Cyanide Salt found in Iraq

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
This is a bunch of crap. This a fairly common laboratory reagent, hardly a WMD stockpile
Umm who, or where in the article, does someone say this is a WMD stockpile?
They don't have to .... The US Govt. said that a Deadly Chemical was found in Iraq.. that is all that matters.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: Hafen
Is it a good thing that this guy is possesion of these chemicals? Clearly no. However, this article is rediculous because it fails to put this in its proper perspective, and I think, very clearly implies something much larger. The SH/ Al Quesadia partnership has be tenative at best, and by most opinion, not to exist in any meaningful way. No real evidence has ever shown SH supporting AQ beyond Cheney's shadowy references to Chech intel. But this article refers to it as it were a undisputed and well-proven fact.
"..poisons specialist described by some (who? Some nut in the mailroom?) U.S. intelligence officials as having been a key link (as if the link was definite, and this guy was the linchpin) between...Saddam Hussein and the Al Qaeda terror network.

Then it goes onto say just how deadly this chem can be just by "exposure to even a small amount through contact or inhalation can cause immediate death. Leading one to the conclusion that if a small amt can kill a person, then this "huge" amount of 7 kg can kill lots and lots of people. Hence a weapon of mass destruction. Some of the posts clearly demonstrate the lead this article is intending you to take, quote:

"At roughly 1 KG / 2 pounds = 3 kg. = 3000 grams = 3000000 mg.
3000000 mg salt / 3 mg lethal level = 1 million lethal doses. Seems like an awful small stockpile"



Cyanide would be a crappy weapon. First of all, I don't know where the 3mg figure came from, but it is not what I've found from the MSDS sheets for Sodium Cyanide (maybe its some other salt, but wouldn't really matter.) It varies depending on what you test, (man, woman, child, dog, rat etc.) but Tox data list as high as 100mg per kilo of body weight. So this revised figure of 1M lethal doses it still way off. Then again, this article doesn't bother to explain that.
Second of all is delivery. How do you get people to injest a large amt of CN (cyanide)? You can't exactly just shove it in people's mouth. Poison the water? You would need a huge amt, much more than 7kg to poison any substantial water source to any realistic lethal level. Even then, the water would be so bitter that no one would drink it (ever bite an apple seed?) They used to execute people by dropping CN into a vat of acid to form a highly toxic gas. But is it realistic to think AQ could just throw a 15lb chunk of CN into a vat of Sulfuric Acid (where? on the streets on Manhattan?) and expect people to stand and watch and slowly get over taken by the vapors? No. There is a reason they stopped using this to execute people.

This article is crap because leads people (either deliberately or omission) to think this has more signifigance that it truely has. This is what FOX has done all surrounding the War on Terror and the Iraq debacle. They spread fear through hype and paranoia to boost their ratings. Fox is crap.


Excellent Post
 

nutxo

Diamond Member
May 20, 2001
6,681
363
126
Originally posted by: Hafen
This is a bunch of crap. This a fairly common laboratory reagent, hardly a WMD stockpile. I work for a pharma company and we have tons of far nastier substances sitting in our labs. There are prob at least 50kg of Sodium Azide sitting in this building now (just as poisonous as sodium cyanide, and can form explosives when mixed with metals.) I regularly work with hundreds of liters of acetonitrile (aka cyanomethane [methyl cyanide].) A toxic and highly flammable liquid. And this stuff is relatively safe. Reference standard rooms for drug R&D labs can have substances that are lethal in ug amounts(millioniths of a gram, more than 3 magnitudes of order greater than cyanide.) Are we going to start bombing pharma/chemical companies now?

Hell, my Dad was able to walk into a chemical supply store and easily buy 1 kg of Copper Sulfate because he was told by a guy it could help control the algea in his pond. He didn't even have to show ID, or explain what is was for. 1/4 cup later he had completely sterilized (along with the fish, oops) his entire pond, and a bird who had drunk some of the water. This story is tripe for fools, but I'm not surprised coming from FOX "news."


We also don't know who brought it into the country and when, or if it was produced in Iraq. This could be AQ, or it could have been SH as speculated.
Or they could have just ordered it from Sigma-Aldrich, Fisher, Baker, VWR or a whole host of (American) chemical suppliers for perfectly legitimate uses.

In a house? is it like toilet bowl cleaner or something?
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,423
4,859
136
As a contrast this article from the CS Monitor describes Zarqawi a bit differently. Clearly he is a POS that needs to be shot, and involved with all sorts of nefarious activities, but the only known link to SH is when he visited Baghdad once to get his leg cut off. His only strong assoc has been with Ansar al-Islam, a terror group, but hardly the Iraqi gov't.

Was he doing anything good with CN, No. That's not where I was going. Its mere presence doesn't necc constitute ill-intent. A man who owns gun isn't necc an assassin, and an assassin armed with a sling-shot isn't a grave threat. If this is the best the gov't can put forth as proof of WMD and justification of invasion, then their judgement is lacking and they have commited a historic blunder.

500+ dead Amercans are not worth relieving one nut of a small amt of CN. If this is they way we are going to run the war on terror, than we are going to lose. Damn fools burned down the house to kill a fly.

Edit: A little extra info on this guy: (from CS Monitor)

"Zarqawi's ties to Al Qaeda are also a matter of debate among European and US intelligence agencies. Where once he appeared to be something of a free agent, he seems recently to have identified himself more closely with Mr. bin Laden."

"Even as European investigators continue to pursue his lieutenants, Zarqawi himself seems safe for the time being, intelligence experts say, if he stays in his reported refuge in Iran. "He would be a great feather in the cap of the intelligence community if he were captured," says Dr. Ranstorp. "But he is one part of the great intelligence game, and unless Iran is offered an enormous tangible incentive, I doubt we will see him handed over." "
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Does anyone remember how many DEADLY biological weapons the Americans did not attempt to secure when they stormed Baghdad? Their centers for disease control contained these bioweapons just like ours do.. but the labs were broken into and the items were stolen.. where did they go?
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,313
349
126
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Cyanide Salt Found in Iraq

7lbs....that could kill alot of people.
So what? We have TONS and TONS of all sorts of stuff here. But the fed gets to say what OTHER countries have??? Come on dude, learn to MYOB.
OK...lets take all of our nukes and divided them equally to all the nations of the world...cuba gets some, north korea get some, china gets some, libya, iran all of the countries in africa...everybody...then lets see what happens...

if we are just going MYOB then lets MYOB in the economy and in humanitarian aid...it might hurt for a while but heck...it will reduce the surplus population...that will make you enviro-liberals-ultra-happy

 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,313
349
126
Originally posted by: Hafen
As a contrast this article from the CS Monitor describes Zarqawi a bit differently. Clearly he is a POS that needs to be shot, and involved with all sorts of nefarious activities, but the only known link to SH is when he visited Baghdad once to get his leg cut off. His only strong assoc has been with Ansar al-Islam, a terror group, but hardly the Iraqi gov't.

Was he doing anything good with CN, No. That's not where I was going. Its mere presence doesn't necc constitute ill-intent. A man who owns gun isn't necc an assassin, and an assassin armed with a sling-shot isn't a grave threat. If this is the best the gov't can put forth as proof of WMD and justification of invasion, then their judgement is lacking and they have commited a historic blunder.

500+ dead Amercans are not worth relieving one nut of a small amt of CN. If this is they way we are going to run the war on terror, than we are going to lose. Damn fools burned down the house to kill a fly.

Edit: A little extra info on this guy:(from CS Monitor)

"Zarqawi's ties to Al Qaeda are also a matter of debate among European and US intelligence agencies. Where once he appeared to be something of a free agent, he seems recently to have identified himself more closely with Mr. bin Laden."

"Even as European investigators continue to pursue his lieutenants, Zarqawi himself seems safe for the time being, intelligence experts say, if he stays in his reported refuge in Iran. "He would be a great feather in the cap of the intelligence community if he were captured," says Dr. Ranstorp. "But he is one part of the great intelligence game, and unless Iran is offered an enormous tangible incentive, I doubt we will see him handed over." "
I thought we were in a war on terror, not just a war on terror only if they have links to saddam
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,423
4,859
136


"I thought we were in a war on terror, not just a war on terror only if they have links to saddam"



My thought exactly. I'm far more worried about the beloved patriot scientist Khan giving nuclear secrets to every unstable regime around the world. Now that is a threat to national security. Who the hell is Zarqwi with a bag of CN (actually, only a bag of CN in a house thought to may have once been his...but I digress) when you've got NK moving closer to the bomb?
 

Kipper

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2000
7,366
0
0
Does it seem odd to anybody that the only hit showing up on Google news search under "cyanide salt" is the FoxNews report?

I'd wait and see until this is corroborated by other sources than Rupert Murdoch's "reliable" 10 O'Clock News sources.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
Does it seem odd to anybody that the only hit showing up on Google news search under "cyanide salt" is the FoxNews report?

I'd wait and see until this is corroborated by other sources than Rupert Murdoch's "reliable" 10 O'Clock News sources.
- I saw it on the freaking News last night. ABC IIRC. Yeah - it's a FOX conspiracy:p

CkG
 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,377
7
81
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Cyanide Salt Found in Iraq

7lbs....that could kill alot of people.
So what? We have TONS and TONS of all sorts of stuff here. But the fed gets to say what OTHER countries have??? Come on dude, learn to MYOB.
OK...lets take all of our nukes and divided them equally to all the nations of the world...cuba gets some, north korea get some, china gets some, libya, iran all of the countries in africa...everybody...then lets see what happens...

if we are just going MYOB then lets MYOB in the economy and in humanitarian aid...it might hurt for a while but heck...it will reduce the surplus population...that will make you enviro-liberals-ultra-happy
Sorry, I don't drink THAT flavor of Kool-aid either. Other nations can take care of their security needs without me having to pay for it. I don't think you've noticed this, but being part of the nuclear fraturnity tends to have a calming affect. Something else to consider when you aren't thinking the US is the King of the World, every nation has a right to self defense. Every single one. And the US hasn't be elected internationally to the role of super-cop or ultra nanny.

We make things, other people buy them, and vice versa. That's commerce and has NOTHING to do with what you're trying to say. As far as humaniarian aid, your sarcasm aside, you have the right idea. If American's want to give their money away as individuals then fine. But the fed has NO constitutional authority to take money out of MY pocket, under pain of jail and financial ruin, and give it to someone who's to stupid to feed himself. Sorry, the world isn't a pretty place, and we aren't making it better with all these excesses.



 

myusername

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2003
5,046
0
0
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
i have seen it, but not posted on it yet. however since liberals control most of the media[sic] they are in the position to capitalize on it, just like 911 when we had hillary holding up the times with the caption "HE KNEW!" when in fact she and her husband should have known in 98-99 after the first attack on the trade center in 98[sic]. in fact on this very board i saw many threads blaming bush for 911, and am sure you did to.

i also notice no reaction to other facts presented in that post, and am not surprised.
Tempted as I am to stoop to ad hominem remarks, I'll refrain..

First, the WTC was bombed in 1993, not 1998. If you remember that far back, the man in the white house also had the name Bush.

Second, Clinton DID know. Despite his and his staff's best efforts to convey the importance of Al Queda to the incoming administration, the Bushies frickin ignored it! They also ignored the Hart-Rudman report!

ASSUMING that in the worst case, the only involvment of the right wing was simply a lack of action on their part (i.e. taking off our tin-foil caps, on both sides of partisan lines), then the Bush administration put partisan politics (or personal/business connections) above the security of this country.

Why was it again that Ashcroft was told to stay off commercial airlines in July 2001? Was it because the administration didn't think there was any threat, or was it because they had a threat but were unwilling to act upon that information in a way to benefit the citizens of this country?

Oh there's plenty of blame all right. You've just misplaced it.
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,313
349
126
Originally posted by: myusername
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
i have seen it, but not posted on it yet. however since liberals control most of the media[sic] they are in the position to capitalize on it, just like 911 when we had hillary holding up the times with the caption "HE KNEW!" when in fact she and her husband should have known in 98-99 after the first attack on the trade center in 98[sic]. in fact on this very board i saw many threads blaming bush for 911, and am sure you did to.

i also notice no reaction to other facts presented in that post, and am not surprised.
Tempted as I am to stoop to ad hominem remarks, I'll refrain..

First, the WTC was bombed in 1993, not 1998. If you remember that far back, the man in the white house also had the name Bush.

Second, Clinton DID know. Despite his and his staff's best efforts to convey the importance of Al Queda to the incoming administration, the Bushies frickin ignored it! They also ignored the Hart-Rudman report!

ASSUMING that in the worst case, the only involvment of the right wing was simply a lack of action on their part (i.e. taking off our tin-foil caps, on both sides of partisan lines), then the Bush administration put partisan politics (or personal/business connections) above the security of this country.

Why was it again that Ashcroft was told to stay off commercial airlines in July 2001? Was it because the administration didn't think there was any threat, or was it because they had a threat but were unwilling to act upon that information in a way to benefit the citizens of this country?

Oh there's plenty of blame all right. You've just misplaced it.
Actually....Clinton was president in 1993....all the way through jan 2001. He had eight years to take care of al queda and iraq and israel...didnt get it done ...to busy boozin...smokin joints and havin sex to pay any attention to the real threats of this country.

After the USS Cole was attacked in 2000, Clinton should have declared war on Al Queda, Bin laden and all of his supporters....he could have made a statement to the nation and the world and at that time 9/11 probably would have been prevented.

Gore would have probably won the election in a landslide stating at this time of trouble are nation need continuity in leadership.

Al Queda was treated as a law enforcement problem, not a military problem.

Al Queda terrorized our nation and its allies for 8 years and little was done....they played their trump card...and now two nations have been removed from power and another has submitted to give up its own WMD's....

 

myusername

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2003
5,046
0
0
Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Actually....Clinton was president in 1993....all the way through jan 2001. He had eight years to take care of al queda and iraq and israel...didnt get it done ...to busy boozin...smokin joints and havin sex to pay any attention to the real threats of this country.
:eek: You are correct, my apology for not doing math before typing.
Was he having too much sex to pay attention to the country, or were the self-righteous fundie neo-con's paying too much attention to him having sex, thus distracting him from paying enough attention to the country?(and yes, I deliberately am letting the assumption of lack of attention stand)

After the USS Cole was attacked in 2000, Clinton should have declared war on Al Queda, Bin laden and all of his supporters....he could have made a statement to the nation and the world and at that time 9/11 probably would have been prevented.
Do you actually mean "declare war", as in congressional approval?
Would the nation and the world have believed him, or would the right wing and (as if) the media have convinced or tried to convince the general populace that Clinton was:

a. trying to make one last stand for an entry in any history book not required to be sold in an adult novelty shop.
b. trying to saddle the incoming administration with another Somalia (tit for tat, if at that point we also presume he expected a Republican successor)

Gore would have probably won the election in a landslide stating at this time of trouble are nation need continuity in leadership.
My personal opinion is that points a. and b. above would influence voter turnout of the typical non-voting opposition party more than it would cause non-voters to rush to the polls and vote for Gore.
More to the point, as we can see with the current "non-nation-building" president, the opposition party could have said whatever it wanted to garner votes. If the situation had demanded it from a polling perspective, the Repub. candidate could have said (even assuming a Clinton hard-line action) that Clinton wasn't trying hard enough. That, arguably, might have prevented 9-11 regardless of who gained office in 2000.

The point isn't to engage in the hypotheticals of a Gore presidency. Personally I find the guy extremely likeable, even though his horrorshow busybody wife kept me from voting for him(and that's kinda sad, really). Nonetheless, if 9-11 had happened on his watch, after he had told his administration to start flying private - but neglected to offer civilians any precautions, you can be sure I would be placing the blame on him. So would most of the people who are still supporting Bush, I suspect.

Al Queda was treated as a law enforcement problem, not a military problem.
My county PD doesn't have Tomahawk missiles :confused:
I agree that not enough was done, but Clinton got the ball rolling, yet obviously (re: Ashcroft's flight choices), even with new information rolling in, Bush dropped that sucker.

Al Queda terrorized our nation and its allies for 8 years and little was done....they played their trump card...and now two nations have been removed from power and another has submitted to give up its own WMD's....
.. which has nothing to do with who should shoulder the blame for 911, arguably has greatly *increased* the terrorist threat to our country, unnecessarily cost many U.S.soldiers their lives (and even more civilians, but they don't count if they don't have a U.S. passport, right?), cost us billions, involved us inextricably (in the political, if not literal, sense) in the middle east, and yielded us, thus far, one 7 pound bag of salt for our efforts.


edit: as for Janet Reno, I used to think she was the antichrist... Then Ashcroft came along, and I saw that she was a two-bit player from purgatory.

Over the new year I was speaking with a self-declared Republican, a blue-collar kind of guy from Tennesee, and he said: "I just want to be able to piss off my back porch without anyone interfering" I agree with his sentiment wholeheartedly, but I just don't see how it leads to one wanting to be a Republican, given the current situation.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: myusername
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
i have seen it, but not posted on it yet. however since liberals control most of the media[sic] they are in the position to capitalize on it, just like 911 when we had hillary holding up the times with the caption "HE KNEW!" when in fact she and her husband should have known in 98-99 after the first attack on the trade center in 98[sic]. in fact on this very board i saw many threads blaming bush for 911, and am sure you did to.

i also notice no reaction to other facts presented in that post, and am not surprised.
Tempted as I am to stoop to ad hominem remarks, I'll refrain..

First, the WTC was bombed in 1993, not 1998. If you remember that far back, the man in the white house also had the name Bush.

Second, Clinton DID know. Despite his and his staff's best efforts to convey the importance of Al Queda to the incoming administration, the Bushies frickin ignored it! They also ignored the Hart-Rudman report!

ASSUMING that in the worst case, the only involvment of the right wing was simply a lack of action on their part (i.e. taking off our tin-foil caps, on both sides of partisan lines), then the Bush administration put partisan politics (or personal/business connections) above the security of this country.

Why was it again that Ashcroft was told to stay off commercial airlines in July 2001? Was it because the administration didn't think there was any threat, or was it because they had a threat but were unwilling to act upon that information in a way to benefit the citizens of this country?

Oh there's plenty of blame all right. You've just misplaced it.
Actually....Clinton was president in 1993....all the way through jan 2001. He had eight years to take care of al queda and iraq and israel...didnt get it done ...to busy boozin...smokin joints and havin sex to pay any attention to the real threats of this country.

After the USS Cole was attacked in 2000, Clinton should have declared war on Al Queda, Bin laden and all of his supporters....he could have made a statement to the nation and the world and at that time 9/11 probably would have been prevented.

Gore would have probably won the election in a landslide stating at this time of trouble are nation need continuity in leadership.

Al Queda was treated as a law enforcement problem, not a military problem.

Al Queda terrorized our nation and its allies for 8 years and little was done....they played their trump card...and now two nations have been removed from power and another has submitted to give up its own WMD's....
How did Bush treat Al-Qaeda prior to 9/11? Did he declare war on Al Qaeda as soon as he came to office? Did he make a statement to the world? Or was he too busy cutting taxes and building star wars? You can now return to your regularly scheduled "Blame Clinton" programming.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: SuperTool
I hear they also found a bottle of "Raid" in Saddam's kitchen cabinet. Deadly stuff. :D
And a carton of Ripple. Talk about nasty, that stuff will kill you.

;)
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,313
349
126
Originally posted by: myusername
Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Actually....Clinton was president in 1993....all the way through jan 2001. He had eight years to take care of al queda and iraq and israel...didnt get it done ...to busy boozin...smokin joints and havin sex to pay any attention to the real threats of this country.
:eek: You are correct, my apology for not doing math before typing.
Was he having too much sex to pay attention to the country, or were the self-righteous fundie neo-con's paying too much attention to him having sex, thus distracting him from paying enough attention to the country?(and yes, I deliberately am letting the assumption of lack of attention stand)

Many were to blame for 9/11...but remember this...the Clinton administration was very uncooperative to the new Bush Administration during the transition...remember Bush was only president for six full months before 9/11 happened. And he wanted to have a US government that was less involved in "foreign medalling". Of course 9/11 changed that.

He was working on domestic issues tax cuts, education, etc...but when our nation was attacked, national security took full focus.

Has everything gone perfectly? No...one can never expect it to. I honestly think the announcement of the end of major combat operations was a big mistake...I felt good about it at first, but realize many people took that as the war being over...which it wasn't...what the president should have said is that we are not going to bomb the H#LL out of them anymore.

Nothing to do with this topic but here it is:

Members of the Clinton Administration vandalized the White House.

Members of the Clinton Administration stole from the White House.

The Clintons stole from the White House, of which they had to return.



After the USS Cole was attacked in 2000, Clinton should have declared war on Al Queda, Bin laden and all of his supporters....he could have made a statement to the nation and the world and at that time 9/11 probably would have been prevented.
Do you actually mean "declare war", as in congressional approval?
Would the nation and the world have believed him, or would the right wing and (as if) the media have convinced or tried to convince the general populace that Clinton was:

a. trying to make one last stand for an entry in any history book not required to be sold in an adult novelty shop.
b. trying to saddle the incoming administration with another Somalia (tit for tat, if at that point we also presume he expected a Republican successor)

YES - Actual congressionally approved war. That attack should have been the final straw.

Gore would have probably won the election in a landslide stating at this time of trouble are nation need continuity in leadership.
My personal opinion is that points a. and b. above would influence voter turnout of the typical non-voting opposition party more than it would cause non-voters to rush to the polls and vote for Gore.
More to the point, as we can see with the current "non-nation-building" president, the opposition party could have said whatever it wanted to garner votes. If the situation had demanded it from a polling perspective, the Repub. candidate could have said (even assuming a Clinton hard-line action) that Clinton wasn't trying hard enough. That, arguably, might have prevented 9-11 regardless of who gained office in 2000.

The point isn't to engage in the hypotheticals of a Gore presidency. Personally I find the guy extremely likeable, even though his horrorshow busybody wife kept me from voting for him(and that's kinda sad, really). Nonetheless, if 9-11 had happened on his watch, after he had told his administration to start flying private - but neglected to offer civilians any precautions, you can be sure I would be placing the blame on him. So would most of the people who are still supporting Bush, I suspect.

Al Queda was treated as a law enforcement problem, not a military problem.
My county PD doesn't have Tomahawk missiles :confused:
I agree that not enough was done, but Clinton got the ball rolling, yet obviously (re: Ashcroft's flight choices), even with new information rolling in, Bush dropped that sucker.

Your couny PD probably doesnt have Tomahawks but many attacks were investigated by the FBI and the 1993 bombers ended up in jail....I should know, we had one in town for years.

Al Queda terrorized our nation and its allies for 8 years and little was done....they played their trump card...and now two nations have been removed from power and another has submitted to give up its own WMD's....
.. which has nothing to do with who should shoulder the blame for 911, arguably has greatly *increased* the terrorist threat to our country, unnecessarily cost many U.S.soldiers their lives (and even more civilians, but they don't count if they don't have a U.S. passport, right?), cost us billions, involved us inextricably (in the political, if not literal, sense) in the middle east, and yielded us, thus far, one 7 pound bag of salt for our efforts.

The terrorist threat to country has been high since 1993.

As for soldiers dying, I will leave that up to Gunny:

"Some of you will not come back. But always remember this:

marines die, that's what we're here for! But the Marine Corps lives forever. And that means you live forever!"





edit: as for Janet Reno, I used to think she was the antichrist... Then Ashcroft came along, and I saw that she was a two-bit player from purgatory.

You haven't heard about Ascroft killing people like at Waco

Over the new year I was speaking with a self-declared Republican, a blue-collar kind of guy from Tennesee, and he said: "I just want to be able to piss off my back porch without anyone interfering" I agree with his sentiment wholeheartedly, but I just don't see how it leads to one wanting to be a Republican, given the current situation.
Its all about freedom

 

nutxo

Diamond Member
May 20, 2001
6,681
363
126
Originally posted by: myusername
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
i have seen it, but not posted on it yet. however since liberals control most of the media[sic] they are in the position to capitalize on it, just like 911 when we had hillary holding up the times with the caption "HE KNEW!" when in fact she and her husband should have known in 98-99 after the first attack on the trade center in 98[sic]. in fact on this very board i saw many threads blaming bush for 911, and am sure you did to.

i also notice no reaction to other facts presented in that post, and am not surprised.
Tempted as I am to stoop to ad hominem remarks, I'll refrain..

First, the WTC was bombed in 1993, not 1998. If you remember that far back, the man in the white house also had the name Bush.

Second, Clinton DID know. Despite his and his staff's best efforts to convey the importance of Al Queda to the incoming administration, the Bushies frickin ignored it! They also ignored the Hart-Rudman report!

ASSUMING that in the worst case, the only involvment of the right wing was simply a lack of action on their part (i.e. taking off our tin-foil caps, on both sides of partisan lines), then the Bush administration put partisan politics (or personal/business connections) above the security of this country.

Why was it again that Ashcroft was told to stay off commercial airlines in July 2001? Was it because the administration didn't think there was any threat, or was it because they had a threat but were unwilling to act upon that information in a way to benefit the citizens of this country?

Oh there's plenty of blame all right. You've just misplaced it.
Clinton was in office in 93

 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
12,542
7,650
136
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Zorba
I used to work in a Haz-Waste plant in Tulsa, and over the course of a couple years I worked with probably 1000 pounds of cyanide. Everything from hydrogen cyanide gas, to cyanide in liquid form, to cyanide salt. And actually out of all the chemicals we had out there the cynaide wasn't that bad. Also a company named AirGas produce thousands of pound of Cyanide gas in Tulsa every week.
Except when the plant explodes like it did this summer. ;)
This summer wasn't the Cyanide plant, it was AirGas, though. (The have at least 4 or 5 plants in Tulsa). The cyanide plant did blow-up out at the Port about 2.5 years ago. Since then the Port has been trying to get them to move out.
 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: myusername
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
i have seen it, but not posted on it yet. however since liberals control most of the media[sic] they are in the position to capitalize on it, just like 911 when we had hillary holding up the times with the caption "HE KNEW!" when in fact she and her husband should have known in 98-99 after the first attack on the trade center in 98[sic]. in fact on this very board i saw many threads blaming bush for 911, and am sure you did to.

i also notice no reaction to other facts presented in that post, and am not surprised.
Tempted as I am to stoop to ad hominem remarks, I'll refrain..

First, the WTC was bombed in 1993, not 1998. If you remember that far back, the man in the white house also had the name Bush.

Second, Clinton DID know. Despite his and his staff's best efforts to convey the importance of Al Queda to the incoming administration, the Bushies frickin ignored it! They also ignored the Hart-Rudman report!

ASSUMING that in the worst case, the only involvment of the right wing was simply a lack of action on their part (i.e. taking off our tin-foil caps, on both sides of partisan lines), then the Bush administration put partisan politics (or personal/business connections) above the security of this country.

Why was it again that Ashcroft was told to stay off commercial airlines in July 2001? Was it because the administration didn't think there was any threat, or was it because they had a threat but were unwilling to act upon that information in a way to benefit the citizens of this country?

Oh there's plenty of blame all right. You've just misplaced it.

that is right, it was 1993 and not 1998(it was clinton citing existing UN resolutions as pretext to attack iraq in 98 with the hearty approval of the rest of the dems), that gave clinton(who was president in 1993) 5 more years to do something about it...



 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,745
5,173
126
Originally posted by: myusername
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Monsanto is killing the world but worry about 7 lb of cyanide in Iraq. Even the aligators have lost their dicks and men under 30 are queer in their thoughts.
/tangent

Not to draw attention away from the very real and large problem of reproductive deformities of amphibians (the canaries, if you will) - or even in humans (hypospadia on the rise), but the last part has me intrigued .. by "queer" did you mean homosexual? Personally I think the world would be better off with more gay men (I'm being facetious - while the gay guys I know are great, I'm sure there are plenty of jerks of the variety) - but if there's any documentation I'd love to see it .. aside from personal interest, think of the (ironic) political implications ... What Republican would stay in the party if they knew their leaders were trying to turn their sons queer?
Documentaton? Mostly just this forum.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Moonbeam:

This place gives many of us 'queer thoughts" 'cause were dealing with people who think a President wouldn't lie, who think evolution is "just another theory", who think war is better than peace, who think Jews are to blame for everything, who think it is better to spend $200 billion to fight a war than a few hundred million on Pell Grants, who think it's ok for mothers to live under bridges with their children, who think it's bad for SH to have WMD but ok for the U.S. to have them, ad nauseam.

Yeah, I've got 'queer thoughts'.....

But it's probably the water, not the boneheads....





-Robert
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: chess9
Moonbeam:

This place gives many of us 'queer thoughts" 'cause were dealing with people who think a President wouldn't lie, who think evolution is "just another theory", who think war is better than peace, who think Jews are to blame for everything, who think it is better to spend $200 billion to fight a war than a few hundred million on Pell Grants, who think it's ok for mothers to live under bridges with their children, who think it's bad for SH to have WMD but ok for the U.S. to have them, ad nauseam.

Yeah, I've got 'queer thoughts'.....

But it's probably the water, not the boneheads....





-Robert
Robert that person that you mention that believes what YOU typed does sound despicable, but then of course putting words into the mouths of the other side is IMHO a despicable tatic in a discussion.


 

ASK THE COMMUNITY