Yet... there is a curiously despondent tone to this news report: "Maj. Gen. David Petraeus ...also raised the possibility that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's toppled government long ago destroyed its stocks of chemical and biological weapons."

"Petraeus did not announce that any actual biological weapons were found..."

Wow. Proof.

DonDanPasstheGas: Nice rhetoric. I'm sad that he didn't anounce what we all know it is -
A MobileBabyFormulaFactory.

Dave, hahahaha great, did you make that up?

DDPtG: Okay, I'll play your silly game... That would be 3 down, 15 to go, if you're keeping score. Can you count all the way to 18, or would that be a stretch?

Here's a challenge to you, Dave. How about we keep this discussion on a topic (not necessarily the topic), and try to avoid the name-calling kid stuff. We don't have to agree, but we can be civil.

Can we do that?

PtG : Okay. Sorry. You mentioned something about 3 things? And stuff in the river? What's that all about?

Way to take statements out of context there PtG. For a moment I thought you had successfully invalidated the entire war.

Hey, I'll share the blame. But it can stay fun, right?

And yeah, I may be Higher than the UN in my standard, but I do expect to see something more than a looted hulk. It's got to be hard to destroy biological weapons without making everybody sick, and nuclear stuff can't be destroyed.

I said I'd want to see them find 1.a chemical, 2.a germ, or 3.somethinig radioactive, before they say they have this big proof of WMD. I'm not worried about what the UN wants to find, I am just interested in understanding what was really behind this "war."

(The river was just another false report)

Pass - This one is apparently more than a 'looted hulk'. What happens to be confusing is that I read somewhere, the equipment in no 1. was built (stamped into the framework of the equipment, NOT the trailor) in 2002...I guess I can be skeptical about a lot of things, and indeed I am. BUT, my understanding of all of the UN lip and pen movement called for him to dispose of and dismantle the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons PROGRAMS, which is what all of the names are now saying this was. How do you justify skepticism about this particular find?

It does look like they were just making it, and I agree it could be used for biological weapons, at least, I'll take their word for it (since even a bathtub could be used for brewing up some germs). But - where are the germs?

Somehow you starboard-listers have got it in your heads that I'm antiwar, or pro-saddam, or something. But I'm just a skeptic. My feeling was that Bush was repeating nonsense to build up public opinion to support this war, and now that it's time to see what we got, I was not expecting to find anything and so far I am not impressed.

This could have been built with evil intentions, I don't disagree, but I thought we went in after something more than intentions.

Pass - I'll quit using Don/Dan as part of this equation and I don't want to leave this as it is, but I've got some IT stuff that needs to get done. About an hour and I'll be back.

I might get a chance to check in later, but I'll be busy doing stuff for the next two days, so you guys have fun doing whatever foul thing it is you do...

I think that people are falling into the same trap that they have with everything else. The real finds I'll bet are not even being reported....yet. And everybody will complain and whine, and whine and complain, and then one day, a couple of months down the road, they will bust out a gigantic litany of things that they found, all of which will be staggeringly dangerous, and everyone that complained will look foolish.

Call it.. the "Mother of all Press Briefings"

A gamble? Sure. But they've been right about everything so far.

What PtG is doing is playing "let's move the goalposts". These labs are violations of Resolution 1441 and previous resolutions in and of themselves.

Statues of Saddam are no proof Saddam is real, since there are statues of imaginary people.

Mobile labs capable of making nasty germs, and having no conceivable legitimate reason for being mobile, are not proof that the labs were being used to make nasty germs.

Have I captured your argument, PtG?

Except that the symmetry breaks down. I know for a fact that there are statues of people who never lived. But no one knows for a fact that there are mobile germ labs used for peaceful civilian purposes.

If we found a factory with buttons saying "Push here to make VX" with a spigot pointing down onto a conveyer belt of empty warheads, PtG, by his "mobile peaceful germ lab" argument, would be forced to conclude that since there are no actual WMD in such a factory, it is not proof that such a factory would be used to make WMD.

Which misses the point entirely. Iraq was proscribed from having CAPABILITY, not just actual weapons. Because of their use and manufacture of such weapons and their not giving them up without, ultimately, an invasion.

I don't think it is helpful to edit the headlines which are written for specific reasons. for example this headline is "general: another...", i.e. it is a claim and not substantiated at this time. Of note, Petraeus is NOT a WMD expert, and he has already made several mistaken WMD claims. Considering the number of claimed WMD labs, weapons, sites, dumps, etc., that has all not panned out, this is important.

Before anyone flames... do not confuse me with someone who supports saddam, opposes the war on other grounds etc. Just count me among those who are noting that in the media, and especially on command post, no one seems to be noting the fact that every single one of the supposed smoking guns is turning out to be nothing after a period of time.

I don't think Bush and Powell, and by extension "we", conducted an immoral war, but I am concerend that the public causes belli that we asserted was wrong. To me this raises questions about seriously flawed intelligence as well as our credibility in future.

Brianb, we asserted more than one reason to remove Saddam. Remember the criticisms of the Administration in the year leading up to the war--that they kept giving different reasons?

Now people are turning it around, saying that they gave only one and it hasn't panned out--but they chose that one because it is the one that doesn't satisfy everyone yet.

If the mobile lab finds are the real thing, they will move on to something else. The terror attacks in Riyadh? "Bush said invading Iraq would help the war on terror, and now look what happened!" The museum looting turned out to be a bust. But anything that doesn't go the way the Administration wants it will be used to attack the war.

I am not the UN. They had a mandate to look for a certain kind of thing, "evidence" of the capabilities to make things.

I am a skeptic. I don't think we went into Iraq to enforce any UN resolution or anything else. Bush was too eager, the pre-war rhetoric was mostly fictional, and it was just too inevitable.

It seems to work. You say the same things over and over again: "weapons of mass destruction," "coalition of more than x countries," and people will just believe it cuz they've heard it so many times. Like a commercial.

But what was this about, really? I'm not saying I have a theory. The more I read about Leo Strauss the more paranoid I get. Normally I have some theory about why people do things, and in this case I don't. We are not just a generous, altruistic country, and we don't spend billions of dollars to liberate people we don't know, just to help them out. To believe that is foolish.

Anyway... I'm not the UN, I'm harder to convince than the UN.

Gabriel,
Actually these "labs" could have many legitimate explainations. they could be trucks delivering medical orother equipment, production of vaccines, or drugs etc.

As the Judith Miller, the foremost expert reporting on WMD said in her report today on the "labs", many of the US and UK experts examining the "mobile labs" "were still uncertain whether the trailer was intended to produce biological agents."

Oh and please cite your source for stating Iraq was "proscribed from having the capabilty" to produce vaccinese, pesticides, etc. There is no such thing in any of the agreements, treaties or resolutions. Why make things up?

Your skepticsim isn't negative, PtG--you are choosing to deny inconvenient facts. You are choosing to discount arguments that don't give you the answers you already wanted to hear. Your "skepticims" is not that which evaluates and judges and waits--it is that of the already-closed mind.

I'd like to hear your reasons for why Bush went to war. Show us what kind of skeptic you are.

So why did Bush go to war? Let's see you apply your "skepticism" to yourself. (Better yet, me and Dave will do it for you.)

17 UN resolutions proscribed Iraq's biological, chemical, and nuclear capabilities, Anap--look them up yourself.

Vaccines are not made in trucks. And I know of no special germ-delivery trucks--never heard of such a thing (maybe I'm wrong)--but to whom are germs being delivered in Iraq, and why, and why did they not declare their existence as they were required to do? All dual-use facilities were required to be inspected and fully documented.

Gabe, I know you'd like to bring this down to a name-calling session, but unfortunately I 'm about to log off for a couple of days (maybe check in for a minute later tonight). But that won't stop you from badmouthing me in my absence, I know.

I said I don't have a theory. That seemed pretty clear, I thought. But we didn't do this to support the UN, duh. And I don't know why we'd want to liberate Iraqis instead of fighting the AIDS epidemic in Africa, or some other nice humanitarian thing - we didn't do it to be nice.

Some theories? Well, oil springs to mind. Pumping up testosterone-crazed adolescents like you and Bubba is worth a couple of votes. Take people's minds off the dying economy and deterioration of civil liberties at home in the states, that seems like a possible contributing reason. Oh, to fight terrorism: no, of course not, this was a diversion from the war on terror.

I'm making no personal attacks, PtG, or badmouthing--I'm responding, somewhat sharply, to the points you make.

Now, you're such a skeptic that you don't believe that mobile germ labs might be used to produce bioweapons, since there aren't any found in there--but you are willing to believe, on no evidence, that the US would spend $78 billion dollars to steal oil we could buy at a fraction of the cost, if we had bought from Saddam.

That ain't skepticism.

PtG, as for Bush starting a war seeking a few votes from the "testosetrone-filled", as you characterize me and Bubba--without evidence--that's completely crazy. Why not say Clinton was messing around with a fat chick to get votes from fat chicks who thought they' have a shout at the President? That's equally sensible.

I'm not testosterone-filled in any event--I think discretion the better part of valor and cowardice the better part of discretion. I'm a pudgy physics grad student with glasses. And Bush had my vote in 2000, he didn't need to got to Iraq to get it.

Hah. After all the well written comments and logic splitting we end up with PtG's least common denominator:

Oil... and testosterone?

One thing most people forget is that the removal of Saddam's regime was a goal that existed prior to the UN's involvement. The WMD issue was brought up to offer the UN a chance to be relevant, and it failed.

Good grief! I leave for an hour and half, and all hell breaks loose - But Hey! Gabriel - Good job. As usual however, Pass or another of his miscalculations, tends to leave the thread dangling - I suspect to regroup and move the goalposts...
AnAp - PLEASE - check out the previous posts, starting with the very first 'FIND' of a 'Mobile WMD Lab' before claiming this 'lorry' (read that - trailer) has some other legitimate function. I will include only ONE salient point in that regard -
The first one was found virtually intact. It was brought to our attention by an 'informant'. That informant was still alive, so the fact that this individual was still breathing is a good thing. "Officials" were told, by the informant that it was a Mobile WMD Lab. Further testing for chemical or biological traces revealed that this lab had been cleaned, as all labs should be to maintain a safe, working environment. The configuration of this equipment, and the photos of same, compared to the description given to the UN by Colin Powell agree in all of the requisite pieces. It looks like a WMD lab. The only thing missing here is PRODUCT. IT is, literally, what SADDAM was not only told he had to declare and produce, but what he failed to produce, by virtue of the fact it was not in a hospital, school, factory, or someother concrete site. It was on wheels so that he could MOVE it, to avoid prying eyes at the behest of the 'minders' with the UN crew, but also so that it could be moved to where the product could be most beneficial. What all of the so-called 'skeptics' seem to avoid here is the inevitable truth - and whether you want to think this 'lab' had some legitimate use depends on how gullible you are - not how skeptical.

The only reason I want them to hurry up and find the WMD's which we know they have (even if they are in a million different parts/areas of Iraq) is so that PTG will just think up another windmill to fight. Don Quixote was better at it than you could ever be, PTG.

Oh, one more thing, do you think they ought to cover up all the mass graves and then say they never existed?

You long ago became "not fun", PTG. I't just too bad you think so highly of yourself that you just won't go away.

Kathy - Maybe you've been around the block more often than I have - enough to know PtG, and all of his incarcerations, but I'm beginning to think he has a reading problem. You mentioned 'long ago', and I suspect after others accusing Pass of being Don / Dan, that maybe you've been blogging with this guy for awhile. I'm running out of patience. Here again, maybe I'm skeptical, I don't know...

you know, even if they never find WMDs, hopefully the liberation has put an end to fresh mass graves. There appears to be sufficient numbers of these terrible graves to complete justify taking Saddam down.

The arguments of the post-Saddam anit-war people over not yet having found WMD are
similar to how Saddam prevaricated over the weapons inspection incidents. Even though
many things were found, each discovery was handled as a new and independent event,
unrelated to any prior events. Therefore, the Iraqi information ministry could give some lame
excuse and say that this occurrance was an oversight, mistake, misinterpretation, whatever,
and insist that that one incident was not enough to justify further action.

There was no recognition that the preponderance of the evidence showing many violations
over a decade all together were more than sufficiently damning evidence. It's a classic divide
and conquer tactic. Divide the incidents into single isolated events and never acknowledge
the totality of the evidence. Hans Blix and the U.N. played along with this for months.

Now the post-Saddam appologists will take the same tack to new disclosures. Each discovery
will be treated as a totally independent event and in each case they will state that this and this
alone was not sufficient to have justified the invasion. They will continue to insist that we
uncover "The Smoking Gun", i.e. some trove of WMD so huge and obvious that in and of
itself would provide the defining casus belli for Bush.

Without a definitive "The Smoking Gun" discovery, there will be no attempt to connect the
dots from missiles in proximity to the precursor chemicals of poinson gases, or that the
mobile labs that were constructed for no other reason than to produce biological agents. The
missiles didn't have the chemicals loaded when found, so they're not "The Smoking Gun".
The mobile labs were scrubbed clean, so they obviously could not be "The Smoking Gun".
Intelligence gathered from captured Iraqis is acquired under duress, so no "The Smoking Gun"
there either. I predict the next event will not be sufficient to call "The Smoking Gun" either.

No matter how the evidence is presented or compiled, it will never be enough to convince
those who have already decided that the war was unjust. Their hatred for Bush is great
enough to allow the mental contorsions required to make excuses for one of the worst
regimes in history.

I for one have seen more than enough evidence already. Saddam's regime had to go and
it had to be ousted by force. I don't need "The Smoking Gun".

I find it highly doubtful that the entire administration (including GWB, Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice...) went along with lying about what our intelligence supposedly knew, knowing full well a post-war reconning would come. And I don't believe such a bold-face lie could be made with NO ONE from any agency playing Deep-Throat and blowing the whistle. The only plausible explanations I can abide are : (1) our national intelligence system was astoundingly wrong (a VERY bad situation), or (2) they hid and/or destroyed the weapons and hid the evidence very well. For the time being, I feel the second is the most likely situation.

That said, I feel there are some in the media who understand this as well, but are taking every opportunity to immediately trumpet any possible discovery for two reasons. First for the scoop, but also (and here's where I put on my tin-foil hat) to prejudice the general public's oppinion on ANY WMD find. Get enough false calls out there, call "wolf" enough times and when the real McCoy comes along who will listen and even care. Wide spread comtempt of the administration and oppinion against the war in mainstream media seems to have fed a post-war sour-grapesism, and these reports are just another media weapon against Bush.

Kathy's right, I'm no fun any more.

I said I didn't have a theory, then somebody asked for one, so I proposed several that are floating around - but I forgot to mention making up for Bashdaddy's failure to get rid of Saddam in the first place, and probably some others.

I'd love to zip ahead a century or so and see how this reads in the history books. But it looks like you guys have this all figured out, so I'll leave it to you to sit around and talk about how stupid everybody else is.

Adios.

" we asserted more than one reason to remove Saddam. Remember the criticisms of the Administration in the year leading up to the war--that they kept giving different reasons?"

Gabriel,
That is wrong. We certainly asserted only one legal causus belli. There are many good reasons, but we only asserted one legal reason.

There are good reasons to any number of countries to depose the leaders of many other countries right now. That is different then the assertion of a causus belli based on specific UN resolutions.

"Now the post-Saddam appologists will take the same tack to new disclosures. "

Jack, it is ad hominem and dishonest for you to assert that those asking questions about WMD are all "appologists [sic]."

I do not know about what missiles in proximity to chemical weapons precursers you are talking about. No such find has been asserted.

Neil - Hang on just a minute here - I would agree that 'everyone' tauted these 'finds', rich or poor, as THE smoking gun. I'm not, and Gabriel is not, and Bubba is not claiming THIS is a smoking gun. Gabriel is right. It is a GUN, and it was something that he was not supposed to have. Period. Dispute that it is NOT a gun (well, not REALLY), but don't claim that it was okay, because it wasn't loaded! You will not believe how many people die because the gun wasn't loaded, or maybe you will.

Pass the Gas, wonder no more.

http://www.cdi.org/mrp/tt-16dec02.pdf

Try and keep your bile down and read the whole thing.

As for why they chose to attack Iraq instead of Africa, it is because, with Iraq, the United States,

-being the largest military presence in the world, had the means to invade Iraq.

-having set forth as doctrine the furtherance of globalization, had the motive to invade Iraq, and,

-by a series of resolutions in the UN Security Council, had the opportunity to invade Iraq.
To whit: UNSC resolution 1441 found Saddam in material breach of his obligations, therefore cancelling the ceasefire set forth in UNSC resolution 687, which brought back into force UNSC resolution 678, allowing all Member States to use all necessary force to secure the region, as defined by all relevant resolutions (which, btw, defined it as "disarming Iraq of WMD"),

That's as short as I can make the argument. I can easily, easily, easily make it much longer, as I left important bits out, but I do not feel qualified to write what amounts to an extensive Op-Ed piece.

All Bush's pre-war rhetoric was to secure the *opportunity*, not the *motive*, and it is educational to make the distinction between the two.

I HAVE A QUESTION... (or 3)

If this lab were for a legit reason, how come they are finding them at "rocket and missile research and development centers?" hmmmm

So all the Saddam apologists keep trying to say that these labs were to somehow help the poor people of Iraq....

I have a hard time arguing with that knowing Saddam's long track record os caring deeply for the people of Iraq. (close sarc)

Here is what gets me....

The wackos on the left can not see a guy who has murdered millions, many with WMD, actually still having these weapons BUT they can spot that "Bush oil grab" a mile away.

Do you people have any idea how stupid you look?

Not a "smoking gun" or a "gun". None of this equipment is forbidden by any treaty or agreement.

If we are going to define dual use equipment which has not been proscribed as a violation, then every country in the world, including ours, is in violation of several WMD treaties and agreements.

Manny, what part of "all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations," do you not understand?

Manny, Yah, yah... Tell me, no, better yet EXPLAIN to me, what the 2 purposes are for DUAL-USE. If you can't do that, don't bother yapping about how this STUFF is not put together on one trailer for one reason.

And Gas Passer..

I like your skepticism. If the truth be told I am as skeptical as you. But I can also see many ducks being pushed into cages. (and they are quacking) Just because the burned of proof is high does not mean that evidence does not exist.

But what gets me is you take it one step too far. You claim to be a skeptic but you end up overplaying your hand and repeatedly say things that just are not true.

For example you say:

"It's got to be hard to destroy biological weapons without making everybody sick"

Quite the oppsite is true. All the research (by many nations) has been to figure out how to make the grems make people sick. (hence the term weaponize) Remember at the start of the Anthrax scare the experts really thought that you could not just toss it in an envelope. Who ever did that taught our best people a thing or two.

further...

Let's pretend you have 1000 liters of anthrax. That is a box about 3 x 3 x 4 feet or about the size of a washing machine or dryer.

You don't think Saddam could bury that puppy in the desert in the middle of nowhere and get a GPS fix to get it later????

Heck we might be driving within 20 meters of it every day and not know.

And one bottle of bleach kills all the spores if that is what he wants.

Hiding or destroying the germs is trival.

you all need to settle down, this need for immediacy has grown old. The war is barely over, give everyone a chance to do their jobs. And I would have to agree there probably is much that is not being shared at this point in time. In due time, the truth will come out. It is sad that we have reached the point in our country that we have lost trust in the office of the president. Man do I wish Bill was still the man. Paul and Gas Passer, be skeptical, most of us really dont care.

Paul:
The wackos on the left can not see a guy who has murdered millions, many with WMD, actually still having these weapons BUT they can spot that "Bush oil grab" a mile away.

I can see a guy who murdered millions. I can see a guy who's aspirations included domination of the middle east its vast oil and natural gas reserves, and its land routes to ports. 67% of the world's proven oil reserves are in this region. Saddam wanted to be the major player in the region. He would have become so, if he had been able to complete the attainment of WMD's.

But France, Russia, China, Britian and yes the US (security council members) are all interested in securing access to those reserves. America currently occupies Afghanistan and Iraq. It certainly has made it clear that it intents to be the major player.

If it wasn't for the oil, we would not be there.

atomicdog - Don't let me rain on your parade, but can you tell me what is is? If you are mourning over the days of Billyboy and his tossing of rocks (his own), you have a serious misconception of the office of President and Commander and Chief. I'll agree with your scoffing and your begging for patience, but there is no better time than NOW for a little immediacy. If the skeptics could come up with a cogent argument for dismissing the evidence, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Paul,
This is probably a subject for different post, but if you want to switch hit, I'll pitch. Actually, Gabriel has done a fine job of hashing your argument already: Why in the hell would we spend what we spent, risk life, limb and political disaster, to go for the OILwhen we could get on the cheap? NEXT!

Paul - I forgot. Strike one.

How would we get it on the cheap?

Dave- I think you struck out. I was not saying we were here for oil, read me again. Unless one of us is crazy, I am on your side.

Anthony the war was guestimated at 78 BILLION dollars.

1) If we just boought the damn oil, it would be cheaper.

2) If we open up Alaska, the problem is solved.

You see, you accept the "No blood for oil" line because you are a simplton that lacks critical thinking.

If you stopped to think about it, you would realize you are a dupe.

I wonder Where exactly the van that there have
been NO pics of that I have seen was found ? I
wonder if it was in Kurdish (our friends) held
territory like that WMD (look alike) filled
supposed terrorist camp that we chased back to
Iran ?? I really liked their Lab techniques that
used Old socks as stoppers in bottles of Serin,
VX, and botulism..Maybe they didn't escape and
died from the toxins or maybe there never were
any ?? Where's the Beef...? ?

I know we keep rehashing this issue but I just had a different thought.

If the pictures are correct and those were mobil germ weapons labs then we're all in deep doo-doo.

It looks like a couple grand worth of rickety equipment that could easily fit in my garage. With Saddam and sons MIA and presumably joining the Billionaire's Terrorist Club (Osma is the founding member), every dirt poor country in the world could be home to tens (or hundreds) of thousands of these labs. They could also be spread out in U-Store-It facilities all across the US. Spending a hundred billion to find them in Iraq could be like bailing water on the Titanic, a good effort but quite pointless.

dave dube u need to take a break dude, I was being facetious regarding Bill Clinton, could not stand him. Furthermore, I dont beg anyone for anything. As we get a little older and develop a sense of maturity, we realize that patience is a great virtue

Dube you are a complete simpleton take your drama to the chat room maybe you will meet the women of your dreams. Hmm, maybe Hillary Clinton

Paul:
You see, you accept the "No blood for oil" line because you are a simplton that lacks critical thinking. If you stopped to think about it, you would realize you are a dupe.

Who is the simpleton? Who is the dupe?

Paul - EXACTLY what I said - cheaper to buy it than go spend bizillions and get criticized for it.

VF - I'm not going to draw you pictures - There are photos of no. 1 and no. 2 available on various places on the web. Go look for them. Of course, you'll have to take your quarter-pounder out of your mouth first. Then, you'll notice in the photos that there are no dead bodies around - they're all live. I COULD draw you a picture, but I'd have to use crayons. Do you have a reading problem? I asked SERIOUSLY once before how old you were.

Lefty - I and others have mentioned immediacy more than once on this topic. I don't think the existence of these things numbers in the thousands, or even hundreds. US 'intelligence' gave some number to Powell, and it was either more (and Powell was conservative) or less (and Powell was liberal) than the 18 that he used when he spoke to the UN. They (the labs) are on eighteen wheeler trailers, although the word 'lorry' was used, and that could be a Europeon (sp) word for 18 wheeler. Photos I've seen would lead me to believe that these 'trailers' have dual axles, which means they have 8 wheels under them. The wheels were stripped off the first two.
As porous as the borders were, and as 'congenial' as some of his neighbors are/were, these labs could have gone anywhere once they were assembled.
Another contention of the leftword leaning anti's is that this stuff was old stuff, akin to a Gilbert Chemistry Set for Beginners (12 and older). I don't think so. Dates stamped into the actual equipment and not the trailer (no. 1) indicate that it was built last year. WMD experts are trying their damndest to come up with the goods - find some 'product' in one of these pieces of equipment. Hasn't happened. Why? It's been sanitized! Saddam stalled, cajoled, bluffed, claimed 'bad record-keeping, yadayadayada for how many years about every last one of the banned programs. He's been proven to be a contemptable liar. End of the story.

atomicdog - take another hit on the hookah - Back up to speed? Good. Carry on. The word I should have used was 'ask', not 'beg'. I beg your pardon.

AnAP, please tell me how this vehicle can have a legitimate purpose. You don't make insecticides on site. They come in pretty little boxes by the manufacture, often in two parts that you mix in a tank of water and then spray it on the crop.

I've been in the AG business for many years, traveled the world and have yet to see any country with "mobile insecticide labs."

Now, lets examine your stupidity in claiming it could have been used to 'make vaccines".
There are vaccines for every treatable disease known to man. They are manufactured by big companies, not in" mobile vaccine labs". It makes no sense at all, a nurse, a doctor, and a light plane can take blood samples, and send them off to a legit lab far faster than a slow moving truck, painted military green.
Plus, to identify disease, you need a centrifuge, and the capability to isolate and identify growth in several different mediums. Certainly, the "Mobile vaccine lab",painted military green, is not big enough to contain all that equipment.

I'm in the animal business as well, I have a lab in my operation, and what I can't identify, I send off to a bigger lab in the city. Certainly, there are no mobile army green bio labs on wheels anywhere in this country, America, Australia, the UK, or any other of the countries I've visited.

every insecticide ever used for agriculture comes in a pretty pre packaged box, complete with directions, so why on earth would you believe it was a army green mobile insecticide unit is beyond belief, perhaps it's because you aren't very well educated.
It should be pointed out that saddam didn't give a rats ass about peoples health in Iraq, he was in the murdering business, not saving lives business. the oil for food and medicine program was a joke, saddam controlled all the money, Ask the people(kurds) of the north, and shiites of the south how often they got medical supplies.

Stack up all the evidence, and you'll see that these "army green mobile health centres" just don't fit saddams charactor.
I just can't believe how stupid some people are, examine those labs, they are designed to produce large amounts of something, not to produce a microscopic sample for the perpose of identifying a disease.
"pestiside labs" no such thing, and they wouldn't need to be sterilized, Hell, I spill that shit all over the place when I'm mixing up chemistry for Ag use.

Anthony, you really are a dupe.
If America wanted cheap oil, then they would have said, the hell with what saddam is doing, let him flood the market, that will keep the price down.

The usa doesn't even need ANY iraqi oil, it's a non-issue, of the oil the usa does import, 53% comes from Canada.
It is all about oil, but for countries like france, not the usa

Bubba! Welcome back. You must have a job...

The beat goes on, only the names keep changing. I'm now beginning to look for patterns - like in commonanilty of misspelled words. The arguments are withering. Can we like, maybe schedule these visits?

I have a business, I'm always working, LOL right now, I'm sluffing off. it's early still, and I'm loading up on coffee untill I have some energy to go and work some more, yell at some imbicil staff, Actually, I have good people, and things are going well considering it's a busy time of year.

In the end the equipment found is not forbidden, it just falls into a thoretical dual use which so broadly defined would include lab equipment found in any hospoital or US research facility. People just don't understand this equipment is not forbidden.

Gwen - a new name joins the game. Good. Define DUAL-USE. The very words imply two (2) uses. This is an essay question, so take your time. I'll be looking for definitions, and I'm not too concerned about spelling or grammatical errors.

Gwen. I have to tellya, I AM going to be looking at spelling and grammar. I just want to make sure we aren't dealing with Don/Dan/PasstheGas or another of his/her incantations.

And Gwen doesn't seem to understand that mobile, concealable microbiology labs possessed by psychotic megalomanaical dictators are NOT equivalent to Mercy Hospital's diagnostic lab or Podunk U's Microbiology facility.

It's kind of like gun controllers who fail to comprehend the difference between Granpa's ol' shotgun in the attic, and a gang-banger's 9mm.

Bubba says:

//The usa doesn't even need ANY iraqi oil, it's a non-issue, of the oil the usa does import, 53% comes from Canada.
It is all about oil, but for countries like france, not the usa//

You consider me a fool? Is that based upon your knowledge?

1) My comments refer to the region. I mentioned the regional influence the US is trying to impose on the middle east.

2) The United states imports 25% of its oil from the middle east. 14% from Saudi Arabia and ... 6% from IRAQ.

3) 15% of US oil imports comes from Canada, NOT 53%. Where did you get that erroneous '53%' figure from?

Lets talk about the future.

Only, 5% of proven oil reserves reside in North America! Only, 5%!

67% of proven oil reserves reside in the middle east.

Africa contains 7% of the proven oil reserves.

Get the picture?

All that without a single profanity or derrogative.

Anthony - I'm usually pretty skimpy when it comes to profanity, so I'm not going to defend anyone's (including Bubba) use of rough language. I will however point out, even if his stats are incorrect, that you've taken Bubba's statements out of context. As a matter of fact, I'm getting the impression that you think this thread is about OIL! Wrong. It's about WMD Programs. But, if you want to sling hash, we can play that game, too! Read my lips - WE COULD BUY IT and have saved ourselves bizillions. Do you think we were looking for control of the oil? Do you think the President had on his mind to commit political suicide? You're not one of those conspiracy whackos are you?

Dave says:
//...that you've taken Bubba's statements out of context. //
I responded directly to his statement. Read what he wrote.

I know this thread is about WMD's. I chose to respond to his statement.

//Read my lips - WE COULD BUY IT and have saved ourselves bizillions.//

Please!

You answer is too simplistic. Why in the world would we want to buy oil from Saddam Hussein?

Think?????

Okay. I'll play your silly game. Why? FUTURISTICALLY speaking, if YOU do YOUR reading, you will find that we are attempting to break out of the oil dependency business. The market for oil is going to flatten out in this part of the universe. There are however, other areas of the universe that need oil. Next. I repeat, it ain's about the oil. It isn't ours, and we can afford to buy it when we need. Simple enough? Good. I thought so. Next!

Dave Dube:
//Okay. I'll play your silly game. Why? //

We would be funding Saddam's weapons program. See?

//FUTURISTICALLY //

What wrong. You don't like thinking that far? Of course that requires more thought, doesn't it? Its like us going to war and not giving enough thought to the aftermath. Iraqs a mess, and I heard that on Fox news no less.

//you will find that we are attempting to break out of the oil dependency business//

We are attempting doesn't mean we have, right? And since we haven't, there is now guarantee that we will.

//The market for oil is going to flatten out in this part of the universe.//

I sure hope you right. Unfortunately the experts in the government aren't banking on that.

According to the White House projections over the next few decades, the middle east will remain vital to our interest since 67% of the world's oil reserves.

Anthony - Read it.

http://www.cdi.org/mrp/tt-16dec02.pdf

Why don't you answer my comments?

Anthony. I don't need to. DoD already did. You wanted words, I gave you words.

Aw, c'MON here!

The military-only "experts" have concluded these things "could" be used for bio-weapons. Quelle surprise! A reasonably well-equipped machine shop "could" be used to assemble a radiological bomb too.

Meanwhile, other bioweapon experts elsewhere note that these trailers, access to which are Strictly Limited only to military personnel, "could" be used for other legitimate purposes as well. See, inter alia, the NYT editorial page today for a brief discussion of that, though other sources are available elsewhere on the Net. Google is your friend.

Face it -- now that we are looking at/for Not Weapons, we're trying to come up with Something, Anything that "could" have a WMD label pasted on it, since clearly there have been no Weapons found out there at all. But then, "tomorrow is another day!"

Remember -- when the POTUS says WMDs Will Be Found, there's no doubt that the military folks understand that as a Direct Order. So, they'll do the best they can.

And the beat goes on....

En passant, wander on over to the San Francisco Chronicle Op-Ed page for a mildly rhetorically excessive, but nonetheless accurate take on the whole WMD affair as well.

Yeah, yeah -- I recall full well how fromaged a bunch of y'all were when I said over a month ago that this issue was going to continue to build, and y'all went non-linear on such a heterodoxic suggestion.

Nonetheless, here it is.

We are now simultaneously Searching and Not Searching for Weapons and Not Weapons.

The True Believers now say that it's not important since the war is over, and further wasn't important when Dubya/Powell/Rice/Rumsfeld et all were saying it was scarce two months ago.

Now there's a spin for ya!

Don. Don? Skeptic Don? Is that really you? Can you prove it? I didn't think so. You're making me skeptical. Post something that has a lot of words so I can check for the cursory misspellings.

Dave Dube says

//Anthony - Read it. http://www.cdi.org/mrp/tt-16dec02.pdf //

I'm not sure what you want me to get from this paper. Please quote specific passages from your reference so I can respond. Please include page and paragraph

From your reference:
Page 8, paragraph 2. The US must enable the smooth flow of energy form the Middle East to Asia because the latter is such an important partner in our global transactions.

Energy = oil.

Anthony,
You got to page 8? You went too far. Try page seven. This is the end of reading class now...

Dave said:
//Read my lips - WE COULD BUY IT and have saved ourselves bizillions//

To set the record straight we couldn't just buy it Iraq's oil.

Buying it would have financed Saddams WMD's programs.

That's the problem with the simplistic "JUST BUY IT" explanation. It's an explanation I have seen often here. It doesn't hold water.

Dave says:
//You got to page 8? You went too far. Try page seven. This is the end of reading class now...//

Your not really interested in discussing this are you?

Do you really think you belief can stand the spotlight?

This was poorly said.
//Do you really think you belief can stand the spotlight?//

Correction:
Do you really think your point of view can hold up under scrutiny?

Anthony - my beliefs were not in question here. Yours were. Saddam is not, and was not the go-to guy for oil, unless you were planning on buying it under the table. Find something else to whine about, and stop telling me what my beliefs are.

Dave said:
//Anthony - my beliefs were not in question here.//

Everyones beliefs are in question here.

You offered as proof that we are not interested in Iraq's oil the arguement

//Read my lips - WE COULD BUY IT and have saved ourselves bizillions//

Do you still 'believe' that to be a viable arguement?

//Saddam is not, and was not the go-to guy for oil, unless you were planning on buying it under the table//

You is the go-to guy for oil?

Correction:
Who is the go-to guy for oil?

Are you one of the NO-Blood-for-Oil folks? You keep smarming on about this oil nonsense...I give you the stuff straight from the DoD about the FUTURE of energy consumption (specifically, OIL), and you want me to give you more information? Where do you think Iraq is? Mars? It's in the Middle East. There is group called OPEC. Ever heard of it? The only entities purchasing oil from Iraq were not getting it in a legitimate fashion. If you want to call the Oil-for-Palace program 'legitimate', you can do that. It doesn't bear a whole lot of scrutiny. Iraq had a line running into Syria, and Syria was getting a really hot deal on that. The infrastructure in Iraq CANNOT support the amount of production that we would want to commit to Iraq as the go-to to begin with. You make me tired.

Dave:
//I give you the stuff straight from the DoD about the FUTURE of energy consumption //

I am not a no blood for war folk.

You gave me a reference that includes some information and a point of view. Do you just read stuff and thats it? There are implications that are not discussed in the paper.

Sorry about your fatigue.

Would we be in Iraq now, if Iraq was in central Africa? No.

The presence of oil is crucial to our decision to go into that region and country.

Anthony - This is leading neither of us in a reasonable direction, so could you possibly address this:

We would be funding Saddam's weapons program. See?

Just a question. It appears you've confused me with some other poster. WHAT Weapons program?

Dave asked:
WHAT Weapons program?

Perhaps some confusion along the way.

This is a Recap and clarification:

I said:
But France, Russia, China, Britian and yes the US (security council members) are all interested in securing access to those reserves. America currently occupies Afghanistan and Iraq. It certainly has made it clear that it intents to be the major player.

Bubba said:

//Anthony, you really are a dupe...

The usa doesn't even need ANY iraqi oil, it's a non-issue, of the oil the usa does import, 53% comes from Canada.
It is all about oil, but for countries like france, not the usa//

I said:
You consider me a fool? Is that based upon your knowledge?

1) My comments refer to the region. I mentioned the regional influence the US is trying to impose on the middle east.

2) The United states imports 25% of its oil from the middle east. 14% from Saudi Arabia and ... 6% from IRAQ.

3) 15% of US oil imports comes from Canada, NOT 53%. Where did you get that erroneous '53%' figure from?

etc...

Then you said:
Read my lips - WE COULD BUY IT and have saved ourselves bizillions. Do you think we were looking for control of the oil?

Please note:
My original post stated that the US was also interested in the Iraq's oil, just as the rest of the security council players are. Bubba said I was wrong. That France was but we weren't. You interjected that we could have just bought the oil instead of going to war.

I have heard this argument in the recent past. Instead of invading Iraq, we could have lifted sanctions and just bought their oil.

The problem is that if we had purchased Saddam's oil, instead of going to war then he probably would have used that money to continue and successfully complete his WMD program.

I personally believe oil is one of the motivations for the war, probably not the main one. The importance of the oil is in the long run. There were many trends in the Middle East which look bad for the US. One can imagine the situations there getting worse and worse. The fact is, if the flow of oil from the arab countries were cut off, all western economies would come to a grinding halt. Now maybe something different will happen (better for the people of the area as well). So in this sense too just as for the WMD it was a war of pre-emption. Cheney and Wolfowitz think ahead.

Yes Anthony, there is a $anta Clau$... This thread began with questions (and opinions) about a Mobile WMD Lab. Not Oil. There are those who have contended that we went into Iraq BECAUSE Saddam was doing nasty 'stuff' that the UN said he wasn't supposed to do. The US went to the UN and gave them the opportunity to put up or shut up. Resolve the issue of noncompliance, OR we would take the task on. We took the task, and 3 MAJOR participants in your beloved UN Security Council (duplicitous ones at that), roundly, stubbornly, and obnoxiously opposed US AND UN intervention. The US presented all kinds of 'evidence' of noncompliance to the UN. Those are 'snear' quotes BTW... Oil was not mentioned, but "Mobile WMD Labs' were. Oil probably COULD have been mentioned, because France in particular, was the No. 2 participant in the Oil-for-Palace program, and was also making a great deal of US$ AND Euro$ under the table. All of these UN 'programs' are cashpigs for the Few and Unwilling, by the way. Lifted sanctions? Saddam would have been able to control the regions' oil reserve IF ONLY he'd have been able to complete his programs for WMD? How naive do you think I am? Have you heard anything about the state of Saddam's oil production infrastructure? Why are you picking at this ugly scab? Either HE HAD a WMD program, or he didn't. You put the "Bush Oil Grab" in quotes, not me. I'll hand it to you though - you do state SADDAM HAD A WMD PROGRAM. Are you listening, Don?

Anthony wants to think that our money would continue this mythical WMD program. We don't know what these trailers are for, but we do know that the thousands of tons and liters of nasty stuff have not been found. We do know that documents sited by Bush in his Constitutionally mandated State of the Union Address, presented to the Senate Intelligence Committee and presented to the world on February 5, 2003 were forged. Can you tell me that these trailers were sufficient to justify a war that killed thousands of Iraqis (just like Saddam); pillaged Iraqi resources (just like Saddam) and were pre emptive (just like Saddam)? It is my belief that our actions to curb civil liberties and our belligerent actions against a country that Osama did not like proves the terrorists point ; we Americans are a bunch of hypocrites. How can we go into Iraq and say you can now have your own government, as long as it is in our image. I thought self-governance meant self-determination; the ability of a sovereign nation to chose who and how they are governed; just a thought.

While us bloggers are all trying desperately to get at the truth of the situation, a thought keeps coming into my head. It's like the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about.

George W. Bush is a liar!

He said there were 30,000 warheads in Iraq. We haven't found one. He said there were tons of chemical weapons and thousands of litters of germs, we having found one germ or one gram of chemicals. He lied to us.

George Bush told us lies and we went to war.

About Al Qaeda, George said last week "They're not a problem anymore." Saudi Arabia shows that's another damn lie.

Why are we ignoring these lies?

Dave:
//IF ONLY he'd have been able to complete his programs for WMD? How naive do you think I am? Have you heard anything about the state of Saddam's oil production infrastructure? Why are you picking at this ugly scab?//

The tone leaves your meaning open to various interpetations. Less might make it easier to get.

If I could hear what you are typing, I probably would get the full meaning of your statement. I don't whether this sarcasm or some other literary device that you are using. Could you rewrite this without all the spin so I can get the meaning?

//You put the "Bush Oil Grab" in quotes, not me. //

I didn't call it that. That statement is loaded.

// I'll hand it to you though - you do state SADDAM HAD A WMD PROGRAM. Are you listening, Don? //

I did say that. But perhaps not the way you are taking it. I think you may be jumping to conclusion.

Louis:
//Anthony wants to think that our money would continue this mythical WMD program.//

I said that if we would have lifted the sanctions against Iraq, the revenue generated from oil Saddam PROBABLY would have used that money to continue and successfully complete his WMD program.

I did not say that he had an active program. I did not say he didn't have an active program. I don't know. And certainly Bush lied about Saddam's WMD's.

But the existence of Saddam's regime atop of the second largest oil reserve in the world was problematic. Why? Because if he was able to freely trade oil, he PROBABLY would have tried to CONTINUE OR REVIVE his WMD program.

That why I said that if Saddam Iraq was in central Africa, the US would not have cared.

He would of had the finacial resource to finance his WMD program. Without the oil (Central Africa scenario) he would not have been able to do so.

WMD's in the Middle East, especially in the wrong hands, threatens global stability.

Dave:
// I'll hand it to you though - you do state SADDAM HAD A WMD PROGRAM. Are you listening, Don? //

I believe Saddam HAD a WMD program. I don't know what state it was in during the past few years. It may very well be that it was in full swing during the past year, or it may be that it was dead or on its last legs.

Please clarify your previous post.

Anthony:
I'll go easy here: The wackos on the left can not see a guy who has murdered millions, many with WMD, actually still having these weapons BUT they can spot that "Bush oil grab" a mile away.

Those are your quotes, not mine.

Anthony, you really are a true moron, aren't you. Try a goggle search, and see where 53% of America's oil imports come from.
Also, 2/3 of "known" oil supplies are north of the border.
Try reading words.
Just because resources aren't tapped at the moment, doesn't mean they aren't there.
Do you mean 67% of productive oil wells are in the mid east? I can agree with that.

Please, get your anti American facts correct.
Also, try not to swallow all the propaganda that your little protest groups toss at you.
And please, eat some beef.
Did you know tofu is bad for you? it causes tofu eating women to be aggressive, have menstrual problems, and problems getting prego.
For men. it makes them fat and pudgy, grow man titties, decreases their testosterone levels, and difficulties having a meaningful erection, and, gives them high voices.
If you don't believe that, look it up, and look up the new american dietary guide while your at it.

Americans do not import iraqi oil, haven't since the embargo, if Americans wanted oil from iraq, they would have just let Saddam flood the market, defy opec.
I stand by what I say, so prove me wrong.
take your "it's about oil" arguement and get your fudge packing boyfreind to ram it way up your ass

Those are not my quotes.

That was Posted by Paul at May 13, 2003 08:49 PM

I was citing his statement and then responding to that statement.

Bubba said:
//Anthony, you really are a true moron, aren't you. Try a goggle search, and see where 53% of America's oil imports come from.//

Google search? Can you give me a URL please?

Then, I'm just freaking confused at who is posting what

Is there a way to post HTML

you don't know where google is?

try the 'search ' icon on your browser

I give up, tv time

So soon?

Louis and Anthony,
Between the two of you, I don't which of you to address first, so I'll just state some of these facts very simple-like:

If the Pres. Bush and Secretary Powell overstated Saddam's arsenal, it was probably due to some suspicious record-keeping on the part of Saddam. How many thousands of pages of documentation did Saddam provide to the Un regarding the programs? With his regime's proclivity for record-keeping (after all, they never threw away much of anything), I'm surprised that the UN could find their way through all that stuff, and still have time to do inspections. Beside the point however, since with the stuff to make the stuff (the original post HERE I might add), it doesn't take rocket science to figure out how easily the product can be hidden. The state of the Iraqi oil production infrastructure has been neglected. Why? Because it is the oil reserves that are of value, not production. No one has lied to us. Do either of you have any idea what a GPS system is all about? Do you know how easy it really is to hide 5000 gallons of anthrax spores? And the brilliant part of this, is he didn't NEED to hide all of that - all he really needed to hide was a fraction of that. A Mobile WMD Lab + a very small amount of anthrax = trouble, no matter where you are. The 30,000 warheads you're telling me Bush is fabricating? Where do you think that number came from? Those were SADDAM's numbers. He didn't verify he'd eliminated them. I've gotta check on the soup...

2002 Top 10 Countries from which the United States Imports Oil (thousand barrels per day)

Ranking Country 2000 2001 2002*

Anthony, Anthony, Anthony...
My soup can wait.
Can't you go find another thread somewhere? Please, oh please let Don or Dan or Pass the Gas use the keyboard.

2002 Top 10 Countries from which the United States Imports Oil (thousand barrels per day)

Facts
US Total Imports/day = 11,299. The US imports about 53% of daily oil purchases (all foreign sources). 47% of its oil is from domestic sources.

US import from Canada 1895/day
1895/11,299 *100 = 16.77%

2 Saudi Arabia 1505/day (13.3%)
3 Mexico 1,501 (13.3%)
4 Venezuela 1,385 (12.3%)

and so on.

here is a google link.
http://www.ott.doe.gov/facts/archives/fotw246supp.shtml

Derrogatives:
None.

I guess when your poor on facts, you can always use expletives.

Wow, I am lovin' this!

Dave Dube, your country boyfriend Bubba left you hanging there for a while, didn't he? And you didn't look too good on your own. If he's back then you guys can start circle-jerkin' each other again about how stupid the lefties are, but guess what - they've got you surrounded, guy! Your facts are wrong, your opinion is nothing but attitude.

They're right. Bush lied, that's what it comes down to. This war was not about "liberating" anybody, fool.

OK, I'm going away again, just had to see how the troops were holding up.

The rest of you tree-huggin antiwar lefty faggots out there, don't let these rednecks dominate the discussion. You're doing great!

PS Somebody asked about html. There's nothing too it, just put the code in your message and it will be interpreted in the browser just like a regular web page.

Pass - You are a gas bag. I can handle two lefties and I certainly don't need any help from Bubba... I just wish they'd (YOU included) would own up to the words...

Dave:
Remember about the one about the British intelligence report on the status of Iraq's threat to the world, forwarded by Tony Blair as proof, that turned out to be a plagarized thesis paper. On of the central themes in that report was links between

And while Bush and Blair were claiming Iraq Al-Queda ties the British and AMerican intelligence were denying the same.

"There are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network, according to an official British intelligence report seen by BBC News. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2728535.stm

Or the one about the secret document that proved the Saddam was seeking plutonium from Africa and provided as proof by President Bush and other high ranking officials, that turned out to be forged.

The administration knew when they presented that information that they were lying. They knew the documents were forged and they chose to present it anyway. Thats not overstated, that lying.

//Please, oh please let Don or Dan or Pass the Gas use the keyboard //

You think I'm in Don's or Dan's or Pass the Gas's way?

You could be all of 'em, and Gwen also...

dave dube:

Are you saying that because Saddam is a liar, and because George Bush repeated his lies, that means George is not a liar?. Strange logic. By-the-way, I thought Saddam denied having WMD and George said he possessed tons of them.

The evidence to date makes George the liar and Saddam the truth teller, and this really pisses me off. Saddam is a killer of thousands (not millions), a tyrant, and a potential threat to world stability. Statements by our president that damage our credibility and make Saddam look sympathetic are wrong. Bush acts like he can lie like Reagan and get away with it. So far he has.

Re Oil:

Oil is a commody on the international market. It's not that relevant where it comes from.

I always thought the war wasn't about oil, but who gets to spend the oil money. We do. Bechtel and Halliburton are happy, France and Russia are sad.

Dave said:
//You could be all of 'em, and Gwen also...//

I'm not. I am only using one identity on this site. I am not anti-war or pro-saddam. I am only interested in getting as much knowledge as possible. I am interested in facts and interpetation of them. I am on the fence about the US's involvement in Iraq.

It is a matter of fact that the US lied. Whether or not the US was justified, is in my opinion, up for debate. I think we should debate it.

Should we strive to be a global empire? I'm not against it. I don't know enough to say yes or no.

The world is much more complicated then good and evil. Things aren't so easily defined in black and white.

Thats the debate I'd like to have, and I wish we had had prior to the war.

Except for the name calling, it's been a great thread. Gotta go.

Sad to see you folks leave... I'd question your sources for some of the hot information because every piece re: 'intelligence' and how much of it is verifiable, intrigues me. A number of mainstream sources in this country are laughable - that's why I've enjoyed this medium of exchange. You are right lefty, there is a lot of name calling, which just gets in the way of the message, whatever that happens to be. My sources are no better. I protested a war 30+ years ago, and I fought in it nonetheless. I didn't like the message I was hearing from our leadership. I obeyed anyway. I saw my friends and family die, and couldn't understand why. I still don't. This one was different. I'd been there. I'd done it. I've seen man's inhumanity to man. I still don't like it. If I was sold a bill of goods on this one, I'll make my voice heard. I'm certain you will all do the same. It isn't black and white. It never has been. It ain't over yet, either.

amazing, you asked Ant to Knee to let go of the K-board, and let PtG use it, a there he was!
you must be telepathic, dave. LOL

// amazing, you asked Ant to Knee to let go of the K-board, and let PtG use it, a there he was!
you must be telepathic, dave. LOL//

Did you get a chance to check those stats?

Anthony - ummmm. Which stats? By the by, did you get a chance to read the DoD assessment, futuristically speaking? You're it.

Dave said:
//By the by, did you get a chance to read the DoD assessment//

Yes I did. Thanks for the reference. I enjoyed it. Good overview.

//Which stats?//

Bubba was sure that 53% of our imports came from Canada.

I responded to him that 15% or 16% of our imports were from Canada.

Then Bubba said "Try a goggle search, and see where 53% of America's oil imports come from."

I did the google search and verified what I had said was correct. In 2002. we imported 16.67% of our oil from Canada. In fact about 52% of our oil comes from all foreign sources combined, including Canada(16.6%), Saudi Arabia (13.3%) etc ... I wonder whether that was were Bubba had confused the data.

I was wondering whether he checked it out, and had any additional comments to add.

He has yet to respond.

Anthony,
I didn't check out the stats. I'm not a big stats fan, because I feed the stats freaks. They can make the stats sing if they want to, anywhere from Soprano to Basso, and I think it gives them pleasure.
I know that the words tend to get in the way of the message. I will admit to same. I'm sure there will be another opportunity to discuss the OIL impetus, but I think this thread is about due for archiving.
I assume you'll stick around for other in the same vein. I look forward to it.