posted December 22, 2004 12:31 PM            

The subject was, according to you, that I made up stories to post.

That's been proven to be untrue in the example you cited so you switched gears or tried to and started complaining about the source and reliability of the source I posted from.

posted December 22, 2004 12:55 PM              

the pentagon made its official statement 3 weeks before your announcement
you only dug up that blog after i asked you to check your sources and even it didnt estimate 500,000 lol)( and even then you continued with your blather, posting more press releases from before july 2 when the pentagon made its statement lol)

the day rumsfeld made his statement, all the bloggers and talk show hosts were making ridiculous numbers up of how many people they "could have killed" thats not even a "source" and you made up a number that beat them all by hundreds of thousands lol

only they all shut up when the results were announced the next day, its not my fault you werent paying attention 3 weeks later when you made your "announcement"

i was trying to be nice by saying you made it up jwhop...i wouldnt accuse you of telling an original lie...

"It looks like a lot of words will have to be eaten by the left but I don't think anyone on that side is big enough to say they were wrong. All the left seems capable of doing is run their mouths. It would be helpful if once in a while they actually knew what the hell they were talking about."-jwhop

posted December 22, 2004 01:32 PM            

Question is, why, if you could do the calculations, did you question my numbers and insinuate I was lying?

posted December 22, 2004 01:48 PM              

we found 1 sarin shell , that in hypothetically ideal circumstances, "could have" killed 50,000(if you rationed it out drop by drop ......instead of firing it like its supposed to be used lol)

then i wouldnt have asked you to check your sources

posted December 22, 2004 02:16 PM              

and you keep bringing up this outdated blog as a source,

which is why i stipulated in the beginning that ignorance is not an excuse

posted December 22, 2004 03:08 PM            

I use logic and reason to back up what I say. Unlike you Petron who seem to not have so much as a nodding acquaintance with either.

You can insist black is white and day is night until the cows come home but that's a loser tactic and it won't work with me.

By the way, you're a liar if you assert I said one 155mm artillery shell filled with sarin would kill 500,000 people.

"Well Petron, perhaps the 500,000 number is hyperbole to some degree. However, it should be noted that whatever number of people the chemical weaponsNote***Plural found in Iraq could kill is calculated on maximum effective use of the chemicals contained in the weapon. That would depend on conditions not found on the battlefields in the war between Iran and Iraq where the Iranians had notice chemical weapons were being used and probably had at least some protective gear to protect themselves along with employing tactics that did not include massing in large groups.
Here's an opinion that it could be as high as 300,000. I heard the 500,000 number somewhere and can't remember who said it but it doesn't seem to have been Limbaugh....to the best of my recollection.

But wait Petron, hasn't the left been chanting in unison that Saddam had no WMD whatsoever? All destroyed?

July 02, 2004

WMD Found in Iraq

They found some more. This story http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/2004070 1/wl_mideast_afp/us_iraq_rumsfeld_weapons_040701212424&e=3 has just been released. I figure I'd better tell you here since you won't hear it on any major media outlets. You know those major media outlets that are not liberally biased.
I think this brings the total warheads to something over two dozen. This stash is apparently 10 warheads with Sarin or Mustrard Gas. These warheads could kill in excess of 200,000 people based upon the preliminary analysis. Add to this some of the warheads found earlier and we are up to nearly 300,000 people. http://loonaticleft.typepad.com/loonatic_left/2004/07/wmd_found_in_ir.html

I've done the calculations using readily available information and the number of 500,000 is very conservative given the number of reported WMD munitions.

posted December 22, 2004 03:29 PM              

the blister shells tested negative(less than a week after you posted your "wmd found in iraq" thread)
the mustard shell was defunct
the rockets were neither filled or a "threat"

that only leaves 1 sarin shell

i dont care how many blogs you can dig up from before the rockets were even tested
i knew as soon as you said it that your statement was based on false rumors from three weeks earlier that could be easily checked, you said it,thats why i asked you to check yer facts but you still didnt "get it" apparently because you stammered out some excuse about "hyperbole"(rush's favorite word)then went on about rationing drops (ideal circumstances without chemsuits etc.) then you posted another outdated press release lol

and you accuse me of getting my material from loony leftist sites hahahaaha

From The Loonatic Left
Satirical Ramblings of Mahatma

posted December 22, 2004 03:50 PM            

What happened to your comment that I was making it up?

You have the source, if you don't like the source or the date the source chose to post the info or the date I found the information, then, you can lump it and stuff it.

When I posted what I posted, that was the information I had and it was the information I used in my estimate. Clearly, I personally made nothing up. If the source was wrong, that has nothing to do with me personally making anything up.

posted December 22, 2004 03:57 PM              

in fact you are the only "source" on billions of webpages on the internet who made such a ridiculous number up, even well after the truth was well known

posted December 22, 2004 04:21 PM            

We already know that you cannot post anything of intelligence and or back up your inane accusations with real facts.

What you have demonstrated is how one can show up to a battle armed with only the sharp intellect of a butter knife (YOU) and get your butt kicked by one that shows up with the intellect of a Katana Blade (jwhop)

posted December 22, 2004 04:25 PM              

anyone else with an opinion on jwhops "sources and facts" here???

posted December 22, 2004 06:03 PM            

Guess we're going to have to put off that trip to the Coeur d'Alene Resort Pid. Unless you like to ice fish.

Of course, just curling up in front of the fireplace would be fun too.
http://www.cdaresort.com/

I'm going to let Petron carry on with his mental masturbation alone. At least he's practicing safe sex

posted December 22, 2004 08:18 PM            

Petron..

posted December 22, 2004 08:53 PM              

"Oh yeah, I remember Richard Clarke. He's the NSA guy, a counter terrorism czar who stood by and took no action, recommended no action and twiddled his thumbs while the WTC was attacked in 1993, 2 embassies were bombed in Africa and the USS Cole was bombed....by terrorists. Yeah, I remember Clarke."-jwhop

this statement shows that your ignorance of clarkes authority and history and is shaped by your bombardment by simplistic 1 liners on newsmax and talk radio....they mush together in your head and out pop new "facts"

again you made this statement well after this "information" was published
i had already read it myself so i thought you might take the time...you obviously didnt because the issue came up again on another thread

911 commission excerpts

Because of concerns especially on the part of Attorney General Reno, this new authority was defined in precise and limiting language. Clarke was only to "provide advice" regarding budgets and to "coordinate the development of interagency agreed guidelines" for action.104

He further proposed to Berger that a strike be made during the last week of 1999 against al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan-a proposal not adopted.11

A U.S. interagency group traveled to Saudi Arabia twice, in 1999 and 2000, to get information from the Saudis about their understanding of those finances. The group eventually concluded that the oft-repeated assertion that Bin Ladin was funding al Qaeda from his personal fortune was in fact not true.
The NSC staff thought that one possible solution to these weaknesses in the intelligence community was to create an all-source terrorist-financing intelligence analysis center. Clarke pushed for the funding of such a center at Treasury, but neither Treasury nor the CIA was willing to commit the resources.88

Though Clarke worried that the CIA might be equivocating in assigning responsibility [for the u.s.s Cole] to al Qaeda, he wrote Berger on November 7 that the analysts had described their case by saying that "it has web feet, flies, and quacks."

On November 25, Berger and Clarke wrote President Clinton that although the FBI and CIA investigations had not reached a formal conclusion, they believed the investigations would soon conclude that the [u.s.s Cole] attack had been carried out by a large cell whose senior members belonged to al Qaeda

Clarke and his staff developed a policy paper of their own, the first such comprehensive effort since the Delenda plan of 1998
The paper backed covert aid to the Northern Alliance, covert aid to Uzbekistan, and renewed Predator flights in March 2001. A sentence called for military action to destroy al Qaeda command-and-control targets and infrastructure and Taliban military and command assets. The paper also expressed concern about the presence of al Qaeda operatives in the United States.155

Organizing a New Administration
Rice decided to change the special structure that had been built to coordinate counterterrorism policy. It was important to sound policymaking, she felt, that Clarke's interagency committee-like all others-report to the principals through the deputies.167

Rice made an initial decision to hold over both Clarke and his entire counterterrorism staff, a decision that she called rare for a new administration. She decided also that Clarke should retain the title of national counterterrorism coordinator, although he would no longer be a de facto member of the Principals Committee on his issues. The decision to keep Clarke, Rice said, was "not uncontroversial," since he was known as someone who "broke china,"

Early Decisions
Within the first few days after Bush's inauguration, Clarke approached Rice in an effort to get her-and the new President-to give terrorism very high priority and to act on the agenda that he had pushed during the last few months of the previous administration. After Rice requested that all senior staff identify desirable major policy reviews or initiatives, Clarke submitted an elaborate memorandum on January 25, 2001. He attached to it his 1998 Delenda Plan and the December 2000 strategy paper. "We urgently need . . . a Principals level review on the al Qida network," Clarke wrote.172

Clarke also suggested that decisions should be made soon on messages to the Taliban and Pakistan over the al Qaeda sanctuary in Afghanistan, on possible new money for CIA operations, and on "when and how . . . to respond to the attack on the USS Cole."173

The national security advisor did not respond directly to Clarke's memorandum. No Principals Committee meeting on al Qaeda was held until September 4, 2001

The Senior Executive Intelligence Brief (SEIB), distributed to a broader group of officials, has a similar format and generally covers the same subjects as the PDB. It usually contains less information so as to protect sources and methods. Like their predecessors, the Attorney General, the FBI Director, and Richard Clarke, the National Security Council (NSC) counterterrorism coordinator, all received the SEIB, not the PDB.3 Clarke and his staff had extensive access to terrorism reporting, but they did not have access to internal, nondisseminated information at the National Security Agency (NSA), CIA, or FBI.

177 Before Vice President Cheney visited the CIA in mid-February, Clarke sent him a memo-outside the usual White House document-management system-suggesting that he ask CIA officials "what additional information is needed before CIA can definitively conclude that al-Qida was responsible" for the Cole.178 In March 2001, the CIA's briefing slides for Rice were still describing the CIA's "preliminary judgment" that a "strong circumstantial case" could be made against al Qaeda but noting that the CIA continued to lack "conclusive information on external command and control" of the attack.179 Clarke and his aides continued to provide Rice and Hadley with evidence reinforcing the case against al Qaeda and urging action.180

September 2001
The Principals Committee had its first meeting on al Qaeda on September 4. On the day of the meeting, Clarke sent Rice an impassioned personal note. He criticized U.S. counterterrorism efforts past and present. The "real question" before the principals, he wrote, was "are we serious about dealing with the al Qida threat? . . . Is al Qida a big deal? . . . Decision makers should imagine themselves on a future day when the CSG has not succeeded in stopping al Qida attacks and hundreds of Americans lay dead in several countries, including the US," Clarke wrote. "What would those decision makers wish that they had done earlier? That future day could happen at any time."247

Clarke then turned to the Cole. "The fact that the USS Cole was attacked during the last Administration does not absolve us of responding for the attack," he wrote. "Many in al Qida and the Taliban may have drawn the wrong lesson from the Cole: that they can kill Americans without there being a US response, without there being a price.... One might have thought that with a $250m hole in a destroyer and 17 dead sailors, the Pentagon might have wanted to respond. Instead, they have often talked about the fact that there is 'nothing worth hitting in Afghanistan' and said 'the cruise missiles cost more than the jungle gyms and mud huts' at terrorist camps." Clarke could not understand "why we continue to allow the existence of large scale al Qida bases where we know people are being trained to kill Americans."248

Turning to the CIA, Clarke warned that its bureaucracy, which was "masterful at passive aggressive behavior," would resist funding the new national security presidential directive, leaving it a "hollow shell of words without deeds." The CIA would insist its other priorities were more important. Invoking President Bush's own language, Clarke wrote, "You are left with a modest effort to swat flies, to try to prevent specific al Qida attacks by using [intelligence] to detect them and friendly governments' police and intelligence officers to stop them. You are left waiting for the big attack, with lots of casualties, after which some major US retaliation will be in order[.]"249
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
************

3]
"I also remember Clarke is or was on the Kerry campaign staff"-jwhop

"The White House has said that my book is an audition for a high-level position in the Kerry campaign," he said. "So let me say here, as I am under oath, that I will not accept any position in the Kerry administration, should there be one."-richard clarke

clarke never served on kerry's campaign...
i doubt if there ever will be a kerry administration now....
i actually pointed you to what you thought you were talking about but you ignored my post again

posted December 22, 2004 09:30 PM            

You know, I looked through page after page of pictures of lady Centaur pics before I found the one that bears a marked resemblance to you.; The one that had that special something that you can't describe but when you see it, says I'm the one.

I do believe you and Ann Coulter would be friends if you ever met. You have a lot in common on the intellectual level.

posted December 23, 2004 01:39 AM            

Note the dates in bold.

quote:

---

posted September 10, 2004 05:01 PM
Oh yeah, I remember Richard Clarke. He's the NSA guy, a counter terrorism czar who stood by and took no action, recommended no action and twiddled his thumbs while the WTC was attacked in 1993, 2 embassies were bombed in Africa and the USS Cole was bombed....by terrorists. Yeah, I remember Clarke.
I also remember his statements from his book being totally discredited during his 9/11 testimony, under oath.

I also remember him as the primary source for the serial liar Michael Moore's statements that Bush let the Saudi citizens leave the US without being interviewed by the FBI. Later, I remember him saying he and he alone approved the release of the Saudis to leave the US.

I also remember Clarke is or was on the Kerry campaign staff.

I also remember Clarke was flogging his book. Sensationalism sells, now doesn't it?

---

Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Insight on the News reported: "Anti-Bush activist and Kerry advisor Richard Clarke also stepped forward to try to defend Berger's actions as 'inadvertant,' though how he would know is not clear." http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/20/152804.shtml

Now Petron, are you sure about that quote you posted from Richard Clarke...that he would not be part of the Kerry Campaign? Are you sure Clarke didn't say he wouldn't serve in a Kerry administration? Why don't you post the source here so we can have a look at what Clarke actually did say? Oh, never mind, I'll post it for you.

quote:

---

"The White House has said that my book is an audition for a high-level position in the Kerry campaign," he said. "So let me say here, as I am under oath, that I will not accept any position in the Kerry administration , should there be one."-richard clarke

---

Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 Commission was discredited. I know you like to bring it up Petron. I also know you like to point to all the wonderful memos Clarke wrote to Clinton urging a strike against al-Qaida but what kind of chairwarmer was Clarke really?

This is a counter-terrorism czar who couldn't even satisfy the CIA that his information about al-Qaida attacks against US interests were credible. Oh, and how many years did Clarke have to work on that before the mentioned date of February 2001...just after the Bush administration settled into the White House? Only most of the 1990s.

quote:

---

177 Before Vice President Cheney visited the CIA in mid-February, Clarke sent him a memo-outside the usual White House document-management system-suggesting that he ask CIA officials "what additional information is needed before CIA can definitively conclude that al-Qida was responsible" for the Cole.178 In March 2001, the CIA's briefing slides for Rice were still describing the CIA's "preliminary judgment" that a "strong circumstantial case" could be made against al Qaeda but noting that the CIA continued to lack "conclusive information on external command and control" of the attack.179 Clarke and his aides continued to provide Rice and Hadley with evidence reinforcing the case against al Qaeda and urging action.180

---

Sorry Petron, your posts are easy to not read but if you were really attempting to prove I made it all up, lied, as you allege, then, it's strike 2 and 3

posted December 23, 2004 06:29 AM              

however its also clear that, after the fact, you can just go to newsmax and dig up another LIE in order to make AN EXCUSE for your own uninformed statements

its also clear you wont ever admit to making ridiculously false statements shaped by your IGNORANT "sources" lol

the simple FACT is(oh yeah theres that pesky word again) richard clarke never served in any capacity on the kerry campaign...newsmax is simply WRONG

so you just keep on parroting the lies of these idiots at newsmax and i will be here to correct you, IF you actually want the FACTS.......

posted December 23, 2004 09:54 AM            

You remind me of the joke about having to retrain the workforce after every coffee break; they forget what they're supposed to be doing too.

You're supposed to be proving I make things up....aren't you Petron? I just hate having to constantly remind you. In fact, you remind me of a child who has to be constantly supervised or their homework doesn't get done.

This is the crux of the matter at issue here Petron.

Whether or not Clarke ever advised Kerry...and there are entirely too many connections to doubt that Clarke did exactly that....there was information that he was an advisor to Kerry in the news, news which I saw.

When I posted that Clarke is or was an advisor to Kerry there was a basis to say that and your contention that I made it up is false.

posted December 23, 2004 10:00 AM              

your "sources" for the lies you parrot are too extensive
obviously newsmax doesnt give a damn about the facts anymore than you do....

(not that i even believe you ever saw that piece of crap til just now....i'm sure the author made it up based on listening to 40 hours a week of talk radio just like you )

do you understand now why i hold your "newsmax facts" in such contempt?

posted December 23, 2004 01:42 PM            

Ever notice that leftist radicals are totally lacking in grace Petron? Have you ever heard a radical leftist simply concede they were wrong...without attaching stipulations?

Your weaseling concession is rejected Petron.

On the issue of your statement that I make it up i.e., personally lie, it's total surrender or nothing Petron.

Here Petron, let me draft a proper surrender for you; since in your ignorance, you seem incapable of drafting a simple declarative statement.

I was wrong jwhop, you did not make it up.