I was guessing it was you because of the association of the John Dean link and your own pessimism expressed in that post.
I guess that Pantom has now clarified that he was talking to me so, that’s that.
FWIW, I don’t think anyone could mistake your comments as an endorsement of Bush.
Okay, a little clarification. My point was they have not been proven to be labs that have produced chemical or biological weapons. And to claim otherwise is utterly ridiculous. Especially considering they have not found any evidence that they were used to produce any illegal chemical or biological weapons. From the Seattle-PI:
And I addressed it in a little bit more detail in another thread. Deal with it dumbass.
Which is complete and utter bullshit. When there’s an iota of evidence that they are weapons labs I’ll believe it. I could care less what GWB claims. As of yet he’s done nothing to prove any of his claims. For someone claiming that I’m having trouble differentiating between concepts, Desmostylus, you seem to have an awful lot of trouble following them. Yeah, compared to you I’m posting rubbish. :rolleyes: Come back to me when you know what the hell you’re talking about, assfuck.
If that was your point, perhaps that’s what you should said, rather than something completely different.
A chemical lab is legal, a biological weapons manufacturing facility isn’t. That’s the difference in concepts.
If you are going to get so upset about having to “clarify” obviously incorrect statements, I can see we’re going to have fun playing with you. :wally
Actually, I thought it was about time I practiced a good Pitt post (which I haven’t really done yet) chalk full of incoherent rantings and ravings. Just trying to get into the swing of the things in the Pitt. It was really nothing personal. Your post just provided the first opportunity to do so (atleast the first one I felt was worthy). Besides what better forum is there for letting out one’s anger and indignation (even if it’s practicing anger)?
You’re right, I made an incorrect statement. I just felt like clarifying it with a little bit more style and zip. 
Which brings up the question: How was the rant? I thought it was a little on the lame side, but hey, it was my first one. I’ll get better I promise. 
“American and British intelligence analysts with direct access to the evidence are disputing claims that the mysterious trailers found in Iraq were for making deadly germs. In interviews over the last week, they said the mobile units were more likely intended for other purposes and charged that the evaluation process had been damaged by a rush to judgment. …”
Its just gets better and better…
Well, you have to get into the “Pit” spirit sometime!
Well, my dear Squink, just wait until find the time to type up my analysis of the briefings I attended and cost estimates, direct from the Coalition Provisional Authority itself.
Yes, I do believe there will be some squeeling, yes indeed.
The battle of the cites?
No offense to the Old Grey Lady, but I’ll double check any ‘facts’ they assert with the Weekly World News, or some other publication at their level.
Be fair, Brutus. There’s no evidence that the NYT is rampant with poor fact-checking; it’s more likely those two incidents were isolated, don’t you think?
Who the hell ever said I wasn’t poor with the fact checking? A bit of fun at the expense of the NYT is always a fine thing.
Oh yes, it is, it surely is.
What does your cite say, Brutus?:
And what does elucidator’s say?
Wow. I can see enormous bias. :rolleyes:
Not that this is germaine to the goofy OP, but lets look at the headlines, shall we?
From CNN:
From National Enq…err, NYT:
There is clearly bias, right or wrong, in each headline. One is bias towards the official position of the US gov’t, one is bias towards ‘some analysts’.
No, the CNN headline is quoting an official in the headline. The headline simply states what the officeal stance is.
Now that you mention it, there is bias.
Your cite only gives the “official stance” of someone from the CIA “who spoke on the condition that he not be identified by name.”
The NYT actually provides both sides of the story, along with names. The CIA guy, Bill Harlow, who I already mentioned, and:
Any BTW, I love the throwaway “goofy OP” line. Those goofy guys, admitting potential criminal activity.
Yup. When the US continually demonstrates the attitude that it doesn’t need to pay any heed to the rest of the world, eventually the rest of the world will start to consider whether they really need the US either. Anyone watch the scenes from the recent St. Petersburg get-together (the one Bush turned up late for, and left early)? Putin was clearly a) courting Blair (and, by proxy, the UK); and b) staking his claim as a Power To Be Reckoned With in the future of European politics. Watch this space.
Europe won’t reach a level of military power equivalent to the US any time soon (if ever), but it can certainly start shutting the US out politically and economically. Eventually, that’s gonna hurt.
What will be interesting to watch will be the fallout if Blair falls due to his fiddling with intelligence reports on the level of the Iraqi threat. I’m guessing that (if it happens) it’ll push the UK more towards Europe and weaken the current level of US-UK relations.
"President Bush, citing two trailers that U.S. intelligence agencies have said were probably used as mobile biological weapons labs, said U.S. forces in Iraq have “found the weapons of mass destruction” that were the United States’ primary justification for going to war.
[snip]
“You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons,” Bush said in an interview before leaving today on a seven-day trip to Europe and the Middle East. “They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60140-2003May30.html?nav=hptop_tb
"The intelligence agency MI6, British defence officers and technical experts from the Porton Down microbiological research establishment have been ordered to conduct an urgent review of the mobile facilities, following US analysis which casts serious doubt on whether they really are germ labs.
[snip]
“Instead The Observer has established that it is increasingly likely that the units were designed to be used for hydrogen production to fill artillery balloons, part of a system originally sold to Saddam by Britain in 1987.”
Contrast and compare.
Hello? Earth to elucidator. :rolleyes:
Hydrogen’s a chemical. “Artillery balloons”? Sure sounds like weapons to me. Chemical weapons.
So when bush said in Poland "“And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.”, he was being perfectly truthful. Or else he had to say that for, you know, bureaucratic reasons.
Lovely. We spilled the blood of American soldiers, killed and maimed large numbers of Iraqi soldiers and civilians, destroyed the infrastructure of an entire nation, alienated our allies, provided the best recruiting incentive al Qaeda could have ever hoped for, and will now have to soak the American public for untold billions of dollars for the foreseeable future in a probably futile effort to clean up the mess we created when most of the population would just as soon shove an RPG up our ass as take their instructions from Washington.
For two fucking trailers?!? Two trailers that bear no signs of ever having been used to manufacture chemical or biological weapons, that in fact could NOT have been used to manufacture such weapons without substantial additional equipment that apparently doesn’t exist anywhere except in the wet dreams of Donald Rumsfeld, that wouldn’t have been any damn good at manufacturing Bad Shit even if the additional equipment existed, and that were affirmatively DECLARED by Iraq to the UN so that the inspectors could have reduced them to scrap metal anytime they felt like they were prohibited?
Fucking imbeciles.