{ot} security

So for all the whining about North Korea and Iran developing nuclear
weapons, the Radical republicans of congress apparently decided the enemies
of peace were taking way too long to make something really dangerous, so in
the sprit of international cooperation and traditional republican security
concerns, they set up a web how to page for all would be atomic club
wannabes to use for their programs. A great time and money saver for NK and
Iran thanks to our republican congress. (article in NYT)

What a course to stay!

T

"tak" <takirch@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:_ZJ2h.4756$ya1.1754@news02.roc.ny...[color=blue]
> So for all the whining about North Korea and Iran developing nuclear
> weapons, the Radical republicans of congress apparently decided the
> enemies of peace were taking way too long to make something really
> dangerous, so in the sprit of international cooperation and traditional
> republican security concerns, they set up a web how to page for all would
> be atomic club wannabes to use for their programs. A great time and money
> saver for NK and Iran thanks to our republican congress. (article in NYT)
>
> What a course to stay!
>
> T[/color]

Lots of things seem to be unraveling. Did you catch this gem?

Congress Tells Auditor in Iraq to Close Office
Investigations led by a Republican lawyer named Stuart W. Bowen Jr. in Iraq
have sent American occupation officials to jail on bribery and conspiracy
charges, exposed disastrously poor construction work by well-connected
companies like Halliburton and Parsons, and discovered that the military did
not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons it shipped to Iraqi
security forces.

And tucked away in a huge military authorization bill that President Bush
signed two weeks ago is what some of Mr. Bowen's supporters believe is his
reward for repeatedly embarrassing the administration: a pink slip.

The order comes in the form of an obscure provision that terminates his
federal oversight agency, the Office of the Special Inspector General for
Iraq Reconstruction, on Oct. 1, 2007. The clause was inserted by the
Republican side of the House Armed Services Committee over the objections of
Democratic counterparts during a closed-door conference, and it has
generated surprise and some outrage among lawmakers who say they had no idea
it was in the final legislation.

Rest of the story:
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03reconstruct.html?th&emc=th[/url]

"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:S4K2h.4637$Ka1.3432@news01.roc.ny...[color=blue]
> "tak" <takirch@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> news:_ZJ2h.4756$ya1.1754@news02.roc.ny...[color=green]
>> So for all the whining about North Korea and Iran developing nuclear
>> weapons, the Radical republicans of congress apparently decided the
>> enemies of peace were taking way too long to make something really
>> dangerous, so in the sprit of international cooperation and traditional
>> republican security concerns, they set up a web how to page for all would
>> be atomic club wannabes to use for their programs. A great time and money
>> saver for NK and Iran thanks to our republican congress. (article in NYT)
>>
>> What a course to stay!
>>
>> T[/color]
>
> Lots of things seem to be unraveling. Did you catch this gem?
>
> Congress Tells Auditor in Iraq to Close Office
> Investigations led by a Republican lawyer named Stuart W. Bowen Jr. in
> Iraq have sent American occupation officials to jail on bribery and
> conspiracy charges, exposed disastrously poor construction work by
> well-connected companies like Halliburton and Parsons, and discovered that
> the military did not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons it
> shipped to Iraqi security forces.
>
> And tucked away in a huge military authorization bill that President Bush
> signed two weeks ago is what some of Mr. Bowen's supporters believe is his
> reward for repeatedly embarrassing the administration: a pink slip.
>
> The order comes in the form of an obscure provision that terminates his
> federal oversight agency, the Office of the Special Inspector General for
> Iraq Reconstruction, on Oct. 1, 2007. The clause was inserted by the
> Republican side of the House Armed Services Committee over the objections
> of Democratic counterparts during a closed-door conference, and it has
> generated surprise and some outrage among lawmakers who say they had no
> idea it was in the final legislation.
>
> Rest of the story:
> [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03reconstruct.html?th&emc=th[/url]
>[/color]
That would follow in the Radical republican/administration tradition,
starting w/ the Joint chiefs chairman who was cashiered for not agreeing w/
Rumsfeld about the number of troops required to win the war in Iraq.

Honesty, Competence, and respect for citizens and the Constitution are low
priorities in this administration, it seems.

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:19:06 GMT, "tak" <takirch@frontiernet.net>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>So for all the whining about North Korea and Iran developing nuclear
>weapons, the Radical republicans of congress apparently decided the enemies
>of peace were taking way too long to make something really dangerous, so in
>the sprit of international cooperation and traditional republican security
>concerns, they set up a web how to page for all would be atomic club
>wannabes to use for their programs. A great time and money saver for NK and
>Iran thanks to our republican congress. (article in NYT)
>
>What a course to stay!
>
>T
>[/color]

For once the New York Times reported on something (anti Bush of
course) instead of leaking it to the enemy.


--

Scott in Florida

"Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
news:m8tmk29r1m2o6u703c5g1f60bu5bfo8gb6@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:19:06 GMT, "tak" <takirch@frontiernet.net>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>So for all the whining about North Korea and Iran developing nuclear
>>weapons, the Radical republicans of congress apparently decided the
>>enemies
>>of peace were taking way too long to make something really dangerous, so
>>in
>>the sprit of international cooperation and traditional republican security
>>concerns, they set up a web how to page for all would be atomic club
>>wannabes to use for their programs. A great time and money saver for NK
>>and
>>Iran thanks to our republican congress. (article in NYT)
>>
>>What a course to stay!
>>
>>T
>>[/color]
>
> For once the New York Times reported on something (anti Bush of
> course) instead of leaking it to the enemy.
> Scott in Florida
>[/color]

Leaking it to the enemy? Did you read the article? The government posted
technical info on nuclear weapon design, on a web site available to the
public.

"Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
news:m8tmk29r1m2o6u703c5g1f60bu5bfo8gb6@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:19:06 GMT, "tak" <takirch@frontiernet.net>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>So for all the whining about North Korea and Iran developing nuclear
>>weapons, the Radical republicans of congress apparently decided the
>>enemies
>>of peace were taking way too long to make something really dangerous, so
>>in
>>the sprit of international cooperation and traditional republican security
>>concerns, they set up a web how to page for all would be atomic club
>>wannabes to use for their programs. A great time and money saver for NK
>>and
>>Iran thanks to our republican congress. (article in NYT)
>>
>>What a course to stay!
>>
>>T
>>[/color]
>
> For once the New York Times reported on something (anti Bush of
> course) instead of leaking it to the enemy.
>
>
> --
>
> Scott in Florida
>[/color]
I disagree with you on both points:

a. Printing factual stories in a newspaper hardly constitutes "leaking" to
the enemy.

b. So far, Bush isn't cited as the source of the web page, the Republican
controlled Congress is "credited" with insisting on this foul-up.

"tak" <takirch@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:s_K2h.4648$Ka1.3795@news01.roc.ny...[color=blue]
>
> "Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
> news:m8tmk29r1m2o6u703c5g1f60bu5bfo8gb6@4ax.com...[color=green]
>> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:19:06 GMT, "tak" <takirch@frontiernet.net>
>> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>So for all the whining about North Korea and Iran developing nuclear
>>>weapons, the Radical republicans of congress apparently decided the
>>>enemies
>>>of peace were taking way too long to make something really dangerous, so
>>>in
>>>the sprit of international cooperation and traditional republican
>>>security
>>>concerns, they set up a web how to page for all would be atomic club
>>>wannabes to use for their programs. A great time and money saver for NK
>>>and
>>>Iran thanks to our republican congress. (article in NYT)
>>>
>>>What a course to stay!
>>>
>>>T
>>>[/color]
>>
>> For once the New York Times reported on something (anti Bush of
>> course) instead of leaking it to the enemy.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Scott in Florida
>>[/color]
> I disagree with you on both points:
>
> a. Printing factual stories in a newspaper hardly constitutes "leaking"
> to the enemy.
>
> b. So far, Bush isn't cited as the source of the web page, the Republican
> controlled Congress is "credited" with insisting on this foul-up.
>[/color]

Don't pick out key points for Scott. This is what Bush says is done for him
by his sitters, and it's obviously gotten him into trouble. Scott needs to
read the article for himself, which he will not do.

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:27:52 GMT, "tak" <takirch@frontiernet.net>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>"Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
>news:m8tmk29r1m2o6u703c5g1f60bu5bfo8gb6@4ax.com...[color=green]
>> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:19:06 GMT, "tak" <takirch@frontiernet.net>
>> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>So for all the whining about North Korea and Iran developing nuclear
>>>weapons, the Radical republicans of congress apparently decided the
>>>enemies
>>>of peace were taking way too long to make something really dangerous, so
>>>in
>>>the sprit of international cooperation and traditional republican security
>>>concerns, they set up a web how to page for all would be atomic club
>>>wannabes to use for their programs. A great time and money saver for NK
>>>and
>>>Iran thanks to our republican congress. (article in NYT)
>>>
>>>What a course to stay!
>>>
>>>T
>>>[/color]
>>
>> For once the New York Times reported on something (anti Bush of
>> course) instead of leaking it to the enemy.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Scott in Florida
>>[/color]
>I disagree with you on both points:
>
>a. Printing factual stories in a newspaper hardly constitutes "leaking" to
>the enemy.
>
>b. So far, Bush isn't cited as the source of the web page, the Republican
>controlled Congress is "credited" with insisting on this foul-up.
>[/color]

Turns out the story proves that Saddam was 1 year away from having a
nuke.

That means.....Bush was right to invade and get rid of Saddam...


--

Scott in Florida

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:34:21 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
<dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>"tak" <takirch@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
>news:s_K2h.4648$Ka1.3795@news01.roc.ny...[color=green]
>>
>> "Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
>> news:m8tmk29r1m2o6u703c5g1f60bu5bfo8gb6@4ax.com...[color=darkred]
>>> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:19:06 GMT, "tak" <takirch@frontiernet.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>So for all the whining about North Korea and Iran developing nuclear
>>>>weapons, the Radical republicans of congress apparently decided the
>>>>enemies
>>>>of peace were taking way too long to make something really dangerous, so
>>>>in
>>>>the sprit of international cooperation and traditional republican
>>>>security
>>>>concerns, they set up a web how to page for all would be atomic club
>>>>wannabes to use for their programs. A great time and money saver for NK
>>>>and
>>>>Iran thanks to our republican congress. (article in NYT)
>>>>
>>>>What a course to stay!
>>>>
>>>>T
>>>>
>>>
>>> For once the New York Times reported on something (anti Bush of
>>> course) instead of leaking it to the enemy.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Scott in Florida
>>>[/color]
>> I disagree with you on both points:
>>
>> a. Printing factual stories in a newspaper hardly constitutes "leaking"
>> to the enemy.
>>
>> b. So far, Bush isn't cited as the source of the web page, the Republican
>> controlled Congress is "credited" with insisting on this foul-up.
>>[/color]
>
>Don't pick out key points for Scott. This is what Bush says is done for him
>by his sitters, and it's obviously gotten him into trouble. Scott needs to
>read the article for himself, which he will not do.
>[/color]

Which proves you are wrong.

The article states that Saddam was about a year away from an
operational Nuke.

Seems Bush was right to invade Iraq.

Thanks NYTimes for proving GWB right...


--

Scott in Florida

"Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
news:fmvmk29j3h4h72u0hl04tjliiopm04660o@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:34:21 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>"tak" <takirch@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
>>news:s_K2h.4648$Ka1.3795@news01.roc.ny...[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> "Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
>>> news:m8tmk29r1m2o6u703c5g1f60bu5bfo8gb6@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:19:06 GMT, "tak" <takirch@frontiernet.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>So for all the whining about North Korea and Iran developing nuclear
>>>>>weapons, the Radical republicans of congress apparently decided the
>>>>>enemies
>>>>>of peace were taking way too long to make something really dangerous,
>>>>>so
>>>>>in
>>>>>the sprit of international cooperation and traditional republican
>>>>>security
>>>>>concerns, they set up a web how to page for all would be atomic club
>>>>>wannabes to use for their programs. A great time and money saver for NK
>>>>>and
>>>>>Iran thanks to our republican congress. (article in NYT)
>>>>>
>>>>>What a course to stay!
>>>>>
>>>>>T
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For once the New York Times reported on something (anti Bush of
>>>> course) instead of leaking it to the enemy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Scott in Florida
>>>>
>>> I disagree with you on both points:
>>>
>>> a. Printing factual stories in a newspaper hardly constitutes "leaking"
>>> to the enemy.
>>>
>>> b. So far, Bush isn't cited as the source of the web page, the
>>> Republican
>>> controlled Congress is "credited" with insisting on this foul-up.
>>>[/color]
>>
>>Don't pick out key points for Scott. This is what Bush says is done for
>>him
>>by his sitters, and it's obviously gotten him into trouble. Scott needs to
>>read the article for himself, which he will not do.
>>[/color]
>
> Which proves you are wrong.
>
> The article states that Saddam was about a year away from an
> operational Nuke.
>
> Seems Bush was right to invade Iraq.
>
> Thanks NYTimes for proving GWB right...
> Scott in Florida
>[/color]

The point of the article is that we published a category of information
which was dangerous, and nobody seemed to have a clue.

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:46:07 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
<dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>The point of the article is that we published a category of information
>which was dangerous, and nobody seemed to have a clue.
>[/color]

According to??????

The New York Times.....

ROFLMAO


--

Scott in Florida

"Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
news:i90nk2h8fps3thehqtrf3qok22n02atolu@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:46:07 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>>The point of the article is that we published a category of information
>>which was dangerous, and nobody seemed to have a clue.
>>[/color]
>
> According to??????
>
> The New York Times.....
>
> ROFLMAO
> Scott in Florida
>[/color]

No. Negroponte acknowledged the existence of the web site. Read the article,
or shut the fuck up.

"The director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte, had resisted
setting up the Web site, which some intelligence officials felt implicitly
raised questions about the competence and judgment of government analysts.
But President Bush approved the site's creation after Congressional
Republicans proposed legislation to force the documents' release.
In his statement last night, Mr. Negroponte's spokesman, Chad Kolton, said,
"While strict criteria had already been established to govern posted
documents, the material currently on the Web site, as well as the procedures
used to post new documents, will be carefully reviewed before the site
becomes available again."

"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:x4L2h.4649$Ka1.3139@news01.roc.ny...[color=blue]
> "tak" <takirch@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> news:s_K2h.4648$Ka1.3795@news01.roc.ny...[color=green]
>>
>> "Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
>> news:m8tmk29r1m2o6u703c5g1f60bu5bfo8gb6@4ax.com...[color=darkred]
>>> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:19:06 GMT, "tak" <takirch@frontiernet.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>So for all the whining about North Korea and Iran developing nuclear
>>>>weapons, the Radical republicans of congress apparently decided the
>>>>enemies
>>>>of peace were taking way too long to make something really dangerous, so
>>>>in
>>>>the sprit of international cooperation and traditional republican
>>>>security
>>>>concerns, they set up a web how to page for all would be atomic club
>>>>wannabes to use for their programs. A great time and money saver for NK
>>>>and
>>>>Iran thanks to our republican congress. (article in NYT)
>>>>
>>>>What a course to stay!
>>>>
>>>>T
>>>>
>>>
>>> For once the New York Times reported on something (anti Bush of
>>> course) instead of leaking it to the enemy.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Scott in Florida
>>>[/color]
>> I disagree with you on both points:
>>
>> a. Printing factual stories in a newspaper hardly constitutes "leaking"
>> to the enemy.
>>
>> b. So far, Bush isn't cited as the source of the web page, the
>> Republican controlled Congress is "credited" with insisting on this
>> foul-up.
>>[/color]
>
> Don't pick out key points for Scott. This is what Bush says is done for
> him by his sitters, and it's obviously gotten him into trouble. Scott
> needs to read the article for himself, which he will not do.
>[/color]
Not to worry, facts, sources, and reality matter little to the Florida troll
and his "pontifications"

"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:S4K2h.4637$Ka1.3432@news01.roc.ny...[color=blue]
> "tak" <takirch@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> news:_ZJ2h.4756$ya1.1754@news02.roc.ny...[color=green]
>> So for all the whining about North Korea and Iran developing nuclear
>> weapons, the Radical republicans of congress apparently decided the
>> enemies of peace were taking way too long to make something really
>> dangerous, so in the sprit of international cooperation and traditional
>> republican security concerns, they set up a web how to page for all would
>> be atomic club wannabes to use for their programs. A great time and money
>> saver for NK and Iran thanks to our republican congress. (article in NYT)
>>
>> What a course to stay!
>>
>> T[/color]
>
> Lots of things seem to be unraveling. Did you catch this gem?
>
> Congress Tells Auditor in Iraq to Close Office
> Investigations led by a Republican lawyer named Stuart W. Bowen Jr. in
> Iraq have sent American occupation officials to jail on bribery and
> conspiracy charges, exposed disastrously poor construction work by
> well-connected companies like Halliburton and Parsons, and discovered that
> the military did not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons it
> shipped to Iraqi security forces.
>
> And tucked away in a huge military authorization bill that President Bush
> signed two weeks ago is what some of Mr. Bowen's supporters believe is his
> reward for repeatedly embarrassing the administration: a pink slip.
>
> The order comes in the form of an obscure provision that terminates his
> federal oversight agency, the Office of the Special Inspector General for
> Iraq Reconstruction, on Oct. 1, 2007. The clause was inserted by the
> Republican side of the House Armed Services Committee over the objections
> of Democratic counterparts during a closed-door conference, and it has
> generated surprise and some outrage among lawmakers who say they had no
> idea it was in the final legislation.
>
> Rest of the story:
> [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03reconstruct.html?th&emc=th[/url][/color]

Hastert's got the Administration's back.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]

"Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
news:fmvmk29j3h4h72u0hl04tjliiopm04660o@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:34:21 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>"tak" <takirch@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
>>news:s_K2h.4648$Ka1.3795@news01.roc.ny...[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> "Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
>>> news:m8tmk29r1m2o6u703c5g1f60bu5bfo8gb6@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:19:06 GMT, "tak" <takirch@frontiernet.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>So for all the whining about North Korea and Iran developing nuclear
>>>>>weapons, the Radical republicans of congress apparently decided the
>>>>>enemies
>>>>>of peace were taking way too long to make something really dangerous,
>>>>>so
>>>>>in
>>>>>the sprit of international cooperation and traditional republican
>>>>>security
>>>>>concerns, they set up a web how to page for all would be atomic club
>>>>>wannabes to use for their programs. A great time and money saver for NK
>>>>>and
>>>>>Iran thanks to our republican congress. (article in NYT)
>>>>>
>>>>>What a course to stay!
>>>>>
>>>>>T
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For once the New York Times reported on something (anti Bush of
>>>> course) instead of leaking it to the enemy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Scott in Florida
>>>>
>>> I disagree with you on both points:
>>>
>>> a. Printing factual stories in a newspaper hardly constitutes "leaking"
>>> to the enemy.
>>>
>>> b. So far, Bush isn't cited as the source of the web page, the
>>> Republican
>>> controlled Congress is "credited" with insisting on this foul-up.
>>>[/color]
>>
>>Don't pick out key points for Scott. This is what Bush says is done for
>>him
>>by his sitters, and it's obviously gotten him into trouble. Scott needs to
>>read the article for himself, which he will not do.
>>[/color]
>
> Which proves you are wrong.
>
> The article states that Saddam was about a year away from an
> operational Nuke.[/color]

No, you didn't read the story. Or you have such low reading comprehension
as to be pitiable. Or you're a Rightist deep in denial. Or all three.

Saddam might have been a year away from a workable bomb design but he was
many years away from having suitable materials to build a weapon. He would
have had to steal the fuel.

Of course, since Bush cut funding for securing Soviet stockpiles and ignored
North Korea for 5 years, well, maybe somebody will get a nuke.
[color=blue]
>
> Seems Bush was right to invade Iraq.
>
> Thanks NYTimes for proving GWB right...
>
>
> Scott in Florida
>[/color]



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]