[OreoCookie]

Here's the article.

Remember, it's macnn:macnn, so you don't have to sign up.

An interesting quote:

"The step was described by some military officials as a sign that the administration might have lowered its sights and no longer expected to uncover the caches of chemical and biological weapons that the White House cited as a principal reason for going to war last March."

So even after an intensive search, there is nothing to be found?

[eklipse]

I heard NASA was investigating intelligence suggesting Saddam may have ordered the shipping of WMD to Mars in the run up to the invasion - so far they've only discovered sand and rocks.

Suspicions were further raised when an earlier, British led, expedition failed to report back as scheduled.

[Spheric Harlot]

<spacefreak>
No no, I've been told there's been *massive* evidence of WMD uncovered in Iraq that will shut all you left-wing anti-Bush nay-sayers RIGHT up once it's released in early Sept^H^H^H^H Nov^H^H^H sprin^H^H^H^H^H summe^H^H^H^H^H September...just you wait.
</spacefreak>

[Lerkfish]

another interesting tidbit:

A report published Wednesday in The Washington Post cited a previously undisclosed document that suggested that Iraq might have destroyed its biological weapons as early as 1991. The report said investigators had otherwise found no evidence to support American beliefs that Iraq had maintained illicit weapons dating from the Persian Gulf war of 1991 or that it had advanced programs to build new ones.

The report also documented a pattern of deceit that was found in every field of special weaponry. It said that according to Iraqi designers and foreign investigators, program managers exaggerated the results they could achieve, or even promised results they knew they could not accomplish — all in an effort to appease Saddam Hussein. In some cases, though, they simply did it to advance their careers, the report said, or preserve jobs or even conduct intrigues against their rivals.

[Lerkfish]

what's interesting is I related this story to a coworker who is a huge bush apologist, drudge report reader and dittohead.
His response: Well, obviously Saddam knew there were weapons.

which does not address the issue, but a fine dodge nonetheless.

[davesimondotcom]

I wouldn't be surprised if program managers exagerated there success to Saddam. Remember all of the talk about how Saddam modeled himself after Stalin?

Stalin's 5-year plans were routinely "completed" with fake results. Tanks that were merely shells or wood cutouts. Etc.

What would have been there to stop Saddam's Head Nuke Guy to say, "Oh, yeah, Saddam, we've got big booms now. We could even probably hit Israel with it." (Even if it was just to save his own ass.)

Saddam had absolute (and brutal) control over his country, and as we all know, absolute power corupts absolutely. He built palaces, horded money, probably underfunded his weapons programs as the result.

That's not to say there were no weapons programs or that they didn't get any results. That's yet to be seen. It's awfully hard to prove a negative (i.e. prove the weapons don't exist.)

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
That's not to say there were no weapons programs or that they didn't get any results. That's yet to be seen. It's awfully hard to prove a negative (i.e. prove the weapons don't exist.)

But how do you respond to the story in question? Why would Bush "quietly" withdraw the team if he felt there was still something to be found? That's sort of the Elephant in the living room that needs to be discussed here.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
But how do you respond to the story in question? Why would Bush "quietly" withdraw the team if he felt there was still something to be found? That's sort of the Elephant in the living room that needs to be discussed here.

I was just commenting on the possiblity that Saddam's teams exagerated results as per your "bold" sections...

First thought - "quietly" was the NYT's terminology. But it's not a surprise - did you think they'd hold a large press conference to announce something that would be interpretted by many of their critics as a failure?

The article also talks about how only a tiny fraction of documents have been translated - perhaps the teams are being pulled back until a greater amount of intelligence has been gathered through translation? If so, it could be a money saving/effort saving move.

I can't tell you why. You can speculate. I can speculate. But nobody knows.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
That's sort of the Elephant in the living room that needs to be discussed here.

Eleph...?

Oh, sorry.

I had to take it out of the fridge when I put the butter back in (it was getting runny).



-----

So, 400 experts withdraw from Iraq.

They were probably just informed by their Commander-in-Chief that the invasion of Iraq wasn't about Weapons development, it was about humanitarian concerns. So why bother?


Personally, I consider this the final nail in the coffin of your country's political credibility.

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
First thought - "quietly" was the NYT's terminology. But it's not a surprise - did you think they'd hold a large press conference to announce something that would be interpretted by many of their critics as a failure?

It's not a question of interpretation, Dave.

It is factual admittance of the inability to confirm the "justification" for war.

Unless you seriously believe that there is the slightest possibility that they might have actually *found* something and are keeping quiet about it, there is no grey area or ambiguity to be interpreted here.

-s*

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Unless you seriously believe that there is the slightest possibility that they might have actually *found* something and are keeping quiet about it, there is no grey area or ambiguity to be interpreted here.

I didn't say that. Read what I said.

I said nothing about them finding something and keeping quiet about it.

I said there are reasons that they may have been pulled out. Those reasons are up for interpretation. But none of us know the real reason. Yet.

EDIT: Due to premature sending of reply!

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I said there are reasons that they may have been pulled out.

You said that their pulling out "would be interpretted by many of their critics as a failure".

My point was that that is not something that can be interpreted as a failure, but that it *IS* a failure to turn up anything to justify the war. No two ways about it.

-s*

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
My point was that that is not something that can be interpreted as a failure, but that it *IS* a failure to turn up anything to justify the war. No two ways about it.

-s*

There were quite a few reasons given for the war. And the search hasn't been called off, even by the NYT's account. There is still intelligence to translate/pour through...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
There were quite a few reasons given for the war. And the search hasn't been called off, even by the NYT's account. There is still intelligence to translate/pour through...

hehe.

keep on spinning.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
hehe.

keep on spinning.

Spinning? I was simply presenting an alternative plausible explanation.

I don't know the truth any more than you do. I don't even know what I think of it. Just offered a possiblity.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
There were quite a few reasons given for the war. And the search hasn't been called off, even by the NYT's account. There is still intelligence to translate/pour through...

Kenneth G. Wilson_(1923–).__The Columbia Guide to Standard American English.__1993.

pore, pour (vv.)

These homophones get confused only in spelling, mainly when the relatively infrequent pore, meaning “to read or study carefully” and always combined with over, as in "He pored over his maps all evening," is mistakenly spelled pour, which is how you move a liquid out of a container.

[davesimondotcom]

Now I get a grammar correction.

Just not my day...

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Now I get a grammar correction.

It's not going very well for you today is it?

edit: Why'd you edit your post? Now mine looks redundant!

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
It's not going very well for you today is it?

edit: Why'd you edit your post? Now mine looks redundant!

Neoconspiracy.

[chris v]

Here's why:

Of course, it's the ultraliberal CNN ,so they're biased, and the institute that issued the report has the word "peace" in their name, so they must be a bunch of hippie commie pinkos, that we can deride as Saddam-sympathisers, so nevermind... Clinton got a blow job, too.

CV

[davesimondotcom]

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace -- a nonpartisan, respected group that opposed the war in Iraq -- conducted the study.

I found this paragraph funny. Nonpartisan, and respected, yet clearly with a preconcieved notion of what they would or would not find.

If the accuastion can be drawn from their report that the Bush Administration falsified information to get to a goal of invasion, couldn't the argument be made that someone who was against said invasion have manipulated or ignored data to get the conclusion they wanted?

Serious question.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I found this paragraph funny. Nonpartisan, and respected, yet clearly with a preconcieved notion of what they would or would not find.

If the accuastion can be drawn from their report that the Bush Administration falsified information to get to a goal of invasion, couldn't the argument be made that someone who was against said invasion have manipulated or ignored data to get the conclusion they wanted?

Serious question.

serious answer: the argument could be made, but that would be harder to demonstrate. you'd have to have instances where the data was suspect or manipulated, instead of just your suspicion it could have been.
In the case of Bush, there have been enough intelligence officials coming out on the record to justify making the argument that the administration manipulated or cherry picked or stovepiped questionable intelligence.

Where are your examples for the other group, or officials coming out and saying the data was manipulated?

Don't get me wrong, we should take a grain of salt with any partisan group, however, the two examples you compare are not equal.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
<spacefreak>
No no, I've been told there's been *massive* evidence of WMD uncovered in Iraq that will shut all you left-wing anti-Bush nay-sayers RIGHT up once it's released in early Sept^H^H^H^H Nov^H^H^H sprin^H^H^H^H^H summe^H^H^H^H^H September...just you wait.
</spacefreak>

Take it easy, slugger.

What i said was that "stuff" is being found. I noted the long-range Chinese missiles with custom-made sarin container tip. We have yet to see this announced, but the next Kay report is due in February (I believe), so if this finding is not documented there, then my sources are full of it.

I also noted the miles of documents found, which this article briefly mentions.

Believe me, I want to know what happened to the tons and liters of bio/chem agents that the UN inventoried. UN res. 1441 required Saddam to provide documented proof as to how and when these stocks were destroyed (if at all). He didn't, so we're going to find out one way or another.

Feel free to read David Kay's first report from October for an official glimpse of what they had found at that point.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Don't get me wrong, we should take a grain of salt with any partisan group, however, the two examples you compare are not equal.

The CNN article clearly states they are non-partisan (but in the next breath states that they do have an agenda.) Which I thought was interesting.

EDIT: forgot wink

[chris v]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
The CNN article clearly states they are non-partisan (but in the next breath states that they do have an agenda.) Which I thought was interesting.

EDIT: forgot wink

Do you absolutely have to belong to a political party in order to oppose the war? I've talked to life-long Republican military officers who have excoriated Bush and co. and the war in Iraq, in private conversation.

CV

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by chris v:
Do you absolutely have to belong to a political party in order to oppose the war? I've talked to life-long Republican military officers who have excoriated Bush and co. and the war in Iraq, in private conversation.

CV

No, you don't have to belong to a party to have any belief. Which is my point - they are non-partisan, not non-biased. Everyone has a bias.

As for life-long Republican military officers who didn't agree with Bush - have you been talking to Wes Clark again?

[dialo]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Believe me, I want to know what happened to the tons and liters of bio/chem agents that the UN inventoried.

Well, then I'll tell you:
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweapons.html

Feel free to read David Kay's first report from October for an official glimpse of what they had found at that point.

You want to know what those bio-agents really are all about?

In addition to the doubts about the botulinum B, several outside experts questioned the significance of Kay's claim that he uncovered covert "new research" in Iraq on such potential biowarfare agents as brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, and "continuing work" on ricin and aflatoxin that were not declared to U.N. inspectors.

CCHF, as the hemorrhagic-fever virus is known, is common in Iraq. The World Health Organization reports that the disease, which can cause intense bleeding and death, is "endemic in many countries in Africa, Europe and Asia." There is no evidence that Iraq or anyone else has weaponized it.

"There are public-health reasons to work with it in that part of the world," Franz said. "I wouldn't find it alarming that they're working on that."

Brucella, which chiefly affects livestock, is also endemic to Iraq. U.S. military scientists weaponized the bacteria during the Cold War but did not consider it effective because it is slow-acting and can be treated with antibiotics. U.N. inspectors never found evidence that Iraq worked on brucella as a weapon.

Aflatoxin causes vomiting and other incapacitating symptoms, but is rarely lethal in humans. The fungal toxin is chiefly known for causing liver cancer. Iraq produced aflatoxin as a weapon in the 1980s, but Zilinskas said it's never been clear why.

"It's not particularly toxic, and its primary effects are long term," he said. "My feeling to this day is that it was a scam that the scientists put over on the decisionmakers, because it's easy to produce and the decisionmakers wouldn't know it is useless as a biological weapon."

Saddam's regime also sought to weaponize ricin, which can be highly lethal if inhaled, but ended the program in 1990 after field tests failed to kill animals, according to U.N. reports.

"They gave up using ricin as a weapon," Franz said. "That was the right decision, in my opinion." Because it is so difficult to produce the proper powdered form for aerosol distribution, he said, "You almost need to be hit by a brick of it to kill you."

http://www.concordmonitor.com/storie...ian_2003.shtml

[OreoCookie]

Collin Powel has now confirmed that the 400 specialists will return to the US.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Spinning? I was simply presenting an alternative universe.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Collin Powel has now confirmed that the 400 specialists will return to the US.

Linky?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Face Ache:

With those quoting skills you could get a job at the New York Times...

Maureen Dowd look out...

[tie]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Linky?

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?o...FD0A564D57A2C0

"Where the debate is, is why haven't we found huge stockpiles and why haven't we found large caches of these weapons," said the secretary. "Let's let the Iraqi survey group complete its work. There has been the movement out of some of the individuals from the group. I presume that their particular job is finished. But I am confident of what I presented last year."

Another interesting quote:

But he is less certain than others in the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein had ties to terrorist groups like al-Qaida. "I have not seen 'smoking gun'-concrete evidence about the connection," he said, "but I think the possibility of such connections did exist and it was prudent to consider them."

Before the war, some in the Bush administration including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had cited what they called 'bulletproof' evidence of Iraqi ties to a group linked to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist network.

I expect Simey will educate us about the legal difference between "'smoking gun'-concrete" and "bulletproof" evidence. Silly me would have assumed the latter implied the former.

[Powerbook]

Help them all move to France! All!!!
There they'll be shown some OMFG WEPPERNS OF MASS DESTRUCTIEN!!!


PB.

[chris v]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:


As for life-long Republican military officers who didn't agree with Bush - have you been talking to Wes Clark again?

No, I've been talking to members of my family. Not merely "disagreed" with... I've heard a retired Colonel call bush a "f*cking idiot."

I know other Republicans (my grandmother, for one, who is a registered party member, and in the past did a lot of organizing in her town in Oregon) who usually vote Republican for the "old" reasons that no longer "matter," like smaller govt., fiscal responsibility, etc. that are disgusted by whom they've described to me as an "idiot" and the war in particular.

I would have to agree though, that a group called "The institute for Peace" might be biased against war. But is being "biased against war" a bad thing? They've expressed the factual reasons why they've achieved their bias, I believe.

CV

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Linky?

Sorry, I have heard it on German news first (web streaming is a great thing), I'll provide you guys with a link as soon as I find one.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by chris v:
No, I've been talking to members of my family. Not merely "disagreed" with... I've heard a retired Colonel call bush a "f*cking idiot."

My Clark comment was a joke. (It has been shown that he only recently became a registered Democrat, and just last year he was speaking to Republican dinners and fundraisers.)

Originally posted by chris v:
I know other Republicans (my grandmother, for one, who is a registered party member, and in the past did a lot of organizing in her town in Oregon) who usually vote Republican for the "old" reasons that no longer "matter," like smaller govt., fiscal responsibility, etc. that are disgusted by whom they've described to me as an "idiot" and the war in particular.

Your grandmother is like many real Republicans, wanting smaller governement but given the choice between RINOs (Republican In Name Only) who will grow government slower than Democrats, they choose the RINOs.

Originally posted by chris v:
I would have to agree though, that a group called "The institute for Peace" might be biased against war. But is being "biased against war" a bad thing? They've expressed the factual reasons why they've achieved their bias, I believe.

I didn't say that they were biased against war, I said they had a bias - against THIS war. And therefore, an agenda to prove themselves "right."

[hyteckit]

Man, the Bush administration is in deep sh*t. No WMD found, only WMD-related things found such as empty shells, old lab equipment, and virus culture of desease common in Iraq. Not looking good for the Bush admin. Now the Bush administration is saying that Saddam has intent and that's all the matters?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Your grandmother is like many real Republicans, wanting smaller governement but given the choice between RINOs (Republican In Name Only) who will grow government slower than Democrats, they choose the RINOs.

That RINO in office has presided over the single biggest expansion of government since the great depression. Bush has got big government running through his blood.

If anything, the only small government president we've had in a long time was Clinton. Remember that the army is included as part of the government, and historically is the most dangerous potential oppressor.

BlackGriffen

Edit: This just in, Bush wants to expand government even more. Fiscally responsible as a teenager with daddy's credit card.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Edit: This just in, Bush wants to expand government even more. Fiscally responsible as a teenager with daddy's credit card.

at the end of the NYT story on the same thing, there is this interesting paragraph (that I quoted in another thread on the mars initiative)

Congressional aides also said they expected the announcement to detail a reorganization of the nation's space effort, to bring the military and civilian sides closer together to make better use of limited resources.

What purpose does the military have for a moon base?

A fully-operational Death Star?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
What purpose does the military have for a moon base?

Guantanamo's getting full?

[tie]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
What purpose does the military have for a moon base?

Really big contracts. Once we begin militarizing space, China and Europe will have no choice but to follow suit. Soon we'll all be much less safe, but military budgets will be much larger.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by dialo:
Well, then I'll tell you:
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweapons.html

"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."
-- Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector -- January 27, 2003

"I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction. There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991."
-- Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector -- January 27, 2003

You want to know what those bio-agents really are all about?..."There are public-health reasons to work with it in that part of the world," Franz said. "I wouldn't find it alarming that they're working on that."

Too bad the Iraqi scientists interviewed - you know, the ones who actually had the stuff and/or worked with it - claim otherwise. Documents found in Iraq also show otherwise. If Iraq was working on these agents for 'public health' reasons, I would hope that some Iraqi scientists and supporting documents would indicate as much. Unfortunately for Mr. Franz and his and your theory, they don't.

[dialo]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
VX

Hmmmmm. So you didn't read the link I posted. Interesting.

Apparently during your in depth review of the UN reports, you skipped over all the sections demonstrating that Iraq had never stabilized VX and, therefore, the VX would have been degraded long, long ago.

Iraq attempted to produce VX nerve agent using four different methods from 1987 to 1991. These are detailed in UNMOVIC's working paper, "Unresolved Disarmament Issues" (6 March 2003), pp.79-83. Iraq declared that it produced 2.4 tonnes of VX in production trials from late 1987 to May 1988, but that this material degraded rapidly and was completely destroyed later in 1988. This account has been generally accepted (ibid., pp.79-80).

Iraq also produced 1.5 tonnes according to a second method (which UNMOVIC refer to as "route B") from April 1988 to April 1990. It is this quantity that the UK and Secretary Powell, among others, are referring to above. However, two factors would indicate that the 1.5 tonnes of VX nerve agent no longer exist in operational form.

Firstly, Iraq claimed that this quantity of VX was discarded unilaterally by dumping it on the ground. VX degrades rapidly if placed onto concrete (see this report of 15 November 2002). In accordance with Iraq's claim, UNSCOM tested the site at which the VX was reportedly dumped. UNSCOM's January 1999 report states in Appendix II, paragraph 16:

"Traces of one VX-degradation product and a chemical known as a VX-stabilizer were found in the samples taken from the VX dump sites."

However, from this information alone, UNSCOM was not able to make "a quantified assessment"; that is, they were not able to verify that all 1.5 tonnes of the agent had been so destroyed.

Iraq at first denied the production of VX. When confronted with the evidence of its past VX production by UNSCOM, to explain the lack of documentary proof of the destruction of this quantity of VX, it "provided UNSCOM with handwritten notes that recorded the issuance of oral instructions, inter alia, to destroy any evidence indicating the presence of VX and a key precursor of VX, 'Iraqi choline'" ("Unresolved Disarmament Issues", 6 March 2003, p.80).

Since then, it has provided further material from late February 2003 and on 14 March 2003 to substantiate its case, material that is currently being assessed.

Secondly, VX produced according to "route B" degrades rapidly. According to UNMOVIC:

"VX produced through route B must be used relatively quickly after production (about 1 to 8 weeks), which would probably be satisfactory for wartime requirements."

"Unresolved Disarmament Issues" (6 March 2003), p.82

This conclusion is confirmed by other independent assessments. For example, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) strategic dossier of September 2002 records the status of VX produced before the Gulf War: "Any VX produced by Iraq before 1991 is likely to have decomposed over the past decade [...]. Any G-agent or V-agent stocks that Iraq concealed from UNSCOM inspections are likely to have deteriorated by now." (pp. 52 and 53).

Iraq also used two further methods to produce VX: route C seems to have been unsuccessful, but route D did result in the production of "high purity VX [..] in laboratory/pilot-scale equipment" ("Unresolved Disarmament Issues", 6 March 2003, p.82). According to UNMOVIC, any VX produced according to route D could have been stabilised, and could remain viable. However, there is no evidence that Iraq did ever produce significant quantities of VX through route D. As UNMOVIC record:

"Based upon the documents provided by Iraq, it is doubtful that any significant quantities of VX were produced using this route before the Gulf war."

"Unresolved Disarmament Issues" (6 March 2003), p.82.

Furthermore, it seems unlikely that Iraq would have produced VX through route D during the Gulf War due to the more complex process that would have been involved. As UNMOVIC record:

"During times of war, or imminent war, it would make sense for Iraq to produce VX through route B, which involves only about half as many process steps as route D."

"Unresolved Disarmament Issues" (6 March 2003), p.82.

In April/May 1998, UNSCOM passed samples from missile warhead fragments to a United States laboratory, which reported in June 1998 that they had found VX degradation products on the missile warheads. This was seen as indicating at the time that Iraq had stabilised VX sufficiently and had managed to weaponise it (in contrast to the Government of Iraq's own claims). However, further tests on fragments from the same missile warheads at two other laboratories (in Switzerland and France), and at the same United States laboratory with further samples, "found no nerve agent degradation products" (ibid., p.82). The chemical in question "could also originate from other compounds such as precursors or, according to some experts, a detergent" (ibid., p.81).

Key post-war readings: Bob Drogin, "The Vanishing", The New Republic,14 July 2003: includes detailed interview with a senior scientist involved in the production of VX prior to 1990.

So you might want to read the following link as well as *actually* read throught the UN reports:

http://traprockpeace.org/iraqweapons.html#index

Too bad the Iraqi scientists interviewed - you know, the ones who actually had the stuff and/or worked with it - claim otherwise.

Oh is that so?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan6.html

And maybe you should cross reference what is posted above with the kay report, since you will see you are mixing up the agents in your head. But what does being accurate matter, right?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by dialo:
Apparently during your in depth review of the UN reports, you skipped over all the sections demonstrating that Iraq had never stabilized VX and, therefore, the VX would have been degraded long, long ago.

That is not quite so clear

Iraq also used two further methods to produce VX: route C seems to have been unsuccessful, but route D did result in the production of "high purity VX in laboratory/pilot-scale equipment" ("Unresolved Disarmament Issues", 6 March 2003, p.82). According to UNMOVIC, any VX produced according to route D could have been stabilised, and could remain viable. However, there is no evidence that Iraq did ever produce significant quantities of VX through route D.

Did Iraq state that they produced significant quantities w/ route D? No. But they also denied that they had ever produced VX in the firstplace (and only piecemeal-explained after being confronted with overwhelming evidence).

I read through some of Rangwala's stuff, but it is filled with cut and paste jobs - a phrase here, a phrase or two there. It's all borrowed from the real sources, but much of it, especially HIS evaluations, uses these phrases out of their original context.

I also read Rangwala's weak response to the Kay Report. Rangwala had so little to contradict that he (the last 3 or so paragraphs) resorted to personally attacking Kay, portraying him as some sort of war-mongering man with Haliburton-type contract connections and motivations.

I can only read so much of that crap.

But what does being accurate matter, right?

You obviously feel Mr. Rangwala, Scott Ritter, and the rest of the Traprock Peace Center are the gospel in determining Iraq's (and other nation's) threat levels. I prefer to not base my security judgements solely on the evaluation of a one organization whose purpose is to "Explore Nonviolence" and "Work to end war".

Since you're such a fan, why don't you help them liven up their forums?

[dialo]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
That is not quite so clear

It's crystal clear.

When all available evidence solidly points in one direction, then that's the direction to logically head.

You also selectively quoted. The rest is:

"Based upon the documents provided by Iraq, it is doubtful that any significant quantities of VX were produced using this route before the Gulf war." (UNMOVIC, 6 March 2003, p.82)

Furthermore, it seems unlikely that Iraq would have produced VX through route D during the Gulf War due to the more complex process that would have been involved. As UNMOVIC record:

"During times of war, or imminent war, it would make sense for Iraq to produce VX through route B, which involves only about half as many process steps as route D." (UNMOVIC, 6 March 2003, p.82)

Part of the problem with the production is that special technology was required that never made its way out of the lab and into a production environment.

As of today, there is absolutely ZERO evidence that Iraq continued production of VX.

I read through some of Rangwala's stuff, but it is filled with cut and paste jobs - a phrase here, a phrase or two there. It's all borrowed from the real sources, but much of it, especially HIS evaluations, uses these phrases out of their original context.

Don't play games. There are accurate and specific citations, and links throughout the paper. I don't know who you think you are going to fool like that (those folks lazy enough to actually take your word, maybe?), but try not to do it in the future, mkay?

I've been reading the reports as they've come out for years now. I actually work at a government depository and specialize in OSINT. In other words, it's pretty easy to tell the difference between someone who's actually read the reports and someone who hasn't. Your statement here is one indication that you haven't, and your statement below is another.

I also read Rangwala's weak response to the Kay Report. Rangwala had so little to contradict that he (the last 3 or so paragraphs) resorted to personally attacking Kay, portraying him as some sort of war-mongering man with Haliburton-type contract connections and motivations.

Why not link to it?
http://www.traprockpeace.org/glen_ra...os_oct0403.pdf

This was actually the first time I read it, and I see nothing factually incorrect about it. If there is a factual error in there, demonstrate it.

It's actually rather amusing that you attack him in this way, since your post is totally devoid of any actual counter data and instead is just a rambling about "that crap."

You obviously feel Mr. Rangwala, Scott Ritter, and the rest of the Traprock Peace Center are

Well, you apparently aren't too versed in the UN reports or Iraqi intel in general because you haven't realized that this is a very well known meta-analysis that is mirrored in many places, one of those mirrors being traprock.

As for Ritter, maybe out in space where you are it's a different story, but here on planet earth it has turned out that what he's been saying all along is absolutely correct.

[kindbud]

I couldn't imagine how humiliating it would be to live in a country that couldn't compete with the USA in any manner whatsoever - while the USA was led by a bunch of idiots.

U.S.A.: "We may be stupid - but we're ahead of you"


Inaction warrants neither praise nor contempt. - Spliffdaddy

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by dialo:
You also selectively quoted....<snip>...As of today, there is absolutely ZERO evidence that Iraq continued production of VX.

Don't play games. There are accurate and specific citations, and links throughout the paper. I don't know who you think you are going to fool like that (those folks lazy enough to actually take your word, maybe?), but try not to do it in the future, mkay?

I'm selectively quoting and playing games? That's all your boy Rangwala does. He goes to great lengths to try and convince browsers of his manifesto that VX was not and should not have been a concern, and that the Bush admin. was ridiculous in even considering that iraq may have stocks of VX, but yet Rangwala conveniently leaves out this from the UNMOVIC report

However, in April/May 1998, UNSCOM took remnants of missile warheads that had been unilaterally destroyed by Iraq for analysis. The analysis showed traces of VX degradation products, and a chemical known to be a stabilizer for VX.

or this...

Documentation available to UNMOVIC suggests that Iraq, at least, has had far reaching plans to weaponize VX.

We can go on for years selecting lines and passages from these reports. The fact is, Saddam did not comply with res. 1441 by the dates specified. The burden of declaration and/or proof was on him, and he played his usual games. He's behind bars now.

I've been reading the reports as they've come out for years now. I actually work at a government depository and specialize in OSINT.

Tell someone who might care.

In other words, it's pretty easy to tell the difference between someone who's actually read the reports and someone who hasn't.

Translation: You haven't read the reports if you don't agree with me and Rangwala.

This was actually the first time I read it, and I see nothing factually incorrect about it. If there is a factual error in there, demonstrate it.

i didn't claim is was factually incorrect. I said it was weak. Instead of looking at the Kay report's conclusion that Iraq was undeniably continuing it's weapons programs while continuing to defy UN resolutions, Rangwala basically counters with "still no WMD found", "that toxin would take weeks to produce", "there's nothing wrong with secret, underground laboratories hidden from UN inspectors", or "David Kay is a war-monger angling for contract money."

Criticizing a report should involve disputing the conclusion. Rangwala fails here.

Well, you apparently aren't too versed in the UN reports or Iraqi intel in general because you haven't realized that this is a very well known meta-analysis that is mirrored in many places, one of those mirrors being traprock.

As for Ritter, maybe out in space where you are it's a different story, but here on planet earth it has turned out that what he's been saying all along is absolutely correct.

Well, you apparently aren't too versed on Scott Ritter, because you would have realized that "all along" has only been a few years...

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

[dialo]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
yet Rangwala conveniently leaves out this from the UNMOVIC report
quote:
However, in April/May 1998, UNSCOM took remnants of missile warheads that had been unilaterally destroyed by Iraq for analysis. The analysis showed traces of VX degradation products, and a chemical known to be a stabilizer for VX.

Really? Have another read smart guy:

In April/May 1998, UNSCOM passed samples from missile warhead fragments to a United States laboratory, which reported in June 1998 that they had found VX degradation products on the missile warheads. This was seen as indicating at the time that Iraq had stabilised VX sufficiently and had managed to weaponise it (in contrast to the Government of Iraq's own claims). However, further tests on fragments from the same missile warheads at two other laboratories (in Switzerland and France), and at the same United States laboratory with further samples, "found no nerve agent degradation products" (ibid., p.82). The chemical in question "could also originate from other compounds such as precursors or, according to some experts, a detergent" (ibid., p.81).

Now it's posted on this page twice so you don't miss it again.

and nice job selectively quoting again.

Well, you apparently aren't too versed on Scott Ritter, because you would have realized that "all along" has only been a few years...

Apparently you aren't aware of the background on that.

Telling, too, that you didn't pull it from the actual transcript. Do you need some help finding it, kiddo?

[Logic]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The fact is, Saddam did not comply with res. 1441 by the dates specified.

Could you give me a link to something from the UN that states this? A vote on the matter or something alike? Not your governments opinion but an actual document from the UN.

[hyteckit]

spacefreak, stop it. dialo is slapping you silly. stay down and don't get up or dialo is going to give you a good beating.

spacefreak, it's okay to be a Bush supporter. It's okay to be wrong. We still love you.