4
   

Limbaugh challenges Oinkbama to debate

 
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Mar, 2009 06:51 am
@gungasnake,
So, gunga, who staged Bruce Ivins's suicide?
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Mar, 2009 07:24 am
@patiodog,
Quote:
So, gunga, who staged Bruce Ivins's suicide?


Am I the only person who keeps up with the news around here? Forensics has cleared Ivens, the guy had nothing to do with it, e.g.

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090225/full/news.2009.120.html

Quote:

The deadly bacterial spores mailed to victims in the US anthrax attacks, scientists say, share a chemical 'fingerprint' that is not found in bacteria from the flask linked to Bruce Ivins, the biodefence researcher implicated in the crime.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Mar, 2009 09:34 pm
Another WSJ take (Rove):

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2204783/posts

Quote:

Rove: The White House misfires on Limbaugh
The Wall Street Journal ^ | March 12, 2009 | Karl Rove

Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 10:40:59 PM by St. Louis Conservative

Team Obama, aided by Clintonistas Paul Begala, James Carville and Stanley Greenberg -- decided to attack Rush Limbaugh after poring over opinion research. White House senior adviser David Axelrod explicitly authorized the assault. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel assigned a White House official to coordinate the push. And Press Secretary Robert Gibbs gleefully punched the launch button at his podium, suckering the White House press corps into dropping what they were doing to get Mr. Limbaugh.

Was it smart politics and good policy? No. For one thing, it gave the lie to Barack Obama's talk about ending "the political strategy that's been all about division" and "the score-keeping and the name-calling." The West Wing looked populated by petulant teenagers intent on taking down a popular rival. Such talk also shortens the president's honeymoon by making him look like a street-fighting Chicago pol instead of an inspirational, unifying figure. The upward spike in ratings for Rush and other conservative radio commentators shows how the White House's attempt at a smackdown instead energized the opposition.

Did it do any good with voters not strongly tied to either party? I suspect not. With stock markets down, unemployment growing, banks tottering, consumers anxious, business leaders nervous, and the economy shrinking, the Obama administration's attacks on a radio talk show host made it seem concerned with the trivial. ...
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2009 05:16 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
Am I the only person who keeps up with the news around here? Forensics has cleared Ivens, the guy had nothing to do with it, e.g.

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090225/full/news.2009.120.html


He's far from cleared:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,506727,00.html


And there is far more to link the attacks to the labs Ivins worked in, at least, than there is for this statement of yours:

Quote:
Saddam Hussein had just poisoned the US senate office building and two federal post office buildings with anthrax
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2009 07:02 pm
@patiodog,


Your own article...

Quote:
But when Michael compared the bacterial spores in three letters, sent to the New York Post and Sens. Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle on Capitol Hill, with the bacteria found in Ivins’ flask, he reached a striking conclusion: They do not share the same chemical fingerprint.


Claiming that doesn't clear the guy is wishful thinking. The govt. has never wanted to admit to the world that we had to build for two years before going into Iraq i.e. that Saddam Hussein got away with poisoning the US senate office building with anthrax for two years and the BS you read is motivated by that thinking.

Hussein was provably involved in the anthrax attacks which followed 9-11. That means that George Bush had very few options unless you call letting somebody poison the US senate office building with anthrax and just skate an option, which is brain-dead. He could do what he did, which was try to take the high road, eliminate the Hussein regime, and try to construct a rational regime in Iraq both to prevent further attacks and to provide an example of rational government in the region, or he could do what I would have done, which would have been to level both Mecca and Medina, and ban the practice of I-slam not just in the US but throughout the world.

Most people would probably want to try what W. did first.

Oh, yeah, I know, you guys don't believe Hussein had anything to do with 9-11 or the anthrax attacks which followed...


The first case of anthrax after 9-11 (Bob Stevens) showed up about ten miles from where Mohammed Atta himself had been living, i.e. the short drive from Coral Springs to Boca Raton.

The last previous case of anthrax in a human in the United States prior to 9-11 had been about 30 years prior to that.

There are other coincidences. For instance, the wife of the editor of the sun (where Stevens worked) also had contact with the hijackers in that she rented them the place they stayed.

Atta and the hijackers flew planes out of an airport in the vicinity and asked about crop dusters on more than one occasion. Indeed, Atta sought a loan to try to buy and and modify a crop duster.

Atta and several of the hijackers in this group also sought medical aid just prior to 9/11 for skin lesions that the doctors who saw them now say looked like anthrax lesions.

Basically, you either believe in the laws of probability or you don't. Anybody claiming that all these things were coincidences is either totally in denial or does not believe in modern mathematics and probability theory.

While the anthrax in question originally came from a US strain, it isn't too surprising that Iraq might have that strain since that strain was mailed to laboratories around the world years earlier. That is, it wsa mailed out for the purpose of allowing other nations to develop medicines to cure it, not to make weapons out of it...

Nonetheless, it was highly sophisticated, and went through envelope paper as if it weren't even there; many thought it to be not only beyond the capabilities of Hussein but of anybody else on the planet as well including us. Nonetheless, later information showed Husseins programs to be capable of such feats:


http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html


Quote:

In a major development, potentially as significant as the capture of Saddam Hussein, investigative journalist Richard Miniter says there is evidence to indicate Saddam’s anthrax program was capable of producing the kind of anthrax that hit America shortly after 9/11. Miniter, author of Losing bin Laden, told Accuracy in Media that during November he interviewed U.S. weapons inspector Dr. David Kay in Baghdad and that he was "absolutely shocked and astonished" at the sophistication of the Iraqi program.

Miniter said that Kay told him that, "the Iraqis had developed new techniques for drying and milling anthrax"techniques that were superior to anything the United States or the old Soviet Union had. That would make the former regime of Saddam Hussein the most sophisticated manufacturer of anthrax in the world." Miniter said there are "intriguing similarities" between the nature of the anthrax that could be produced by Saddam and what hit America after 9/11. The key similarity is that the anthrax is produced in such a way that "hangs in the air much longer than anthrax normally would" and is therefore more lethal.



Basically, the anthrax attack which followed 9/11 had Saddam Hussein's fingerprints all over it. It was particalized so finely it went right through envelop paper and yet was not weaponized (not hardened against antibiotics). It was basically a warning, saying as much as:

Quote:

"Hey, fools, some of my friends just knocked your two towers down and if you try to do anything about it, this is what could happen. F*** you, and have a nice day!!"



There is no way an American who had had anything to do with that would not be behind bars by now. In fact the one American they originally suspected told investigators that if he'd had anything to do with that stuff, he would either have anthrax or have the antibodies from the preventive medicine in his blood and offered to take a blood test on the spot. That of course was unanswerable.


The basic American notion of a presumption of innocence is not meaningful or useful in cases like that of Saddam Hussein. Even the Japanese had the decency to have their own markings on their aircraft at Pearl Harbor; Nobody had to guess who did it. Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, is like the kid in school who was always standing around snickering when things went bad, but who could never be shown to have had a hand in anything directly. At some point, guys would start to kick that guy's ass periodically on general principles. Likewise, in the case of Saddam Hussein, the reasonable assumption is that he's guilty unless he somehow or other manages to prove himself innocent and, obviously, that did not happen.


At the time, the US military was in such disarray from the eight years of the Clinton regime that there was nothing we could do about it. Even such basic items as machinegun barrels, which we should have warehouses full of, were simply not there. Nonetheless, nobody should think they would get away with such a thing and, apparently, Hussein and his baathists didn't.

Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War" documents some of this:

Quote:

'Cheney?s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, quickly questions the wisdom of mentioning state sponsorship. Tenet, sensitive to the politics of Capitol Hill and the news media, terminates any discussion of state sponsorship
with the clear statement:

Quote:
"I'm not going to talk about a state sponsor."


'Vice President Cheney further drives the point home:

Quote:

"It's good that we don't, because we're not ready to do anything about it."



I mean, we didn't even have fricking machinegun barrels anymore. A friend of mine called up several barrelmakers about a barrel for a target rifle in the early spring of 02 and was told they were working 24/7 making machinegun barrels and didn't have time for any sort of civiliam firearm business.

A country with any sort of a military at all has to have warehouses full of that sort of thing and we had ******* none. We basically needed to go into Iraq the day after 9-11 and we were not able to due to the state Slick KKKlinton had left the military in, it took two years of building.


In the case of nuclear weaponry there appears to have been a three-way deal between Saddam Hussein, North Korea, and Libya in which raw materials from NK ended up in Libya to be transmogrified into missiles pointed at Europe and America by Saddam Hussein's technical people and with Iraqi financial backing (your oil-for-terrorism dollars at work), while Kofi Annan and his highly intelligent and efficient staff kept the west believing that their interests were being protected:

http://homepage.mac.com/macint0sh/1/pict/amos/amos.jpg

Muammar Khadaffi has since given the **** up and renounced the whole business. That sort of thing is one of the benefits of having our government back under adult supervision since 2001.

The Czech government is sticking with its story of Mohammed Atta having met with one of Saddam Hussein's top spies prior to 9-11 and there are even pictures of the two together on the internet now:

http://thexreport.com/atta_and_al-ani_photo_and_analysis.htm

http://thexreport.com/alani14.jpg

Then again as I mentioned, there's the question of the anthrax attack which followed 9-11. Saddam Hussein's the only person on this planet who ever had that kind of weaponized anthraxs powder.

http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html

Moreover it does not take hundreds of tons of anthrax powder to create havoc.

The sum total which was used was a few teaspoons full. In other words, a lifetime supply of that sort of thing for a guy like Saddam Hussein could easily amount to a hundred pounds worth, and I guarantee that I could hide that in a country the size of Iraq so that it would not be found.

The question of whether or not Hussein had 1000 tons of anthrax powder is simply the wrong question. The right questions are, did the guy have the motive, the technical resources, the financial wherewithal, the facilities, and the intel apparatus to play that sort of game, and the answers to all of those questions are obvious.



patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 06:09 am
@gungasnake,
Your quote from the foxnews article:

Quote:
But when Michael compared the bacterial spores in three letters, sent to the New York Post and Sens. Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle on Capitol Hill, with the bacteria found in Ivins’ flask, he reached a striking conclusion: They do not share the same chemical fingerprint.


...is followed by...

Quote:
Michael said the powder in the letters contains silicon, oxygen, iron and tin; the flask does not. But there is a good explanation for the lack of a chemical match, he said.

"What the FBI believes happened, and I think the evidence helps support them, is that this material was taken out of that flask and then re-grown before it was put in the letters," Michael said.

FBI investigators think there were at least two “re-growths” by Ivins. This, they say, accounts for the difference between the New York Post powder, which was darker and more granular than the batch sent to Capitol Hill. But the exact recipe or method used remains a mystery.



When bacilli sporulate, they do so using the materials of the medium they are in, not whatever materials the previous spore generation (however many replications ago). All this finding says is that the anthrax did not come directly from the lab -- and it would be pretty astonishing if it did, since it would be so much more difficult to detect to remove a small amount to another location and culture it there. Of course this doesn't prove that it was Ivins, but it certainly doesn't exonerate him, either.

As for the rest of your links to Saddam, I'm kinda curious, and I'll poke around at some later time when I've got to do it, which ain't now.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 07:20 am
@patiodog,
If the case against Saddam and the 9-11 jackers wasn't so overwhelming I might be willing to listen to explanations as to how Ivins might still be involved.

Nonetheless the first cases of anthrax did turn up right in the neighborhood where those guys were living and one case involved a husband of a lady renting a room to one of them. Given that and assuming the 9-11 jackers were involved with the anthrax attacks, you have to ask where they could have gotten the stuff. Only four countries ever had any sort of a weapon anthrax program i.e. the US, Britain, Russia, and Iraq. Ask yourself what would have happened to those hoodlums had they simply gone up to British, American, or Russian authorities and asked for some weapon anthrax..... Saddam on the other hand would have replied "Sure, how much you need??"

There's also a time element. Somebody who didn't know the plan for 9-11 could not have easily staged the anthrax in the week he'd have had afterwards.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 07:28 am
Yet another one of those fabulous a2k ads (seen on this thread),,,

http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=CIzktrK48qTAwAEQ2AUYTzIIImFzbv4KL2M
www.SodaHead.com/BarackObama

Typical response has to be

Quote:

HELL NO!!! In fact I'll have you know that I'm awful goddamned proud of being an idiot and I feel good about ALL the stupid **** I do!!!!!


0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 12:27 pm
DEBATE? OH ... IN MY DREAMS

"A Rush Limbaugh / Barack Obama debate; one-on-one, mano-a-mano, would be the most profoundly embarrassing moment of Barack Obama's life.
There is no way in the world that Obama could stay in the same intellectual ring with Limbaugh .. NO WAY.
Obama would be exposed as a stuttering, stammering, mipping and mupping intellectual lightweight."
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 12:56 pm
@H2O MAN,
Quote:
"A Rush Limbaugh / Barack Obama debate; one-on-one, mano-a-mano, would be the most profoundly embarrassing moment of Barack Obama's life.
There is no way in the world that Obama could stay in the same intellectual ring with Limbaugh .. NO WAY.
Obama would be exposed as a stuttering, stammering, mipping and mupping intellectual lightweight."


Lightweight isn't exactly the word you want; chickenweight would be more like it. It would be sort of like Joe Louis versus Peewee ("Little Weewee") Wilson.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 01:51 pm
@gungasnake,
YOU REEEELLY BELIEVE THAT?

Im not sure that Limbaugh would even know the truth if it bit him in the ass? He is the lightweight preaching to insect weight audience members (present company included)
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 07:58 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
YOU REEEELLY BELIEVE THAT?


Dead certain of it. Oinky would get slaughtered like a sheep.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 08:02 pm
@gungasnake,
Limbaugh is a fake. He was sputtering like the pig he is when Franken was taking his fatness on when he was similarly doing in Oreilly (the other talentless dworkin).

I think that there are words that Limbaugh doesnt even know exist that Obama would use agin him. A'battle of the intellects"? ha, Limbaugh is defenseless.

His own understandings of science prove to me that hes a fraud.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 11:36 pm
@farmerman,
Have you, the general you, not FM, has anyone ever seen Limbaugh debate anyone, even those from his own party?

0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Tue 17 Mar, 2009 05:54 am



PrezBO is the FAKE and Rush would make this clear in less than 60 seconds.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Tue 17 Mar, 2009 07:10 am
I'm sure Rush would devour chickenweight Obama...

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1460924,00.jpg
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Mar, 2009 08:11 am
@H2O MAN,
That's what you call no respect or respect in negative numbers... The Russian government in fact is working on the assumption that the United States in its present form will not be here two years hence and that has to figure into the way they've treated Oinky so far and you have to assume everybody else in Europe is taking notes.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2009 05:11 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
YOU REEEELLY BELIEVE THAT?


..Oinky ....


you might want to come up with something better, gunga. i mean seriously, take a look at the two of them.

now, which one bears more resemblance to a big, fat pig.

here. allow me to offer you an audio / visual example;





0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2009 07:16 pm



PrezBO has challenged Sarah Palin's Down's Syndrome baby to a bowling competition.
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 02:24 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:




PrezBO has challenged Sarah Palin's Down's Syndrome baby to a bowling competition.


and sarah palin has challenged her down's syndrome baby to grow up without the money for special needs children that she said no thanks to from the stim bill.

some friend to special needs children.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/12/2021 at 05:47:27