OT--"You're going to hear a lot in the future about weapons of mass destruction, including next week,"
 

John McCain. March 23, 2005.

http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/printDS/66915.php

"NOYB" wrote in message
...
John McCain. March 23, 2005.

http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/printDS/66915.php






John McCain sits on the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the
United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. I wonder how much of
the report will make mention of weapons shipped to Syria before the war?
grin

http://www.wmd.gov/about.html

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:36:08 -0500, NOYB wrote:


John McCain sits on the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the
United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. I wonder how much of
the report will make mention of weapons shipped to Syria before the war?
grin

http://www.wmd.gov/about.html

You are flogging a dead horse. The UN Resolutions required Saddam to
disarm. *If* Saddam shipped his weapons off to Syria before the war, he
was disarmed. So, no casus belli.

You seem to be locked into this Syria WMD thing. Syria has WMD. In fact,
their chemical WMD capability is considered unequaled in the middle-east.
I have said this before, there is no reason for Syria to accept Saddam's
second rate WMD. While you and I may not like the fact that Syria has
WMD, as a sovereign nation, they are completely within their rights to
have WMD.

Just to refresh your memory:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html

ALBUQUERQUE - Sen. John McCain said Tuesday the conclusions of a
commission investigating intelligence failures on weapons of mass
destruction should not lead to new questions about whether the Iraq war
was justified.
"America, the world and Iraq is better off for what we did in bringing
democracy," McCain said.

Even IF America, the world, and Iraq are better off because of the war,
"bringing democracy" was not the repeated, repeated, and repeated reason
that George Bush gave for going to war. It was WMD, WMD, WMD. So, George,
where are the WMDs ??

I know some here believe they are in Syria. Anyone know if the Bush
administration stands behind that theory?

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:36:08 -0500, NOYB wrote:


John McCain sits on the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of
the
United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. I wonder how much
of
the report will make mention of weapons shipped to Syria before the war?
grin

http://www.wmd.gov/about.html

You are flogging a dead horse. The UN Resolutions required Saddam to
disarm. *If* Saddam shipped his weapons off to Syria before the war, he
was disarmed. So, no casus belli.

And what were the terms of the loan of WMD to Syria? Does Syria get to keep
the WMDs and used them as they see fit or is Syria supposed to return them
to Iraq at some future time?

You seem to be locked into this Syria WMD thing. Syria has WMD. In fact,
their chemical WMD capability is considered unequaled in the middle-east.
I have said this before, there is no reason for Syria to accept Saddam's
second rate WMD. While you and I may not like the fact that Syria has
WMD, as a sovereign nation, they are completely within their rights to
have WMD.

And, what will you say or do when Syria starts raining death down upon the
middle east? Will you still say that Syria is a sovereign nation and that
they can do what they want with their WMDs?

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 07:21:56 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:36:08 -0500, NOYB wrote:


John McCain sits on the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the
United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. I wonder how much of
the report will make mention of weapons shipped to Syria before the war?
grin

http://www.wmd.gov/about.html

You are flogging a dead horse. The UN Resolutions required Saddam to
disarm. *If* Saddam shipped his weapons off to Syria before the war, he
was disarmed. So, no casus belli.

You seem to be locked into this Syria WMD thing. Syria has WMD. In fact,
their chemical WMD capability is considered unequaled in the middle-east.
I have said this before, there is no reason for Syria to accept Saddam's
second rate WMD. While you and I may not like the fact that Syria has
WMD, as a sovereign nation, they are completely within their rights to
have WMD.

Just to refresh your memory:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html


Could 'timing' play a role Mr. Thunder? I can envision this scenario next, "He
may have had them when the troops boarded the ship, but the WMD were in Syria
when the troops landed. Therefore, no casus belli!"


--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:36:08 -0500, NOYB wrote:


John McCain sits on the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of
the
United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. I wonder how much
of
the report will make mention of weapons shipped to Syria before the war?
grin

http://www.wmd.gov/about.html

You are flogging a dead horse. The UN Resolutions required Saddam to
disarm. *If* Saddam shipped his weapons off to Syria before the war, he
was disarmed. So, no casus belli.


Offsite storage isn't the same as disarming.

You seem to be locked into this Syria WMD thing. Syria has WMD. In fact,
their chemical WMD capability is considered unequaled in the middle-east.
I have said this before, there is no reason for Syria to accept Saddam's
second rate WMD.

Except to protect a fellow Baathist regime. Oh year...and except for the
billions of dollars and billions of barrels of oil that Saddam sent to
Assad.

While you and I may not like the fact that Syria has
WMD, as a sovereign nation, they are completely within their rights to
have WMD.

They're concealing the fact that Saddam had WMD...making them complicit in
the deaths of 1500+ American GI's.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 07:51:46 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


And what were the terms of the loan of WMD to Syria? Does Syria get to
keep the WMDs and used them as they see fit or is Syria supposed to return
them to Iraq at some future time?

What loan? Somewhere along the line, you are just going to have to accept
the fact there were no WMD. Let me ask you something. Do you remember
the Iraqi planes that fled to Iran in the Gulf War? Well, Saddam never
got them back. Do you actually believe he was dumb enough to give Syria
WMD? Before answering, remember Syria sided with Iran in the Iran-Iraq
War and also sided with the UN/US in the first Gulf War.

http://216.26.163.62/2002/me_iraq_05_03.html


And, what will you say or do when Syria starts raining death down upon the
middle east? Will you still say that Syria is a sovereign nation and that
they can do what they want with their WMDs?

Oh please. If we are going to eliminate all weapons, perhaps we should
start by not adding to the mix. I'm sure you have heard of the F-16 deal
with Pakistan. Let's see, a semi-stable nuclear capable country involved
in a border dispute with another nuclear capable country, a country with
*confirmed* ties to al Qaeda and the Taliban , a country with *proven*
ties to nuclear proliferation . . . Personally, I think Syria is of less
concern.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4384597.stm

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:29:38 +0000, NOYB wrote:

Except to protect a fellow Baathist regime. Oh year...and except for the
billions of dollars and billions of barrels of oil that Saddam sent to
Assad.

Fellow Baathist? The Syrian and Iraq Baath Parties share a name only.
They have been diametrically opposed, sometimes violently.

http://www.answers.com/topic/ba-ath-party



While you and I may not like the fact that Syria has WMD, as a sovereign
nation, they are completely within their rights to have WMD.

They're concealing the fact that Saddam had WMD...making them complicit in
the deaths of 1500+ American GI's.

And if George W. Bush concealed the fact that Iraq had no WMD?

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...
John McCain. March 23, 2005.

http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/printDS/66915.php






John McCain sits on the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the
United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. I wonder how much of
the report will make mention of weapons shipped to Syria before the war?
grin

http://www.wmd.gov/about.html


Obviously, very little:

Some reporting indicated that Iraq may have moved biological and chemical
weapons

stockpiles to Syria just prior to the start of the war in March 2003. CIA,
Title Classified (Dec.

13, 2004) (citing one classified intelligence report (March 2003) from a
foreign service). The

security situation along the border between Iraq and Syria prevented the ISG
from conclusively

ruling out the possibility that such weapons were transported across the
border. Interview with

Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence Charles Duelfer
(Oct. 13, 2004).

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 07:51:46 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


And what were the terms of the loan of WMD to Syria? Does Syria get to
keep the WMDs and used them as they see fit or is Syria supposed to
return
them to Iraq at some future time?

What loan? Somewhere along the line, you are just going to have to accept
the fact there were no WMD. Let me ask you something. Do you remember
the Iraqi planes that fled to Iran in the Gulf War? Well, Saddam never
got them back. Do you actually believe he was dumb enough to give Syria
WMD?

Sheesh. Iran and Iraq were still mortal enemies in 2003. Syria was
importing illegal arms for Saddam, and was a key active participant in the
UN Oil for Food scandal. There's simply no similarity.



Before answering, remember Syria sided with Iran in the Iran-Iraq
War and also sided with the UN/US in the first Gulf War.

http://216.26.163.62/2002/me_iraq_05_03.html


And, what will you say or do when Syria starts raining death down upon
the
middle east? Will you still say that Syria is a sovereign nation and that
they can do what they want with their WMDs?

Oh please. If we are going to eliminate all weapons, perhaps we should
start by not adding to the mix. I'm sure you have heard of the F-16 deal
with Pakistan. Let's see, a semi-stable nuclear capable country involved
in a border dispute with another nuclear capable country, a country with
*confirmed* ties to al Qaeda and the Taliban , a country with *proven*
ties to nuclear proliferation . . . Personally, I think Syria is of less
concern.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4384597.stm


I oppose arming the Pakistanis any further.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:31:17 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I oppose arming the Pakistanis any further.

Frankly, I'm reaching the point where I oppose arming anybody any further.

John H wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 07:21:56 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:36:08 -0500, NOYB wrote:


John McCain sits on the Commission on the Intelligence
Capabilities of the
United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. I wonder how
much of
the report will make mention of weapons shipped to Syria before
the war?
grin

http://www.wmd.gov/about.html

You are flogging a dead horse. The UN Resolutions required Saddam
to
disarm. *If* Saddam shipped his weapons off to Syria before the
war, he
was disarmed. So, no casus belli.

You seem to be locked into this Syria WMD thing. Syria has WMD. In
fact,
their chemical WMD capability is considered unequaled in the
middle-east.
I have said this before, there is no reason for Syria to accept
Saddam's
second rate WMD. While you and I may not like the fact that Syria
has
WMD, as a sovereign nation, they are completely within their rights
to
have WMD.

Just to refresh your memory:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html


Could 'timing' play a role Mr. Thunder? I can envision this scenario
next, "He
may have had them when the troops boarded the ship, but the WMD were
in Syria
when the troops landed. Therefore, no casus belli!"


--
John H


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. intelligence community was "simply wrong"
in its assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities
before the U.S. invasion, according to a panel created to study those
failures and recommend corrections to prevent them in the future.

"We conclude that the intelligence community was dead wrong in almost
all of its prewar judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction,"
said a letter from the commission to President Bush. "This was a major
intelligence failure."

The panel -- called the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of
the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction -- formally
presents its report to Bush on Thursday morning.

An October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate warned that Iraq was
pursuing weapons of mass destruction, had reconstituted its nuclear
weapon program and had biological and chemical weapons.

The Bush administration used those conclusions as part of its argument
for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

But the Iraq Survey Group -- set up to look for weapons of mass
destruction or evidence of them in the country -- issued a final report
saying it saw no weapons or no evidence that Iraq was trying to
reconstitute them.

The commission's report said the principal cause of the intelligence
failures was the intelligence community's "inability to collect good
information about Iraq's WMD programs, serious errors in analyzing what
information it could gather and a failure to make clear just how much
of its analysis was based on assumptions rather than good evidence."

"The single most prominent a recurring theme" of its recommendations is
"stronger and more centralized management of the intelligence
community, and, in general, the creation of a genuinely integrated
community, instead of a loose confederation of independent agencies."

Bush appointed the nine-member commission led by Laurence Silberman, a
senior federal appellate court judge who also served in the Nixon and
Ford administrations, and former Sen. and Virginia Gov. Chuck Robb, a
Democrat.

NOYB wrote:

They're concealing the fact that Saddam had WMD...making them
complicit in
the deaths of 1500+ American GI's.

Hehe!!!!
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. intelligence community was "simply wrong"
in its assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities
before the U.S. invasion, according to a panel created to study those
failures and recommend corrections to prevent them in the future.

"We conclude that the intelligence community was dead wrong in almost
all of its prewar judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction,"
said a letter from the commission to President Bush. "This was a major
intelligence failure."

The panel -- called the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of
the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction -- formally
presents its report to Bush on Thursday morning.

An October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate warned that Iraq was
pursuing weapons of mass destruction, had reconstituted its nuclear
weapon program and had biological and chemical weapons.

The Bush administration used those conclusions as part of its argument
for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

But the Iraq Survey Group -- set up to look for weapons of mass
destruction or evidence of them in the country -- issued a final report
saying it saw no weapons or no evidence that Iraq was trying to
reconstitute them.

The commission's report said the principal cause of the intelligence
failures was the intelligence community's "inability to collect good
information about Iraq's WMD programs, serious errors in analyzing what
information it could gather and a failure to make clear just how much
of its analysis was based on assumptions rather than good evidence."

"The single most prominent a recurring theme" of its recommendations is
"stronger and more centralized management of the intelligence
community, and, in general, the creation of a genuinely integrated
community, instead of a loose confederation of independent agencies."

Bush appointed the nine-member commission led by Laurence Silberman, a
senior federal appellate court judge who also served in the Nixon and
Ford administrations, and former Sen. and Virginia Gov. Chuck Robb, a
Democrat.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:31:17 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I oppose arming the Pakistanis any further.

Frankly, I'm reaching the point where I oppose arming anybody any further.

I agree. The really sad thing is that US military technology will likely
end up in China's hands because our European "allies" don't have enough
smarts to put an embargo on shipping the technology to China.

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

NOYB wrote:

They're concealing the fact that Saddam had WMD...making them
complicit in
the deaths of 1500+ American GI's.

Hehe!!!!

Some reporting indicated that Iraq may have moved biological and chemical
weapons

stockpiles to Syria just prior to the start of the war in March 2003. CIA,
Title Classified (Dec.

13, 2004) (citing one classified intelligence report (March 2003) from a
foreign service). The

security situation along the border between Iraq and Syria prevented the ISG
from conclusively

ruling out the possibility that such weapons were transported across the
border. Interview with

Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence Charles Duelfer
(Oct. 13, 2004).

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

Here's the link to the entire report...in case you want to read it for
yourself rather than having the Washington Post interpret it for you:

http://www.wmd.gov/report/wmd_report.pdf

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:36:08 -0500, NOYB wrote:


John McCain sits on the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of
the
United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. I wonder how much
of
the report will make mention of weapons shipped to Syria before the war?
grin

http://www.wmd.gov/about.html

You are flogging a dead horse. The UN Resolutions required Saddam to
disarm. *If* Saddam shipped his weapons off to Syria before the war, he
was disarmed. So, no casus belli.

You seem to be locked into this Syria WMD thing. Syria has WMD. In fact,
their chemical WMD capability is considered unequaled in the middle-east.
I have said this before, there is no reason for Syria to accept Saddam's
second rate WMD. While you and I may not like the fact that Syria has
WMD, as a sovereign nation, they are completely within their rights to
have WMD.

Just to refresh your memory:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html

Delivery systems that are state of the art are what the russians were
removing from Iraq into Syria as well as electronics jamming and missle
systems. Who needs more bacteria or vx gas. ( my guess anyway)

NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:31:17 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I oppose arming the Pakistanis any further.

Frankly, I'm reaching the point where I oppose arming anybody any
further.

I agree. The really sad thing is that US military technology will
likely
end up in China's hands because our European "allies" don't have
enough
smarts to put an embargo on shipping the technology to China.

Are you really saying that the heads of states in Europe aren't smart?
I suppose, when compared to the used car salesman of the medical field,
and everyone who lives in Naples, FL.

Bert Robbins wrote:
And what were the terms of the loan of WMD to Syria?

???

Did you not get the message from Nancy Reagan? Just say no to drugs!


thunder wrote:
What loan? Somewhere along the line, you are just going to have to accept
the fact there were no WMD.

No, they won't. The retardo-fascist crowd are still seething with hatred
for Clinton. Real world facts *never* sink in.

DSK

"DSK" opined ignorantly ;

No, they won't. The retardo-fascist crowd are still seething with hatred
for Clinton. Real world facts *never* sink in.

Real facts like Clinton was impeached for obstruction and perjury?

One is supposed to love a President who lies, fornicates while doing
nothing to protect the security of the country other than to bomb
an aspirin factory from time to time?


CN