I saw a link that posed this question and I find it thought provoking to say the least. You can see that one here. Some poor choice of words but the question is still valid. I think the southern Shiites are safer now. But that's about it. That's my question. Exactly who is safer now that Sadaam is out of power?

Well we (the US, and our oil suppliers in the Gulf) and the entire region are safer. As Butler said – long before liberals had GW to blame for everything:


"The fact is that Iraq created a quantity and quality of weapons of
mass destruction that, when one thinks of the size of the industrial
base, etc., was virtually unique, breathtaking in its scope and its
danger to its region and population beyond," Butler said.



Do I really need to post the statements by every liberal in Congress who said essentially the same thing in 1998?

Iraq had and USED WMD. He hated the US and Israel and tried to construct the longest cannon in the world to lob WMD at Israel. He attacked a neighbor and now we are learning he was perfectly willing to work terrorists to kill Americans while keeping his hands clean.

We asr ALL safer with the man out of power.

On the surface, Ted, that seems reasonable. But when you put other things into practice, like, say, human involvement, it's clear that simply isn't the case. We all like to say WMD are bad and should stay out of evil people's hands. But what do you say when the nation doing the accusing (and being in a state of fear) actually aided and abeted the use of those WMD you speak of? What do we say, as a whole, when we know that Reagan's political manoeverings placed chemical weapons into Sadaam's hands?
Also, I think for you statement to be truly valid, the reasons for the fear must be accurate and in process. We all know now (though I said it all along) that Iraq and Hussein wasn't a real threat since he was without WMD and a illegal weapons program? And again, I feel it necessary to post the 2001 Rice and Powell statements in which they agree, seperately and on video, that Iraq and Hussein was contained, the sanctions worked, and Iraq had no weapons capabilities which would endanger anyone.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
Mr. Powell in early 2001

Mz. Rice in 2001

First of all this is not the case as I have posted. Saddam bought research grade anthrax spores available all over the world for agricultural research and then (the hard part) – weaponized it. His VX used to kill 5,000 of his own was not from us.

And regardless of what Rice and Powell said in 2001 Saddam’s failure to comply with any UN Resolution and the subsequent 9/11 attacks showed us that people like Saddam could not just be let off the hook.

Butler, Blix the UN and many others saw Saddam as a danger to the region and the US and the recent taped conversation seems to prove that he intended to continue to mislead inspectors, maintain WMD and use them against us. He needed to be dealt with and the UN was not going to do it. He was more than an “evil person with WMD”. He was an evil person with WMD who could have passed them to terrorists.

Um Sadaam handed over a 10,000 page report which the US edited 6000 pages from. Does that mean anything at all to you? I don't say "regardless" in reference to US Secretaries of State. Their words are at a higher plateau than anyone like us and must be held to a higher accounting.
And Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and you know it. Unless you're one of the 75% of GI's who still believe that lie, no doubt told by their commanders to relieve some stress and guilt from their operations.

The true facts are this: Blix stated Iraq had no WMD. Iraq itself stated it had no WMD. And also, let me see if I have this straight. You've confused me over this particular subject. The fabled "taped conversation" with "Hussein" stating he "wishes" WMD attacks on America, took place before Powell and Rice stated Hussein was not a threat. So you're telling me, in this instance, Hussein and Iraq was telling the truth, and Rice and Powell were lying through their teeth? I think it's interesting when some people, while trying to justify one event, end up shattering their beliefs on another event.

"People like Saddam..." So, then because we couldn't find Bin Laden, we went after another 'bad man?'

I might have supported invasion of Iraq/regime change had the argument been made honestly and appropriately, without this WMD farce. But the fact is, the sanctions were working and Saddam had no WMDs--if he had, don't you think he would have used them to save himself, the lives of his sons, and his power? Bush rushed to provoke a war that was unnecessary, while Congress handed him carte blanche to do it. They're a disgrace and all of them should be removed from power for it in the next elections.

One other thing--Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Why do people persist in implying a connection by mentioning them in the same sentence>

This nonsense has been around forever. In fact it was a 12,000 page report and the UN had all 12,000 pages – I can quote you if you like. If you have a shred of proof of anything please post it. I should not have to post again all the people who considered Saddam a threat – many of them Dems. And I never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. They had WMD, and they were a threat – period.




You continue to make statements that you refuse to back up. Blix NEVER EVER ,EVER said Iraq had no WMD – quite the opposite as I have posted. – Please post something if you have proof of your claim. And Iraq admitted to having tons of WMD as stated by both Butler and Blix. (see butler below) - Want to refute this – please do so.

As far as Powell and Rice – simple – they were obviously wrong.

Chief Weapons inspector William Butler: On WMD possession and threat.
Iraq's record on biological weapons is "pathetic," Butler said. "For
four and a half years Iraq flatly denied having any. When we
confronted them with compelling evidence to the contrary they then
admitted that they had a program, but sought to minimize its nature
and extent."

"The fact is that Iraq created a quantity and quality of weapons of
mass destruction that, when one thinks of the size of the industrial
base, etc., was virtually unique, breathtaking in its scope and its
danger to its region and population beyond," Butler said.



Same comments as above. The WMD was no farce.. Tons of documents and Iraqi admissions prove this. I would have liked to wait longer as well but the UN was clearly corrupted and Iraq was dangerous. IMO these tapes will show he was more dangerous then we ever suspected.

Your quote is from 1998. Here is a more recent one (2004) from Blix:

Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has said he believes Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were destroyed long ago and Washington created facts to justify the US-led war on Iraq in 2003.

"I think Saddam Hussein destroyed most WMD after the Gulf War in 1991. The war (with Iraq in 2003) was in no case justified," Blix said in an interview with the online edition of the German weekly Stern.

"The Americans and British created facts where there were no facts at all. They did not want to listen (to me). My warnings were ignored," said Blix.

"The Americans needed (Iraq to have) WMD to justify the Iraq war. They were a virtual reality," Blix said.

"We know now that Saddam was a danger to his own nation but not for the world," said Blix. "Sanctions and inspections work. They also help with nuclear disarmament -- as long as they are professionally and independently carried out."


Here is another Blix quote from 2003:


Outgoing chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix (pictured, right) says U.S. intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction was "never more than shaky."

He made the comment yesterday in an address to the Council of Foreign Relations in New York.

He said it is still possible that the U.S. will find some weapons. But he added, "It is somewhat puzzling, I think, that you can have 100 percent certainty about the weapons of mass destruction and zero certainty about where they are."

Blix said the evidence the U.S. used for the existence of such weapons could have included the potentially self-serving testimony of defectors and the ambiguous results of inspections of suspected mobile laboratories.

He said UN inspectors were much more "prudent" in assessing the possibility Iraq had the weapons while the United States and Britain appeared to be "jumping at conclusions" based on their intelligence.

Blix is retiring on 30 June.



Blix repeatedly asked for help from the US and British government to provide what intel they had on where they thought the WMDs were being stored.



We should have waited longer. Bushco did not even wait for inspections to end. Against the face of so many, he rammed this war down our throats. He rushed straight into it and years later, here we are.

As I said, had the rationale for the war been presented differently, I might have had a different stance on it. But the reasons given, i.e. the S.H. was an imminent threat, were not well supported. I don't care that many Dems in Congress were for it. They were cowardly and failed in their responsibilities. You can be certain I will no be voting my incumbent Congressmen back in.

It is interesting that these statements are so different from Blix UN testimony. Have you read it?? He was fired and unhappy about it but he never says Iraq had no WMD because if he did he would have to admit he perjured himself before the UN. I have posted Butler above who spent many years in Iraq – is he wrong? He has never said he though Iraq had no WMD or wasn’t a threat. Please post a link to the Blix statements you posted please.

And how could the US know where the WMD was? We had not one agent in Iraq. And I agree with you on one point. Bush should never have attacked without knowing exactly where some or all of the WMDs were. I am sure the idiot CIA Chief he had (Tennant) told him it was a slam dunk.

Bottom line is the tapes will reveal the truth and in the irrefutable words of Saddam and his henchmen. IMO we will find out where the WMD went.

Yes, I have read his UN testimony. And I don't see much of a dichotomy between his pre-war and post-war statements. Rather, I see a man who was committed to continuing inspections, had significant (but incomplete) cooperation from the Iraqi government, and had a plan for determining whether S.H. was lying when he said there were no records for supposedly destroyed WMDs. As the inspections continued, Blix seemed to think it was less and less likely there were WMDs in Iraq--that is simply my assessment of what Blix said.



Yes the administration persisted on claiming S.H. had WMDs. If they didn't know where the WMDs were, and the inspectors didn't find any substantial, how could they be *so* sure that WMDs were there? It just doesn't follow.

The timescale of when we went to war was so rushed that one has to wonder--why? I was pleasantly surprised by Bush's actions and words just after 9/11. I was with him when he went into Afghanistan. But when and why did this Iraq war trump the necessity of finding Bin Laden, if for no other reason than to make him answer for his crimes.


The links to Blix's comments:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...pla-daily01.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...rfel-071656.htm

I agree with all you say above except the last line. To the end he was never satisfied that Iraq was telling the truth and I have posted his concerns. I find it absolutely impossible that this monster, bent on having WMD for decades would just toss them away. If he had proving it would have been simple and there would have been NO war and he would still be in power.




You could not have read Blix and ask this question. Here is just a part of his testimony in 2002:

I shall only give some examples of issues and questions that need to be answered, and I turn first to the sector of chemical weapons.
The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons, and that the quality was poor and the product unstable.
Consequently, it was said that the agent was never weaponized.
Iraq said that the small quantity of [the] agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.
UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared.

As I reported to the council on the 19th of December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as reported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999.

In the letter of 24th of January this year to the president of the Security Council, Iraq's foreign minister stated that, I quote, "All imported quantities of growth media were declared." This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax.

This goes on and on.
So tons of the deadliest chemical in the world a droplet ( that you could not even see) would kill you in 5 minuets. And 8,500 liters of anthrax – enough to kill every person in the world 4 times. And we feel that this being missing is not a problem????

VX
VX is the most potent of all nerve agents. Compared with the nerve agent sarin (also known as GB), VX is considered to be much more toxic by entry through the skin and somewhat more toxic by inhalation.
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/vx/basics/facts.asp


And how pray tell could Blix guarantee that what he could not find and had no proof was destroyed would never fall into terrorist hands? There is no way of course. But I don’t blame him for being mad.

As I said I would have waited but Bush had 100,000 troops on the border (that’s how Blix got to inspect if you remember) and he did not want to wait forever for compliance to UN 1441. Remember please 12 YEARS have passed with NO compliance by Iraq.

I sincerely doubt that. This administration was bent upon having this war. Some other rationale would have been given (regime change, democracy in the M.E.--take your pick).



I will absolutely give you that Blix was concerned that there were unaccounted chemical weapons. However, he was in the process of conducting interviews with the scientists involved in destroying said materials. I would have liked to see those results before rushing to war.



Well, very little in life is a guarantee. If you set up the condition of *proving* a negative as the reason for war, then yeah, war it is. If you set up a condition that *it is unlikely he had WMDs* (to a reasonable degree of certainty), then you are not setting the stage for the inevitable but actually waiting to see what happens before you decide to invade.



I would have waited as well. However, that 12 years went by and we didn't force compliance is no reason to jump into war immediately. We let Iraq get away without compliance and then all of a sudden say, you're not complaint, we're going to invade you?

There were better ways to go about this, but Bushco chose not to. He wanted this war and any excuse would do.

Well, I don't know.

My country has over 300 km border with Iraq and almost nobody here feels any safer. On the contrary, the US led invasion has generated a lot of support for anti-American religious fanatics who are much stronger than they were before. They have gone as far as organising 4 bombings in Istanbul (the Bristish Consulate, a HSBC Bank and two sinagogues) that killed over 20 people each.

I don't think that the Iraqis feel any safer either. The country is on the edge of a civil war and many people die every day.

If you meet anyone who feels safer, please let me know.

But thats exactly what you claim he did. Toss them away.

You find this 'impossible', yet you find it completely reasonable (somehow) that 'this monster', who according to you wanted nothing more than to Kill Americans with WMD, would somehow neglect to USE his WMD to kill Americans when he was invaded, fighting for his life using all his resources with nothing at all to lose, and the perfect opportunity and justification to use WMD.

You find it entirely plausible that as opposed to 'this monster' doing EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAY HE DESPERATLY WANTED TO DO (using WMD to kill Americans) he would instead NOT use them and ship them of to one of his oldest and most hated enemies, the nation of Syria.

Riiiiight.




That is of course entirely untrue. Under the observation of UN inspectors, Iraq destroyed the vast majority of its missiles and WMD arsenal. Depending on which source you look to, the UN had confirmed destruction of between 85% and 95% of it's pre-war estimation of Iraq's prohibited weapons, even the most right-wing conservative sites don't claim less than 80%-85% confirmed.

Please do not use absolute declaratives like that if thay are not true.

And just to add on to this, let's not forget that during the period leading up to the war inspectors were receiving unprecedented access to facilities. There have been periods of years in the past where Saddam didn't allow inspectors or put a lot of conditions on them, but that wasn't the case recently.

Should we question his motives? Sure. But jumping to war given the circumstances was simply ridiculous. The proper action would have been increased investigation.

The World isn't any more or less safer with Saddam out of power.

The reason Saddam didn't have much WMDs is because the US did a very good job at destroying Saddam's arsenal during the first Gulf War. And the reason why Saddam didn't cooperate with the UN on the WMD inspections is because he didn't want the US to see his bunkers.

Now, Saddam Hussein was a pretty evil man who did use WMDs 15 years ago, but the US had him boxed in with a Naval blockade and highly enforced NoFly zones. Doing an invasion and an occupation was overkill. If he was developing massive quantities of WMDs, spies could give the location of the WMD laboratories, which could then subsequently be destroyed by airstrikes.

Somewhat understandable, after all, wasn't Saddam keeping the Kurds "in check", doing the Turkish government a favor?




So what on earth does Iraq have to do with synagogues ? It's kind of like:
Cop: Why did you kill your wife
Man: Because the vending machine at work took my quarter
Cop: Oh, that explains it

US liberates Iraq= Religion of Peace™ blows up Jews
Danes draw cartoons= RoP blows up Jews

It made me think of some kind of perverted Jeopardy with Mohammed in the middle. Before Alex can get the question out, Moe is pounding on the button "What is 'Kill Joos!'" , and the crowd cheers wildly.



See the poll results I posted, the seem to bear out the contrary. As for people dying every day, according to the news I have read Saddam was pretty effective at this himself. The Iraqis appear to comprehend that at least now there is light at the end of the tunnel.

Since I know it will be brought up, the same polls show Iraqis, by and large, want the US troops out. I think this is perfectly understandable. The Iraqi appear to be a proud people and the presence of foreigners would be demeaning.

He knew he would be at greater risk to himself in doing this. It is one thing to pass WMD anonymously (which the tapes imply he was planning to do) to terrorists to be used against defenseless civilians and another to use them against prepared troops in the field. He could have killed more of his own troops. As the tapes imply he considered it but IMO his commanders knew the risks and consequences (to themselves and their men) and did not use them. Foe all we know he ordered their use. The tapes will reveal this.






I don’t believe your %s but it’s irrelevant. If we did actually destroy 95% of his WMD then the amounts LEFT (tons of VX and thousands of liters of anthrax etc.) show how really dangerous this man was and why we had to move on him. You do the math. If he maintained 8,500 liters of anthrax and that was only 5% of what he had........

Firstly, you do this in SO many posts. STOP saying with precognitive certainly what the tapes will confirm or explain. Have you seen them? Have you a transcript? Are you psychic? Then for all you know the tapes could confirm the real mas murdered was a clone of Walt Disney.

Secondly, that is a terribly weak explanation. He was fighting for his regime and his life, how exactly would he be at greater risk to himself? How could he have had anything more to lose?

He would not have killed more of his own troops if he had any idea how to use these WMD, so you are wrong there, but even if you are right, he sent his army to its deaths with orders to fight to the last man in a struggle they could not possibly win. Do you really think this man, who you keep saying is a monster and would do anything to kill Americans with WMD, would hesitate because as a side effect some of his own troops might get dosed?

The lack of logic is absurd. Would ANY other country in the world work this way? If invaded and losing would the US not use every weapon at its disposal, including WMD? Would Iran? Would North Korea? Would Russia? Would France?

And none of those countries (except the US) already has a record and a shown capacity to use WMD in combat, remember Iraq used them against Iran in warfare. Also, none of those countries are led by a madamn dedicated (so you claim) to using his stockpiles against Americans.

So why is Hussein so different? Why when every other couuntry in the world including the US would act in the obvious way, AND Hussein had MORE reason than all of them to act in this way, did he not?


Why instead ship a weapon he could use to kill Americans of to Syria, a nation he hates and has been enemies with for decades?




I don't particularily care what you believe, read the reports from the inspectors.

"In 2002, Ritter stated that, as of 1998, 90–95% of Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical capabilities, and long-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons, had been verified as destroyed."

You in fact do this all the time. YOU say repeatedly that it is unlikely that Saddam would ever pass WMD to terrorists as if you can read his mind. How in fact can you be sure? You say you believe that Saddam did not have stockpiles of WMD yet UN testimony by Butler and Blix conflicts with this. So please give me a break.

As far as the tapes – there are passages that certainly lend credibility to the possibility that Iraq would pass WMD to terrorists so that their “state” could not be held responsible.

Like this:

Also at the meeting was Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, who said Iraq was being wrongly accused of terrorism. "Sir, the biological is very easy to make. It's so simple that any biologist can make a bottle of germs and drop it into a water tower and kill 100,000. This is not done by a state. No need to accuse a state. An individual can do it."
At one point Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and the man who was in charge of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction efforts can be heard on the tapes, speaking openly about hiding information from the U.N.
"We did not reveal all that we have," Kamel says in the meeting. "Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct."
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigat...tory?id=1616996


This is from the transcript. I did not make it up.



Fine then when Blix says he is looking for 8,500 liters of Anthrax then they must have had 85,000 previously. And please note that selectively quoting Ritter in 2002 AFTER he got the 400K from Iraq is typical selectively ignoring all he said in 1998 – when by the way he said:

Ritter in 1998:

Iraq today is not disarmed, and remains an ugly threat to its neighbors and to world peace. Those American who think that this is important and that something should be done about it have to be deeply disappointed in our leadership.

I can say is that we have clear evidence that Iraq is retaining prohibited weapons capabilities in the fields of chemical, biological and ballistic- missile delivery systems of a range of greater than 150 kilometers

Needless to say IMO we are MUCH safer with this man out of power and out of control of Iraq

In fact while some rave about Bush “hyping” the threat of Iraq The following shows that Ritter actually made the statements before Congress in 1998. Apparently the Democrats there “forgot” this.

SEN. MCCAIN: And that's what's disturbing to so many of us. Seven months ago, the secretary of State threatened force if these inspections weren't allowed to be completed. And now apparently from what you and other evidence that we have, is the secretary of State is arguing against the completion of the inspections. I'd like to get back just for a second to the gravity of this situation. Do you believe that Saddam Hussein today has three nuclear weapons assembled -- lacking only the fissile material? MR.

RITTER: The Special Commission has intelligence information, which indicates that components necessary for three nuclear weapons exist, lacking the fissile material. Yes, sir.


SEN MCCAIN: So that means to you that in what period of time, if these inspections cease, that Saddam Hussein will have that nuclear capability?

MR. RITTER: It's a question of how he chooses to acquire enriched uranium, either through indigenous enrichment or through procurement from abroad. If it's indigenous, it would take some time because the IAEA has effectively dismantled the internal enrichment -- but they have not dismantled the weaponization program per se.

SEN. MCCAIN: And the biological and chemical?

MR. RITTER: That's a much less time frame. I believe within a period of six months Iraq could reconstitute its biological-weapons and chemical-weapons capability.

SEN. MCCAIN: And the missiles to deliver them?

MR. RITTER: Within a period of six months. We know in fact that Iraq has a plan to have a breakout scenario for reconstitution of long-range ballistic missiles within six months of the "go" signal from the president of Iraq.

SEN. MCCAIN: So it is your opinion that if these inspections are further emasculated, then within a six-month period of time, Saddam Hussein would have the capability to deliver a weapon of mass destruction?

MR. RITTER: Yes, sir.


SEN. MCCAIN: I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
http://www.ceip.org/Programs/npp/ritter.htm

As we know inspections ended and none were carried out until 2002.

No, that is a false analogy, and you defeat yourself with your own words. I ask you to stop making absolutist statements about thigs you cannot possibly know, you respond that I state it is 'unlikely' that Hussein would pass these weapons on to terrorists.

So, by your own words, I have not done even close to the same thing. This is not a problem with your opinion but your style, making universal absolutist statements about something you cannot possibly know is not only annoying and frustrating, but seriously diminishes ytour credibility.




See? "Certain passages that lend credibility ot the posibility..." Thats perfect, and well stated. It is vastly different from "The tapes will confirm that Hussein was passing weapons onto terrorists". I'm sure you can see that.





NO, thats not true at all.

Firstly, I am not 'selectively quoting' Ritter, NON of your quotes from him in ANY WAY contradict what I posted. Stop shifting the target. I am not claiming we had definitive proof all the weapons were destroyed, I am simply rebutting your assertions that: "Iraq never complied in any way with a single resolution" when in fact 90%-95% of their arsenal was confirmed as destroyed under the supervision of UN inspectors. You keep claiming that, but it is not the case.

Furthermore, you keep claiming 8500 liters of Anthrax, which is again not the case.

That number comes from the amount that Dr. Rihab Rashid Taha al-Azawi admits she grew over the course of her weapons program. It is in fact 8000 liters, not 8500, and that is before the inspections. Thus, from two sources we can conclude that MOST of that was destroyed.

-Firstly from Ritter's statements about "90-95% of Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical capabilities, and long-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons, had been verified as destroyed."

-Secondly, if thats not enough, we can go to the UN inspectors and their interviews with Dr Taha herself.

"On March 28, 2005, the Associated Press reported that Taha has explained the 1,800 gallon discrepancy between the amount of anthrax the UN knew she had manufactured, and the amount she admitted to destroying. The missing anthrax was one of the stated reasons for the Iraq war and was emphasized by then-U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell during his February 2003 speech to the Security Council. However, according to an Iraq Survey Group report published on October 6, 2004, Taha has told American investigators that she and her colleagues dumped the missing anthrax near the gates of one of Saddam's palaces in April 1991, but were afraid to admit to this for fear of incurring Saddam's wrath. The Iraqi biologists therefore told the UN weapons inspectors that the missing anthrax had never existed."

Assuming you choose not to believe Dr Taha about where it went, that still leaves 1,800 liters unaccounted for, not 8500 or 8000.

-Thirdly, that is 1800 liters of Antrhrax culture. You keep talking about 'enough to destroy the world 4 times over' or whatever, but that is weaponised anthrax, which has ben reduced to a weapon-usable powder form. 1 Liter of Anthrax culuter yields about 1 gram of weaponised anthrax powder.

Meaning assuming Dr. Taha lied, she had the capacity to produce about 18 kg of weaponised Anthrax, and THAT is what is unaccounted for.

To be sure, thats a LOT, and very evil stuff. But again, I am in this post not arguing your position, I am just correcting your rhetoric, bacuse a lot of your facts are in error.

By the way, that 18 kg is also quite a believable number, given that at the height of the cold war, the US kept stockpiled of about 900 kg of anthrax, while during WWII, Japan produced about 400 kg of anthrax during the entire war.

Your assertion that 'Iraq must have had 85000 liters of anthrax' (which you make based on nothing at all) would mean that Iraq, ravaged by war and no longer wealthy, secretly without anyone knowing, had an anthrax production facility larger than the US and the USSR had at the height of the cold war. Thats hardly plausible.




So you keep asserting, but as I remind you again, according to your own logic, previously we had a man who refused to use hypothetical WMD against the US even when given the perfect opportunity and motive and when he had nothing at all to lose.

Now, in your status quo, these potential 18 kg of anthrax, and whatever hypothetical WMD you think he had, have been smuggled out of the country to parts unknown, and again according to your logic, most likely into the hands of those who would use them against the US.

So, I'm sorry, HOW is the US much safer with him out of power again?

First of all you are incorrect. The ONLY reason any of Iraq’s WMD were discovered or destroyed was NOT due to their compliance but to the UN finding on its own the WMD or the proof it was manufactured. I dispute the 90-95% number and in fact dispute all of what Ritter said after he received the $400,000 from the Iraqi “business man” to do the “documentary on Iraq”.

Second Blix call the Anthrax "biological warfare agent" not simply the bacteria. This implies weaponized anthrax.




I disagree and here is the Blix statement to the UN that refutes this. In fact Blix thought it was MORE and obviously still there in 2002. Dr Taha was a liar – why would we believe her?

Blix to UN:
I turn to biological weapons. I mention the issue of anthrax to the council on previous occasions, and I come back to it as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.
Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction. [B]There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist.

Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was indeed destroyed in 1991.

And this does not count the “growth media” imported in 1995 capable of producing another 5,000 liters of Anthrax.
As I reported to the council on the 19th of December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as reported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999
In the letter of 24th of January this year to the president of the Security Council, Iraq's foreign minister stated that, I quote, "All imported quantities of growth media were declared." This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax.

In any case the “missing” anthrax or media are enough to kill millions of people and never accounted for.


I notice you quote one liners from Ritter but have no comment on his multi-page testimony before Congress in 1998 where he said Iraq had hidden the WMD and could reconstitute its WMD programs quickly. In fact Ritter tells us Iraq lied about just about everything including the “destruction” of WMD
Here:

SEN. WARNER: Had this cessation of inspections not happened, can you provide the committee -- committees with any estimate of how much longer your teams and others would have to do their work and the likelihood of what they might find?

MR. RITTER: Sir, that's a question that Iraq keeps posing to the Special Commission: how much longer will this go on? The fact of the matter is that since April 1991 under the direct orders and direction of the President of Iraq the government of Iraq has lied to the Special Commission about the totality of its holdings. We cannot conduct verification of Iraq's compliance with Security Council resolutions without an understanding of what there was to begin with. Iraq not only lied to us in April 1991. In the summer of 1991 they conducted what they call unilateral destruction: that is, they disposed of certain materials without the presence of weapons inspectors and then destroyed the records of this alleged destruction. They also diverted certain materials to the presidential security forces. This has confused an already confusing situation. We do not know the totality of what Iraq has. What we do know is that the declarations they have made to the Special Commission to date are false. And the explanations that they give to us about how they disposed of weapons are wrong. And therefore we know we have a job to do.

How much longer will it take? I can say this, and I'll echo the words of the executive chairman. If Iraq gave us today a full and final accounting of all of its weapons of mass destruction -- programs and retained weapons capabilities -- our job would be over very quickly. But because we don't have such an accounting, our job has become a mission of discovery. We must go forth and find these weapons that Iraq is hiding. And that could go on a very long time, especially given the level of Iraqi obstruction today.

Ritter on VX:
MR. RITTER: My understanding of the -- first of all, I'd need to make clear that the issue of the discovery of weaponized VX in Iraq was done by another team, a team that I was not directly associated with. I'm familiar with their work. It's a very important discovery. It's one that shows clearly that, A, Iraq has not disarmed, and they've lied across the board about not just VX, but once we get to the bottom of the VX issue, we'll find it exposes additional lies, which cause concern for a number weapons issues. When that issue became public in June of 1998, I believe that the administration was forced to endorse the findings that indeed there was weaponized VX in Iraq today, and as such, they expressed support for continued inspection operations in Iraq to disclose not only the VX but all aspects of Iraq's retained weapons capabilities.
And in 1998, today, I stand before you to say that, A, Iraq is not disarmed

So while you seem willing to believe the liars in Iraq the UN didn’t and I don’t. And I don’t need to use a WORD of testimony from Powell, Bush or anyone in the Administration – all I need and post is the testimony of the UN inspectors as or right after they did their jobs (not years later). Please sift through the testimony of any of them and show me conflicting evidence that your position is correct. Iraq did not disarm and there is no proof that the tons on VX, missiles, anthrax etc were ever destroyed.

You know, it seems no matter how many times I state this you still seem to ignore it. So, I will say it again. Stop changing the subject.

I am not trying to state Iraq NEVER had WMD, or that we have PROOF they were all destroyed. I am and have been doing only one thing in this thread, correcting all your factual mistakes, of which there are many.

You seem to think that when I point out a factual mistake, you can say 'Ah, but this other fact I will now throw out is correct!'. It may be, but that does not alter the fact that you continue to state erronious statements, not supported by the facts.




That of course is not true, it is blatantly and obviously not true. Every report on the inspections states it was the Iraqis doing the destroying. They volunteered and destroyed a huge proportion of their arsenal, 90% to 95%. Now you can (and have) claim they hid or kept some away from the inspectors, but wheither they did or not is outside the scope of this point, They destroyed, under UN supervision to be sure, 90% to 95% of their arsenal.



You dispute it. You give no alternative nimbers, no reason why you dispute it, no evidence or justification, you just say its wrong because Ted says it wrong. Forgive me if I give that NO weight whatsoever.

Then, you perform the usual tactic, don't like the message invent slander about the mesenger. Its becoming a common thread in your posts. Except in this case its a bit silly even for you, as you yourself have posted quotes from Ritter as recently as three posts ago, so how can you 'not trust him because he is corrupt' and then use him as a source yourself? Have some consistency.



Thats just plain wrong. Read up on the subject before making counterfactual assertions like that. the 8,000 liters is grown bacteria, which has to be weaponised. Thats why they refer to its volume in liters.

IF YOU WERE RIGHT (which you are obviously not) then assuming the same density as ater, that would mean Iraq had 8,000 kilograms of weaponised Anthrax powder, which is more than the USSR AND the USA produced in the entire cold war, together, by almost a factor of 10. Riiiiight.




Please, read the report before making statements like this. Obviously Blix believed her, as it is based on her testemony that Blax drew his estimates of Iraqi WMD capavbility. It is also based on her testemony that Powell made a speech, naming her, to the UN for the case for war. The US adminisytration and the UN Inspectors believe her, so forgive me if I take their word over yours.


However, since you saw fit to quote Blix for the purposes of this debate:



Thats your rebuttal? Him agreeing with me entirely?
'At least some of it was retained over the declared destruction date'. Yes, it turns out around 1800 liters was unaccounted for, as I stated earlier. Why did you post this when it does not in any way disagree with what I said?





Yes well, grown anthrax is one thing, thats bad and it can with time and technology be weaponised.

But growth medium? Do you even know what that is?

There is actually no such thing as anthrax-specific growth medium, there is biological growth medium, on which just about any spores can be grown. It is some organic gel, yeast and sugar, and it exists in ever hospital and biological research facility on earth.

Now obviously, most of these hospitals have a few hundred lites as most, no more being necessary, and the presence of so MUCH growth medium is highly suspicious, no question, But lets be aware of exactly what it is we are talking about here. Not a bioweapon, but some yeast and gel.





Yes, you are correct. Thats because I was not trying to prove Iraq had no WMD, I was simply correcting your constant errors of fact. Your bringing up OTHER information about Iraq WMD in no way alters any of that.





The evidence is not conflicting, it is all in line, you just keep misquoting it and misrepresenting it.

I never claimed that there was proof that Iraq destroyed all of its weapons, not once. What I DID state was that an assortment of your claims are simply factually incorrect, such as your claim that Iraq never once tried to adhere to a single resolution, or that Iraq had enough anthrax to kill the world four times over... There is indeed no proof all the weapons were destroyed. There is proof that 90% to 95% of it was. What we are talking about is the remainder. Iraq says they unilaterally destroyed it prior to inspections, and other amounts were destroyed by bombing in Gulf War 1.0. You do not believe them, and thats entirely your right.

Just stick to the facts, you get WAY too lost in rhetoric.

WRONG. The UN required Iraq to destroy weapons they found so of course they did it. What I said ,if you read above, is that Iraq never, ever complied with the Resolution by bringing out the WMD for UN supervised destruction by Iraq. In 1991 Iraq said it had nothing the UN then found all kinds of things and Iraq destroyed them under UN supervision.

They also “claim” they destroyed the tons of VX and anthrax, missiles, etc that is the subject of UN 1441. No proof was ever brought forward and no UN inspector believed the claim. No Blix, or Ritter or Butler. These TONS are still missing and I have no clue what you means by 95%. Please post something from telling us what this is.



Come on please sir. I have POSTED lots of numbers from Blix, Butler and Ritter – they discuss first their disbelief in what Saddam said and give specifics – like TONS of weaponized VX. Want to dispute this? Or tell me why I should feel safer that Iraq gave no proof of its destruction? Please comment of statements by Ritter and Blix specifically.





You are quite wrong. Russia for example produced TONS of weaponized anthrax. Us stopped production in 1972 – Russia signed treaty and increased production.

BACKGROUND - What nations or groups have the capacity to produce chemical and biological agent such as the antrax mailed earlier this year in the U.S.? The list of potential sources includes Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Russia and the United States. Iraq has been the major focus of attention. Although inspectors destroyed a number of Iraq’s biological weapons facilities in the 1990s, Iraq still has 80 biological institutes that could easily be converted into bioweapons facilities. . At its height, the Soviet program could produce 4,500 metric tons of anthrax per yearhttp://wwwc.house.gov/international_relations/107/news1204.htm


MOSCOW — From St. Petersburg in the north to the steppes of Kazakstan, from small towns near Moscow to the Ural Mountains and a barren island in the Aral Sea — the old Soviet Union produced hundreds of tons of anthrax at its sprawling biological weapons facilities. The Soviet andthen Russian biological warfare program was so vast that it employed up to 70,000 people by the time of its official termination. Among their achievements was developing anthrax said to be resistant to antibiotics.

A U.S. intelligence report written in 1994 said Russia might have supplied biological warfare technology to North Korea and Iraq, suspected of having stockpiled thousands of gallons of anthrax.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,36578,00.html


http://www.slic2.wsu.edu:82/hurlbert/micro...ns.html#anthrax

While Mikhail Gorbachev was warming ties with the West, intelligence evidence was mounting in Washington that the Soviet Union, contrary to its treaty pledges, was producing tons of deadly germs for weapons that the world had banned. The stockpile had to be destroyed in case the United States and Britain demanded an inspection, Russian scientists close to the program said. Vozrozhdeniye Island was a natural choice. Until the military left here for good in 1992, Renaissance Island, as it translates from the Russian, had been the Soviet Union's major open-air testing site. Today, Renaissance Island, which the former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan now share, is the world's largest anthrax burial ground

Anthrax, in fact, is readily available, and someone who does their research can easily mass produce and distribute it in the manner in which they have done. One of the places where anthrax is readily available is Russia, which admittedly had one of the largest bioterrorism systems in the world, and was especially famous for its weapons-grade anthrax, which was easily produced, stored, and distributed.
http://www.liesexposed.net/nfp/issue0111/bio.htm





Can you document this? Blix said nothing about this and you conveniently left out his quote that the “growth media (and I know what it is) could produce 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax and Iraq had the technology to weaponized same.





You insist on saying 90% to 95% with nothing to back it up and no definition of what that means. Blix was looking for TONS of weaponized VX as I posted. Take that statement and please tell me how you seem by magic to discount it. Please give back up links.
Thanks

Iraq certainly never pretended they had no WMD at all after the war, thats just fiction. They destroyed missiles, chemical weapons, delivery systems and production facilities under UN supervision. They may not have destroyed them all, I certainly cannot prove they did, but it is insanity to propose, as you do, that they NEVER tried to comply with a single resolution.




Ah Ted, I'm afraid you are slipping. Not only did I already post a quote of Ritter making the 90% to 95% comment, but you have already commented on it, pretending ritter was bought off or some such tripe. Given that I posted the quote, AND YOU RESPONDED TO IT in this very thread, is it not now a bit silly to pretend: "I have no idea what you mean by 95%"?




There you go again, changing the topic. When caught out on one thing, arguing another. What I said I gave no weight to was you 'not believing' Ritter's comment of 90-95%. You gace no justification or reason or contrary numbers, just "Ted says so!" And when I called you on that, you pretend to answer another question: "I posted numbers about WMD Blix did not think were destroyed!"

yes you did, and I never disputed that. My problem was you selectively believing some statements from these people, and not others when it suits you.




Well actually, the US has admitted it did not stop production in 1972 either, they kept going for about a decade longer, but thats neither here nor there.


I may have underestimated the production of bilogical weapons during the cold war, my bad I shall have to go and find the source where I got my numbers on Soviet production from, I may have misread.

None of which, of couurse, changes the issue of what Iraq might have had, and how much. We are still talking about the potential of upto 18 kg of anthrax, potentially unaccounted for.




AGAIN, I already did, and you already commented on it, saying that the Iraqi doctor was lyting. Whats going on with you here Ted?

No, I did not ignore it, I commented on what 'growth media' was, and saying it is a bit of a stretch to say it is anything other than yeast gel and sugar.

Interestingly though, by requoting this, you apparently NOW aknowledge the difference between liters of anthrax bacterium, and the weaponised powder of the same, which you did not earlier. A bad day for your consistency it would seem...





I do not discount it, I never did. I already cited the percentage source, and it has already ben discussed, now pretending you know nothing about it is totally disingenuous. Not that this is terribly surprising...

I guess we have nothing more to discuss. I posted Testimony from Butler, Blix, and even Ritter and you come back with a one liner from Ritter? You cannot even define what this means? How would he know? He was in charge of uncovering Iraqi concealed WMD and as he said in his testimony, which I posted, he felt they retained the WMD.

Why WADR would this one liner from Ritter, which strongly conflicts with his sworn testimony to Congress make me feel safe? Please post his statement. How about corroboration. Got any??

OK Ted, here we go.

Firstly, yes you posted snippets from Blix, Butler and Ritter, and none of them contradict Ritter's statement about the destruction of 90% to 95% destroyed. You first accepted that statement, and spuriously claimed he was corrupt, and now have apparently changed your mind or forgotten.


But, your personal contradictions aside, lets look at reality shall we?

The Bush Jr. regime sent inspectors into Iraq after the invasion, Their job was to find evidence of WMD and report back. This is the most unfettered access the US have ever had, as they were in control of the country.

In September 2004, they released a report detailing their findings: the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction.


The report is quite clear. The US inspectors determined that Iraq had no WMD, that their chemical and biological stocks had been destroyed, and all manufacture had stopped in 1995-1996.

From the executive summary:
"It now appears clear that Saddam, despite internal reluctance, particularly on the part of the head of Iraq’s military industries, Husayn Kamil, resolved to eliminate the existing stocks of WMD weapons during the course of the summer of 1991."

From the section on Biological weapons:
"UNSCR 687, approved on 3 April 1991, required Iraq to disclose fully its weapons’ programs and stockpiles, yet the former Regime decided later that month only to declare partially their programs and weapons.

An IAEA inspection in late June 1991 triggered Iraq’s decision unilaterally to destroy the undeclared weapons that had been concealed from the UN, according to multiple senior Iraqi officials.

ISG’s investigation found no evidence that Iraq continued to hide BW weapons after the unilateral destruction of 1991 was complete, and ISG judges that most of the documents and materials hidden by the Special Republican Guard from 1991 until 1995 were indeed surrendered to the UN."


One or two dual purpose plants were kept in order, in the hopes of restarting them once sanctions had been lifted, in particular the A Hakam plant. However, this continued only until 1995, when the pace of sanctions and threat of action convinced Hussein to abandon even this plant.

"The Al Hakam facility was destroyed by the Iraqis under UNSCOM supervision in 1996 because of the discovery of the key role it played in the Iraqi BW program."



The US administration's report CATEGOICALLY states that there was no biological weapon production after 1996. It found NO evidence of movement of stocks to other countries.

You can (and REALLY should) read the report here:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_20...hap6.html#sect4


Here is a sample of the reporting on the report, which also hits some of the highlights:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...5-2004Oct6.html

Even right-wing central, FOXNews reported that there were no WMD in Iraq, and that production had been shut down years before the war.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html



Oh, but in case you choose 'not to believe' the US government on this issue, surely this was not the ONLY research done on Iraqi WMDs after the war?

You are correct, the Carnegie Endowment, publisher of 'Foreign Affairs' has its own large scale in epth research project, conducted with the co-operation of the US Government. ITS report, submitted in January 2004, can (And REALLY should) be read here:

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publicati...g=zgp&proj=znpp


Its findings agree entirely with the Special Advisor to the Director of the CIA report above, even though it was actually released earlier. From the executive summary:

"It is unlikely that Iraq could have destroyed, hidden, or sent out of the
country the hundreds of tons of chemical and biological weapons,
dozens of Scud missiles and facilities engaged in the ongoing production
of chemical and biological weapons that officials claimed
were present without the United States detecting some sign of this activity
before, during, or after the major combat period of the war."


"There was and is no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between
Saddam’s government and Al Qaeda. There was no evidence to support the claim that Iraq would have transferred WMD to Al Qaeda and much evidence to counter it.

The notion that any government would give its principal security assets to
people it could not control in order to achieve its own political aims is
highly dubious."


"The UN inspection process appears to have been much more successful than
recognized before the war. Nine months of exhaustive searches by the U.S.
and coalition forces suggest that inspectors were actually in the process of fi nding
what was there. Thus, the choice was never between war and doing nothing about
Iraq’s WMD."



But wait! There's more!

Faced with these realities, the US looked to its own pockets to see why they had been so wrong. In April 2005, the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction returned its analysis on the lead up to war: It determined: "the intelligence community was "dead wrong" in its assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities before the U.S. invasion."

Its scating report about how the US had been entirely mistaken in its pre-war opinions about Iraq WMD capacity and stockpiles was over 700 pages long, and very clear.

Before you go of about how they must have been lying or how partisan it must have been, the Commission was bipartisan, and Bush Jr 's comment on the report was to praise the commission for an unvarnished look at our intelligence community.

You can (and REALLY should) read about the Commission report here:

http://www.wmd.gov/about.html

And reporting on it here:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/03/31/int...port/index.html



But surely there is some truth to the Iraq-Al Qaida links, right?

NOPE. The Carnegie report confirmed there was NO EVIDENCE of Iraq al Qaida ties, but in case that is not enough for you, in 2004 the CIA produced its own post war report, admitting its error and stating there was NO evidence of Iraq/ Al Qaida ties.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6189795/

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/sto...d=144396&page=1



So, Ted...

I'm sorry, what were you saying about the certainty of their being WMDs in Iraq?

If you truly believe that, then I am afraid you are alone in that belief. The CIA disagrees, the Bush Administration disagrees, M16 disagrees, the Carnegie foundation disagrees, even Republicans in the White house disagree. In fact according to House Republicans, they now ADMIT there were no WMD in Iraq, but everybody thought so at the time:


"I really don't think (the CIS report) changes anything," Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan said. "Everybody made the wrong assumption (about the WMD threat)."



It must be awful lonely there for you with those beliefs. But please, if you wish to keep believing in the face of overwhelming evidence and abandonment by those who used to think the way you do... well I suppose that’s your right...

You quote parts of the ISG report and leave out other key parts – such as:

Iraq would have faced great difficulty in re-establishing an effective BW agent production capability. Nevertheless, after 1996 Iraq still had a significant dual-use capability—some declared—readily useful for BW if the Regime chose to use it to pursue a BW program. Moreover, Iraq still possessed its most important BW asset, the scientific know-how of its BW cadre.Depending on its scale, Iraq could have re-established an elementary BW program within a few weeks to a few months of a decision to do so

ISG judges that in 1991 and 1992, Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of BW weapons and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent. However ISG lacks evidence to document complete destruction. Iraq retained some BW-related seed stocks until their discovery after Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).


If you read carefully here what you see is an opinion by the ISG of WMD stockpiles. The head of the group in an interview on CNN said the Iraqi officials questioned were VERY reluctant to discuss anything that could implicate themselves with WMD principally because 5,000 people were murdered with WMD in Iraq and the World Court would love to find those involved and jail them for life.

As far as US statements – how could anyone know? The CIA, UN and all major Intel agencies thought they were there right up to the day of the invasion. Certainly Blix and before him Butler and Ritter never believed Iraq destroyed the WMD. The question is still very much open and IMO will be resolved.

See this link.

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

Over an above all of this is the repeated statements by Ritter, ISG etc that Iraq could and would reconstitute its WMD programs and stockpiles very quickly after sanctions were dropped. This includes nuclear. Iraq under Saddam would have been a serious threat to the region within a year – or less.

Firstly, you are cherry picking again Ted, and obviously so. Firstly, yes the nation maintained the scientific knowhow to create biological weapons. So, interestingly, does every single nation on earth which has at least one university with one chemistry department. So, you blame them for being educated?

The report also says that though Hussein spoke of the possibility to rebuilding WMD at some future date, there was NO plan in place and no mechanism to do so, nor did this go beyond his off-hand opinion.



This is even worse, presenting a factoid quote from 1991 as if it was final, then NOT quoting how he let the entire biowar program disintigrate in 1995-1996, and destroyed the remaining factories.




Oh Come ON TED! Your desperation is showing here.

Firstly, read the report, it is not just some guy's opinion, it is a massive multi-year search through the nation, records and archives of Iraq, interviewing anyone who had anything to do with the project, full and unfettered access, and these are the conclusions they made. You can't ignore it, you can't petend it never happened. They are the same conclusions reached by the Carnegie foundation, which did its research with the full assistance of the US government.

The Bush administration has not challenged the results, House Republicans and FoxNews accept them. So obviously you simply REFUSE to accept fact because it contradicts your opinion.


Now you return to the hoary old argument, the same the white house made: "Well the democrats thought so too!" Well, maybe they did, and maybe they should have known better, who knows, that is an argument for a different thread. The isue of the day is not what people 'thought', but what WAS, and that has been demonstrated clearly to be, no WMD in Iraq.

And finally you have the audacity to throw Ritter and Blix out again. Ritter, who confirmed 90% to 95% destruction of the Iraq WMD arsenal, and NO EVIDENCE FOUND of the existence of the other 5%, while Blix CONSTANTLY told people that the fact that some items remained unaccounted for does NOT mean they existed, and fought tooth and nail AGAINST the invasion of Iraq so precipitously.

This is the 'evidence' you throw out to oppose the CIS report, and the Carnegie report, both accepted by the Bush Government? The testemony of two people against the war, whose opinions do NOT match your selective quoting and misquoting?




Nope. Only if you choose to ignore the evidence entirely. The Iraqi nuclear program was always shadow and smoke, there was no real threat or substance to it, thats why the administration dropped it utterly and focussed on biological weapons. The CIA report goes into some detail about how primitive the Iraq nuclear 'threat' was. Nothing there at all.

With regards to biological eapons, they had the expertise (so does the rest of the planet) and Hussein runiating about the possibility, but no plan, no operation in motion, no demonstrated specific intent.

So whats left? Iraq had no WMD, they had destroyed their capacity and their stockpiles, and they had no specific plan to rebuild them whatsoever.



But yes, I will admit that Hussein did talk about the possibility of rebilding them, although issued no orders and laid no plans towards this end. Thats what you are left with Ted.

And, as an aside, I notice you quietly ignored the reports findings about the unlikelyness, and unreasonableness of shipping weapons to Syria, Iraq's enemy. I notice you also gave up on your whole concept of 85000 liters, and wheither they were weaponised or not, as the reports (both of them) proved you wrong on both those counts. Seems you have been making a LOT of factual mistakes throught this thread... Probably best to just drop them as you did, and hope nobody notices.

Well WADR I disagree strongly. In fact the ISG report specifiacally says this was part of Saddam’s “strategic Intent”.

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.•

Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam’s belief in the value of WMD. In Saddam’s view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing the Shi’a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fire.

• The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.



AGAIN – we were not looking for factories but the things they produced. And Iraq admitted to having produced. That was the subject of the statements by Blix and others. The “appears” to have destroyed is far from proof.






20/20 hindsight is wonderful but come on please – this is after the fact. How many times do I have to quote the intel in 2002 for you to believe the world thought Saddam had WMD. And you know why the White House did not argue with the people who said after the fact that he may not have had WMD. You said it yourself. What is worse WMD not there or WMD moved out of the country?


Iraq was a major threat to the region and US/US interests. Nothing in ISG disputes that. The Dems voted for war based on the intel available at the time.

Not according to the CIA Ted, not according to the Carnegie report. They have presented their results, and the US administration and the republican party, who has a lot more at stake here than you do, have accepted it. Even FOXNews accepted it. But not Ted...




OH MY GOD, I cannot believe how frustrating this universal tactic of yours is. AGAIN you change the issue, but THIS time, you even quoted me on topic making it clear, and THEN changed the ISSUE! I mean you could not possibly have made that tactic more obvious than right here.

I mean look at what I posted!
"Well, maybe they did, and maybe they should have known better, who knows, that is an argument for a different thread. The issue of the day is not what people 'thought', but what WAS"

Then, RIGHT AFTERWARDS< after my quote cited by you, you say:
"How many times do I have to quote the intel in 2002 for you to believe the world thought Saddam had WMD."

I don't even need to say anymore, I CLEARLY laid out the point, and as usual because you could not defeat it, you shifted the topic. Normally though, to be fair, you are not this blatant about it... Thank you or providing a perfect case study.


And as for your final desperate attempt to save your argument, now you claim the CIA report is wrong, the Carnegie foundation is Wrong, and the President and house republicans have only accepted this because 'Ted's truth' is less pleasant for them? Come on Ted. Rather than asking for evidence of this (as you never give any) can you even explain how this makes sense? Every report post war unanimously says one thing (Except for Ted!) but the white House (who co-operated with the researchers writing these reports) somehow secretly knows better and is not contradictimg them because they might LOOK BAD?


Leaving aside for a moment you have not challenged or demonstrated how the CIA report is wrong AT ALL, Leaving aside for the moment you have not challenged or demonstrated how the Carnegie report is wrong AT ALL, do you have any reason at all for this random guess, any evidence, or are you just coming up with anything to try and avoid admitting you were wrong? To be completely fair, I do understand what an ego-brusing thing that must be for a man like you...



EVERYTHING disputes that. They may have mistakenly appeared to be a threat, as I said the veracity of that is a topic for another thread, but in reality they were not. THAT is the clear answer of both these reports. Ted's unsubstantiated opinion just doesn't measure up for much against those.

Vermillion
And as for your final desperate attempt to save your argument, now you claim the CIA report is wrong, the Carnegie foundation is Wrong,

As usual you mix up you time line. If you are insinuating that BEFORE we went to war the CIA (or anyone else for that matter) was sure Iraq had no WMD them you are clearly delusional. How for instance could anyone convince our Congress to go to war because Iraq would not bring out it’s WMD if they knew they were destroyed? In any case here is the CIA repor fron Oct. 2002 that demonstrates my point. Feel free to post something from the CIA dated BEFORE the WAR that makes your point.


Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs
October 2002

Key Judgments

Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs
Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.

Baghdad hides large portions of Iraq's WMD efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information.

Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.
• Iraq largely has rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production.
• Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.
• Although Saddam probably does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them.
How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.
• If Baghdad acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year. Baghdad has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX. Its capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections and is probably more limited now than it was at the time of the Gulf war, although VX production and agent storage life probably have been improved.
• Saddam probably has stocked a few hundred metric tons of CW agents.
• The Iraqis have experience in manufacturing CW bombs, artillery rockets, and projectiles, and probably possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads, including for a limited number of covertly stored, extended-range Scuds.

Dear God almighty, you did it again.

I am staggered Ted, this is three posts in a row I have made a crystal clear statement of fact, and thre posts in a row you have deliberatly misinterpreted it or just changed to topic, I don't know which.

I even made fun of you for doing it in my last post, and here you go and do exactly the same thing again. What more am I supposed to do? How much clearer can I make it?

I will Re-RE-quote myself, as I did last post, hopefully THIS TIME you will get it.

""Well the democrats thought so too!" Well, maybe they did, and maybe they should have known better, who knows, that is an argument for a different thread. The isue of the day is not what people 'thought', but what WAS, and that has been demonstrated clearly to be, no WMD in Iraq."


No I have no proof the CIA knew there were no WMD before the war, I have never suggested such a thing, and that has never been even close to the topic of debate. What you have been arguing (why do I need to remind you of this) is that there were WMD in Iraq, and I have shown that there were none. I don't care what people 'thought', thats NOT WHAT THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT. I have said this again and again and again... PLEASE pay CAREFUL attention this time before responding...

According to every post-war report performed, including the Carnegie report the white house co-operated with, and the CIA report the White house agreed with, there were no WMD in Iraq, and Iraq was not a clear and present threat to the US.

Before the war people may have thought otherwise, but that does not alter the facts.

And no evidence found is NOT evidence that Iraq did not have WMD. Yes Blix was against invading but while he was inspecting he had numerous un answered questions about Iraq’s “missing” WMD. He is the authority. The quantities he quoted are the definitive quantities and no one has proved they were destroyed.

And you continue to quote the Ritter 90-95% without giving me a link and you systematically ignore everything else the man said to sworn testimony in 1998.

So lets make this simple. Indulge me please. Give me a link to the Ritter comment and its context and then tell me why this negates all his other testimony.

Thank you

Ted, what are you doing? After all this, after deliberatly misconstruing post after post of mine, your reply is an incorrect comment on of one line from a post of mine about 4 posts ago, ignoring everything since?

I must agree with Cub Jockey in the other thread. If you are not even going to put the time o effort in to read peoples posts before sounding off, why do you even come here?


However, in the spirit of debate, I shall deal with your one comment below...



Thats crazy, not even RITTER maintains that the quantities he quoted are the definitive quantities. he stated many times this was 'potential' weapons, that they had no proof ever existed, and the fact that they had not been found was not evidence they ever existed in the first place. Blix agreed entirely.

(Interview with Scott Ritter, October 2005)
"we knew that while we couldn't account for everything that the Iraqis said they had destroyed, we could only account for ninety to ninety-five percent, we knew that: (a) we had no evidence of a retained capability and, (b ) no evidence that Iraq was reconstituting. And furthermore, the C.I.A. knew this. The British intelligence knew this; Israeli intelligence knew this; German intelligence. The whole world knew this. They weren't going to say that Iraq was disarmed, because nobody could say that. But they definitely knew that the Iraqi capability regarding W.M.D. had been reduced to as near to zero as you could bring it and that Iraq represented a threat to no one when it came to weapons of mass destruction. "


SECONDLY, the CIA stated quite clearly in the report I cited to you that they were convinced there were no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, and they had not been smuggled out of the country. The Carnegie report agrees. So does the republican party and the White House. You still refuse to address this.



It doesn't negate his other testemony. It doesn't even contradict it. You gave two quotes from Ritter way back in the day, neither of which contradicts his 90% to 95% estimate.

Yes and this somehow means that the ADMISSIONS made by Iraq about these very quantities is wrong? Yes We had no solid proof of the quantities produced but the numbers were based on what? How about documentation of precursorers, etc. It seems the eveidence was strong enough that after being presented with it Iraq admitted it!!! Why in hell would Iraq admit to having WMD it never produced?
I can’t wait for your answer.


(