"Under the terms of her accreditation to report on the activities of MET Alpha, this reporter was not permitted to interview the scientist or visit his home. Nor was she permitted to write about the discovery of the scientist for three days, and the copy was then submitted for a check by military officials.

Those officials asked that details of what chemicals were uncovered be deleted. They said they feared that such information could jeopardize the scientist's safety by identifying the part of the weapons program where he worked."

And this, boys and girls, is an excellent example of how a professional reporter writes a story. She gives you the facts--the limitations imposed, the reason for those limitations, etc--and you, the reader, are able to make an informed decision about the material presented.
This is also an excellent example of how a professional organization, the US Military, conducts itself. It makes clear, from the start, what the reporter can and can not say and why.
And last, but not least, what this is not is an example of anything that CNN, BBC or Al Jazeera will ever manage to report.

Level 5 skepticism alert. Have your mask handy. 24 hours starting now.

Give it up, Mark. They're going to find them sooner or later. I'm looking forward to the first liberal to say there are no WMD the night before a huge cache is unveiled. Another Van Hoffman award for Andrew Sullivan just waitning to happen.

The reporter, Judith Miller, has an outstanding reputation as a journalist and as a knowledgable authority on chemical and biological weapons.

Despite the beating the NY Times credibility has taken under the stewardship of Howell Raines, Ms Miller must still be taken seriously and if she felt this story merits attention, she's probably right. I believe she has excellent sources in this otherwise super-secretive Administration because she is trusted.

If we don't find a "smoking gun", it'll be because the gun was stripped down and buried, only to be reassembled after we left.

I've believed that Iraq has had these weapons from the very beginning but it is still scary to consider the full implications of that fact.

Interesting development -- it's a "wait and see" for sure.

The "reports of", "claims", and "is said to have told" -- these continue to bother me, however given the constraints outlined by the author, these "plausibly deniable" phraseologies are understandable.

We shall see.

The overriding fact is is does the connection between the Saddam regime and WMD, past, recent past, just prior to the war, now, sound believable? Of course it does. To anybody not struggling to shove Noam Chomsky up their a**.

Interesting. They found the materials (precursors) needed to make unamed WMDs.

Not the weapons themselves.

Of course, the precursors for many of the WMD's we are looking for can be found or made from materialis available at any good farm & garden store.

So, let's see the proof.

(or wait for the retraction)...

Say, Dan -- why don't you get your own blog instead of filling this one with the same repetitious whine each time your hot-button topics come up?

I suspect that not long ago you were one of those "are we there yet?" kiddies... and that you annoyed your parents as much as you're annoying me.

We heard you twice the first time; now eat a red and check back with us next month, okay?

Rose, you got my sentiments exactly.

I've been disappointed by the increasing Rainesation of my favorite paper, but I read this piece this morning and thought "that's exactly how a story should be written".

This site is a poor excuse for an "unbiased reportage" source.

When will your neo-con contributors acknowledge the fact that 95 per cent of the world is NOT American, just about 99 per cent of the world hates America for its arrogance and hubris (justifiably, in my opinion) and that the anti-war campaigners will be proved correct: Middle-Eastern people loathe the values you espouse, and the only way they'll buckle under will be at the end of a gun barrel (and who wouldn't, under those circumstances?).

Forget the flowers and the cheering in the streets as the Marines arrived - they were cheering for Saddam a couple of days before... they'll cheer for whoever offers them Hope... and the Hope they hold is for an Islamic state, un-beholden to Saddam, the U.S., the Coalition of the Willing or anyone else.

Until they get their Hope, they'll say ANYTHING, do ANYTHING, cheer ANYONE who gets them closer to their goal.

You guys (and gals, I assume) are just so naive about how the world views America. It's loathesome; it's vulgar and it's doomed to failure... because you can't win peoples' "hearts and minds" out of the barrel of a gun or with cluster bombs or with MREs for the little brown brothers in Iraq (or your rigged elections, your TV shows, your patriotic outpourings or your ever-diminishing dollar). This is such a PATHETIC site... or with masturbatory "warblog" sites like this one. Command Centre claims to be unbiased, yet is may as well be Fox News, for all the balance it carries.

As soon as the shooting's over, how long do you think this decrepit site will go on... a day... a week? Life goes on, and it doesn't have a McDonalds or a Starbucks neon over it. Dreary bunch of wankers you really all are.

My goodness, such a tantrum.

Yes, even your freedom of speech was brought to you by some soldier willing to fight and die for it. Hard to believe, isn't it?

The above comments do not necessarily reflect the ACTUAL mood of those living within Australia. To all who oppose America, and for that matter any westernised democracy, I say to you "If you don't LOVE it, LEAVE!"
It's now getting a little tiresome isn't it? Really, what did all the anti-war/american rhetoric do? Nothing. America and her allies went into Iraq. Quit your pissing and moaning and realise that is the truth, and now a part of history. I say America should now consolidate the gains made in Iraq with a massive base within Iraq itself. Move out of Kuwait/Qatar/Saudi Arabia and stage out of Iraq. That would be a little bit of a spoiler for all the Arabs, but hey, stiff shit! This is what happens when you mess with big dogs.
And back on topic , yes, the media's reporting has been controlled and limited on both sides. I don't care really. In the end, my side won. Doesn't matter how I found out about it.

I'm so impressed that "Aussie Spoiler" is more upset by McDonald's and Starbucks than he is by Saddam's torture chambers. I love Australia but it looks like at least one Aussie really is upside down.

"...they'll say ANYTHING, do ANYTHING, cheer ANYONE."

Back to the article at hand. Interesting how all the other false reports we've had so far were situations where the initial reports came from embeds who got excited about things that were "stunbled across" and who blurted out what (little) was found immediately.

In this case you have something that our specialists were led to, by someone "on the inside", and which was then sat on for several days while the site was developed. Exactly the opposite to those earlier reports.

Isn't this just they way Rummy & Co. have said things would be found? This one ain't "for sure" yet, but it's looking much more likely.

It should be noted that the precursor elements THEMSELVES are a "smoking gun" violation of the U.N. Security Council resolutions:

Resolution 687:

Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities related thereto.

IOW, it need not be fully assembled, weaponized chemical/biological weapons that are found in order to be a "smoking gun."

Say, Troy?

"Say, Dan -- why don't you get your own blog instead of filling this one with the same repetitious whine each time your hot-button topics come up?"

Why don't you go piss up a rope with your mouth open?

Am I interrupting your petty little narcissistic self-congratualtory wargasm?

Does skepticism bother you so much?

Is it so painful to be "interrupted" by someone with another opinion? Does it threaten your worldview? Coward.

"I suspect that not long ago you were one of those "are we there yet?" kiddies... and that you annoyed your parents as much as you're annoying me."

And I suspect that you were one of those cocksure little braggarts whose ass I kicked all over the playground when the shit came down.

"We heard you twice the first time; now eat a red and check back with us next month, okay?"

Well, now, WE heard YOU five times a day for the last 6 freaking months about the "imminent threat to democracy, freedom, and 99 cent hamburgers" posed by Saddam and his minions of death destruction and world domination....

Seems like those dire warnings were a bit out of proportion, and it certainly seems like the desperation to find post facto justification is a direct result of that hyped up mouth breathing.

You don't like me posting here? Then get me "banned". Otherwise, just use that little bar on the side of the window...I think it's called a "scroll" bar?

'kay?

I am willing to maintain a degree of civility, and to "wait and see" on these kinds of reports -- this one certainly bears more watching than the rest of the breathlessly hysterical nonsense bouncing around the ether.

But if you REALLY want my opinion on it, I think it is yet more of the same bullshit.

I am willing to wait and willing to be wrong.

Are you willing to stop being a petulant little pissant, accept that maybe YOU are wrong, and hold back on the insulting inanities for a milli-sec?

Or are you yet another one of the "grunt snort grunt snort" crowd?

"..I am willing to maintain a degree of civility..."

Prove it. You're not doing too well so far.

Doesn't this show, once again, the political/diplomatic genious of this administration? Bringing Judith Miller (and therefore the NYT) on board like this seems amazing to me!

What am I missing?

Dan, you don't have dichloro in your garden shed, do you? Not all precursors are ubiquitous.

You're right that there are many common chemicals that could cause false positives, etc., and it's been speculated that one branch of Iraqi research (probably a lot of other people's research too, in a world containing UN inspectors) has focused on battlefield conversion of non-banned substances into more lethal stuff. Pesticide plus reactant equals something nasty, perhaps?

Anyway, we all get the point about skepticism (BM-21s, anyone?). But this looks the way a real report by a real reporter of a real find would look, anyway. Plus, it's less of a find of chemicals than it is a find of intel about those chemicals. Let's all set our watches and see what the world looks like on Wednesday.

I still want to know what happened to the three mystery ships from Iraq that the US Navy was ghosting just before the action started. Did Iraq ship their WMD?

Never heard about those ships after we crossed into Iraq............

Dan said, "Why don't you go piss up a rope with your mouth open?"

We don' t like doing the same things you do, so we'll pass on that one.

Dan said, "Am I interrupting your petty little narcissistic self-congratualtory wargasm?"

Actually, you've become intertainment. But you're negative whiney attitude is bothering my gold fish.
I'll move his bowl so he can't read your ramblings.

Dan said, "Does skepticism bother you so much?"

Only when it is mindless and on every topic that is positive toward the US and Iraqi freedom.

Dan said, "Is it so painful to be "interrupted" by someone with another opinion? Does it threaten your worldview? Coward."

You really have some 'issues'.

Dan said, "And I suspect that you were one of those cocksure little braggarts whose ass I kicked all over the playground when the shit came down."

Yeah right, I can tell you're one of those 'kids' that would stand up for what is right. You've proved that you're the one that would go tattle to the teacher when someone said something that made you cry.

Dan said, "Well, now, WE heard YOU five times a day for the last 6 freaking months about the "imminent threat to democracy, freedom, and 99 cent hamburgers" posed by Saddam and his minions of death destruction and world domination...."

And you didn't pay a bit of attention, did you?

Dan said, "Seems like those dire warnings were a bit out of proportion, and it certainly seems like the desperation to find post facto justification is a direct result of that hyped up mouth breathing."

I beg to differ. What was out of proportion was the pessimist whiners that couldn't admit they're as wrong as can be.

Dan said, "You don't like me posting here? Then get me "banned". Otherwise, just use that little bar on the side of the window...I think it's called a "scroll" bar?"

Hey, he knows he can't MAKE you go away. He's just hopin' you will.

Dan said, "I am willing to maintain a degree of civility, and to "wait and see" on these kinds of reports "

You're killin' me! When is this going to start?

Dan said, " this one certainly bears more watching than the rest of the breathlessly hysterical nonsense bouncing around the ether."

Sounds like you're trying to 'swim backwards' a little. Kinda like those countries that took a shit on us in the beginning.

Dan said, "But if you REALLY want my opinion on it, I think it is yet more of the same bullshit."

I didn't hear anyone REALLY ask for your opinion. But thanks for going back to your real self.

Dan said, "I am willing to wait and willing to be wrong."

LIAR! You'll just fade away and find another issue to water down with you socialist liberal attitude. You are obviously 'willing to be wrong'. We try not to be wrong.

Dan said, "Are you willing to stop being a petulant little pissant, accept that maybe YOU are wrong, and hold back on the insulting inanities for a milli-sec?"

Why would someone that is right, say they are wrong?????

Dan said, "Or are you yet another one of the "grunt snort grunt snort" crowd?"

No, you'll find all the pigs back at democratunderground.com where you probably came from.

Thats right Eric....I had forgotten about the ships.

The first time I heard about "the ship(s)" it was reported that we could not approach or destroy for fear of major disaster. ie: chemicals raining in ocean? or radiation?

Remember the "wall" at the girls school south of Baghdad that the soldiers were tearing down.....
what happened with that?

Gotta love your optimism. I mean, who that Iraq was so big into pesticides ? ;)

Gotta love your optimism. I mean, who knew that Iraq was so big into pesticides ? ;)

Spoiler, we've got em by the balls. Their hearts and minds are sure to follow, eh?

BTW, you could look up the meaning of decrepit. This site, only a few weeks old is the opposite of decrepit. You could at least know the name of the site you're blasting. It ain't Command Centre.

Dan,

You are an obnoxious little brat, aren't you?

Besides the ghost ships and the girls school wall, there have be other findings that we haven't heard any more about. Maybe they're putting 'everything' together and will come forth with 'all' the facts when the time is right. The scientist took them to the buried chemical stash that was used to make WMD. It's on the news again, now.

The whole WMD story just gets better every day, dudnit?

In the runup to the invasion, we had breathless "proof" provided by Powell to the UNSC. We had all those "reports" about WMDs being used during the initial days of the attack. We had More "reports" about how they were going to be used within the Dread Red Ring near Baghdad. We had report after report about how we Fershurthistime found a WMD "cache" near an Najaf, or was it Karbala, or in the river, or on a rocket, or under a school playground, or in a trench, or in an ag research station -- just everywhere.

And what do we have to show for all this angst?

Nothing. Still nothing. But we do have Conclusive Proof of insect spray, which may be significant if you're in that phylum.

Note, however, the current switch from earlier administration approaches to this. To hear the immediate pre-invasion discussion, this stuff was Just Everywhere, by the hundreds, perhaps thousands of tons. It was "loaded and ready to fire" in the words of one unfortunate jarhead CPT, who managed to get his 15 minutes, and now has mercifully not been heard from again.

In the past week, the administration has greatly ramped up the frenetic search for WMDs by sending in another thousand troops to look for them, bringing in perhaps 500 Aussies, hiring a dozen or so of the UNSCOM inspectors to improve the knowledge base, and even some smallish contingents from the Coalition of the Willing Once The Fight Is Over to help.

Simultaneously, the Official Pronouncements have switched their focus and intensity greatly, from the Dohar group right up to Rumsfeld his own occasionally inchoate self. "We won't find them" is my personal favorite, but there are surely others coming from him.

The idea is apparently to switch the earlier oversell of the whole WMD issue. Was there anyone out there who believed we would Not find them once the invasion was underway? I know I didn't believe it (and said so at the time) but the Coalition of Sycophantic Cheerleaders surely did! Why, they would show up in their uncounted thousands just as soon as we got control of the country!

Now -- it's changed entirely. Weeks, months, even More Than A Year to find these things that reporters and troops were dressing for even in the hours before the invasion, and occasionally wearing as the attack proceeded.

All of that, plus >35k tactical airstrikes on weapons emplacements all over Iraq.

And a US$200,000 "reward" to any Iraqi who can lead us to even One such site.

Nothing.

I suspect the administration's new soft approach is going to work. Those who have been saying that we Will find them just any day are going to switch gears, and say we really shouldn't expect to find them for several months yet. They will, of course, conveniently forget that they were sharply criticizing the UNSCOM inspectors for saying that an inspection might well take several months just prior to the war, and their use of Personal Impatience as a justification for the attack.

Gotta Get Those WMDs RFN!

Heh!

This dance is now becoming amusing. Those of us who said before the war that there was no Proof of even One Actual WMD are now still saying what we were saying then. The cheerleaders are apparently looking to their leadership to determine which story they want to spin today, in order to change directions in a coordinated manner.

There is now a force >10x what the UNSCOM force had, with more resources, bribe money and a free run of the length and breadth of Iraq. Gen Franks says we should figure maybe a year or so to get results. Rumsfeld says "we won't find any" on our own.

OK -- I can get with that. But yagotta admit, it's starting to become humorous. While the Where Are The WMDs You Said Were Right There question is not quite broken out into the mainstream media, the Proper Spin for the Defense In Depth as an answer is already clearly in place.

Maybe a year, says Gen Franks.

Plenty of time to Do What Must Be Done.

Meanwhile, the number of WMDs found remains at Zero. Just where it was before the attack, when to hear Dubya and Powell talk, this was a Clear and Present Danger that demanded Immediate Action!

WMD's?..WMD'S?..We don't gotta show you no stinkin' WMD's!

Don chooses to believe that the Iraqi regime was truthful about having no WMD. He chooses not to believe UNSCOM, probably because he STILL doesn't know the difference between UNSCOM and UNMOVIC.

No one disagrees with you Don: we have not yet (unless this story pans out) turned up one WMD in Iraq--since 1998.

In the absence of the WMD, we have to go on other evidence that might tell us who is truthful and who is not. UNSCOM, before it was disbanded in 1998, said Iraq was lying about very nearly everything. Iraq filed nearly a DOZEN Full, Final, and Complete Declarations, every single one of which has turned out to be false when UNSCOM investigated. So Iraq, which Don says had no WMD to hide, threw out UNSCOM.

So, if we are to believe Don, we must believe that Iraq was finally telling the truth about its WMD program, despite its 8 year record of lies, obstruction and obfustication; and that it chose not to cooperate with UNMOVIC even though it had everything to lose and nothing to gain by not cooperating.

I have brought this point up to Don more than once and he refuses to acknowledge or answer it. It impinges on his opinion not at all. We have found not one WMD--since 1998-- therefore there have been no WMD in Iraq--since 1998--and Saddam was lying just for the hell of it, I guess. Don takes Saddam on faith and won't believe UNSCOM or the Administration or France and Russia and Germany or the New York Times or ANYONE who thinks that Iraq had WMD.

So, when WMD is turned up in Iraq, Don will be the only one surprised--except that he won't since he has been implying for a few days now that they will be planted.

for Gabriel:

What you've got is:

* Suppositions
* Hypotheses
* Guesses
* Wishes
* Hopes
* Dreams
* Official Statements
* Defectors who tell us things they believe we want to hear
* Pesticide traces
* Bug spray
* Rumors
* Ever-changing rationales from the administration's spokesdroids
* 5,000-6,000 US troops Looking Everywhere
* 500 More Australians on the way
* Maybe several dozen more from elsewhere
* A $200,000 bribe/reward
* A plea to Iraqis from US sources: PuhLEEZE show us One WMD! Any one, anyone, anywhere will do just fine.
* UN Inspectors newly rehabilitated from past incompetence and now part of our search teams
* A quite charming and religious Belief in Things Unseen

What you don't have is:

* One Actual WMD

When/if one shows up, holler. The endless repetition of the What If and Just Any Day Now You'll See stuff is content-free, though highly entertaining.

But keep watching the administration's spin on the issue. A quick check of worldwide meeja indicate that the question is being asked more often.

DSmith
Yes, even your freedom of speech was brought to you by unconventional soldiers who dared fight without uniform, snipe at uniformed troops and then go home -convincing their oppoinents that they were cowards who refused to use the rules of warfarwe.

They and the ACLU, that is.

Don-
I'm quite happy with the situation. Saddam was a megalomaniac with a track record of imperialism. Whether he had fully assembled WMD 3 years before the war or not, or if he had it 3 days before the war or not is of no consequence.

He had the money, he had the will, he had the reputation, it would only be a matter of time before he had and used the actual goods. I would hope that he would use them on your house. I am glad that we did not give him the (ANOTHER!) chance.

for Craig:

"I would hope that he would use them on your house."

???

Quite the malediction there, little fella! Strange thing to Hope for in what is otherwise supposed to be a Rational Discussion of Public Policy Matters.

But let's make it clear -- Saddam never even had a First chance to use WMDs on anything, other than Iran (we quite approved of that at the time) and the Kurds (we decided to disapprove of that, even as we sort of approved of Turkey killing them off by other means).

So "(ANOTHER)" chance seems overstated. You'd have to establish he'd had a first one. Wanna know something? You can't! Neither can any of the US Intelligence agencies, which cannot track Iraq to any specific "terrorist" attack against the US. But if you have some Actual Information, post it out where someone can see it, and I can assure you it'll go to Precisely the Right Place in DeeCee. One of the advantages of having old friends.

for Gabriel:

I left something of the list of things you have:

* Bluster

Sorry for the oversight.

Don,

I dont understand the basis of your arguments:

1) Saddam HAD Biological/Chemical weapons (we know because he USED them)
2) Saddam had the DESIRE to continue pursue them , given (1) and the fact that he lied about them and obstructed the UN inspectors for 8+ years.
3) Saddam had the MEANS to pursue them.
4) The only real progress that the weapons inspectors made in 8+ years was when a defector pointed them out.

So, what PROOF do you have that he did not have them?

Only the most naive of fools would trust that mans word at face value. Is that what you are doing?

Its extremely likely that, at the 11th hour, Saddam would have had to make a decision:
a) Use them.
b) Destroy/hide them.

Its reasonably evident that they were not used. To have done so would have destroyed any support he had from Europe or Arab neighbours. If one thing has been proven wrong its that he is completely stupid.
So, unless you are naive enough to think that he didnt have them, the obvious conclusion is that he chose (b) and that they will difficult to find.

-Nick

*watches Dan throw a tantrum*

Interesting how fast your "degree of civility" went south, isn't it?

I especially liked it when you revealed your true colors with the "ass-kicking on the playground" remark -- you're still a bully when you're angered, aren't you, and you hate to be contradicted. But the anti-war left always did splutter furiously more than anything else...

Back on topic: it's noteworthy that in every other crucial step in this war, the Bush administration gave the opposition plenty of time to work themselves into a corner, then sprung the surprises and moved purposefully on; this is true of the Congressional approval of the war, of UNSC Resolution 1441, of the uncovering of Franco-Russo-German treachery, and even the conduct of the war.

My money says it will be true of the Iraqi WMDs also; it just fits the pattern. The whiners will have to eat a whole lot of crow in one huge meal.

for Nick:

1. Sure! Saddam *had* BCWs previously, and we do know he used them because we quite approved when he used them against Iran. We got less approving when he used them against the Kurds, but then we didn't say much when the Turks offed just as many Kurds via other means. Dead is dead -- the means are sorta unimportant to the objects of the exercise.

That is, however, not the same as Knowing he had them in recent months. Just clearly, we did Not "know" that at all -- yet we were saying we did!

2. While he may have had a desire to use them, he also had a desire not to get crossways in a military confrontation. In the original pass of inspections, a bunch were destroyed. We know that because the UN supervised the destruction. We do now "know" that he lied about them -- we rather believe he did, but ya know -- there's no specific Proof of that allegation, save for unanswered questions on the matter. There is, for example, not a single instance where an Actual WMD was ever brought up to show to substantiate our beliefs. That lack is bothersome.

3. I have the means to pursue the C2 Corvette I've been lusting after for some years now. I also have the good sense not to do it. Many nations have the means to develop WMDs, but so few of them actually do it. Problem is, for those who do, the case must be proven -- not merely suggested or hinted at.

4. It is not the case that the "only" progress made by UN inspectors in 8 years was because of the one defector. There was other progress made as well, at the time, and other supplies destroyed or locked down in the meantime.

See, if one is to make this accusation stick, it's not sufficient merely to Infer from otherwise non-specific information. If we wish to assert as a Fact that we Know there are WMDs in Iraq, we have to have something other than smoke and mirrors to do it with. Such stuff may satisfy your need for Proof, but it doesn't stand up to any rational analysis.

So when you start discussing things that are "likely" and in your opinion "extremely likely," that too is another level or so removed from Reality(tm). Your choices are hardly exhaustive, after all.

The assumption of a. Use them and b. Hide them assumes Facts Not In Evidence, to wit: That he actually Had them in hand in the first place. That's the specific thing we really do Not "know" as the term is properly used. That being the case, we are dealing with Future Unknowns -- and in the future, all outcomes are possible, and potentials must rationally be held open.

We do know that he did Not use them, so a goes away. Why he did not use them then comes down to two probabilities:

* He had them and didn't use them, or
* He didn't have them, so couldn't use them.

Thus far, we have no evidence that he actually had them.

Which is precisely what I've been saying all along.

Note, however, that back before the invasion started, the WMDs were a clear and present danger, and we just Had to attack RFN -- couldn't wait even a couple of months, which was what was being suggested at the time.

Look at the situation now:

* We're going to wait a couple of months at least, and maybe up to a year? What was the hurry? Where was the CAPD that required an attack?

* If the CAPD was so great, then one would think that immediately upon capturing the nation, that the One Single Greatest Task to undertake would be to Nab Those WMDs, and we'd devote a large portion of our personnel to getting that done first!

What are we doing? Guarding banks, dealing with oil fields, guarding hospitals, undertaking civic affairs here and there, and having the occasional firefight now and then to sweep up the stragglers.

Out of about 300k personnel in the theater of operations, 6,000 At The Most are actively seeking WMDs.

Once again -- I go with the commanders on the ground. If they don't think it's all that important, I surely don't either.

But then, that brings us back to early March, when it was So Very Important that No Delay Would Be Possible, so great was the danger!

You bought it. I did not. Still don't.

And for all the sturm und drang, still Nothing.

But we now have a year to wait.

Strange we didn't have it before, doncha think?

Don,

So, I ask again:
Do you have proof that Saddam did NOT have Chem/Bio weapons?

As I stated, Saddam had the means AND the motive AND a past record in terms of weapons and lies about them.
I am not stupid - I know this is not "proof" - but common sense at this point tells me its highly, highly likely.
Now add to this that Saddam could/would not satisfy the UN inspectors of his innocence - then its looking more and more likely.

>> we did Not "know" that at all -- yet we were saying we did!
Who is "we"?
The fact is that YOU dont know and I dont know - but who ARE WE to know.
I would bet that just a few in the intelligence services know better than us.

>> But then, that brings us back to early March, when it was So
>> Very Important that No Delay Would Be Possible, so great
>> was the danger!

You DONT KNOW what danger we faced. I think you should wait until the intelligence services complete their investigations before you make any conclusions on this.

Besides what were we to wait for?

The only progress that was achieved since 1441 wasnt really progress - unless you call acting at the 11th hour with a gun to your head "willing cooperation".
How long were we to continue the sanctions? Their impact on the Iraqi population was devastating - yet they were the only thread keeping Saddam from an open-season on aquiring WMD technology & materials.
If action was going to be taken, then the onset of Summer was a big factor in the plans. If it didnt start when it did, they would have had to postpone everything for about 6-8 months.

>> While he may have had a desire to use them, he also had a
>> desire not to get crossways in a military confrontation

You mean like Kuiwait (he had plans for Saudi Arabia and Jordan as well)? Or like Iran?

>> It is not the case that the "only" progress made by UN
>> inspectors in 8 years was because of the one defector

It WAS the only significant DISCOVERY made.

>> but it doesn't stand up to any rational analysis

So how does your "proof" (that you havent supplied) stand up to rational analysis?

>> If the CAPD was so great,

What is CAPD?
Your analysis of troop activities hardly warrants a reply. They are doing what they have got to do after deposing a regime. Given that the regime is largely out of business, its fair to say that any threat Saddam posed is just a little reduced now - no?

>> You bought it. I did not. Still don't.

So you bought Saddams line instead? gimme a break.

-Nick

Don, please. You are using circular logic. You have excluded from your argument a single small fact, which changes everything.

We fought a war.

Before the war, Hussein owned Iraq, and could use any weapons the country owned as he wished.

Now we own it, and therefore he cannot.

"We now have a dead body on the floor, and can spend as much time as needed to work out whether the shooting of the burglar we caught breaking in was in fact justified. Before we shot him, we had only a second to make that call."

(From a murder trail in which I sat on the jury.)

"accreditation to report"

This is a pretty silly term and one never used in journalism in the US before. It does have anologies in China and the former USSR though. Looks like miller is working on a new book and willing to sell her ethics to get there.

This Dan is more intertainment than 'Everybody Loves Raymond'. I turned off the tv for this. I can't stop laughing. It doesn't matter what FACT you give him, he's just gonna spin off and come up with some 'I ain't seen no WMD' remark. I don't think he's for real. No one could really be that stupid. If he really is that stupid, when I meet a guy like him in person and he pisses me off with his ignorance, and I kill him, I hope someone just like him is on my jury. I'd beat the rap so quick it'd make your head spin. (Kinda like his posts do)

Those types are usually like the Wizard of Oz. They talk real big on the screen, but behind the curtain, they're just a little masterbating geek.

If we all ignore him, he will go away. Or you can just talk till your blue in the face.

Dan, Don, WTF.

blah blah blah blah

man some of you are long winded.

here's whats gonna happen, GW is gonna wait till the cacophony of yipping fools are really confident that wmd wont be found, hes gonna wait till it reachs a fever pitch,

hes gonna wait till some of them put everything on the line over not finding wmd.

then he's gonna have his boyzzz lay em all out like a saturday morning yardsale.

for DRM:

Yes, we fought a war. Ever wonder why?

At first, we said it was because we Knew Iraq had WMDs and they threatened the US.

But it turns out, we Knew no such thing.

Still, we fought the war anyway -- and then we came up with Other Reasons.

One was because there was a "clear link" between Iraq and al Qaeda. Then that changed, and it was to organizations "like al Qaeda." Problem is, no one knows even to this day what those organizations "like al Qaeda" are, who is in them, where they operate, what they have done, and what Specific CAPD they pose to the US.

It can't be Hezbollah, as it turns out. The leader of Hezbollah hates Saddam Hussein and always has. Saddam didn't care much for him either.

Meanwhile, wander on off to the Reuters website, and look at the story the administration is spinning about how yes -- perhaps they really don't Know where the WMDs are, and perhaps they really don't need to know and don't need to actually produce any in order to justify the war. Not my words -- theirs.

Everybody spins; everybody wins.

But none of y'all can actually point to one, single WMD, after the war we fought to be rid of them is well along near ended. And if the administration's spin has sufficient angular velocity, maybe you'll just magically assume it really wasn't all that important in the first place either. The memory of when we were telling the entire world that it was, of Collin Powell doing his brave act before the UNSC about the Clear and Present Danger of WMDs -- it'll all eventually fade.

Unless someone reminds you, from time to time.

Lowered nose, y'all have bought into more nonsense previously with less actual evidence.

But Fact remains: We did Not "know" of Any WMDs in Iraq before the war, even as we were loudly saying we really did.

Eventually y'all are going to figure out Something Important here. Waiting is.

>> But Fact remains: We did Not "know" of Any WMDs in Iraq before
>> the war, even as we were loudly saying we really did.

WHO is "we"?

Just because they dont know where they are, doesnt mean that there arent any.

Again, I ask, show me YOUR proof that Saddam didnt have any banned weapons.

-Nick

for Nick:

Prove to me you don't have Terrorist Weapons.

You can tell me you don't, and I'll call you a liar.

You can ask me to look, and I'll say you are hiding them, so it wouldn't help to look.

You can ask me to look at your entire house, and I'll say they're in your car, driving around.

You can ask me to look in every car you own, and I'll say you put some in boats and have them wandering around rivers and lakes.

You can turn your house and all possessions inside out, and I'll say you have them in a cave in the nearby hills.

You can say you used to have some, but you destroyed them, and I'll demand the written paperwork. You'll say you didn't keep paperwork, and I'll say that proves you didn't destroy them.

You can show me where you destroyed some, and I'll say you didn't destroy all of them.

You can destroy some publicly in front of television cameras, and I'll say you are secretly making more elsewhere.

I will point to agar mix upi bought and say it could be used for BWs, and you can protest that it was used in hospitals and laboratories for growing germ cultures. I'll just say I don't believe you used all of it for that.

I will point to chemicals that could be made either into insect spray or CWs, and you can protest that you used it for pesticides, and I'll just say you can't prove you didn't divert most of it for CWs.

It won't matter what you say, I will always say you can't prove it, the evidence isn't good enough, or make up some other reason why whatever you offer simply will not be accepted or believed.

See -- if I want, you can Never prove you don't have terrorist weapons. Why is that? Simple:

A negative *cannot* be proven!

It's so elementary a lesson in the basics of logical thinking that even freshmen students are expected to learn it on the very first day. Any twit who would even deign to try to construct an argument by demanding that a negative be proven would receive an F for the exercise. Rightly so.

Just not in this case.

We demanded that Iraq prove a negative, and it can never be done. No matter -- nothing Iraq could ever say was ever going to make a bit of difference anyway. Evidence or no evidence, UN or no UN, other nations or no other nations -- nothing ever made a difference one way or another.

We were always going to invade, regardless of anything else.

Just fwiw, each of the little exercises I noted above has an exact parallel in things done and said during the WMD discussion. Powell said some, Dubya said others. It was and remains nonsense utterly.

And you buy it!

Go figure.

>> And you buy it!

I certainly dont buy Saddams line.
Obviously you do.
Who is the bigger fool?

Only the most naive of people would actually believe that Saddam wasnt pursuing such banned weapons programs.

-Nick

wow don, you on saddams dime?

let's see, if i was about to be invaded by the strongest military in the history in the world, whose overriding purpose was to get rid of me personally, I'd destroy my most lethal weapons.