B. Max

Do you work for NewsMax? "These reports" are over a year old. And while dodgy fringe publications like NewsMax can trumpet them all they want, I'm curious to know why they don't mesh with the very real, very offical (and recent) accounts by the United States' own intelligence services. No signs that weapons were smuggled I did a quick search on this story. Sure enough, the olny place it appeared was in sketchy right-wing publications and blogs, always quoting "unnamed Jordanian officials" and other secondary sources. Frankly, given the reliability of the right-wing news apparatus (hello, "Jeff Gannon"!) it's no wonder none of these allegations ever picked up legs. There is no agreement on wheather WMD's were smuggled or not. There is enough evidence to suggest they were. However if newsmax reports the story you can take it to the bank. Even 630 in edmonton reported the terrorists with the WMD'S from syria last year. Shooting the messenger won't change what is known fact.

I'm sure the left would love to move on. Otherwise there is going to be a hell of a lot of crow to eat. These reports keep surfacing and sooner or later we'll get the truth of the matter. The lefts terrorist friends have already been caught with some of these weapons they recieved in syria. Syria claims they don't have any WMD's so how did these terrorists get their hands on WMD's in syria. Or does syria mean they don't have any of their own, just those that came from iraq. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/...17/141224.shtml

C'mon, say it: "I. Was. Wrong." You can do it! As for your Syria story, you might want to keep this in mind: "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." (not "won't get fooled again.") It would seem that even the newyork leftist times is reporting what really happened the missing WMD's. Maybe the lid is beginning to blow off this story. Much i suspect to the dismay of the blame america first crowd. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/...13/101911.shtml

Yes syria claims the same thing. Yet the terrorists that were caught last year on their way to jordan, with the chemical weapons they had to do who knows with them, got them in syria. Most likely they are some of the same weapons the russians moved out of iraq and into syria. Or else syria has their own chemical weapons and are giving them to terrorists, or both. More than enough reason to take out syria.

You know, it's standard procedure to check a source before running off at the mouth about it. You obviously haven't read the report, but that's a direct quote from the its Key Findings. Don't believe me? Look it up yourself. The link is in the post you quoted earlier. In fact: here's a direct link. Tell it to the likes of dan rather, moore and so on. Although i doubt the enemy from within could give a rats ass.

No I mean Charles Duefler, the man in charge of the United States' weapons hunt. The man who's report I've been quoting from for the past zillion posts. That would be the same report which contradicts your NewsMax (talk about reliable sources) by concluding Why are you people still fighting this battle? That's obviously not what Duefler said, or you are taking something out of context. Typical mainstream media tricks.

That's right: the sam emedia that brethlessly echoed every pre-war WMD allegation the administration made is now covering up evidence. In fact, this conspiracy even touches those charged with hunting for weapons in Iraq. It would surprise me if this bid to keep the overwhelming evidence of Iraq's WMD's (I hear they were also working on experimental giant robots and flying monkey suicide bombers) reaches all the way to the POTUS. You mean hans blix or whatever his name was. The guy couldn't find his ass with both hands tied behind his back. You got it: pride and stupidity. The Duelfer report includes a comprehensive analyisis of Saddam's regime and his intentions re: WMD. Among the findings were: It's a interesting look at the regime and its WMD aspirations, but its inescapable conclusion is that Sadam did not possess WMD. You mean hans blix or whatever his name is. The guy couldn't find his ass with both hands tied behind his back. As for the likes of scott ritter, he's got traitor stamped all over him. http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/5/114239.shtml

Is that the yellowcake he bought from Niger? Anyway, the IAEA WAS in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, and from November 2002 to March 2003. These and other, subsequent investigations found no evidence of any active Iraqi nuclear, chemical or bioweapons programs. So I'm curious as to where you're getting your information. I don't no where they got it, but if you get your information from the main stream media they barely will mention any of it if at all. They're to busy making things up like dan rather or trying to figure out what they want you to hear. I read a story the other day where someone was likening them to a bunch of fith columists. Can't say i disagree.

If his possession of WMD is such common knowledge why have they found no evidence of any programs? The U.S's own Iraq Survey group reported that Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and did not have any programs to produce them? Are they lying? No they never found any pointy things, but the lead investigator was on larry king one night saying they found plenty they weren't suppose to have. Factories for producing chemical weapons and the ingredients for making them. They flew tons of yellow cake or whatever it is, back to the US last year that was for restarting saddams nuke program. A program which was to be paid for from the money he was skimming off the oil for food scam.

You have to either be an idiot or be totally obtuse. Saddam didn't have WMD. Nor did he have ties to Al Qaeda. His military was decrepit. He was weak, he was contained, ergo, he was no threat. Of course he had them, but the question is, where are they now. These reports have been popping up for a long time now. The russians have been in it up to their dirty rotton necks and saddams butchers have been running to syria to hide out from the beginning. Not to mention that syria has been used a door way for terrorists to enter iraq and has been supporting their efforts there. It's time to take out syria. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2.../2/230625.shtml

You amuse me, little man! I can see you're out of ammo. Ammo? Don't be absurd. What I'm out of are worthwhile targets. More likely easy targets.

You amuse me, little man! I can see you're out of ammo.

Fantasy and ignorance are poor bases for you to try to conduct a discussion. You have a faulty understanding of the consequences of division of powers. The Crown stands before the division. But I doubt that any amount of information will sway you, so I'll decline to waste my time. Cheers. You have no understanding of it what soever, nor does the eastern government respect it. That further drives alberta out of what has become a farce of a country that every day resembles more and more a third world despot run backwater.

Well that's the thing that wars are made of. Any attempt at a federal land grab would be meant with the full fury of albertans. Something i think the east would not have the stomach for.

Oh damn i forgot. Because of albertans exorbintant contribution to a country that we've had no say in, and only found our selves dodging one bullet after another from the easts government, we will consider any debt to said country, paid in full. Bye bye.

You're mistaken, I'm afraid. In fact, the crown-in-right-of-Canada is sovereign over the whole territory of Canada, and every citizen shares the same right to each and all parts of it. The fact is, that when alberta leaves you will have no say in the matter what soever, never mind laying any claim to alberta's territory. Unless of course you are an albertan.

I finally had to turn it off. The media here is cranking it through the roof,to the point Rutherford is sounding like a liberal and news casters are turning into poets. Like joe friday used to say. Just the facts please.

He says he and his federal counterpart are now talking about what kind of retaliation Canada might take if the bill passes. And he says one of the options includes stopping energy exports to the U.S Something like this is all it would take to push albertans over edge to fully support secession. I say, have at her.

That doesn't look like overwhelming support to me, but i wouldn't be surprised if the poll was conducted in sin city. A city with a city run drug house where they are now looking at even buying the addicts their drugs with taxpayers money. If you would like to challenge the scientific accuracy of the Mustel Group polling, feel free. They are a well established polling company with a good reputation, and even though the company has a conservative slant on many issues, its numbers are generally accurate. But, for your curiosity, BC's 4 million people are broken into the following demographics.. - 2.5 million in all of greater Vancouver, Fraser Valley - 750 thousand on Vancouver Island - 750 thousand in the interior, north, cariboo, okanagan, etc. Any polling firm would be obligated to ask citizens based on the regional facts of BC. But since you brought up the downtown east sides drug problems and such, how many of them do you think have phones to answer a poll with? Oh, and I would consider a 17 point advantage VERY significant. So 17% more can't tell right from wrong. Like i said, i wouldn't be surprised something like that would come from sin city.

That doesn't look like overwhelming support to me, but i wouldn't be surprised if the poll was conducted in sin city. A city with a city run drug house where they are now looking at even buying the addicts their drugs with taxpayers money.

Well if we don't need a military then we don't need a federal government since that is its most primary reason for being.

But look, we are just now discussing the very reasons not to sell water. Didn't you notice, or do you have some 'reason' why the reasons aren't reason in your view? I don't consider them reasons, just nonsense and excuses. So you say. But why should anyone take note of your considerations? Did you have a case to make.

But look, we are just now discussing the very reasons not to sell water. Didn't you notice, or do you have some 'reason' why the reasons aren't reason in your view? I don't consider them reasons, just nonsense and excuses.

There is no reason not to sell water to the US, but there are those in this country that would rather watch it run out into the ocean that sell it to the americans. It's typical of the blame america first, crowd.

Only if they (the USA government) respected international laws which we all know they do not. Stop the insulting nick names; that is being childish and we were told not to play these types of insulting childish games. What would the point of demanding Canadian consultation before using BMD? How stupid would someone have to be to imagine that the Americans would take "no" for an answer in any event? *ring-ring* "Hello, this is Paul Martin's personal assistant. This call better be hella-important, because the Prime Minister is giving an address to the First Nations Youth Athletics Development Committee." "Howdy. This is Dubya. This is kinda urgent. There's some kinda nuke or somethin like that heading for New York City, and we can try and shoot it down, but we gotta act fast and the Premier there or whatever his name is has to give permission or somethin." "One moment please, Mr Bush." (pause) "Hello, this is, uh, Paul Martin." "Howdy. This is Dubya. This is kinda urgent. There's some kinda nuke or somethin like that heading for New York City, and we can try and shoot it down, but we gotta act fast and we gotta get your permission before we can fire up the BMD thingy." "Well, George, I'd like to help, but the polls say that Canadians don't support BMD, so I'm probably going to say no. Sorry." *click* I mean, riiiiiight. What possible answer other than "yes" is acceptible in that instance? Perhaps Ottawa would create a new BMD hotline. It would be staffed by a man named Marc-Andre or Jean-Paul or Pierre somethingorother, a long-time friend of the Liberal Party. He would be paid approx $180,000 a year. His job function would be to pick up the phone and immediately say "Yes." -kimmy Don't forget that they would have to delay that until it was tranlated into both official languages.