Self loathing on behalf of GTech? Hmm, you post one weak claim by a notorious lefty site to confirm this? Who is funding the global warming "alarmists?" It's a billion dollar business and all you have to do to get a big chunk of it, is not go against the grain. Of course, if you do go against the grain, you can expect to not receive funding, have your funding cut and potentially lose your job. Fringe right, or fringe left of dubious origins? Just a few from my bookmarks: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636 http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11592.html http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=5986863 http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0 http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0206/p04s01-woap.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388 (ah, those French far right fringe groups ) http://www.livescience.com/environment/070407_GW_gore.html http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 Let's see, we have an example of a state climatologist being threatened to lose his job because he disagrees with the "alarmist" global warming. We have a group calling for decertification of any meteorologist that goes against global warming. Must be those "far right" fringe groups calling for these actions, eh? This is incorrect. I'm surprised you'd drop to this level of dishonesty. Then again, no...I'm not surprised at all. When you can't counter something, you always make it about the website, rather than the information. Always taking the easy road, huh? This, of course, coming from the guy who doesn't care for "dumb soldiers."
ferret doesn't need to counter your BS because Bush counters your BS and states that Iraq had no WMD and nothing to do with 9/11. Bush telling Gtech that he is a queen of cheerleaders and doesn't know what he is talking about.
Bush has already countered your queen's BS, so why should he? Bush saying d16man is a moron for believing in Gtech's BS.
...doesn't have the ability. Nor does gstring. Though I do get a kick out of nuts that always say Bush is a liar, then attempt to use this video clip out of context to prove his honesty. The hypocrisy always amuses me
I don't need to, Bush says it all. Bush makes queen Gtech a joke. Is queen Gtech claiming now that Bush is a liar, so he can still act like a big "man" in front of his cheerleaders squad?
gwhirled, we all know that was a PR stunt, and like Gtech said, you have it totally out of context (why am I not surprised?)...you, like all other angry white males who can't think for themselves probably hold to the definition that WMD=NUKES and NUKES alone...
Corrected that for you. Here is the list: http://newsbusters.org/node/13701 ...complete with sources. I am very impressed that suddenly you are starting to support Bush and agree with him though. This is a remarkable turnaround for you! So you also believe when Bush says that we are fighting a war on terror and that we can win in Iraq too? Awesome! Gworld is now a Bush supporter
He didn't say that Iraq didn't have nukes, he said Iraq didn't have WMD. Are you claiming Bush doesn't know what WMD is? Bush saying cheerleaders like d16boy and Queen Gtech are morons for claiming existence of WMD in Iraq while he had to admit it didn't exist. Awesome! Queen Gtech is now claiming Bush is a moron and a liar.
That was later proved wrong.. The link you provided was from 2004, this link is from 2005: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html
Incorrect. It simply means whoever was writing the article was not informed. But I do thank you for taking the time to point out the additional chemical weapons that were found. That was very generous of you!
expired sarin was found, that's not debated... But sarin/mustard/vx that has lived a decade past it's shelf life is not considered a weapon of mass destruction As for the incorrect articles, exactly someone was misinformed... Do you think you'd be able to find any scholarly sources stating that any active chemical agent has been used on our troops (published more recently, 2006-2007, I think not)?
so what was the shelf life? When was it produced...a decade basically puts us back to the first gulf war...so anything produced then or after would still be good.
So you dispute the findings of Colonel John Chu? I presented this to you previously, but you completely ignored it. Now I see why you did so. http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918 There we have it. A Colonel, an expert in the field, makes his conclusion. Shall we continue to dispense with the denial? So now you are setting the criteria to be only from 2006-2007, in order to quietly sweep the finds from 2003 - 2005 under the table? How the hell does that work?
No. Nothing found had a shelf life of more then 3-5 years... And they were all found to be created around, or before, the 1991 gulf war era... sarin has a shelf life of no longer then 1 year, and mustard and VX can last a little longer (3-4 years), but are a lot less potent with time...
Are you disputing Bush? Are you saying that Bush is an incompetent liar who doesn't know what WMD is? Bush admits that queen Gtech is a joke.
I already explained shelf life, and read the article - If you read my previous posts I've stated that you shouldn't drink it, but to call them weapons of mass destruction is ridiculous... I'd also recommend that no one drinks bleach or windex... because those could be lethal if you consume enough also...