Saddam's 17 Volumes of Enjoyable Reading - OT
 

Here you will find a table of contents for Saddam's volumes. You'll note that
very few weapons programs are mentioned. The stuff he provided was primarily
old, worthless crap. Note the date, 7 December, 2002.

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2002/12/iraq120702.pdf

Here is the UNMOVIC report of 6 March, 2003. Turn to page 19 of the report for a
listing of weapons and chemical systems of concern in the report. Then go to the
specific pages for the weapons and look at the recommended Iraqi actions. You
will see that in almost every case, one of the recommendations is 'to provide
documentation to show the disposition and account for the weapon or system.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/6mar.pdf

If, Chuck and Doug, your Saddam volumes were so worthwhile, then why is
documentation being requested for virtually every weapon system of interest to
UNMOVIC?


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Let's make this real simple, John.

The volumes of material that Iraq supplied in compliance with the UN
deadline essentially said, "We ain't got no stinkin' WMD."

Bush, on the other hand, said "That claim is a lie. All 17 volumes are
lies."

Ok. Based on the premise that the denial was "all lies" and the pointed
suggestion during the SOTU speech that Iraq was on the verge of
developing nuclear weapons capable of attacking the United States, all
the Republican faithful began beating the war drums until Congress was
pressured to OK the Iraq attack.

Funny thing happened on the way into (and out of) Baghdad......the
claim of the 17 volumes, that there were not WMD in Iraq, was proven to
be essentially true. Our invasion proved Bush to be the (I'll be kind
here) "mistaken" one on the WMD issue, so, of course, he immediately
changed his story about why he had asked us to go to war in the first
place. Typical.

No matter how you spin the contents, those basic facts always come out
the same.

On 4 Mar 2005 18:28:41 -0800, wrote:

Let's make this real simple, John.

The volumes of material that Iraq supplied in compliance with the UN
deadline essentially said, "We ain't got no stinkin' WMD."

Bush, on the other hand, said "That claim is a lie. All 17 volumes are
lies."

Ok. Based on the premise that the denial was "all lies" and the pointed
suggestion during the SOTU speech that Iraq was on the verge of
developing nuclear weapons capable of attacking the United States, all
the Republican faithful began beating the war drums until Congress was
pressured to OK the Iraq attack.

Funny thing happened on the way into (and out of) Baghdad......the
claim of the 17 volumes, that there were not WMD in Iraq, was proven to
be essentially true. Our invasion proved Bush to be the (I'll be kind
here) "mistaken" one on the WMD issue, so, of course, he immediately
changed his story about why he had asked us to go to war in the first
place. Typical.

No matter how you spin the contents, those basic facts always come out
the same.

It's simple. You place your trust and confidence in Saddam. I'd rather place
mine with UNMOVIC (whom I don't trust too much anyway) and the Bush
administration.

I don't believe your quote. Please show me. I refer to, "That claim is a lie.
All 17 volumes are lies." I say this because I don't believe the material in the
'17 volumes' was all lies. I believe it was a pile of old, redundant, worthless
documentation to show the television crews in the hopes someone out there would
be gullible enough to believe Saddam was 'baring all'.

As to the 'truth' of the WMD issue, you need to see some of the posts Jim H and
NYOB have made regarding revelations of the shipment and storage of Iraq's WMD.

I fear that if (or when) the truck loads of materials are found, in the Bekaa
Valley or wherever, your house of cards will have lost its last wall.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

I don't believe your quote. Please show me. I refer to, "That claim is
a lie.
All 17 volumes are lies."

*****************

You'll have to find that one yourself. "All Lies" is exactly what Bush
said when asked about the 17 volumes of material.

Unfortunately, when I entered Lies Weapons Iraq Report Bush into my
search engine, I got almost 21,000 hits. Virtually all detailed lies
told *by* Bush, rather than a comment by Bush that the reports from
Iraq were lies. I don't have time to sort through there for you, but if
you care to do so you will find the quote buried in there, someplace.

On 5 Mar 2005 08:03:43 -0800, wrote:

I don't believe your quote. Please show me. I refer to, "That claim is
a lie.
All 17 volumes are lies."

*****************

You'll have to find that one yourself. "All Lies" is exactly what Bush
said when asked about the 17 volumes of material.

Unfortunately, when I entered Lies Weapons Iraq Report Bush into my
search engine, I got almost 21,000 hits. Virtually all detailed lies
told *by* Bush, rather than a comment by Bush that the reports from
Iraq were lies. I don't have time to sort through there for you, but if
you care to do so you will find the quote buried in there, someplace.

I would respectfully suggest that is bull****.

The number of hits you got was quite small. When I put in 'gould lies' I get the
following:

Results 1 - 10 of about 254,000 for gould lies.

Now, what inferences should be made on numbers of hits?


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

JohnH wrote:

I would respectfully suggest that is bull****

****************

But you would rather "suggest" and waste time (allegedly) typing in a
completely different search criteria than enter exactly what I told you
I entered and seeing, for yourself, that the result is as I reported.

Typical neo-con, John. If the facts don't suit you, ignore them and/or
make up some you like better. When all else fails, try to switch the
subject or divert to flame war with a personal insult

On 5 Mar 2005 15:58:40 -0800, wrote:

JohnH wrote:

I would respectfully suggest that is bull****

****************

But you would rather "suggest" and waste time (allegedly) typing in a
completely different search criteria than enter exactly what I told you
I entered and seeing, for yourself, that the result is as I reported.

Typical neo-con, John. If the facts don't suit you, ignore them and/or
make up some you like better. When all else fails, try to switch the
subject or divert to flame war with a personal insult

And why, pray tell, did you find it necessary to post a number of hits. Did that
address the discussion? No. You wanted to make a point. I showed the value of
your point. If it's any consolation, 'herring' and 'lies' gets over 200K hits
also.

You couldn't *find* the facts, remember? I've at least found documents bearing
on the issue.

If you took my post as a personal insult, I apologize. It was most definitely
not to imply anything about your integrity.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On 5 Mar 2005 15:58:40 -0800, wrote:

JohnH wrote:

I would respectfully suggest that is bull****

****************

But you would rather "suggest" and waste time (allegedly) typing in a
completely different search criteria than enter exactly what I told you
I entered and seeing, for yourself, that the result is as I reported.

Typical neo-con, John. If the facts don't suit you, ignore them and/or
make up some you like better. When all else fails, try to switch the
subject or divert to flame war with a personal insult

PS. Perhaps I should have been more specific. I didn't mean that the number of
hits on Google was bull****. I was referring to: "You'll have to find that one
yourself. "All Lies" is exactly what Bush said when asked about the 17 volumes
of material."


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On 5 Mar 2005 15:58:40 -0800, wrote:

JohnH wrote:

I would respectfully suggest that is bull****

****************

But you would rather "suggest" and waste time (allegedly) typing in a
completely different search criteria than enter exactly what I told you
I entered and seeing, for yourself, that the result is as I reported.

Typical neo-con, John. If the facts don't suit you, ignore them and/or
make up some you like better. When all else fails, try to switch the
subject or divert to flame war with a personal insult

And why, pray tell, did you find it necessary to post a number of hits.
Did that
address the discussion? No. You wanted to make a point. I showed the value
of
your point. If it's any consolation, 'herring' and 'lies' gets over 200K
hits
also.

You couldn't *find* the facts, remember? I've at least found documents
bearing
on the issue.

If you took my post as a personal insult, I apologize. It was most
definitely
not to imply anything about your integrity.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

I read nothing for you to have to apologize for John. Chuck used his
standard "flame war and personal insults" accusation and then proceeded to
insult you.

Speaking of lies, John H set up an interesting experiment when he
claimed:

The number of hits you got was quite small. When I put in 'gould lies'
I get the
following:


Results 1 - 10 of about 254,000 for gould lies


*****************


Funny, I got 3,302 pages with 10 entires per page, or 33,020.

Long way fron 254,000.

So what did I do wrong, John, or is your claim of 254,000 hits as
flimsy as your logic?