OT - one last time

Page 4 of 7  
joey writes:

I know how centrifuges work, but I don't know a thing about how a centrifuge works to "draw off" enriched uranium, nor, obviously, does the reporter. After a dozen years underground, too, one has to wonder about the capacities of the unit.
Too, if it was a part and parcel of a WMD system, why aren't Bush and his Babies pounding the jungle drums to get the message out? There's something missing, I think.
Charlie Self "Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others." Ambrose Bierce
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, the heavy stuff goes to the outside, so one would expect they either take out the stuff on the inside to leave heavier stuff, or draw heavier stuff off the outside to leave the lighter stuff.

Right, because it's impossible to store something in a desert in such a way that it won't degrade. Seen pictures of the Mig 25's they had buried over there, by the way? http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Stories1/001-100/019_IraqiMig-25/story019.htm

Yes, it's an issue of "selective emphasis". As in, "We can't make too much of the centrifuge, or the fissionable material, or the trailers mothballed and buried which were designed for and capable of producing biological weapons, or of the several shells of chemical weapons, because if we do people will realize that there was, in fact, a WMD program or three in Iraq".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Because they didn't have a uranium centrifuge they had some parts buried in somebody's yard. Because no one ever argued that Saddam Hussein would not make a nuclear weapon or restart a nuclear weapons program if he could, that was one of Bush's lies. The argument was that he could not make a nuclear weapon, had not restarted a nuclear weapons program, and could not restart such a program without discovery.
That argument was sound and the Bush administration beleived it. Why else were the Iraqi nuclear facilities such a low-priority in the invasion plan? Weeks after Baghdad fell the Coalition still had not visited, let alone secured, the Iraqi nuclear facilities.
The whole world knew it too, because the IAEA had said so weeks earlier.
Recall Bush's prewar rhetoric: "Saddam Hussein could have a nucular weapon within 3 months if only he had sufficient weapons grapd material" NO shit! The same is true of every nation, many major corporations and a few individuals. Obtaining the fissile material is the only technologically daugnting task in the construction of a simple fission bomb. Iraq had none and Bush knew it.
No one, not one person who actually examined the supposed Niger-Iraq uranium documents has ever had the gall to state publicly that they thought there was even a remote chance they were genuine. But the Bush administration turned them over to the IAEA, and then publicly chided the IAEA for not acting on it.
Obviously the Bush administration obstructed the Iraqi weapons in- spection program by feeding the IAEA and UNMOVIC false information.
Obviously this was done to try to stop the IAEA and UNMOVIC from certifying that Iraq was in compliance with the relevent UN mandates.
The IAEA did so anyway, but the strategy succeeded with UNMOVIC, they were kept busy visiting site after site, none of which showed any WMD activity, until the Coalition invaded.

Because it was not fissile material, it was not useable for weapons.

Because there were none.

Becasue those several are thus far one (1) fifteen-year-old sarin shell that was misidentified as HE and one (1) mustard shell similarly misidentified. UNMOVIC had noted a discrepency indicating that some small number of mustard gas shells possibly still existed. The obsolete sarin shell was a surprise, but for all we know, had Saddam Hussein discovered it, it may have been a surprise to him too. Firing an obsolete chemical shells is worse than firing no shell at all. It doesn't hurt the enemy but it gives away your position.

If there were WMD programs in Iraq, where are the manufacturing facilites? Do you really think our people are too stupid to look for trace evidence in soil and water and follow it back to the factories? Do you think that Iraq had technology so advanced that they could produce WMDs without any byproducts, effluent, facilites, or personell?
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Stored in a drum, yes. Parts that could be used for specifically that purpose, it's not like it's some hospital lab centrifuge, it's a specialized piece of a WMD production effort.

You're aware of Kerry and Klinton's statements on the topic, are you not?

So...you disregard the chem and bio stuff because all we've found is the means to produce it, shells they said they didn't have, trailers buried in the sand all set up to make more, and so on (nice selective snip above, by the way), but you also disregard the nuke stuff because we also have evidence of a nuke program but it _wasn't_ mentioned by Bush? You're inconsistant and self-contradictory, Fred.

Wrong. It could be used in a dirty bomb, which has huge psychological effect as a weapon, just the sort of thing that is attractive to terrorists - easy to make, big psych impact.


Really, so that which we saw on the news was what exactly then, Fred?


...which had enough sarin in it to kill 3000 people...

Riiiight, it's just coincidence that it happened to be there. Whoopsie!

Please provide a cite which shows that a binary Sarin shell will degrade in 10 years. Same for Mustard. Show your work. Hint: MoveOn.org's website is not a _credible_ cite.

Buried in the sand, but you choose to disregard the ones we've already found.

Go get yourself a map, would ya? Big place, Fred, and your boy Clinton gave him all the time in the world to hide what he had.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Specifically they were parts for a uranium centrifuge stored in a drum and buried in the guy's yard. We covered that already.
The were parts for a centrifuge and they were buried. Thus the centrifuge using those parts was disassembled. Thus that centrifuge was not usable. Thus it wasn't being used. Clearly given the opportunity, Saddam Hussein would have resumed the Iraqi nuclear weapons program.
No one ever argued that Saddam Hussein would not make a nuclear weapon or restart a nuclear weapons program if he could, that was one of Bush's lies. The argument was that he could not make a nuclear weapon, had not restarted a nuclear weapons program, and could not restart such a program without discovery.
Nothing found in Iraq refutes that argument.

I am aware that Kerry made statements which showed that he believed that Saddam Hussein had operational WMD programs and that he based those statements on information provided by the Bush and Clinton admininstrations.
I am not aware of any statements by Klinton, can you refer me to some?

No, you haven't shown that the means to produce it have been found. You claim (below) that it is buried in the desert, though you refuse to specify where. In fact, you haven't indicated any evidence at all to support that claim. Oh, I know, the evidence that it is there is the fact that is hasn't been found.

As noted many times before, UNMOVIC had noted the possiblity or probablilty of several hundred mustard gas sells or bombs. The one (1) mustard gas shell found was therefor not much of a surprise. The sarin shell was a surprise.
HOWEVER, both predated the 1991 war therefor neither is evidence of a post 19991 weapons program. Sorry I didn't point that out before, thought it was obvious.

No one has found trailers buried in the sand all set up to make biological or chemical weapons.

WHAT nuke stuff? We do NOT have evidence of a nuke program. The fact that the centrifuge parts were still buried in his yard is evidence that the nuclear weapons program had not been resumed, not proof that it had been resumed.

Too many pronouns with unclear antecedents. If you have something to write please do so unambiguously so I can rebut it.
Regarding consistency, Google is your friend. Check back to my pre-invasion arguments.

What a colossally stupid plan! Collect and refine redioactive waste from Iraq instead of just stealing already refined and conveniently contained and packaged Cs-131 from any of thousands of hospitals with radiation therapy units. Dumb.
Aside from which, a 'dirty' bomb is not a nuclear weapon. The Uranium and radioactive waste at those sites is not evidence of an active nuclear weapons program. Those materials had been inventoried and sealed by the IAEA in the 1990's and then in 2003 the IAEA reinspected and found that the materials were still there. They were not hidden, they had been declared, they were not being used. IN 2003 the IAEA certified that Iraq was in compliance with the UN mandates IRT nuclear weapons and a few weeks later Bush invaded befor UNMOVIC could do the same IRT chemical and biological weapons.
This, the IAEA did right after announcing that the Bush administration had supplied them with forged documents. While it is true that the documents were forged by a minor Niger official, and not by the Bush administration the fact that the Bush administration misreprented the forged document as authentic is absolute proof of bad faith on the part of the Bush administration.

What do you mean 'we'? I saw nothing of the sort and do not believe that you did either.

Bullshit. There is no way you could expose 3000 people to the contents of one shell.
Two liters of botulinum A are enough to kill everyone but you cannot possible distribute in such way as to harm everyone.

What do you mean? Clearly the people who used the sarin shell and the mustard shell mistook them for HE -- they used them in IEDs. That mistake may well have saved some of our soldier's lives.
The fact is that munitions that predate the 1991 war are not evidence of the post 1991 production program Bush insisted existed. Sorry I didn't point that out befor.

You may be right about the Mustard shells stil being usable though it takes a substantial barrage to be militarily effective. You may be right about about the sarin shell but you'll have to show me some analysis of actual Iraqi ordinance by some competent persons to convince me.
However it is inarguable that shells that predate the 1991 war are not evidence of the post 1991 production Bush claimed to be taking place in Iraq. Sorry I dind't point that out befor, I thought it was obvious.
It is also the case that effective use of chemical weapons requires a massive barrage.

There is that 'we' again. AFAICT by 'we' you mean yourself and you found these things in your imagination. Or maybe on FOX TV.

Do you really think our people are too stupid to look for trace evidence in soil and water and follow it back to the factories? Do you think you can build a factory out in the desert without any supporting infrastructure? No electricity, no water, no sewage, no people to do the work? And then operate it with no effluent, no byproducts no leftover feedstocks, and finally make it vanish beneath the sand like a desert Atlantis?
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And the guy whose yard it was buried in was a subject matter expert in using it.

Yeah, because once a machine is disassembled, it's never gonna go back together.

Ya think?

Evasion and self-contradiction noted.

You disregard the biological agent lab trailers then?

Yeah, and I'm sure it was purely an accident. Whoopsie!


So those were fabricated then? CNN Made 'em up, did they?

You are either lying, or have been effectively lied to. Better now?

Your writing isn't worth reading _now_, let alone reading _again_.

It's a weapon using nuclear materials. FFS, Fred, it's like arguing over what the definition of the word "is" is with you.

I didn't say that, Fred. Try reading the words that are there next time.

Yeah, because there's no way a chem plant could look like, say, a chem plant or something.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes. One amusing aspect is that, evidently, the regime had destroyed all documentation of the parts. It is not clear that anybody else in the government would have remembered it was buried there if the progam had been restarted in, say, another five years or so. Sort like a squirrel who forgets where he buried his nuts.

That is incorrect. There was always and still is the possibility that Iraq would restart the banned nuclear weapons program. Continued monitoring was and will continue to be, a necessity.
However, if you have been following the news about the N Korean nuclear program you will understand that it is impossible for such a program to operate a reactor or reprocessing fuel rods or even stockpile sufficient raw uranium and escape detection. This is how we know the Bush administration knew, with certainty, that Iraq was nowhere near producing their own nuclear weapons.
A more likely scenario would be an exchange of oil for nukes with North Korea.

Huh?
No. None have been found. There is no evidenc ethey ever existed.

But undoubtably it WAS purely an accident, and a fortunate one for us, that the sarin shell was mistaken for HE by the insurgents. Otherwise they might have killed more of our people.

No, the last I read the trailers were make up, that is, manufactured in the UK and sold to Iraq. You are refering to the portable hydrogen generators used for ballons for artillery spotting aren't you?

Thank you for admitting it.

Bullshit.
1) There is no comparison between the potential for harm associated with a chemical bomb that scatters radioactive material and a nuclear weapon that kills 100,000 people in an instant.
2) There was never any question that there was radioactive waste in Iraq. That waste and other nuclear materials left over from the Iraqi nuclear program was inventoried and sealed by the IAEA in the 1990's then reinspected and found to not have been tampered with early in 2003. Your contention that the presence of this radioactive waste in Iraq, which was declared to the world, inventoried and sealed by the IAEA, and useless for military purposes is completely dishonest. Those lies can only deceive someone who is so scared of the words 'nuclear' and 'radiation' that they cannot bring themselves to learn anything about either.
3) Persons wanting to make a radioactive dirty bomb have commericial and medical sources already refined for them and available worldwide. To make their own from scratch starting with waste would not only be a formidible task, but pretty darned stupid too.

I didn't say you said _that_. I pointed out why what you said was misleading.

You do not have any concept as to the capability of our forensic experts, do you?
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Specifically they were parts for a uranium centrifuge stored in a drum and buried in the guy's yard. We covered that already.
The were parts for a centrifuge and they were buried. Thus the centrifuge using those parts was disassembled. Thus that centrifuge was not usable. Thus it wasn't being used. Clearly given the opportunity, Saddam Hussein would have resumed the Iraqi nuclear weapons program.
No one ever argued that Saddam Hussein would not make a nuclear weapon or restart a nuclear weapons program if he could, that was one of Bush's lies. The argument was that he could not make a nuclear weapon, had not restarted a nuclear weapons program, and could not restart such a program without discovery.
Nothing found in Iraq refutes that argument.

I am aware that Kerry made statements which showed that he believed that Saddam Hussein had operational WMD programs and that he based those statements on information provided by the Bush and Clinton admininstrations.
I am not aware of any statements by Klinton, can you refer me to some?

No, you haven't shown that the means to produce it have been found. You claim (below) that it is buried in the desert, though you refuse to specify where. In fact, you haven't indicated any evidence at all to support that claim. Oh, I know, the evidence that it is there is the fact that is hasn't been found.

As noted many times before, UNMOVIC had noted the possiblity or probablilty of several hundred mustard gas sells or bombs. The one (1) mustard gas shell found was therefor not much of a surprise. The sarin shell was a surprise.
HOWEVER, both predated the 1991 war therefor neither is evidence of a post 19991 weapons program. Sorry I didn't point that out before, thought it was obvious.

No one has found trailers buried in the sand all set up to make biological or chemical weapons.

WHAT nuke stuff? We do NOT have evidence of a nuke program. The fact that the centrifuge parts were still buried in his yard is evidence that the nuclear weapons program had not been resumed, not proof that it had been resumed.

Too many pronouns with unclear antecedents. If you have something to write please do so unambiguously so I can rebut it.
Regarding consistency, Google is your friend. Check back to my pre-invasion arguments.

What a colossally stupid plan! Collect and refine redioactive waste from Iraq instead of just stealing already refined and conveniently contained and packaged Cs-131 from any of thousands of hospitals with radiation therapy units. Dumb.
Aside from which, a 'dirty' bomb is not a nuclear weapon. The Uranium and radioactive waste at those sites is not evidence of an active nuclear weapons program. Those materials had been inventoried and sealed by the IAEA in the 1990's and then in 2003 the IAEA reinspected and found that the materials were still there. They were not hidden, they had been declared, they were not being used. IN 2003 the IAEA certified that Iraq was in compliance with the UN mandates IRT nuclear weapons and a few weeks later Bush invaded befor UNMOVIC could do the same IRT chemical and biological weapons.
This, the IAEA did right after announcing that the Bush administration had supplied them with forged documents. While it is true that the documents were forged by a minor Niger official, and not by the Bush administration the fact that the Bush administration misreprented the forged document as authentic is absolute proof of bad faith on the part of the Bush administration.

What do you mean 'we'? I saw nothing of the sort and do not believe that you did either.

Bullshit. There is no way you could expose 3000 people to the contents of one shell.
Two liters of botulinum A are enough to kill everyone but you cannot possible distribute in such way as to harm everyone.

What do you mean? Clearly the people who used the sarin shell and the mustard shell mistook them for HE -- they used them in IEDs. That mistake may well have saved some of our soldier's lives.
The fact is that munitions that predate the 1991 war are not evidence of the post 1991 production program Bush insisted existed. Sorry I didn't point that out befor.

You may be right about the Mustard shells stil being usable though it takes a substantial barrage to be militarily effective. You may be right about about the sarin shell but you'll have to show me some analysis of actual Iraqi ordinance by some competent persons to convince me.
However it is inarguable that shells that predate the 1991 war are not evidence of the post 1991 production Bush claimed to be taking place in Iraq. Sorry I dind't point that out befor, I thought it was obvious.
It is also the case that effective use of chemical weapons requires a massive barrage.

There is that 'we' again. AFAICT by 'we' you mean yourself and you found these things in your imagination. Or maybe on FOX TV.

Do you really think our people are too stupid to look for trace evidence in soil and water and follow it back to the factories? Do you think you can build a factory out in the desert without any supporting infrastructure? No electricity, no water, no sewage, no people to do the work? And then operate it with no effluent, no byproducts no leftover feedstocks, and finally make it vanish beneath the sand like a desert Atlantis?
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

I can, as well as some others.
Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and ou allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

(snip of page after page of quotes with dates, thanks for digging that up Glen). Prediction: Fred will evade the issue and say "Waaaaah, Dave said Klinton, which isn't the same as Clinton, waaaah", and completely fail to address that which you have provided. Any takers?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
More likely, Fred will pretend he hasn't seen any "evidence", and deny that it exists.
Kevin
--
=====
"Dave Hinz" < snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That, or the Bush administration lied to Clinton and mislead him into thinking that an active WMD program existed. Oh, wait, you mean Bush wasn't president when Clinton made those pronouncements? How could this be? It's only the eeevil Bush administration that tried to mislead the American people.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Good. It was entirely appropriate to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction. Was there ever any question that this was consitantly the US policy when the Democraps were in the White House? After all, it is the Republicans who (thankfully) reversed themselves on that issue.
Remember no one ever claimed that Iraq had or would voluntarily abandon WMD programs. No one ever argued that Saddam Hussein could be trusted. That was one of Bush's lies.
In 2003 UNMOVIC and IAEA proved that Iraq had been successfully denied the capacity to develope WMDs. The closest they had come to developing missles that violated the UN sanctions were the AL Husseins, which only barely exceeded the range limit when tested without a payload or guidance system.
Remind me, did you ever argue that Clinton had allowed Saddam Hussein to develop WMDs?

Again, a good policy. AS you know, when push came to shove, Iraq chose peace. Iraq chose to allow UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections in 2003, largely one presumes due to the threat of force by the Bush administration backed by the US COngress, including Kerry. Iraq cooperated with those inspections. The UNMOVIC inspectors in the field in Iraq described the level of cooperation they received as 'unprecedented'. But don't believe me. Go back and read the reports in the newspapers from 2003. And what the IAEA and UNMOVIC found was that the threat Clinton had pledged to diminish was in fact diminished to near non-existance.
Did you have a reason to post this quote? What was it?

While I don't agree with parts of this, again, why post it? It is a very general statemetn and includes no evidence, nor any pointers to evidence of WMD programs in Iraq.

Happily, that is a prediction that proved false, so far. But don't forget, he's not dead yet.

The evidence is now clear that Kerry, Levin, Daschle, and Clinton had underestimated the effectiveness of the UN sanctions. Note that this letter predates the 2003 IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections. Bush's decision to invade Iraq also predates those inspections, according to Powell he had planned to invade Iraq from his first day in office, evidently the attacks of September 11, 2001 forced a delay of a year or so. The invasion of Iraq itself post-dates the 2003 inspections and went ahead despite the evidence of those inspections.
Again, what is the point of posting this? It does not show or point to any evidence of a WMD progarm in Iraq. Did the Senators offer any evidence in support of their contention?

What evidence sis Rep Pelosi offer in support of the claim? Evidently that statement was factually incorrect. Note also that it predates the 2003 IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections, which showed it to be factually incorrect.

Looks to have been half right. Again the statement predates the 2003 IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections which showed that Iraq had been unable to resume or sustain a WMD program. And again, did Ms Albright offer any evidence in support of her statement?

Well they may have had no doubts in 2001 and up until 2003 I personally had little doubt but the IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections of 2003 pretty much reversed that. There was then little reason to suppose Iraq had recently manufactured WMDs or had an operational WMD program and their missile program was being reigned in right at the range limit imposed by the UN sanctions, right?
Aside from which, even in 2001, did Sen Graham and others offer any evidence in support of the claim?

Pretty much no one disagrees with the first part. I pretty much presumed that the second part was also true well past September, 2002. Therefor I was much relieved, and more than a little bit surprised when the IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections in 2003 proved I was wrong, though by then I realized from Bush's statements alone that the US knew Iraq was nowhere near to having a nuclear weapon.
But even back in Sept 2002, did Sen Levin offer evidence to support his statement? If not, what is the point to quoting it now?

Clearly Gore was wrong, as the 2003 inspections showed. Did he offer any evidence in support of his claim? If not, why post the claim, other than to discredit Gore whom, I remind you, does not hold public office and is not running for public office.
If Gore did offer evidence to support his claim, why not post that evidence?

Yes, the 'search' was impossible to deter, but we managed quite effectively to see to it that the search produced as we saw when IAEA and UNMOVIC inspected in 2003.

AFAICT, that is stil true today, though evading execution is probably a higher priority for him at the moment. So?

Byrd was wrong about biological weapons. The sarin shell and the mustard shell retained priovide evidence that there were some (pre-1991) chemical munitions in Iraq.
As the IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections showed in 2003, Iraq was no longer producing chemical weapons. Forensic evidence obtained by UNMOVIC (and I was remiss in not pointing this out earlier) did show that post-1991 Iraq did produce and destroy VX, but there was no evidence of recent production and the presumed shelf life of Iraqi VX left little to worry about.
Did Byrd offer evidence to support his statemtn? If so, what was it?

Good for Kerry. Clearly that authorization helped to convince Saddam Hyussein to allow the IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections. Bush was right to force a resumption of those inspections on Iraq. Bush did the right thing seeking the cooperationand support of the UN in this endeavor.
But Bush subsequently abused that authority by proceeding with the use of force after obtaining clear evidence that Kerry's belief was wrong and the invasion was not necessary to accomplish the stated goal IRT WMDs. In fact, the evidence has shown that the Bush administration, by providing false information to IAEA and UNMOVIC, sabotaged that very inspection program it had insisted upon.
Then, disatisfied that the truth was insufficient to justify an invasion of Iraq, Bush proceeded to condemn that same inspection program he had promoted only month befor, and proceeded with the invasion.
Note the qualification in Kerry's statement '-- if necessary --'. A declaration of War would have mandated military action. This authorization presumed that Bush would only use force as necessary.

There is unmistakable evidence (stated elswhere in this thread) that Sen Rockefeller was wrong. I note also that you did nor include any indication as to what evidence Sen Rockefeller had in mind. Did you accept his statement at face value without asking for the supporting evidence?

I accept that Rep Waxman said that. So? Did Waxman offer actual evidence of nuclear weapons and other WMDs in Iraq?

What evidence did Sen Clinton have to offer in support of that statement. Note also that her statement predates the 2003 inspections.

So, if he is not keeping that evidence secret, let's see it.

The last statement in that paragraph was shown to be wrong by the 2003 IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections program. Do you have evidence that refutes their conclusions?
Now, the sarin shell and the mustard shell found show that Iraq had retained some WMDs from befor the 1991 war. It would be prudent to continue to search for more, now that we have the opportunity.
--


FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

(snip a bunch-o-quotes, and the predictable tapdancing from Fred)

See, even when your people are shown to be wrong, you say "See? They were wrong, so what's your point", but when Bush, who had the same information as kerry and klinton gets it wrong, it's OK because the UN said they were wrong, or something.

First thing you've said that made any sense at all. By the way, did you change your posting ID or something?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
He's a truth-dodging Clintonite. There's no logic or reason to be found, here. Best move on.
Kevin
--
=====
Found: Iraqi WMDs! Please appear in person to claim!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Huh? Who do you think are 'my people'?
Prior to the 2003 UNMOVIC inspections *I* thought it likely, indeed all but certain, that Iraq had an active chemical and biological weapons program. As it turned out, *I* was wrong, just like everyone else you cited.
The difference between you and I is that I am willing to admit I was wrong.

No, does something look not right?
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The ones whose errors you blindly accept as OK, Fred.

They weren't my cites, Fred, you must have me confused with someone else.

Were you? You ignore that which has been found, or dismiss it. The very evidence which is turning up to show you that the material is there, you disregard.


Yeah, I'm seeing your posts. It was "fred the redshirt" or something, now it's just "fred the red". No problem that a broader filter won't deal with. Bye again, Fred, you're still not worth the bother, no matter what you post as.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I accept that people, with the appropriate expertise, who went to Iraq in 2003 both befor and after the invasion, were and are in a far better position to know something about the issues that a bunch of talking heads pandering for publicity, befor 2003.
Is David Kay one of 'your people'?
...
Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here.
Sen. [Edward] Kennedy knows very directly. Senator Kennedy and I talked on several occasions prior to the war that my view was that the best evidence that I had seen was that Iraq indeed had weapons of mass destruction.
I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war -- certainly, the French president, [Jacques] Chirac, as I recall in April of last year, referred to Iraq's possession of WMD.
The Germans certainly -- the intelligence service believed that there were WMD.
It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing.
...
Former top U.S. weapons inspector David Kay in testimony Wednesday, January 28, 2004 before the Senate Armed Services Committee
As you will recall, though I am sure you are loathe to admit it, Hans Blix, UNMOVIC and the IAEA reached the same conclusions a year earlier.
These are people who have been to Iraq. They have supervised people in Iraq who were actually doing the searching, and checking on the 'intelligence' such as it was. These are people intimately familiar with the search for WMDs in Iraq in 2003, befor and after the invasion.
David Kay made his statement under oath.
But you and your ilk seem to think that instead it is better to rely on statements that a handful of politicians, few or none of whom had ever even been to Iraq, and who wouldn't know the difference between an atomic bomb and an atomic clock if you dropped one on their foot, and which statements were made to the press, not under oath, and during a period in which the all inspectors had been ordered out of Iraq, by Clinton, and none yet sent back in.
Why?
I suggest that in the absence of any other explanation that you do not give a damn about truth, justice, or America.
I think you are political degenerates who put your pissant partisan politics above truth, justice, reality, the good of your own country and basic human decency. You are traitors in spirit to the very values that set America and most of her allies apart from despotic dictatorships.
Good and Evil are not established by name, nationality or social privilege but by conduct.
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

You give them too much credit.
I feel the real reason the collective wanted to go into Iraq was revenge. Truth, justice and reality have nothing to do with it.
--
Mark

N.E. Ohio
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's not easy. They first convert the uranium ore to the metal, and then react it with fluorine to make uranium hexaflourinde, a (very heavy) gas. The gas is let into a centrifuge, which is spun at maybe 50,000 rpm, serving to separate the lighter U235 isotope from the heavier but non-fissile u238. Since the U238 constitutes less than 1% of the total uranium mass they have to pass the slightly enriched gas through a cascade of maybe 1000 more centrifuges to concentrate it sufficiently to make weapons-grade U235.
--
Vince Heuring To email, remove the Vince.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.