[TheMosco]

BBC Story

Don't know if this was already posted.

Did anyone see Frontline on PBS last night? I was sickened by what I what i saw. The arrogance of Bush is amazing. They had video Powel before september 11 saying that Iraq didn't have weapons and was no threat, then 2 years later they president claims they have huge stock piles of it.

They followed David Kay around and to sites where weapons could have been made. All the equipment they claimed could be used to make weapons was all rusty and in pieces. They also mentioned the steel tubes that iraq had that the president said were for enriching uranium couldn't be used for that, not to mention the "trucks" that the president claimed to be weapons labs that weren't. What a mess.

[lil'babykitten]

But in a telephone interview with Reuters, Mr Kay said of the alleged weapons stockpiles: "I don't think they existed. What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production programme in the 90s."

Mr Kay was quoted as saying he believed most of what was going to be found in the hunt had already been discovered.

heh.

So yet again it appears there never really was a threat. Are there people still willing to defend this argument? Or have WMD suddenly become irrelevant?

[eklipse]

No one cares about WMD - that wasn't the reason Iraq was invaded and occupied.

Didn't you get the memo?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Didn't you get the memo?

Neither did Cheney, apparently.



Please, America, fire this man. He is delusional and dangerous. Not to mention corrupt and unscrupulous.

[Lerkfish]

hmmmm...doesn't this go counter to spacefreak's "inside information"???

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
hmmmm...doesn't this go counter to spacefreak's "inside information"???

I don't know, I've lost track of all the recent excuses/changing of justification for war/insert other BS here/

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
hmmmm...doesn't this go counter to spacefreak's "inside information"???

IT WILL BE RELEASED IN FEBRUARY DAMMIT!

How many times do you have to be told?!?


.....or was it September?....yes....SEPTEMBER IT IS!!

[swrate]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
BBC Story

Don't know if this was already posted.

Did anyone see Frontline on PBS last night? I was sickened by what I what i saw. The arrogance of Bush is amazing. They had video Powel before september 11 saying that Iraq didn't have weapons and was no threat, then 2 years later they president claims they have huge stock piles of it.

They followed David Kay around and to sites where weapons could have been made. All the equipment they claimed could be used to make weapons was all rusty and in pieces. They also mentioned the steel tubes that iraq had that the president said were for enriching uranium couldn't be used for that, not to mention the "trucks" that the president claimed to be weapons labs that weren't. What a mess.

In didnt take Intelligence Services to go through that, those informations were public, on the news of many countries.

Last year, before the war, missiles were destroyed.

We saw Dr Blix on TV often, and he would explain and show the state of the imprecise old weapons, their lamentable condition was obvious. Their target range ~150 miles, when good winds.... yes, "terror threat on the world"

A dictator was cleared away .. ..
the remedy might be harder to find
it should not only have consultants of the UN involved, but also other nations, including Arabic Republics consultants

****seems like police state opression may go on for some time****

[Face Ache]

Ex-Arms Hunter Kay Says No WMD Stockpiles in Iraq
Fri January 23, 2004 06:41 PM ET

Pressure For Elections In Iraq

By Tabassum Zakaria

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - David Kay stepped down as leader of the U.S. hunt for banned weapons in Iraq on Friday and said he did not believe the country had any large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons.

In a direct challenge to the Bush administration, which says its invasion of Iraq was justified by the presence of illicit arms, Kay told Reuters in a telephone interview he had concluded there were no Iraqi stockpiles to be found.

"I don't think they existed," Kay said. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War, and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s," he said.

The CIA announced earlier that former U.N. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, who has expressed his own doubts that unconventional weapons would be found, would succeed Kay as Washington's chief arms hunter.

Kay said he believes most of what was going to be uncovered in Iraq had been found and that the weapons hunt would become more difficult once America returned control of the country to the Iraqis.

The United States went to war against Baghdad last year citing a threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. So far, no banned arms have been found.

In his annual State of the Union address on Tuesday, President Bush insisted that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had actively pursued dangerous weapons programs right up to the start of the U.S. attack in March.

"Had we failed to act," Bush said, "the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day."

JURY STILL OUT

And on Wednesday, Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States had not given up on finding unconventional weapons in Iraq. "The jury is still out," he said in a radio interview.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said on Friday, in response to Kay's remarks: "We remain confident that the Iraq Survey Group will uncover the truth about Saddam Hussein's regime, the regime's weapons of destruction programs."

Pressure For Elections In Iraq

Kay said he left his post due to a "complex set of issues," including a reduction in resources and a change in focus of the Defense Department's Iraq Survey Group which is conducting the weapons hunt.

ISG analysts were diverted from hunting for weapons of mass destruction to helping in the fight against the insurgency, he said. "When I had started out I had made it a condition that ISG be exclusively focused on WMD, that's no longer so."

"We're not going to find much after June. Once the Iraqis take complete control of the government it is just almost impossible to operate in the way that we operate," Kay said.

"I think we have found probably 85 percent of what we're going to find," he said. "I think the best evidence is that they did not resume large-scale production and that's what we're really talking about."

Kay said he was going back to the private sector.

In a statement announcing Kay's departure, CIA Director George Tenet praised Kay for his "extraordinary service under dangerous and difficult circumstances."

Duelfer, 51, a former deputy executive chairman of the U.N. Special Commission that was responsible for dismantling Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, had previously expressed doubts that unconventional weapons would be found.

"I think that Mr. Kay and his team have looked very hard. I think the reason that they haven't found them is they're probably not there," Duelfer told NBC television earlier this month.

But after his new job was announced, Duelfer, who will be based in Iraq as CIA special adviser to direct the WMD search, said he was keeping an open mind and his past comments had been made without the benefit of seeing the most current U.S. intelligence reports.

"This was a spectator sport for me," he told reporters on a conference call. "We'll see, I mean we don't know what the answers are. Maybe there still will be weapons. It's a big country. There's a lot of chaos there. It may well be that something turns up. I don't want to prejudge that, that still may happen."

Off the ****ing planet.

[chris v]

So, the guy who holds all the cards in the hunt for WMD has just laid them on the table. They aren't there. Plain and simple: "No stockpile."

Can we start talking impeachment yet? Or will GWB hide behind the semantics of the words "according to..." ?

CV

[zigzag]

Clever timing: 3 days after the SOTU, at the start of a weekend. By Monday it'll be forgotten.

Maybe he was troubled by the discovery of WMD-related program activity.

[chris v]

Originally posted by zigzag:


Maybe he was troubled by the discovery of WMD-related program activity.

Which activity? The coloring book? or the reading-time activity?

CV

[kindbud]

heh. Saddam tried to bluff and lost the hand.

I think the whole point was to make sure he didn't have WMD. Because if he ever did it would be too late.

Nobody doubted that Saddam actively sought WMD - and, in fact, HAD WMD, else the UN inspectors wouldn't have been inspecting in the first place.

Get a grip, folks. If WMD are not found in Iraq - that's a GOOD thing. It means we got there early enough to prevent a future attack. Hell, Dubya probably saved your life if you're a Westerner.

[dialo]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - David Kay, who stepped down as leader of the U.S. hunt for weapons of mass destruction, said on Friday he does not believe there were any large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq.

"I don't think they existed," Kay told Reuters in a telephone interview. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s," he said.

Kay said he believes most of what is going to be found in the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has been found and that the hunt will become more difficult once America turns over governing the country to the Iraqis.

The United States went to war against Baghdad last year citing a threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. No actual banned arms have been found.

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/f...=wn_wire_story

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by kindbud:
heh. Saddam tried to bluff and lost the hand.

I think the whole point was to make sure he didn't have WMD. Because if he ever did it would be too late.

Nobody doubted that Saddam actively sought WMD - and, in fact, HAD WMD, else the UN inspectors wouldn't have been inspecting in the first place.

Get a grip, folks. If WMD are not found in Iraq - that's a GOOD thing. It means we got there early enough to prevent a future attack. Hell, Dubya probably saved your life if you're a Westerner.

The whole point was NOT to make sure he didn't have WMD. The whole point was to rid him of WMD that may not have actually been there. You really don't understand what America stands for, do you? "America" means NOTHING if you don't hold yourselves to the same standards internationally as you do nationally. If the freedoms and liberties you preach about are not applied to every action you take, then they, and "America" are a farce.

[kindbud]

Why can't foreigners simply hold themelves to OUR high standards?


At what point does inaction become laziness?


America: Let's make a decision and take action.

Foreigners: Let's discuss the alternatives to taking action.


It's a mindset, being American.


Sit back and relax, foreigners, you can't do anything wrong if you don't do anything...right?

[Troll]

Originally posted by kindbud:
Why can't foreigners simply hold themelves to OUR high standards?

You realise that America has more WMD than any other country on the planet. Saddam seems to have been holding himself up to your standard!

Besides, it's just moronic to say that action needed to be taken against Saddam when he didn't pose a threat to peace!! Sure, he posed a human rights problem, but that my friend is the case with many nations all over the world. It has never been acceptable to topple regimes because they have bad human rights track records. The USA having one of the worst human rights track records at present, it's just as well we don't hold ourselves to your standards.

We still have yet to find someone either defect from Iraq, get captured, or go down to Iraq since the first Gulf War to look for WMD tell us that for sure that Saddam had any. Not one person!

[christ]

Originally posted by kindbud [with my amendments]:
America: Let's make a decision and take [the wrong] action.

Foreigners: Let's discuss the alternatives to taking [the wrong] action.


It's a mindset, being American.


Sit back and relax, foreigners, you can't do anything wrong if you don't do anything...right?

But you certainly can do something wrong if you have no intention of figuring out what is right first.

But that's OK. You're big enough, and mean enough, to ignore everyone else, even if (particularly if) they are right, so that is exactly what you should do.

No - wait - it isn't.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by kindbud:
heh. Saddam tried to bluff and lost the hand.

I think the whole point was to make sure he didn't have WMD. Because if he ever did it would be too late.

Nobody doubted that Saddam actively sought WMD - and, in fact, HAD WMD, else the UN inspectors wouldn't have been inspecting in the first place.

Get a grip, folks. If WMD are not found in Iraq - that's a GOOD thing. It means we got there early enough to prevent a future attack. Hell, Dubya probably saved your life if you're a Westerner.

spinning, spinning, spinning, keep on spinning, spinning, spinning....

---rightfin Dory, of "Finding Nemo and WMDs"

[Lerkfish]

Further question: who gets to tell the american troops (not to mention Iraqi civilians) that their deaths went to the greater cause of Bush's Lying RightWing @ss and Saving IT for Reelection?
I'm sure the parents of the american heros in the flag-draped coffins we weren't allowed to see are grateful right now we have such a wonderful lying sack of sh@!t for a president. That's gotta help when they make funeral arrangements.

[Face Ache]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...732659996.html

Indeed, many Democrats dream of that delicious moment in the presidential debates when Kerry - who won three Purple Hearts during the Vietnam War and then returned to campaign against America's involvement - turns to Bush and asks, "So, sir, what did you do in the war?"

I would pay to see that.

Three Purple Hearts?!

"Owww!"

"Here's a medal."

"OWWW!!!"

"Here's another medal."

"But it's the same as the first... OWWW OWWWW OWWWW!"

"Here's another...."

"HEY THIS WAR SUCKS!"



Nice hair though.

[theolein]

Originally posted by kindbud:
Why can't foreigners simply hold themelves to OUR high standards?


At what point does inaction become laziness?


America: Let's make a decision and take action.

Foreigners: Let's discuss the alternatives to taking action.


It's a mindset, being American.


Sit back and relax, foreigners, you can't do anything wrong if you don't do anything...right?

If there's one thing that will cost America its lead in this world, it will be xenophobia. To me, you are a foreigner too.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by theolein:
If there's one thing that will cost America its lead in this world, it will be xenophobia. To me, you are a foreigner too.

How long has that been said?
At least 200 years.

Y'all have forgotten, be we never will, ever
forget 9/11.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by kindbud:
Why can't foreigners simply hold themelves to OUR high standards?

That's what worries me. If other nations hold themselves to American standards, EVERYONE will have WMD out the wazoo and will be invading other nations without provocation.

Originally posted by kindbud:
At what point does inaction become laziness?

At what point does uninformed action become more dangerous than inaction?

[chris v]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
How long has that been said?
At least 200 years.

Y'all have forgotten, be we never will, ever
forget 9/11.

And what does 9/11 have to do with Iraq? If 9/11 is what you're upset about, invade Saudi Arabia!

CV

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:

Holy cow.

<calculates distance between here and there - 11,170 miles. Hmmm.>

So about this moonbase...?

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by chris v:
And what does 9/11 have to do with Iraq? If 9/11 is what you're upset about, invade Saudi Arabia!

CV

Ah! But you have to surround them first.

[ghost_flash]

Do you think this may work?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
by our right we defended those interests.

So, does every nation have the right to defend their interests from suspected, but unprovable, threats?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
hmmmm...doesn't this go counter to spacefreak's "inside information"???

Actually, i stated numerous times that Kay was upset and threatening to leave because of the reassignment of much of his staff to working intelligence on the insurgency. He still had over 200 sites to inspect, as well as miles of documents to translate and review. Here we go:

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The military being in Iraq - most (along with our intelligence workers) are assigned to the security and insurgency issue. David Kay, who is leading the inspections now, has complained a few times about being undermanned. He's even threatened to resign. Apparently, there are so many weapons depots (230 was the count a few months ago - only 10 had been inspected) and something like 9 miles of documents, that it's just going to take a lot of time and manpower - resources that are currently committed to rebuilding and securing Iraq.

And here:

Originally posted by spacefreak:
As for Kay, he is also upset that the coalition has reassigned a good portion of his staff to work on intelligence regarding the insurgency, and that he feels he was undermanned even before this reassignment.

I am , however, still awaiting the next report from the inspection group (I don't know who's in charge now) to see if those long-range Chinese missiles with the custom-made-for-sarin tips (the info I've been mentioning here) appear in the report.

Like I said, if there is no mention of these missiles in the next report, then I'll be glad to admit that my source for that info is full of it.

[dialo]

Now we have both heads of the ISG saying they don't think there are any stockpiles to be found, and still you refuse to ackowledge that you are probably wong.

Oh, and as for sarin, Iraq never produced any that stayed viable for any longer than 3-12 months. Because of this, Iraq adopted a just-in-time production method in 1998. The sarin plants were damaged during the gulf war (along with the stocks of certain precursors) and later completely destroyed by UNSCOM. We also know that Iraq did not have plants to produce certain precursors needed to make sarin.

So, as UNMOVIC stated, there is no evidence that sarin agents remain in Iraq and it is highly unlikely that there could be.

But go on living in faqntasy land if you want to.

[sanity assassin]

Well, we now have Colin Powell saying the same thing, no large stockpiles of WMDs, what a backtrack.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3426703.stm

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
Well, we now have Colin Powell saying the same thing, no large stockpiles of WMDs, what a backtrack.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3426703.stm

What do you expect him to say? We haven't found stocks. So when asked, Powell replied "The answer to that question is, we don't know yet".

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by dialo:
Now we have both heads of the ISG saying they don't think there are any stockpiles to be found, and still you refuse to ackowledge that you are probably wong.

Wrong about what?

Oh, and as for sarin, Iraq never produced any that stayed viable for any longer than 3-12 months. Because of this, Iraq adopted a just-in-time production method in 1998...there is no evidence that sarin agents remain in Iraq and it is highly unlikely that there could be.

The finding I was speaking about with regards to this thread and the upcoming report were long-range Chinese missiles fitted with custom-made tips that were designed to mix sarin in-flight.

You can go on and on - even selectively quoting UN documents on Iraq and sarin all day long. But it would be better if your argument actually pertained to the alleged finding that I mentioned, which was MISSILES.

But go on living in faqntasy land if you want to.

Maybe you should give 1441 a read and let us know which parts Saddam actually complied with.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
What do you expect him to say? We haven't found stocks. So when asked, Powell replied "The answer to that question is, we don't know yet".

No, look at his stance now, look at the way the issue is being steered in.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
What do you expect him to say? We haven't found stocks. So when asked, Powell replied "The answer to that question is, we don't know yet".

But, before the war the answer was "Yes, there are definitely WMD in Iraq ... here are the satellite photos to prove it." After the war the answer was "The WMD are here, it's just a matter of time until we find them." Now, the answer is "We don't know if there were EVER WMD in Iraq since the Gulf War".

[sanity assassin]

Look at the utter reversal of statements. He's now saying that he doubts Iraq had any large stockpiles of WMD; bit of a contrast to his UN sideshow drama of proclaiming he had evidence they did, and so-called satelite imagery.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Maybe you should give 1441 a read and let us know which parts Saddam actually complied with.

Why don't you tell us which parts weren't complied with, and how.

[dialo]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The finding I was speaking about with regards to this thread and the upcoming report were long-range Chinese missiles fitted with custom-made tips that were designed to mix sarin in-flight...But it would be better if your argument actually pertained to the alleged finding that I mentioned, which was MISSILES.

Yeah, and that is called a binary munition which is the system Iraq adopted in 1998 as stated in my post and discussed in the UNSCOM report which stated, as I noted above, there is no evidence that sarin agents remain in Iraq and it is highly unlikely that there could be. There has also been no evidence whatsoever of the precursors needed.

Get with the program.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Why don't you tell us which parts weren't complied with, and how.

Well, the premise for 1441, directly stated therein, is pretty revealing:

Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

SNIP

_________ Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,


_________ Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

1441 establishes that Iraq did pose a threat to international peace and security, had not provided a full, final, accurate disclosure as required, and continued to obstruct inspectors.

It decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA

Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;


_________ 4.______ Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations

Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;


False statements, obstruction, not reporting fully, finally, truthfully and completely. 1441 recognized that Iraq posed a threat, had obstructed the UN in the past and failed to cooperate, and this was a last-chance measure. Iraq failed to follow 1441, particularly the parts quoted above.

[dialo]

And the only thing that was determined to be a violation was the al-samoud 2, which in only about a quarter of its tests (without payload) exceeded the distance. There were questions as to whether it fit within the limits (the Iraqis believed it did and therefore declared it), but after deliberation inspectors decided to have them destroyed.

The UN did not support this war, so claiming it is in the name of the UN is BS.

But most importantly, we also know that the only reason we went to the UN was through Powell's insistence and that the war had been decided on outside of anything regarding the UN. It was simply a formality.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Why don't you tell us which parts weren't complied with, and how.

As you may or may not recall, as per 1441, Iraq was to have fully and completely accounted for all aspects of it's weapons programs by Dec. 7th, 2002. In terms of inspections, 1441 also requires that UNMOVIC and IAEA have unimpeded access to interviews with scientists, independent of "minders" and at a location of the inspectors' choice - inside or outside Iraq.

As for the violations, I'll let Blix do the talking...

January 27th 2003
"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance - not even today - of the disarmament, which was demanded of it."

"The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions." - VIOLATION

"In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq's Foreign Minister stated that "all imported quantities of growth media were declared". This is not evidence." - VIOLATION

"Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fuelled missile named the Al Samoud 2, and a solid propellant missile, called the Al Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to a range in excess of the permitted range of 150 km, with the Al Samoud 2 being tested to a maximum of 183 km and the Al Fatah to 161 km." - VIOLATION

"In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision." - VIOLATION

"There were also cases in which the interviewee was clearly intimidated by the presence of and interruption by Iraqi officials. This was the background of resolution 1441's provision for a right for UNMOVIC and the IAEA to hold private interviews "in the mode or location" of our choice, in Baghdad or even abroad. To date, 11 individuals were asked for interviews in Baghdad by us. The replies have invariably been that the individual will only speak at Iraq's monitoring directorate or, at any rate, in the presence of an Iraqi official. This could be due to a wish on the part of the invited to have evidence that they have not said anything that the authorities did not wish them to say. At our recent talks in Baghdad, the Iraqi side committed itself to encourage persons to accept interviews "in private", that is to say alone with us. Despite this, the pattern has not changed." - VIOLATION

February 14, 2003
"So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed. Another matter - and one of great significance - is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for". - VIOLATION

"A number of persons have declined to be interviewed, unless they were allowed to havean official present or were allowed to tape the interview." - VIOLATION

March 7th, 2003
"It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance." - VIOLATION

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by dialo:
Yeah, and that is called a binary munition which is the system Iraq adopted in 1998 as stated in my post and discussed in the UNSCOM report which stated, as I noted above, there is no evidence that sarin agents remain in Iraq and it is highly unlikely that there could be. There has also been no evidence whatsoever of the precursors needed.

Get with the program.

Again, I was talking about MISSILES, and there is no need to be rude.

[dialo]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Again, I was talking about MISSILES, and there is no need to be rude.

Again, you are talking about Richard Miniter's claim that the ISG found silkworm missiles fitted with warheads for sarin. This is exactly the type of binary weapons system that I and UNSCOM are discussing.

I don't want to have to repeat this for the fouth time.

[mr. natural]

spacefreak: As I recall you were pretty adamant that the Kay Report would provide the 'smoking gun' evidence for WMD.

Watching you and your kind continue to Spin and Splinter it all away sure looks dumb & dumber to me.

F***ing unbelievable.

P.S.: Can someone provide the appropriate "Spliffdadday Smackdown" award to these avenging angel apologists.




Sheep.

BAAaaaaaaa.

[kindbud]

Back-to-back *SMACKDOWN* awards don't happen to everybody.

This one's for you, CRASH.

The peaceniks have resorted to name-calling since you disarmed their weapons.

Your pimp hand is heavy, indeed.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
spacefreak: As I recall you were pretty adamant that the Kay Report would provide the 'smoking gun' evidence for WMD.

I doubt that I would have guaranteed that the 'smoking gun' would appear in the Kay report. But I was confident that the findings revealed in the reports would be significant.

The first Kay report did conclude that Iraq's weapons programs were undeniably ongoing. That's pretty darn significant.

I have always understood that finding some barrels in a nation the size of California could be difficult. However, I also would have though we'd have unearthed them by now. If they don't exist, then there's a pretty large intelligence failure here. I don't think Bush was lying, I don't think Clinton was lying, I don't think Blair was lying, and I don't think political leaders on both sides of the spectrum were lying. I think they looked at the intelligence presented to them, and it all pointed to Saddam both having and pursuing this stuff.

Does the absence of chemicals alter my position on the war? No. The arguments for removal of Saddam were much greater than just some barrels of chemicals - he never fully obliged to the conditions of his surrender in the first Gulf War, he is a thieving, murderous tyrant, and after 9/11, I felt the premptive action against Iraq was necessary.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by kindbud:
Back-to-back *SMACKDOWN* awards don't happen to everybody.

This one's for you, CRASH.

The peaceniks have resorted to name-calling since you disarmed their weapons.

Your pimp hand is heavy, indeed.

i think you should design a graphic for your SMACKDOWN awards - sort of like a platinum record, or a Grammy. You could choose nominees throughout a period of time, then present awards to the winners in different categories.

And the winners could display their awards in their signature, or have a line like "3Three-time SMACKDOWN Award winner", or "Nominated for 4 SMACKDOWN Awards, including Best Global Warming Smackdown".

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I doubt that I would have guaranteed that the 'smoking gun' would appear in the Kay report. But I was confident that the findings revealed in the reports would be significant.

The first Kay report did conclude that Iraq's weapons programs were undeniably ongoing. That's pretty darn significant.

I have always understood that finding some barrels in a nation the size of California could be difficult. However, I also would have though we'd have unearthed them by now. If they don't exist, then there's a pretty large intelligence failure here. I don't think Bush was lying, I don't think Clinton was lying, I don't think Blair was lying, and I don't think political leaders on both sides of the spectrum were lying. I think they looked at the intelligence presented to them, and it all pointed to Saddam both having and pursuing this stuff.

Does the absence of chemicals alter my position on the war? No. The arguments for removal of Saddam were much greater than just some barrels of chemicals - he never fully obliged to the conditions of his surrender in the first Gulf War, he is a thieving, murderous tyrant, and after 9/11, I felt the premptive action against Iraq was necessary.

spinning, spinning, spinning, keep on spinning, spinning, spinning....

---rightfin Dory, of "Finding Nemo and WMDs


btw: to continue to use 9/11 in reference to Iraq is quite amazing.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
i think you should design a graphic for your SMACKDOWN awards - sort of like a platinum record, or a Grammy. You could choose nominees throughout a period of time, then present awards to the winners in different categories.

And the winners could display their awards in their signature, or have a line like "3Three-time SMACKDOWN Award winner", or "Nominated for 4 SMACKDOWN Awards, including Best Global Warming Smackdown".

This needs to be in the Smack Down awards no doubt.

I am betting though that the same people in this thread that got smacked down will CONTINUE to say the same crap as if they weren't smacked down.

Probably even start more brainless "OMG WHERE R TEH WMDs" threads.

Yay for the MacNN political forum.

Lets celebrate the redundancy.

I mean when you are losing the argument in one thread start another just like it in hopes to detract

Really I shouldn't have replied to that thread. Just posted what vmarks and space posted in here already. Since it is basically the same thread.