Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 8/2/06, jdiebremse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And this was before the war? And they concluded that *none* of > > the stockpiles were weaponized. > > > Yes, John. Again, I'd urge you to go to the sources. Uh, what's your source for this? To repeat... the National Intelligence Estimate from October 2002 has been desclassified. George Tenet has described its contents. I've provided links. "Immediate" has only one meaning in this context, as far as I know. I don't think so. We are talking about justification for war. So "immediate" could easily mean that if this opportunity to neutralize the threat is not taken now, that we will not have a future opportunity to neutralize it before it becomes unneutralizeable. In reality, regarding Iraq, in 2002, our intelligence community was not making that argument, so it is beside the point. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
First Freedom First
Folks, I just signed a petition at http://firstfreedomfirst.org/ aimed at ensuring freedom of -- and from -- religion in America. It is sponsored by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, among others. I'm for that, too. Although you know that I am a Christian (and judge accordingly), I don't think that this is an issue of interest only to those of us who hold religious beliefs. On the contrary, it is of special interest to those of you who so strenuously and consistently resist what you perceive as its pernicious influence. Feel free to sign the petition, call me a religion-addled nutcase, or whatever. It /is/ Brin-L, after all... Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: RFK Jr. interview
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of jdiebremse > Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 6:50 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: RFK Jr. interview > > > Or hard decisions. We're in denial over Social Security, for > > example. > > And its worth noting that Democrats were instrumental in torpedoing > our best chance at Social Security reform in a generation One of the reasons I brought up Social Security was that I realized that it wasn't just Republicans that were in denial. We hashed out it pretty well here during the time of the debate, and there were a lot of ways to slow the growth of the Social Security provided to higher income people which would effectively put a cap on Social Security in fixed dollars. For example, since I've been making maximum contributions most of my life, my wife and I are now scheduled to get close to 40k/year in Social Security. We don't need anything more than inflation adjustment from now on...and I think it is reasonable for us to be responsible for savings if we wanted more retirement income. The folks at the bottom, though, aren't doing as well. This plan would address the shortfall without changing the philosophy of social security. Bush wanted a sea change in philosophy. I may have time to debate his views on the US, but he definitely shows opposition to the philosophy behind social security. So, he used his political capital to use the need to reform Social Security as a springboard to overthrow the idea behind social securitygetting the government out of the social security business and replacing it with, essentially, 401k's. I'd place it in the "pox on both your houses" category of screw-ups. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: RFK Jr. interview
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Nick Arnett > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 10:03 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: RFK Jr. interview > > On 8/2/06, jdiebremse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > And this was before the war? And they concluded that *none* of > > > > the stockpiles were weaponized. > > > > > > > > > Yes, John. Again, I'd urge you to go to the sources. > > > > Uh, what's your source for this? > > > To repeat... the National Intelligence Estimate from October 2002 has been > desclassified. George Tenet has described its contents. I've provided > links. The link that I saw you provide was the BradBlog interview with RFK Jr. With all due respect, he's not a good source. Remember, he wrote how the government is covering up the ties between mercury and autism...and how his arguments were a feature in Julia's references to the 7 errors of quacks and pseudoscientists. Now, if you listed a primary source that I couldn't find in your post, I'd be very interested in that. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 8/3/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Now, if you listed a primary source that I couldn't find in your post, I'd be very interested in that. I quoted from the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which is available in many places on the net. I quoted George Tenet's public statements about it. I thought I included URLs, but in case not... GWU has lots of the documents: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/index.htm Here is the October NIE with the greatest amount declassified (there have been three declassifications): http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/nie.pdf Tenet's speech about it, in which he makes very clear the difference between having programs and intensions v. actually having WMDs (as well as ordinary weapons v. WMDs), including the crystal-clear statement, "They never said there was an 'imminent' threat." : http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/dci020504.html I don't see how any reasonable person, after reading these documents, could conclude that war on Iraq was justified by an immediate or imminent threat. But that's what we were told by the consumers of this intelligence. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Moving to Montana Soon?
Jim wrote: > I have a bit of a problem with this idea that environmentalism and > economics are mortal enemies. There has to be some middle ground. In fact, in the long run, environmentalism makes good business sense. The problem is that so many businesses in this country don't take the long run into account - next week, next month, maybe next year, but five years from now? WTF cares. And yet Diamond has written about oil or gas exploration in his beloved New Guinea (either in Collapse or an Op Ed piece can't remember) about one of the companies being very cognizant of environmental issues (had to do with how they built the roads to and from the mining sites I think amoung other things). He contrasted this to another company with more traditional approach; the environmentally aware company did better - sorry that I can't remember the details. The conclusion was that environmentally sensitive actions were not more expensive. One way use the market to insure environmental protection is to insure that the costs of doing business include the environmental costs (e.g how much will cost to clean up a site after it is mined out). We have a better handle on this now. If the true cots are figured in a corporation will have to make a market driven choice as to how much it is worth to do something to the environment since it will have to pay those costs. Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Again, with the responding-to-a-post-withour-reading-the-entire-thread thing; but it could take days for me to get through it all, so here goes: > Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >DanM wrote: > No-one owes pro-lifers them anything. The thesis is > that the mother and > society owe the child at least a chance at life. > For a right-to-life > person, every child has an inalienable right to > life. The only possible > exception is when their right to life conflicts with > the right to life of > the mother. The mother's health is important, of > course, but not as > critical as the child's life. One would wish, of > course, to choose both, > but when push comes to shove, the right to life > predominates. Disagree. I would not forbide a mentally competent woman, who knows that being pregnant will most likely kill her, from continuing the pregnancy (although I would strongly advise against *becoming* pregnant in such a situation), but to say that a woman whose pregnancy will probably kill her *must* continue it is contributing to the murder of a realized, as opposed to potential, human life. By such 'pushing and shoving' rights, one would be justified in dropping certain persons in power into a combat zone since they have been, and are, and will be, responsible for multiple civilian deaths of men, women, and children, as well as some unborn. One could presume that the conflict might cease with the loss of such persons; of course, one would likely be wrong - in several senses. > I'll use pro-life language here, to illustrate the > point. In a society, the > right to life is the paramount right. No one has > the right to kill another > person. In particular no-one has the right to kill > innocent life in cold > blood. That's what abortion is, the cold blooded > killing of innocence... Once again, one could argue that anyone who starts a war and causes any "collateral damage" is a cold-blooded killer - most of those civilians have no choice about being in the wrong place at the wrong time. > The scenario I proposed was a "half-a-loaf" thought. > If it is impossible to > stop all murder, it is still worthwhile to stop > some. And, with this > scenario, the right-to-life people have at least a > chance to save every > child's life. A chance to save a human life is > better than no chance to save a human life. Unless it's the woman whose pregnancy is life-threatening to her? Life is not Black and White. To choose among the Grey options is our lot. In Ideal DebbiWorld (TM), there would be no unwanted pregnancies, no war, no terrorism, no murder, no rape, etc. etc.. Last time I checked, DebbiWorld does not exist, at least in this brane. I am not unaware of the merits of your stance, but I also see the inconsistancies in it. My own brand of pragmatic idealism sucks, but less than BlackandWhite absolutism. IMO, of course. > >So not only is infanticide illegal, we no longer > depend on > > the promises of the parents either. Currently, we > are paying parents of > > girls a small lump sum at birth, monthly stipends > for their daughters' > > food, two meals in school and a daily sum for > attending school, and > > setting aside a fund for their marriage expenses. > The taxpayers are paying > > for it, and willingly. For these are the biggest > problems when it comes to > > assuring a decent life for the girl child: that > the parents don't kill her > > because they worry about her dowry, that her > parents feed her, and that they send her to school. > All good things to do. I'm glad your country does > this. In contrast, > abortion is legal in India. If one accepts the idea > that both abortion and > infanticide is the murder of children, then > abortions are exactly as wrong > as infanticide... "If one accepts" - From a medical standpoint, an 8- or 15-week fetus is not an infant or a child. > > Well, I can see no way on ensuring that all > pregnant women report their > > pregnancies, and their unwillingness to be > pregnant, to someone who might > > stop them from the abortion attempts. So, as far > as I can see, the choice > > is between losing one life or two. > > But, when abortions were illegal and back alley in > the US, every indication > was that they were less frequent than after they > were legalized. Thus, the > occasional woman who dies in an abortion is more > than outweighed by the > massive numbers of children that are saved... Now _you_ are judging which life is more valuable than another. [Note that I have already made clear that indeed I do judge such things; medical triage is one of the ugliest situations imaginable -- and I must point out that collectively 'we' have decided that a huge number of already-born children suffering from malaria, AIDS, and plain old diarrhea are less valuable than augmenting various breasts, penises and butts, or reducing other tummies. It's at least as obscene, and in my book mor
RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For a right-to-life > person, every child has an inalienable right to > life. The only possible > exception is when their right to life conflicts with > the right to life of > the mother. The mother's health is important, of > course, but not as > critical as the child's life. One would wish, of > course, to choose both, > but when push comes to shove, the right to life > predominates. Realistically, in a good many situations, the child of a mother whose health is ruined has far less chance of survival than the child of a healthy mother. The Bujold list was having a discussion of pre-eclampsia, for which the only cure is to deliver the baby early, pray he survives, and tie the mother's tubes. Because the next pregnancy is likely to kill both the mother and the next child. There are some religious traditions which would forbid tying the mother's tubes. What is the alternative? IMO the goal is to have both mother and child thrive, live long, and prosper. Pat ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
>-- PAT MATHEWS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hey, Pat -- this is actually my quoting of Dan, not my own opinion: > > > For a right-to-life > > > person, every child has an inalienable right to > > > life. The only possible > > > exception is when their right to life conflicts > with the right to life of > > > the mother. The mother's health is important, of > > > course, but not as > > > critical as the child's life. One would wish, of > > > course, to choose both, > > > but when push comes to shove, the right to life > > > predominates. > > Realistically, in a good many situations, the child > of a mother whose health > is ruined has far less chance of survival than the > child of a healthy > mother. The Bujold list was having a discussion of > pre-eclampsia, for which > the only cure is to deliver the baby early, pray he > survives, and tie the > mother's tubes. Because the next pregnancy is likely > to kill both the mother and the next child. A distinct possibility; I already noted that I would discourage starting a pregnancy in such a case. (BTW, have enjoyed what Bujold I've read.) > There are some religious traditions which would > forbid tying the mother's > tubes. What is the alternative? Death. > IMO the goal is to have both mother and child > thrive, live long, and prosper. Agreed. Debbi who had to restart, darn it, b/c the 'puter got logjammed or whatever it is when you can't go forward, backward or refresh :P __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Once more into the 9-11 breach
Gibson Jonathan wrote:
Greetings compatriots,
I note the last few days have seen a small wave of 9-11
collusion/conspiracy events worth bringing up as they appear to shed
yet more light on this heated topic. I'm still digesting what we've
already been writing and following up on and I'd rather stew on it
further, but events appear to be accelerating. Although there are many
fine ideas expressed by our group around what mechanisms, natural -or-
otherwise, could have brought the buildings down what is notable is
the sheer number and severity of anomalies in timing and eye-witness
accounts of these events only makes me ever-more suspicious.
First things this morning my news aggregators popped up a Washington
Post story stating the 9-11 Commission debated hard over repeated lies
and falsehoods put forward by the Pentagon about what and why the
military was prevented from following regular procedures for
interception that day.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html
It was argued hard that criminal proceedings should be brought, but
politics ruled the day and they deferred action to {executive branch}
departments to investigate - if they felt such a whimsy.
Last night C-SPAN carried a rare public discussion of the event by
some of the figures that members of this discussion group have been
quick to demean and they present themselves and {new} facts well.
Before you chomp hard on my very short notes please watch the whole
segment as there are certainly clues I did not pick up on that will
inform this debate. RealVideo = 1:45 minutes. C-SPAN has this in the
temp-bin which typically goes away in 60 days.
rtsp://video.c-span.org/60days/ap072906_theories.rm?mode=compact
Rough highlights:
Dr Jones: Where does the molten metal found under World Trade Center 7
come from if it wasn't hit by a plane - yet fell symmetrically with
all the signs of controlled demolition? Jones claims the substance he
found on metal samples from WTC1+2 demonstrate not that Thermite was
used, but the patented version known as Thermate - a super
demolition-specific version. Sulfer, Manganese, and other elements
confirm the yellow-red color of aluminum photographed is Thermate -vs-
Themite which runs silvery when it melts aluminum. I'm waiting for my
nay-sayer discussion-mates to chime in with another alternative
explanation, but I hope they watch the entire show as my notes are
cursory and not rigorous.
Lt. Col. Bowman: "The truth about 9-11 is we don't know the truth
about 9-11."
An old interceptor pilot who ran the initial Star Wars program asks,
"why were these planes not intercepted?" Bowman is more about heat
than light as he's runninng for Congress in Florida, so he's
less-filling on the facts side, but well-stocked on the moving forward
checklist, "It's time the oil mafia was removed from office and
indicted for treason"
Tarpley: "It took me 30 seconds to determine this was done as an
inside job due to the resources required and location limited just
which organizations could make such things happen... This was a coup
d'etat. ... Awareness now of these actions will immunize us from
future false-flag operations imminently due to push us into war with
Iran.
Dr Fetzer: Top-Ten reasons hijackers are fake:
10) names of hijackers NOT on airline manifests - not easy to do
9) no bodies available for autopsy
8) 5-7 of these people turning up alive in mid-east & UK
7) FBI suspect lists not modified by these people turning up
6) FBI knew immediately names of all hijackers by Atta's luggage with
lists and documents
5) These figures could not have flown the commercial jets.
4) Cell phones don't work at the altitude & speed flying.
3) Cockpit recorders don't record
2) 'Allah Akbar' are not the last words a devout muslim says when
confronting death: bad script writing is his suggestion.
1) Moussari confessed to a different crime than what the Government
finally convicted him on and FBI spies following him told their
superiors 70 times that this man was part of a deadly plot to crash a
plane into the White House. Conclusion: he was allowed to roam as a
patsy held in reserve. Compare and contrast how Nichols was given
decades of prison essentially for not telling anyone McViegh was about
to bomb Oklahoma City.
Alex Jones: Why did the head of the CIA-centric Defense Language
Institute {here in Monterey, California} immediately claim the
goivernment was behind this and that three of the hijackers had been
studying at his school?
I recently listened to WTC survivor and certified hero William
Rodriguez describe his actions and what he witnessed that day. It is
truly remarkable as a story of repeatedly rescuing people from inside
the buildings by someone who worked there for a decade. For years he
cleaned the stairwells starting from the top floors working down and
was intimately familiar with the structure and procedures which helpe
RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Deborah Harrell > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 3:30 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex > > Again, with the > responding-to-a-post-withour-reading-the-entire-thread > thing; but it could take days for me to get through it > all, so here goes: > > > Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >DanM wrote: > > > > No-one owes pro-lifers them anything. The thesis is > > that the mother and > > society owe the child at least a chance at life. > > For a right-to-life > > person, every child has an inalienable right to > > life. The only possible > > exception is when their right to life conflicts with > > the right to life of > > the mother. The mother's health is important, of > > course, but not as > > critical as the child's life. One would wish, of > > course, to choose both, > > but when push comes to shove, the right to life > > predominates. > > Disagree. I would not forbide a mentally competent > woman, who knows that being pregnant will most likely > kill her, from continuing the pregnancy (although I > would strongly advise against *becoming* pregnant in > such a situation), but to say that a woman whose > pregnancy will probably kill her *must* continue it is > contributing to the murder of a realized, as opposed > to potential, human life. I didn't say that. Anti-abortion laws supported by the right to life movement usually have exceptions for pregnancies that put the mother's life at serious risk. I just allowed for the outside possibility that some minority of folks in the right to life movement might think of times when that's not appropriate. BTW, I was trying to lay out two positions: the pro-choice and the pro-life positions. My point was that folks tend to argue from their own axioms, ignoring the axioms of those they differ with. > By such 'pushing and shoving' rights, one would be > justified in dropping certain persons in power into a > combat zone since they have been, and are, and will > be, responsible for multiple civilian deaths of men, > women, and children, as well as some unborn. I'm not sure that pacifism is required to support the right to life. > Once again, one could argue that anyone who starts a > war and causes any "collateral damage" is a > cold-blooded killer - most of those civilians have no > choice about being in the wrong place at the wrong > time. So, are you arguing that, for example, that the bombing that delayed Hussein getting the bomb until after Gulf War I is equivalent to cold blooded killing, even though it may have saved millions of lives? > > The scenario I proposed was a "half-a-loaf" thought. > > If it is impossible to > > stop all murder, it is still worthwhile to stop > > some. And, with this > > scenario, the right-to-life people have at least a > > chance to save every > > child's life. A chance to save a human life is > > better than no chance to save a human life. > > Unless it's the woman whose pregnancy is > life-threatening to her? In outlining the right to life movement's position, I did not equate health to life. Exceptions to anti-abortion laws for the mother's health means that any possible deterioration in the mother's health is grounds for abortion. It's basically abortion on demand...especially if, as it always is, mental health is included. All the woman would need to say is that thinking about carrying to term makes her depressed, and there is a valid DSM-IV diagnosis. Exceptions for the mother's life means that she has to have some significant risk of dying from pregnancy for the pregnancy to be terminated. > > "If one accepts" - From a medical standpoint, an 8- or > 15-week fetus is not an infant or a child. Medical categories are just that, categories. Women are different from men, premature infants display less cognitive ability than some grown non-human primatesyet killing an infant is murder, just as killing an adult is, and just as killing an ape isn't. It's acceptable black and white for most...excluding some strident animal rights activists. > > Now _you_ are judging which life is more valuable than > another. No, I'm judging that 5 million deaths is worse that 500. [Note that I have already made clear that > indeed I do judge such things; medical triage is one > of the ugliest situations imaginable -- and I must > point out that collectively 'we' have decided that a > huge number of already-born children suffering from > malaria, AIDS, and plain old diarrhea are less > valuable than augmenting various breasts, penises and > butts, or reducing other tummies. It's at least as > obscene, and in my book more so (because they're > already full humans), as aborting a fetus because it's > the 'wrong' gender (but until medicine is able to > correct certain fatal/high-morbidity genetic def
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 04/08/2006, at 8:59 AM, Dan Minette wrote: "If one accepts" - From a medical standpoint, an 8- or 15-week fetus is not an infant or a child. Medical categories are just that, categories. Women are different from men, premature infants display less cognitive ability than some grown non-human primatesyet killing an infant is murder, just as killing an adult is, and just as killing an ape isn't. It's acceptable black and white for most...excluding some strident animal rights activists. Not even strident ones. Many people believe that our fellow great apes deserve more consideration (limited "human" rights, if you will), than, say, cows. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 4 Aug 2006, at 12:10AM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 04/08/2006, at 8:59 AM, Dan Minette wrote: "If one accepts" - From a medical standpoint, an 8- or 15-week fetus is not an infant or a child. Medical categories are just that, categories. Women are different from men, premature infants display less cognitive ability than some grown non-human primatesyet killing an infant is murder, just as killing an adult is, and just as killing an ape isn't. It's acceptable black and white for most...excluding some strident animal rights activists. Not even strident ones. Many people believe that our fellow great apes deserve more consideration (limited "human" rights, if you will), than, say, cows. 900 million Hindus are very fond of cows. Moo Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ And yes, OSX is marvelous. Its merest bootlace, Windows is not worthy to kiss. - David Brin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: RFK Jr. interview
> I quoted from the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which > is available in many places on the net I wasn't sure if you obtained your quoted directly. A quick read of that estimate shows numerous claims that Hussein had significant WMDs in his possession. The text selection tool doesn't seem to work on this text for some reason, it comes as just an image, but there are a couple of quotes from the June 4th, 2004 release of that memo. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/nie.pdf "We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosarin) and VX;" "Although we have little specific information on Iraq's CW stockpile, Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents, much of it added in the last year." "We assess that they possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads, including for a limited number of covertly stored Scuds, possibly a few with extended range." "We judge Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including antrhrax, for delivery by bombs, missles, arial sprayers, and covert operations." Now, with regards to your quote: This quote you attributed to Tenet: "They never said there was an 'imminent' threat. Rather, they painted an objective assessment for our policymakers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests." is consistent with the released version of the report. This: > Specifically, they said that Iraq had a missile program, but no WMD > missiles. They had an Unmanned Aerial Vehicles program, but no Unmanned > Aerial Vehicles. They said that Saddam wanted to restart his nuclear > program, but didn't have one going. They said that they believed Iraq > still > had some biological and chemical agents and programs that would be able to > develop the means to weaponize and deliver them, but no evidence that they > had done so. Is not. Further, with regard to Scott Ritter, Wikipedia has some 1998 quotes from Ritter In January of 1998, his inspection team into Iraq was blocked from some weapons sites by Iraqi officials and Ritter was accused by Iraq of being a spy for the CIA. He was then expelled from Iraq by its government in August 1998. Shortly thereafter, he spoke on the Public Broadcasting Service show, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program [1] When the United States and the UN Security Council failed to take action against Iraq for their ongoing failure to cooperate fully with inspectors (a breach of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1154), Ritter resigned from the United Nations Special Commission on August 26, 1998. [2] In his letter of resignation, Ritter said the Security Council's reaction to Iraq's decision earlier that month to suspend co-operation with the inspection team made a mockery of the disarmament work. Ritter later said, in an interview, that he resigned from his role as a United Nations weapons inspector over inconsistencies between United Nations Security Council Resolution 1154 and how it was implemented. The investigations had come to a standstill, were making no effective progress, and in order to make effective progress, we really needed the Security Council to step in a meaningful fashion and seek to enforce its resolutions that we're not complying with." [3] On September 3, 1998, several days after his resignation, Ritter testified before the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services and the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and said that he resigned his position "out of frustration that the United Nations Security Council, and the United States as its most significant supporter, was failing to enforce the post-Gulf War resolutions designed to disarm Iraq." [4] During Ritter's Senate testimony about the inspection process, Senator Joseph Biden stated "The decision of whether or not the country should go to war is slightly above your pay grade." Senator John McCain later rebutted by stating that he wished that the administration had consulted with somebody of Ritter's pay grade during the Vietnam War. " He is more than entitled to change his mind, but I'd be curious to see the information he received after he reigned that made him change it. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 04/08/2006, at 9:20 AM, William T Goodall wrote: Medical categories are just that, categories. Women are different from men, premature infants display less cognitive ability than some grown non-human primatesyet killing an infant is murder, just as killing an adult is, and just as killing an ape isn't. It's acceptable black and white for most...excluding some strident animal rights activists. Not even strident ones. Many people believe that our fellow great apes deserve more consideration (limited "human" rights, if you will), than, say, cows. 900 million Hindus are very fond of cows. Well spotted. Charlie I'll Set Them Up, You Knock Them In Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 04/08/2006, at 9:25 AM, Dan Minette wrote: "We assess that they possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads, including for a limited number of covertly stored Scuds, possibly a few with extended range." Ah yes. The missiles. That I, and the British Army base I lived near, were well in range of. The British Army base that is vital for comms in the eastern Med. The British Army base that, um, lowered its security protocols and threat readiness in the months leading up to the war... (the removal of anti-truck concrete blocks and fortifications at the entrances a dead giveaway there). Someone knew they weren't a threat. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 8/3/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I quoted from the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which > is available in many places on the net I wasn't sure if you obtained your quoted directly. A quick read of that estimate shows numerous claims that Hussein had significant WMDs in his possession. Try again. It says no such thing. Having stockpiles of chemical and biological agents is not the same as having biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. It's like having bullets, but no guns for them. "They never said there was an 'imminent' threat. Rather, they painted an objective assessment for our policymakers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests." is consistent with the released version of the report. Yes, and it rather unambiguously implies that they did not see evidence of WMDs, since Tenet surely would have considered them an imminent threat. I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program I'm not arguing that that isn't true. The ability to get a program going again is not the same as having WMDs that constitute an immediate, imminent -- pick your word from all the words the adminstration used -- threat. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: RFK Jr. interview
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Nick Arnett > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 6:53 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: RFK Jr. interview available in many places on the net > > > > I wasn't sure if you obtained your quoted directly. A quick read of that > > estimate shows numerous claims that Hussein had significant WMDs in his > > possession. > > > > Try again. It says no such thing. Having stockpiles of chemical and > biological agents is not the same as having biological and chemical > weapons of mass destruction. It's like having bullets, but no guns > for them. Ah, that's what you are hanging your hat on? If I understand you correctly, you are saying they don't have delivery systems? But, they clearly do. They have missiles, bombs, and artillery shells. It is possible, that they would not be equipped to put the two together quickly. But, the report said the exact opposite: "The Iraqis have experience in manufacturing CW bombs, artillery rockets, and projectiles. We assess that they posses CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads, including for a limited number of covertly stored Scuds, possibly a few with extended range. We judge that all key aspects--R&D, production, and weaponization--of Iraq's offensive BW program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War. We judge Iraq has sime leathal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operations." To use your analogy, I can see why you don't see a loaded gun described in this report. But, I think it is clear that they are describing someone with a gun in his hands and a box of shells on the table in front of him. > > > > "They never said there was an 'imminent' threat. Rather, they painted > an > > objective assessment for our policymakers of a brutal dictator who was > > continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might > constantly > > surprise us and threaten our interests." > > > > is consistent with the released version of the report. > > > Yes, and it rather unambiguously implies that they did not see evidence of > WMDs, since Tenet surely would have considered them an imminent threat. There are several problems with this assessment. 1) The report clearly stated that they had biological agents ready for quick weaponization, as well as bulk fills for chemical weapons. Indeed, the version of saran that they used has the agents combined just before use. 2) Not being an imminent threat does not mean a county does not have WMD. France doesn't constitute an imminent threat, even though it has a number of H-bombs...which are clearly WMD. 3) Not stating that there was an imminent threat is not the same as stating that there is not an imminent threat. 4) Tenet testified in defense of the report after it was known that there were not any MWDs. At that time, there clearly wasn't a threat. 5) Later in the report, the likelihood of an immediate unprovoked attack by Hussein on the US was assessed as low. In that sense, there wasn't an imminent threat. >>I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, >>without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of >>time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, >>long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain >>aspects of their nuclear weaponization program > > > I'm not arguing that that isn't true. The ability to get a program going > again is not the same as having WMDs that constitute an immediate, > imminent > -- pick your word from all the words the adminstration used -- threat. But, that was said in '98 by Scott Ritter...and Hussein had 5 years to advance his programs in secret since then. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: RFK Jr. interview
At 07:23 PM Thursday 8/3/2006, Dan Minette wrote: There are several problems with this assessment. 1) The report clearly stated that they had biological agents ready for quick weaponization, as well as bulk fills for chemical weapons. Indeed, the version of saran that they used has the agents combined just before use. Nit: "saran" is a plastic wrap. GB nerve agent is known as "sarin" . . . -- Ronn! :) "Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever." -- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
> Not even strident ones. Many people believe that our fellow great > apes deserve more consideration (limited "human" rights, if you > will), than, say, cows. I have nothing against the great apes but why demote the cows to make the apes feel better? Ritu GCU From Sacred to Less Than 'Limited Human Rights' ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tenet's speech about it, in which he makes very clear the > difference between > having programs and intensions v. actually having WMDs (as well as > ordinary weapons v. WMDs), including the crystal-clear > statement, "They never said > there was an 'imminent' threat." : > http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/dci020504.html > > I don't see how any reasonable person, after reading these > documents, could conclude that war on Iraq was justified by an > immediate or imminent threat. > But that's what we were told by the consumers of this intelligence. Nick, I asked a very specific question - "Other than Scott Ritter (last in Iraq in 1998), did any of the intelligence services actually conclude that Iraq had no WMD stockpiles or programs before the war?" You answered in the affirmative, and referred me to the National Intelligence Estimate as posted at GW University - an estimate entitled, quote, "Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction." In my quick look-over of it, I see no evidence that the National Intelligence Estimate you cite answers my above question in the affirmative. Indeed, the very title of the report answers my question in the negative. Admittedly, you have also referred to a quote from George Tenet, cited above. This quote, however, refers to whether or not those weapons consitute an "imminent threat." As I noted earlier, there is a difference between the *factual* question of whether the weapons existed and the *political* question of what sort of threat those weapons actually pose, and what, if anything should be done about that threat. While the intelligence agencies may have had their opinions on these political questions, the ultimate constitutional responsibility for making political decision resides with the politicians themselves. As Dan Minette said "Not stating that there was an imminent threat is not the same as stating that there is not an imminent threat." I didn't see an out-and-out statement that "Iraq was not an imminent threat" in the report, and if such a statement does not exist, I would say that this precisely because of this very delineation in responsibilities. I might also add, that you are putting an awful lot of faith in intelligence services that did not recognize that Saddam Hussein was two years away from a nuclear bomb in 1991, did not recognize that India and Pakistan were about to go public as nuclear powers in the mid-90's, that did not realize that the DPRK was taking our bribes and building nuclear weapons anyways in the mid-90's, and did not realize that Iran had been engaging in all sorts of nuclear bomb- making activities for years. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "We assess that they possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads, > > including for > > a limited number of covertly stored Scuds, possibly a few with > > extended > > range." > > Ah yes. The missiles. That I, and the British Army base I lived > near, were well in range of. The British Army base that is vital > for comms in the eastern Med. The British Army base that, um, > lowered its > security protocols and threat readiness in the months leading up > to the war... (the removal of anti-truck concrete blocks and > fortifications at the entrances a dead giveaway there). > > Someone knew they weren't a threat. Someone knew that Iraq didn't have trucks capable of hitting Cyprus? Really? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
More From the National Intelligence Estimate
All are quotations: We judge that Iraq has... chemical and biological weapons. (5) Since inspections ended in 1998 Iraq has... energized its missile program and invested more heavily in biolgical weapons; in the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. (5) If Baghdad acquires sufficient fissile material from abroad [JDG - i.e. Nigerian yellowcake] it could make a nuclear weapon within several months to a year. Without such material from abroad, Iraq would probably not be able to make a [nuclear] weapon until 2007 or 2009. (10) Iraq retains approximately two-and-a-half tons of 2.5 percent enriched uranium oxide, which... could... produce... about two nuclear weapons. ...Iraq could divert this material - the IAEA inspects it only once a year - and enrich it to weapons grade before a subsequent inspection discovered it was missing. (24-25) JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 04/08/2006, at 1:56 PM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "We assess that they possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads, including for a limited number of covertly stored Scuds, possibly a few with extended range." Ah yes. The missiles. That I, and the British Army base I lived near, were well in range of. The British Army base that is vital for comms in the eastern Med. The British Army base that, um, lowered its security protocols and threat readiness in the months leading up to the war... (the removal of anti-truck concrete blocks and fortifications at the entrances a dead giveaway there). Someone knew they weren't a threat. Someone knew that Iraq didn't have trucks capable of hitting Cyprus? Really? Ha ha. The overall threat level was dropped. That includes standing down all alert states. In Gulf War 1, you couldn't get near the place. In Gulf War 2, you could drive through the base with no security checks at all. They were not worried about missile attacks, according to people I know on the base. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 8/3/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, and it rather unambiguously implies that they did not see evidence of > WMDs, since Tenet surely would have considered them an imminent threat. There are several problems with this assessment. 1) The report clearly stated that they had biological agents ready for quick weaponization, as well as bulk fills for chemical weapons. Indeed, the version of saran that they used has the agents combined just before use. You're arguing with Tenet, if you're saying this means that Iraq had WMDs or posed an immediate threat in some other way. Good luck with that. Is there some reason we shouldn't believe him or the declassified parts of the NIE? 2) Not being an imminent threat does not mean a county does not have WMD. France doesn't constitute an imminent threat, even though it has a number of H-bombs...which are clearly WMD. I'm fairly sure that France, despite its disagreements, has not lately been considered an enemy of the United States. Anyway, what is this whole discussion about if not the justification for the war, which clearly was the proposal that Iraq posed an imminent, immediate, mortal, etc., threat. 3) Not stating that there was an imminent threat is not the same as stating that there is not an imminent threat. Irrelevant. The point is that it was not a foundation for saying that there were WMDs or there was an immediate threat. 4) Tenet testified in defense of the report after it was known that there were not any MWDs. At that time, there clearly wasn't a threat. 5) Later in the report, the likelihood of an immediate unprovoked attack by Hussein on the US was assessed as low. In that sense, there wasn't an imminent threat. Indeed. Why do you think Tenet has bothered to speak out in public against the idea that this was an intelligence failure? He's defending the intelligence community by telling their side of the story... and leaving it up to us to decide if the administration's statements in support of attacking Iraq were justified by the intelligence it received. What do you think, now that you have read the NIE? Were the "immediate threat" and so forth statements justified by the NIE? Was the war justified by the NIE? But, that was said in '98 by Scott Ritter...and Hussein had 5 years to advance his programs in secret since then. The NIE was from October 2002. As you may recall, the war was launched a few months later. The rhjetoric was already launched. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
