Well folks... I'm not about to start gloating over this news quite yet, but with Don, Dan, Pass the Gas and various garden vegetables all baskin' in the sun right now, this sounds like positive news. NOW. I'm sorta waitin' to hear about some good news dribblin' out of the mouth of the Ace of Diamonds. Damn. I almost forgot about our dear friend, Anthony. How would you like those party balloons, Anthony? Hydrogen or Helium? :o) You pick.

...yep this may well be the last nail in the q---- parties coffin.

Is anyone else besides me craving a WMD omelette?

I'm not gloating yet. This guy could be full of BS, but I've suspected that we have more information, and perhaps some hardware as well, with regards to the Iraqi WMD's.

If we do, I'm a little peaved to think this senator could let it out so early. Remember, the election is more than a year away. G. Bush Sr. won a resounding victory in '91, but the exploits (or at least the acclaim) was forgotten by the time his re-election bid came up (18 months later).

I think this President will hold off (or try to) until 4-5 months before the election with solid WMD evidence. That way he re-charges the whole argument, Refreshes the nations memory, and slams the Democrat "We were lied to" whiners all at once.

Senator Kerry, anything to add?

Not to worry. They'll have somethin' else to carp on by that time. Probably hangin' chad...

Dave:

My prediction is there is nothing to this story.

Dave:

One more thing. As far as balloons go, did you notice the the State Dept's intel remains unconvinced regarding the function of those mobile labs? I think you were away when that story broke.

Anthony! Alllrightyyyy... I'll put a hold on that order for the PartyBalloonTrailers... :o(

Dave:
I went to this article expecting to find the a few CONDITIONALS. They were everywhere.

From the article:
"We were told that there was some evidence, which we SHOULD NOT reach any conclusion on, that there MIGHT have been a program that COULD lead to a relatively rapid constitution of a weapon," Levin said after the news conference.

Nope, Anthony, I didn't. I was having WAY too much fun watchin' my kid play with WMDs.

Anthony, Do you suppose the good Senator could be leadin' us on? LOL. MAYBE. Yup. You're probably at least partially correct. Uhhh. Yah. That might be it.

Dave:
You sound like a spin meister. :)

Who knows what's behind this story. The Senator might just have wanted a little spotlight, and this is the best he could do. I hope there is a grand design to all of this prattle.

Dubya deserves a 2nd term just to finish cleaning up all of the dross from Bubba Clintshnyev's 8 year party at the public's expense. Let's see if he is as dumb as the media portrays. It is way to early to start crowing about anything.

Oh, Anthony, HELIUM! Yeehaw!

why do they keep pushing this stuff?
saddam was an ahole to his people and to us..
that's all the reason for overthrowin him i ever felt we needed.

regardless of your opinion of the war or what this senator knows - he should keep quiet about wmd + dr germ

>>Anthony: State Dept's intel remains unconvinced

I’m sorry, This statement raises a number of questions in my mind.

1. Why do these people have jobs?
2. How many people in Washington go around claiming to provide "intelligence"
3. Wouldn’t it be more efficient to hire some school kids to evaluate “intelligence” and disseminate their conclusions to all the different branches of government that need “intelligence analysis”. Using a child might strip away all the monumental political baggage that keeps normally sane people from coming up with sane conclusions, much as the fabled child in the story of the emperor’s new clothes.

4. Who listens to these disparate teams of "intelligence analysts" in the state department, the pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, the NSA, the CIA, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Postal Service, and the Animal Control department for the District of Columbia?

5: Anthony. How would a conscientious 8th grader have evaluated the intel on the al Queda meeting in Indonesia (or Malaysia, I forget which) prior to 9/11? Would you say that 99 out of 100 would have said that we need to watch these people closely?

6: Anthony. Out of 100 conscientious 8th graders, how many would draw the same conclusion as the state department "intelligence analysts" that certain trailers, which could be used to generate biological weapons, which were camouflaged to hide their existence, which were unnecessarily mobile, and which were built by the worst totalitarian dictator since Pol Pot (a regime with a proven track record of hiding programs to generate weaponized bacteria, germs, and nuclear weapons) --- that these trailers were obviously not built or used to generate WMD?

7: Anthony. Are you wearing any new clothes, specially woven so that only “intelligence analysts” in the State Department can see them?

Kate: I do not like W M D.

I do not like them in a trailer, I do not like them in a mailer. I do not like them in Iraq. I do not like them on a camel's back --- (Uncle) Sam I am.

Stolen from centoms Operation sidewinder report. Seemed interesting, passing it on.

OPERATION SIDEWINDER AND COALITION SECURITY EFFORTS CONTINUE (July 3, 2003)

BAGHDAD, Iraq – The 4th Infantry Division conducted six raids in support of Operation Sidewinder in the past 24 hours resulting in 32 detained individuals. Confiscated weapons included four rocket-propelled grenades, two pistols, two AK-47s and one shot gun. Additionally, 4th ID confiscated an undetermined amount of Iraqi Dinar.

In other activity, units of the 101st Airborne Division detained ten individuals who were attempting to loot a wheat factory. Two vehicles used in the looting attempt were confiscated.

The 1st Marine Expeditionary Force detained an Iraqi man and woman for possession of four AK-47s and four rocket-propelled grenades. The 1st MEF received information that the detained individuals were collecting weapons for an attack on Coalition forces.

Coalition forces continued patrols throughout the country over the last 24 hours conducting 11 raids, 1,236 day patrols and 925 night patrols. They also jointly patrolled with the Iraqi Police conducting 185 day patrols and 172 night patrols. On their own, Iraqi Police conducted 17 day and six night patrols. The total raids and patrols resulted in 294 arrests for various criminal activities including two for murder, four for car jacking, two for aggravated assault 16 for burglary, and one for looting.

I gotta admire the manner of this brief. Thanks guys!

Oh, dear, didn't I tell you about my nephew Anthony, how he blew up his high school?
After he won that blue ribbon in the science fair, that brilliant boy accidentally mixed a little sodium azide with his hydrogen, and BOOM!!!! The whole school blew up....

you guys are Really Suckers..LOL Still hoping
for SOME proof of WMD's even some rotten food in
a frige over there in 130^ heat with No Electric.

Umm.. they could reconstitute a Program in 45min
If Saddam beat on Ahab to go poke Ms Germ to
cook up a pot of goolosh and serve it at the PX
after the GI's take over and get them sick..
Yea, That is a Lethal Program that shrubs will
tie into the Mobil Food Carts (LOLOL). I Love
FOOLS !!! LOLOLO I got a Bridge for sale in
Bagdad. Low Miles. Just donkey carts.. You know,
Donkeys.. Oh Well. I want my WMD's.............
Waaaaa..

VF

The only ramble like that I've ever heard was from somebody tweaking on crystal methadrine.

I think this senator (from the Intelligence Committee) has something in his pocket. That would account for Colin Powell's recent confidence as well as the BBC backing away from its position that A. Campbell and T. Blair sexed up the intelligence in the U.K.

First... the bleedin' obvious: This report is either true, or it isn't.

If it isn't, then it's just another piece of spin to try and spook the anti-war proponents. No problem. we're used to that.

If true, then the possibilities are more interesting:

1. They've had this information for some time and have let the anti-war brigade "dig their own graves" by getting cocky about WMDs. A shameful tactic. A travesty of the political process. Especially when Iraqis and coalition people are REALLY dying out there. Reason enough to get rid of Bush/Blair/ Howard (Howard is Australia's Prime Minister).

2. What's been found is (yet again) another clapped-out trailer, 44-gallon drum or buried swimming pool woth traces of nasty chemicals/microbes in it. Loosen up! We KNOW they had WMDs at some stage.... Rummy GAVE THEM to Saddam in 1983. In short, option 2. is another piece of snake oil.

3. There's actually some truth to the matter, and the pre-war reports have (finally) been substantiated, after a nail-biting period in which it seemed that WMDs might not be found after all. Everyone was honorable. Blair was right. Bush was right. Howard was right. Uncle Tom Cobbly et al were right. The point to remember (if 3. is true) is that WMDs WERE NOT USED. They had all this potential (and actual) capability AND THEY DID NOT USE IT. So why have it?

If you're in any way fair, you have to admit that 3. is the LEAST likely scenario.

This site was quite useful during the war, but it has turned into a pathetic collection of would-be armchair generals and patriotic flag-wavers which (if you could only listen to yourselves dispassionately) show just why America is so hated the World over.

Every great country has its turnips, I guess.

I never waved the flag or armchaired a general... But I'll let you in on a little secret...

Our liberals could kick your liberals ass anyday of the weak.

;0P

I must apologize for my Old Uncle. I spoke to my Auntie this morning. Seems like he hasn't been taking his lithium. They try to do the best for him but sometimes he gets away. They found him drooling over the keyboard last night. He never liked people who don't think like him.

Before he became sick he was a nice man. He always wanted to go to school and be a genius, but he just couldn't make it. He was never good at thinking things out for himself. Always needed to follow the crowd. His been bitter ever since, and well ....

Enough said.

After all the intelligence manipulations of the Bush adminstration (especiallywithin the Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld axis) are we supposed to trust this?

Adrian:

It continues. This was published in the 'so-called' liberal WAPO.

Basis for Arms Claims Affirmed

WASHINGTON - U.S. intelligence analysts lacked new, hard information about Saddam Hussein's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons after U.N. inspectors left Iraq in 1998. So they had to rely on data from the early and mid-1990s when they concluded in the months leading up to the war that those programs continued into 2003, according to preliminary findings of a CIA internal review panel.

Here's the clincher.

While the post-1998 evidence was largely circumstantial or "inferential" because of the absence of inspectors and the lack of reliable agents in Iraq, the panel said Thursday, the judgment that Saddam continued to have weapons of mass destruction appears justified.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7276-2003Jul3.html?nav=hptop_ts

The Charlotte Observer ran the same story under the heading "Old data used for Iraq arms claim" http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/6232524.htm

VF - Never cease to amaze. How do you like YOUR Crank? You want it sprinkled on the WMD omelette? That's French for your brain on WMD...

Anthony - Sit back in the barkalounger. After 12 hours to think about it, I've decided that it doesn't make a whole lotta sense for a Senator (a Republican at that) fresh from a visit with the latest 'Intel' in his vest pocket, to stand up in front of God and Everybody and make an ASS of himself. Forewarned is forearmed. Now, I will continue to wait, like everyone else, but I'm just as comfortable now, as I was when you joined this little discussion about the trailers. OBTW. The state intel guys are still unconvinced, because they came late to the game. Subs off the bench you might say.

Aussie Bob - Get a grip! I hear in the news you folks are now a SUPERpower? What's with THAT? The Islamowhackos are getting closer by the day, and I seem to remember more than a few Aussies who won't be rememberin' a nice holiday, and a few others who won't ever forget theirs. How about you? Wake up, tell Achmed you're ready to convince him he's on the road to perdition. Slam him with a Fosters. Good luck. You'd be better off tippin' a few of them yourself. I think Achmed will pretty much remain unconvinced, like poor Anthony.

OBTW Anthony - If JoeShit were to walk up to me on the street and asked me who I believed - Senator Roberts with the envelope in his pocket, or Anthony (Karnak) HydrogenHelium, I'm goin' with the guy with the envelope in his pocket. WHY? Why is there air, Anthony? Put the skeptiscope away.

Dave:
Sorry. Not yet. The scope will remain drawn.

Dave:
You analysis that the State dept makes abosolutely no sense. Because they came late to the game? Subs off the bench?

What is Karnak?

"Our liberals could kick your liberals ass any day of the weak"

Chewboy, this is the kind of pseudo-macho crap that I was talking about. All bluff and thunder and no action: typical armchair general. Even though you deny it, your words prove it.

How long do you think the other 90% of the world is going to let America "kick ass", as you put it? You've already taken on too much work in Iraq, with over half your trigger-happy army committed, and you're still flailing around like a bull in a china shop.

When are you going to learn that killing people, taking over their countries and their resources and humiliating their citizens only makes them angry? Especially when you have to lie to your own population to get the authority to invade?

There's another two and a half BILLION of us non-Yanks out here, ready to take you on. But it won't be with guns or aircraft carriers or F-16s. It'll be with monetary policy, or trade terms, or (most likely of all) simply with laughter. Americans, particularly of your type, are soooo laughable.

P.S. You can't spell either. The word is "week" (as in 7 days), not "weak" (as in your intelligence, or perhaps your education, farm-boy).

Aussie:

On occasion there are worthwhile discussions on this blog.

As far as 'pseudo-macho crap.' Alot of that goes on here. There is often a lack of critical thinking. It is usually fueled with a lack of knowledge and/or critical thinking skills, and sometimes 'blind patriotism.'

Blind patriotism = don't criticise your country no matter what. With that kind of thinking women would still be unable to vote and jim crow would still be flourishing in the South.

Aussie Bob:

Are you australlian? If so, is australlian going to do something about it's own pre-war intelligence info and the lack of WMDs in Iraq?

Dave:
"Anthony (Karnak) HydrogenHelium"

What's the point of the continued reference to HydrogenHelium? Are you trying to make a point? If so, what is it?

Soldiers from the First Armored Division captured piles of top secret Iraqi intelligence documents, some of which refer to a nuclear program, in a raid on a community center in Baghdad last week.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., probably wishes he'd had a peek at them before he accused President Bush of intentionally misleading Americans about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee dismissed Kerry's charge as political, and refused to join in it.

Kerry had to hope his listeners have short memories: "[Saddam Hussein] cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction," he said in a speech on the Senate floor in 1997.

In that speech, exhumed by Wesley Pruden of the Washington Times, Kerry said the United Nations should authorize a military strike on Iraq that would "materially damage . . . as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction." And if the United Nations wouldn't go along, the United States should go it alone:

"While we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis . . . we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise," Kerry said.

Similar statements -- essentially indistinguishable from what President Bush has said -- were made by Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle and former House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt. So if Americans were "intentionally misled" about WMD in Iraq, Democrats originated the plot.

Anthony, fuck off with you lame hydrogen theory, you are as dumb as a brick arent't you.

aussie bob- sure, Americans are taking over countries for their own intrests, nothing else.... wasn't because saddam was killin thousands of people. Thats ok in your book isn't it.

maybe you get a little too much sun in that backwards state of tasmania

Bubba:

I think you're a bit obsessed with hydrogen. As far as I'm concern this isn't about hydrogen. It about WMDs and whether those trailers had anything to do with them..

Bubba:

Your attempts to equate statements made 6 years ago, with what recently happened is either short-sighted or disingenuous or perhaps you can think of a better adjective.

You are correct in that democrats did make similar statements. But statements are just talk. Bush did much more than just talk. Right?

Talk doesn't equate to taking hundred of thousands of troops to war, removal of a head of state, the death of troops and civilians, and subsequent occupation. The president will judged (right or wrong) not only on talk but on his subsequent actions.

You're trying to imply that Bush's actions were based on Democrat's statements? So if everything turns out ok, then Bush gets all the credit, and if things are not, will start blaming the Democrats for originating 'the plot?'

Correction:
The president will be judged (right or wrong) not only on talk, but on his subsequent actions.

Anthony - You are obsessed. Hydrogen-Helium would have been a non-issue but for Mr. SmartyPants, yourownself. The trailers were built to produce Bioweapons, Anthony. Just like Mr. Powell said. End of story.

For the love of God, will you guys shut the fuck up about Hydrogen vs. Helium!!!

Saddam was a ruthless murderer Anthony. His removal was well warranted. The threat of the baath party to other countries was a condition that needed removal.
So quit your whining. If you promote killers like that, then you deserve the same fate.
islam is not a peacefull religion. You attempted to bach Ali sina's faithfreedom.org site.
why don't you take his challange then? prove anything he says wrong, and he'll take the site down. better people than you have tried, and failed.

Must be something wrong with islam if the clerics can't even prove Ali Sina wrong.

And Anthony, if you want to make hydrogen in the army field, All you need is a few heaters from An MRE pack and a bottle, a tube and some duct tape and you can make enough to fill a balloon. don't need a contraption like that. Get a fucking brain you little moron.
what grade are you in? 2?

Dave:

Sorry. You are obsessed. I haven't talk about hydrogen/helium since that long 300+ post in June. However a number of you (some anonymously) continue to bring it up, almost every chance you get.

Your "End of story" is your business, and your belief. You are entitled to it. I am entitled to my own.

What don't you guys stop bringing it up?

Notice how Bubba is trying to distract attention away from his unintelligent post blaming the Democrats for Bush's actions.

Notice how he is trying to change my question about the conclusion that trailers were for WMDs into a discussion about how to make hydrogen.

My questions is "What were the trailers really for." Not "How do you make hydrogen"

Please note: This post is not about hydrogen/helium. Its about Bubba's attempt to distract attention from his unintelligent posts.

Now why would Bubba try to blame the Democrats for Bush's actions? ummmmm?

Bubba:

You never answered my post (Blaming Democrats for Bush's action?)

When Bubba is wrong about something he starts flinging derogatories insults. Instead of saying, your right about that point, he starts creating diversions by bringing up irrelevant points.

just what am I wrong about Anthony?
nothing so fuck off twirp.

How am I blaming the dems for anything? I'm just repeating what THEY said.
take that any way you like.

Interesting how Bubba calls me a moron after I got him on trying to 'blame the democrats.'

That 'blame the democrats' nonsense has been going around all the right-wing circles lately. I bet alot of people on the right, without a second of thought, just accept it as truth. The 'blame the democrats' nonsense It is often used as an excuse to cover conservative failures.

To be fair the same thing happens on the left.

Bubba said:

//So if Americans were "intentionally misled" about WMD in Iraq, Democrats originated the plot.//

// Saddam was a ruthless murderer Anthony. His removal was well warranted. //

I agree. It is the method we used that is questionable.

You don't 'got me' on anything, but you do show that you just can't read properly.

here's the whole article, dumb fuck.

http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/col/20030629edkelly29p2.asp

Harping on this issue is strange politics, because polls indicate about two-thirds of Americans think that war with Iraq was justified even if weapons of mass destruction are not found. And if they are found, Democrats have walked out on a limb that will be sawed off behind them.

If next year's presidential election is decided on national security issues, Democrats will lose. But if the economy or some other issue is more important, Democrats still will lose, if Americans believe Democrats cannot be trusted to protect the country.

Why would Kerry -- who tells people every chance he gets that he is a Vietnam veteran -- risk convincing voters that he can't be trusted with America's security?

David Brooks speculates in The Weekly Standard that hatred of Bush has unhinged Democrats, who "look like they're turning into a domestic version of the Palestinians -- a group so enraged at perceived oppressors, and so caught up in their own victimization, that they behave in ways that are patently not in their self-interest, and that are almost guaranteed to perpetuate their suffering."

The beneficiary of Democratic feelings of impotence and rage has been Howard Dean, who has been running as the "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it any more" candidate.

It is concern about the former Vermont governor that is causing putative front-runner Kerry to step into dangerous waters. Of the (more or less) serious Democratic candidates for president, all but Dean voted to authorize war with Iraq.

Bubba:
You signed your name to these statements without a reference or URL. The way you posted it, you look like the author.

So you're not in agreement with these statements?

What the hell do you know about war Anthony?
Who are you so say "it was the way it was done is bad".
I bet you don't even know which end of the gun to hold.

It's clear you are clueless about just about everything. Did your mother drop you on your head alot? or does that praying to allah 5 times a day remove any form of rational thought?

go away little boy, you way out of your league

Bubba:

Not the war, Bubba the build-up to it. The "method in which we did it" refers to the use of questionable intelligence and/or exaggerations about our intelligence to convince the public we should go to war.

The war itself went very well.

Anthony,
As I read Bubba's comments he was'nt blaming democrats he was merely saying that at one time all of the democrats he mentioned said they were for attacking Iraq because they had WMD's, now it seems they are questioning Bush for doing what they advocated in the first place. Why is Bubba at fault for pointing out their hypocrosy? And why do you attack Bush for his action against Iraq? Is it better to just talk about doing something and not following through, or say something needs to get done and then do it? If you agree with the former you must be a Democrat.

The point is Anthony, is that the democrats when in power, thought the facts were fine. When it came time for a decission on whether to go to war or not, they thought the facts were fine.
now they try make a political issue out of something they themselves promoted.

Shows how lost and desparate the Dems are.

Shows how the liberal press has tried to distort things. Shows how stupid people like you are for following them. Kinda like how stupid muslims are for believing that idiot mohammed, who was nothing but a pedophile, a rapist, and a murderer.

I see commander pointed out the obvious to you as well Anthony.
I do wish you would learn to read

commander said "he was merely saying that at one time all of the democrats he mentioned said they were for attacking Iraq because they had WMD's, now it seems they are questioning Bush for doing what they advocated in the first place."

What Democrats advocated and what Bush advocated and did were different things. The democrats advocated attacking the WMD infrastructure. Bush removed a head of state, and is occupying Iraq. He has yet to remove WMDs or find the infrastructure.

//And why do you attack Bush for his action against Iraq?//

I didn't attack Bush. I said he will be judged right or wrong, by his actions.

Bubba:
You read CAREFULLY. Show me where I attacked Bush.

//The point is Anthony, is that the democrats when in power, thought the facts were fine.//

Not fine enough to start a war. The remarks stand by themselves, right or wrong. Bush remarks and actions will stand by themselves, right or wrong.

// Is it better to just talk about doing something and not following through, or say something needs to get done and then do it? //

It depends on what your intentions are. Right?

// If you agree with the former you must be a Democrat. //

Labelling democrats in this manner is unjust and inaccurate.

Anthony, how does one man become so stupid?

commander:
Please elaborate.

Anthony's Idea of dissarming world hotspots
(2003-07-03) -- The Bush administration announced today it would help to keep peace in Liberia by sending 1,000 Cub Scout Den Mothers to patrol Monrovia and other trouble spots.

"There's a lot of talk about sending in the military as peacekeepers," said an unnamed senior White House official. "But soldiers and Marines make war, not peace. Den Mothers, on the other hand, are quite skilled at quelling quarrels."

Just the presence of 1,000 Moms in the streets can have a calming effect, the official said, especially on the many youth who have taken up weapons in Liberia.

The official added, "You've seen that look from a Mom that says, 'I know what you're doing, and I don't like it one bit young man.' That's what we need in these global hot spots."

Not so Bubba:

In you imagination.
I think war is a 'necessary evil.' I am not a peacenik. And I eat more meat that 99% of the population (3 meals/day). I never eat tofu. Don't even care for soy sauce.

Another one of Bubba's diversions.

I have never advocated a no war policy.

Great one Bub,LOL
Problem is, Anthony thinks that would probably work!

commander said:

// And why do you attack Bush for his action against Iraq? //

Where did I attack Bush?

Strewth Anthony,

Pig's arse mate. You sound like a bloody anklebiter. Fair dinkum, I tried to read your chunder but I have come the the conclusion that you have kangaroos loose at the top of the paddock mate.

Anthony,

In 1998, several high ranking Democrats, including Sen. Carl Levin, who was then ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee and Sen. Tom Daschle, wrote a letter to President Clinton urging him to attack Iraq over this very issue--WMD. There was thought at this time to be sufficient evidence about Iraq's weapons program to justify not only a threat to American security, but more importantly a breach of the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire, and , of course, numerous UN resolutions.

400 cruise missiles is not advocating infrastructure attack. It is an advocation of war. We would consider 400 cruise missle dropped on us an act of war. However, for various political reasons, these actions were not followed up on, indeed, emboldening an already power-drunk dictator to think he could get away with not disarming

Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and George Bush said nothing differently than echoed in Congressional hallways on both sides of the aisle 5 years ago. The difference was they treated it as the threat that they claimed.

Anthony,
You don't attack. You just question. Your method of argumentation is - It necessitates the obvious on OUR part. You question. Easy to do. Why don't you state a proposition, and defend it? Why?

Dave:

That's a fair comment. I will consider it.

David:

Thank you for you reasoned arguement.

Are you equating the rhetoric of two Democratic Senators from 1998, with the current Administrations actions?

To me there are differences.

1) Cruise missiles vs. massive troop deployments, military occupation and removal of a head of state.
That's a significant difference.

Is this what you meant Dave?

un-fucking believable......

un-fucking believable......

I guess you didn't give much thought to Dave's post, or you didn't understand it, or both

I'll let Dave comment on that.

Crikey Bubba, leave Anthony alone mate, he's got his knickers in a twist after all that verbal diarrhoea.

Your unemployed, aren't you Anthony.

must be tough going through life as a complete idiot

Bubba, that dingbat Anthony is dummber than a salty croc from the back of beyond.

I think that the difference is not with the many senators (there were a total of about thirty-not just the ones I mentioned. I used those particular examples because they have been the most vocal) "rhetoric" but with the sentiments behind them. They urged President Clinton to attack Iraq. When he did, they defended him. However, there were senators on both sides who felt that even THESE actions were not sufficient. And after all, what did this strike really accomplish?

Now, having said that, my point is that you seem to suggest that the "rhetoric" by Democrats 5 years ago wasn't enough to advocate war. I disagree. The difference was in follow-through. Take that comment for what you will. Five years ago, it was the democratic leadership that was saying "He's a threat to national security. He's a threat to world peace. We know that he is hiding WMD's. We know he is not complying." etc etc etc The solution chosen at that time (surgical missile strikes) did not solve the problem. A new one had to be chosen. That solution was invasion. (And by the way, Saddam Hussein didn't surrender even after we started dropping bombs on him-why would anyone think anything less than that could cause him to comply?)

My concern about this is this: If those words were genuine, why was the problem not then solved? Was it just, as you say "rhetoric", to look good for the cameras, because they knew the true solution was liable to be lengthy, costly, and politically expensive? Or were they just emply words? That noone who advocated this actually though Saddam Hussein was a threat? Either one is equally reprehensible. And if those words weren't genuine, how dare they complain now...about how anything NOW was handled?

LOL

// Saddam was a ruthless murderer Anthony. His removal was well warranted. //

Anthony said - //I agree. It is the method we used that is questionable.//

I'll be stuffed! Anthony, are you for the war mate or did you have another way to remove Saddam?

oops, was laughing at Bruce's post.

Thats pretty much it in a nutshell, bruce.
It's all political dancing now, Democrats must really think the majority of people are dumb, or very forgetful.
This approach is going to backfire badly for them come election time.

David:

//Now, having said that, my point is that you seem to suggest that the "rhetoric" by Democrats 5 years ago wasn't enough to advocate war. I disagree.//

You believe that the 5 years ago we should have taken the action that Bush recently took? That includes massive troop deployments, military occupation and removal of a head of state?

Anthony thinks that asking him nicely to give himself up would have worked, or that den mother idea......

Bubba, very true mate. What is up with that drongo Anthony? That figjam can whinge louder than a bush pig with PMS.

Anthony, get your arse into gear and answer my question. Are you for the war mate or did you have another way to remove Saddam?

Yes, and it seems a number of senators, Democrat and Republican, agreed.

The point is this- In 1998, those that said the same kinds of things being said prior to Iraqi freedom made it clear that one of two things is true currently:

1) He was the threat we claimed, but we didn't act to solve the problem. (which is bad)
2) We didn't really believe he is the threat we claim. (which is worse)

Either way, for those same people to stand up now and criticize just makes them look like hypocrites, because they advocated doing something about the growing "threat" and then proceeded to ignore it for four years.

(And personally, I think this should have been done in 1991)

I may have used too many prepositions witjhout reference:

It should read...

....makes one of two things clear currently about the congressmen and senators who were advocating action in 1998.

Bruce:

Prior to the war, the arguement I had with the war was the timing.

I think we should have waited a little longer before going in unilaterally. France was about to cave-in. I think we should have given the inspection process a little more time.

Post war I am concerned by the lack of WMDs and Al Qaeda connections, 2 of Bush's reasons for going to war.

David:
I think that 9/11 made this war possible. I don't think we had the political will to do this prior to 9/11.

What evidence do you have that suggested France was going to cave?

David:
Several weeks before the war they said give it 60 days.

Anthony, France was about to cave in? That's bonzer mate, if you have proof of this. Do you?

But does the fact that we had less political clout in 1998 make Saddam Hussein less of a threat? I think the answer is no. Our elected leaders were advocating action, Anthony. The same things said for the last year. And they did essentially nothing. They have no basis on which to criticize now.

So you don't like the timing coz the bloody frogs were not onbaord? Mate, forget the frogs. I have a salty croc that eats them for lunch. You can never trust those chooks. Now, besides the frogs, any more complaints?

Anthony

//Several weeks before the war, they said give it 60 days//

What makes this, if I may ask, any more reliable than agreeing to 1441?

Anthony's gone to load the 'Question-o-matic' with more tripe from google.

Hey aussie bob;

That was meant as a joke you dolt. Sorta like two panseys in a barfight. I thought that it might challenge your manhood, and I was right.

Now, if you think that you are the first idiotarian to walk in here, you are as dumb as your statements. Can you not tell how easily you are read? I guess that being from australia has nothing to do with being discreet. I also like that your country has refuted the UN. I think it takes alot of balls to live in a country you cant stand, when you know that ultimately the anti UN path is the way to go. But being that you are such a dolt, you decide to debate your shallow views about how macho every one is. And where do you decide to do it? In the psuedo nothing land of the internet? No, you came to the command-post to divest your lack of manhood.

Take to testosozines and call me in the morning; and if you actually do grow some balls, don't bother to call. We got plenty of your typo's already.

dolt.

devils chewtoy, don't throw a wobbly about Oz mate. Not all of us are as thick as Bob. Juts like you yanks, most of you are just fine, but that Anthony sounds like a dole bludger with a gutfull of piss who talks out of his arse.

David:

Two issues:
1) the type of action (quality and quantity) makes a diffference. Was congress seriously advocating the removal of Saddam back in '98 by war (with troops on the ground) and occupation?

2) the current democratic criticism.
The criticism they are offering now is in regards to their impression that the were duped by Bush's pre-war assertions of Iraq's threat. The Al-Qaeda ties and WMDs assertions have not been proven. Certainly at this time these assertions were at least exaggerated.

David:
// What makes this, if I may ask, any more reliable than agreeing to 1441? //

1441 didn't specify military action, just non-specific consequences.

Anthony. 1441 threatened 'serious consequences' mate. What do you think they meant by that? Taking away their net privileges to make them comply?

We waited 12 bloody years. Sooner or later the shit was going to hit the dunny fan.

Like Anthony said - 'Prior to the war, the arguement I had with the war was the timing.'

12 bllody years of fuddled inspections! It would have been more productive playing pocket billiards with Saddam.

If it meant war, then it should have said WAR.

The issue wasn't France. It was giving a little more time to get more of the international community on-board, so that they would share the responsibility of Iraq eith troops, peace keepers, money etc...

You are avoiding the question mate. What do YOU think 'serious consequences' to make them comply means? No more MTV?

Bruce:
It meant that the signatories would decide together how to deal with Iraq if they decided there was significant non-compliance.

No more MTV? What does that mean?

If France was not the issue than why did you say 'I think we should have waited a little longer before going in unilaterally. France was about to cave-in. I think we should have given the inspection process a little more time.'

Damn frogs can not be trusted with anything.

Anthony,

Firstly,

1) Yes, they were. The kinds of actions being advocated, while not specifically calling for occupation, were to deal with a specific threat. And I saw the word "imminent" threat thrown around more than once. (this can be found on LexisNexis) They didn't. Why not? As I said, the rhetoric was the same. The strikes didn't work. Was he a threat or wasn't he? Maybe if they had acted then, we could have avoided a war. But whether or not you think you have to go to war, Anthony, you don't call someone a threat to world peace who is actively seeking and constructing WMD and then do nothing. The leaders thought that. They said it, in public. They did nothing. Here we are.

2) Exaggeration is a poor word unless you know more than either one of us can know. However, Sen Levin seemed very convinced of the threat from Saddam Hussein's WMD in 1998. Why is it now, with a Rep President and four years with no inspectors, that that threat has diminshed to the point that no immediate WMD finds means Bush is exaggerating or lying? That makes utterly no sense, given what we know about Hussein.

3) You avoided the question: regardless of how you interpret 1441--there were no consequences, military or otherwise. Serious consequences apparently meant more inpectors and more inpections to the French. Why would we assume that giving them two months would have been any different? What would have happened after two months? Bitter censure from the UN security council? Chirac himself said that they would not go to war. This little verbal agreemant wasn't worth the paper it was written on. ;)

But they could not decide did they mate? That is no excuse to let Iraq off is it? Bloody hell man, someone had to make them accountable for 12 years of games. That Saddam is a sneaky as a dunny rat. He managed to split the west and that is the trap the frogs fell into. Bloody cheese eating surrender monkeys if you want my opinion.

Anthony.
France, Germany and Russia all had 'agendas' that conflicted with the overthrow of the regime. $$$ They would NEVER have gone along with the plan, because it would mean just what it means to them right now. They're losers. They're ALL greedy has beens.

So, I maintain, there was no reason to believe that the French would agree to 60 days anymore than anything else, once the date arrived.

//No more MTV? What does that mean?//

Stone the crows mate. You yanks invented MTV.

devils chewtoy, don't throw a wobbly about Oz mate. Not all of us are as thick as Bob. Juts like you yanks, most of you are just fine, but that Anthony sounds like a dole bludger with a gutfull of piss who talks out of his arse.

Posted by: Bruce at July 4, 2003 01:19 PM
_____________________________________

Well said! I love OZ!!! ozzy bob is not what I would call a real australian. They are real men, bobs a pansey.

Sorry if I wrote something that led to believe I was making a slight. Not intended. Thanks.

Anthony is a resident-erm, liberal I think. He loves it here. He gets a little bit of respect for being scrappy and also able to articulate a bit. He has made a few points.

Now I remember that they french insisted on the term 'serious consequences' instead of war. That satisfied us, because we knew it meant war. That satisfied them because it meant wiggle room. But our president made it deliberately clear, he intended that a war would begin. I don't see what the fuss would be, since we know that wiggle room is a part of concensus. But the would be hold outs are making it into a totally different matter. These are just like the last baathists and they know it.

Dave Dubé - That's why you yanks had to tell Chraq and Putin to get knotted and do the job yourselves.

David - And then those bastard frogs would ask for another month, and then more and more. Been doing it for ages mate. Next thing you know, it will be another bloody 12 years.

DC - Not a real Australian mate? Well bugger me dead! I was mad as a cut snake with that dingbat after all the codswallop he chucked. I'll let you into a secret mate - I'm no Aussie either. That's true mate. I'm just a bloody yank thats drunk too much Aussie beer on the 4th of July!

Oh Bob, if you are reading this, Rack off you turd! May your chooks turn into emus and kick your shithouse door down

I believe that it was worth waiting a little longer because more of the security council would have caved-in. France may have too. If France caved-in then everyone else would have. If they didn't we would still have had more support then we had then and now.

In the end France approval was desired, but not necessary. The support of the world community is looking more important as time passes.

Fourth of July. Got to go. I've spent more time here then I should have, it being a holiday and all. I will check back later. Thanks for the conversation.

Anthony. Fair suck of the sav mate! You have gone from saying 'France was about to cave in' to 'France MAY have too..'

What's wrong mate? Google crashed? Question-o-matic blown its fuse?

Get your story and facts straight, you whinging drongo.

This is not googlespeak as google doesn't predict future outcomes. :) My opinion was that France was about to cave in.

It was worth giving it a little more time. This sentence is also my opinion. :)

Why don't you question inaccurate statements made by other posters?

Anthony -'If France caved-in then everyone else would have.'

I'll be stuffed! I had no idea I was talking to the German and Russian foreign ministers. Must be hard keeping up those two jobs and having the time to reply on the Command Post as well, eh Anthony?

The frogs put up a good fight mate, and there was buckley's chance that Chiraq would have caved in. Did you see the public support he had in France? Google that you bloody dipstick!

Thank Bruce. Enjoy yourday.

For the perusal of anyone who would like to know. These are available to be found on Lexis Nexis, among other places.

Dec 17, 1998 (in a letter to President Clinton)

"I support President Clinton's decision to undertake military operations aginst Iraq. President Clinton had no alternative because Saddam Hussein left the world no alternative."

and further..

"Since Saddam Hussein refuses to comply with the UN resolutions, I support the use of military force to either compel compliance or to destroy, to the best of our ability, Iraq's cabability to build and deliver weapons of mass destruction and threaten its neighbors."
-Senator Carl Levin-D Chair of the Armed Services Committee

There it is, black and white. There are plenty of others. So, if no WMD are found, its because Bush exaggerated or lied, is that it? He wasn't a threat to us?

Have a great 4th everybody!!! Good debate.

Anthony said //Why don't you question inaccurate statements made by other posters?//

Fair dinkum mate. At least you admit that you have been inaccurate.

Happy 4th to all you fellow yanks. Have a good one.

I'll back with my usual name on CP... after I sober up. But that sure as hell ain't happening today.

Bruce.
(aka... someone else)

Bruce:

I wasn't admitting an error. I meant inaccurate from your preception. Lets not get into the semantics. Do you now understand what I meant when I said "France would cave-in?"

Just as I thought.

Anthony said - 'France was about to cave in'
Posted by: Anthony at July 4, 2003 01:01 PM

Happy 4th to all you fellow yanks. Have a good one.

Posted by: Bruce at July 4, 2003 02:19 PM

Back at you Bluce (Le)!

Anthony. Are we going to go out and sup the amber nectar and celebrate the day or sit here like a pair of dills?

Devils Chewtoy: LOL dude.

Bruce:
Did you take as matter of fact? Did you think I had direct connections to Chirac? Or did you take it like most on this blog will take it - as my opinion?

If you took for anything else than that (my opinion) - then you might consider blogging when you sober.

I'm going. Enjoy.

LOL. Me too! Have a good one :)

Considering all the bullshit the Dems have been putting on Bush over the WMD(and every other issue they could make political hay out of, including the deaths of coalition troops fighting for freedom), it kind of burns me up that now some liberal pieces of giraffe maneur are trying to say that it is "unfair" of the Bush Administration not to have given all the facts.
Why, because it will now make all those Dems look stupid after all their accusations? Screw them, they should've kept their mouths shut until AFTER all the facts were in, instead of jumping on every opportunity to accuse Bush/ Blair/ Howard of being liars, purely for the sake of advancing their pitiful little domestic political agendas.
Put THAT on your cuissant, Jacques/ Anthony/ Pass the Gas/ VF/ Pussy Bob/ Turnip and the rest of you portsiders.

Seth,

PORTSIDERS??? Can anyone say that now? LOL. Have a good 4th... I'm off to see the Wizard!

Cap'n AMERICA, and a few other pseudos...

G'Day mates

Crikey. I've just popped in after throwing another shrimp on the bloody barbie and batting away the anklebiters and noticed that this debate is still going on.

Seth, what you said was just beaut mate. I'm madder than a dog with dunny budgies biting his donger about this. The Bush-haters have it all arse over tit and this arvos earbash proved it. In Oz we refer to these drongos as suffering from tall poppy syndrome.

Take Anthony and his 'the frogs were about to give in.' Crikey! He can actually say this looking proud as a rat with a gold tooth! Ok, fess up, which one of you blokes stuffed crack up his didgeridoo?

A poll from the froggy rag 'Liberation' just before the invasion said 70%of froggies approved of his anti-war performance.

Even the whinging gasbag Pierre Giacometti, director of Paris polling firm Ipsos sez Chiraqs tumbing his nose at the yanks and the pommes over Iraq gave him a 75% approval rating. "It would be hard to go even higher" he said. "The public feels this is the first time in a long time that France is very influential on the world stage."

Strewth. Anthony, you said the frogs were going to cave and that this was your opinion. Mate, based on the froggy polls, from where I'm standing your opinion looks wrong and not worth a zack! If you think Chiraq was going to piss away his highest ratings for you yanks you're not the full quid mate.

Now back to reaching into my stubby holder... I'm as dry as a dead dingos donger. Not that you stickybeaks need to know that :)

Shell shocked, boy you guys are partying hard and arguing hearty. I'm going to go next door and get our tame Yank to explain must of the above to me.
That is when he wakes up.

Someone above wanted an Emu to kick down a shithouse....bit of a giveaway any true digger would have reffered to a "dunny", nice try though.

In medieval times there were enormous debates as to how many angels could stand on the head of a pin. These arguements were long detailed and erudite, the losers often being invited to a "come as you are Barbeque."

Whilst there is and doubtless will continue, a great deal of debate over how and why we were led
(by our leaders ) into this war, no-one seems to deny certain salient facts:
a. The Saddam regime was inherently evil.
Yes we should / should not have supported
it fact was we did. Our mistake we learnt.
b. The world is/ will be a better place(if we get the next phase right ) without the Iraqi Baath party.
c. We did the right thing in removing the man and his regime. If he didn't have WMD at the moment we crossed the start line he surely had them in the past, and would have had them again if the fancy took him, and he had already shown that he had the will to use them.

In the military we learn that THREAT= Capability/ Will. This man and his regime were a threat.

As an outsider...NO.. as an ally, I must admit to a certain sense of wonder over some of the navel searching going on in the debate above. Wonder and delight, because when debate is lively then it will normally reflect on the health of a society. But are we getting too involved in the minutiae and losing site of the big picture. In thirty years what senator X said or what Chirac meant when he said.... will be long forgotten. Our children will remember what resulted from this struggle and not it's dsiputed causes.

Shell shocked, boy you guys are partying hard and arguing hearty. I'm going to go next door and get our tame Yank to explain must of the above to me.
That is when he wakes up.

Someone above wanted an Emu to kick down a shithouse....bit of a giveaway any true digger would have reffered to a "dunny", nice try though.

In medieval times there were enormous debates as to how many angels could stand on the head of a pin. These arguements were long detailed and erudite, the losers often being invited to a "come as you are Barbeque."

Whilst there is and doubtless will continue, a great deal of debate over how and why we were led
(by our leaders ) into this war, no-one seems to deny certain salient facts:
a. The Saddam regime was inherently evil.
Yes we should / should not have supported
it fact was we did. Our mistake we learnt.
b. The world is/ will be a better place(if we get the next phase right ) without the Iraqi Baath party.
c. We did the right thing in removing the man and his regime. If he didn't have WMD at the moment we crossed the start line he surely had them in the past, and would have had them again if the fancy took him, and he had already shown that he had the will to use them.

In the military we learn that THREAT= Capability/ Will. This man and his regime were a threat.

As an outsider...NO.. as an ally, I must admit to a certain sense of wonder over some of the navel searching going on in the debate above. Wonder and delight, because when debate is lively then it will normally reflect on the health of a society. But are we getting too involved in the minutiae and losing site of the big picture. In thirty years what senator X said or what Chirac meant when he said.... will be long forgotten. Our children will remember what resulted from this struggle and not it's dsiputed causes.

I left this "conversation early in my day, About 11:30 Am
I'm Amazed you all stuck around with Anthony, the babbling Idiot.
America has Idiots like anthony, just as Assies have idiots, and Canada, where I'm from, has idiots too.

As you can see, Anthony never answers a question, he just asks more.
I read through all of this just to see if he had any proof we somehow missed as to how he knew france would "cave in" to war on Iraq.
Sadly, he couldn't come up with any.
You others were right, Germany, Russia, and France has far too much in the way of corrupt investment in Iraq to ever santion war.
Anthony doesn't seem to realize that 1441 meant disarm or we will do it for saddam. This meant war. "all means nessasary" doesn't mean much else.
For some reason, Anthony thinks giving daddam MORE time to HIDE things was a good Idea, and now he cries, "where are the WMD'S?"

I bet every drug dealer with a grow operation wishes he was given 3 months notice before the police came and raided his grow operation.
Thats about that more time meant for saddam.

Anthony doesn't keep up with the news very well either, all of france and germany's economic woes, corruption are all comming to the surface, Chiracs close personal freindship with the saddam familly, the oil deal he almost had but wasn't signed thank goodness the Americans moved when they did. Russia managed to get one signed, and now they are crying about it.
How Anthony figures that 60 more days would have hekped anyone but france is beyond me.

At any rate, It was nice to come back and read how you handled Anthony the hydrogen balloon boy, as usual, Anthony proves us all with a laugh.

Nice to see some Aussie boys join in as well.
I travel to AU every other year or so, so I know for the most part, your all good shits down under. Hope you join in often

Bubba said "I read through all of this just to see if he had any proof we somehow missed as to how he knew france would "cave in" to war on Iraq."

Were you looking for proof or evidence?

Crikey, he's back! Anthony, where have you been you spunky brute? We missed you.

Proof or evidence? Why Anthony? Do you have either mate? Hows about a side order of "can we trust them" to go?

I had better put me stubbies away and reload the question-o-matic for you mate.

By the way Anthony, are you a mans man?

Bruce:

were is Dave?

Bubba:

I am interested in hearing Bubba's response to my question.

Bubba. Were you looking for proof or evidence?

Anthony, you are avoiding direct questions again by asking more questions. That's really giving me the irrits mate. I'm interested in your response to:

1) Proof or evidence? Why Anthony? Do you have either mate? Hows about a side order of "can we trust them" to go?

2) Are you a mans man?

Dave's probably away with the pixies, but that's no reason to get your knickers in a twist.

Dealing with Dave sometimes feels like I'm at a seance and he's the medium.

Are you sober today?

I'm going to wait for Bubba's response.

By Jingos! I'm sober as a judge mate. I have not touched the plonk yet today. I did feel a little crook when I woke up, and me mouth felt as dry as crocs arse, but thats gone now. Thanks for asking.

Now, before we lair it up again, will you answer the questions I asked?

I'll answer one of you questions.
//Do you have either mate? //
Yes.

That's bonzer you little beauty! Don't be shy. Brucy is not going to bite you. Lets hear it then, you spunky brute. What's between you and Bubba anyway mate? You taken a fancy to our resident Canadian, ay?

And how about the other questions you've evaded? You can reply to that while I go put the billy on, as it's half way to Bullamanka.

I asked YOU the question Anthony you dim wit. What proof do you have that supports your theory that France would have caved in in 60 more days? We have proof to the contrary, in that france and Germany said they would veto any new resolution.

You going to say that tell me that in the end you don't trust them.

Bubba likes to play games. And he will never admit he is wrong.

// Hows about a side order of "can we trust them" to go? //

You going to tell me in the end that "you don't trust them."

Thats because I'm never wrong Anthony. It's no game. Your the one that keeps comming here and posting lies, making statements with no proof.

G'day Bubba. I think Anthony thinks I'm Dave. Strewth. It's not like we sound the least bit similar, ay? Bet Dave's going to be as happy as a bastard on Fathers day when he hears about this.

Anthony. Bubba called you on it mate.

Bubba:

//I asked YOU the question Anthony you dim wit.//

Learn to read with COMPREHENSION. I know you asked the question. Thats why I said "I'm going to wait for Bubba's response." Did you read that. Did yo miss that?

Thats why I wrote:
Bubba said "I read through all of this just to see if he had any proof we somehow missed as to how he knew france would "cave in" to war on Iraq."

Were you looking for proof or evidence?

Anthony. Give us both mate.

Bubba:

In past when you wrote "of the oil the usa does import, 53% comes from Canada," I asked you for proof. You told me to go do my own searching. You directed me to google. You refused to give me a URL to support your ridiculous point of view. When I gave you the proof you refused to admit you were wrong.

I'm still interested if to find out if you are a mans man Anthony.

Curious

Anthony is evading again. Nice try mate.

There were several questions asked of you anthony, so far you haven't answered any. But then, you never could. You just carry on in endless midless babble as usual, like your butt buddy PtG.

Bubba:
If you are never wrong then there is no point.

Bruce:
You didn't respond to my post concerning your statement. Are you evading?

Pass the Gass? That's a ripper mate! Sounds like a bloke who has dropped his guts.

Anthony. No mate, you are the one that's evading. You have not answered anything today mate. Lets try it again shall we?

For Pete's sake Anthony, lets hear you respond to a question without asking another.

Your right anthony, there is no point in trying to educate you. No matter how many people here try point of facts to you, your stuck in your mindless rut. Like you still think those Bio labs were for making hydrogen for saddams weather balloons.
You just can't see how stupid that sounds, can you?

I'm not going to waste my energy with you guys. You are not interested in a real (fair) discussion. As far as you are concerned France wasn't going to move from its position. Any evidence I give you to the contrary will be dismissed with "You can't trust them."

But if you guys do your own searching you will find evidence to the contrary.

Bugger me dead! Sounds like Anthony has conceded, ay Bubba?

And he still has no idea who I am!

Carrying on this is about as much good as giving a packet of frangers to a bush pig.

That was not a concession. You too have a problem with reading comprehension?

Here are the comments of the CIA special adviser. He is working for the CIA in Iraq regarding WMDs. He must be an idiot too.

"Roberts said the CIA's special adviser for the weapons search, David Kay, "thinks the mobile labs are mobile labs, in regard to WMD." Levin said Kay told them he hadn't reached a definite conclusions but, if pressed, believed the trailers were probably weapons labs."

With his access, why isn't he as convinced as you are Bubba?

LoL
Anthony conceded because he can't offer up any proof, while I wait patiently for him to do so.
I know of 5 million reasons france would never have joined the coalition of the willing.
France isn't France anymore, it's the newest muslim province.

The trailers were part of a bio production system. there are no if's or buts about it Anthony, only bad press by left wing liberals.
it's a dead issue, exept in your small mind. kay hasn't even seen them, so how could he make any other statement you dumb fuck

Strewth mate. This has what to do with France caving in? Bollocks. Anthony is evading again.

Oi Mate, ARE YOU A MANS MAN?

Anthony sounds like a big spunky brute. I wonder if he works out.

Notice how Anthony keeps avoiding the question, and that is where is the proof that France would have joinede the coalition in 60 more days.
Now he's shifted back to his balloon trailer thing.

Anthony a spunky brute? LoL Na, but he probably wears some brutes spunk on his dress

So the CIA's chief advisor in Iraq, and current co-ordinate in the US weapons search in Iraq voices the same doubts about the labs, and you dismiss it. Yes Bubba you are never wrong.

Bruce:
No I'm not a man's man. Does that help you? By the way if you search google you WILL find the evidence.

I know what you mean mate. He's an undercover shirt lifter.

10% body fat.

This has as much to do with the frogs as a pigs arse has to do with geometry. Evasion again mate. Bloody waste of time.

I will be back later to see if Anthony reloads the question-o-matic..

Guess you never read the article, did you anthony. he says that they are MOST LIKELY weapon labs, not balloon making trailers.

Now Anthony, It's up to you to back up your statement. So where is this evidence of France willing to join the coalition in 60 days?
It's been well over 60 days now, so why haven't they joined?
quit evading the issue. Or just shut up.

The truth is, you have no proof for that stupid statement. So why should I waste my time looking for something that doesn't exist.

You look for it, and post it. otherwize, fuck off with your bullshit posts.

Strewth Bubba! You tell him mate!

Bubba:

I posted what he said above. Did you miss this part? "Levin said Kay told them he hadn't reached a definite conclusions" (concerning the biolabs)

Bubba
Seems like you've already reached the conclusion that Kay with all his access has yet to reach. You are simply amazing. Maybe you have higher level of access then he has?

Crikey Anthony. Do YOU have a problem with reading comprehension mate?

Hint: France, cave in

Former U.N. weapons inspector David Kay told CNN on Saturday that though there was a "lack of strong evidence" that the vehicles had been used to produce deadly biological agents, "the most likely use" and "the most probable use" was to create biological weapons.

Not interested in discussing this with you Bruce. Didn't get the hint!

Here a bigger hint

I'm not going to waste my energy with you guys. You are not interested in a real (fair) discussion. As far as you are concerned France wasn't going to move from its position. Any evidence I give you to the contrary will be dismissed with "You can't trust them."

Further hint for the flippin drongo: proof/evidence, France, cave in, 60 days, worth waiting for the froggies...

That was my second time posting the same info. Do you comprehend now?

""the most likely use" and "the most probable use" was to create biological weapons. "

read that over and over again Anthony.
Fuck your dumb

So where is this evidence of france joining the coalition after 60 days Anthony? You keep avoiding the question. where are your facts?

As I said, put up or shut up

Anthony. I understand you lack proof and evidence to back up your statements, ay mate. I understand that you are wrong and concede so you are trying to evade. Nice try mate.

Anthony is probably fart-arseing around with the question-o-matic again.

Bubba:

You can read the parts that you want to and ignore the parts you don't like. I posted the entire comment. You posted the part that you liked. Here is the entire statement.

Former U.N. weapons inspector David Kay told CNN on Saturday that though there was a "lack of strong evidence" that the vehicles had been used to produce deadly biological agents, "the most likely use" and "the most probable use" was to create biological weapons.

That leaves room for doubt. Get it? You prebably don't and won't.

Bruce:
Wrong about what? Check google and get back to me.

Anthony. Me and me old cobber Bubba have both said that we are not looking. You said something that you can not back up, and got called on it. You said you had proof or evidence mate. We are calling you on it. Produce it or shut yer piehole.

Anthony - proof/evidence, France, cave in, 60 days, worth waiting for the froggies...

I thought not. Flippin Nong.

Anthony, read that article over and over, do you not see something wrong with it? For fuck sakes man, do you have a brain? kay has never seen the trailers, plus he contradicts himself in one sentance. or it's bad journalism. after all, it is from cnn. but frame it, jerk off to it, what ever you want to do. other scientists and engineers have stated that those trailers were for nothing else BUT BIO weapon production, so fuck off already you stupid ass.

and quit avoiding the question, where is this proof that france would have joined the coalition in 60 more days?

You support Kay and the article when you quoted "the most likely use" and "the most probable use" was to create biological weapons. " and now you discount his statement because of "David Kay told CNN on Saturday that though there was a "lack of strong evidence" that the vehicles had been used to produce deadly biological agents."

Thats a flip flop. Your not interested in real discussion. Like you've told me so often before, You can do your own search.

Anthony,
Per the WMD Mobile labs - as others have said, and Mr. Kay has alluded to, you cannot say they were DEFINITELY WMD labs without proof - such as Bio agents on board. I can tell you that if even a minute amount was found, that the anti-argument would be - "GWB and Powell said there were 'massive' amounts of these agents. You come up with the mere pittance, and claim that's proof"? The rolling stock is an undeclared violation, Anthony, even if it is probably a potential lab. Don't you get it?

Dave:
//you cannot say they were DEFINITELY WMD labs without proof - such as Bio agents on board.//

Please give a reference for the statement you have attributed to Kay.

Anthony, if you are thinking of answering Bubbas question - For fuck sakes man, do you have a brain? I strongy advice you to reconsider and take the 5th mate.

//Anthony, if you are thinking of answering Bubbas question - For fuck sakes man, do you have a brain? I strongy advice you to reconsider and take the 5th mate. //

Are telling me that I shouldn't answer his question? That I should take the 5th instead? That what you wrote.

What I get is while some say "lack of strong evidence" (Kay), Bubba says definitely. Do you get that?

Mate, you fell right into that. Go ahead and answer then.

Sorry I don't get it. What did I fall into? In American english please.

And while you are at it try to come up with something about the fogs as well, ay.

Answering instead of evasion mate. It got your attention. Now reply. No question-o-matics now mate.

search google? Might as well search the never never mate.

//Might as well search the never never mate.//

Whats the never never?

The never never is a place that does not exist mate. A mythical place in the outback. You will have as much luck finding proof/evidence about the frogs there than anywhere else. It's like asking a bunyip.

Lets try producing something instead of dilly dallying and asking more questions mate. No more evasion over this.

And before you yanks ask, a bunyip does not exist either.

It took me 5 minutes to find evidence on google. 5 minutes.

Strewth! That France was going to join us in 60 days or evidence if you had a brain?

You figure it out. How do you like getting jerked around?

Dumb question. I guess you do.

where is it then? you said you found it, so post it!!

whata fucking liar you are anthony. Go play in traffic or something

I'm still calling you on the froggie evidence mate. Produce it and we can talk. Or admit that you got it arse about face, and shut yer piehole.

Chirac Pre-Vetoes U.N. Resolution for Post-War Iraq

The French president said at a European Union summit he would "not accept" a resolution that "would legitimize the military intervention [and] would give the belligerents the powers to administer Iraq."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81787,00.html

So once again Anthony, this proves that you post nothing but bullshit here. You are nothing but a liar in every respect. Remember JeffB caught you in a lie as well when you claimed to have phoned the weather bureau.

ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

lets recap here mate:

Anthony and his 'the frogs were about to give in.' Crikey! He can actually say this looking proud as a rat with a gold tooth! Ok, fess up, which one of you blokes stuffed crack up his didgeridoo?

A poll from the froggy rag 'Liberation' just before the invasion said 70%of froggies approved of his anti-war performance.

Even the whinging gasbag Pierre Giacometti, director of Paris polling firm Ipsos sez Chiraqs tumbing his nose at the yanks and the pommes over Iraq gave him a 75% approval rating. "It would be hard to go even higher" he said. "The public feels this is the first time in a long time that France is very influential on the world stage."

Strewth. Anthony, you said the frogs were going to cave and that this was your opinion. Mate, based on the froggy polls, from where I'm standing your opinion looks wrong and not worth a zack! If you think Chiraq was going to piss away his highest ratings for you yanks you're not the full quid mate.

Proof/evidence???Take Anthony and his 'the frogs were about to give in.' Crikey! He can actually say this looking proud as a rat with a gold tooth! Ok, fess up, which one of you blokes stuffed crack up his didgeridoo?

A poll from the froggy rag 'Liberation' just before the invasion said 70%of froggies approved of his anti-war performance.

Even the whinging gasbag Pierre Giacometti, director of Paris polling firm Ipsos sez Chiraqs tumbing his nose at the yanks and the pommes over Iraq gave him a 75% approval rating. "It would be hard to go even higher" he said. "The public feels this is the first time in a long time that France is very influential on the world stage."

Strewth. Anthony, you said the frogs were going to cave and that this was your opinion. Mate, based on the froggy polls, from where I'm standing your opinion looks wrong and not worth a zack! If you think Chiraq was going to piss away his highest ratings for you yanks you're not the full quid mate.

Proof or evidence to the contrary Anthony?

Q - Can you define what's a realistic timeframe in your view ?

(...) First, it's not for us, not for any state to define by itself what's a realistic timeframe. It's something that must be defined by those who're the arbiters, who are the best placed to say so, i.e. the inspectors. France's position, like that of many other countries, is to say : Ask the inspectors what's a realistic timetable. Second, we have elements from the inspectors. They have a mandate set by the Security Council in 1284 which stipulates an initial meeting, and we said that for us that could be an overall review within a maximum period of 120 days. We have an upper limitIt's 120 days. We also have a lower limit. Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei have said that at least for certain programs they needed months. So the minimum is two months. . So a realistic timetable for us is somewhere between the two. (...)

We are ready to work not only with all the Security Council members who share our ideas about a realistic timeframe and reject the idea of an ultimatum. But we are also ready to discuss things with all who wish to do so, who agree to do so. Because what have we seen so far ? We've seen take-it or leave-it resolutions, proposals that were never open for discussion. The other council members have never been asked if there were other possible working bases. Yet we've put forward some over the past few weeks. But if there's a will to work together it's possible. The president has just proposed to Tony Blair working together on Iraq's disarmament in the logic of 1441. He's just phoned him, I've heard. I was also going to say that Mr. de Villepin had phoned Mr. Straw and Ms Palacio. He's also had other contacts, for example with the Chilean minister.

We have put proposals on the table. Other countries have put forward other proposals. These proposals may reflect different approaches. Let's talk about them. Let's put things on the table. Once again, we cannot accept the automatic use of force, we cannot accept an ultimatum. Before any decision is made, the inspectors must return to the Security Council to make their report to the Council. It's for the Council to decide. But France, as the minister said yesterday, is ready to study the criteria for disarmament on the basis of the work program the inspectors are going to present. We are also prepared to reduce the 120-day period. (...)

Proposals mate! That's all yabberdy yap! What conclusive poof/evidence do you have that the frogs were going to come onboard?

But France, as the minister said yesterday, is ready to study the criteria for disarmament on the basis of the work program the inspectors are going to present.

This does not sound like a major shift in the frogs position does it mate? Study something? Mate, Saddam needed a good arse kicking.

Bubba:

This proves you are nothing but an idiot starting with you idiotic post about the US getting 53% of its oil from Canada.

"Bubba said: Remember JeffB caught you in a lie as well when you claimed to have phoned the weather bureau."

Here is JEFFB statement posted several days later.

Eve said, "I search the NOAA site and found Mile Hudson's number. I called and they said he was out of town for the whole week. When Jeff B. questioned by statement I called back a second time and ask for Mike again. This time a gentleman answered. He said that he was not in today or yesterday."

Anthony and Eve :) I was on my way to Dallas and it hit me. I know what happened. I found Mike Hudson's phone # on the web site, just like you did. His name was listed with the number. When I dialed the number, a man answered, (I assumed it was Mike Hudson) Anyway, I asked him if the National Weather Service uses hydrogen in their weather balloons. He immediately said, "No. They use helium. I asked if it was because hydrogen is dangerous and he said yes.

I have to appologize for calling Anthony, and I guess Eve, a liar. I assumed the man I talked to was Mike Hudson, since it was his number. The reason I gave his email address instead of his phone on this post, was exactly for this reason. 500 phone calls to him would not be cool.

http://www.command-post.org/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=7451

Delay Delay Delay. That's all the frogs were doing.

Evade Evade Evade. That's all Anthony is doing.

I'm going back to bed mate, Nothing to see here.

ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Anthony, you forget that you posted saying you talked to mike hudson personaly, and he told you they used hydrogen, which was a lie considering he was out of town you imbicille
Plus the web site they have SAYS QUITE CLEARLY THAT THEY USE ONLY HELIUM.
What a fuck head you are.

And canada supplies American with over 53% of it's energy imports thats what I said and that is a very conservitive number, in fact it's more than that

So Bubba post links from a secondary source - CNN.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81787,00.html
From Bubba's link- "The French president said at a European Union summit he would "not accept" a resolution that "would legitimize the military intervention [and] would give the belligerents the powers to administer Iraq."

and I post offical french government transcripts showing a maximum of 120 and a minimum 60 days and there willingness to lower the 120 maximum and you consider Bubba 2nd hand source acceptable and my first hand source unacceptable? Didn't I say this was a waste of time?

Forget mans man. Is there any honor in you?

Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) rejected the proposal, saying it was "difficult to take the French serious and believe that this is anything other than just further delaying tactics."

He enumerated what he called a series of French roadblocks on Iraq disarmament: "the French have consistently, in 1995, for example, refused to find him in material breach. In '96, refused to criticize Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) for what he was doing to the Kurds. In '97, refused to block the travel of Iraqi intelligence officers. In '98, declared Saddam was free of all weapons of mass destruction. In '99, refused to support UNMOVIC, the very institution now they want to entrust this important responsibility to."

What really strikes me here is that this is the kind of list that normally is provided to outline Saddam's tactics of deception and deceit. Now, the US government is using this list to outline France's tactics of deception of deceit.
Hello, France! Welcome to irrelevance. Population: You

Bubba:
//Anthony, you forget that you posted saying you talked to mike hudson personaly//

I never said that I spoke to Mike Hudson. JEFFB said that. Why don't prove what you are saying. Find where I said that.
Did you read the apology?

You said 53% of oil. Would you like me to find your post where you made that idiotic statement and bookmark here? Its about 30%. Canada provides 30% of total energy imports.

Bubba:

Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) rejected the proposal, saying it was "difficult to take the French serious and believe that this is anything other than just further delaying tactics."

The URL

You called me a liar twice and their is still no apology?

go look it up in fox news archives yourself.

And you did so say that you talked to mike hudson yourself, go look that up in CP achives as well.
fact is, your a fucking liar.

go look it up in fox news archives yourself.

And you did so say that you talked to mike hudson yourself, go look that up in CP achives as well.
fact is, your a fucking liar.

As I expected

Bubba never admits when he is wrong. I will find the CP link and post them here.

Anthony,
I attribute no such statement to Mr. Kay. I will put it this way: Trailer is found with a Bioagent onboard. Could Mr. Kay, or ANY reasonable human being deny the intended purpose of the equipment? My answer is NO, it could not be denied. BUT, that is not what Mr. Kay said, nor is it what I said. You can backtrack if you'd like. Read carefully what I did say. I did not infer or attribute any such statement to Mr. Kay.

Anthony,
while you're busy with the last, you get done and you can tackle this one: What would constitute 'strong evidence'? Other than a gun that smokes, I can think of nothing.

Holy dooley! I've just checked back in after me kip and you blokes are still going at it flat out like a lizard drinking! Bloody hell Anthony, still pussyfooting around with that proof or evidence? It's been one bloody long fossick on google mate. A mollydooker with his left hand up a jumbucks arse would have found it, if there was anything to find.

It's been a real ripsnorter watching you get your feathers in a kerfuffle mate. This goes to show that you can lead a brumby to a billabong but you can't make him drink. Or in Anthony's case, admit he got it all arse about tit. I would have more luck hitting him over his block with a nulla-nulla.

I still think Anthony's a spunky brute. That picture someone posted of him was just brill! I can crack a fat over him anyday. Bloody oath, it beats a mappa tassie anyday mate.

here it is, drum roll please

Hi all,
I called the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).
I don't understand why the NOAA link I gave you was not enough to convince you that hydrogen is used in weather balloons. In my opinion, they are the authority since they do this everyday at 92 different sites in the country.

I called becasue I wanted to speak to an expert instead of rely on a webpage. I hope puts the issue (Hydrogen vs. Helium) to rest.
The individual I spoke to was an EXPERT. He's been launching weather balloons daily for the past
15 years.
He said "Most of the weather balloons that are put up in the country are filled with HYDROGEN. Helium is used a little where by regulations they are not allowed to." He said it take 8-10 minutes to fill the balloon.

Posted by Anthony at June 9, 2003 07:55 PM

He said "Most of the weather balloons that are put up in the country are filled with HYDROGEN. Helium is used a little where by regulations they are not allowed to use HYDROGEN." He said it take 8-10 minutes to fill the balloon.

Posted by Anthony at June 9, 2003 07:59 PM

I spoke to the NOAA. They said that most sites use Hydrogen. They said it is more likely to catch on fire and they take precautions to avoid it. I called the NOAA. You called a local office in Manitoba. You make the mistake of thinking that whatever happens in Manitoba happens all over the world.

He also said the they use HYDROGEN because it is LESS EXPENSIVE. He said that most of the 92 stations use HYDROGEN.
I challenge all of you to call not a local weather center but the NOAA and ask about weather balloons. When you are done please post the answer you get.

Posted by Anthony at June 9, 2003 08:20 PM

Ok you som beeches.......I just had to do this before I leave town. I called Michael Hudson with the National Weather Service. His email is: Michael . Hudson @ noaa.gov
HE SAID THAT THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE USES 'ONLY' HELIUM. HYDROGEN IS DANGEROUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bubba, you can come back now with full honors. I never doubted you. The rest of you whiners are still just that.
See ya Friday!

Posted by Jeff B at June 10, 2003 10:57 AM

I just called Michael Hudson at the NOAA.
Posted by Anthony at June 10, 2003 11:04 AM

just a brief summary of Anthony and his annoying questions

Anthony's thoughts

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.
Posted by Anthony at May 13, 2003 09:54 PM

How else would we get it on the cheap?
Posted by Anthony at May 13, 2003 11:25 PM

Why don't you answer my comments?
Posted by Anthony at May 14, 2003 03:02 PM

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.

Posted by Anthony at May 14, 2003 05:17 PM

Google search? Can you give me a URL please?
Posted by Anthony at May 14, 2003 08:49 PM

The next time we begin accusing a country of being EVIL, (like Iran) will you all believe what you are hearing? Does whether or not your country lies to you matter?

Posted by Anthony at May 31, 2003 10:52 AM

Straw, Powell had serious doubts over their Iraqi weapons claims

Posted by Anthony at May 31, 2003 10:54 AM

Two trailers does not justify war. Maybe they are lying about the trailers. Let's see what the international weapon's inspectors come up with.

Posted by Anthony at May 31, 2003 11:44 AM

The U.S. information was faulty because there was a lot of political pressure to come up with a smoking gun

Posted by Anthony at May 31, 2003 06:54 PM

There are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network

Posted by Anthony at May 31, 2003 08:54 PM

Is there something wrong with this British paper?

Posted by Anthony at June 3, 2003 02:26 PM

So you agree that sometimes government does a better job than the free market?
Posted by Anthony at June 5, 2003 07:24 PM

That dates back to the beginning of the Reagan presidency? Care to restate your assertion?
Posted by Anthony at June 5, 2003 07:58 PM

What media are you talking about? Nightly news? Op-ed? Radio? TV Pundits? Entertainment?
Posted by Anthony at June 5, 2003 03:12 PM

What does DT stand for?
Posted by Anthony at June 6, 2003 07:55 PM

Do you have a book that you can suggest?
Posted by Anthony at June 6, 2003 09:35 PM

do you have a reference?
Posted by Anthony at June 7, 2003 12:52 AM

Is this an anonymous invitation to leave an anonymous forum?
Posted by Anthony at June 9, 2003 07:11 AM

Should we buried it since we are more 'secure?'
Should there be prosecution?
Posted by Anthony at June 9, 2003 01:25 PM

Bubba:
You really have a problem with reading don't you. PLEASE READ WHAT YOU POSTED. Where did I say I spoke to Mark Hudson?

JeffB said "I called Michael Hudson with the National Weather Service." Notice JeffB said that.

I said:
I called becasue I wanted to speak to an expert instead of rely on a webpage. I hope puts the issue (Hydrogen vs. Helium) to rest. The individual I spoke to was an EXPERT. He's been launching weather balloons daily for the past
15 years. He said "Most of the weather balloons that are put up in the country are filled with HYDROGEN. Helium is used a little where by regulations they are not allowed to." He said it take 8-10 minutes to fill the balloon.

Nowhere did I say I spoke to Mark Hudson. And so that's the way it goes, because Bubba either you can't or don't read with comprehension.

Bubba:
Your dishonesty is amazing. Your you have the nerve to lie when there is a public record available for anyone to check back.

You are what you are. There is nothing I can do about it.

Bubba:
These are two subsequent posts at http://www.command-post.org/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=7447

Bubba posted the first and ignored the other. I'm the one who brought it to everyones attention that Hudson was out of town.

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

I just called Michael Hudson at the NOAA.

Posted by Anthony at June 10, 2003 11:04 AM

I just called Michael Hudson at the NOAA. here is his phone number. (816)540-5147

He is in Missouri. They don't use balloons in their office.

And the best yet? He is out of town for the whole week.

I said "May I speak to Michael Hudson," and she said, "He not here. He is out of town for the whole week"

Posted by Anthony at June 10, 2003 11:10 AM

I just called Michael Hudson at the NOAA. does not equal I just spoke to Michael Hudson at the NOAA. I never said I spoke to him. You have a problem with language.

Anthony - I know it may be difficult to address two separate arguments, but I'm checkin' back here occasionally, and I think you're brushin' me off! As I said earlier, your method of argumentation leaves a tad bit to be desired. If you'd like to do something more than offer a question, fire away, but don't continue to ignore the obvious here. I'm not leaving any wiggle room any more. I don't care what Mr. Kay does or does not say on the subject, because there is 'No other plausible explanation' for these trailers.

Anthony - My post of earlier to refresh you:::: Anthony, Per the WMD Mobile labs - as others have said, and Mr. Kay has alluded to, you cannot say they were DEFINITELY WMD labs without proof - such as Bio agents (smoking gun) on board. I can tell you that if even a minute amount was found, that the anti-argument would be - "GWB and Powell said there were 'massive' amounts of these agents. You come up with the mere pittance, and claim that's proof"? The rolling stock is an undeclared violation, Anthony, even if it is probably a potential lab.

// Saddam was a ruthless murderer Anthony. His removal was well warranted. //
I agree. It is the method we used that is questionable.
Posted by: Anthony at July 4, 2003 10:48 AM

Prior to the war, the arguement I had with the war was the timing. I think we should have waited a little longer before going in unilaterally. France was about to cave-in. I think we should have given the inspection process a little more time.
Posted by: Anthony at July 4, 2003 01:01 PM

Several weeks before the war they said give it 60 days.
Posted by: Anthony at July 4, 2003 01:04 PM

Were you looking for proof or evidence?
Posted by: Anthony at July 5, 2003 09:51 AM

I'll answer one of you questions.
//Do you have either mate? //
Yes.
Posted by: Anthony at July 5, 2003 11:45 AM

Were you looking for proof or evidence?
Posted by: Anthony at July 5, 2003 12:06 PM

Anthony. Give us both mate.
Posted by: Bruce at July 5, 2003 12:08 PM

Bruce: Check google and get back to me.
Posted by: Anthony at July 5, 2003 01:24 PM

It took me 5 minutes to find evidence on google. 5 minutes.
Posted by: Anthony at July 5, 2003 02:07 PM

where is it then? you said you found it, so post it!!
Posted by: Bubba at July 5, 2003 02:13 PM

I'm still calling you on the froggie evidence mate. Produce it and we can talk. Or admit that you got it arse about face, and shut yer piehole.
Posted by: Bruce at July 5, 2003 02:14 PM

You called me a liar twice and their is still no apology?
Posted by: Anthony at July 5, 2003 02:50 PM

Oi Anthony, yer bloody drongo! You said you had proof or evidence. Where is it mate? You got caught in a bloody lie mate.

Now, I AM CALLING YOU A LIAR!

You were talking out of yer arse and got called on it mate and now you too much of a dag to flippin admit it. Why the hell should anyone give you the bloody time of day, nevermind an apology, if you are not man enough to admit that you were wrong mate?

You are a bloody hypocrite and a liar Anthony.

I would give you a little more bloody respect if you bloody well came clean and fessed up like you expect eveyone else to do, but are too much of a ratbag to do so yourself.

OBTW, Anthony. I think it's a bit underhanded to call Bubba on being deceptive, when that's what you appear to have done with the phone call. I would reread your original post if I were you. You seem to have made it appear from your post that not only did you call the man, you also made to seem by the text following, that you spoke to him. I call that semantics, Anthony. If we need to start asking for web confirmation (something we can get to electronically) for everything we say, it becomes a question of interpretation.

My point regarding Mr. Kay's comment is that the only way that a definite can be added to a description of the BioLabs would be if there was a BioAgent found on board. What else could confirm that for Mr. Kay? I don't have a clue, and on top of that, it doesn't make a lot of difference. Saddam was in non-compliance of 1441 as well as previous resolutions because Iraq did not declare or present them for inspection, which they were bound to do. Wiggle-room? No wiggle-room, Anthony.

Bloody hell Dave, it's like squeezing blood from a turnip!

Anthony, YOUR dishonesty is amazing. Your you have the nerve to lie when there is a public record available for anyone to check back.

You are what you are. There is nothing I can do about it.

A HYPOCRITE AND A LIAR

...and a SPUNKY BRUTE!
:o)

hehehehehe!

there is more anthony, it's also record that I posted the web site for that same place you claim to have called where is specificly says they use HElLIUM exclusivly because of the dangers of hydrogen.

Also included above is your post where you said the war was for oil in your opinion.

Now your changing your tune.

busted again anthony

In case anyone thought I was totally serious, you have kangaroos loose at the top of the paddock mate:

****DISCLAIMER****

"Bruce" is not really an Aussie. He is a spoof character played by another on this site. The person who plays "Bruce" has never even been to Oz, and does not really have a sick attraction to Anthony. Or does he really think Anthony is a "spunky brute." It's just humor guys.

;o)

***END OF DISCLAIMER****

Anthony,

I wish you could meet one of my Chinese co-workers. His name is HEE LEE YUM. (Maniacal laughter)

Elvis,
The last could be considered an ethnic 'slur'. You're very lucky you left the building.
Signed, WUN HUNG LO

Dave, I guess that would depend on if it was actually true. I dunno, but if Elvis re-entered the building with proof that he had a chinese co-worker by that name (gee, yes, I doubt it too) then we would all look pretty foolish...

Theres plenty of funny sounding names in the rest of the world, theres "Yamama's" all over Saudi, MaBoobs was a favorite restaurant of ours, and some of the locals pronounciations of our English words had us in tears.

Btw... Man, I allways did get a kick out of Australian slang too. :)

Dave:
// OBTW, Anthony. I think it's a bit underhanded to call Bubba on being deceptive, when that's what you appear to have done with the phone call. //

Please quote the posts you are talking about. The one were your trying to defend Bubba's deception.

On the second issue I will get back to you.

Anthony! Mate, I thought we lost you. Yer ready to post that evidence or proof yer said you had mate? You know, the one that took you 5 mins on google. Still waiting.

To whomever Bruce really is:

I already gave you some evidence. It was the words of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson. If his words don't constitute evidence, then there is no need in continuing this conversation.

Again here are the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson's words "We have an upper limit. It's 120 days. We also have a lower limit. Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei have said that at least for certain programs they needed months. So the minimum is two months. So a realistic timetable for us is somewhere between the two. (...) "

Anthony, If you insist on recycling this, please produce the URL next time. I have responded to it. We both know that this is not proof or evidence that France was going to cave in. This is a timetable for an 'overall review' and goes further to say 'and reject the idea of an ultimatum' and serves only to delay a process that has gone on for 12 years.

Not getting anywhere are we mate. As this does not constitute evidence, we have reached a dead end.

Yours sincerely, Bruce.

This was a fundamental change in their position. They did not offer any time frame before this. In fact they previously refused any time limit on inspections.

This is a concession that they were willing to set a time limit of 60 to 120 days for inspections to continue. Ministry of Foreign Affairs said " We are also prepared to reduce the 120-day period. (...) "

Anthony. This is NOT proof or evidence that they were about to 'cave in.' What part of that are you having problems understanding?

Give me the URL and I will pick it to shreads all over again. The fact is, you do not have proof or evidence. You said you did. You do not. You only repeat what been refuted because you have nothing else.