Come on, Don, PTG, Anthony, Turnip, MW.

saddam was a nice guy, wasn't he.

No reason what so ever to invade the peace loving country of saddam.

i don't think any of us believe he was a nice guy. why do we let bubba keep sidestepping the argument?

Eve...you're gettin' a little crabby in your old age.
Your cohorts want to make a scandal out of this whole Iraqi thing. Strictly for their unwarranted hatred of George Bush. They are so wrapped up in hatred, they have put us in the position of sharing our dislike for them...with them.

We are not sidestepping any arguement, that's what you guys do. You want to argue about things that really are of no importance, just for argueing's sake. Got anything of importance to talk about??

My dear liberal friends:

What you fail to understand is the fact that Saddam was "not a nice guy", to understate it mildly and the fact that a WMD to your liking hasn't been discovered are CONNECTED.

The plain truth is, Iraqis in the know are not talking -- because they are paralyzed by fear. This is a natural consequence of living in a "republic of fear" for decades. You don't overcome it overnight. But rest assured, they will fess up soon enough. Meanwhile, have fun circulating your conspiracy theories and character assassinations of our administration and intelligence community. Enjoy it while you can, because it won't last. And when it goes away you will have been deprived of your last attempt to besmirch a great moment in US history.

Well said, JB

And one thing the Bush critics have not taken into consideration re: WMD's. Saddaam's body - alive or dead - has not been found. Why would anyone risk their life releasing information when to many, it is possible that Saddaam's men and his party may come to be in power again?

The Truth will come out in time.

Belle's point is well taken, and more than just in the case of the Iraqis. In the course of my career, I have come into contact with a large number of people who have lived under the rule of brutal, oppressive regimes for many years or even their entire lives, and the stigma tends to stay with most of them for a long time after these regimes have gone or the individuals in question have escaped them. Look at a lot of immigrants, during the decades of communism in Eastern Europe, who came to the U.S. back then. A lot of them were afraid to call the police for anything, for example, because in the old country the police meant midnight disappearances of families from their homes or arrests for "subversive activities" for doing things that we in America consider commonplace rights. I've heard of people who were afraid to take a coffee break on an American jobsite because in the old country it would be treason to stop working on "the people's time."
So, yeah, a lot of Iraqis are probably looking at this whole thing as if it were a dream, one they might suddenly wake up from, while others have been conditioned over the years to trust no one representing any kind of civil authority, and it will take them a long time to begin looking at any entities in any kind of governing or federally protective role as benign.
Once this stigma passes and the people know they are truly safe, they will undoubtedly go to our folks in Iraq with all sorts of useful information.
I know this won't sit well with the people who are yelling about no WMDs, because we didn't find the streets of Baghdad littered with them(soldiers tripping over them, etc).
PTG, Turnip, MW and friends won't be satisfied until the WMDs start coming out of everyplace like the Tribbles in the old Star Trek episode.

Let me know when it's been 12 1/2 years - that's how long we gave the UN to resolve the situation while they procrastinated, took obscene commissions from the oil for food programme and(in the case of some members - like France for example) broke the very sanctions they were there to enforce.

Even with the full, 100% support of the client state no de-weaponisation pragramme has ever been sucsessfuly completed in less that 18 - 30 months (Khazakstan, South Aftrica et al). The fact that we are turning up banned missiles systems, Bio/Chem terrorist training facilites (at Salman Pak - the same facility noted above) and Mobile Bio labs after only the first few months of this process is indicative of how egg-faced the vocal liberal minority will in fact look at the end of this process, when the truth about WMD comes out, when Iraq is democratised and when the coallition forcers withdraw.

I think I shall enjoy watching the liberal flock running round like decapitated chickens in search of the next anti-GWB conspiracy theory at each of these milestones.

Just on the basis of what we know for sure so far - that Saddam COULD produce biological weapons, that he WAS training terrorists in their use and that Saddam himself was more than capable of genocide - I fail to see how even the most liberal of commentators could justify any argument that either Saddam posed no threat or that the actions taken were unjustified. But that's just me :).

Simon,
Immediate threat to whom? If Iraq turned out to have no WMDs (or even not very much), nothing that flew more than 190km (with a good tailwind), and no links to terrorists who attack America then they weren't an immediate threat to America. Saddam was a mass murderer and it's a great thing that he's gone but that doesn't make him a threat to America.

BTW Re: training terrorist:
I've been doing Google searches for ages trying to find out what the present claims are about links between Hussein and terrorism (about the camps and so on). Have you got any links? The last I heard was the article my friend sent me a week after Baghdad fell, saying we'd found WMDs, links to Al Qaeda, links to 9/11, everything but the Kennedy assassination basically. Some of those claims were later retracted. Maybe I should ask Anthony, he seems to haev a full-time staff doing his research for him...

Any body ever hear of psyops?

Thank goodness Hillary is back. I felt so much better with those Clintons leading our country. And they meant what they said. Of course they are both pathological liars. I used to be a liberal until I grew up. W Bush certainly is not perfect. But when it comes to focus, dignity, maturity. and honorable behavior, Bill Clinton cannot shine his shoes. Compared to Laura Bush, Hillary acts like trailer trash. Saddam was a weapon of mass destruction... He needed to go

Sean says, "Immediate threat to whom?"

Anyone that threatened his power(US would be 1st on the list, other than the people of his country that wanted him out).

Sean says, "If Iraq turned out to have no WMDs (or even not very much), nothing that flew more than 190km (with a good tailwind), and no links to terrorists who attack America then they weren't an immediate threat to America."

They DID have WMD. The crap doesn't have to be in a friggin missle. Think ourside the liberal box. You don't think something the size of a thimbal couldn't be smuggled into the US? You don't think in the US they could find a way to disperse it? You don't think Sodom had any hard feelings for the US? You don't think he was a supporter for ANYONE that hated the US? You don't think in the fight against terrorism, you go after the big boys first?
You don't think.......that's the bottom line....you don't think.

Sean says, " Saddam was a mass murderer and it's a great thing that he's gone but that doesn't make him a threat to America."

Do you always contradict yourself like that??????

Sean says, "BTW Re: training terrorist:
I've been doing Google searches for ages trying to find out what the present claims are about links between Hussein and terrorism (about the camps and so on). Have you got any links? The last I heard was the article my friend sent me a week after Baghdad fell, saying we'd found WMDs, links to Al Qaeda, links to 9/11, everything but the Kennedy assassination basically. Some of those claims were later retracted. Maybe I should ask Anthony, he seems to haev a full-time staff doing his research for him..."

They found the training camps with a commercial jet hull used for training. And on the Kennedy Assassination..........they have now linked it to a 'jealous husband' in the grassy knoll.

thank you guys for the civil discourse. It seems to be getting harder and harder to find that here. Even though, Sean and Belle, I think I disagree with your fundamental arguments, I appreciate the fact that you are here.

Saddam was an evil man. Now that that is clear.

His career started in the early 1960's when the CIA was helping him topple the regime in Baghdad. That regime was unfriendly to the US so we went out and found this evil guy help us. THe rest is history.

johnnymozart:
Do you want to continue our discussion?

Only if you've finished reading my posts from yesterday. ;) I won't be able to respond nearly as frequently as yesterday, however. :)

Throw down, my man.

Gotta love that headline. But when WE WERE APPROACHING BAGHDAD WE WERE STILL KILLING TOO!!! We were just doing it to take the natural resources from a weak and devastated country. Who is next? NIGERIA? Oh yeah, Iran.

BTW. Remember the lie that there were as many as 6 SAddam's or Saddam lookalikes running around. That makes 7 Saddams we can't find. If everyone in the fucking world was a Saddam Bush couldn't find them. Maybe if GW pulled his head out of his ass and could see the whole world was laughing at him....

Besides, I gotta get you guys off the hydrogen vs. helium argument before I slit my wrists. :)

Is it ok to continue our topic of discussion from yesterday here?

Anthony, what does CIA support in the 60's have to do with the current situation?

This sounds suspiciously like a Tu Quoque argument, where one person's complaint is declared invalid because the complainer is equally guilty of the crime.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#tuquoque

On the other hand, it isn't entirely Tu Quoque, because it suspiciously conflates American gov't of the 60's with American gov't of the 00's.

Even if I accept that modern American gov't is entirely responsible for actions of the 60's government, there also seems to be an implicit assumption that America is not allowed to change its mind or correct its mistakes -- that is, since we once supported Saddam, we are suddenly ineligible to ever disagree with Saddam.

I infer that you also assume that America is responsible for the actions of any government it supported at any time in the past. By which logic, France must be doubly chastised for not supporting the USA in this war; after all, by aiding us in the American Revolution, they helped put us into power, didn't they? By extension, Britain should never have come with us, because we're upstart rebellious colonials.

Eve has it right. Stick to the argument people.

TBox:
You are correct. The US is allowed to change it mind.

And yes, lets all stick to the arguement.

And TBox:

Thanks for the reality check.

Simon says, "I think I shall enjoy watching the liberal flock running round like decapitated chickens in search of the next anti-GWB conspiracy..."

Kabar predicts that the anti-GWB conspiracy theory posed by the liberals after the WMDs are exposed is that GWB planted them there.

Well, I was going to say fine by me, but maybe after Tbox's post, we should move it back where it was. :) I don't want to mess up anyone's thread.

Tbox

I don't think Tbox meant stick to the threads topic. I think he was critizing be for this:

TBox said:
"This sounds suspiciously like a Tu Quoque argument, where one person's complaint is declared invalid because the complainer is equally guilty of the crime."

Correction: I think he was critizing me for this:

Kabar

And that arguement MAYBE valid since the adminstration has decided to search for them in relative secrecy.

Anthony is correct. You can discuss the contribution of purple M&Ms to the GDP here for all I care, I'm still going to poke holes when people make arguments that don't hold water. Sometimes. When I do and when I don't depends a lot on how much free time I have to follow up on all that's gone before and make sure I'm not taking things out of context. And how much I want to prove you wrong, of course. Sad but true.

So..Anthony..what do you think about the contribution of purple M&M's to the GNP? :) And Tbox....lol. :)

"The purple M&M's will be devoured at the gates of the city.They will melt in the mouths of our heroic defenders. They will all die a crunchy and messy death. Except for those yellow peanut ones... I have special plans for them. They are just so yummy!" --- B. Bob

haha....hahahahahaha

While we're on the subject of nonsense,

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/

My new favorite site of the unspecified period of time.

Is there a real preception among conservatives that liberals think Saddam is good?

If so, how pervasive is it?

Ah, the first volley.

I have never felt that way. However I have noted a disturbing trend in that some, and I emphasize some, people who opposed the actions in Iraq, didn't seem to realize was that the alternative was leaving SH in power, which, to me, was far worse, for a multitude of reasons. However, I don't think that liberals inherently think that saddam was good, or a swell guy.

Was that sound of relief, I pick up in your statement? LOL.

I think that some liberals were against any war. My impression is that was a minority.

Some liberal were willing to wait longer, in order to get a greater consensus from the Security Counsel.

:) Oho! Off of H&H at last!

No seriously, I think you're right!! Part of my point yesterday is that I see a true disingenuousness in the WMD argument. What I see happening is some of the same people that claimed that we can't go to war without a "smoking gun" (Remember that argument?) are now saying that the administration said there was one, they just lied about. Now, I don't know about you, but I do not recall anyone agreeing that there was any such thing as a smoking gun prior to the war beginning.

Your point about the minority of liberals not supporting this is correct, I think. This assumes that you believe 1) the poll numbers approving the war in Iraq (70%) and 2)the data from the 2000 election suggestion that the US is about 50% Repub/Democrat. If there was a 70% approval, then a significant number HAD to be democrats.

I, at one point, like you, would have liked to see more consensus among the great democracies, however, I have lost all faith in the UN, mainly because of its records in the last 10 years, and more recently, because of the behavior of the Human Rights Council. I mean, who the hell cares what Guinea thinks? Have you been to Guinea? I have. The only roads there were built by the Soviets. The government routinely bulldozes people's houses, without recompense for govt. purposes. (And in Guinea, people save for a lifetime to build a house).

Anyway, I said all that to say this: I know people wanted UN approval, but what is the approval of countries like Guinea, and Macaroon, hmm, not quite right...ahem....Cameroon, really worth?

I think the solution is for the US and other REPRESENTATIVE governments to form there own little alliance. If you are a tinpot dictator, you need not apply.

Great post, anthony, thanks for getting back to me. I mean, I don't want to drag you away from bubba or anything

There are very, very few people who think Saddam was a great guy. A lot of times, people will say, "so if you oppose the war you must think Saddam was a good guy", but it is the fallacy of bifurcation (as T-box) has called it.

But, there is a sense in which this is true, and NOT the fallacy of bifurcation.

It is that people who opposed the war, thought that Saddam's continued rule in Iraq was more moral than a US war to remove him.

This doesn't mean that they think Saddam was a great guy. They could be committed pacifists believing that any war whatever is evil, they could be Buchanites thinking that no American should die for Jews (which is how they seem to see it).

But the people I saw in the demonstrations, the International ANSWER crowd; they thought Saddam was more to be trusted with the people of Iraq than the US.

You cannot deny that there are a lot of people, including some posting here, who seem to believe this.

I think the poster that best exemplifies this, Gabriel, is the "We support our troops when they shoot their officers" one.

By the way, thanks for the injection of sanity into yesterday's Islamvs.Christianity thread. No one else may have read it, but I did.

I know too many Muslims too well, to think that they all believe the same things, or see the world the same way. I don't think that there is any sort of cult that can control millions of people for 1500 years.

The approval of Russia, China, France, and then Canada, Mexico, etc...

France was beginnning to accept a set time for Saddam to fully comply. They would have put themselves on the spot.

Lets put semantics aside. The adminstration did say that Saddam definitively did have WMDs.

Sure, they did Anthony. You've shown that. You might go back and read the Cincinnati speech agfain, where Bush gives all the OTHER reasons for invading Iraq.

You might want to check Jim Hoagland's op-ed I posted yesterday, about how Russia and France had the same intelligence the US did.

And you might remember Tony Blair's last proposal to the UNSC--a timeline of six definite things Iraq could do to prove compliance, with a deadline.

France rejected it before Iraq did.

First of all, why when we had the approval of so many other countries like Britain and Australia (not little ones like Eritrea, or whatever, but I will accept Poland, Spain, is it all of a sudden necessary to have the approval of Russia ( a historic enemy for the last 60 years) or China (one could argue currently an enemy) The fact is, American security superseded their approval. Sure it would be nice to have them on board, but this was not a trade deal we were negotiating, it was war. A bomb full of plague, or anthrax, etc or a dirty bomb given to Al Qaeda by SH was not likely to go off in St. Petersburg or Mexico City. That's why.

As to your other point, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. I saw your posts yesterday and disagree with the conclusions you draw from them. But I understand the point you are making. To be honest, I expected to see more than I have, however, that failure has not led me to believe that there are none, regardless of what the administration said or didn't say. And let's, for arguments sake, assume that there are none. Again, my first assumption would be that there was some failure in the intelligence community before I would assume that I had been lied to. Also, the fact that the world is more secure, and millions of iraqis don't have to live under a raping, human shredding monster isn't meaningless. We should be celebrating this, rather than being suspicious.

It is one thing to lie. It is another thing to have a little evidence and make too much of it, because it agrees with what you want to believe. And it is yet a third thing to to be wrong about something, when the best evidence you can get, turns out not to be good enough.

Critics of the failure to find WMD are conflating these three things.

After all, it is the one aspect of the war that hasn't worked out the way the Administration predicted. They'll milk it for all it's worth.

If the WMD shows up, they will then say "planted" or "not enough to be real threat".

Now HERE's an interesting link:

"Iran Supports U.S. assertion that Iraqis hiding WMD" For anyone interested, its on newsmax.com under the Egyptian prime minister heading.

probably interesting mainly for its humor value.

As they say, politics makes strange bedfellows.

How is it that Russia and France?

Please forgive me if I stick to one point at a time.

How is it that Russia and France had the same intelligence?

Please forgive me if I stick to one point at a time.

jm
I agree that we don't anyone else approval. But it is desireable. Why? We live in a world economy. Are security also depends on that also.

Not that they have exactly the same "intelligence", as in sources and pieces of information, but that their intelligence sources were telling them substantially what our intelligence sources were telling us.

I chose a sloppy way to express it.

They didn't have Chalabi!

And I said "Russia" when I should have said "Germany".

jm
//As to your other point, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.//

What point? What did I derive from it?

Celebrating the removal of Saddam is fine with me. Being concerned about the method it was accomplished is just if not more so important.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60332-2003May30.html

"Nor did war opponents Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder base their decisions about whether Iraq possessed programs to produce biological, chemical or nuclear weapons on Secretary of State Colin Powell's powerful presentation at the United Nations. Nor was there ever any significant disagreement within the CIA over the intelligence on weapons programs. Controversy was over terrorist links.

The French president and German chancellor were briefed by their own intelligence chiefs and given assessments that closely matched the conclusions of Powell's presentation, reliable sources tell me. The argument with Washington, as French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin made clear at the time, was over the best way to find and get rid of the weapons -- not whether they existed. If Bush was wrong, so were Chirac and Schroeder."

If you think Pulitzer Prizes mean anything, Jim Hoagland has two....

The point about the admininistration DEFINITIVELY saying there were wmd. My opinion is is that they said based on the evidence available, we HAD to assume there were, not that we know where they were and how many, etc etc etc, but I don't want to rehash this, because I don't think people should get too focused on this point.

Why is it desirable to have Russian approval when its our security involved? Do you think the Russians care about our opinion about Chechnya?

I agree that with some things, international consensus is important. But with this, regardless of its importance, the risk to our security was more important.

I think the methods we used to rid the world of Huseein were perfectly legitimate, Anthony. I can't think of a cleaner, shorter, less destructive war than this one. WWII was AWFUL. Iraq was spared that.

Anthony, what method are you referring to that you feel might have been inappropriate?

gh
Yes it does. Does it man anything to you?
Is he a conservative commentator?

Jim Hoagland writes for the Post, and I haven't been able to detect political leanings in him. I've only been reading him for three years, however.

I couldn't tell you how he voted, or what he thinks about anything except foreign affairs.

The method is the discussion that we are currently having.

Was ther an intelligence failure? Did Saddam move his WMD elsewhere .. were some member of the administration overzealous in their interpetations of intelligence data?

I know it may be more exciting skipping around like this, but I think we could get more accomplished by greatly limiting the scope. What do you say?

He called Powell's presentation powerful. I think most left leaning commentators would not.

That's fine. Actually I'm going to be AWOL for a while. We'll have to continue this another time.

Great posts, all

So, Anthony, you are saying that it is the MOTIVE for the war that is morally suspect, rather than its EXECUTION or its RESULTS?

Mary McGrory had an oped in the Post right after Powell's presentation headlined "I'm Convinced". I'm not sure you'll find many more left-wing than her. She changed her mind within the week when one of her readers wrote her and asked if she'd written that piece because she'd been tortured by the Administration.

You forget, Anthony, that at the time very few people had any problem with Powell's speech.

Now what you are doing is trying to impeach anyone who disagrees with you as "right-wing"?

So Christopher Hitchens is right wing now?

I hope this is not what you are saying, Anthony.

Let's agree that George Will, another Post columnist, is right-wing. I know how he votes, I know what he thinks about free trade, I know what he thinks about baseball, I know what he thinks about Iraq, etc.

Same goes for Charles Krauthammer.

Jim Hoagland, however, doesn't ever write about domestic politics. He doesn't seem to take a side on Israel vs Palestine. As far as I can tell, he seems the closest I've ever seen to politcally neutral. His columns are always along the lines of "if A wants this then he needs to do B". I can't remember him advocating anything.

Alright, Anthony. Now go somewhere with that.

I haven't been in here for quite a while, being busy elsewhere, but did anyone pick up on the Times magazine article about WMD, and why there may be less than thought? Damned interesting. Basically, the article proposed a third scenerio, to wit: the US got a lot of intelligence by 'reading the mail' of the Iraqis involved, and that mail may have been partly or mostly lies; postulated that almost everyone involved was corrupt, and stealing from the system, including the people supposedly working on WMD; that most of the money ended up in their pockets, with a paper trail designed to convince Saddam and his cronies that WMD were actually being developed.
I seem to have lost the link, but have the body of text, if anyone wants to see it.

Um. Ignore that post, I clearly do not refresh this page often enough.

I've seen articles very similiar to the Times one....

We also need to consider that if there were no WMD, Saddam might very well have known it and chosen to brazen it out, because a dictaorship cannot afford to look weak, especially when it really is.

But I've read enough about Saddam to know that people rarely told him the truth about anything. It wasn't worth the risk.

I mean, handing out copies of "Black Hawk Down" as a manual for your troop to fight Americans is not realistic thinking.

I've always wondered about that. Saddam was always saying "we don't have anything but you can't look for yourselves."

It is compatible with "we really do have stuff we don't want you to see", but also with "we don't have anything, but we can't afford to be seen letting the UN push us around".

Not the motive. I think the military did a fine job.

But before that there was a congressional vote authorizing the President to go to war. That earlier step and the Cincinnati speech, and the intelligence and decision making that form the content of the speech (with the numerous definitives) is what I am questioning.

gh

//We also need to consider that if there were no WMD, Saddam might very well have known it and chosen to brazen it out, because a dictaorship cannot afford to look weak, especially when it really is.//

good point

It is good that you question the things you say you are questioning, Anthony. But you'll have to wait until we all get to see the evidence that the Administration used before you can say a whole lot about it...

Yes, but there is a point of agreement and disagreement that we can reach before all is known.

Sure... but without knowing what they knew, can you really say anything about whether they did anything culpable?

For instance getting to the bottom of what President Bush did or did not say cuts out alot of unnecessary talk from noe till then.

For instance getting to the bottom of what President Bush did or did not say cuts out alot of unnecessary talk from now till then.

gh
Concerning your Molly McGrory post:
You jumped to a number of conclusion in this post.

I only ask you about Jim Hoagland because of his 'powerful' comment regarding Powell's speech. Looked like a little spin.

Molly changed her tune several weeks later.

I would never categorically dismiss the opinions of any group. Knowing their leanings enhances my ability to understand their commentary. It also helps me see the spin a little easier. In fact, I often get good insights from conservative commentators and often agree with them all or in part.

I am not calling anyone who disagrees with me "right-wing." That would no sense at all.

Do you consider anyone who disagrees with you left-wing?

You guys are really solving my problem with "What else could have happened?" (A problem I suffer due to my lack of creativity)

(George Bush, big smile on his face, chuckling with Saddam Hussein on the White House Lawn): "I have to admit, Sad... can I call you Sad? ... that was a neat one you pulled over on us. We were all convinced you had all sorts of terrible weapons. Sorry about the whole invading-you-and-ousting-your-regime thing."

As long as we're talking culpability, I think that if it turns out that Saddam Hussein played the ultimate snow job and convinced the world he had WMD, when in fact he had none, I would have to make the analogy (as I have before) of sticking your hand in your pocket and screaming, "I have a gun." In which case the argument still exists -- are we justified in shooting him, or should we have negotiated with him more? But at least we can safely say that there is no way the officer in question could be held liable to know that the gun was in fact a dirty index finger.

(Or, alternatively, Saddam Hussein is in a cave with an aide. Saddam has his head in his hands, "We're in trouble now, they'll find all the weapons, all the gas, all the microbes we've had built." Aide interjects, "Actually, Oh Glorious Almighty Omnipotent One, it seems they are finding nothing. There seems not to be ANY WMD."

"Yes," says Saddam, "but it is only a matter of time before they search the ."

"Well, sir, it seems they've already searched there and found nothing," replies the Aide.

A thoughtful silence.

"Aide... think very carefully on this," Saddam finally intones, "Where are my WMDs!?! I paid good money to hide those WMDs, and now you tell me they never existed!?!")

The bitter irony of this situation is too much for me to contemplate at the moment.

Jrm - I for one, would be VERY interested in the text of the Times Article. If you would please, send it to my email address? Thanks!

Jeff,
Sorry to take so long to get back to you but I live in Sydney so I've been sleeping...

/Anyone that threatened his power(US would be 1st on the list/
Now you see those would be the people who were a threat to him, not the other way round.

/They DID have WMD./
Well yeah, they did, as Blair is so fond of saying they have a history of having and using WMDs. The problem with that is that it's in the past. We know he had them during the Iran war, and in 1989 when he gassed the Kurds, we also know he had them in 1995 when UN inspectors blew up a lot of it, and even in 1998 when more was discovered. We don't seem to have known what's been going on since then, despite some of the confident assertions coming from Bush, Blair and Howard.

If you can explain how saying that I'm glad Saddam is gone contradicts saying that this doesn't make him a threat to America I'd be curious to hear it.

As for training terrorists, what you gave me was a statement. I asked for a link. The Telegraph todays says it is 'generally accepted'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/06/10/wbush10.xml/

while the Guardian feels the 'debunking' of the pro-war case is gaining speed:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,974182,00.html

Anthony

Let's say Turnip is about to beat you up with a 2 x 4, Pass the Gas comes along and says, "You can't do that, Turnip! I like Anthony and I won't let ANYONE do this to him." PtG beats up Turnip and saves you from a bad ass whipping. You are grateful.

The next day, you run into Nobodywanttoknow. Nobodywanttoknow tells you that PtG told him a week ago that he was looking for Turnip in connection with a stolen hookah, and was going to beat him up for stealing it.

Now you are angry, right? PtG LIED TO YOU about his reason for kicking Turnip's ass. He wasn't doing it to save you, he was doing it because Turnip stole his Hookah. PtG LIED!

Does this mean you have to hound Pass the Gas for the rest of his life, reminding him every minute that he LIED? That he had NO RIGHT to save you from the wrath of Turnip and his 2 x 4 without giving you his real reason first?

That's about what your WMD argument sounds like...

Wolf:

Help me out here. Is Pass the Gas Bush?

LOL!

Couldn't be, Bush is a patriotic American. PtG, as far as I can tell, came from the greasy spoon version of a mosque.
You know, the kind where the camels at the hitch rail all have the mange.

Wolfie,

You lost me at the bakery.

Gabriel, If I might ask, because you are familiar with a number of Muslims, how do THEY interpret the texts of the Quran that the Radical Muslims use as proof texts? Not to pull you off of this issue, but I've felt all along that the underlying issue of 'religion' in this 'war on terrorism' is being poohpoohed as a nonissue. I think it IS the issue, and because of a basic misunderstanding (or lack of knowledge) of the influence and power of religious leaders, the REAL issue is not being addressed.

Dave Dubé : sent the text to the link (your name) on this page. Did you get it?

Dave, most Muslims, being sensible people, treat the passages in the Koran that appear to advocate killing unbelievers in the same fashion that Christians and Jews treat the passages in the Old Testament about killing Canaanites.

Anthony, the reason I asked you about the "right-wing" thing is because you were seeming to imply that only a conservative would have thought Colin Powell's presentation "powerful".

But that is not true; I gave the example of Mary McGrory to prove it. At the time, she thought it rather powerful. But her audience wrote in to tell her she was selling out her principles--as opposed to giving the evidence a fair hearing and then changing her mind. So, she changed her mind about it--later.

Really, I usually know conservatives when I see them. If Jim Hoagland is one, he keeps it to himself.

I don't understand what the "power" of an argument has to do with who accepts it.

Gabriel - I realize where we are with the OLD Testament, but that is not Christianity - It is Judaism - the roots of Christianity. Christianity is at least 500+ years older than Islam. Muslims are headed backward. Well, I'll leave it alone for now. I KNOW there'll be another opportunity to discuss this.

Jrm - I got it, and Thank You. I'm printing it out as I type this.

Gabriel:

Molly like many others, was overwhelmed with the mystique of Colin Powell immediately after his UN presentation. The afterglow soon dwindled and she got to her senses. I was overwhelmed with the mystique of Colin Powell for about 1 hour after his presentation ended. And then I was saddened by what he had done to his reputation.

The totality of an arguement, when well presented, certainly has a power all its own. The more I know about the author the better chance I have of understanding he meaning.

Consider this statement:
"I admit it. The liberal media was never very powerful, and often the whole thing was an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."

Think of Senator Kennedy and re-read the sentence.

Now imagine Billy Kristol saying it. See what I mean?

BTW. For those of you who don't know Billy Kristol said it.

Gabriel:

Jim Hoagland said it months after. It doesn't impeach his commentary. That might be his style. Or he might be trying to spin. I record it along with his commentary for future reference.

BTW, I think his statement that the French and US intelligence was fundamentally the same might be incorrect. Why? Because we have the OSP who had Chalabi. That makes our intelligence portfolio unique.

Gabriel:

I meant Mary. You probably know that by now. : )

Couple of things, Andrew---
You say Chalabi makes our intelligence portfolio unique--but as far as WMD goes, I can't see how Chalabi could have been helping at all. There are a lot of things he knows that others don't; but he has an agenda of his own and State, for one, has never liked him or trusted him.

Second one--you decided nearly immediately after Colin Powell's speech that he had ruined his reputation by saying what he did.

It really troubles me to know that you'd already made up your mind about the truthfulness of what he was saying before you even heard it.

High Gabriel:

It's me Anthony?

This is from the London Times.

Present and former CIA officials, quoted in The New York Times and The New Yorker magazine, claimed that a small number of powerful neo-conservative ideologues in the Pentagon were so determined to prove the existence of a banned weapons programme and links to al-Qaeda that they manipulated intelligence.

According to a report written by Seymour Hersh, the veteran New Yorker investigative reporter, the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans (OSP) relied too heavily on suspect intelligence provided by Iraqi defectors with links to the Iraqi National Congress, an opposition group headed by Ahmad Chalabi, an Iraqi exile.

"Mr Hersh reported that intelligence gathered by the OSP drove the war agenda, often in the face of evidence that it was either unreliable or false. The OSP reported to Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary and a leading proponent of the war. "

One former CIA official told Mr Hersh: “One of the reasons I left was my sense that they (OSP) were using the intelligence from the CIA and other agencies only when it fits their agenda. They were so crazed and so far out and so difficult to reason with . . . as if they were on a mission from God. If it doesn’t fit their theory, they don’t want to accept it.”

Mr Douglas Fieth and Paul Wolfowitz were the two principles involved with Rumsfeld's the OSP.

Your article reports what some people say they think is going on. It doesn't have any actual evidence in it.

And the fact that Iraqi defectors have "links" to the INC is not the same as their intelligence coming from Chalabi. What does "links" mean? Relatives? In that case, yes. Paychecks? I really doubt it.

To you consider the statement of present and former CIA officials to be evidence?

One former CIA official told Mr Hersh... Is this evidence?

"One FORMER (why did he leave? was he fired? isn't his relevant?) CIA official TOLD (i.e., did not produce any evidence in support of his assertion)... his SENSE that (i.e., he can't cite any particular examples of such an instance)..."

This is gossip.

These are the words of Jim Hoagland. You offered them to me in defense of you position concerning the universal belief the Saddam had WMDs.

“The French president and German chancellor were briefed by their own intelligence chiefs and given assessments that closely matched the conclusions of Powell's presentation, reliable sources tell me.”

Now do you accept these words as fact or gossip? If so, why? Who are the reliable sources? Are they former government employees? If so, why did they leave?

It's great to be back, but my girlfriend is bitchin' "come to bed". It's late and I should....but...

Sean said, "Jeff,Sorry to take so long to get back to you but I live in Sydney so I've been sleeping..."

Is that what you do there? :)

/Anyone that threatened his power(US would be 1st on the list/
Sean responded, "Now you see those would be the people who were a threat to him, not the other way round."

Uhhhhhh...no...not really.

/They DID have WMD./
Sean responded, "Well yeah, they did, as Blair is so fond of saying they have a history of having and using WMDs. The problem with that is that it's in the past. We know he had them during the Iran war, and in 1989 when he gassed the Kurds, we also know he had them in 1995 when UN inspectors blew up a lot of it, and even in 1998 when more was discovered. We don't seem to have known what's been going on since then, despite some of the confident assertions coming from Bush, Blair and Howard."

Well, what do you think....do you suppose Sodom got religion and just threw all that crap down the gold plated toilet???? Yeah....that makes sense. During intermission from killing mass quanity of his own people.

Sean said, "If you can explain how saying that I'm glad Saddam is gone contradicts saying that this doesn't make him a threat to America I'd be curious to hear it."

I don't recall saying that....would you mind going back and copying the quote so I can respond?

Thanks

Hitting the rack. G'night. ...or G'mornin' down there.

As for training terrorists, what you gave me was a statement. I asked for a link. The Telegraph todays says it is 'generally accepted'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/06/10/wbush10.xml/

while the Guardian feels the 'debunking' of the pro-war case is gaining speed:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,974182,00.html

On my last post I didn't see the crap below me saying G'night. Sorry. Blow it off. It wasn't worth responding to anyway. G'night.

Jim Hoagland's statement is quite different from the one you showed me, Anthony. Because it is easy, in principle, to confirm or refute it. If the ittleingence briefings received by the French etc WERE substantially different, they could say so. There will exist records; transcripts of briefings, memoranda, etc.

But the guy you're quoting is just talking about his "sense" of what other people's thought processes are!

One statement describes something that did, or did not happen; an event that leaves a paper trail. The other statement describes someone's impression of someone else's thoughts, and there is no evidence, in principle, that could confirm or refute it.

"Reliable sources", from Jim Hoagland, a two-time Pulitzer winner, regarding something that can in principle be verified, is a little more to be credited, IMHO, than one former CIA official talking about why he thinks his colleagues aren't listening to him.

The sense part is semantics. He is summing up his impression using an intuitive term.

The source did say that "If it doesn’t fit their theory, they don’t want to accept it.” I am going to assume, that there is a paper trail. Intelligence documents that were written and then re-written, after higher ups said "not good enough." Or meeting with OSP members that are characterize by their resistance or unwillingness to accept any data the doesn’t conform to the administration’s point of view. It would be relatively easy to come to that conclusion if the only documents that are being accepted are those that fit into the administration’s assertions.

Perhaps you are unaware the Seymour Hersh is also a Pulitzer-winning author.

Gabriel:
I'm not interested in the hyperbole "mission from God' but in the factual parts of the statement.

Here is an article the discusses intel in more detail.
SELECTIVE INTELLIGENCE
They call themselves, self-mockingly, the Cabal—a small cluster of policy advisers and analysts now based in the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans....They relied on data gathered by other intelligence agencies and also on information provided by the Iraqi National Congress, or I.N.C., the exile group headed by Ahmad Chalabi. By last fall, the operation rivalled both the C.I.A. and the Pentagon’s own Defense Intelligence Agency, the D.I.A., as President Bush’s main source of intelligence regarding Iraq’s possible possession of weapons of mass destruction and connection with Al Qaeda. As of last week, no such weapons had been found. And although many people, within the Administration and outside it, profess confidence that something will turn up, the integrity of much of that intelligence is now in question.

Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer prize winning investigative reporter. He won the prize in 1970.

I didn't know Hersh had a Pulitzer, but I know the name and I know he is a respected journalist.

But what you are showing me is NOT evidence of manipulated intelligence. You have some people saying that other people aren't listening to them as much as they think they should be listened to. If there is some sort of evidence supporting their contentions, great--when I see it I will revise my opinion.

I took Jim Hoagland's statement at face value, because the statement he makes is not in dispute. If the intelligence agencies of the other nations we were discussing Iraq with a few months ago HAD come to different conclusions, that fact would have been part of those discussions. It was not. Iraq's failure to comply with its obligations was not in dispute, by anyone. What was disputed, was the appropriate response.

A small gourp of neocons distorting intelligence is very much in dispute, and continues to be so, and Seymour Hersh can report what a few people are telling him as long as he likes, but without some kind of hard evidence, it is little more than gossip.

Gabriel:

What evidence do you have were briefed by their own intelligence chiefs and given assessments that closely matched the conclusions of Powell's presentation?

What evidence do you have that France and Germany were briefed by their own intelligence chiefs and given assessments that closely matched the conclusions of Powell's presentation?

Not being an intelligence officer or a diplomat, I have no direct evidence. A powerful piece of indirect evidence is that no one from their governments disputed it.

I'll get back to you on that.

Please do, Anthony. But I think you'll not have much luck with it.

I am confident, however, that if anyone can find anything to the contrary, it will be you.

Jeff,

I've woken up again :-)

Sean said, "If you can explain how saying that I'm glad Saddam is gone contradicts saying that this doesn't make him a threat to America I'd be curious to hear it."

I don't recall saying that....would you mind going back and copying the quote so I can respond?

/Sean says, " Saddam was a mass murderer and it's a great thing that he's gone but that doesn't make him a threat to America."

Do you always contradict yourself like that??????/

/do you suppose Sodom got religion and just threw all that crap down the gold plated toilet????/
Well considering how much we've found of it... As I pointed out lots of stuff was destroyed up to '98. We don't know what happened after that, and there doesn't seem to be much to find right now.

As for talk of 'thimbles' /The frequent claim that suspect weapons are too tiny to find does not work for UAVs or for entire factories that were supposedly producing germs and gas. The notion of mobile labs just came from one defecting Iraqi scientist who "admitted to U.N. inspectors that Iraq was trying to move in the direction of mobile BW production."/
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/alanreynolds/ar20030612.shtml

Gabriel:

I will try to get info on the Frances and Germany's intel over the next few days. (our latest topic at hand)

Gabriel said "Iraq's failure to comply with its obligations was not in dispute, by anyone."

I assume you mean everyone. In the past you have mentioned that the UN position was essentially the same.

Hans Blix said "But we never stopped saying it! We said that we had no proof of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but that we did have numerous proofs of the existence of unresolved questions."

Interview with Hans Blix, Head UN Disarmament Inspector
Le Monde
Thursday 12 June 2003

So while the US was definitive about the presence of WMD in Iraq, the UN Chief Weapons Inspector was not. In fact he said there was no proof.

Gabriel:

Disarmament of Iraq - French Diplomatic News
Last update : 01/14/03
Statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson
(Paris, 14 January 2003)
"We believe, as Mr. ElBaradei said yesterday, that the inspections are a way for us to be sure of having the best chance of ascertaining whether Iraq has weapons or not. We want the assurance that Iraq has not acquired weapons of mass destruction. The goal is to verify the existence of such weapons, to destroy them, and that takes time. "

INTERVIEW OF PRESIDENT JACQUES CHIRAC
BY THE NEW YORK TIMES
ELYSEE PALACE - SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2002

Q: In the specific case of Saddam Hussein and Iraq, today, how would you like to proceed, Mr. President? What is the best way to be sure that Saddam Hussein doesn't develop further weapons of mass destruction, and to achieve the stated goal of the administration, which is a change of regime in Iraq? And do you share that objective?

A: I don't have to tell you that of course I condemn the Iraqi regime. For all the reasons we're aware of, whether they be the dangers it might pose for the region or the tragedy it constitutes for the Iraqi people, which is being held hostage by it. It is my great hope to see a regime in Iraq that would be democratic, human and concerned with maintaining good relations with its neighboring countries. From that to the particular problem of the reaction regarding Iraq, we're always talking about evidence, but I still haven't seen any. People talk to me about it, but I still haven't...

Q: You haven't seen any?

A: I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm simply saying that I haven't seen any.

The US claimed to have intelligence available only to itself. It agreed to share some of it with the UN inspectors around the beginning of March. This intelligence included sites where WMDs were being stored and/or made. The intelligence that was shared lead to no discoveries.

This information was significant in that the US chose to keep it to intself and when pressed decided to give away a "small amount of it."

Interview given by M. Dominique de Villepin during the Complement d'Enquête programme on France 2 (excerpts) - Paris, 24 March 2003

Q. - Let's return to the Iraq crisis (...). You were very influential at the UN, (...) weren't you, in a way, a bit too active ?
THE MINISTER - First of all, we must look at Iraq in the context of France's view of the world. Obviously, for us the crisis in Iraq is a major proliferation crisis. There are perhaps weapons of mass destruction there, we can't accept the status quo and, with all the countries of the international community, we decided to use a method, the United Nations inspections, to eradicate this risk, find out the truth and abolish all these weapons should they exist. (...) Let's never forget that it's one of the proliferation crises.

test

Gabriel:
Gabriel said "You say Chalabi makes our intelligence portfolio unique--but as far as WMD goes, I can't see how Chalabi could have been helping at all. There are a lot of things he knows that others don't; but he has an agenda of his own and State, for one, has never liked him or trusted him."

Here is a Reuters article.

NEW YORK, June 10 (Reuters) - U.S.-backed Iraqi political leader Ahmad Chalabi on Tuesday defended information his group gave Washington on weapons of mass destruction amid growing questions about intelligence used to justify the war on Iraq.

Chalabi said he was aware of media reports suggesting his Iraqi National Congress gave false information on Baghdad's alleged illegal biological, chemical and nuclear weapons program, but remained convinced they would yet be found.

"We gave very accurate information and we produced people who we handed over to the United States," Chalabi, on a brief visit to the United States, told the Council on Foreign Relations think-tank. "The only tangible things they've found are the mobile labs, which our defectors talked about."

Chalabi: Defectors Gave Arms Information

WASHINGTON (AP)--An Iraqi exile leader said Thursday his group had introduced U.S. officials to three defectors who provided information on Saddam Hussein's banned weapons.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/ap/ap_story.html/Intl/AP.V0960.AP-US-Iraq-Chalabi.html

Seymour Hersh?

That lying sack of retrograde scum?

Duranty, Arnett, and Halberstam won the Pulitzer prize for lying there asses off.

Duranty apologized for Stalin, Arnett fabricated a quote, and Halberstam accused DIem of "corruption" because he took money that was supposed to go to hositals(while ignoring the healthcar eleaps that happened before then in the RVN-they had enough med and Hospitals to go around)and instead throwing it all into the government treasury. David also distorted his reprots on those small radicalized Buddhist riots that were dismissed by most Buddhists, and had no founding considering a good portion of Diem's advisors were Buddhist, congress too, he also knocked the Catholic Church down from it's previous high pedestal(pissing off the Vatican),
he gave grants to pagodas etc.

A lot of misreporting there. But the Pulitzer(known for giving liars prestige they don't deserve)board keep giving these bozos their dmaned award.
Hersh is amongst that group, he is a hack.

Anyway have you corrected your claim that a DIA study released under 2 weeks ago that claimed it had "no reliable evidence" of WMD. When in reality you were just regurgitating-mindlessly-the distortion of the real text "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has -- or will --establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Thats what the report said. Not that Hussein did not have a stash of WMD-in fact it said he did, but there was no reliable info on whether at that time he was still making them and accumulating a bigger supply.

But the DIA since Sep 2002 received more to dat info that said he was...now read...

09 June 2003
Defense Agency Issues Excerpt on Iraqi Chemical Warfare Program (DIA director Jacoby clarifies press reports on agency assessment) (1290)

The Defense Department released on June 7 an unclassified excerpt of an earlier Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) study on Iraq's chemical warfare (CW) program in which it stated that there is "no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

But the excerpt, drawn from a classified DIA study published in September 2002, also Stated that "Iraq will develop various elements of its chemical industry to achieve self-sufficiency in producing the chemical precursors required for CW agent production." The full excerpt is based on the DIA's analysis titled: "Iraq -- Key WMD Facilities -- An Operational Support Study."

The official unclassified excerpt was leaked to the media on June 6. Navy Admiral Lowell Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), stepped forward the same day to clarify his agency's 2002 assessment of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, saying "DIA joined in the intelligence community assessment ... that they had a weapons of mass destruction program in place."

Jacoby made his remarks during a media availability on Capitol Hill at the invitation of Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) Chairman John Warner (Republican, Virginia) following a closed hearing on the missions of the 75th Exploitation Task Force and the Iraq Survey Group-- both of which are involved in the search for information relating to Iraq's WMD. Warner said Jacoby's clarification -- first made during the closed committee session -- had interest to the public at large.

Jacoby was responding to questions raised after the June 6 press reports suggesting that in the lead-up to policy decisions about Iraqi weapons capabilities, the DIA found there was no reliable information that Iraq was producing and stockpiling chemical weapons. The DIA director said the quote appearing in media reporting was actually a single sentence lifted out of a much longer planning document.

"It talks about the fact that at the time, in September 2002, we could not specifically pin down individual facilities operating as part of the weapons of mass destruction programs, specifically, the chemical warfare portion," he said, according to an unofficial transcript of the exchange with reporters. "It is not, in any way, intended to portray the fact that we had doubts that such a program existed ...was active, or ... was part of the Iraqi WMD infrastructure" Jacoby added.

"We did not have doubts about the existence of the program," the director said. As of September 2002, he continued, "we could not reliably pin down, for somebody who was doing contingency planning, specific facilities, locations or production that was underway at a specific location at that point in time."

Asked if additional information surfaced about Iraq after September, Jacoby said: "there was (a) continuing flow of information coming in to us for analysis and assessment during that whole period."

Prior to Jacoby's clarification, media reporting about the DIA studyfueled a brewing controversy by suggesting that elements of the Bush administration may have shaded or exaggerated existing intelligence about Iraq's WMD programs to gain support for the war in 2003.

Warner urged people to trust the administration "as we go forward to search out" answers about Iraq's WMD capabilities. "I would hope we would have the opportunity to have public hearings to dispel whatever doubts remain," he said.

Warner went on to emphasize that committee members will draw their conclusions about the reliability of the intelligence "only after a very careful and methodical review of material, evidence of all types, and testimony from a wide range of individuals.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Richard Myers made remarks to reporters on June 5 during a media stakeout following a meeting with House Intelligence Committee members. Rumsfeld endorsed existing intelligence about Iraq and said that he believes "that the presentation (to the United Nations) made by Secretary Powell (February 5) was accurate and will be proved to be accurate."

Following is the unclassified excerpt of the 2002 DIA study:

(begin excerpt)

A substantial amount of Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) actions. Nevertheless, we believe Iraq retained production equipment, expertise and chemical precursors and can reconstitute a chemical warfare program in the absence of an international inspection regime. Iraq's successful use of chemical weapons in the past against Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians increases the likelihood of a chemical warfare reconstitution. Iraq has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).

There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has -- or will --establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities. Unusual munitions transfer activity in mid-2002 suggests that Iraq is distributing CW munitions in preparation for an anticipated U.S. attack. Iraq retains all the chemicals and equipment to produce the blister agent mustard but its ability for sustained production of G-series nerve agents and VX is constrained by its stockpile of key chemical precursors and by the destruction of all known CW production facilities during Operation Desert Storm and during subsequent UNSCOM inspections. In the absence of external aid, Iraq will likely experience difficulties in producing nerve agents at the rate executed before Operation Desert Storm.

Iraq is steadily establishing a dual use industrial chemical infrastructure that provides some of the building blocks necessary for production of chemical agents. In addition, Iraq has renovated and added production lines at two facilities formerly associated with Baghdad's chemical warfare program -- Habbaniyah I and Habbaniyah II. Activities include building reconstruction, salvage operations, and equipment movement and deliveries in the months that followed the 1998 expulsion of United Nations inspectors. Baghdad is rebuilding portions of its chemical production infrastructure under the guise of a civilian need for pesticides, chlorine, and other legitimate chemical products, giving Iraq the potential for a small "breakout" production capability.

Although we lack any direction information, Iraq probably possesses CW agent in chemical munitions, possibly including artillery rockets, artillery shells, aerial bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. Baghdad also probably possesses bulk chemical stockpiles, primarily containing precursors, but that also could consist of some mustard agent or stabilized VX.

Iraqi doctrine for the use of chemical weapons evolved during the Iran-Iraq war, and was fully incorporated into Iraqi offensive operations by the end of the war in 1988. Iraq demonstrated its ability to use chemical weapons during that conflict in the following roles: in a defensive role to disrupt or halt an overwhelming enemy offensive; as a preemptive weapon to disrupt staging areas before an offensive attack; and as an offensive weapon during well-staged attacks to regain territory. Authority for use of chemical weapons during that war eventually became delegated to corps commanders. The Iraqis delivered chemical agents with artillery, multiple rocket launchers, mortars, and aerial bombs dropped by fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. Iraq also used chemical agents against Kurdish civilians in 1988. Historical precedent suggests Saddam already may have deployed chemical weapons to western Iraq, as he did during Operation Desert Storm to be used against Israel in the event of coalition military action that threatens the regime.

Iraq will develop various elements of its chemical industry to achieve self-sufficiency in producing the chemical precursors required for CW agent production. Iraq might construct a new dedicated CW facility or facilities at remote sites to avoid detection or, alternatively, upgrade the production capabilities at its Habbaniyah I and II facilities to produce the agent mustard and binary components necessary for the production of nerve agents.

(end excerpt)

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/06/dod060703.pdf

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/06/dod060703.html

Every article you have put up distorts the evidence, and is the same leftist dishonesty that distorted the DIA study.

Pathetic.