UFOs stole Iraq's WMDs


PDA






telomerase
October 4, 2003, 11:47 AM
Right? Or at some point are we going to use Occam's razor and admit that Bush was lying?

If you enjoyed reading about "UFOs stole Iraq's WMDs" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
JohnBT
October 4, 2003, 01:11 PM
Probably buried somewhere or shipped out of the country. Either answer makes more sense than either of yours (speaking of Occam's Razor.)

John

TheOtherOne
October 4, 2003, 01:23 PM
We should of left Saddam in power, let him torture his people as he pleases. It really isn't our business. It only becomes our business if he does something really bad to us like nuke Los Angeles, or spread a few thousand pounds of anthrax over New York. Then we might have to get involved in foreign matters. If he attacked American soil, we could maybe justify sending a couple of cruise missles over there to try and hit his presidential palace (assuming we could safely know that all women, children and civilians were not within a 15 mile radius).

El Tejon
October 4, 2003, 02:49 PM
How long did it take to find the Rose Law Firm billing records???:confused:

Even if we do not, so what? Kindly Uncle Saddam was on probation had the burden to come forward and account. He chose to play probation violation games and treat us like Look-the-other-way Billy Boy was still in office.

GSB
October 4, 2003, 03:32 PM
Or at some point are we going to use Occam's razor and admit that Bush was lying?

I wish I had those psychic powers of yours, to mind read the man and know that he was lying as opposed to believing in possibly bad intelligence or the vicitim of some wishful thinking on his part. My guess is that it was mainly a combination of the last two and a desire to finish his father's fight and make some sort of object lesson of Hussein, although not having your psychic abilities, I don't know.

Maybe I need to go over to DemocraticUnderground.com and ask for their secret ninja ability to detect the evil motivations of Republicans.

dustind
October 4, 2003, 03:36 PM
Didnt we just recently find fully intact airplanes under the airports in Britan somewhere? If WoMD where hidden they would be impossible to find. So ask yourself, is it possible Saddam wanted them hidden?

This is coming from someone who supported the war due to the horrible things Saddam has done. This is also comming from someone who will not vote for Bush again due to expanded federal powers.

Keith
October 4, 2003, 04:03 PM
Silly reasoning - or lack of reasoning.

They HAVE found various prohibited WMD items. None of them appear to have been in use, but they are still prohibited by the terms of the cease-fire and 17 UN resolutions.
They have also found scads of other prohibited weapons from Russian and France.
They have found missiles IN PRODUCTION with a range of 1000 kilometers. They have found a purchase agreement with North Korea to buy even larger missiles.

All of these things (and ther are thousands of them) are violations and any ONE of them makes war justifiable.

The worst that can be said is that AT THIS TIME, it appears that Saddam was several years away from getting back into full swing. And that our intelligence (and the Brits, the Germans, the French, the Israeli's) were wrong about the status of the WMD program.

I'm sure the average liberal would prefer to wait until these weapons were finished and poised on the launch pads before invading. But not me, I think we should take out maniacs with armies before they get strong.

Keith

SkunkApe
October 4, 2003, 04:14 PM
U.S. Fears Saddam Has Special 'Invisible' Weapons


President Bush today announced that secret Iraqi intelligence documents found by troops in Baghdad show that Saddam Hussein may have successfully produced special, invisible weapons of mass destruction while he was in power and that he or his terrorist associates may still have access to them.

Speaking to reporters at the White House, the president said the weapons put America in an unprecedented level of danger: "This is a serious threat. Weapons that are invisible are very, very hard to find. Heck, we can't even see 'em," he explained.

The secret documents apparently show that the Iraqi army was developing
invisible anthrax and invisible VX, both of which may have been passed on to terrorist groups such as al-Quaeda.

Secretary of State Colin Powell said: "This is even worse than we first thought. It just proves how right we were to invade Iraq."

Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge immediately responded by raising the national threat advisory level to red.

"We must be extra vigilant," said Secretary Ridge. "Anyone who sees what
they suspect to be an invisible chemical or biological weapon should report it to the authorities right away."

President Bush is now expected to ask Congress for a new package of funding to deal with invisible weapons.

Hopes are high that Halliburton, a company which coincidentally has links to Vice President Dick Cheney, may have developed a new 'invisible weapons detector' that could be used to combat the new threat. Each unit is believed to cost around 10 million dollars and early tests have been promising.

Dick Cheney was unavailable for comment.


(c) urbanreflex.com 2003


http://www.urbanreflex.com/may23_03/wmd.html

BenW
October 4, 2003, 04:17 PM
Well, if UFO = Unidentified French Operative, I think they messed up and left a few behind. :p

telomerase
October 4, 2003, 05:02 PM
Not to worry. Those invisible weapons will be deflected by the invisible new clothes that Imperator Bush will be wearing at the coronation.

pittspilot
October 4, 2003, 07:15 PM
Tell you what telomerase.

I am assuming that you are making your argument based on media reports of Davis Kay's interim report to the Congress. Thus, you are asserting, based on the media reports that Kay's report asserts that there are no WMD's in Iraq.

In the future it may be useful to read the actual report (http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html) rather then believe media characterization. That way, you do not come off looking foolish.

Now go and read the whole thing, and then attempt to argue that Kay is saying that there are no WMD's

If you are stating from another source that there are no WMD's, I would like to hear of it.

fallingblock
October 5, 2003, 06:55 AM
Liberals enjoy looking foolish:D


"In the future it may be useful to read the actual report rather then believe media characterization. That way, you do not come off looking foolish.

Now go and read the whole thing, and then attempt to argue that Kay is saying that there are no WMD's"


And often they neglect to actually read reports, preferring the bias of the media to any factual reference.:(

gunsmith
October 5, 2003, 07:48 AM
go ahead and find anything in an Iraqi sandstorm.
You can hide pyramids in Iraq and no one would find them for years.
People have been hiding things there for thousands of years!
like a previous poster said they uncovered a bunch of airplanes.
Do you believe everything the "old grey lady" tells you?
they said the CA recall election wouldn't happen...you wanna buy a bridge?

Bainx
October 5, 2003, 09:54 AM
WMD= dog ate 'um:cool:

Mark Tyson
October 5, 2003, 09:57 AM
The impression I get is that they found some infrastructure and evidence of limited research, but no actual weapons. They still have to test all those arty shells they found in the desert. But it looks as if there wasn't any imminent threat.

Mike Irwin
October 5, 2003, 10:30 AM
http://www.reynoldskitchens.com/reynoldskitchens/kitchenconnection/_images/products/prod_01.gif

Stinger
October 5, 2003, 10:39 AM
It only becomes our business if he does something really bad to us like nuke Los Angeles, or spread a few thousand pounds of anthrax over New York.

Right, just like it only becomes your business after some scumbag rapes/beats/kills your wife/daughter/self/etc.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Stinger

Atticus
October 5, 2003, 11:36 AM
Was Bush lying...or was Saddam such a good liar that he bluffed his way into oblivion? The latter seems to be the case in my opinion. Doesn't really matter now anyway.

lapidator
October 5, 2003, 11:48 AM
The Inspections Are Working
David Kay's preliminary report on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is out. Here are some highlights (with a hat tip to Andrew Sullivan):

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG [Iraq Survey Group] has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. . . .

Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts . . .:

A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW [chemical and biological weapons] research.


A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.


Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.


New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.


Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).


A line of UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.


Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.


Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km--well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.


Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles--probably the No Dong--300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.
"In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts," Kay continues, "we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence--hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use--are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts."

The New York Times headline? "No Illicit Arms Found in Iraq, U.S. Inspector Tells Congress"!

President Bush said this morning that Kay's findings "make clear that Saddam Hussein actively deceived the international community, that Saddam Hussein was in clear violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, and that Saddam Hussein was a danger to the world." No one can argue with that.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004113


So I guess BT is not a WMD?

...

The angy-Left just doesn't care.

lapidator

Tamara
October 5, 2003, 11:54 AM
I'm not angry, nor Left, nor particularly sad to see the guy with the goofy hat collection gone.

I was, however told that they had all kinds of nasty weapons ready to go on 45 minutes' notice. Now it seems that they had some programs that could have maybe whipped something up on 45 weeks' notice.

I don't mind being fibbed to a little, but it irks me to be lied to like I was a government-appointed investigator or something. ;)

TheOtherOne
October 5, 2003, 01:18 PM
Right, just like it only becomes your business after some scumbag rapes/beats/kills your wife/daughter/self/etc.
I meant the sarcasm to be evident, if it wasn't.

telomerase
October 5, 2003, 01:38 PM
I'm not angry, nor Left, nor particularly sad to see the guy with the goofy hat collection gone.

I was, however told that they had all kinds of nasty weapons ready to go on 45 minutes' notice. Now it seems that they had some programs that could have maybe whipped something up on 45 weeks' notice.

That's where I am too. If the President can attack any nation he wants by making wild, unsubstantiated claims, then we don't have any checks and balances at all. And there's nothing to stop him from lying again.

pittspilot
October 5, 2003, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Tamara


I was, however told that they had all kinds of nasty weapons ready to go on 45 minutes' notice. Now it seems that they had some programs that could have maybe whipped something up on 45 weeks' notice.

Please produce a single instance of the Bush Administration declaring that Iraq is an imminent threat.

I think you will find that the Administration argued that we should deal with Saddam before he became an imminent threat.

Originally posted by telomerase


That's where I am too. If the President can attack any nation he wants by making wild, unsubstantiated claims, then we don't have any checks and balances at all. And there's nothing to stop him from lying again.

Please produce proof that the President was making "wild, unsubstantiated claims." Before the war, all I heard was that the Administration had not made thier case due to lack of evidence. Now this evidence is "wild, unsubstantiated claims"

Not only that, apparently everyone else was making "wild, unsubstantiated claims as well.

For Instance

""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 reinvigorated 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 our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 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 b elieve 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 Rockerfeller (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 weap ons 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.

"[W]ithout 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 contin ued 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."
Source (http://www.jrwhipple.com/war/wmd.html)

I think this shows that if there were a mistake made on the proof of Bush's claim, then we all were guilty. Democrats, Republicans, as well as many of the worlds intelligence services, and the UN.

This is not the same as unsubstantiated, wild claims.

Norm357
October 5, 2003, 03:11 PM
Right? Or at some point are we going to use Occam's razor and admit that Bush was lying?





You do know that GW's statement was based on flawed British intelligience right?

lapidator
October 5, 2003, 03:46 PM
Preface to my arguements to follow: I disbelieve that Bush is making war for political purposes. I choose to believe that the Bush administration is making war only where they feel the need. Based on my perception of reality.

I was, however told that they had all kinds of nasty weapons ready to go on 45 minutes' notice. Now it seems that they had some programs that could have maybe whipped something up on 45 weeks' notice.

First, it is permissible that the '45minute' concern may have been based on faulty intel. In this case, I for one sure am glad to have a president who would act if evidence shows the need for action, and that such evidence is truly believed to be authentic. Keep in mind that the Brits are still standing firm with that assessment.

Second, if the intel was 'in the ball park', nothing that has been found so far would disprove that the Iraqis had a capability to deploy WMDs in 45 minutes. The lack of evidence at this time -- just months after the fall of the dictatorship -- is hardly damning of the war on Iraq. Further, the mere evidence that has been found already shows that the Iraqis were in posession of Biological Toxins (BTs) capable of being used by suicidal attacks -- even though only small ammounts have been found. This is definitly not 'residue material' from pre-1990 activity.

Third, perhaps you'd have been satisfied with Bush if indeed he had waited another 45 weeks?

Fourth, We are doing a job (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004111) in Iraq that has been desperatly needed for years. Yeah, it sucks that it had to be us -- but that's a fact, Jack. OPECs recent vote to reduce oil production is blinding proof that Iraq is on the bleeding edge of becoming a real country again. OPEC is very concerned that the Iraqis will flood the market with 'cheap' oil and kill their short term porfits -- hence they are decreasing supply to prop up prices. The bottom line is that Iraq is comming along nicely.

Sure there are problems. But things are going pretty well considering the task that was issued.

lapidator

ps... thanks for the link pittspilot!

El Tejon
October 5, 2003, 04:05 PM
tel, there were no wild claims. Kindly Uncle Saddam was already convicted and on the probation hook. The burden shifted to him. He choose to hide and attempt to have the anti-American forces inside America save him for another administration like Clinton's.

Did not work. With much of Western Europe running interference for him out of greed, I'm certain kindly Uncle Saddam thought he could bluff his way though yet again.

The world knows what kindly Uncle Saddam was doing. Heck, the Dutchies and the Frogs designed and built the programs for him including the human lab rat chambers.

Both sides of the aisle in D.C. knew what kindly Uncle Saddam was up to. Bush Dva acted.

Now let's clean the place up and get to work on the rest of God's Monkey House.:)

Keith
October 5, 2003, 04:11 PM
Please produce a single instance of the Bush Administration declaring that Iraq is an imminent threat.

The only people who heard Bush say there was an "imminent threat" are liberals.
Nobody else heard that. And nobody else thought we were going to war with Iraq because of that.

The rest of us thought were were going to war because Iraq was in violation of the Cease-Fire agreement and 17 UN resolutions. And of course he was in violation and those violations have been found, photogrpahed and annotated at length.

But that doesn't work for the opposition party They need to pretend that the administration made a claim it never made, and then pretend that his claim was incorrect in order to get the sheeple marching in unison.

Keith

lapidator
October 5, 2003, 08:46 PM
If the President can attack any nation he wants by making wild, unsubstantiated claims, then we don't have any checks and balances at all. And there's nothing to stop him from lying again.


uh... yeah... right.

Those checks and balances... i'm guessing you mean that Congress would need to vote to authorize the war, right? I'm also thinking that you might want to have the UN pass a resolution* (or in our case 17!) specifying consequences, right? I suppose another check would be the American people, they'd have to support the war in some fashion or another, right?

hmmm... those pesky fact just don't behave right do they?


Lapidator



*Screw the UN we don't need them.

SkunkApe
October 5, 2003, 09:54 PM
Please produce a single instance of the Bush Administration declaring that Iraq is an imminent threat.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A17424-2003Jul19&notFound=true

The White House, in the run-up to war in Iraq, did not seek CIA approval before charging that Saddam Hussein could launch a biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes, administration officials now say.

The claim, which has since been discredited, was made twice by President Bush, in a September Rose Garden appearance after meeting with lawmakers and in a Saturday radio address the same week. Bush attributed the claim to the British government, but in a "Global Message" issued Sept. 26 and still on the White House Web site, the White House claimed, without attribution, that Iraq "could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given."

The 45-minute claim is at the center of a scandal in Britain that led to the apparent suicide on Friday of a British weapons scientist who had questioned the government's use of the allegation. The scientist, David Kelly, was being investigated by the British parliament as the suspected source of a BBC report that the 45-minute claim was added to Britain's public "dossier" on Iraq in September at the insistence of an aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair -- and against the wishes of British intelligence, which said the charge was from a single source and was considered unreliable.

pittspilot
October 5, 2003, 10:36 PM
1) Does not use the imminent word

2) Does not state the Saddam can attack CONUS in 45 minutes.

It also consider this claim as factually correct

"The 45-minute claim is at the center of a scandal in Britain that led to the apparent suicide on Friday of a British weapons scientist who had questioned the government's use of the allegation. The scientist, David Kelly, was being investigated by the British parliament as the suspected source of a BBC report that the 45-minute claim was added to Britain's public "dossier" on Iraq in September at the insistence of an aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair -- and against the wishes of British intelligence, which said the charge was from a single source and was considered unreliable."

Notice the date, Sunday, July 20, 2003.

The story is still far from clear on the other side of the Atlantic. For example: MI6 chief: 45-minute claim was 'misinterpreted' (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1042634,00.html)

SkunkApe
October 5, 2003, 11:48 PM
You guys sound like the Democrats defending Clinton. Didn't actually use the word "imminent", huh? Well I guess that settles it. He's off the hook.

pittspilot
October 5, 2003, 11:52 PM
Not at all.

My point is simple. Bush argued that we had to deal with Saddam BEFORE he became an imminent threat. I am not arguing nuances, and I am not arguing what the meaning of is, is.

If you had a problem with that argument before the war, it is likely that you had a problem after it as well. However, spinning the argument is not cricket.

Tamara
October 6, 2003, 01:07 AM
Please produce a single instance of the Bush Administration declaring that Iraq is an imminent threat.

1) Does not use the imminent word

2) Does not state the Saddam can attack CONUS in 45 minutes.

You spin me right 'round, baby, right 'round, like a record, baby...

Please produce a single instance where I used "imminent" or "CONUS" in this thread before this sentence. ;) I said I had been told by my government that Iraq had WMD's ready to go on 45 minute's notice. This has turned out to be factually incorrect, nicht wahr? I'd have been completely all right with a statement along the lines of "Look, the guy's a scumbag who hates motherhood and apple pie, steals candy from babies, and keeps giving the stinkeye to the civilized world. We've put up with it plenty damn long enough, and we're going to go kick his butt. Anyone who wants to come help us is welcome, and the rest of the UN can go pee up a rope." Instead, they blow smoke at me with some kind of Tonkin Gulf-esque dog and pony show. That's just bad form.

pittspilot
October 6, 2003, 01:13 AM
Tamara,

I misconstrued what you said, and put words in your mouth. Sorry about that, I was wrong. Your statement about the "45 minutes" was correct, and I mistakenly attempt to correct it.

I would take exception to your characterizing my rebuttle to the other person on this thread. I believe in that instance, I am re-spinning.

moa
October 6, 2003, 06:47 PM
Chief weapons inspector Kay says Iraq has 130 major munitions dumps. Some cover 50 square kilometers or more. His teams have only inspected 10 of those dumps.

Saddam is estimated to have had 600-650 thousand tons of munitions. All these items have to be sorted out and inspected.

Of course, this is the weaponry and munitions above ground and obvious.

Mike Irwin
October 6, 2003, 06:58 PM
Of course, if chemical or biological weapons ARE found and authenticated, it will be roughly 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds before we hear people screeching CONSPIRACY! CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You know what? Saddam's gone. Good. I don't mourn for the a-hole. Now, or 15 years from now, eventually we would have to have dealt with him again.

moa
October 6, 2003, 07:38 PM
Another thing too about the inspection process.

Chief inspector Kay was asked why he did not request additional inspectors from the UN. His reply is that the inspections are hampered by a hostile, violent environment. All of his inspectors including himself are small arms qualified and carry weapons at all times. UN inspectors are not generally small arms qualified.

I think I heard him say Sunday that at least one member of his inspection team had been killed. I remember he mentioned that one female inspector shot out her windshield with an M4 when they were attacked by armed assailants.

Tamara
October 7, 2003, 12:14 AM
Chief weapons inspector Kay says Iraq has 130 major munitions dumps. Some cover 50 square kilometers or more. His teams have only inspected 10 of those dumps.

All he needs to do is inspect the ones in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat, since we know that's where they are. ;)

If you enjoyed reading about "UFOs stole Iraq's WMDs" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!