Rumsas in the news

[Raptor]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Stewart Fleming" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Oh, have they found WMD in Iraq then? I must have missed that one...
>
>
> You mean the one's that we were told were there by Bill Clinton, the UN and Saddam Hussein himself
> in his inventory to the weapons inspectors?

You're missing something here. Saddam had WMDs, that's a given. Of course, the US and dozens of
other countries "had" WMDs. (We still do, of course.) Shall we overthrow the government of Great
Britan because they "had" WMDs?

The evidence available indicates that Saddam disarmed before the US invaded. So much for that
justification. Better go to plan B.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall "I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we
could to protect our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security." --Microsoft VP in
charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

 

[Dashi Toshii]

"Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Raptor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The poll numbers were far worse than that:
>
> "A third of the American public believes U.S. forces found weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq,
> according to a recent poll. And 22 percent said Iraq actually used
chemical or biological weapons in
> the war."
>
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/6087005.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
>
> Prior to the war, there were polls that showed as much as 85% of people
polled thought that Iraq
> was directly involved in 9-11 and as many couldn't accurately state how
many Iraqis were among the
> hijackers.
>
> Yes, the "embedded reporters" really helped keep America informed
during the war...

Oh it is much, much worse than that!

About 90% of Americans believe that an Alien came down to earth and impregnated an earth woman. And
the resulting son was used as a sacrifice to save the earth people from the Alien who had started
all of the trouble to begin with.

Dashii

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>, "Tom Kunich"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> http://www.hrw.org/editorials/2003/iraqmassgraves.htm
>
> WMD or not, would you prefer this to have continued - yes or no?

Tom, there's absolutely no doubt that Saddam was a horrible person running a brutal regime. It
was clear what kind of person he was back in '56 when the CIA hired him to assassinate another
Iraqi dictator, as well as in the '80s when we were helping him in his war with Iran. Remember
how some of those mass graves came to be, though. After the Gulf War, the Bush 1 administration
stopped after pushing the Iraqis back out of Kuwait. But they then saw a chance to possibly
topple Saddam by pushing for an uprising in Iraq, which they did. But after some initial
successes by the Kurds and the Shiites, they got spooked. They felt that if the Kurds got too
powerful, it would cause problems with the Turks (who always do their best to keep the Kurds
down), and if the Shiites were too successful, they would be too closely allied with the Shiite
government in Iran. Neither of these options were considered to be in our best interests. So they
cut the pressure the coalition troops were putting on the Iraqis, which gave them time to
regroup. Then they let the Iraqis go about their business. Result? A vicious put down of the
rebel forces and mass graves. There ya go. I think one of the problems some people who are/were
against the war have with using Iraqi human rights as a reason for the war is that it was about
the fourth or fifth in a revolving, ever-changing series of reasons the administration has fired
out. The fact is, they hammered hardest on weapons, giving specific quantities and such. They
said, "We know for a fact they have these weapons." But now they are saying, "We know for sure
they had a weapons program." That's not the same thing at all. What they are doing is historical
revisionism, at best.

--
tanx, Howard

Read. Think. Type. Send.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, k?

For some people, quantity IS quality...

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>, "Tom Kunich"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> BTW, reportedly those trucks contained small fermeters. A fermenter isn't used to generate
> hydrogen gas by any normal means that I know of. Fermenters are used to grow bacteria.
>

From the Observer article: "Instead, a British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has
examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer last week: 'They are not mobile germ warfare
laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them.
They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to
fill balloons.'"

Those guys were there in Iraq and examined the trailers themselves. If the British government
thought enough of their qualifications to send them to do just that, I think it's reasonable to
take them at their word.

In other reports, it has been stated that there are no steam sterilization systems on the
trailers, nor any means to remove any hazardous biological material without contaminating the
area around the trailer. Both of these things are considered essential to making any sort of
biological weapon.

--
tanx, Howard

Read. Think. Type. Send.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, k?

For some people, quantity IS quality...

 

[Kurgan Gringion]

"Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Tom Kunich"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > http://www.hrw.org/editorials/2003/iraqmassgraves.htm
> >
> > WMD or not, would you prefer this to have continued - yes or no?

If there weren't WMD, then there is a problem. Why?

Because that is the rationale our President gave for starting the war. If the citizens of this
country are going to send our fellow citizens somewhere to kill and be killed, the debate over the
proposed adventure should be truthful.

 

[Ken Prager]

In article <[email protected]>, "Dashi Toshii"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> > Yes, the "embedded reporters" really helped keep America informed
> during the war...
>
> Oh it is much, much worse than that!
>
> About 90% of Americans believe that an Alien came down to earth and impregnated an earth woman.
> And the resulting son was used as a sacrifice to save the earth people from the Alien who had
> started all of the trouble to begin with.
>
> Dashii

Hmmm, your comment seems to indicate that you are an agnostic.

KP

--
Remove _me_ for e-mail address

 

[Tom Kunich]

Tell me something Howard - do you think that the X-Files is a reality show?

"Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article
<[email protected]>,
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > http://www.hrw.org/editorials/2003/iraqmassgraves.htm
> >
> > WMD or not, would you prefer this to have continued - yes or no?
>
>
> Tom, there's absolutely no doubt that Saddam was a horrible
person running a brutal regime. It
> was clear what kind of person he was back in '56 when the CIA hired
him to assassinate another Iraqi
> dictator, as well as in the '80s when we were helping him in his war
with Iran. Remember how some of
> those mass graves came to be, though. After the Gulf War, the Bush 1
administration stopped after
> pushing the Iraqis back out of Kuwait. But they then saw a chance to
possibly topple Saddam by
> pushing for an uprising in Iraq, which they did. But after some
initial successes by the Kurds and
> the Shiites, they got spooked. They felt that if the Kurds got too
powerful, it would cause problems
> with the Turks (who always do their best to keep the Kurds down),
and if the Shiites were too
> successful, they would be too closely allied with the Shiite
government in Iran. Neither of these
> options were considered to be in our best interests. So they cut the
pressure the coalition troops
> were putting on the Iraqis, which gave them time to regroup. Then
they let the Iraqis go about their
> business. Result? A vicious put down of the rebel forces and mass
graves. There ya go.
> I think one of the problems some people who are/were against the
war have with using Iraqi human
> rights as a reason for the war is that it was about the fourth or
fifth in a revolving,
> ever-changing series of reasons the administration has fired out.
The fact is, they hammered hardest
> on weapons, giving specific quantities and such. They said, "We know
for a fact they have these
> weapons." But now they are saying, "We know for sure they had a
weapons program." That's not the
> same thing at all. What they are doing is historical revisionism, at
best.
>
> --
> tanx, Howard
>
> Read. Think. Type. Send.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, k?
>
> For some people, quantity IS quality...

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article
<[email protected]>,
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > BTW, reportedly those trucks contained small fermeters. A
fermenter
> > isn't used to generate hydrogen gas by any normal means that I
know
> > of. Fermenters are used to grow bacteria.
>
> From the Observer article: "Instead, a British scientist and biological weapons expert, who
has examined the trailers in
> Iraq, told The Observer last week: 'They are not mobile germ
warfare laboratories. You could not
> use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like
them. They are exactly what the
> Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen
gas to fill balloons.'"
>
> Those guys were there in Iraq and examined the trailers
themselves. If the British government
> thought enough of their qualifications to send them to do just that,
I think it's reasonable to take
> them at their word.
>
> In other reports, it has been stated that there are no steam
sterilization systems on the
> trailers, nor any means to remove any hazardous biological material
without contaminating the area
> around the trailer. Both of these things are considered essential to
making any sort of biological
> weapon.

There were a couple of articles that I read that stated that there were fermenters on board. In fact
one of them said that most of the other equipment was missing. And that they had been washed
completely down with a solvent that masked detection of anything else.

You know, I worked for a biotech company for 3 years and in that time we never once discussed a
steam sterilizer. We had to be extremely careful with our products - at least as careful as people
growing anthrax and small pox.

 

[Dogo 01]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 05:41:07 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article
><[email protected]>,
>> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > BTW, reportedly those trucks contained small fermeters. A
>fermenter
>> > isn't used to generate hydrogen gas by any normal means that I
>know
>> > of. Fermenters are used to grow bacteria.
>>
>> From the Observer article: "Instead, a British scientist and biological weapons expert, who
>has examined the trailers in
>> Iraq, told The Observer last week: 'They are not mobile germ
>warfare laboratories. You could not
>> use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like
>them. They are exactly what the
>> Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen
>gas to fill balloons.'"
>>
>> Those guys were there in Iraq and examined the trailers
>themselves. If the British government
>> thought enough of their qualifications to send them to do just that,
>I think it's reasonable to take
>> them at their word.
>>
>> In other reports, it has been stated that there are no steam
>sterilization systems on the
>> trailers, nor any means to remove any hazardous biological material
>without contaminating the area
>> around the trailer. Both of these things are considered essential to
>making any sort of biological
>> weapon.
>
>There were a couple of articles that I read that stated that there were fermenters on board. In
>fact one of them said that most of the other equipment was missing. And that they had been washed
>completely down with a solvent that masked detection of anything else.
>
>You know, I worked for a biotech company for 3 years and in that time we never once discussed a
>steam sterilizer. We had to be extremely careful with our products - at least as careful as people
>growing anthrax and small pox.
>
>

I bet the people that found the fermenters were the same people that saved Private Lynch in a bloody
and daring gunfight.

For crying out loud, it's hard enough to grow mushrooms without steam sterilization. I don't know
how you could produce biological weapons without sterilizing your equipment.

 

[Michael Thomas]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 05:37:41 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Tell me something Howard - do you think that the X-Files is a reality show?
>

If you think that the coporate media is reality, than your a bigger dumbass than I thought. And I
thought you were a REALLY big one, so that makes you like a supernova one now...

--

MT

>"Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article
><[email protected]>,
>> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > http://www.hrw.org/editorials/2003/iraqmassgraves.htm
>> >
>> > WMD or not, would you prefer this to have continued - yes or no?
>>
>>
>> Tom, there's absolutely no doubt that Saddam was a horrible
>person running a brutal regime. It
>> was clear what kind of person he was back in '56 when the CIA hired
>him to assassinate another Iraqi
>> dictator, as well as in the '80s when we were helping him in his war
>with Iran. Remember how some of
>> those mass graves came to be, though. After the Gulf War, the Bush 1
>administration stopped after
>> pushing the Iraqis back out of Kuwait. But they then saw a chance to
>possibly topple Saddam by
>> pushing for an uprising in Iraq, which they did. But after some
>initial successes by the Kurds and
>> the Shiites, they got spooked. They felt that if the Kurds got too
>powerful, it would cause problems
>> with the Turks (who always do their best to keep the Kurds down),
>and if the Shiites were too
>> successful, they would be too closely allied with the Shiite
>government in Iran. Neither of these
>> options were considered to be in our best interests. So they cut the
>pressure the coalition troops
>> were putting on the Iraqis, which gave them time to regroup. Then
>they let the Iraqis go about their
>> business. Result? A vicious put down of the rebel forces and mass
>graves. There ya go.
>> I think one of the problems some people who are/were against the
>war have with using Iraqi human
>> rights as a reason for the war is that it was about the fourth or
>fifth in a revolving,
>> ever-changing series of reasons the administration has fired out.
>The fact is, they hammered hardest
>> on weapons, giving specific quantities and such. They said, "We know
>for a fact they have these
>> weapons." But now they are saying, "We know for sure they had a
>weapons program." That's not the
>> same thing at all. What they are doing is historical revisionism, at
>best.
>>
>> --
>> tanx, Howard
>>
>> Read. Think. Type. Send.
>>
>> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, k?
>>
>> For some people, quantity IS quality...
>

 

[Michael Thomas]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:26:15 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 05:41:07 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> In article
>><[email protected]>,
>>> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> > BTW, reportedly those trucks contained small fermeters. A
>>fermenter
>>> > isn't used to generate hydrogen gas by any normal means that I
>>know
>>> > of. Fermenters are used to grow bacteria.
>>>
>>> From the Observer article: "Instead, a British scientist and biological weapons expert, who
>>has examined the trailers in
>>> Iraq, told The Observer last week: 'They are not mobile germ
>>warfare laboratories. You could not
>>> use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like
>>them. They are exactly what the
>>> Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen
>>gas to fill balloons.'"
>>>
>>> Those guys were there in Iraq and examined the trailers
>>themselves. If the British government
>>> thought enough of their qualifications to send them to do just that,
>>I think it's reasonable to take
>>> them at their word.
>>>
>>> In other reports, it has been stated that there are no steam
>>sterilization systems on the
>>> trailers, nor any means to remove any hazardous biological material
>>without contaminating the area
>>> around the trailer. Both of these things are considered essential to
>>making any sort of biological
>>> weapon.
>>
>>There were a couple of articles that I read that stated that there were fermenters on board. In
>>fact one of them said that most of the other equipment was missing. And that they had been washed
>>completely down with a solvent that masked detection of anything else.
>>
>>You know, I worked for a biotech company for 3 years and in that time we never once discussed a
>>steam sterilizer. We had to be extremely careful with our products - at least as careful as people
>>growing anthrax and small pox.
>>
>>
>
>I bet the people that found the fermenters were the same people that saved Private Lynch in a
>bloody and daring gunfight.
>

Was that before, or after, we shot up the Iraqi ambulance trying to deliver her to us?

>For crying out loud, it's hard enough to grow mushrooms without steam sterilization. I don't know
>how you could produce biological weapons without sterilizing your equipment.

--

MT

 

[David Ryan]

Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 05:37:41 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Tell me something Howard - do you think that the X-Files is a reality show?
> >
>
> If you think that the coporate media is reality, than your a bigger dumbass than I thought. And I
> thought you were a REALLY big one, so that makes you like a supernova one now...

Everybody knows Jeff Rense is the source of Truth.

No wait - he's corporate media too :-O\

 

[Tom Kunich]

<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 05:41:07 GMT, "Tom Kunich"
<[email protected]>
> wrote: For crying out loud, it's hard enough to grow mushrooms without
steam
> sterilization. I don't know how you could produce biological
weapons
> without sterilizing your equipment.

Duhh, did you ever hear of Clorox? I worked at a company that made artificial hearts, stints and
such. Do you think that they put plastic into a steam box?

 

[Dogo 01]

On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:06:24 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:

><[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 05:41:07 GMT, "Tom Kunich"
><[email protected]>
>> wrote: For crying out loud, it's hard enough to grow mushrooms without
>steam
>> sterilization. I don't know how you could produce biological
>weapons
>> without sterilizing your equipment.
>
>Duhh, did you ever hear of Clorox? I worked at a company that made artificial hearts, stints and
>such. Do you think that they put plastic into a steam box?
>
>

They are not called stints. They're called "stents". I should know, because I am a senior engineer
at a medical device company where I'm heavily involved in stent design and manufacturing, along with
coatings and drug elution.

Medical devices are not sterilized by clorox and the like. Period. Handling equipment and containers
are typically sterilized with an autoclave. Typical materials used are glass and stainless steel.
There are plastics that can be used safely inside an autoclave. Equipment washed with Clorox would
have to be neutralized, and there would undoubtably be surface contaminants left behind. Whether or
not these contaminants can be tolerated depends on what the equipment is being used for. Nobody in
their right mind would equate an acid/alkaline wash with the term "sterilization".

The insinuation that a high-tec mobile chemical warfare agent lab will forego the use of an
autoclave, in favour of chemical rinsing with something like Clorox is ridiculous.

But you keep on believing that it is a mobile weapons lab. Afterall, you read it on the news
(nevermind that it's obvious that the Bush administration doesn't even believe it's a lab).

 

[Tom Kunich]

<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:06:24 GMT, "Tom Kunich"
<[email protected]>
> wrote:
> ><[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >> On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 05:41:07 GMT, "Tom Kunich"
> ><[email protected]>
> >> wrote: For crying out loud, it's hard enough to grow mushrooms without
> >steam
> >> sterilization. I don't know how you could produce biological
> >weapons
> >> without sterilizing your equipment.
> >
> >Duhh, did you ever hear of Clorox? I worked at a company that made artificial hearts, stints and
> >such. Do you think that they put
plastic
> >into a steam box?
>
> They are not called stints. They're called "stents". I should
know,
> because I am a senior engineer at a medical device company where I'm heavily involved in stent
> design and manufacturing, along with coatings and drug elution.
>
> Medical devices are not sterilized by clorox and the like. Period.

Of course not, they are gas sterilized. Not steam.

> Handling equipment and containers are typically sterilized with an autoclave. Typical materials
> used are glass and stainless steel. There are plastics that can be used safely inside an
> autoclave.

Most of the plastics used cannot be put into an autoclave nor steamed. They melt.

> Equipment washed with Clorox would have to be neutralized, and there would undoubtably be surface
> contaminants left behind.

Here's the rub - it doesn't matter when you're just trying to KILL germs that would otherwise
contaminate your lab fixtures.

> Whether or not these contaminants can be tolerated depends on what the equipment is being used
> for. Nobody in their right mind would equate an acid/alkaline wash with the term "sterilization".

Again - there are many ways of sterilization that require NO steam sterilization.

> The insinuation that a high-tec mobile chemical warfare agent lab
will
> forego the use of an autoclave, in favour of chemical rinsing with something like Clorox is
> ridiculous.

That wasn't an insinuation - if you look into biological production in the early years you'll find
all sorts of similar techniques that were working. What do you expect in the middle of a desert in a
country that has problems buying high tech products?

> But you keep on believing that it is a mobile weapons lab.
Afterall,
> you read it on the news (nevermind that it's obvious that the Bush administration doesn't even
> believe it's a lab).

Bill Clinton stated catagorically that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Al Gore
stated that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Hillary Clinton stated the same thing.
Senator Kerry said the same thing.

Apparently all of these Liberals were telling the truth but Bush who said almost word for word what
Clinton said is lying.

You don't even need citations all you have to do is a search on yahoo if you don't believe it.

 

[Robert Chung]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Apparently all of these Liberals were telling the truth but Bush who said almost word for word
> what Clinton said is lying.

I'm glad you agree that Bush is lying. This is a big admission on your part. He lied, and
continues to do so.

 

[David Ryan]

Robert Chung wrote:
>
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Apparently all of these Liberals were telling the truth but Bush who said almost word for word
> > what Clinton said is lying.
>
> I'm glad you agree that Bush is lying. This is a big admission on your part. He lied, and
> continues to do so.

That depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

 

[Stewart Fleming]

Tom Kunich wrote:

> Apparently all of these Liberals were telling the truth but Bush who said almost word for word
> what Clinton said is lying.
>

"I did not inhale."

Whatever else Bill Clinton might have been, at least he didn't have a Messianic complex.

Via The Agonist: "From selected minutes acquired by Haaretz from cease-fire negotiations between
Palestinian PM Mahmoud Abbas and faction leaders:

Abbas said that at Aqaba, Bush promised to speak with Sharon about the siege on Arafat. He said
nobody can speak to or pressure Sharon except the Americans.

According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I
struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to
solve the problem in the Middle East.""

Please don't put any more liars, cheats, crooks, womanizers or former alcoholics in the White House.
It makes us nervous. Vote for a nice clean bike racer or Arnold or something.

> You don't even need citations all you have to do is a search on yahoo if you don't believe it.

And then you can watch Fox News for the rest. STF

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Stewart Fleming" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > Apparently all of these Liberals were telling the truth but Bush
who
> > said almost word for word what Clinton said is lying.
>
> "I did not inhale."

>
> Whatever else Bill Clinton might have been, at least he didn't have
a
> Messianic complex.

Yeah, it was only a passing fancy when he shot 200 cruise missles into Iraq. It was another passing
fancy when he bombed Serbia for 60 days straight.

> Via The Agonist: "From selected minutes acquired by Haaretz from cease-fire negotiations between
> Palestinian PM Mahmoud Abbas and
faction
> leaders:
>
> Abbas said that at Aqaba, Bush promised to speak with Sharon about
the
> siege on Arafat. He said nobody can speak to or pressure Sharon
except the
> Americans.
>
> According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me
to
> strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to
strike
> at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem
in
> the Middle East.""
>
> Please don't put any more liars, cheats, crooks, womanizers or
former
> alcoholics in the White House. It makes us nervous. Vote for a
nice
> clean bike racer or Arnold or something.

More of that xfiles stuff. You'll believe anything that mirrors your viewpoint won't you?

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>, "Tom Kunich"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Tell me something Howard - do you think that the X-Files is a reality show?

Tommy, weer all krazee now... I guess the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Daniel Schorr
(among many others) also think the X-Files is a reality show. A quick search on "Bush"&"Iraq"&
Shiite"&"1991"&"betrayal" got a pile o' hits, including the following gems:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://wsjclassroomedition.com/wsjtoday/archive/03apr/03apr01_betrayal.htm

They have not forgotten the bitter betrayal they felt after the 1991 Gulf War when they rebelled
against the Hussein regime, at the first President Bush's behest. The U.S. then stood by and did
nothing as Iraqi troops put down the rebellion by slaughtering thousands of Shiites.

http://66.34.106.174/web/htm/news/nws/news030412e.html

Policymakers tended to see Iraq's main ethnic groups in caricature: The Shiites were feared as
pro-Iranian and the Kurds as anti-Turkish. Indeed, the U.S. administration seemed to prefer the
continuation of the Baath regime (albeit without Hussein) to the success of the rebellion. As one
National Security Council official told me at the time: "Our policy is to get rid of Saddam, not
his regime."

http://www.cjr.org/year/91/4/tendays.asp

It was America's president, George Bush, who, on February 15, called on the "Iraqi military and
the Iraqi people" to rise up and "force Saddam Hussein . . . to step aside." It was President Bush
who, on February 27, had ordered an abrupt cessation of hostilities, leaving the Iraqi dictator
with enough armor and aircraft to put down Shiite and Kurdish uprisings. And, finally, it was the
Bush administration that, after first warning the Iraqi regime not to use helicopter gunships
against its own people, then stood by while they were used to strafe Kurds fleeing to the
mountains in the north.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's funny how anything that doesn't quite jibe with your world view goes down the ol'
memory hole.

Save your fork, there's pie!

--
tanx, Howard

Read. Think. Type. Send.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, k?

For some people, quantity IS quality...