

Seemingly, ones ability to attain certain qualifications is a much better proxy for "advantage" than race.

Affirmative Action isn't going to give a black D student with an 800 on his SATs a preference over a 4.0 white student with a 1450

Logic dictates that If a black person and a white person are competing to get into Harvard, their families were more than likely "well off".

However, these people couldn't be more wrong.

Even when controlling for educational qualification, race is an excellent proxy for determining "disadvantage"

However, it is a good proxy in a completely opposite way than most pople may think.

A black person with the same grades and SAT scores is much,much more likely to be rich than his white counterpart

For the 1994 SAT tests , The College Board published statistics on SAT scores, adjusting for things such as race and money.

-Blacks from families making less than $10,000 dollars per year averaged approx. 150 points below whites and Asians in the same Socioeconomic category.
-Blacks from families making more than $60,000 per year averaged approx. 200 points less than Whites and Asians in the same category
- Blacks from families making more than $60,000 per year got lower average SAT scores than Whites and Asians from families earning less than $10,000 per year.

Source: The College Board "National College Bound Seniors : 1994 profile of SAT and acheivement Test Takers," Princeton, NJ

And what happens if we adjust for parents' Educational attainment?

-Blacks whose parents had only a high school degree scored an average over 150 points lower than whites and Asians in the same category
-Blacks whose parents had a college degree scored an average over 200 points lower than whites and Asians in the same category
- Blacks whose parents were college graduates scored lower than whites and Asians whose parents only had a high school diploma

Source: The College Board "SAT scores for each ethnic group by highest level of Parental Education, 1994" August 1994, pg. 16

(My "real" source was Dinesh D'Souza's The End of Racism...but these are his sources in the footnotes)

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

So, if a black kid from a family making $60,000 per year has the same qualifications as a white kid from a family making $10,000 per year....the black kid would get a preference for being "disadvantaged" !

How could anyone now support AA in its current form?

[Zero Signal]

Affirmative action is one thing that I cannot condone. If do not have the academics to get into a college, then move aside for those that do.

[ranxer]

the controversies arent settled, i believe what i said isnt proven false yet.. unless you only scratch the surface.

we had been warned about pearle harbor at high levels a half a dozen times before the attacks. the rationale was that if we didnt have a first strike by the enemy we wouldnt have the people behind getting into the war.

i think one reason we don't see much reporting of the truth around pearle is that the victor writes the history in so many ways.

maybe youve seen the reports before and brush them off, but i do not, for the tactic of getting americans hurt to drive a war machine is tried and fully successful.. our government has documents that are top secret still regarding pearle. what about the orders to send first aid workers and supplies just prior to the attack to sit on the west coast? it must not be true then that some report the CIA Director Allen Dulles told of the warnings they receieved in mid nov? I'd love to get to the bottom of the many reports that have fallen out of the history books.

the reasons im partial to believing some of the allegations is because we've seen it before.. unclassified documents now tell stories of the corporate crimminals in our government ready to sacrifice americans to get support for invasions.. its a well oiled technique. granted this isnt unique to america, but this is the country that spends My taxes.

hey zero, there's other opinions about the japan consensus after the first bomb dropped. i understand that there are a majority of sources that say they wounldnt surrender.. being unsatisfied with the reported history and distrusting everything a corporate capitalist does/says sucks, i really wish our administrations werent so criminal. if i find anything yall might find interesting ill link it when i have time.

Vince your insults don't help anyone think about anything but degeneracy

[El Blanco]

i think one reason we don't see much reporting of the truth around pearle is that the victor writes the history in so many ways.

No, thats why we don't see your truth about pearl harbor.

what about the orders to send first aid workers and supplies just prior to the attack to sit on the west coast?

Precaution. The Japanese were rather agressive. All that could have easily been meant for the mainland.

being unsatisfied with the reported history and distrusting everything a corporate capitalist does/says sucks, i really wish our administrations werent so criminal

Same old, same old. You really need to learn that there is no huge secret shadow government.