John Kerry on Rush Limbaugh’s Comments on Israel

CharlestonChad said:
If those are the links they are using to justify their claims, then we are much more guilty than Saddam has ever been. Bush has direct ties with the Bin Laden family, and every government in the middle east.

Either you can admit you are wrong and that secular Iraq did not have operational relations with Saddam and Iraq, or you can keep you can keep hugging Bush's nuts b/c you know that by 2009, your party will no longer inhabit the WhiteHouse.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html



Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq
Monday, May 17, 2004

BAGHDAD, Iraq — A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent (search) recently exploded near a U.S. military convoy, the U.S. military said Monday.

Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas (search) was also recently discovered.

Two people were treated for "minor exposure" after the sarin incident but no serious injuries were reported. Soldiers transporting the shell for inspection suffered symptoms consistent with low-level chemical exposure, which is what led to the discovery, a U.S. official told Fox News.

"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (search), the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy."

The round detonated before it would be rendered inoperable, Kimmitt said, which caused a "very small dispersal of agent."

However, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the results were from a field test, which can be imperfect, and said more analysis was needed. If confirmed, it would be the first finding of a banned weapon upon which the United States based its case for war.

A senior Bush administration official told Fox News that the sarin gas shell is the second chemical weapon discovered recently.

Two weeks ago, U.S. military units discovered mustard gas that was used as part of an IED. Tests conducted by the Iraqi Survey Group (search) — a U.S. organization searching for weapons of mass destruction — and others concluded the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective."

They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas.

It also appears some top Pentagon officials were surprised by the sarin news; they thought the matter was classified, administration officials told Fox News.

An official at the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) headquarters in New York said the commission is surprised to hear news of the mustard gas.

"If that's the case, why didn't they announce it earlier?" the official asked.

The UNMOVIC official said the group needs to know more from the Bush administration before it's possible to determine if this is "old or new stuff. It is known that Iraq used sarin during the Iraq-Iran war, however.

Kimmitt said the shell belonged to a class of ordnance that Saddam's government said was destroyed before the 1991 Gulf war (search). Experts believe both the sarin and mustard gas weapons date back to that time.

"It was a weapon that we believe was stocked from the ex-regime time and it had been thought to be an ordinary artillery shell set up to explode like an ordinary IED and basically from the detection of that and when it exploded, it indicated that it actually had some sarin in it," Kimmitt said.

The incident occurred "a couple of days ago," he added. The discovery reportedly occurred near Baghdad International Airport.

Washington officials say the significance of the find is that some chemical shells do still exist in Iraq, and it's thought that fighters there may be upping their attacks on U.S. forces by using such weapons.

The round was an old "binary-type" shell in which two chemicals held in separate sections are mixed after firing to produce sarin, Kimmitt said.

He said he believed that insurgents who rigged the artillery shell as a bomb didn't know it contained the nerve agent, and that the dispersal of the nerve agent from such a rigged device was very limited.

The shell had no markings. It appears the binary sarin agents didn't mix, which is why there weren't serious injuries from the initial explosion, a U.S. official told Fox News.

"Everybody knew Saddam had chemical weapons, the question was, where did they go. Unfortunately, everybody jumped on the offramp and said 'well, because we didn't find them, he didn't have them,'" said Fox News military analyst Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney.

"I doubt if it's the tip of the iceberg but it does confirm what we've known ... that he [Saddam] had weapons of mass destruction that he used on his own people," Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, told Fox News. "This does show that the fear we had is very real. Now whether there is much more of this we don't know, Iraq is the size of the state of California."

But there were more reasons than weapons to get rid of Saddam, he added. "We considered Saddam Hussein a threat not just because of weapons of mass destruction," Grassley said.

Iraqi Scientist: You Will Find More

Gazi George, a former Iraqi nuclear scientist under Saddam's regime, told Fox News he believes many similar weapons stockpiled by the former regime were either buried underground or transported to Syria. He noted that the airport where the device was detonated is on the way to Baghdad from the Syrian border.

George said the finding likely will be the first in a series of discoveries of such weapons.

"Saddam is the type who will not store those materials in a military warehouse. He's gonna store them either underground, or, as I said, lots of them have gone west to Syria and are being brought back with the insurgencies," George told Fox News. "It is difficult to look in areas that are not obvious to the military's eyes.

"I'm sure they're going to find more once time passes," he continued, saying one year is not enough for the survey group or the military to find the weapons.

Saddam, when he was in power, had declared that he did in fact possess mustard-gas filled artilleries but none that included sarin.

"I think what we found today, the sarin in some ways, although it's a nerve gas, it's a lucky situation sarin detonated in the way it did ... it's not as dangerous as the cocktails Saddam used to make, mixing blister" agents with other gases and substances, George said.

Officials: Discovery Is 'Significant'

U.S. officials told Fox News that the shell discovery is a "significant" event.

Artillery shells of the 155-mm size are as big as it gets when it comes to the ordnance lobbed by infantry-based artillery units. The 155 howitzer can launch high capacity shells over several miles; current models used by the United States can fire shells as far as 14 miles. One official told Fox News that a conventional 155-mm shell could hold as much as "two to five" liters of sarin, which is capable of killing thousands of people under the right conditions in highly populated areas.

The Iraqis were very capable of producing such shells in the 1980s but it's not as clear that they continued after the first Gulf War.

In 1995, Japan's Aum Shinrikyo (search) cult unleashed sarin gas in Tokyo's subways, killing 12 people and sickening thousands. In February of this year, Japanese courts convicted the cult's former leader, Shoko Asahara, and sentence him to be executed.

Developed in the mid-1930s by Nazi scientists, a single drop of sarin can cause quick, agonizing choking death. There are no known instances of the Nazis actually using the gas.

Nerve gases work by inhibiting key enzymes in the nervous system, blocking their transmission. Small exposures can be treated with antidotes, if administered quickly.

Antidotes to nerve gases similar to sarin are so effective that top poison gas researchers predict they eventually will cease to be a war threat.

Fox News' Wendell Goler, Steve Harrigan, Ian McCaleb, Liza Porteus, James Rosen and The Associated Press contributed to this report
 
CharlestonChad said:
1. Learn how to quote a post

2. We are in no way debating if he had ties to terrorists outside of Al Qaeda. We are debating the statement made many times by the current admin. that Saddam had operational ties with Al Qaeda.

3. Stick our heads in the sand? WTF? You are the one who ignores every logical statement made by a person who did not vote for the same candidate as you.

I quoted your post, and the statements you made. I see EXACTLY what you said. I just choose to not allow you to determine arbitrary parameters on a topic that has more to it than you seem willing to allow as it doesn't suit your fancy.

Learn how to adjust to getting beat at your own game.

What logic would THAT be? "I voted for it before I voted against it?":laugh:
 
CharlestonChad said:
No sarcasm Mrs. Mod. Please refer to the #2 in the post above to answer all of your questions regarding this particular debate.

You don't get to pick and choose the answers to suit your one-sided argument. Matter of fact, I already adjusted the parameters for you to something a bit more honest.
 
CharlestonChad said:
Not the first time I used that rhetoric in this thread. Sorry if the fact that they have met before isn't considered "ties with AlQaeda".

Please forgive me if you're just being sarcastic.







So you don't acknowledge suicide bombing as a job? They get paid, have a set of skills, and are dedicated to their work.





Oh wow, personal attacks. A speciality of political dividers like yourself.

Radical Islamic terrorists pose the threat to America, not secular nations. Iraq was a secular nation under Saddam.

Is the only religion to ever be based on peaceful events the root, or are the extrimists who, are factions that misuse the teachings of Islam as a bases for violence, are the real root of the problem?

That's a rhetorical question.



Sweet FOX News scare tactics. BTW: What's the terror level today?

What wit. "Killerinfidels" hahahaha where do you come up with gems like that?



But aren't all newspapers run by evil liberals who are out to ruin America? I mean, that's what half the post on this message board are about.

I wasn't aware you were schooled in the art of tap. Apparently you excel. Consider a change of vocation. Politics obviously isn't your thing.
 
I quoted your post, and the statements you made. I see EXACTLY what you said. I just choose to not allow you to determine arbitrary parameters on a topic that has more to it than you seem willing to allow as it doesn't suit your fancy.

Learn how to adjust to getting beat at your own game.

Oh ok, so because you are unable to adjust to civilized debate, you preach to me about how I need to learn how to adjust. That makes perfect sense.

We are talking about Saddam being connected to Al Qaeda, so I say that Saddam is connected with non-AlQaeda terrorist groups and AlQaede is connected to non-AlQaeda terrorists, then Saddam must be connected to AlQaeda by your uninformed assumptions.

What logic would THAT be? "I voted for it before I voted against it?":laugh:

A mature person who is a free-thinker has a responsibility to take the side of an issue they believe is correct. If that person finds out they were previously wrong, it's only logical that a person should admit they are wrong and take the other side.

Bush paraded the fact that he always took a stance and stuck with it, even if he was completely wrong.
 
CharlestonChad said:
Oh ok, so because you are unable to adjust to civilized debate, you preach to me about how I need to learn how to adjust. That makes perfect sense.

Whatever, dude.:laugh:

We are talking about Saddam being connected to Al Qaeda, so I say that Saddam is connected with non-AlQaeda terrorist groups and AlQaede is connected to non-AlQaeda terrorists, then Saddam must be connected to AlQaeda by your uninformed assumptions.

YOU were talking about Saddam being or not being connected solely with AQ. I was not. I was talking about Saddam being connected to terrorists, period.

One stupid, murdering scumbag raghead terrorist looks like ALL stupid, murdering scumbag raghead terrorists to me. You want to play semantics to make a dishonest argument.


A mature person who is a free-thinker has a responsibility to take the side of an issue they believe is correct. If that person finds out they were previously wrong, it's only logical that a person should admit they are wrong and take the other side.

IF that person finds out he was previously wrong.

Bush paraded the fact that he always took a stance and stuck with it, even if he was completely wrong.

President Bush doesn't kiss the asses of the left everytime y'all claim he is wrong. If that was the case, he would be in permanent pucker mode. Yet, when all the BS is boiled away, y'all's accusations are nothing but smoke.

Personally, I don't care if Saddam was Osama bin Laden's best friend or worst nightmare. Saddam is a scumbag. Osama bin Laden is a scumbag. It doesn't matter what specific little niche you want to put each into. It doesn't matter whether or not you choose to ignore common sense and logic in favor of one-sided arguments.

And as far as civil debate goes, it's rather hard to be civil to one who is not only a smartass, but making a dishonest argument at the same time.
 
President Bush doesn't kiss the asses of the left everytime y'all claim he is wrong. If that was the case, he would be in permanent pucker mode. Yet, when all the BS is boiled away, y'all's accusations are nothing but smoke.

Has he ever admitted he was wrong on an issue? No one is perfect, but some think they are. Bush is one of the some.

Personally, I don't care if Saddam was Osama bin Laden's best friend or worst nightmare. Saddam is a scumbag. Osama bin Laden is a scumbag. It doesn't matter what specific little niche you want to put each into. It doesn't matter whether or not you choose to ignore common sense and logic in favor of one-sided arguments.

Ahhh, so ok's okay that we were lied to so that Americans would support the war b/c Saddam and Osama are scumbags. Common sense would be acknowledging that Bush and friends lied to America.



And as far as civil debate goes, it's rather hard to be civil to one who is not only a smartass, but making a dishonest argument at the same time.

What have I said that was dishonest?
 
GunnyL said:
You ARE f-ing dense.:bang3:

Dude, DO try and get over yourself.

Aren't you breaking the Code of Conduct by personally attacking the poster? Civilized debate involves one attacking anothers posts with logic and reasoning, not attacking the other poster's intelligence with personal insults.

I still don't understand. Are you implying that I'm dancing around?
 
CharlestonChad said:
Aren't you breaking the Code of Conduct by personally attacking the poster? Civilized debate involves one attacking anothers posts with logic and reasoning, not attacking the other poster's intelligence with personal insults.

I still don't understand. Are you implying that I'm dancing around?

Attacking a posters intelligence is not a personal insult. It's based on what you type in a post. If you do not want to be called stupid or a moron, don't type stupid moronic posts.

Liberals consider such things "personal insults" because they are so tied to their politcs that they can't abide anyone who has a contrary opinion without taking it as a personal insult. They also do not consider any counter attack to be a personal insult to the other poster because, hey, they're right so how could it possibly be an insult when they do it?

You cannot possibly have much experience on message boards if you consider someone questioning your intelligence a "personal insult". It's also a pretty stupid way to try and head off any disagreement. But I give you credit for trying.
 
nt250 said:
Attacking a posters intelligence is not a personal insult. It's based on what you type in a post. If you do not want to be called stupid or a moron, don't type stupid moronic posts.

Liberals consider such things "personal insults" because they are so tied to their politcs that they can't abide anyone who has a contrary opinion without taking it as a personal insult. They also do not consider any counter attack to be a personal insult to the other poster because, hey, they're right so how could it possibly be an insult when they do it?

You cannot possibly have much experience on message boards if you consider someone questioning your intelligence a "personal insult". It's also a pretty stupid way to try and head off any disagreement. But I give you credit for trying.



One of the foundations of liberalism is all you have to do is care

You have to care about people. You do not have to solve their problems. (i.e. life them out of poverty) No, you only to say you care about them.

The way libs show they care about homeless people is to give them a shopping cart. (at other peoples expense of course)

Libs like CC and Kerry think pointing this out is heartless, cruel, and meanspirited.
 
Attacking a posters intelligence is not a personal insult. It's based on what you type in a post. If you do not want to be called stupid or a moron, don't type stupid moronic posts.

You are a fucking idiot. Was that a personal attack? Yes

Liberals consider such things "personal insults" because they are so tied to their politcs that they can't abide anyone who has a contrary opinion without taking it as a personal insult. They also do not consider any counter attack to be a personal insult to the other poster because, hey, they're right so how could it possibly be an insult when they do it?

So you're telling me that all liberals now act just like conservatives?:rotflmao:



You cannot possibly have much experience on message boards if you consider someone questioning your intelligence a "personal insult". It's also a pretty stupid way to try and head off any disagreement. But I give you credit for trying.

You have shit for brains. Did I just question your intelligence? No

And

You should give me credit for succeeding.
 
CharlestonChad said:
You are a fucking idiot. Was that a personal attack? Yes



So you're telling me that all liberals now act just like conservatives?:rotflmao:





You have shit for brains. Did I just question your intelligence? No

And

You should give me credit for succeeding.


You are one angry and emotional liberal
 
red states rule said:
You are one angry and emotional liberal

Hey now red state,

He is planning on being one of those "Hillary plan" doctors like they have in France. You know socialized medicine. The shit of it is, I know a guy who left France to become an American and he told me he had friends back there that were doctors.....$1000.00 a month is what they made.

Oops, there goes the boat, the big house and the Mercedes Charleston, but you are able to sleep well at night because your helping your fellow man.... how sweet.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 
sitarro said:
Hey now red state,

He is planning on being one of those "Hillary plan" doctors like they have in France. You know socialized medicine. The shit of it is, I know a guy who left France to become an American and he told me he had friends back there that were doctors.....$1000.00 a month is what they made.

Oops, there goes the boat, the big house and the Mercedes Charleston, but you are able to sleep well at night because your helping your fellow man.... how sweet.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


But I am sure, like other wealthy libs, he will have his off shore bank accounts where he avoids paying "his fair share" in taxes.
 
What RSR fails to realize is that I'm not calling nt250 a fucking idiot. I'm using an example of a personal attacks similiar to what he used with me to show that calling someone an idiot or telling them they have shit for brains is not about the post, it's about the poster. I don't read what RSR posts, but your quote says he called me emotional.

RSR-now that you understand the point I was making in my post, do you still believe I was emotional? If not, will you admit that you were wrong?


sit-there are plenty of much easier ways to get into the 6 figure salaries. If I wanted a big house and a mercedez, I would get a BA in engineering and get a MBA.
 
CharlestonChad said:
Has he ever admitted he was wrong on an issue? No one is perfect, but some think they are. Bush is one of the some.

YOUR opinion.



Ahhh, so ok's okay that we were lied to so that Americans would support the war b/c Saddam and Osama are scumbags. Common sense would be acknowledging that Bush and friends lied to America.

Got news for you, bubba, I was in on Desert Sheild/Desert Storm, and more than a couple of subsequent trips to Kuwait to babysit the scumbag's border. If Bush had invaded because he said Saddam was a "bad guy" I'd have been for it.

And I believe the fact that erroneous information was given to Bush and he passed it on has already been widely discussed. It's just you lefties that refuse to accept that as an answer. Republican Presidents are not allowed to be fallible ... a courtesy you were more than willing to extend to the last Dem President.



What have I said that was dishonest?

Whatever specific conversation you are referring to, Bush said on several occasions that Saddam had ties to known terrorist organizations, not just AQ. Yet you dismiss those and use one instance in which he names the only terrorist organization that can't be tied by paper to Saddam -- again the zero defect mentality for Republicans.

Saddam is a scumbag and he deserves to die a slow, painful death, like the ones he meted out to his victims for years. Yet you want to play semanitcs over choice of words because a feakin' chair polisher such as yourself couldn't possibly imagine what Saddam did to Kuwait and the Kuwaitis.

THAT is what's dishonest.
 
CharlestonChad said:
Aren't you breaking the Code of Conduct by personally attacking the poster? Civilized debate involves one attacking anothers posts with logic and reasoning, not attacking the other poster's intelligence with personal insults.

I still don't understand. Are you implying that I'm dancing around?

If you had to ask, then you weren't personally attacked by ME. If and when it occurs, you WILL know.

When the poster's intelligence is indeed in question, then there is legitimate reason to question it.

And all I can say if you want to cry "foul" every time you get your feathers ruffled is "WAH!":banana:
 
GunnyL said:
Whatever specific conversation you are referring to, Bush said on several occasions that Saddam had ties to known terrorist organizations, not just AQ. Yet you dismiss those and use one instance in which he names the only terrorist organization that can't be tied by paper to Saddam -- again the zero defect mentality for Republicans.

Saddam is a scumbag and he deserves to die a slow, painful death, like the ones he meted out to his victims for years. Yet you want to play semanitcs over choice of words because a feakin' chair polisher such as yourself couldn't possibly imagine what Saddam did to Kuwait and the Kuwaitis.

THAT is what's dishonest.

-You're dancing around the first question. I wasn't aware you were also schooled in the art of tap.

-Thank you for your service.

-No Dem or Lib honestly wants to protect Saddam. Everyone knows how terrible of a person he is and what atrocities he's committed. That's not the point. If Bush had been honest and said how terrible he was and that we need to stop this, then that would at least have been honest. But he had to put his spin on the situation, and that is lying to America.

-Holding a president to a standard of honesty is not a bad thing. I criticized Clinton just like I criticize Bush. I've mocked, criticized, and disowned many of the leaders of both parties on multiple occasions, yet some still believe that I'm a bleeding-heart liberal. It sucks that some people cannot get other their devotion to one party enough to attempt to see things from another perspective.
 

Forum List

Back
Top