Article

2003-06-01 Britain

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2003-06-01 01:58 am|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 It doesn't matter if the weapons were destroyed just before the war or not(why all the obstruction of the inspectors if they didn't have them).There were plenty of other reasons!
Anybody who doubts he had them is a fool!

Posted by Raptor 2003-06-01 06:52:26|| 2003-06-01 06:52:26|| Front Page Top

#2 I agree that Sammy had them, and can't believe that he got rid of them all. At this point I'm going with the Bush strategy to pull the war opponents into the "you lied to us about the WMD" argument at the top of their lungs, then produce the evidence. Dr Germ should be a show and tell on her own. Probably no nukes, but real chem and bio weapons will be found

Posted by Frank G 2003-06-01 07:32:08|| 2003-06-01 07:32:08|| Front Page Top

#3 It's pretty damned hard to dispute- as some seem to be trying to do- that Saddam ever had WMD; after all, he did use them, during the Iran/Iraq war and later on his own Kurdish population. So those who parrot the "Bush and Blair lied to us" argument are forgetting- or deliberately ignoring- the blatantly obvious. They're also ignoring the fact that Bill Clinton also cited Saddam's WMD in justifying his own policy of regime change in Iraq (they do remember, don't they, that was Clinton's policy? Clinton just didn't act on it, while Bush did), so if they want to accuse Bush of lying they also have to figure out how to accuse their beloved Slick Willie of lying, too.

"Did Saddam have WMD?" is not the question. The question is, "What happened to Saddam's WMD?" Getting an answer is important, but not for the purpose of knowing whether Bush was lying; we all know perfectly well, or ought to, that he wasn't.

Posted by Dave D. 2003-06-01 10:14:03|| 2003-06-01 10:14:03|| Front Page Top

#4 I bet the weapons are buried--probably somewhere outside Damascus, along with the Iraqi treasury! The latter awaiting transfer to the secretive Swiss banks/gnomes/Nazi collaborators "Vhat gold? Ve know nothink"

Posted by Not Mike Moore 2003-06-01 12:18:24|| 2003-06-01 12:18:24|| Front Page Top

#5 The debate has now gone from antiquities thefts, not caring about mass graves, etc to WMD. I'm concerned too that they have not been found yet, although, what about the materials found in the river at the beginning of the war? All the barrels of questionable materials? The two bio labs?

In any case, Clinton and UN said he had them when inspectors left in 98; there were no documents stating WMD had been disposed of in the meantime; Saddam had handlers stuck to Inspectors prior to war. So what are we to think? He doesn't have them? Dr Khidir Hamza said they were there and that's good enough for me. They've been moved, destroyed, extra buried, whatever. The debate for this week is WMD; in a fortnight, who knows?

Posted by Michael 2003-06-01 21:17:22|| 2003-06-01 21:17:22|| Front Page Top

#6 Ugly, real ugly. Assuming that there *is* highly sensitive, close-hold information concerning the existence of WMD that hasn't been released, chances are it's so tightly held that quite a few of the people you'd normally have to vet such information haven't seen it, which means that parts of it may not quite have the bang apparently promised.

OTOH, it could be that the substance of the various arguments made were verified on many points, and that, in their eagerness to skewer their political opponents, certain officials are choosing to ignore information they already possess, in which case, bringing it to their attention won't shut them up.

Posted by Ray 2003-06-01 23:02:46|| [campuscgi.princeton.edu/~ray/weblog/] 2003-06-01 23:02:46|| Front Page Top

#7 why would sammy play the games he did if Iraq didnt have weapons - one theory Ive heard, based on what we're learning about the kind of state this was, is that sammy THOUGHT he had the weapons - his scientists werent (for technical reasons) able to maintain a weapons inventory - and they were scared to let the higher ups know that they had failed - seeing that the consequnces were likely death - and so they fudged it. Not sure if that really makes any sense (how hard would it really have been for them to make and maintain VX?) but its an interesting thought, nonetheless.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-06-02 08:00:13|| 2003-06-02 08:00:13|| Front Page Top

#8 Agents such as VX are binary agents:2seperate chemicals that by themselves are relativlyharmless,but when combined are deadly.Maintaingy them is not difficult as long as the components are seperate.

ex.chlorine+amonia=chlorine gas

Posted by Raptor 2003-06-03 08:24:56|| 2003-06-03 08:24:56|| Front Page Top

08:24 Raptor
08:13 Raptor
08:07 liberalhawk
08:03 liberalhawk
08:00 liberalhawk
07:31 Raptor
06:03 Ptah
06:02 Ptah
23:35 Anonymous Troll
23:05 Ray
23:02 Ray
22:52 AWW
22:05 Anonymous Troll
21:52 Aris Katsaris
21:48 dickweed
21:26 Ed Becerra
21:26 TPF
21:18 Barbara Skolaut
21:17 Michael
21:11 DANEgerus
19:15 Fred
17:30 Nick
16:49 Brian
16:40 Dave D.