Re: WMD
John D. Giorgis wrote: That's o.k., I participate on a Catholic discussion List where I am considered a flaming liberal. oh yes, and after discussing certain economic policies with my officemates, one of them printed off a picture of the Kremlin for me to hang on my cube, because he thought that I was basically a communist. That could very well be one of the most frightening things I've ever read. :) I bet there are frogs with asses less watertight than people who'd consider you a liberal, John. ;) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The election was 2 1/2 years ago. Circumstances and the list have changed. I would guess that between 80-90% of the list were in favor of the invasion, and that at least half have a favorable opinion of Bush right now, though I'm guessing his popularity will continue to slip here and everywhere else. Doug 80-90%? Not a chance. 50%, at most. Dan M. whom you called a conservative, much to my (and, I'd guess, his, amusement) was against it, I believe, just to pick an example. As for his popularity slipping, well, he's not going to stay at 60+%, no. OTOH, the odds that he's going to win in 2004, well, let's just say that I'm not urging my politically active friends to count on getting a Democratic White House job in 2005. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A simple breakdown. The country as a whole split essentially 50/50 Bush/Gore. What do you think the list split? I'd bet something like 25/75 Bush/Gore, and that's being generous. So? There's something wrong with that? Tom Beck It suggests that the Americans on the list are not representative of the American public, which was my point. Even most Democratic activists don't hate Republicans the way you do, Tom. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
It suggests that the Americans on the list are not representative of the American public, which was my point. So? We're supposed to be? Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 02:59:17PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It suggests that the Americans on the list are not representative of the American public, which was my point. So? We're supposed to be? Tom, are you having a bad day? Or are you really a conservative in disguise, trying to make liberals look stupid? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
At 02:59 PM 6/15/2003 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It suggests that the Americans on the list are not representative of the American public, which was my point. So? We're supposed to be? Tom, a brief chronology for you: 1) Gautam stated that he considered Brin-L to be weighted heavily towards the liberal end of the spectrum. 2) Doug P. disagreed with this characterization. 3) Gautam used the above statistic regarding the election to rebut Doug's disagreement. Hopefully this all makes sense to you now. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
Wow, we must either be on different lists, or one of us isn't very perceptive. Of the politically vocal Americans on the list*, I count yourself, Georgis, Tarr, Cofey, Agretto and Cooper as well right of center. Heh heh. Would it surprise you then to know I am a registered Democrat and voted for Gore? Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. Now Building: Tamiya's M151A2 MUTT w/TOW ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
--- Damon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Heh heh. Would it surprise you then to know I am a registered Democrat and voted for Gore? Damon. Well statistically it shocks the hell out of me, Damon. Army officers are what, 90% Republican? Something in that range. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where I am considered a right wing kook. :-) Dan M. But, as you yourself would say, by the standards of American politics, you're pretty far to the left. A simple breakdown. The country as a whole split essentially 50/50 Bush/Gore. What do you think the list split? I'd bet something like 25/75 Bush/Gore, and that's being generous. OK, if we look at all the current subscribers who voted in the 2000 election, I bet it's going to be less than 100. And of all those, I bet that not everyone who voted for a presidential candidate chose either Bush or Gore. So your breakdown has a little problem -- maybe it should be more like 25/70/5 Bush/Gore/Other. I mean, *I* wasn't particularly happy with either major party candidate, and I cast a vote for a third party candidate. Without my having said that, who would you have pegged me for voting for? And my having said that, who do you think I voted for? My guess: I can't imagine you voting for Pat Buchanan of the Independant party (then again, I can't imagine anyone who isn't ultra-conservative voting for him), and you say you didn't vote for Bush or Gore... That leaves the Libertarian and Green parties. Regrettably, I don't remember the Libertarian candidate. I would guess you probably voted Libertarian. Just a guess though. And am I the only one? You should know better than that. Everyone here who was present in 2000 should know that I voted for Ralph Nader in the 2000 election. :-) Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons. - Douglas Adams ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
Damon wrote: Wow, we must either be on different lists, or one of us isn't very perceptive. Of the politically vocal Americans on the list*, I count yourself, Georgis, Tarr, Cofey, Agretto and Cooper as well right of center. Heh heh. Would it surprise you then to know I am a registered Democrat and voted for Gore? I'm glad to know that you are so enlightened. 8^) /serious No, not at all. I've observed you are hawkish on matters of national defense, and based my assessment on those observations - especially as this was a discussion on WMD. Would it surprise any of you that I was once a registered Republican and that, having participated in all the elections starting in 1972, I have never voted for a presidential candidate that lost the popular vote? Doug Converted by GHWBush ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
Would it surprise any of you that I was once a registered Republican and that, having participated in all the elections starting in 1972, I have never voted for a presidential candidate that lost the popular vote? Huh. So far every presidential candidate I've voted for lost! :( Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. Now Building: Esci/Italeri's M60A1 Patton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
Damon wrote: Would it surprise any of you that I was once a registered Republican and that, having participated in all the elections starting in 1972, I have never voted for a presidential candidate that lost the popular vote? Huh. So far every presidential candidate I've voted for lost! :( Not the popular vote 8^) Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Of the politically vocal Americans on the list*, I count yourself, Georgis, Tarr, Cofey, Agretto and Cooper as well right of center. Several others such as Blankenship, Horn, and Minete, are middle right, IMO. Erik is tough to gage (and in my judgment the most objective person on the list, BTW), but I'd put him close to the middle along with Thompson, Sharkey, Gabriel, Seeburger, Nunn and Bautista. All of the above people were (I believe) in favor of the invasion, BTW. Hardly a liberal echo chamber. On the left, to varying degrees I count myself, Lipscomb, Fool, Miller, Daly, Tacoma, Harrel, Grimaldi, Arnett Zim and ,Bell. grin I'm vocally left in certain areas, but I don't think too many liberals own guns or support (at least theoretically) the death penalty... Just to be persnickety and try to defy labeling. ;) Debbi Degrees Of Variance Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
Deborah Harrell wrote: grin I'm vocally left in certain areas, but I don't think too many liberals own guns or support (at least theoretically) the death penalty... Just to be persnickety and try to defy labeling. ;) Oh, I only mean left and right in a very general sense. Jan, for instance just mentioned he was socially liberal but he has come off quite hawkish as pertains to Iraq. Han seems very liberal but came down in favor of handgun ownership too. I didn't mean to pigeon hole anyone or everyone into fixed categories, in fact quite the opposite - I thought that the idea that brin-l was a liberal echo chamber was way off base; that we're a rather diverse group. It has also got me wondering if Gautam thinks this list is liberal, what he would think of the Culture list... Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: WMD Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 02:01:12 -0700 (PDT) --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Of the politically vocal Americans on the list*, I count yourself, Georgis, Tarr, Cofey, Agretto and Cooper as well right of center. Several others such as Blankenship, Horn, and Minete, are middle right, IMO. Erik is tough to gage (and in my judgment the most objective person on the list, BTW), but I'd put him close to the middle along with Thompson, Sharkey, Gabriel, Seeburger, Nunn and Bautista. All of the above people were (I believe) in favor of the invasion, BTW. Hardly a liberal echo chamber. On the left, to varying degrees I count myself, Lipscomb, Fool, Miller, Daly, Tacoma, Harrel, Grimaldi, Arnett Zim and ,Bell. grin I'm vocally left in certain areas, but I don't think too many liberals own guns or support (at least theoretically) the death penalty... Just to be persnickety and try to defy labeling. ;) Debbi Degrees Of Variance Maru *nods* I did support the war and am middle of the road on some issues and definitely not on others. It would be interesting to see if there are any quizzes online that sample your political position on hot-button issues and give you a left/middle/right rating. Jon _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
From: Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: WMD Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 09:10:48 -0400 From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: WMD Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 02:01:12 -0700 (PDT) --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Of the politically vocal Americans on the list*, I count yourself, Georgis, Tarr, Cofey, Agretto and Cooper as well right of center. Several others such as Blankenship, Horn, and Minete, are middle right, IMO. Erik is tough to gage (and in my judgment the most objective person on the list, BTW), but I'd put him close to the middle along with Thompson, Sharkey, Gabriel, Seeburger, Nunn and Bautista. All of the above people were (I believe) in favor of the invasion, BTW. Hardly a liberal echo chamber. On the left, to varying degrees I count myself, Lipscomb, Fool, Miller, Daly, Tacoma, Harrel, Grimaldi, Arnett Zim and ,Bell. grin I'm vocally left in certain areas, but I don't think too many liberals own guns or support (at least theoretically) the death penalty... Just to be persnickety and try to defy labeling. ;) Debbi Degrees Of Variance Maru *nods* I did support the war and am middle of the road on some issues and definitely not on others. It would be interesting to see if there are any quizzes online that sample your political position on hot-button issues and give you a left/middle/right rating. Well, one thats a bit better than the one we took a few weeks ago with the 'race' question. Jon _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
list history Re: WMD
At 09:53 AM 6/14/2003 -0500, you wrote: - Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 5:09 AM Subject: Re: WMD Deborah Harrell wrote: grin I'm vocally left in certain areas, but I don't think too many liberals own guns or support (at least theoretically) the death penalty... Just to be persnickety and try to defy labeling. ;) Oh, I only mean left and right in a very general sense. Jan, for instance just mentioned he was socially liberal but he has come off quite hawkish as pertains to Iraq. Han seems very liberal but came down in favor of handgun ownership too. I didn't mean to pigeon hole anyone or everyone into fixed categories, in fact quite the opposite - I thought that the idea that brin-l was a liberal echo chamber was way off base; that we're a rather diverse group. It has also got me wondering if Gautam thinks this list is liberal, what he would think of the Culture list... Where I am considered a right wing kook. :-) Dan M. You beat me to it Dan. You're considered a flaming right wing nut job on the culture. It was fun to see the same position get beat on from both ends on the two lists. Well, you were picking apart their arguments, while here yours were being picked at. While I'm nowhere near the voice of reason, in fact I hate posts like these, I would like to ask what's been going on the last few days? Is it the weather? The fact that there are no good books or movies out? (I have not seen the matrix, not really planning to.) Just wondering how everyone is feeling. This page was generated in 1999. Anyone know what it's about? http://www.vavatch.co.uk/essays/iamvery.htm Oh, it's Adrian Hon. I've heard of him. Kevin T. - VRWC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
On 13 Jun 2003 at 21:59, Doug Pensinger wrote: Additionally, the non US members on the list are, I think, actually very moderate, the exception being Illana (sp?), who is probably among the most conservative on the list. It can be pretty hard to use left/right for Israel. I mean, some of my Isralie friends are staunchly communist and also complete hawks about Palestians. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
At 09:59 PM 6/13/2003 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote: I take comfort in the fact that politics on this list are, to a large extent, politics inside the liberal echo chamber. Wow, we must either be on different lists, or one of us isn't very perceptive. I must be on Gautam's List. I've always felt that Brin-L was solidly left-wing. I agree that it has become less-so in recent years but I think that it is still solidly left--wing. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
At 09:53 AM 6/14/2003 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: It has also got me wondering if Gautam thinks this list is liberal, what he would think of the Culture list... Where I am considered a right wing kook. :-) That's o.k., I participate on a Catholic discussion List where I am considered a flaming liberal. oh yes, and after discussing certain economic policies with my officemates, one of them printed off a picture of the Kremlin for me to hang on my cube, because he thought that I was basically a communist. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz
At 10:38 PM 5/31/2003 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2) What is wrong with that strategy? It seems to me we are finally doing what is necessary to make the world a better place to live in, even if, especially if, you are a middle eastern Muslim. War is never the best way to solve anything. I do not believe I am mistaken when I say that I think we tried all the better ways. If not, I sure would like to hear what they are. Then why not admit it? Why not tell the truth? Why not just come right out and say that's what they were doing? They were going to be castigated by much of the rest of the world anyway - so why not simply be honest and tell the truth right from the start? Because we are a republic, and the reasons that were most important to them may not have been the reasons that would have resounded the loudest with the electorate and their elected representaties. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where I am considered a right wing kook. :-) Dan M. But, as you yourself would say, by the standards of American politics, you're pretty far to the left. A simple breakdown. The country as a whole split essentially 50/50 Bush/Gore. What do you think the list split? I'd bet something like 25/75 Bush/Gore, and that's being generous. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where I am considered a right wing kook. :-) Dan M. But, as you yourself would say, by the standards of American politics, you're pretty far to the left. A simple breakdown. The country as a whole split essentially 50/50 Bush/Gore. What do you think the list split? I'd bet something like 25/75 Bush/Gore, and that's being generous. The election was 2 1/2 years ago. Circumstances and the list have changed. I would guess that between 80-90% of the list were in favor of the invasion, and that at least half have a favorable opinion of Bush right now, though I'm guessing his popularity will continue to slip here and everywhere else. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
At 09:59 PM 6/13/03 -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote: Wow, we must either be on different lists, or one of us isn't very perceptive. Of the politically vocal Americans on the list*, I count yourself, Georgis, Tarr, Cofey, Agretto and Cooper as well right of center. Several others such as Blankenship, Horn, and Minete, are middle right, IMO. Hmm. This would be a surprise to people on other lists (not the c-list) who think I'm a right-wing nut¹. Guess I need to rant a little harder here . . . _ ¹Or is that right wing-nut? -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: _ ¹Or is that right wing-nut? Righteous wing-nut, maybe? Doug Just kidding, just kidding, don't start whistling. 8^) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
At 08:20 PM 6/14/2003 -0700, you wrote: Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where I am considered a right wing kook. :-) Dan M. But, as you yourself would say, by the standards of American politics, you're pretty far to the left. A simple breakdown. The country as a whole split essentially 50/50 Bush/Gore. What do you think the list split? I'd bet something like 25/75 Bush/Gore, and that's being generous. The election was 2 1/2 years ago. Circumstances and the list have changed. I would guess that between 80-90% of the list were in favor of the invasion, and that at least half have a favorable opinion of Bush right now, though I'm guessing his popularity will continue to slip here and everywhere else. Doug Maybe you should define 'in favor of the invasion' because I'd have said 20-25%. (I'm defining 'in favor' as: going in NOW, no matter what...not waiting for the UN nor congress, unilateral with 30 nations) Popularity continue to slipwell again there's a fudge factor. I'm mad about some of the education things he supported, probably a few other things. But there is no one else I want to run for president, no one else I will vote for.* The only way he'd lose my vote would be to sign some gun restriction legislation. The assault weapon issue was off of my radar. I'm sure others feel that way, there is an issue or five they are mad about, but they would vote for him. And the converse: many who wouldn't vote for him no matter what he does. *PA has a closed primary. I can only vote for candidates in my party in the primary. I was thinking of switching to dem to vote for Sharpton, if he was still running. But they are talking about finding a strong repub to run against Spector. Praise Tunare, I'd vote for anyone other than Spector. I'd vote for Teresa Heinz if she ran, no matter what party. Just get Spector out. Kevin T. - VRWC Wishing we could recall our governor ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
Doug Pensinger wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: grin I'm vocally left in certain areas, but I don't think too many liberals own guns or support (at least theoretically) the death penalty... Just to be persnickety and try to defy labeling. ;) Oh, I only mean left and right in a very general sense. Jan, for instance just mentioned he was socially liberal but he has come off quite hawkish as pertains to Iraq. Han seems very liberal but came down in favor of handgun ownership too. I didn't mean to pigeon hole anyone or everyone into fixed categories, in fact quite the opposite - I thought that the idea that brin-l was a liberal echo chamber was way off base; that we're a rather diverse group. I was just being contrary and objectionary, dear lad, and that's why I tossed in those grins etc. ;) I knew you weren't actually labeling us; your thinking doesn't come across as two-dimensional from your posts. But I'll Try To Be More Clearly Silly* When That's What I Mean Maru *no comments from the peanut gallery, please! ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
At 09:03 PM 6/14/03 -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: _ ¹Or is that right wing-nut? Righteous wing-nut, maybe? Doug Just kidding, just kidding, don't start whistling. 8^) I can't whistle and laugh at the same time . . . ;-) -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: WMD
Doug Pensinger wrote: It has also got me wondering if Gautam thinks this list is liberal, what he would think of the Culture list... So far to the left as to be practically invisible :) Ritu GCU Speculations ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: list history Re: WMD
--- Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snipped most This page was generated in 1999. Anyone know what it's about? http://www.vavatch.co.uk/essays/iamvery.htm Oh, it's Adrian Hon. I've heard of him. LOL Thanks for posting that! But as I wasn't here then, I have no idea what it was about. Debbi who, having ridden or taught riding half of yesterday and a couple of hours today, is in a very good mood :) __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
At 10:50 PM 6/14/2003 -0500, you wrote: At 09:59 PM 6/13/03 -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote: Wow, we must either be on different lists, or one of us isn't very perceptive. Of the politically vocal Americans on the list*, I count yourself, Georgis, Tarr, Cofey, Agretto and Cooper as well right of center. Several others such as Blankenship, Horn, and Minete, are middle right, IMO. Hmm. This would be a surprise to people on other lists (not the c-list) who think I'm a right-wing nut¹. Guess I need to rant a little harder here . . . _ ¹Or is that right wing-nut? Ronn Whoops, I never saw that e-mail Doug. I have it, but I'm reading backwards. Maybe the vocal people did make it seem to me that there were more against invasion. Squeaky wheels and all that. Kevin T. - VRWC At the GirlSchool ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
Tom, not to be rude, but are you even capable of discussing these things, or do you just start frothing at the mouth as soon as someone mentions George Bush? I mean, you seem like a bright and reasonable guy - right up until someone mentions a Republican and then I swear to God someone else takes over your body - it's like the Exorcist or something... A) Sometimes I exaggerate to make a point. Or sometimes I'm just baiting... B) Yes, Bush does push just about every button I possess. C) I don't always have the time to write something reasoned and well thought out. I'm just spitballing here, not writing position papers. D) There are plenty of conservatives who are the exact same way about Democrats and liberals and the Clintons. I realize that's not necessarily an excuse. E) Not to be rude, but there are some people who cannot mention George Bush and Iraq without getting all hagiographic and trembling with rapturous joy and admiration. Any criticism of any aspect of the recent war is automatically wrong and completely out of the question. They start frothing at the mouth as soon as anyone mentions looting or not enough troops, or anything similar... F) If you calm down, I will too. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And God forbid that anyone should ever suggest that Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney/etc. are anything less than the very living incarnations of Jesus Christ himself... Tom Beck Tom, not to be rude, but are you even capable of discussing these things, or do you just start frothing at the mouth as soon as someone mentions George Bush? I mean, you seem like a bright and reasonable guy - right up until someone mentions a Republican and then I swear to God someone else takes over your body - it's like the Exorcist or something... But I would say almost the same thing about you when someone is critical of Bush or the U.S. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I would say almost the same thing about you when someone is critical of Bush or the U.S. Doug But, Doug, if you read my posts with any degree of attention, you'd be wrong. I have variously criticized Bush Administration policies on a fair variety of fronts. I haven't on Iraq because not only do I think I couldn't do better, I can barely imagine _anyone_ doing better. As for the US - my record of criticisms of domestic and foreign policy (fair ones) stands with anyone. I just look that way sometimes on this list because, to be blunt, anything short of hysterical anti-Americanism often looks like being a far right-winger on this list. Even more so because - unlike a lot of people here - I don't get all turned on and enthusiastic by self-flagellation. It's not my thing, so I don't post as much on those issues. It doesn't make me feel superior to go on and on about the bad things my country did (or might not have done). I take comfort in the fact that politics on this list are, to a large extent, politics inside the liberal echo chamber. Most of the politically vocal Americans on this list are off the liberal deep end compared to the American population as a whole. That's not in the least an exaggeration. President Bush's unfavorables in some polls run around 20%. What do you think the ratio is on this list? = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I would say almost the same thing about you when someone is critical of Bush or the U.S. Doug But, Doug, if you read my posts with any degree of attention, you'd be wrong. I have variously criticized Bush Administration policies on a fair variety of fronts. I haven't on Iraq because not only do I think I couldn't do better, I can barely imagine _anyone_ doing better. As for the US - my record of criticisms of domestic and foreign policy (fair ones) stands with anyone. I just look that way sometimes on this list because, to be blunt, anything short of hysterical anti-Americanism often looks like being a far right-winger on this list. Even more so because - unlike a lot of people here - I don't get all turned on and enthusiastic by self-flagellation. It's not my thing, so I don't post as much on those issues. It doesn't make me feel superior to go on and on about the bad things my country did (or might not have done). I'm not going to argue with you on this because it would require research that I don't have the time to do, but IMO you have gone off the deep end on several occasions with your patriotic zeal. I take comfort in the fact that politics on this list are, to a large extent, politics inside the liberal echo chamber. Most of the politically vocal Americans on this list are off the liberal deep end compared to the American population as a whole. That's not in the least an exaggeration. President Bush's unfavorables in some polls run around 20%. What do you think the ratio is on this list? Wow, we must either be on different lists, or one of us isn't very perceptive. Of the politically vocal Americans on the list*, I count yourself, Georgis, Tarr, Cofey, Agretto and Cooper as well right of center. Several others such as Blankenship, Horn, and Minete, are middle right, IMO. Erik is tough to gage (and in my judgment the most objective person on the list, BTW), but I'd put him close to the middle along with Thompson, Sharkey, Gabriel, Seeburger, Nunn and Bautista. All of the above people were (I believe) in favor of the invasion, BTW. Hardly a liberal echo chamber. On the left, to varying degrees I count myself, Lipscomb, Fool, Miller, Daly, Tacoma, Harrel, Grimaldi, Arnett Zim and ,Bell. Additionally, the non US members on the list are, I think, actually very moderate, the exception being Illana (sp?), who is probably among the most conservative on the list. Again, IMO, that seems a relatively balanced group. I think you must be hanging around your own echo chamber too much. Oh and by the way, check your numbers please. Gallup has Bush's disapproval rating up to 34%, down 10 points in the last two months, and it hasn't been as low as 20% in a year: http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm I look for it to be pushing 50% this time next year, voodoo economics and all. 8^) Doug * Disclaimer: the above judgments are my general perception of the people discussed. I apologize in advance if I've misrepresented you, or if I've left you off the list. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
[older messages, April 9, 2003] Jeffrey Miller wrote: Yes, its ok, except that we disagree on both the amount and nature of those WMD. :) Gautam wrote: Well, one of us is going to be proved right in a few months, and I'm feeling pretty confident. You? Almost two months later... On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 08:19:55AM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wanted to ask you a question before Teri and I leave for a cruise to celebrate our 25th anniversary. (in other words, I won't be on line for almost 10 days). I remember you making a virtual bet that we'd find a smoking gun for WMD in Iraq by about now. Any guesses as to why we didn't? Was it about now? If so, I was overoptimistic when I made it - 6-9 months seems like a better time scale. I don't really expect to find that much, though. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [older messages, April 9, 2003] Jeffrey Miller wrote: Yes, its ok, except that we disagree on both the amount and nature of those WMD. :) Gautam wrote: Well, one of us is going to be proved right in a few months, and I'm feeling pretty confident. You? Almost two months later... Well, at least to me 2 months few months 1 year. So I feel okay. Although, admittedly, having asked people who know something about this sort of thing, and read some stuff on how hard it is to find these items, I was probably overoptimistic. But God forbid that a little knowledge or expertise would be injected into this loop. Gautam = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
Although, admittedly, having asked people who know something about this sort of thing, and read some stuff on how hard it is to find these items, I was probably overoptimistic. But God forbid that a little knowledge or expertise would be injected into this loop. And God forbid that anyone should ever suggest that Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney/etc. are anything less than the very living incarnations of Jesus Christ himself... Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And God forbid that anyone should ever suggest that Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney/etc. are anything less than the very living incarnations of Jesus Christ himself... Tom Beck Tom, not to be rude, but are you even capable of discussing these things, or do you just start frothing at the mouth as soon as someone mentions George Bush? I mean, you seem like a bright and reasonable guy - right up until someone mentions a Republican and then I swear to God someone else takes over your body - it's like the Exorcist or something... = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
20,000 soldiers is a hell of a lot, and the US has more urgent/important things to do ... The message was that the Iraqi government had some weaponised anthrax and radio-active materials, both of which would cause a great deal of trouble if released in Washington, DC or London, England. If Bush was not lying, gathering that material was highly urgent and important. One fear is that is would fall into hands less deterable than that of the Iraqi government. Also, some 466000 coalition troops were involved (most for logistics, operating ships at sea, repairing trucks and airplanes, and the like). I am talking about shifting the task of fewer than 5% of the total troop number for a short time. Moreover, if the army had needed another 2 troops, Bush could have delayed the start a little longer to wait for them and their equipment to arrive. But my main question is why you think that dealing with the threat of an anthrax or radio dusting attack on some west European city (easier to get to than the US) or an attack on the US (coming in through Mexico, perhaps) is not very `urgent/important'? Incidentally, today's BBC news, 2003 May 31 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/americas/2951440.stm says the following: The Pentagon has a list of around 900 sites which may provide clues to Saddam Hussein's alleged chemical and biological arsenal. So far, around 200 locations have been searched, said Pentagon officials on Friday. That means that so far the US has not searched 700 sites whose location the US knows about. Most likely most of those 700 locations will be empty or clueless. Who thinks the US intelligence services know much? But suppose one of those sites contained enough weaponized anthrax to fill a Johnson Baby powder container like those that that many grown up travelers carry? What if someone who is unfriendly to the US and has the right contacts gets hold of it before a US Army team comes by? It may be that none of those 700 uninvestigated sites have or had anything dangerous in them. But the question is what proof can you offer *now* that no one hostile to the US has visited any of those sites in the past 6 weeks, and taken something small? As far as I can see, at this stage, the only response is to say `we don't know'. And the only hope, for Americans who favor security, can be that their President was lying before hand on what is generally considered a national rather than a partisan issue, and incompetent in his follow through. If you say that Bush was not lying, then you must admit the chance that sometime in the past 6 weeks, someone hostile to the US has taken something dangerous from one of the 700 uninvestigated sites. (I am leaving out of this discussion the issue of additional sites yet to be specified -- I have no idea what effort the US is putting into finding them.) -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
At 05:58 PM 5/30/2003 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A) What could possibly be more important than finding the weapons of mass destruction that were the entire justification for the invasion in the first place? John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] responded Off the top of my head: -Toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein -Restoring Civic Order -Preventing Mass Civilian Casulaties I see: my understanding is that you are saying that for Americans as a whole, restoring civic order in Bagdad is more important than preventing an anthrax or radiological bomb attack against Washington, DC. This is the crux of the question. Many people I know think that restoring civic order in Bagdad is important, but also think that for many Americans (but not necessarily for all Americans or for others), it is more important to take steps against another major terrorist attack, whether in Washington, DC, or Omaha, Nebraska, or some place else. And it is not clear to me that the trade off was `restoring civic order in Bagdad' versus `protecting American'. I understand you to be saying the US could not do both. I think the US is strong enough to have both protected Americans against a threat the US president stated he saw and restored civic order in Bagdad in a military occupation. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 08:55:23PM +, Robert J. Chassell wrote: saying the US could not do both. I think the US is strong enough to have both protected Americans against a threat the US president stated he saw and restored civic order in Bagdad in a military occupation. Of course it is strong enough. It is just incompetently managed in everything other than pure military operations, as the poor handling of restoring civic order in Baghdad demonstrated. By the way, Robert, thanks for the clearly reasoned posts on this matter. It is refreshing to see some clear thinking on the subject. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz
2) What is wrong with that strategy? It seems to me we are finally doing what is necessary to make the world a better place to live in, even if, especially if, you are a middle eastern Muslim. War is never the best way to solve anything. I do not believe I am mistaken when I say that I think we tried all the better ways. If not, I sure would like to hear what they are. Then why not admit it? Why not tell the truth? Why not just come right out and say that's what they were doing? They were going to be castigated by much of the rest of the world anyway - so why not simply be honest and tell the truth right from the start? Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
Dan Minette asked I remember you making a virtual bet that we'd find a smoking gun for WMD in Iraq by about now. Any guesses as to why we didn't? One very distressing reason is that the US did not put enough resources on the job. Before the war, the US government said that Iraq contains hundreds of suspect sites and that most are harmless. As a practical matter, the US should have sent 2 or more troops to look at the various sites and to search for more sites. The troops would not have been able to do much except clear harmless sites and guard suspect sites -- but that would have been enough. And that could have been done over a few days in the middle of April. Remember, the goal would not have been to find a `smoking gun' but to have cleared some sites and to have provided guards for those sites that appeared dangerous to ordinary soldiers. But the Bush Administration did not do this. There are three possible explanations: * the Administration knew that Saddam Hussein was bluffing when he gave the UN inspectors a hard time; he really did not have any banned weapons or not many of them: perhaps a few long range missiles, some mobile labs, and some equipment to make poison gas. This possibility suggests that Bush lied. It also suggests that the Bush Administration was incompetent at lying, since it would make more sense for it to act surprised when later inspectors found little. * the Administration recognized that its prime hold on the US comes from fear of terrorism, and it hopes for another attack like that of 9/11 before the next election. By giving looters a chance, it increased the risk that terrorists will gain powerful weapons. Note that physically, the Sept. 11 attack did not do much damage to the US as a whole. But it enabled the Bush Administration to focus on fear and its promise of security, and to win the 2002 elections, even though the administration has managed the economy in such a way that many are hurt, and long term prospects for ordinary people are diminished. This possibility requires great cynicism. * the Administration was simply incompetent, and did not send enough soldiers to check out sites before looters came. This possibility requires believing that politicians who increased their party's vote in an off-year election could not apply that same talent to managing a politically important part of their years in office. Note that these three alternatives remain in place even if someone finds stocks of poison gas making equipment or a dozen unfired SCUDs. Please suggest another alternative, bearing in mind that the US government either did not put 2 soldiers on the search 6 weeks ago, or if it did, did not talk about the action. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
--- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please suggest another alternative, bearing in mind that the US government either did not put 2 soldiers on the search 6 weeks ago, or if it did, did not talk about the action. -- Robert J. Chassell 20,000 soldiers is a hell of a lot, and the US has more urgent/important things to do than sending them traipsing around the Iraqi desert sounds like a pretty good one. Right now, at this moment, the US military is desperately overstretched. There is a 3:1 rule for deployments - to put 20,000 troops on the ground outside the US, you need to have a minimum of 60,000 soldiers dedicated to the job. Force constraints are real, and a major concern of everyone in the defense establishment right now. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: WMD
-Original Message- From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 1:47 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: WMD --- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please suggest another alternative, bearing in mind that the US government either did not put 2 soldiers on the search 6 weeks ago, or if it did, did not talk about the action. -- Robert J. Chassell 20,000 soldiers is a hell of a lot, This was discussed by the US leadership (AFAIK), and I think that Saddam flatly refused allowing even one soldier in. Saddam even wanted strong restrictions placed upon the inspectors carrying pistols. and the US has more urgent/important things to do than sending them traipsing around the Iraqi desert sounds like a pretty good one. Right now, at this moment, the US military is desperately overstretched. There is a 3:1 rule for deployments - to put 20,000 troops on the ground outside the US, you need to have a minimum of 60,000 soldiers dedicated to the job. I thought it was 6:1 or 7:1. It probably depends upon the Service. (300 sites/(2/6))/3 guard shifts = 4 armed guards average per site at any one time - Hardly enough to watch a palace, much less a 30-acre suspected manufacturing plant. I see more guards outside a armored truck delivering cash! How long will it take for a 20,000 person army to run a metal detector over every open desert space... Saddam had at least 40,000 loyal soldier to assist in any WMD project- whether to destroy, smuggle or to hide in the middle of the desert. What would I do if I knew that 100,000 troops were going to storm the border to go after what I consider priceless (WMD). I'm gonna hide it in the desert. I going to silence anyone not millitary involved with the process. I would presume I could escape like Osama did, then covertly recover the weapons as needed, to apply terror again for control after the Stinking foolish American pigs leave. Coming out of character here, I think we may very well see the Smoking gun after it has fired, and not before. If I was an evil dictator or an evil minion, I would make the world pay for this insult. Nerd From Hell Force constraints are real, and a major concern of everyone in the defense establishment right now. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
20,000 soldiers is a hell of a lot, and the US has more urgent/important things to do than sending them traipsing around the Iraqi desert sounds like a pretty good one. Right now, at this moment, the US military is desperately overstretched. There is a 3:1 rule for deployments - to put 20,000 troops on the ground outside the US, you need to have a minimum of 60,000 soldiers dedicated to the job. Force constraints are real, and a major concern of everyone in the defense establishment right now. A) What could possibly be more important than finding the weapons of mass destruction that were the entire justification for the invasion in the first place? Weapons, I might add, that the Bushies claimed to know exactly where they were before the invasion. (In March, Rumsfeld was quoted saying they were in the Tikrit area.) B) We won the war - why are we now so overstretched? Maybe the Bushies underestimated what it would take to win the peace. They appear to have had no real plan for what would happen after the glorious victory, just as they have had little plan for Afghanistan other than going in and quickly declaring victory on the Bush News Channel - oops, sorry, I meant the Fox News Channel. C) If we need more troops, send 'em in. This is no time to be poormouthing things. If we don't have enough troops - why not? How can an occupation be harder to organize than an invasion? D) I'm sure the Bush apologists on this list will have all kinds of excuses for their beloved lord and master. Screwing up the aftermath does not detract from what was a successful military operation. But the point of the operation was not just to be able to declare victory. It was to find Saddam's WMD - which they swore up and down to the entire world existed and which they did claim to know where they were. I'm glad the bastard is out of power, but I'm not glad that there's anarchy in Iraq, and I'm not glad that his WMD can't be found. Where are they? Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz
I wrote: From http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=410730 or http://makeashorterlink.com/?P121212C4 Excerpt: WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz By David Usborne 30 May 2003 My shorter link didn't work. Here's one that does: http://makeashorterlink.com/?X151252C4 Reggie Bautista Sorry Maru _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz
--- Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz By David Usborne 30 May 2003 The extraordinary admission comes in an interview with Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary, in the July issue of the magazine Vanity Fair. Mr Wolfowitz also discloses that there was one justification that was almost unnoticed but huge. That was the prospect of the United States being able to withdraw all of its forces from Saudi Arabia once the threat of Saddam had been removed. Ok, 2 thing, 1 silly, one very important: 1) Vanity Fair?...Well, I guess that is better than quating the NY Times. 2) What is wrong with that strategy? It seems to me we are finally doing what is necessary to make the world a better place to live in, even if, especially if, you are a middle eastern Muslim. War is never the best way to solve anything. I do not believe I am mistaken when I say that I think we tried all the better ways. If not, I sure would like to hear what they are. Jan Except for Tyranny, Slavery, Genocide, Fascism, Communism, Nazism, and Terrorism, War has never solved anything. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz
--- Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz By David Usborne 30 May 2003 The extraordinary admission comes in an interview with Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary, in the July issue of the magazine Vanity Fair. Mr Wolfowitz also discloses that there was one justification that was almost unnoticed but huge. That was the prospect of the United States being able to withdraw all of its forces from Saudi Arabia once the threat of Saddam had been removed. Ok, 2 thing, 1 silly, one very important: 1) Vanity Fair?...Well, I guess that is better than quating the NY Times. 2) What is wrong with that strategy? It seems to me we are finally doing what is necessary to make the world a better place to live in, even if, especially if, you are a middle eastern Muslim. War is never the best way to solve anything. I do not believe I am mistaken when I say that I think we tried all the better ways. If not, I sure would like to hear what they are. Jan Except for Tyranny, Slavery, Genocide, Fascism, Communism, Nazism, and Terrorism, War has never solved anything. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wanted to ask you a question before Teri and I leave for a cruise to celebrate our 25th anniversary. (in other words, I won't be on line for almost 10 days). I remember you making a virtual bet that we'd find a smoking gun for WMD in Iraq by about now. Any guesses as to why we didn't? Dan M. Was it about now? If so, I was overoptimistic when I made it - 6-9 months seems like a better time scale. I don't really expect to find that much, though. It depends on what you mean by a virtual smoking gun. I have been told (there have been some news reports on the subject as well, but I trust the people I spoke to more than the media) that we have pretty good evidence that Iraq was madly destroying weapons in the days before the conflict, and that's probably why we haven't found very much. We have found a mobile weapons lab, though, and various other things that they weren't allowed to have. So I guess it depends on your standards. I wish we had found more, but we haven't found much less than I was expecting at this point in the game. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
At 08:19 AM 5/29/2003 -0700, you wrote: --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wanted to ask you a question before Teri and I leave for a cruise to celebrate our 25th anniversary. (in other words, I won't be on line for almost 10 days). I remember you making a virtual bet that we'd find a smoking gun for WMD in Iraq by about now. Any guesses as to why we didn't? Dan M. Was it about now? If so, I was overoptimistic when I made it - 6-9 months seems like a better time scale. I don't really expect to find that much, though. It depends on what you mean by a virtual smoking gun. I have been told (there have been some news reports on the subject as well, but I trust the people I spoke to more than the media) that we have pretty good evidence that Iraq was madly destroying weapons in the days before the conflict, and that's probably why we haven't found very much. We have found a mobile weapons lab, though, and various other things that they weren't allowed to have. So I guess it depends on your standards. I wish we had found more, but we haven't found much less than I was expecting at this point in the game. Gautam And Blix wanted to see those SCUDs that they didn't have, the ones raining down on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Kevin T. - VRWC Nothing up my sleeve ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
