|
 |
October 17, 2003 BOTULISM IN IRAQ....Remember that vial of botulism that David Kay's team found in Iraq? Almost immediately we heard from experts who told us to watch out: botulism bacteria is found in nature and is essentially harmless, while botulism toxin is a deadly weapon. Which was it? Answer: it was the bacteria. Matt Yglesias finds this suspicious:
Yep. This is the "technical lie" that I talked about a few weeks ago, and it's the reason you can't take anything this administration says at face value. As for why they did this, the answer is obvious: they just wanted to get the word "botulism" into the news reports. Even if the media reported the story 100% accurately with all the appropriate hedges and cautions, it's still a win for the administration. All that mattered is that 300 million Americans heard the word "botulism," and 90% of them didn't hear anything else. But they didn't lie, did they? I wonder if St. Peter would agree? Posted by Kevin Drum at October 17, 2003 06:14 PM | TrackBackComments
Good term. Should Pious Frauds Be Practiced on the People? Posted by: grytpype at October 17, 2003 07:06 PM | PERMALINKTo the extent that Kay referred to this as a "cache of weapons", and feeble-minded idiots like Sean Hannity keep rapping about how "we" have found the "weapons of mass destruction"… It's not a technical lie. What Kay's been saying is a lie. Posted by: Rick at October 17, 2003 07:15 PM | PERMALINKI saw an interview with Kay were he was very careful to explain the difference between bacteria and toxin, and that he found bacteria, bacteria that was being cutlured with the clear intention to make toxin. You can't make the toxin without the bacteria. Posted by: Howard Owens at October 17, 2003 07:45 PM | PERMALINKI know that Bush is a lying sack of shit, but, in the interest of
being fair and balanced, I have to ask: If the bacteria in question is
as common as many have maintained, why did the Iraqi scientist deem it
necessary to preserve the sample all this time? I'd feel better about
this if someone less biologically ignorant than myself could enlighten
me. (Not that I think that a tube of goo some guy's fridge is worth
going to war over anyway, but I've been wondering about this since
people started claiming that the stuff was "commonly found in the
average backyard," etc...) uh...that's a tube of goo IN some guy's fridge... Posted by: jk at October 17, 2003 07:47 PM | PERMALINKjk, supposedly the bacterium is used all the time in biology. Posted by: grytpype at October 17, 2003 07:55 PM | PERMALINKFrom : SNOW: You believe that there are similar strains perhaps throughout Iraq right now? KAY: We're actively searching for at least one more cache of weapons — of strains that we know exists. And then the LA Times The vial of botulinum B — about 2 inches high and half an inch
wide — was the only suspicious biological material Kay reported finding.
It was sealed and stored in the scientist's home with 96 other
apparently benign vials of single-cell proteins and biopesticides. It's a lie in every sense of the word, or the word has no meaning. By the way, that first link (click on the colon) is Fox News. I hosed the HTML. Sorry. Posted by: Rick at October 17, 2003 08:13 PM | PERMALINKWait a minute. Are we still asking whether the Bush Administration is lying? They are systematically biasing the selection of the information they present and materially distorting its meaning. They are hiding, evading, and denying substantially relevant information. They are deliberately and materially deceiving the American people. Of course they're lying. It's beyond reasonable doubt. Could we stop worrying about this now? Thank you. Posted by: bleh at October 17, 2003 08:15 PM | PERMALINKOh for heavens' sake, Botulinum B is used to I have to ask: If the bacteria in question is as common as many have maintained, why did the Iraqi scientist deem it necessary to preserve the sample all this time? I'd feel better about this if someone less biologically ignorant than myself could enlighten me. You know, every time garbage day comes, I go through my fridge, and I find everything that looks old. And I ask myself, "Do I live in a dictatorship which has told me to hold on to this, or can I throw it away?" Because you know what's going to happen once you chuck it- as soon as you do, you just know that someone from the dictatorship is going to ask you for it, and you won't have it because you just had to clear some room in your fridge. Why take the risk? It's classical packrat thinking. If you're the packratty type, you can probably look around in the room you're in right now, and spot things that have not been thrown away for equally flimsy reasons. Keep in mind that many people have things in their refrigerator that have been there longer than ten years, and that are more disgusting and virulent than botulinum B. And it's not like the average person is going to think, "well, I'd
better chuck this, because what if a superpower comes into my kitchen
someday and starts ransacking my refrigerator, trying to establish a
rationalization for a fraudulent war, and it finds this tube of goo in
my egg drawer?" That would be silly. Oh for heavens' sake, Botulinum B is used to It is my understanding that getting the toxin from the bacteria is no easy feat. Further, the bacteria has serveral benign uses. If this is why we invaded Iraq, well, it is now time to invade every University in the world then. As far as St. Peter is concerned: yes, these are lies. And not little white ones, either. If this is why we invaded Iraq, well, it is now time to invade every University in the world then. I see your point, but that's a little much. I'm still in shock that they haven't found anything. Too bad for the anti-war there weren't futures on WMD...they would have made a load of money. Posted by: saranwarp at October 17, 2003 08:47 PM | PERMALINKAnd it is used to make people's lips puff up to make them look nice and purty. Botox, ever heard of it? Botulism is used widely in biological research in part because it is so commonly available. Weaponized botulism toxin is not easy to make from the organism. It's like saying "he had a pen, he must have been planning to write anti-american screeds! kill him!" Posted by: Dan at October 17, 2003 08:48 PM | PERMALINKIsn't Botulinum A used to make the neurotoxin? If not, posters here have info that Ft. Detrick is missing. To the ramparts, trolls! Posted by: Young Nastyman at October 17, 2003 08:51 PM | PERMALINKIf the intent is to deceive, it's a lie. That's what a lie is. It's a lie. They are liars. They tell lies. They say things that aren't true, on purpose. That's lying. But they are Republicans, so their morality is beyond reproach. You know, like William Bennett. And Rush. And... oh, never mind. Pants on fire, that's all I can say. Posted by: craigie at October 17, 2003 09:35 PM | PERMALINKWhy would a bioweapon scientist have it, if he wasn't intending to try to make a weapon out of it? Posted by: Howard Owens at October 17, 2003 10:03 PM | PERMALINKI'm done, frankly. I'm sick of this "it is true in a technical sense" bullcrap. I am so fed up with the parsing, with the spinning, with the whatever. It was all a goddamn lie. And that's that. Posted by: Thersites at October 17, 2003 10:19 PM | PERMALINKHoward Owens, that's an interesting question. Assuming this was a bioweapon scientist, although I don't believe that description is part of the record. Again, from the LA Times: The single vial of botulinum B had been stored in an Iraqi
scientist's kitchen refrigerator since 1993. It appears to have been
produced by a nonprofit Virginia biological resource center, the
American Type Culture Collection, which legally exported botulinum and
other biological material to Iraq under a Commerce Department license in
the late 1980s. I wonder why the "bioweapon scientist" had all that other, non-bioweapon material? Let's out on our thinking caps. Again, from the LA Times: ...Dr. David Franz, a former chief U.N. biological weapons
inspector who is considered among America's foremost experts on
biowarfare agents, said there was no evidence that Iraq or anyone else
has ever succeeded in using botulinum B for biowarfare. And, finally,, also from the LA Times: The single vial of botulinum B had been stored in an Iraqi scientist's kitchen refrigerator since 1993. It appears to have been produced by a nonprofit Virginia biological resource center, the American Type Culture Collection, which legally exported botulinum and other biological material to Iraq under a Commerce Department license in the late 1980s. Although I can't remember whose Dad was President in the late 1980s, it does seem odd that someone preparing a bioweapon program would store his treasures in a kitchen refrigerator. I wonder what common household objects could be used to weaponize this very troubling object. Maybe he had one of those mobile bio-labs parked out back at one time.
Why would a bioweapon scientist have it, if he wasn't intending to try to make a weapon out of it? Whoa, who said he was a "bioweapon scientist"? Who's referring to him using that phrase? I did a Google News search and found nothing about this guy being a "bioweapon scientist", which is a loaded phrase if I ever heard one. And keep this in context. This was one bottle out of "96 other apparently benign vials of single-cell proteins and biopesticides". Sounds like he had a dreadful mess in his refrigerator. I can think of plenty of reason why a scientist might have botulinum. It's not as if it couldn't have been ordered out of any number of catalogs from U.S. suppliers. This is not a big deal. They aren't making hay out of this because there's something to it. They're making a fuss over it because there is nothing else. ("Yet". That's their favorite word now. "We've found nothing... yet.") Posted by: MillionthMonkey at October 17, 2003 10:39 PM | PERMALINKWe haven't been thrown out of office...yet Posted by: craigie at October 17, 2003 10:55 PM | PERMALINKAll that mattered is that 300 million Americans heard the word "botulism," and 90% of them didn't hear anything else. Is botulism even a scary word anymore? It (well, its toxin, at any rate) is used to make a cosmetic product, for Pete's sake! Maybe Saddam was really working on Weapons of Mass Beautification? Posted by: YT at October 17, 2003 11:18 PM | PERMALINKDr. Kay's Botox for Men is some mightly powerful stuff. But we must get to the root cause, rather than just treating the symptoms. Shall we next invade the nefarious country that backed Saddam during his war with Iraq, and supplied agents which could be used in the production of biological weapons? The ruler who authorized this shipment of "dual-use" items is out of power, but perhaps we could make an example of his son. Posted by: mark at October 17, 2003 11:25 PM | PERMALINKMore ... Report: U.S. supplied the kinds of germs Iraq later used for biological weapons So what exactly is the lie? I saw some freepers saying it was toxin,
but has Bush been saying we have toxin? I never heard anybody but the
freepers saying it was toxin. That is what was originally reported, a
vial of botulism bacteria. Look, both sides are finding what they want. You lefties will say any evidence of Saddam's intent to make WMDs isn't conclusive unless we find 100% of what Iraq hasn't reported. The right is satisfied with evidence of Saddam's intent. There is no lie here. Posted by: Reg at October 17, 2003 11:36 PM | PERMALINKReg, please read all the comments before responding. It's already been addressed that this scientist was not an "Iraqi weapon scientist," and calling botulinum B a WMD, especially a cache of WMD, is wrong. Botulinum A is the WMD, and it was not found and not likely to be produced from Kay's vial. If the administration is going to jump to conclusions, then I think the opposition should refute the inaccurate claims--and that goes beyond partisan politics. Posted by: Matt W. at October 17, 2003 11:59 PM | PERMALINK"He lusted in his heart for botox" justifies invasion? Or is the justification 9/11 9/11 .... 9/11? Tenuous pretext, pious fraud, deliberate lie or willful ignorance? I'll let Tennesse Williams field that one. Mendacity. You know what that is. It's lies and liars. ... Not one lie, not one person. The whole thing. Lies - 1 Botulinum found in Iraq 'is WMD' WEAPONS of mass destruction (WMD) have been found in Iraq in the form of a vial of botulinum bacteria discovered by US arms inspectors, the US State Department said today. "Botulinum kills people, it kills people in large quantities," spokesman Richard Boucher said. "Botulinum is a weapon of mass destruction, yes." "Anything that destroys on a massive scale is a weapon of mass destruction," he said. [snip] Asked whether he believed weapons of mass destruction would ultimately be found in Iraq, Powell replied with a rhetorical question: "Do you think vials of botulinum should constitute a weapon of mass destruction?" Posted by: mark at October 18, 2003 12:13 AM | PERMALINKLook, both sides are finding what they want. Neither side is finding what they want. We are finding our president is a lying sack of shit. You are finding nothing. You lefties... I beg your pardon, sir. I am an angry conservative. ... will say any evidence of Saddam's intent to make WMDs isn't conclusive unless we find 100% of what Iraq hasn't reported. You've found nothing out of a total of nothing, so we can't calculate a percentage. Intent to make WMDs is irrelevant. He wasn't able to make WMDs. He wasn't making WMDs. That's all that matters. We didn't go to war over intent. There isn't a government on earth that would not secretly like to have access to WMDs. Furthermore, you have not even proven intent. And this crap about "dual use" is completely disingenuous. Do you have pencils or candles in your house? Wax and graphite can be used as moderators in nuclear weapons. When they claim to have found "dual use" equipment, it means they found the equivalent of pencils or candles, and are trying to make it sound like more than it is. And they only say it because they know that technically they are not lying. The right is satisfied with evidence of Saddam's intent. The right will have to be satisfied with anything they can hang their hat on at this point. But I daresay they have yet to produce anything that meets even this meager standard, which was NOT the one used in the marketing before the war when we were being lied to about mushroom clouds. If intent is now your standard, you'll be interested to know that Pat Robertson has clearly stated his intent to detonate a nuclear device to destroy the State Department (and "effect political change"). There is no lie here. You sound like the Iraqi Information Minister. A lie is a lie. It's
time to take responsibility. We've all heard the lectures on "moral
relativism" and now when we call a spade a spade suddenly we're getting
definitions of what "is" is all over again. Stop parsing and making
excuses. Reg: Seriously, wake up man. Wake up! This man is only described as a 'scientist.' He had 96 vials of various bio-matter in his fridge. Only one, the botulinum bacteria, even had any potential of being made into something nasty. Now go read that again: make very careful note of the word potential. The only logical choice to make from the evidence at hand is that this guy was freakin' doc. in boioligy. There has been, as yet, absolutely no evidence to indicate the contrary. If this indicates 'intent' of a weapons program, then every University in the US also has intent to make a bioweapons program. Got it gets tiring explaning that it really is day outside. No really, it is. See the blue sky, the sun shining? We call that daytime. Posted by: Timothy Klein at October 18, 2003 12:28 AM | PERMALINKGetting from Botulinum bacteria to a weapon is non-trivial. First, one has to have the right strain. Then one has to produce toxin. Then one has to weaponize that toxin. Botulinum isn't even an ingredient in a WMD. Calling a vial of bacteria a WMD, as Richard Boucher and Colin Powell did, is nothing less than a lie. And regarding Iraq's capabilities to weaponize Botulinum toxin, Scott Ritter had this to say ... The Threat that Iraq Poses to the United States [T]he main weapons were anthrax and botulinum toxin. Iraq produced these in liquid bulk agent. They had not perfected the means of aerosolizing this or turning it into a dry, powdered form, which means they didn't have a biological weapon. They had sludge that they put in a bomb or they put in a warhead, but the fact is, when this bomb or warhead hit the ground, it buried itself in the ground and all you had was a hole full of useless sludge. The only way an Iraqi biological weapon would ever kill you, we used to joke, is if it hit you on the head.Posted by: mark at October 18, 2003 12:39 AM | PERMALINK For the love of God! There is nothing. Admit it. Posted by: Thersites at October 18, 2003 12:42 AM | PERMALINKMy father is a retired biology teacher, and he pointed out that at any given time here in America, there are probably 100 discrete sources of the bacteria in question that could be used to produce mass quantities of toxin, and they aren't in labs or schools or potential terrorists closets. He bases this on the incidence of food poisoning due to improper home canning procedures, keeping commercially canned goods until they start to bulge ominously, etc. in American homes. As to the question why they would keep that sample instead of isolating a common bacteria from natural sources: A bacterial culture bought from a lab or company is usually a reference sample, which means that the genetics, optimal growing conditions, rate of toxin production, etc. are already well-known and defined by previous research. To get a 'wild' strain might be good enough for a community college course(my father once used water from the school toliets to get E. Coli for a lab he was teaching when the cultures he ordered didn't arrive in time), but it won't do for any sort of serious scientific work, innocent or malevolent in intent. Posted by: Dark Avenger at October 18, 2003 12:56 AM | PERMALINKBacteriologists keep collections of strains they've worked on. There are many reasons to do this. One may decide to resume work one has put aside, or a colleague may wish to reproduce some experiment one has done, in which case the best way is to obtain the same strain by requesting it from the person who did the work in the first place. The fact that a strain may be pathogenic doesn't necessarily change this. I'm no expert on botulism, but if it's not itself readily infectious, which I expect would be the case since usually botulism poisoning involves ingesting tainted food, it would be unsurprising if a scientist didn't take special measures to separate it from his or her collection of non-pathogenic strains. This is perfectly reasonable since no bacteriologist would ever open up any of their strain vials except under sterile conditions--usually the concern is not contaminating the vials. The fact that someone has a pathogenic or infectious strain also can't be used to surmise that they are working on bioweapons. They could as easily be working on understanding its mechanisms of pathogenicity or virulence, studying its sensitivity or resistance to antibiotics or drugs, on a vaccine, or might be doing some other research which has nothing to do with the coincidental fact of its pathogenicity. On the other hand, it may be reasonable to ask, with respect to any given organism, what is a reasonable level of care regarding it's containment, and for the organism in question, does a strain collection require special handling. On that, I'd look to someone who actually has worked with the strain, or at least a practical lab manual that covers handling of that particular organism. As a related aside, during the run up to the war, people opposing the war were quick to point out as an example of how the U.S. had built up the Sadam Hussein regime the fact that Iraq had obtained stocks of anthrax and other potential bioweapons from the ATCC (In case you're wondering... http://www.atcc.org/). I'd imagine that the ATCC has by now changed some of its procedures regarding strains potentially useful as biological warfare agents, but the fact that someone is doing work with a strain doesn't tell you what the purpose or motives of that work is--again, they could as easily be using it for research on prevention or therapy, and it seems unlikely to me that people who opposed the war would be of the mind that the U.S. should be telling other countries what vaccines or medical or veterinary therapies they should or should not be investigating. Posted by: anon at October 18, 2003 12:59 AM | PERMALINKMillionthMonkey quipped: "There isn't a government on earth that would not secretly like to have access to WMDs." ...Actually, the Sweedes and the South Africans have VOLUNTARILY relinquished nuclear weapons. The entire world owes a small debt of gratitude to the Sweedes for revealing a program that the best of the world's intelligence services knew nothing about, in order that methods for detecting well concealed nuclear programs could better be tested with a live specimen. Posted by: aanon at October 18, 2003 01:20 AM | PERMALINKStockpile of Botulinum B toxin found! Ireland warned, "You're next." Posted by: mark at October 18, 2003 01:24 AM | PERMALINKMan, it is just amazing to see the few Bushistas clutching at the straws here. W is a con-man. You voted for a con-man. Con-men lie. All the time and to your face, confidently. It's not "spin", it's not "maybe", it's not "interpretation", and it's not "who really knows"--it's lying. To manipulate the public and deceive voters. And this disease of lying has entirely infected the modern GOP. If you defend this lying, war-mongering, crony-looting cowboy fraud running this country's greatness into the ground...how do you respect yourself? It's getting to the point that you can't even claim ignorance. Or differences in political philosophy. Three years into it, if you still believe a damn word out of this WH, it's because you desperately want to be deceived--which is either pathetic or pathological. Damn. Posted by: Tim B. at October 18, 2003 01:53 AM | PERMALINKNothing to see here in Iraq - move along. None of your business - move along already. Thanks for posting the link to the HRW pictures of the 1988 mass
graves. It's useful to be reminded again that President Reagan and
President George H. W. Bush were firmly supportive of Saddam Hussein's
murderous activities right up until he invaded Kuwait. That's a bit of obfuscation, progressive guy. This debate is not about the end result of this war: yes, removing Saddam was a good thing. That is not in dispute. But the pictures to which you've linked (showing mass graves) were not the main reason we were given for going to war. Yeah, Bush threw it out there every so often, but, really, we were told to be afraid of Saddam, and that's why we should attack. (For the record, I was undecided on going to war, although I leaned toward containment. Regardless, I should not be taken as exemplary of the anti-war crowd.) Now that we're in Iraq, regardless of the reason, I have to hope we can do some good, but we got there by dishonest means. That should worry us. Then again, we should also be worried about the $10 billion loan that Democrats are trying push on Iraq. That's just stupid. It'd be nice if we could get just one thing right, eh? Posted by: Matt W. at October 18, 2003 04:38 AM | PERMALINKThe actual quote from Kay's October 2nd report was: "Among them was a vial of live C. botulinum Okra B. from which a biological agent can be produced." On October 3, the AP story read:"President Bush said Friday that a vial of botulinum bacteria found in Iraq is evidence of Saddam Hussein's weapons intent." Doesn't look to me like there was a lot of confusion between toxin and bacteria here. Nor is the implication of the story false--it is a clear violation of the UNSC resolutions and deomonstrates intent. As to characterization of the scientist, the original report states:
"hidden in the home of a BW scientist." If that's wrong, you'd expect
someone would have debunked it by now. Cecil: Unfortunately, your argument rests on being able to trust the word of two men (Kay and Bush)whose previous statements have either been lies, misrepresentations or exaggerations. You'd have found this out by reading the comments in this thread. Posted by: JadeGold at October 18, 2003 05:04 AM | PERMALINKDidn't the guy admit to being a BW scientist? And wouldn't there be a few records in and outside of Iraq that would easily disprove that if it were false? Posted by: C. Bassett at October 18, 2003 05:11 AM | PERMALINKJadeGold, You don't have to "trust" anything. The argument is whether their
statements are misleading because they imply "toxin" when it was
actually "bacteria." But they clearly say "bacteria," not "toxin."
Your point appears to be that they must be lying because they're liars.
That's circular. "Then again, we should also be worried about the $10 billion loan that Democrats are trying push on Iraq. That's just stupid." Kevin, you should stop calling it "botulism". Botulism is what someone who has been poisoned with the toxin has. Botulinus toxin is the toxin that gives people botulism. C. botulinum is the harmless common soil bacterium that botulinus toxin is derived from. There is no botulism to be seen here. Cecil, whether the guy is a bioweapons scientist or not - initial reports have a tendency to contain incorrect information, and when the information isn't repeated in further reports, we might indeed question its validity - there is no question that bush's remark that you quoted is completely and totally ludicrous. "Evidence of Saddam Hussein's weapons intent?" Exactly how? Bush simply wanted to use the word "weapons." The distance between a vial in a refrigerator that could have many meanings and an actual weapon is enormous; the distance between 1996 and now is enormous; the distance between what george bush said and what an honest person would have said is enormous. Posted by: howard at October 18, 2003 07:39 AM | PERMALINKThere you go again, Kevin. If you'd only wipe the **** out of ears, you would have heard the President state quite clearly that WMD had definitely been found. Why is it you fail to acknowledge that fact, and pretend otherwise? (The President's statement was made earlier this summer, while he was in Poland). Posted by: Sovereign Eye at October 18, 2003 07:42 AM | PERMALINKI'm with Atrios on this. This isn't a technical lie. This is a blatant lie. Posted by: tristero at October 18, 2003 07:43 AM | PERMALINKFrom fairly far up-thread, but it made me laugh when I read it: And it is used to make people's lips puff up to make them look nice and purty. Botox, ever heard of it? There are sooooo many people I'd like to recommend for botox injections in the lips. Recommend, hell — I'd pay for the treatment.
Intent is a mighty flimsy, fuzzy pretext for war. Are you seriously justifying the invasion of Iraq by pointing to the discovery of a single vial of bacteria, which had not been and very likely could never have been weaponized? (Please see Nastyman's post above, containing quotes from Dr. David Franz, former UN BW inspector, who presumably knows far more than you or I do about the possibilities.) If that is your position, your stated tolerance of extreme aggression terrifies me, and it makes me fearful of what you intend to do next. In this post-9/11 world, I can no longer be expected to tolerate such fear and uncertainty, so I'm coming over to blow up your house. I wish there were something else to do in this situation, but we must confront terrorists wherever we find them, or wherever we think we might find them. Right? Posted by: nina at October 18, 2003 07:46 AM | PERMALINKThe people I heard pushing for the loan were GOP. It wasn't Kerry or Biden: they co-sponsored the bill tying the $87 billion to repealing the top tier of GWB's recent tax cut. Biden proposed an amendment to fund the $87 billion by postponing that precise amount of the tax cut for people in the highest bracket, making at least over $300,000. It was defeated on a mostly party-line vote (a few conservative Dems voted against it), as the one thing the GOP likes more than unilaterally invading other countries is cutting taxes for the wealthy. But the amendment that did pass in the Senate, to turn half of the $20 billion re-construction part of the funding request into a loan, had support from most of the Democrats. It passed 51-47, with support from 43 Dems and 8 Repubs. Posted by: Haggai at October 18, 2003 07:53 AM | PERMALINKbut we must confront terrorists wherever we find them, or wherever we think we might find them. Right? of course. which brings up the $200B question: what the fuck are we doing in Iraq ? Posted by: ChrisL at October 18, 2003 08:13 AM | PERMALINKLet me put this entire thread down with one single comment. The 'botulinum' found was a decade old! Its irrelevant due to its incredible age. No bacteria could have survived that long in a test tube, and it makes it silly to consider the possibility of WMD in Iraq because of it. If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself. But if you don't want to, read this: The test tube of botulinum presented by Washington and London as evidence that Saddam Hussein had been developing and concealing weapons of mass destruction, was found in an Iraqi scientist's home refrigerator, where it had been sitting for 10 years, it emerged yesterday. Case and point. Goodbye trolls. Posted by: Jesse in SD at October 18, 2003 08:25 AM | PERMALINKFrom an AP column, published 3 Oct 2003 in the Las Vegas Sun: "President Bush said Friday that a vial of botulinum bacteria found in Iraq is evidence of Saddam Hussein's weapons intent. But the chief U.S. weapons inspector said the vial had been stored for safekeeping in an Iraqi scientist's refrigerator since 1993. He offered no evidence it had been used in a weapons program during the last decade." Snip ""The report states that Saddam Hussein's regime had a clandestine network of biological laboratories, a live strain of deadly agent botulinum, sophisticated concealment efforts and advanced design work on prohibited longer-range missiles," Bush told reporters.... Secretary of State Colin Powell also cited the discovery of the vial of bacteria, along with confirmation that Iraq was trying to develop longer missiles than the United Nations permitted. ""We are more convinced by the Kay report that we did the right thing," Powell told reporters. "Do you think vials of botulism should constitute a weapons of mass destruction? .... They never lost that capability. They never lost that intent." State Department spokesman Richard Boucher added: "You kill people with botuli. They have no other use."" http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-wh/2003/oct/03/100308152.html Looks like the Bush administration is stretching the truth a bit.
Thanks, Haggai. I've heard that the Dems proposed a swathe of
amendments, and the GOP defectors took the worst one. I think the media
aired the GOP defectors, not the Dems, because that was the story. Your point appears to be that they must be lying because they're liars. That's circular. No, Cecil, it would be a circular argument only if there existed no evidence to the contrary. And there happens to be an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest Bush and Kay have lied, misrepresented and/or exaggerated. The facts are pretty simple: the botulism bacteria was not capable of
being weaponized. Even if Iraq had developed some sort of alchemy to
weaponize this ancient stuff--it certainly didn't exist in any sort of
quantity as to pose an imminent threat to the US or the nation. Howard, Cecil, as someone else has undoubtedly already explained to you, what makes Bush and Co liars is the presentation of this single vial of a bacteria that had been stored for ten years in a fridge with dozens of other vials, none of which were weapons or could be weaponized, as if it were "evidence of WMD". Let me spell this out for you. Simple as ABC. A: It's a bacteria, it's not a toxin. Ergo, it's not in itself a WMD. B: It's 10 years old: ergo, it's not in itself dangerous and does not represent any recent WMD development. C: There are plenty of non-military uses for the bacteria, and it was stored with vials of substances that also have non-military uses. Ergo, it's not even evidence in itself that ther ever was WMD development, even if A and B were not also true. In short, the basic lie that Bush and Co are telling is in presenting
this single vial as if it were evidence of WMD. Whatever weasel words
they use to talk about it, the fact is that if they were honest, it
wouldn't be worth mentioning at all. For foods over pH 4.5 that are canned, it is legally required to test the effectiveness of the process by innoculating with Clostridium Botulinum to be sure the toxin is not formed. This is a standard requirement for the food canning industry to keep the food supply safe. There are bottles of this stuff at our own National Food Processors Labs. That this was made into a big deal shows incredible ignorance and/or a desire to be misleading. Posted by: foodtech at October 18, 2003 09:03 AM | PERMALINKNot to mention, as CalPundit said in his post -- and no one has adequately refuted -- by hawking this so-called discovery, the Administration gets to make a technically true statement that is entirely likely -- and, I would contend, *intended to* -- create a false and misleading impression. The intent to decieve is clear, and part of a long-established pattern. Kevin and Matt are right to say that you can't trust this Administration. That doesn't mean that everything Bush says is a lie; it simply means that you can't afford to give him the benefit of the doubt. That's a completely sensible position in my book. Posted by: Gregory at October 18, 2003 09:04 AM | PERMALINKJohn, here's a story on the loan vote that specifies who crossed the aisle in both directions. Don't assume that I'm going to make a habit out of doing your work for you :) Eight Republicans abandoned Bush and voted to change his plan: Sens. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, John Ensign of Nevada, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Democrats who opposed the loan proposal were Joseph Biden of Delaware, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, and Zell Miller of Georgia. I understand the political pressures at work here, but I don't like the loan idea. I think the Dems should put all their eggs into the basket that Biden proposed and focus on that. Yes, we need to spend the money in Iraq, and yes, we need to work on things here at home, so let's pay for Iraq out of the highest income end of the tax cuts. Pummell the Republicans mercilessly on this issue, and every issue, from here on out--the government can't do what it needs to do if it's cutting taxes for the wealthy all the time. It's the biggest weakness the Republicans have. Posted by: Haggai at October 18, 2003 09:09 AM | PERMALINKI'm a microbiologist. I'm not an expert on C. Botulinum, but I want to clear up some things. 1. Clostridium Botulinum B is not the toxin-producing kind. 2. 10 year old bugs must be dead. Having said this, the toxin is hard to purify and heat-sensitive. It can't be put in a bomb because the intense heat would immediately inactivate it. Iraq had no sprayers to distribute it. They couldn't put it in a water supply, because it would dilute way out and would probably get inactivated in the water treatment plant anyway. Also, the fact that the bugs were at least 10 and probably 20 years old does show they weren't actively working on it. Doing bioweapons work on Botulinum toxin or Ricin toxin is sexy, but totally impractical. It's definitely not something that could be ready 45 minutes after Saddam gives the order. Posted by: NIH Doc at October 18, 2003 10:11 AM | PERMALINKDon't the Bush supporters here understand simple English? C. Botulinum is a common bacteria which causes food-poisoning --you
could leave a half empty jar of mayonaise out (with the lid on) and
create a culture To therefore hype it to American citizens in the matter which Kay and Bush did is highly misleading -- so much so that I would consider it a deliberate lie. What made the situation worse is that bloggers Instapundit and
Andrew Sullivan made a big deal out of it . I sent several emails to
Glenn Reynolds explaining this to him --but I guess In my opinion, the continued hype that Bush supporters are making over the botulinum sample shows how much they are willing to deliberately deceive American citizens. Posted by: Don Williams at October 18, 2003 10:34 AM | PERMALINKDon, It is not an imminent threat. Nobody claims it was. It is, however, an indicator that Saddam had no intention of complying with UNSC resolutions. And unlike "imminent threat," that's actually one of the causes the President cited for invading Iraq. Posted by: Cecil Turner at October 18, 2003 10:48 AM | PERMALINKBut Haggai, I like it when folks do my work for me. That's management! Thanks for the details, it would show that my call to Lugar's office was wasted, since he didn't defect, except that no call is ever wasted. The loan is war reparations, an awful tradition, except that it's tied up in ways that make me feel it will never be repaid. It's also a chip in persuading other Iraq creditors to forgive their debts, since Iraq owes $300 billion, IIRC. Also, thanks for the Botulinum information, NIH Doc. Posted by: John Isbell at October 18, 2003 11:27 AM | PERMALINKCecil says ... It is not an imminent threat. Nobody claims it was. I'll repeat a quotation I cited earlier ... "Botulinum kills people, it kills people in large quantities," spokesman Richard Boucher said. "Botulinum is a weapon of mass destruction, yes." Here's found another quotation from the same exchange. "You find botulinum, you've found something to kill people. Doesn't have any other use that I'm aware of. OK?" Boucher is clearly alleging that this vial of bacterium is a weapon of mass destruction. While Boucher doesn't use the word "imminent", neither did Chicken Little ... technically. It's not just a lie. It's a lie that was embellished with specious fear-mongering. Posted by: mark at October 18, 2003 12:55 PM | PERMALINKIt's a big deal because it's a violation of the Gulf War cease-fire and 17 subsequent UNSC resolutions. Saddam wasn't allowed to have dispersed reference strains, or secret labs, or BW programs of any sort. He had a last chance to declare them under UNSC 1441 and conveniently left this stuff off the list. I'm sure this topic came up when Saddam and his advisors were putting together the 1441 report. ADVISOR: Should we report that vial of botulinum that is one of those 97 vials that has been in so-and-so's refrigerator for ten years? There are also the numerous Occam's razor arguments. Maybe Saddam's regime didn't have omniscent powers over every two inch vial of crap in Iraq. Maybe they simply forgot about it. Arguably the only person who knew or remembered its existence was the scientist himself. Maybe he wasn't involved in compiling the report. Or he forgot he had it in his refrigerator. Or he simply figured it wasn't the type of material that needed to be reported. Etc. etc. And you can imagine how the 1441 report was compiled. You come in to work one day, and your boss hands out form photocopies to everybody- "Now I know this is bullshit and you all have more important things to do, but they want to know about anything that can be used as a weapon. So any secret labs, or bacterial strains that can be used as a bioweapon, put on this form and give it back to me." So one person who gets the paper thinks, if he remembers, "hmm, do they want to know about that botulinum vial in my refrigerator at home? Naah, don't be silly." So he doesn't put it on his sheet, and it gets "conveniently left off the list", to be found as an excuse for an illegal war later. It is not an imminent threat. Nobody claims it was. Yeah, how times have changed. Used to be that we had 45 minutes to kiss our asses goodbye. It is, however, an indicator that Saddam had no intention of complying with UNSC resolutions. Um, I don't think so. You seem to be saying that anything short of a perfect report is grounds for war. It's entirely plausible that in assembling an 8000 page report, one or two items might be missed. We did not allow the Iraqis the generous amounts of time to assemble the report that we have given Kay to scour the country raiding refrigerators. And unlike "imminent threat," that's actually one of the causes the President cited for invading Iraq. I love this logic. It's a variation of the "if it bleeds, it leads" complaint. "Why doesn't the press report on the things that Bush says that AREN'T lies? This particular lie can be warped into something that arguably has a tenuous, laughable connection to truth, so stop calling him a liar." Arguments that rely on "Iraq was in technical violation of 1441" are really offensive. If you're going to invade a country, and start an unprovoked war, you'd better have a damn good excuse for doing so. The burden of proof is on you. UNSC 1441 was an attempt to legislatively shift the burden of proof onto Iraq. "Instead of us proving why we need to invade you, we're setting it up so you need to prove to us why we shouldn't." (This is not the internationally accepted interpretation of 1441- it's the interpretation that was preferred by the United States. It turns international law on its head.) Posted by: MillionthMonkey at October 18, 2003 01:20 PM | PERMALINKMark, Okay, obviously I should have said "nobody with a clue claims it was." Based on those remarks, I think we can safely say Boucher is not an expert on botulism. (Either the medical uses, or the fact it's more likely to be food poisoning than a bioweapon.) Calling it a lie may be a bit harsh--he may just be stupid. MillionthMonkey, As to the legality issue, it's arguable. Those UNSC resolutions started with a cease fire. Iraq was clearly in violation. Kuwait claimed since they didn't abide by the cease fire, the first Gulf War never ended. There are several other novel theories. But there's little doubt that the UNSC had the authority to enforce 1441, with or without the "burden of proof." There is also more than one interpretation of 1441--which is why it passed unanimously. Posted by: Cecil Turner at October 18, 2003 01:42 PM | PERMALINKCecil-- Please give me a short account of what you think the meaning of "is" is. If you're claiming this was an honest mistake, then you obviously are disputing the factual claims in the report (dispersed programs, secret labs, intimidation of scientists, etc.). And again, I have no way of knowing if any of this stuff is true. If it is, however, it's imposible to reconcile with compliance with 1441. If there were anything to that stuff then we wouldn't be having this ridiculous discussion about a small vial that's been sitting in some guy's refrigerator for the past ten years. QED.
The U.S. is the 400 pound gorilla in the U.N. So it's actually noteworthy that in this case that the global opposition to a U.S. sponsored resolution was sufficiently widespread to force even a token concession. 1441 still shifted the burden of proof for waging war that has been implicit in international law since WWII. We don't need to prove why an invasion is necessary, YOU have to prove that you shouldn't be invaded! The rest of the world at least succeeded in reducing the penalty clause from a regime changing invasion to "serious consequences" (which was generally interpreted to mean absolutely nothing). Clearly the administration knew at the time how it would choose to
interpret "serious consequences". Its token concession was completely
cynical. Sorry, Cecil, but justifying the war based on Resolution 1441 doesn't wash. 1441 called for a second vote to authorize the use of force. A conditon, I might add, that the US signed off on. The US didn't even call the second vote. And let's recall that the conventional wisdom at the time was that the US's scaremongering over laughably bad intelligence was held in such poor regard that the US would likely have not even garnered the moral victory of a symbolic majority in the face of a veto. In other words, the inspections process, coupled with US intelligence findings that were labeled as "sh_t" by the inpectors, had reduced Bush's credibility to such an extent that a majority would have voted against the use of force, *even though* they had the political cover of a veto threat to vote with us if they wanted. You're dreaming if you think this dinky little vial restores that credibility. WRT the so-called "imminent" threat, by the way, Bush may not have used that particular word, but Ari Fleischer did, and the US certainly claimed that Iraq was too great a threat to wait for inspections or UNSC debate. Saying "we can't wait, we have to attack *now*" certainly implies a threat that is, you know, imminent, doesn't it? Posted by: Gregory at October 18, 2003 03:03 PM | PERMALINKGregory, 1441 says nothing about a second vote. It's intentionally vague and states that the UNSC will: "convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security." The US and France agreed to disagree on whether there was a requirement for a second resolution, or 1441 would have been vetoed. There was considerable publicity of both positions. Colin Powell: "If you remember the debate that we were having before 1441 was passed, there were some nations who insisted that a second resolution would be required. And we insisted that a second resolution would not be required. And as we negotiated our way through that, we made it absolutely clear that we did not believe that the resolution as it finally passed would require a second resolution." WRT "imminent," the President certainly did use the word, in the SOTU speech: Which is fairly close to the opposite of: "Saying "we can't wait, we have to attack *now*" certainly implies a threat that is, you know, imminent, doesn't it?" Posted by: Cecil Turner at October 18, 2003 03:28 PM | PERMALINKCecil, Contemporaneous with the passage of 1441, our representative to the UNSC -- Negroponte, IIRC, but I could be wrong -- confirmed that the so-called "vague" language called for another vote. That language was, in fact, crucial to 1441 being passed in the first place. France didn't blink on that one; we did. I'll certainly grant that Bush had no intention of being bound by a second resolution and began claiming that the resolution clause in 1441 didn't mean what it says it means. But the fact of the matter is the US was in fact proposing a second resolution until -- and, after all, this is the whole point -- the stench of Bush's prevarication turned off even putative allies like Mexico, and it became clear the US would *lose* the vote. If a second vote was not required, after all, why would the US have even considered it? No, no, my friend. The requirement was there, but in the midst of his UNSC diplomatic debacle Bush chose waging a (virtually) unilateral war in the absence of UNSC authorization rather than in the face of a direct reputiation of his coveted attack. And on the off chance that your SotU quote is merely the result of confusion and not deliberate obfuscation, Bush and his minions claimed that the US coul not afford to wait for the lousy three additional months of inpections that would have satisfied some UNSC members. Indeed, there was much criticism of the so-called perfidy of the French in ignoring what was supposed to be a vital security concern from the laughable...excuse me, I mean terrible, scary, oh-so-ominous threat from Iraq. So yes, once again, claiming that our attack can't wait does indeed imply that the threat is imminent, even if the word is not used, or if Bush played stupid word games, the logical interpretation of which is the US can attack anyone at any time lest they, some day, evolve into a threat. But let's face it -- the notion that Iraq posed *any threat at all* to the US was ludicrous and is even more clearly so now. Posted by: Gregory at October 18, 2003 05:08 PM | PERMALINKCalling it a lie may be a bit harsh--he may just be stupid. We've got Boucher calling a common bacterium a weapon. We've got Powell calling a common bacterium a weapon. We've got Dubya on Polish television saying that a couple of hydrogen production trailers are weapons. Are we supposed to believe the administration is profoundly stupid, or are we supposed to believe te administration is incapable of distiguishing the truth from their own fabrications? Ignorance is no excuse for mendacity. Gregory, Why don't you read the thing? The word "vote" isn't in it. It says they will convene. That's why they met--not because the US had agreed to a vote--we didn't. The UN press release on the day 1441 passed states: Doesn't look like anyone at the UN was contemporaneously confused about the US position on whether another resolution was required. On timing, what's the point of waiting "the lousy three additional months" after 12 years of sanctions hadn't worked? Did Saddam need a couple more months to comply? Kay's report suggests he was never going to. And whether it "would have satisfied some UNSC members" is irrelevant in the face of the French promise to veto . . . Which is precisely why we didn't promise to wait for a second resolution in the first place. On a brighter note, I really do like your "logical interpretation" that the President's speech means exactly the opposite of what he said. It's a little Zen for me, but I'm working on it. Posted by: Cecil Turner at October 18, 2003 05:52 PM | PERMALINKOn timing, what's the point of waiting "the lousy three additional months" after 12 years of sanctions hadn't worked? Did Saddam need a couple more months to comply? Kay's report suggests he was never going to. Kay's report is a laugh riot. Frankly, at this point Saddam's audio tapes have more credibility than the Bush administration. The worldwide reputation of the United States took decades to build. It certainly didn't take long to run the nation's credibility into the ground. Now we're a good part of a trillion dollars in the hole, Iraq is more of a drain and a menace than it ever was, the rest of the world is laughing at us, and we're reduced to splitting hairs and parsing words about the meanings of U.N. resolutions with people who still stubbornly refuse to face reality. Nice going, guys. And whether it "would have satisfied some UNSC members" is irrelevant in the face of the French promise to veto . . . Which is precisely why we didn't promise to wait for a second resolution in the first place. This obsession with the French is silly. I'm not going to defend what they did, but it's a fact that we were the ones who were isolated, not them. The Russians were just as opposed to war as the French were, but almost all of Bush's defenders insist on blaming France and France alone. If we could have gotten more non-French support by waiting, and we almost certainly could have by supporting the sort of compromise floated by Canada, like a 30-day deadline for Saddam with specific compliance benchmarks, then that would have been worth it. The veto threat would have looked less attractive to France and Russia if they had been isolated in their opposition on the Security Council. But they weren't isolated, we were, and that's the administration's fault for having blown the diplomacy in spite of having a strong hand to play from the beginning. Posted by: Haggai at October 18, 2003 07:13 PM | PERMALINKCecil -- Well, if you've waited 12 years already, that's a long time all right, but what's the problem with three months more? You make it seem that the longer you wait, the harder it is to wait a little longer, but the opposite is true. 147 months is not much more than 144 months. The real point, though, is that the sanctions seem to have worked. So your whole point is gone. As far as parsing the U.N. resolution goes: the Bush administration has throughout sent little messages that they didn't care what the U.N. thought -- ultimatums and snide remarks and the like. Ultimately we went ahead without them. That might have been fine, except that at the moment we really need to get someone else on board with us, and no one seems interested. Maybe they're all misinterpreting, but for whatever reason we're not getting any help. Additional U.N. bashing and France-bashing is not going to make things any better, and in my opinion was part of what got us into the situation to begin with. It's especially annoying that a lot of what Bush did visavis France and the UN was for domestic consumption by his peanut-gallery core-constituency know-nothings. Posted by: Zizka at October 18, 2003 07:34 PM | PERMALINKMillionthMonkey, Whoa, who said he was a "bioweapon scientist"? Who's referring to him using that phrase? I did a Google News search and found nothing about this guy being a "bioweapon scientist", which is a loaded phrase if I ever heard one. Helpful hint: if you actually read the report you're discussing, you'll have a better idea which terms to Google with. Haggai, Zizka, Maybe you missed the unanimous passage of the latest UN Security Council resolution on Iraq reconstruction? It doesn't appear to me the main problem is parsing UN resolutions. YMMV. Well gents, it's been a slice. But we're apparently not going to discuss the actual particulars of the Kay report, and my interest in rehashing the road to war is waning. Cheers. Posted by: Cecil Turner at October 19, 2003 04:42 AM | PERMALINKThis is the second time in recent days I've noticed "Cecil Turner" essentially say "schluss" (end) to a discussion. Guess he quickly get tired of being behind. Posted by: raj at October 19, 2003 05:56 AM | PERMALINKOn timing, what's the point of waiting "the lousy three additional months" after 12 years of sanctions hadn't worked? Did Saddam need a couple more months to comply? Kay's report suggests he was never going to. To the contrary: Kay's report suggests that the 12 years of sanctions worked exactly as they were meant to work. Let's also be clear: the French statement that they were going to veto any SC resolution to attack Iraq was based on (1) A whole lot of backdoor dealings that the US was doing with other members of the SC in order to attempt to buy their votes (2) and made no blanket claim - merely that if the US could present no better evidence for attacking Iraq, France would veto. As we know, the US had no good evidence for attacking Iraq based on WMD - hence the demonization of France as instransigent, when the real intransigent was the US. Posted by: Jesurgislac at October 19, 2003 06:18 AM | PERMALINKLike most Bush supporters, Cecil Turner flees when someone cuts through their misleading bullshit and points out the facts. And the facts are that I think this shows that Bush and his supporters are more interested
in keeping political by misleading and alarming their supporters --
uneducated yahoos for the most part -- than in As Bush once said,you can fool some of the people all of the time --and those are the ones you want to focus on. Posted by: Don Williams at October 19, 2003 06:25 AM | PERMALINKJesurgislac, According to Kay's report: I don't think that's "exactly as they were meant to work." According to the BBC: Sounds pretty "blanket" to me--and not much related to "evidence." Raj, I expected to find a substantive discussion of the Kay report--and so far haven't seen any evidence anybody else even bothered to read it. (Much like the last thread on reconstruction, where you were suggesting loaning Iraq the funds to pay for our military operations.) It's too bad this site has some of the most interesting topics around, and nobody wants to talk about them. By all means, continue the discussion. But you can do it without me. Posted by: Cecil Turner at October 19, 2003 06:47 AM | PERMALINKHaggai, You got me, Cecil. I'm an idiot who's never sorted out the incredibly complex rules of how the Security Council votes. Back here on planet Earth, in the comment that I actually made, my point was that we were isolated on the Security Council, thanks to the administration's bungling. Even if the French were going to veto everything at all times no matter what else anybody did--and plenty of people have their doubts about that, despite the one BBC quote you turned up--it would have been a lot better for us not to be to isolated. Obviously you disagree, so that's fine, although I don't see how you can blame the French for the fact that we couldn't muster more than 3 other votes on the SC for a 2nd resolution. It'd be nice if you didn't insult me in response. Posted by: Haggai at October 19, 2003 08:48 AM | PERMALINKShorter Cecil: Iraq was guilty until proven innocent. Since we found the tiniest smidgen of evidence that perhaps might conceivably violate a vague UN resolution, the war is completely justified. Posted by: CdrRayChevrolet at October 19, 2003 08:48 AM | PERMALINKCan't you foole see? This is a clear indication that Saddam was in a perfiduous alliance with anaerobic lifeforms with the obvious intention of destroying our precious oxygen! Will goose-stepping clostridium spores marching down the streets of Boise be the only thing that convinces you? Will these evil Islamic gangrene lovers cement an alliance with the gram-negative anaerobes before we act? Don't blind yourself to how much these vile so-called lifeforms detest our freedom and oxygen. Act now before its too late and our woemen are all carried away by extremest Islamic terrorist staph infections. Posted by: Spinozer at October 19, 2003 11:06 AM | PERMALINKMillionthMonkey, You are right, I have not read the report. I admit it, I have better things to do. But look at it from my perspective. Life is short. I said this before: from the mere fact that we are having a discussion about a ten year old vial in some guy's refrigerator, I can surmise many things. One of which is that the report is an apologetic whitewash that is not worth reading. Because if there actually had been anything incriminating in the report, we would not be hearing the administration make grandiose claims about ten year old vials in refrigerators. This by itself says a lot. It strongly infers that this is the best they can come up with, which means the report is not worth reading. The most that can be hoped for from reading it is to enter the confused state that you are apparently in. From that, I will make a further conclusion. If Kay is the source of the phrase "bioweapons scientist" then it is questionable that this is a bioweapons scientist we're talking about. QED. online casinos | casino bonus | casino directory | high roller casinos | casinos Posted by: doi at May 23, 2004 08:28 AM | PERMALINKU Ginny - Adultvideos Free - Perfect Toes - Teen Boyz 2000 - Strictly Panties - Sinful Hardcore - Young Asian Guys - Voyeur Lounge - Voyeur Dorm Posted by: all sites access at June 30, 2004 09:23 AM | PERMALINK1870 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com Posted by: Viagra at August 7, 2004 02:21 PM | PERMALINK1437 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden? http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com Best XXX Sites - 8283 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 07:24 PM | PERMALINK4034 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com Posted by: cialis at August 11, 2004 02:55 AM | PERMALINK3685 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com Posted by: buy viagra at August 13, 2004 01:52 PM | PERMALINK4605 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com Posted by: poker at August 15, 2004 05:25 PM | PERMALINK7654 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com Posted by: play blackjack at August 16, 2004 04:14 PM | PERMALINK4225 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is 2194 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto Posted by: debt consolidation at August 19, 2004 01:50 AM | PERMALINK1815 http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for 5121 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: blackjack at August 23, 2004 03:38 AM | PERMALINK2501 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 03:26 PM | PERMALINK3740 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 26, 2004 12:55 AM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
