Where are the WMD? Were there any?

Iraqis WMD

  • A true threat?
  • An excuse to invade?

0 voters

Just to hive off the other thread. It is getting too long.

Just in today’s LA Times. No WMD but the programs were in place? So does this make Bush right? the opposition right? Comments?

Iraq Had Secret Labs, Officer Says
Goal was to someday rebuild chemical and biological weapons, general alleges.

By Bob Drogin, Times Staff Writer

BAGHDAD – Saddam Hussein’s intelligence services set up a network of clandestine cells and small laboratories after 1996 with the goal of someday rebuilding illicit chemical and biological weapons, according to a former senior Iraqi intelligence officer.

The officer, who held the rank of brigadier general, said each closely guarded weapons team had three or four scientists and other experts who were unknown to U.N. inspectors. He said they worked on computers and conducted crude experiments in bunkers and back rooms in safe houses around Baghdad.

He insisted they did not produce any illegal arms and that none now exist in Iraq. But he said the teams met regularly and put plans on paper to quickly develop weapons of mass destruction if U.N. sanctions against Iraq were lifted.

“We could start again anytime,” said the officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he said he fears for his life. “It’s very easy. Especially biological.”

“The point was, the Iraqis kept the knowledge,” he explained during a lengthy interview Friday in which he offered tantalizing details of secret programs. But U.S. weapons hunters “will never find anything here. Only oil.”

The failure to find any weapons of mass destruction since the war has sparked mounting criticism in both Washington and London, where senior government officials have been put on the defensive to explain why both public and classified intelligence estimates now appear to have been so inaccurate.

The intelligence officer’s account, parts of which could not be independently verified, gives ammunition to both sides of the controversy. He said that U.N. sanctions and inspections in the 1990s crippled Iraq’s ability to build illegal weapons and that Hussein’s chemical, biological and nuclear programs were effectively eliminated in the mid-1990s.

But his description of an ongoing effort to prepare for illicit weapons production programs in the future suggests that Hussein would have remained a serious threat if U.S.-led forces had not ousted the dictator.

His disclosure comes as newly reinforced U.S. weapons teams have intensified efforts to round up Iraqi scientists and officials. Three senior biowarfare experts were driven away in a van in Baghdad and have not returned home since a meeting June 1 with an American in civilian clothes who gave his name only as “John,” according to witnesses.

They said “John” identified the three from a list titled “Taha-7,” which named top lieutenants to Dr. Rahib Rashid Taha. A British-trained microbiologist known as “Dr. Germ,” Taha directed production of vast quantities of anthrax, botulinum toxin, aflatoxin and other lethal germ agents in the 1980s. She was taken into U.S. custody after the war.

The Iraqi intelligence officer said that the secret weapons groups were created in late 1996 and 1997 because the regime’s unconventional arms programs had been dismantled or destroyed by then and that U.N. inspectors knew most of those who had worked in them.

“They changed all the [weapons] people after that,” he said. “They not only changed the people. They changed the houses and buildings… They kept the program alive.”

He said he had hidden some of the groups’ papers to protect himself if arrested, including what he called “red orders” from Hussein and his aides authorizing the operation.

He said he chiefly had served “on the money side” since the 1980s to help fund and direct a global maze of local trading companies that were secretly run by Iraqi intelligence operatives to supply the weapons programs.

U.S. intelligence and U.N. inspectors have confirmed the use of such front companies, backed by shady arms dealers, crooked shipping agents and captains, and corrupt customs and other officials, to support Iraq’s sanctions-busting procurement schemes.

7 Overseas Trips

The officer said he made seven overseas trips between the mid-1990s and 2001 to help oversee the illegal purchase and transport of spare parts, raw materials and other supplies for Iraq’s conventional and unconventional weapons programs. He drew money from secret regime bank accounts in Egypt, Japan, Lebanon, Switzerland and other countries.

On his last trip, in April 2001, he said he used phony passports from neighboring Arab nations to travel to Jordan, Cyprus, Morocco, South Africa and Argentina. He said he spent more than $57 million to illegally purchase and ship towed cannons, artillery fuses, calibrating instruments and so-called “dual use” medical laboratory equipment that could be used for chemical or biological weapons.

It’s possible that the officer’s story contains falsehoods meant to deceive or confuse U.S. investigators. He refused to show the documents he said he had saved or to take a Los Angeles Times reporter to any of the safe houses where he said the weapons teams had operated.

But unlike many of those who have provided false weapons tips to U.S. investigators in hopes of claiming a large reward, the officer appeared highly knowledgeable about the development, production and deployment of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons and missiles in the past.

The officer offered specific details about Iraq’s complex weapons smuggling networks that dovetail with U.N. investigations. The U.N. teams also were aware of what one official called “dirty tricks” laboratories run by the Mukhabarat, the chief Iraqi intelligence and secret police service.

In addition, the intelligence officer described his role getting phony documents and making payoffs to help NEC Engineering Private Ltd., an Indian trading company, smuggle banned material to Iraq between 1998 and 2001.

U.S. and British intelligence later traced the chemicals and equipment to a former Iraqi poison gas factory and a missile fuel production plant. A Times report detailed the NEC scheme in January, and the officer’s new details appeared to match missing pieces of the puzzle.

The Iraqi officer said he had not been contacted by U.S. and British military and intelligence teams that are supposed to scour Iraq for any evidence of poison gases, germ agents for biological weapons, or nuclear programs. He indicated that he’s hiding from the Americans, but it was unclear if they are looking for him.

The U.S. special weapons teams have heard similar accounts of plans to rebuild illicit arms from other Iraqi weapons officials they have interviewed or taken into custody since the war. At least one intelligence report about the claims has been forwarded to the White House, U.S. officials said.

The interview with the former senior Iraqi intelligence officer was arranged by a family member of Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel Majid, who was married to one of Hussein’s daughters and who headed Iraq’s secret weapons programs until he defected to Jordan in 1994. He was executed after he returned to Baghdad in 1995 under promises of safety.

The Iraqi officer agreed to speak to two reporters because he said he wanted them to provide a satellite telephone that would not be tapped by U.S. intelligence so he could call Iraqi spies hiding overseas.

He said he also wanted to see if he could gain access to $600,000 he said is in a Chase Manhattan Bank account. The reporters refused.

The officer, who said he has a doctorate in aviation electronics from the University of Kiev, is a gruff, barrel-chested man with a harsh voice from chain-smoking French-made Gauloises cigarettes. Using a fake name and phony identification papers, he now supports his wife and six children as a university instructor.

In the interview, he provided several striking new details about Iraq’s covert weapons programs.

He confirmed suspicions, for example, that Hussein’s regime kept double sets of books on its weapons programs to fool U.N. weapons inspectors. “There were a lot of numbers that were in the government that were not given to the U.N.,” he said.

Double Agents

He said some of the Iraqi defectors who were debriefed by U.S. and other Western intelligence agencies were double agents sent by Department 44, a wing of Iraq’s military intelligence, to provide false information.

“They let the Americans think they were anti-Saddam,” he said. “But they were still reporting back to Saddam.”

He also confirmed U.S. and U.N. charges that Iraq’s chemical weapons experts succeeded in weaponizing VX, a highly toxic nerve agent. Hussein’s regime insisted that the liquid VX it produced was unstable and quickly deteriorated, and thus could not be used as a weapon.

He also shed new light on Iraq’s recent attempts to obtain 60,000 high-strength aluminum tubes. The White House charged before the war that the scheme proved that Iraq was seeking to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. U.N. nuclear inspectors concluded that the tubes were for artillery rockets.

The officer said the case was mostly about corruption. “We did not need this many tubes” for artillery, he said. “Someone does this to steal the money.”

Asked why Iraqi officials had repeatedly lied and sought to hinder U.N. inspectors if the regime had no weapons to hide, he cited the climate of terror under the dictator.

“We cannot correct the numbers [previously given to the U.N.], because then we will look like liars,” he said. “And that will make Iraq look bad. And people will lose their heads.”

He said he met Hussein three times, is convinced he is still alive and remains loyal to him. But he acknowledged that the dictator had a weakness.

“Saddam has a thick mind,” he said. “He does not know science. So he believes anything the scientists tell him.”

OK let me get this right:

  1. Iraq gets invaded because they’ve got WMD - even though they claimed that they didn’t.

  2. The WMD goes missing upon invasion.

  3. The best they can come up with is this guy, who basically states that they thought about getting WMD.

Me think they should have come up with something better than that. For instance to go to war in order to get rid of an obnoxious dictator, or that they wanted access to the oil etc.

Can programs to immediately produce WMD be seen as an immediate threat?

For example, now the world is looking at North Korea and Iran. The fact that the US might consider invading it could be seen as an impetus to develop the weapons by those two nations to make it too devastating an action no?

Does this not in a way actually defeat or counteract America’s stated foreign policy goals?

[quote=“fred smith”]Can programs to immediately produce WMD be seen as an immediate threat?

For example, now the world is looking at North Korea and Iran. The fact that the US might consider invading it could be seen as an impetus to develop the weapons by those two nations to make it too devastating an action no?

Does this not in a way actually defeat or counteract America’s stated foreign policy goals?[/quote]

I think you answered your own question; if you do want my opinion, however, I’d say no. Such a concern, almost certainly, would have been taken into account by the DC think tanks.

Consider this scenario: If reliable (French or German say) intelligence was to prove that NK and Iran’s procurement or development of WMD has escalated or only developed as a result of Bush’s threat, then a war with one or both will be popular. Any concerns over your question will, by then, have long been forgotten. If Iran and NK, fearing an American invasion, relent to Bush’s rhetoric and allow inspectors access, Bush will have won. And his ascension to the pantheon of “great” presidents will have been assured. Either way he will have won.

Think tankers are smart people, people who use game theory to calculate what an opponent will do, given a set of factors.

They’ve found trucks containing bioweapon production equipment which was built (according to dates on the equipment) in 2002 and 2003 (yes, even in the three months when Saddam was trying to avoid being invaded-and-deposed) – what more do you want??

How about some chemical weapons shells? The U.N. inspectors found those – empty, but that’s how you store them, since the chemicals are corrosive. How about long-range missiles and production facilities for them? Yup, the U.N. inspectors found them too.

Besides, the most important thing is to have the KNOWLEDGE to create weapons. Actually having stockpiles is relatively pointless, since they are physically dangerous and require lots of site security. The U.N. gave Hussein twelve more years of R&D time.

During the Clinton years, I learned how to run a milling machine and lathe, and I studied the engineering of firearms. If Clinton/Gore had managed HCI’s wet dream of banning guns, I would still have been able to make them on demand. And the nicest thing is, I still can. Ammunition would be a b*tch if I didn’t have any stashed, but in the worst case, I am demonstrably able to turn out a passable batch of blackpowder without blowing myself sky-high, and muzzleloaders are even easier to build than a STEN-type submachinegun, which would take about eight hours.

[quote=“fred smith”]For example, now the world is looking at North Korea and Iran. The fact that the US might consider invading it could be seen as an impetus to develop the weapons by those two nations to make it too devastating an action no?

Does this not in a way actually defeat or counteract America’s stated foreign policy goals?[/quote]
As has been pointed out by analysts, in both cases there are other (and better) options than invasion.

Iraq was ruled by a dictator and his family. They had vast wealth and murdered anyone who so much as voiced a different opinion from what they had – witness the Indian businessman who spent twelve years in one of Saddam’s prisons because he told an Iraqi airport security type that Saddam would be thrown out of Kuwait in 1991 if he didn’t withdraw his invasion.

North Korea, on the other hand, is ruled by a dictator and his cronies, but they’re broke and their people are starving to death. Their only economic “out” is selling missiles and blackmailing rich nations into sending them cash. If South Korea would develop a spine and quit giving them “aid” in exchange for keeping the starving masses from mass-defecting, North Korea would collapse within six months.

Iran, on the third hand, is ruled by an unpopular but partly elected government. There is an active reform movement, and the people are getting restless. Iran has an admittedly small but real chance of reform from within, and a somewhat larger chance of a new revolution that would overthrow the unelected religious rulers.

North Korea has already admitted to possessing nuclear weapons – they did so on several occasions, including during the meeting brokered by China a couple of months ago, as well as admitting it to South Korea. It’s not “just the U.S.” claiming that North Korea has admitted to having nukes.

Iran is opening its facilities to IAEA inspectors, and continues to claim that they have no nuclear-weapons ambitions. They had no chemical weapons as of the late 1980’s (if they’d had any, they would have retaliated agains Saddam’s use of chemical weapons).

So, overall, I’d say the odds of a U.S. invasion of either is pretty miniscule, and chances of peaceful resolutions (at least as far as external forces are concerned; there may be civil wars) in both cases are pretty high.

I pretty much agree with what Andrew Sullivan says on this matter:

andrewsullivan.com/main_arti … m=20030601

Excerpts below:

[quote=“Andrew Sullivan”]So where are they? It’s not that complicated a question. … For those of us who strongly supported the war, it’s particularly important that we don’t dismiss these questions as irrelevant or boring or somehow passe. But if the question is uncomplicated, the answer isn’t. The war remains as justified in my mind as ever … But good answers to the WMD question remain as important to find as they are immune to simplification.

The first answer is that we don’t know yet. … The Saddam regime had years to find ways to obscure, conceal or hide such weapons. We’ve already found three mobile chemical labs whose only credible purpose could have been the manufacture of deadly agents. No one doubts that Saddam had such weapons before; or that he used them. Hang in there. We’ll find them eventually.

The second explanation might be that Saddam actually destroyed the bulk of his program in the months before the war, maintaining only the experts, and a skeletal infrastructure. Why would he do this? To foil inspectors, and to keep the possibility of armed intervention at bay. Encouraged by French and Russian support, Saddam figured he could get rid of most of it, weather the storm, and emerge to try again - without sanctions. Not for the first time, he miscalculated.

The third explanation is that our intelligence was radically wrong - or politically manipulated for effect. … Currently, we simply don’t know what happened either in intelligence gathering or the political use of the data. But we should. After a decent period of time to gather all the possible evidence, there should indeed be a thorough inquiry into whether and how the case for Saddam’s imminent WMD threat was made.

But in some ways, these matters, while important, still don’t get to the heart of the matter. The fundamental case for getting rid of Saddam was not dependent on the existence of a certain amount of some chemical or other. It was based on a political and military judgement. Once the threat from Islamist terror was self-evident, it would have been irresponsible for any political leader to ignore the possibility of a future attack with WMDs. It was and is the obvious next step for an operation like al Qaeda. Further, the war against terror, from the beginning, was always directed not simply at terrorist groups, but at the states that aided and abetted them. The key point is that Saddam’s Iraq was a clear and present danger in that context. What mattered was not whether at any particular moment Saddam had a certain specifiable quantity of botulinum toxin. What mattered was his capacity to produce such things, his ability to conceal them, and his links to terrorists who could deploy them. No one can doubt that he had had them at one point, was capable of producing them, and was linked to groups who would be only too happy to use them. That was and is the case for getting rid of him. It’s as powerful now as it was in January.

Your perspective will change on this, of course, depending on your deeper view of the current terrorist threat to the West. If you believe al Qaeda is an exception; that there is no profound terror threat to free societies; and that the significance of WMDs is overblown, you will tend to look at Saddam’s Iraq and say: so what? If someone proposes war, you’ll demand absolute and incontrovertible proof of the danger. And if that proof is hard to find - as will always be the case in closed, dictatorial police states - your gut will tell you to stay out of trouble.

But if you see the rise of Islamo-fascism as a broad and terrifying phenomenon, with clear animosity toward the West, you’ll take a different view. If you believe that a chemical or biological 9/11 is on the terrorist agenda and that an avowed enemy of the West and ally of terrorists is capable of creating such weapons, you’ll shift the burden of proof toward those who deny the danger, not to those who fear it. And barring clear evidence that the regime itself has changed its nature, you will prepare to get rid of it.

That was and is the rationale for what was done in Iraq. That’s why the Bush administration seemed at times to conflate the issue of disarmament and regime change. In fact, they rightly believed that the two were one and the same thing, and that no regime headed by Saddam could ever be relied upon not to deliver WMDs to the West. It can never be proven if that fear was fully justified - we cannot predict how a future Saddam would have acted. But the choice was between removing the regime or declaring the regime weapon-free and removing sanctions from the beleaguered Iraqi people. 1441 was Saddam’s last chance to prove he was a changed person. It proved he wasn’t. If he had nothing to hide, why did he try so hard to hide it? And after all we know now about Saddam’s evil police state, on what possible grounds could we have trusted him in the future?[/quote]

A picture is worth … you know the rest

Well now that Iraq is “taken care of” where are the next threats and how serious are they (say on a scale of 1-10?)

North Korea
Saudi Arabia
al Qaeda
the Paletine Liberation Organization

What will the US be looking for/at? How should the rest of the world respond? Are there threats that will affect the US but not the rest of the world, i.e. as long as the US is making itself the center of attention, will this draw the terrorist threats away from other nations such as in Europe, etc.?

Another picture

What do you mean ‘what’s that up there in the sky?’" I don’t see anything and I’m not looking and you can’t make me.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … 3Jun6.html

A Plot to Deceive?

By Robert Kagan
Sunday, June 8, 2003; Page B07
There is something surreal about the charges flying that President Bush lied when he claimed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Yesterday The Post continued the barrage, reporting that Defense Intelligence Agency analysts claimed last September merely that Iraq “probably” possessed “chemical agent in chemical munitions” and “probably” possessed “bulk chemical stockpiles, primarily containing precursors, but that also could consist of some mustard agent and VX,” a deadly nerve agent.
This kind of “discrepancy” qualifies as front-page news these days. Why? Not because the Bush administration may have – repeat, may have – exaggerated the extent of knowledge about what Hussein had in his WMD arsenal. No, the critics’ real aim is to prove that, as a New York Times reporter recently put it, “the failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq may mean that there never were any in the first place.”
The absurdity of this charge is mind-boggling. Yes, neither the CIA nor the U.N. inspectors have ever known exactly how many weapons Hussein had or how many he was building. But that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and the ability to produce more? That has never been in doubt.
Start with this: The Iraqi government in the 1990s admitted to U.N. weapons inspectors that it had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax and a few tons of VX. Where are they? U.N. inspectors have been trying to answer that question for years. Because Hussein refused to come clean, the logical presumption was that he had hidden them. As my colleague, nonproliferation expert Joseph Cirincione, put it bluntly in a report last year: “Iraq has chemical and biological weapons.” The only thing not known was where they were and how far the Iraqi weapons programs had advanced since the inspectors left in 1998.
Go back and take a look at the report Hans Blix delivered to the U.N. Security Council on Jan. 27. On the question of Iraq’s stocks of anthrax, Blix reported “no convincing evidence” that they were ever destroyed. But there was “strong evidence” that Iraq produced more anthrax than it had admitted “and that at least some of this was retained.” Blix also reported that Iraq possessed 650 kilograms of “bacterial growth media,” enough “to produce . . . 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.” Cirincione concluded that “it is likely that Iraq retains stockpiles of anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin.”
On the question of VX, Blix reported that his inspections team had information that conflicted with Iraqi accounts. The Iraqis claimed that they had produced VX only as part of a pilot program but that the quality was poor and the agent was never “weaponized.” But according to Blix, the inspections team discovered Iraqi documents that showed the quality of the VX to be better than declared. The team also uncovered “indications that the agent” had been “weaponized.” According to Cirincione’s August 2002 report, “it is widely believed that significant quantities of chemical agents and precursors remain stored in secret depots” and that there were also “thousands of possible chemical munitions still unaccounted for.” Blix reported there were 6,500 “chemical bombs” that Iraq admitted producing but whose whereabouts were unknown. Blix’s team calculated the amount of chemical agent in those bombs at 1,000 tons. As Blix reported to the Security Council, “in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.”
Today, of course, they and many other known weapons are still unaccounted for. Does it follow, therefore, that they never existed? Or does it make more sense to conclude that the weapons were there and that either we’ll find them or we’ll find out what happened to them?
The answer depends on how broad and pervasive you like your conspiracies to be. Because if Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are lying, they’re not alone. They’re part of a vast conspiratorial network of liars that includes U.N. weapons inspectors and reputable arms control experts both inside and outside government, both Republicans and Democrats.
Maybe former CIA director John Deutch was lying when he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Sept. 19, 1996, that “we believe that [Hussein] retains an undetermined quantity of chemical and biological agents that he would certainly have the ability to deliver against adversaries by aircraft or artillery or by Scud missile systems.”
Maybe former defense secretary William Cohen was lying in April when he said, “I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. . . . I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.”

Maybe the German intelligence service was lying when it reported in 2001 that Hussein might be three years away from being able to build three nuclear weapons and that by 2005 Iraq would have a missile with sufficient range to reach Europe.
Maybe French President Jacques Chirac was lying when he declared in February that there were probably weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that “we have to find and destroy them.”
Maybe Al Gore was lying when he declared last September, based on what he learned as vice president, that Hussein had “stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Finally, there’s former president Bill Clinton. In a February 1998 speech, Clinton described Iraq’s “offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.” Clinton accurately reported the view of U.N. weapons inspectors “that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.” That was as unequivocal and unqualified a statement as any made by George W. Bush.
Clinton went on to insist, in words now poignant, that the world had to address the “kind of threat Iraq poses . . . a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists . . . who travel the world among us unnoticed.” I think Bush said that, too.

So if you like a good conspiracy, this one’s a doozy. And the best thing about it is that if all these people are lying, there’s only one person who ever told the truth: Saddam Hussein. And now we can’t find him either.

The writer, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writes a monthly column for The Post.


I will give it to you. No one has more information, facts, figures and cogent arguments at their fingertips than you do. Where do you find all this information?

Well put. Must admit that last bit swayed me into agreement with your point of view. I have read Kagan’s work and he is the man.

Now if only you would learn that France is not evil incarnate and that the French are good allies if you would give them half a chance. :smiling_imp:

[quote=“fred smith”]
“The point was, the Iraqis kept the knowledge,” he explained during a lengthy interview Friday in which he offered tantalizing details of secret programs. But U.S. weapons hunters “will never find anything here. Only oil.”[/quote]

Knowledge is power.
But we knew that already.


Archeologists in Baghdad
Say they haven’t found
Anything yet


washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … Jun12.html

[quote=“Charles Krauthammer”]Frank Rich best captured the spirit of antiwar vindication when he wrote (New York Times, April 27) that “the pillaging of the Baghdad museum has become more of a symbol of Baghdad’s fall than the toppling of a less exalted artistic asset, the Saddam statue.”

The narcissism, the sheer snobbery of this statement, is staggering. The toppling of Saddam Hussein freed 25 million people from 30 years of torture, murder, war, starvation and impoverishment at the hands of a psychopathic family that matched Stalin for cruelty but took far more pleasure in it. For Upper West Side liberalism, this matters less than the destruction of a museum.

Which didn’t even happen! What now becomes of Rich’s judgment that the destruction of the museum constitutes “the naked revelation of our worst instincts at the very dawn of our grandiose project to bring democratic values to the Middle East”? Does he admit that this judgment was nothing but a naked revelation of the cheapest instincts of the antiwar left – that, shamed by the jubilation of Iraqis upon their liberation, a liberation the Western left did everything it could to prevent, the left desperately sought to change the subject and taint the victory?

Hardly. The left simply moved on to another change of subject: the “hyping” of the weapons of mass destruction.

The inability to find the weapons is indeed troubling, but only because it means that the weapons remain unaccounted for and might be in the wrong hands. The idea that our inability to thus far find the weapons proves that the threat was phony and hyped is simply false.

If the U.S. intelligence agencies bent their data to damn Saddam Hussein, why is it that the French, German and Russian intelligence services all came to the same conclusion? Why is it that every country on the Security Council, including Syria, in the unanimous Resolution 1441, declared that Hussein had failed to account for the tons of chemical and biological agents he had in 1998? If he had destroyed them all by 2002, why did he not just say so, list where and when it happened, and save his regime?

If Hussein had no chemical weapons, why did coalition forces find thousands of gas masks and atropine syringes in Iraqi army bunkers? And does anybody believe that President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Tommy Franks ordered U.S. soldiers outside Baghdad to don heavy, bulky chemical-weapons suits in scorching heat – an encumbrance that increased their risks in conventional combat and could have jeopardized their lives – to maintain a charade?

Everyone thought Hussein had weapons because we knew for sure he had them five years ago and there was no evidence that he had disposed of them. The weapons-hyping charge is nothing more than the Iraqi museum story Part II: A way for opponents of the war – deeply embarrassed by the mass graves, torture chambers and grotesque palaces discovered after the war – to change the subject and relieve themselves of the shame of having opposed the liberation of 25 million people.[/quote]

Which WMDs?

After evidence of Weeks of Mass Demonstration and Weekly Minor Discoveries
And subsequently reported Wanton Museums Destruction
Caused by Unfettered Access provided to looters
W., Mum & Dud say: don’t mess with U.S., we got them too (What? Balls of Fire, a kind of WMDs too)
What about World Masses and Democracy? Never found them, says the Bush Broz.
Hey, don’t count the Wished they had Mainly Disappeared Shiite (Whispered Mostly Diabolical too), they’re too many
Don’t beat about the just Bush, just Wilfully Mess up with Democrazy in this Weary Muslim Desert full of Wells in a Mechanical state of Disrepair
You’re with U.S.
Or you’re against U.S.
And then Wide Merchant Deficit consequences
Inevitably will follow
(or Western Military Details)
Smoke 'em,
Got 'em running!


Good point Tigerman:

Thanks for submitting the article. It is interesting to see who is outraged by what. It is also interesting to see totally false reports printed in all the major newspapers of the world regarding the destruction of Iraq’s “treasures.”

I believe that the same authors and same papers are the ones now screaming that there are no weapons of mass destruction. If that is the case, I for one am willing to give this search a bit more time. The same authors and reporters may have yet again cause to eat their words. Until then…

Excavation (2)

Archeologists in Baghdad
Confirmed today they haven’t found the artifacts
They have been looking for
(For quite some time now)
“We’ve still no evidence for them”, said one testily.
“Give them more time”, said an expert in the field