Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

I was all for the invasion and even the flouting of "international opinion" to that end when I believed the Bush Administration when they said Hussein's regime was an "imminent threat".

Actually, the Bush administration did NOT say Iraq was an imminent threat. What it said was, we should not wait until it IS an imminent threat.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.

Of course, nobody cares what Bush says. They only care about what the news media pretends that he said.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Furthermore it's becoming more and more clear from whistleblowers that Iraq was on the agenda all along.

It didn't take whisteblowers to notice this. We were at war with Iraq all through the 1990's. If Iraq wasn't an agenda item, that would be the scandal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime_change


Regime change in Iraq became the stated goal of the United States when Public Law 105-338 (the "Iraq Liberation Act") was signed into law by President Clinton. The act directed that:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Originally Posted by msm

(It's HARD to escape criticizism on a board filled with rabid Bush-hating moonbats! Just what IS it about S&H that attracts them?

Well they are Bush-loving moonbats (such as yourself) here too, so I guess S&H attracts all kinds

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by msm

(It's HARD to escape criticizism on a board filled with rabid Bush-hating moonbats! Just what IS it about S&H that attracts them?

Well they are Bush-loving moonbats (such as yourself) here too, so I guess S&H attracts all kinds

Well, the term "moonbats" is generally reserved for those on the left. Those on the right are properly referred to as "wingnuts".

Get your jargon straight, man.

Besides, since I didn't vote for W., and only once ever voted for a Republican president (in 1984), I am under the impression that I am more of a centrist than most of the moonbats around here. I'd be willing to bet than none of them have a voting record as Republican as mine is Democrat.

It's the left that has become unhinged, methinks...

Originally Posted by msm

It's the left that has become unhinged, methinks...

I figure that it used to be hinges that held the country together, flexibility, a structure designed to bend. With left going left, and the right going right, no hinge could take the stress. Arguing which faction left the other seems kinda futile.

Originally Posted by msm

Since Joe Wilson's original claim is that he found no evidence at all that Iraq sought uranium from Niger, yes, Joe Wilson's original claim is discredited - by his own book.

I looked at the information you provided, and it's not evidence by any definition I'm familiar with.

Besides, it was always Joe Wilson's tea conversations versus British Intelligence, anyway.

Isn't this "argument by authority?" :P

You didn't comment on the IAEA comfirming that uranium was found in scrap metal from Iraq.

I don't know enough about nuclear processing to determine whether this is significant or not.

Can anyone more familiar with this subjects address this? Justin? Mike? Brian?

Whatever, go back to sleep, you've already made up you mind.

Oh, I'm wide awake, my friend. And I'm still waiting for the evidence. You haven't provided it, and neither has Bush.

Originally Posted by msm

(It's HARD to escape criticizism on a board filled with rabid Bush-hating moonbats! Just what IS it about S&H that attracts them? The possibility that S&H theory holds out for a radical change in their favor? I can't wait to see their faces when the opposite occurs.)

I was attracted to S&H because I've been fascinated by generational studies for a very long time, and these two guys seemed to have a pretty solid theory. After reading T4T, I was anticipating a Crisis catalyst. When 911 occurred, I joined the site and found some pretty interesting people, many of whom happened not to be fans of the Bush family and the Republican Party. I have learned a lot about politics, religion, science, and many other subjects here, and gotten to know some of these posters pretty well (met a few in person, even). That's why I feel comfortable coming here to post and to rant about what's wrong with the way this country is going under Bush, even though I could go over to Eschaton, DailyKos, or any other lefty site instead.

I like the people here; I'm comfortable with them (even with the Republicans), and I'm going to keep posting what I think.

Originally Posted by msm

Besides, since I didn't vote for W., and only once ever voted for a Republican president (in 1984), I am under the impression that I am more of a centrist than most of the moonbats around here. I'd be willing to bet than none of them have a voting record as Republican as mine is Democrat.

It's the left that has become unhinged, methinks...

Well, for governor I've voted Democrat twice and Republican twice since moving to Michigan. For my US Representative its been Republican five times and not-Republican once. For US Senate its been Democrat five times and not-Democrat once. Both exceptions were protest votes. For President its been Democrat five times and Independent once. I consider myself a liberal and a Democrat, and have never considered myself as a Republican or as a conservative.

However with Bush in office, everything else is irrelevant and so I just make protest votes, so I will just vote straight Democratic this fall, as I did in 2002, even if the candidates are clowns.

And I stand corrected, I guess you are a wingnut rather than a moonbat. My bad

Originally Posted by msm

Besides, since I didn't vote for W., and only once ever voted for a Republican president (in 1984), I am under the impression that I am more of a centrist than most of the moonbats around here. I'd be willing to bet than none of them have a voting record as Republican as mine is Democrat.

You lose. I was a registered Republican in California for more than 10 years (1978-1989) and then voted in the Republican primaries for 10 years after that in Michigan. I also voted for Bush Sr. in both 1988 and 1992. Only after W won the nomination in 2000 did I finally leave the Republican Party to vote Green. I've only started voting Democratic in 2002, two years after I discovered this site. FWIW, I had been a fan of S&H since 1992, while I was still a Republican.

It's the left that has become unhinged, methinks...

You may or may not have a point that the Left in general has become unhinged in their views. On this site, however, it's the Right that has become more unhinged in their behavior--Wingnut!

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by msm

You didn't comment on the IAEA comfirming that uranium was found in scrap metal from Iraq.

I don't know enough about nuclear processing to determine whether this is significant or not.

Can anyone more familiar with this subjects address this? Justin? Mike? Brian?

Okey-doke.

quoting from the article msm linked

The yellowcake was uncovered Dec. 16 by Rotterdam-based scrap metal company Jewometaal, which had received it in a shipment of scrap metal from a dealer in Jordan.

Company spokesman Paul de Bruin said the Jordanian dealer didn't know that the scrap metal contained any radioactive material. He said the dealer was confident the yellowcake, which was contained in a small steel industrial container, came from Iraq.

Fleming said the agency will compare the chemical composition of the sample to other samples of ore taken from Iraq's al-Qaim mine, which was bombed in 1991 and dismantled in 1996-97.

She estimated that the Rotterdam sample contained around 5 pounds of uranium oxide.

Hmm. So, a shipment of scrap metal turns out to have a "small steel industrial container" (from the size of its contents, likely to have been closer to 'can' than 'drum') filled with a mystery radioactive substance. It turns out that the substance is unprocessed uranium ore -- five pounds of which could be held in cupped hands. It further turns out that the ore was mined in Iraq sometime prior to 1991, from a known -- and more importantly, long since destroyed facility.

Anyone who has ever been to an auto salvage lot can attest to the prevalence of "hidden treasures" in a pile of scrap metal. What conclusions Foxnews (and msm for that matter) expect us to draw from this tidbit are beyond me...

IOW, no story here, Kiff...

(edited for grammatical correctness)
________________________

"I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side, if you understand me... And there are some things, of course, whose side I'm altogether not on; I am against them altogether." -- Treebeard

MSM said:

It's HARD to escape criticizism on a board filled with rabid Bush-hating moonbats!

Actually your politics, or anyone else's here, have little to do with it. You are criticized because you are rude, deceptive, obnoxious, and generally no fun to have around.

Quit insulting people, and use honest discussion/debate tactics instead of fallacious arguments, and you'll find the level of criticism drops dramatically, without even changing your political position. As it is, it's unavoidable that you will be regarded as a troll, and treated accordingly.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

...you are rude, deceptive, obnoxious, and generally no fun to have around.

Quit insulting people...

'nuff said.

If these articles aren't sufficiently substantive, it's because the media isn't doing it's job of getting to the bottom of things.

Al Qaeda agents from Iraq with WMD should be frontpage news, with the full force of investigative journalism. But it's not.

So we just get this.

The curious lack of curiosity about WMD


Jordan recently seized 20 tons of chemicals trucked in by confessed al Qaeda members who brought the stuff in from Syria. The chemicals included VX, Sarin and 70 others...

Syria does have the ability to produce certain kinds of nerve gasses, but in small quantities. The large stockpiles were known to be in Iraq. The best U.S. and allied intelligence say that in the 10 weeks before the Iraq war, Saddam's Russian adviser told him to get rid of all the nerve gas. It would be useless against U.S. troops; the rubber suits were immune to it. So they shipped it across the border to Syria and Lebanon and buried it. Now, in the last few weeks, there's a controversy that Syria has been trying to get rid of this stuff.


You can dispute the link to Iraq, but that's not the big story anyway. Al Qaeda is showing up with toxic gas weapons capable of killing thousands.

In 2001, this would be top story.

It's not now. Why? Because Bush would benefit?

. . but if you are going to quote something like that nerve gas report. . .wouldn't it be more responsible and helpful to tell us where it came from ? Did you perhaps make it up?
I am sure that if such reports really existed we would be hearing plenty about them at the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard, Fox News, and daily briefings at the Department of Defense.

David K '47

Originally Posted by msm

If these articles aren't sufficiently substantive, it's because the media isn't doing it's job of getting to the bottom of things.

Al Qaeda agents from Iraq with WMD should be frontpage news, with the full force of investigative journalism. But it's not.

So we just get this.

The curious lack of curiosity about WMD


Jordan recently seized 20 tons of chemicals trucked in by confessed al Qaeda members who brought the stuff in from Syria. The chemicals included VX, Sarin and 70 others...

Syria does have the ability to produce certain kinds of nerve gasses, but in small quantities. The large stockpiles were known to be in Iraq. The best U.S. and allied intelligence say that in the 10 weeks before the Iraq war, Saddam's Russian adviser told him to get rid of all the nerve gas. It would be useless against U.S. troops; the rubber suits were immune to it. So they shipped it across the border to Syria and Lebanon and buried it. Now, in the last few weeks, there's a controversy that Syria has been trying to get rid of this stuff.


You can dispute the link to Iraq, but that's not the big story anyway. Al Qaeda is showing up with toxic gas weapons capable of killing thousands.

In 2001, this would be top story.

It's not now. Why? Because Bush would benefit?

Did you read any of the other articles beside the Elder one, or do you always leap to the conclusion that it's a conspiracy?

There could easily be no chemical munitions involved here, that is, what is usually referred to as WMDs. This is why the US officials are tiptoeing around it. They don't want to get burned on WMDs again. What the articles I read did say was 20 tons of exlosives and chemicals, chiefly sulfuric acid.

Sulfuric acid is very corrosive and when dispersed by an explosion could act like a blister agent, but it is not a chemical munition. Other chemicals were apparently present, some 70 in total. It appears that a cocktail was prepared that would be blown up with the explosives. For example, one could put sodium cyanide (another common chemical) in with the mix to produce hydrocyanic acid, which is a deadly poison. I haven't seen any details on the other components, but I can see why they aren't running with this yet.

Originally Posted by msm

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

...you are rude, deceptive, obnoxious, and generally no fun to have around.

Quit insulting people...

'nuff said.

One of the more subtle distinctions I make between First Wave Agricultural 'Classic' Civilizations and Second Wave Industrial 'Modern' Civilizations is in how conflicting world views interact. In the old days, if there were ideological differences, the Inquisition or Secret Police would handle internal conflicts with the official party line, while the army would handle external conflicts. It was assumed absolute Truth was known. It was the role of Authority to enforce Truth. Error was to be eradicated.

Modern societies tend to honor dissent more. One has a Right to worship God as one sees fit, and another Right to speak of political positions that conflict with Authority. Conflicting world views coexist in Darwinistic competition. The more worthy ideas will eventually outlast the less worthy.

This system of 'Rights' is not perfect. We don't, for example, have a total agreement on what Rights exist. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an ancient right, which some now deny existed. A Woman's Right to Choose might be a new Right, which many feel ought to exist. The questions raised by these controversial Rights are literally Life and Death. While one ought to properly respect the Rights of others, exercising one's Rights ought not threaten the Lives and Rights of others. Thus, the Second Amendment and abortion issues are properly controversial.

But it is the nature of the political discussion that concerns me. Ideally, one would like to start out with modern liberal civilization's respect for those who disagree. One might argue with logic, reason, and controlled passion. In practice, when world views collide, when values differ, logic and reason often fail. Passion gets out of control. Values are not changed by logic and reason. World views tend not to shift until they have totally failed. What do I mean by 'totally failed?' I mean antebellum values totally failed in Atlanta in 1864, and Nazi values totally failed in Berlin in 1945. By 'totally failed,' I mean crashed and burned.

Tis all part of what I watch in my 'spirals of violence.' Controversies always exist. The level of interactions might escalate from 'logic and reason' to 'passionate emotional rant' to 'threats of violence' to varying degrees of 'violence' to 'crashed and burned.'

In a 3T, there are semi-great men who might best be described as 'compromisers.' S&H might note that many of them are 'artists.' Modern compromisers might tend to be Silent. It might be their life's work to pull the level of tension back to 'logic and reason' from the more intense settings. In a 4T, it might be argued that the truly great men have grown impatient with compromise. They are seeking Unconditional Surrender. They see no answer short of 'crashed and burned' as adequate.

In the new thermonuclear age, I am somewhat reluctant to push for 'crashed and burned.' The crash would be rather too loud for my taste. Still, it seems clear that many issues need be resolved by Fire. The Fire is coming. The part of me that pretends to be radical wants to call down the Fire. As Peter Paul and Mary once sang, invoking the tale of Samson and Delilah, If I had my way, in this wicked world, if I had my way, I would tear this building down. The other part of me is still a compromiser. I would solve as many problems as I can with logic, reason, compromise and tolerance. While the Fire is coming, let us use it as little as we might. Let us take as many issues and people as we might out of the furnace.

Anyway, your choice of tools is yours. The Internet seems at first a better tool for bearing logic and reason than Fire, but the tinder is dry. Political forums shift from logic to flames easy enough.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

. . but if you are going to quote something like that nerve gas report. . .wouldn't it be more responsible and helpful to tell us where it came from ? Did you perhaps make it up?
I am sure that if such reports really existed we would be hearing plenty about them at the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard, Fox News, and daily briefings at the Department of Defense.

David K '47

Obviously. I have even seen that ridiculous "yellowcake" report again proffered as truth in the past few days. These neoconic neo-fascists have no shame whatsoever. Might makes right, the ends justify the means, Lucifer is the one true god, and all that nonsense. They follow Goebbels in realizing that, if you repeat a lie often enough, people will eventually accept it as fact. So the lies persist daily.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

For example, one could put sodium cyanide (another common chemical) in with the mix to produce hydrocyanic acid, which is a deadly poison. I haven't seen any details on the other components, but I can see why they aren't running with this yet.

Yep. Two reasons. They have cried wolf too often recently. Also, it might not be in all respects prudent to print '2 parts X mixed with 3 parts Y and dispersed by explosive would have made a very deadly weapon...' Instead, the reports released to the press seem vague, and perhaps spun to give the impression the terrorists intended great harm but had not created an overly effective weapon. The message was that the terrorists are enemies of the people, but the authorities are competent and in control.

To the cocktail of dangerous stuff found in Jordon, I would add a little salt.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

. . but if you are going to quote something like that nerve gas report. . .wouldn't it be more responsible and helpful to tell us where it came from ? Did you perhaps make it up?
I am sure that if such reports really existed we would be hearing plenty about them at the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard, Fox News, and daily briefings at the Department of Defense.

David K '47

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118203,00.html

http://us.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/

http://www.inq7.net/wnw/2004/apr/28/text/wnw_1-1-p.htm

http://www.shortnews.com/shownews.cfm?id=39115

This guy has a good summary

This is more of a "bookmark" blog right now until I get into fleshing it out more, but here's basic round-up of what seems to have been involved in Zarqawi's terrorist plot with the news source that reported it:

* 1 car carrying explosives, a chemical bomb, poison gas, and small arms (al-Hayat, UPI).

* 3 cars carrying chemicals, explosives, and small arms (al-Hayat, Ha'aretz, Maariv), all of which came from Syria.

* 5 trucks packed with 17.5 tons of high explosives (San Francisco Chronicle interview with King Abdullah), all of which came from Syria.

I think that a lot of people are conflating these three separate plots together as being part of the same event and are forgetting al-Qaeda's penchant for staging simultaneous attacks, a la 9/11 or the Embassy bombings, or even more recently in Madrid.

As it now stands, here's what it looks like was planned to me:

* US embassy and prime minister's office is gassed. Truck bombs were also intended to be used in this attack.

* Chemical bomb used to attack the General Intelligence Directorate (GID) HQ.

* 3 car bombs hit a Jordanian military base in or near Amman.

What it looks like we have here is 4-target plan that was designed to knock out the various pillars that prop up the Hashemite monarchy: the US, the civilian government, the GID, and the military. Depending on how they intended to disperse the poison gas, the truck bombs could have been planned for use either before or after the gas was released. Hitting the GID with a chemical bomb would severely compromise their ability to mount an effective immediate retaliation against the local extremist population and knocking out the nearest military base would give the army something to worry about while additional attacks were occurring. Given that this very much appears to have been in the works, one can easily understand King Abdullah's reaction that this could have decapitated his government in one fell stroke.

One other point: there seems to be no evidence that the car found with the chemical bomb and poison gas came from Syria (in contrast to the cars and trucks that were intercepted in or around the border area), let alone that it contained Iraqi WMDs in it. What appears to be happening now is that the Jordanians have called in European counter-terrorism experts to help them assess the situation and there even appears to be a domestic news blackout with regard to the whole chemical weapons angle for fear of a panic and apart from those of us who seriously follow this stuff, I doubt that anyone is paying very much attention to it. We should know more when and if the Europeans who were brought disclose their conclusions to the king.

posted by Dan Darling @ 12:02 AM

http://regnumcrucis.blogspot.com/


Here's a bit more:

The CNN story at least provide this tantalizing bit of info:

"At issue is the presence of a large quantity of sulfuric acid among the tons of chemicals seized by Jordanian authorities. Sulfuric acid can be used as a blister agent, but it more commonly can increase the size of conventional explosions, according to U.S. officials."

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/me...jordan.terror/

This speaks to Xemti's earlier post about the nature of the chemicals found.
Now the other chemicals take on a heightened significance. Was the acid intended to simply increase the force of the bomb or were there other substances such as bases, catalysts, etc designed to release toxic levels of sulfur dioxide or other sulfate gases? Inquiring minds want to know.

Thank you. this is the firsyt even remote description to verify that there was in fact any chemical present at all so far. Sulfuric Acid man that would have made the bang bigger and burnt the hell out of alot of people. its soo easy to get as well. Not giving me a good feeling in my stomach.

And this:

Just an observation and a guess....

Viewing the footage of the trucks on TV, it looked like the bombs were probably a cocktail of nastiness, but perhaps relatively common industrial and maybe even household chemicals. It's pretty common knowledge how dangerous it is to mix agents we all probably have in our kitchens or bathrooms in even small amounts.

This was very nearly cataclismic.

Have you all forgotten that the '93 WTC bomb also contained a large amount of sodium cyanide, which they hoped would flow through the ventilation system and kill everyone inside? It was vaporized in the explosion. 80,000 dead was little more than wishful thinking.

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

Some guy on CNN just got a letter from a guy who said that "the silencing of the word "liberal" is the long, gray ponytail being cut off the bald head of a grinning, aging baby-boomer." Or something like that. Interesting and not at all pretty.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

. . but if you are going to quote something like that nerve gas report. . .wouldn't it be more responsible and helpful to tell us where it came from ?

Duuuude! I provided a link. Get with the times, man. Point-and-click.

== geeze! ==

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

produce hydrocyanic acid, which is a deadly poison. I haven't seen any details on the other components, but I can see why they aren't running with this yet.

Then they should be saying that. Kiff said she heard something on NPR, so apparently it is considered news. Why no follow-up?

As for VX, I believe that's very specifically a chemical weapon.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

. . but if you are going to quote something like that nerve gas report. . .wouldn't it be more responsible and helpful to tell us where it came from ? Did you perhaps make it up?
I am sure that if such reports really existed we would be hearing plenty about them at the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard, Fox News, and daily briefings at the Department of Defense.

David K '47

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118203,00.html

http://us.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/

http://www.inq7.net/wnw/2004/apr/28/text/wnw_1-1-p.htm

http://www.shortnews.com/shownews.cfm?id=39115

Michael, all those links are from last month, thus supporting my point that the media is underplaying these reports.

Did Al Qaeda have WMD or not? Isn't that an important question?

You missed the BBC report (from last month) indicating that not 20,000, but 80,000 people may have been killed. Here's another detail worthy of investigation: are those numbers high, or low, or what?

Bush was just meeting with the King of Jordan; you think that would have provided a lede to revisit the story of the almost-gassing of Amman.

Elder's is the only RECENT story I could find, and I'd prefer another source, but the other sources aren't covering the story.

If in April, they reported life discovered on Mars, and then no further stories came out, wouldn't that seem wierd to you?

Admit it; I have a point here.