" dont have to do a damned thing positive for the environment to be upset about someone doing something that will harm it.

No you do not but your opinion does not carry much weight with those that have done something.

Until you do something to mitigate your share of the responsibility you are just *****ing .

Here you go negro

TK,

Uhm, since the thread's now 4 pages long, maybe this drift isn't too far off.

You'd give a military person's opinion of the war in Iraq more weight simply because they are in the military, and therefore "walking the talk?"

Makes no sense whatever to me. I respect a military person for his or her service to our country, but his or her opinion of the war has no relevance to me. They are no more likely to be better informed, and just as likely to be misinformed, or just as likely to lack critical analytical skills as other people.

It makes more sense to me to reserve my respect for opinions about the war to those who are better or best informed and share values similar to mine. Same as I reserve my respect for opinions about environment to those who are well informed and share values similar to mine. Heck, a hayseed can walk the talk, as you say. That is, he may be in the military or may care for a riparian zone as you claim to do, but he could also be an intellectual desert, void of informed and well-reasoned opinion. It makes sense only to respect that which is deserving of respect, that is, actions of value, as just described, or opinions of value, independent of whether the war promoter/dissenter is in the military, and independent of whether the environmental supporter/degrader sets aside land or not. Not everyone who believes they have "set aside" a piece of land is preserving a piece of paradise, laudible as such an action is.

It seems to me you're confusing respect for opinions with respect for actions, and clearly, they ain't the same thing.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Sunday, July 17, 2005 5:08 p.m. EDT

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/17/171214.shtml


The Uranium Joe Wilson Didn't Mention
------------------------------------------------------------

By April 2003, when the U.S. invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein had stockpiled 500 tons of yellowcake uranium at his al Tuwaitha nuclear weapons development plant south of Baghdad.

That intriguing little detail is almost never mentioned by the big media, who prefer to chant the mantra "Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction" while echoing Joseph Wilson's claim that "Bush lied" about Iraq seeking more of the nuclear material in Niger.

The media's decision to put the Wilson-Plame affair back on the front burner, however, may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for President Bush - giving his administration a chance to resurrect an important debate they conceded far too easily about the weapons of mass destruction threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

First, the facts - from a reliable critic of the White House, the New York Times, which covered the story long after the paper announced it was tightening its standards on WMD news out of Iraq.

"The United States has informed an international agency that oversees nuclear materials that it intends to move hundreds of tons of uranium from a sealed repository south of Baghdad to a more secure place outside Iraq," the paper announced in a little-noticed May 2004 report.

"The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program until it was largely shut down after the first Persian Gulf war in 1991, holds more than 500 tons of uranium," the paper revealed, before insisting: "None of it [is] enriched enough to be used directly in a nuclear weapon."

Well, almost none.

The Times went on to report that amidst Saddam's yellowcake stockpile, U.S. weapons inspectors found "some 1.8 tons" that they "classified as low-enriched uranium."

The paper conceded that while Saddam's nearly 2 tons of partially enriched uranium was "a more potent form" of the nuclear fuel, it was "still not sufficient for a weapon."

Consulted about the low-enriched uranium discovery, however, Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, told the Associated Press that if it was of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, the 1.8 tons could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.

And Thomas B. Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Times that the low-enriched uranium could be useful to a nation with nuclear ambitions.

"A country like Iran could convert that into weapons-grade material with a lot fewer centrifuges than would be required with natural uranium," he explained.

Luckily, Iraq didn't have even the small number of centrifuges necessary to get the job done.

Or did it?

The physicist tapped by Saddam to run his centrifuge program says that after the first Gulf War, the program was largely dismantled. But it wasn't destroyed.

In fact, according to what he wrote in his 2004 book, "The Bomb in My Garden," Dr. Mahdi Obeidi told U.S. interrogators: "Saddam kept funding the IAEC [Iraq Atomic Energy Commission] from 1991 ... until the war in 2003."

"I was developing the centrifuge for the weapons" right through 1997, he revealed.

And after that, Dr. Obeidi said, Saddam ordered him under penalty of death to keep the technology available to resume Iraq's nuke program at a moment's notice.

Dr. Obeidi said he buried "the full set of blueprints, designs - everything to restart the centrifuge program - along with some critical components of the centrifuge" under the garden of his Baghdad home.

"I had to maintain the program to the bitter end," he explained. All the while the Iraqi physicist was aware that he held the key to Saddam's continuing nuclear ambitions.

"The centrifuge is the single most dangerous piece of nuclear technology," Dr. Obeidi says in his book. "With advances in centrifuge technology, it is now possible to conceal a uranium enrichment program inside a single warehouse."

Consider: 500 tons of yellowcake stored at Saddam's old nuclear weapons plant, where he'd managed to partially enrich 1.8 tons. And the equipment and blueprints that could enrich enough uranium to make a bomb stored away for safekeeping. And all of it at the Iraqi dictator's disposal.

If the average American were aware of these undisputed facts, the debate over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction would have been decided long ago - in President Bush's favor.

One more detail that Mr. Wilson and his media backers don't like to discuss: There's a reason Niger was such a likely candidate for Saddam's uranium shopping spree.

Responding to the firestorm that erupted after Wilson's July 2003 column, Prime Minister Tony Blair told reporters:

"In case people should think that the whole idea of a link between Iraq and Niger was some invention, in the 1980s we know for sure that Iraq purchased round about 270 tons of uranium from Niger."

So what does Iraq having a bunch of low grade uranium have to do with Wilson pointing out that bush lied to America in his quest for war?

By the way, the author failed to mention that the uranium under our watch was left unsealed and unguarded long enough for terrorists to steal all they wanted. Brilliant.

But it was nice of the author to verify that the uranium was indeed useless as a WMD, thus validating what we've been saying all along.

But they did buy some stuff from Niger in the '80's, huh? Wanna guess what Iraq got from us in the '80's? That's right -- WMDs. Chemical type that we watched him use on his own people. Wonderful. Oh, and there's that whole Iraq/Iran war thingy we encouraged.

Yeah, I know, Krusty. Here's where you come back with, "Blame America first, yada, yada, yada."

Well, here's a word for ya: Responsibility.
Try having some sometime.

"It seems to me you're confusing respect for opinions with respect for actions, and clearly, they ain't the same thing."

SG,

I value action not opinions generally. You can have all the opinion in the world and unless someone takes action it is worthless.

To bad you dont apply that philospohy to your own self and keep your worthless opinions about the war to yourself.

Do you want to list what actions you have taken in support of the cause you champion?
Or will you discount your opinions on the matter as worthless?


You are a hypocrite, and a moron. Your argument has NO legs to stand on, and you wont even play by your own rules.

der duh actions not opinions, but i wont enlist cause theres no draft, still me can say whatever me wants....me have right to opinion, you dont but i do, me think war good, dumbya good, der

Chives,

Do you want to list what actions you have taken in support of the cause you champion?
Or will you discount your opinions on the matter as worthless?

I pay much more in taxes than the avg. citizen. So by your standards my opinion should count that much more.

YOUR standard King, not mine.

TK,

It's comforting to know that all the opinions you express here that are not backed up by your personal actions are worthless - in your own opinion. At least that's consistent with your claim that your participation here is just a form of entertainment to see if you can p!ss people off.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo,

What have I not backed up with action?

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

Goharley,

President Bush (43) made a calulated decision based on the best intellegence available in the world (English, Russian and other top Intelligence gathering agencies all concurred) in presupossing that Saddam and his regime had WMD's before the invasion of Iraq (the same conclusion Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry came to). Saddam also wouldn't allow U.N weapon inspectors to do their job (inspect for WMD's) unfettered.

With that in mind I ask you, what did Bush 43 knowingly lie about in his 'quest for war'?

As KK says, "show your work."

FYI--Bush said Saddam 'sought' uranium--Wilson said Saddam never 'bought' uranium.

I know how found of Clintonese you are so please don't come back w/ some sort of 'it depends on what your defination of 'is' is retort.

Whats even funnier is that Wilson so enraged by Bush comments in his speech waited until he joined the Kerry campaign before expressing that rage. In an article published shotly after Bushes speech Wilson condemned Saddam and held him solely responsible for the war.

Secondly on the outing of Plame. Val Wilson as she was covertly known donated $1000 to the Al Gore presidental campaign. On the disclosure form she listed her covert name and the name of her covert company. Now she and her low rent husband Wilson are singing the we wanted to do what was best for the country song,. The dems are singing it as well. The dems have been Anti CIA since the vietnam war and now they are all about protecting the CIA and what it stands for. Like I said before the only time you hear the truth is when politicians call each other liars. Neither side can claim moral ground here and both should just STFU.

Here's the easiest one:

Those famous 16 words that he conveyed as a fact after he was told by Tenet and others it was not credible information (that means a lie), yet he told the American people anyway.

Now I don't know what your moral compass is or how you raise your family being a man of great faith and all, but to me that's a lie pure and simple. I wouldn't let my kids or my spouse pull that on me so why should I allow my president?

And quite frankly, I don't care what Clinton, or Kerry, or anyone else thought about Iraq and WMDs, bush is the one that pulled the inspectors and rushed to war.

But you neocon evangelists keep on apologizing and substituting empirial reality for empirical reality. Don't question what he says, just have faith.

By the way, have you ordered your "Free Eric Rudolph" t-shirt yet?

Nice try loser. Move forward in history a bit. Hard for a lib to do when they cannot re-create that hiorty to suit their needs.

Wilson's central claim - that the White House had ignored his findings about Yellowcake and Niger have proven false. Even Wilson no longer stands behind these claims. It was demonstrated by the testimony of CIA officials involved that his information never reached the White House, and that in fact CIA analysts believed his information offered further evidence that Saddam had tried to purchase Uranium from Niger.

Bush's claim from his SoTU speach stands true today...The British still stand behind the assertion, and Britsh intelligence still believes that Iraq tried to purchase Uranium from Niger. So do many in the CIA. It was wrong for Bush to use British intelligence in his SoTU address that the CIA had not verified. The White House and CIA have acknowledged this.

Wilson farted and you libs smelled roses.

You know, after reading through all of this and others, it makes me understand why nothing gets done. The system is sooooo corupt we probably can't even begin to imagine, anyway, what I'm trying to say is there is an incredible amount of very intelect people here, left, right or whateverer, with one common interest, FISH! and everything that has to do with them. It would be nice if we could unite for that cause, and spend our valuable time working for that instead of arguing about things we are unable to control or change, unfortunately. No there is no life beyond fishing! FS

TK,

Well, the flip side, as you so often take in your posts, would be, which of your opinions have you backed up with action, besides your 5 acre riparian set-aside? For instance, you’ve expressed your opinion as to the inevitability of war with Islam, while not expressly supporting the war in Iraq. If you believe it’s so inevitable, what are you doing to bring about its conclusion. I keep hearing they need truck drivers over there, and you’re not too old for that. Walk that talk.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Paying my taxes so the defense dept can buy more and better weapons . That takes a big chunk out of my day

RK
And the documents they used too bolster their claim?
I know how you 'Rs are into documents.

Did we ever hear how the documents , the forged documents, ever cane into being?
it it still the 'Italian Story', or is there a new one?
Kinda lost track, tough to keep up on those 'document' stories ya know.

Probably the printer at Halliburton.

KK

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


As Far as the t-shirt goes I'm still waiting for my Club G'itmo (Guantanamo Bay) one first:


http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibesse...east.guest.html

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential/illustrating_absurdity/tshirts.guest.html


KK,

By the documents,"I know how you 'Rs are into documents", do you mean like the classified documents about al Quada that the 9/11 commission needed to make their findings that Sandy Burgler...I mean Burger secretely stuffed down his pants and destroyed? Are those the documents you're referring to?

Goharley,

Since you despise 'lies' so much is that why you were so insistent that Slick Willey be impeached after it was proven he was a liar while he purgered himself under a sworn oath to tell the truth ?
------------------------------------------------------------

With regards to the 'recently sought/bought' debate, please pay special attention to the last two paragraphs:

Sixteen Truthful Words


By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Published: July 19, 2004


"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

— George W. Bush, State of the Union address, Jan. 28, 2003



WASHINGTON — Those were "the 16 words" in a momentous message to a joint session of Congress that were pounced on by the wrong-war left to become the simple centerpiece of its angry accusation that "Bush lied to us" — or, as John Kerry more delicately puts it — "misled" us into thinking that Saddam's Iraq posed a danger to the U.S.

The he-lied-to-us charge was led by Joseph Wilson, a former diplomat sent in early 2002 by the C.I.A. to Niger to check out reports by several European intelligence services that Iraq had secretly tried to buy that African nation's only major export, "yellowcake" uranium ore.

Wilson testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that he had assured U.S. officials back in 2002 that "there was nothing to the story." When columnist Robert Novak raised the question of nepotism by reporting that he got the assignment at the urging of his C.I.A. wife, Wilson denied that heatedly and denounced her "outing," triggering an investigation. The skilled self-promoter was then embraced as an antiwar martyr, sold a book with "truth" in its title, appeared on the cover of Time and every TV talk show denouncing Bush.

Two exhaustive government reports came out last week showing that it is the president's lionized accuser, and not Mr. Bush, who has been having trouble with the truth.

Contrary to his indignant claim that "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter" of selecting him for the African trip, the Senate published testimony that his C.I.A. wife had "offered up his name" and printed her memo to her boss that "my husband has good relations" with Niger officials and "lots of French contacts." Further destroying his credibility, Wilson now insists this strong pitch did not constitute a recommendation.

More important, it now turns out that senators believe his report to the C.I.A. after visiting Niger actually bolstered the case that Saddam sought — Bush's truthful verb was "sought" — yellowcake, the stuff of nuclear bombs. The C.I.A. gave Wilson's report a "good" grade because "the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999 and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium" — confirming what the British and Italian intelligence services had told us from their own sources.

But a C.I.A. analyst opined "the Brits have exaggerated this issue" because "the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory."

State Department intelligence also was dubious, reports the Senate, more so in October when an Italian journalist brought in a bunch of phony documents somebody was trying to sell him about a Niger uranium transaction. This outweighed the report of a top security official in the French Foreign Ministry, who told U.S. diplomats in November 2002 that "France believed the reporting was true that Iraq had made a procurement attempt for uranium from Niger."

Two months later, with no objection from C.I.A., the famous 16 words went into Bush's 2003 State of the Union.

But when word leaked about the fake documents — which were not the basis of the previous reporting by our allies — Wilson launched his publicity campaign, acting as if he had known earlier about the forgeries. The Senate reports that in his misleading anonymous leak to The Washington Post, "He said he may have misspoken . . . he said he may have become confused about his own recollection. . . ." The subsequent firestorm caused the White House to retreat prematurely with: "the sixteen words did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union address."

That apology was a mistake; Bush had spoken the plain truth. Did Saddam seek uranium from Africa, evidence of his continuing illegal interest in a nuclear weapon? Here is Lord Butler's nonpartisan panel, which closely examined the basis of the British intelligence:

". . . we conclude that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that `The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded."

Her cover was classified as non-official- cover. No diplomatic passport, and no cover. Of course she used her name, and company, that's how N-O-C works. Her company (Brewster Jennings I think) has other employees, and those folks are potentially in a tight spot now also. Ever think of that?
The CIA asked for the investigation into the leak. Why do you suppose that is? Is the CIA controlled by the Dems you claim hate them?
Why are they still in grand jury proceedings? The Dem's again, right? Why do the judges hearing the case refer to' the seriousness of the crimes involved'. Must be the Dem's again.
Upon a minimal, cursory examination, one could be led to think a crime was commited.
Oops, its just the out of power Dem's, running the show, eh?

Can you tell I think you've missed the boat, at least with the presentation of your arguments?I thought you could. :p

While you may bash away, at the Dem's , and their 30 year alledged hatred of the CIA, step back, and look at the braoder view of the situation,
Then think about the other folks at Brewster Jennings, and see if STFU, just maybe, isn't what folks should be doing. In fact, folks should look at the reasons, benefits, and drawbacks to the actions of leaking names.
It would be easier if there was sex, I know, but just try.

When those Bolton intercepts hit, (after all, he worked a lot with WMD issues), we will see just how far up the food chain it goes.
Till then, STFU, ok?

KK

PS:
A classified State Department memo that may be pivotal to the CIA leak case made clear that information identifying an agent and her role in her husband's intelligence-gathering mission was sensitive and shouldn't be shared, according to a person familiar with the document.