Weapons of Mass destruction found.

[SmokeRngs]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs
You do realize that everything you posted there validates and strengthens my argument don't you? It does not say that it no longer exists, it does say it's unaccounted for. Unaccounted for means it would still exist, just has not been found.

I must thank you for proving yourself wrong.

Wow. You prove yourself to be more ignorant with each new post! Amazing!

How in *the* hell does unaccounted for equate to existing? Hmmm?? Care to define the [ill]logic behind that thought process?

Guess you're having to burn that last brain cell trying to come up with another lame excuse.

It would be nice if you would refrain from insults, it only weakens your already weak arguments.

For your information, I do not spend all my time on here. I do work and I do raise my child. I just happen to post and read here when I have the chance.

For your information, the fact that the weapons were known to exist and now are unaccounted for would mean they still do exist until there is proof that they were destoyed. Unaccounted for just means lost. I'm sorry if that is too much for you to comprehend.

I would like to know your exact definition is regarding the unaccounted for weapons. What does it mean when something is unaccounted for, not just the WMDs, but anything. If you want an example, what does it mean when your car keys are unaccounted for? I know my answer, and you already do also, but myself, and many others, would like to know yours.

 

[SmokeRngs]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs
You do realize that everything you posted there validates and strengthens my argument don't you? It does not say that it no longer exists, it does say it's unaccounted for. Unaccounted for means it would still exist, just has not been found.

I must thank you for proving yourself wrong.

Wow. You prove yourself to be more ignorant with each new post! Amazing!

How in *the* hell does unaccounted for equate to existing? Hmmm?? Care to define the [ill]logic behind that thought process?

Oh Looky, Bush is posting here now? Bush is that you?

Smokrngs

Appropriate name - Smokerings in the Dark, that's what Bush will be doing come November. :thumbsup:

Do you actually have something to contribute to the topic or the conversation or are you just going to troll?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs
You do realize that everything you posted there validates and strengthens my argument don't you? It does not say that it no longer exists, it does say it's unaccounted for. Unaccounted for means it would still exist, just has not been found.

I must thank you for proving yourself wrong.

Wow. You prove yourself to be more ignorant with each new post! Amazing!

How in *the* hell does unaccounted for equate to existing? Hmmm?? Care to define the [ill]logic behind that thought process?

Guess you're having to burn that last brain cell trying to come up with another lame excuse.

It would be nice if you would refrain from insults, it only weakens your already weak arguments.

For your information, I do not spend all my time on here. I do work and I do raise my child. I just happen to post and read here when I have the chance.

For your information, the fact that the weapons were known to exist and now are unaccounted for would mean they still do exist until there is proof that they were destoyed. Unaccounted for just means lost. I'm sorry if that is too much for you to comprehend.

I would like to know your exact definition is regarding the unaccounted for weapons. What does it mean when something is unaccounted for, not just the WMDs, but anything. If you want an example, what does it mean when your car keys are unaccounted for? I know my answer, and you already do also, but myself, and many others, would like to know yours.

Unaccounted for means the disposition of the WMDs is unknown. They may have been destroyed that may still exist.

That vague of a definition is in no way any sort of justification for a full-scale invasion.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Chadder007
Its on FoxNews right now ...breaking news.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

The incident occurred "a couple of days ago," he said.

Obviously this is nothing.

If it was big news, Bush would have flown there personally and gone, "SEE!! SEE!! I told you so!!"

And then threw it at a wedding party!! HES SO EVIL! :roll:

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: conjur
That's a big ASSumption.

I mean, come on, CkG! Bush and Rumsfeld knew Saddam had stockpiles and Rumsfeld even knew where they were.


Well....we're waiting!

He was wrong? You even been wrong? You know I have! Whole world had bad intel on this cause Saddam knew he didn't even really need the WMD's as long as someone thought he had them the effect was the same. Terror.

Hey! Another customer for the GOP Spinning Wheel of [Mis]Fortune!

Which is it? Did they have them or didn't they? A whole shell was found and here's "proof" he had them! Oh wait, Rumsfeld was wrong, Saddam *didn't* have them. Oh, but we have this WMD that was found. But, wait....

<dizzy>

Prove the unaccounted for WMDs were destroyed or disposed of. Until then, you have no argument about the WMDs.

Prove to ME that you have no WMD's yourself, you might have hidden them in China, prove you didn't.

How hard is it to prove a negative? Impossible, anyone in their right mind should know that.

Actually, I don't have to prove it. As has already been mentioned, I have never claimed to have WMDs, I have never used them, I have never tried to make them, I never had scientists working on them, I have never had a UN inspection team come into my house and find them. I have never even threatened the use of them.

Your argument has no merit. The above statements cannot be answered in the negative when talking about Saddam.

You people must have failed every class you have ever taken that had anything to do with logic, right?

Explain to me how you prove that you don't have something?

ok then :roll:

I'm calling This Liberal Sideshow what it is. Bullsh!t and name calling. Liberals never come up with a good idea they insist they are smarter and we should trust them since they call us retards and other names or just uneducated

Kilxx and Conjur since we are so dumb and failed all our classes can you enlighten us to where thes WMD's that were proven to be there that he already used went? Untill you bring that answer out your butt please excuse us while we laugh at you all.

Just answer the question what did Saddam do with his Real WMD's that have been proven that he had in the early 90's? Yes Proven. :roll:

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: EXman

ok then :roll:

I'm calling This Liberal Sideshow what it is. Bullsh!t and name calling. Liberals never come up with a good idea they insist they are smarter and we should trust them since they call us retards and other names or just uneducated

Kilxx and Conjur since we are so dumb and failed all our classes can you enlighten us to where thes WMD's that were proven to be there that he already used went? Untill you bring that answer out your butt please excuse us while we laugh at you all.

Just answer the question what did Saddam do with his Real WMD's that have been proven that he had in the early 90's? Yes Proven. :roll:

Hehe, you warmongers are the ones killing thousands of Iraqis and spending hundred billions of Tax dollar we paid. Maybe you are the ones that should be proving something?

 

[TravisT]

Originally posted by: conjur

Unaccounted for means the disposition of the WMDs is unknown. They may have been destroyed that may still exist.

That vague of a definition is in no way any sort of justification for a full-scale invasion.

conjur, just out of curiosity, had we known about Osama's plans of attacks, or had thought there was a significant chance that the 9/11 attacks would have occured, what would have been your suggestion on eliminating the threat?

And what would be the difference between the possible attacks of 9/11 and the possible attacks of Saddam's crew?

 

[Rio Rebel]

Let's wrap this all up:

"Tree-hugging liberal!"
"Closed-minded Nazi!"
"Fvck you!"
"Fvck you!"


There. That should just about do it. Can we move on, now?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TravisT

Originally posted by: conjur

Unaccounted for means the disposition of the WMDs is unknown. They may have been destroyed that may still exist.

That vague of a definition is in no way any sort of justification for a full-scale invasion.

conjur, just out of curiosity, had we known about Osama's plans of attacks, or had thought there was a significant chance that the 9/11 attacks would have occured, what would have been your suggestion on eliminating the threat?

And what would be the difference between the possible attacks of 9/11 and the possible attacks of Saddam's crew?

Saddam was not a threat...no way...no how. To even suggest that Saddam could have attacked the U.S. is utterly preposterous. He had no supporters other than ones facing the wrong end of a gun barrel in his hands.

As far as Al Qaeda:

We did have information that attacks were planned.
We had knowledge that known Al Qaeda terrorists were in the country.
We had knowledge they were taking lessons on how to fly jetliners already in flight.
We knew Al Qaeda was being harbored in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda was behind the 1993 WTC attack, the 1998 embassy attacks, the 2000 USS Cole attack, and the attempted Millennium attacks. We certainly had justification for a pre-emptive strike against Afghanistan. The trouble is that information wasn't being shared properly amongst the agencies and up their chains of command.

I've said it before and I'll say it again that I would have fully supported a pre-emptive strike against Afghanistan. It would have had the added benefit of toppling the Taliban, a group as insidious, if not moreso, as Saddam and under pressure from groups like R.A.W.A. to stop their torture and oppression of Afghanis, esp. women.

 

[SmokeRngs]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs
You do realize that everything you posted there validates and strengthens my argument don't you? It does not say that it no longer exists, it does say it's unaccounted for. Unaccounted for means it would still exist, just has not been found.

I must thank you for proving yourself wrong.

Wow. You prove yourself to be more ignorant with each new post! Amazing!

How in *the* hell does unaccounted for equate to existing? Hmmm?? Care to define the [ill]logic behind that thought process?

Guess you're having to burn that last brain cell trying to come up with another lame excuse.

It would be nice if you would refrain from insults, it only weakens your already weak arguments.

For your information, I do not spend all my time on here. I do work and I do raise my child. I just happen to post and read here when I have the chance.

For your information, the fact that the weapons were known to exist and now are unaccounted for would mean they still do exist until there is proof that they were destoyed. Unaccounted for just means lost. I'm sorry if that is too much for you to comprehend.

I would like to know your exact definition is regarding the unaccounted for weapons. What does it mean when something is unaccounted for, not just the WMDs, but anything. If you want an example, what does it mean when your car keys are unaccounted for? I know my answer, and you already do also, but myself, and many others, would like to know yours.

Unaccounted for means the disposition of the WMDs is unknown. They may have been destroyed that may still exist.

That vague of a definition is in no way any sort of justification for a full-scale invasion.

I have not been in the "justification for the war" part of this discussion, only relating my points in regards to WMDs, therefore, I will ignore the second point of your post.

The disposition of the WMDs is unknown, yet by your stance you are operating under the assumption that they have been destoyed. There is no actual proof that everything was destroyed and you admit this. You also admit that Saddam had large quantities of the WMDs left when inspectors were kicked out in 1998. They were also harassed and not allowed in many buildings and installations and were not allowed to speak to key personel privately, but that isn't completely relevant at this point. Several years later, those known quantities are no longer able to be found by inspectors, Saddam cannot/will not give their location and does not provide any proof that they were destroyed. You also admit that this is true.

Now, let's take a different approach similar to a mathematical equation.

Known quantities of WMDs from 1998 + No proof from Saddam that known quantities were destroyed in 2003 = Known quantities of WMDs still exist in 2003

While that is very simple it is still accurate. To invalidate that equation, you would need proof that the known quantities were destroyed.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: EXman
Kilxx and Conjur since we are so dumb and failed all our classes can you enlighten us to where thes WMD's that were proven to be there that he already used went? Untill you bring that answer out your butt please excuse us while we laugh at you all.

Just answer the question what did Saddam do with his Real WMD's that have been proven that he had in the early 90's? Yes Proven. :roll:

You just really don't like to read, do you?


UNMOVIC worked throughout the 90s to destroy and dismantle the WMDs and the programs to create them. And, here are David Kay's own words:

http://in.news.yahoo.com/040406/137/2ceq7.html

By the time he resigned in January this year Kay said he had come to believe Iraq did not possess any large stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons when the United States invaded.

"I believe they became incapable after 1998 of really producing a coherent program," he said. "By December I clearly had told everyone that, but it's not true in July."

Vanity Fair reported Kay said he was ready to quit in December but Tenet pleaded with him to stay on because it would look bad if he left early.

Your buddies Bush/Powell/Rumsfeld have stated they not only knew Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs but they knew where these WMDs were. So, I ask you again, where are they?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs
I have not been in the "justification for the war" part of this discussion, only relating my points in regards to WMDs, therefore, I will ignore the second point of your post.

The disposition of the WMDs is unknown, yet by your stance you are operating under the assumption that they have been destoyed. There is no actual proof that everything was destroyed and you admit this. You also admit that Saddam had large quantities of the WMDs left when inspectors were kicked out in 1998. They were also harassed and not allowed in many buildings and installations and were not allowed to speak to key personel privately, but that isn't completely relevant at this point. Several years later, those known quantities are no longer able to be found by inspectors, Saddam cannot/will not give their location and does not provide any proof that they were destroyed. You also admit that this is true.

Now, let's take a different approach similar to a mathematical equation.

Known quantities of WMDs from 1998 + No proof from Saddam that known quantities were destroyed in 2003 = Known quantities of WMDs still exist in 2003

While that is very simple it is still accurate. To invalidate that equation, you would need proof that the known quantities were destroyed.

Your math is flawed.

No proof from Saddam that they were destroyed <> WMDs still exist.

All it means is there's no proof they were destroyed. You are reading more into that than exists.


Example:

I have an apple on my desk.
You see the apple and ask me to throw it away.
You leave.
You come back and do not see the apple and do not see it in my garbage can.

Does that mean the apple still exists in my office??

No.

I could have thrown it away in the breakroom garbage can.
I could have eaten it.
I could have given it to someone else.

You don't know.

Now, are you going to beat me up because I cannot prove that I threw it away?

 

[SmokeRngs]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs
I have not been in the "justification for the war" part of this discussion, only relating my points in regards to WMDs, therefore, I will ignore the second point of your post.

The disposition of the WMDs is unknown, yet by your stance you are operating under the assumption that they have been destoyed. There is no actual proof that everything was destroyed and you admit this. You also admit that Saddam had large quantities of the WMDs left when inspectors were kicked out in 1998. They were also harassed and not allowed in many buildings and installations and were not allowed to speak to key personel privately, but that isn't completely relevant at this point. Several years later, those known quantities are no longer able to be found by inspectors, Saddam cannot/will not give their location and does not provide any proof that they were destroyed. You also admit that this is true.

Now, let's take a different approach similar to a mathematical equation.

Known quantities of WMDs from 1998 + No proof from Saddam that known quantities were destroyed in 2003 = Known quantities of WMDs still exist in 2003

While that is very simple it is still accurate. To invalidate that equation, you would need proof that the known quantities were destroyed.

Your math is flawed.

No proof from Saddam that they were destroyed <> WMDs still exist.

All it means is there's no proof they were destroyed. You are reading more into that than exists.


Example:

I have an apple on my desk.
You see the apple and ask me to throw it away.
You leave.
You come back and do not see the apple and do not see it in my garbage can.

Does that mean the apple still exists in my office??

No.

I could have thrown it away in the breakroom garbage can.
I could have eaten it.
I could have given it to someone else.

You don't know.

Now, are you going to beat me up because I cannot prove that I threw it away?

My math is not flawed, your example, however, is.

First off, it was not specified that it must be thrown in that specific trash can and you can take me to the trash can that it is in.
Unless you also eat the stem and seeds, the apple core will still be somewhere and you can show me where that is. Also, you can be forced to regurgitate and it can be determined whether you ate it. Doesn't really matter since you were told to throw it away and not eat it.
You can take me to the person that you gave the apple to and they can be questioned and it can be proven that it was given to them. Again, it really doesn't matter, you weren't supposed to give it away.

Unless you have proof of any of those, I have every reason to assume it wasn't thrown away.

Now, it is very unlikely that I would do any or all of those things since the apple generally is not considered a great threat to anyone other than those allergic to them and they would probably have to be forced to eat it to have anything happen to them since they were normally not eat an apple since they are allergic to them. WMDs on the other hand, are a different story. They are a great threat to just about everyone since most people have no immunity to their effects. There is a chance for great destruction and loss of life due to their use. Therefore, I definitely would go through the above mentioned steps to find out what happened to them. Also, no proof of their destruction but they are unaccounted for means they are still a great threat. They were known to exist on the physical plane of this world. Until proof is shown of their destruction, they still exist. It doesn't matter if they are buried in a sand dune, they still exist. It doesn't matter if they were given to someone else, they still exist.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs
Until proof is shown of their destruction, they still exist.

That is the crux of your fallacious argument. That is simply not true.

Ever heard of Schroedinger's Cat? That may be a more appropros analogy.

 

[TravisT]

conjur, i just wanted to point this out. You went from this:

Saddam was not a threat...no way...no how.

to this:

All it means is there's no proof they were destroyed.

So was he a threat or was he not? Obviously he would be if he had WMD's in his possession... no?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TravisT
conjur, i just wanted to point this out. You went from this:

Saddam was not a threat...no way...no how.

to this:

All it means is there's no proof they were destroyed.

So was he a threat or was he not? Obviously he would be if he had WMD's in his possession... no?

Not necessarily. When was the last time he had used WMDs? He had plenty of chances to use them against us during the 1991 Gulf War and afterward against the Kurdish and Shiite rebellions. I think Saddam toyed with the U.N. and use an appearance that his WMDs existed to somehow seem as if he held some high cards in his hands.

 

[katka]

Your math is flawed.

No proof from Saddam that they were destroyed <> WMDs still exist.

All it means is there's no proof they were destroyed. You are reading more into that than exists.


Example:

I have an apple on my desk.
You see the apple and ask me to throw it away.
You leave.
You come back and do not see the apple and do not see it in my garbage can.

Does that mean the apple still exists in my office??

No.

I could have thrown it away in the breakroom garbage can.
I could have eaten it.
I could have given it to someone else.

You don't know.

Now, are you going to beat me up because I cannot prove that I threw it away?

Your example is flawed. They didn't leave and come back. They got this "infomation" from a spy plane/satellite which means they didn't "leave". Those things can zero in and keep tracking. So they either failed to use the technology to its fullest potential or the photographed the trucks lied about their use and are now empty handed as a result.

This example should be :

There is something red and round on your desk.
I see it and don't reall know what it is but it must be an apple because that is the only thing that I can think of to cause you trouble and get into your office.
I accuse you of having an apple on your desk and ask you to remove it because it might bring worms to you office.
I call the apple police.
The apple police come looking for your apple and don't see any evidence of it.
I insist, take the law into my own hands and wreck your office.
I find a ball of red yarn but say that it must be there because it know it.
etc...

So they KNOWINGLY told a lie to gain the right to Iraq and its riches, even though if the lie was true it was someone elses responsibility (UN) to resolve the problem. Even if they had these WMD's it wasn't a threat to the US anyway.

 

[SmokeRngs]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TravisT
conjur, i just wanted to point this out. You went from this:

Saddam was not a threat...no way...no how.

to this:

All it means is there's no proof they were destroyed.

So was he a threat or was he not? Obviously he would be if he had WMD's in his possession... no?

Not necessarily. When was the last time he had used WMDs? He had plenty of chances to use them against us during the 1991 Gulf War and afterward against the Kurdish and Shiite rebellions. I think Saddam toyed with the U.N. and use an appearance that his WMDs existed to somehow seem as if he held some high cards in his hands.

Then why didn't he show his hand when his bluff was called?

Also, it wouldn't have been a complete bluff. He had them and everyone knew it.

You just shot yourself in the foot. You said he didn't use them in 1991 Gulf war, yet it was after that that UN inspectors came in and started destroying the WMDs. He obviously had them during the 1991 Gulf War.

 

[SmokeRngs]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs
Until proof is shown of their destruction, they still exist.

That is the crux of your fallacious argument. That is simply not true.

Ever heard of Schroedinger's Cat? That may be a more appropros analogy.

Actually, it's not a fallacious argument. Otherwise, I can assume that everything that I have ever known to exist is now gone because it is not in front of me where I can see it right now. That's not possible and it's not true. That is what you are basing your argument on.

 

[TravisT]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TravisT
conjur, i just wanted to point this out. You went from this:

Saddam was not a threat...no way...no how.

to this:

All it means is there's no proof they were destroyed.

So was he a threat or was he not? Obviously he would be if he had WMD's in his possession... no?

Not necessarily. When was the last time he had used WMDs? He had plenty of chances to use them against us during the 1991 Gulf War and afterward against the Kurdish and Shiite rebellions. I think Saddam toyed with the U.N. and use an appearance that his WMDs existed to somehow seem as if he held some high cards in his hands.

So Saddam was just playing around (toying) when he raped hundreds of innocent women as well?

I personally do feel as though Saddam had WMD's at one point in time in his posession or was extremely close to having them. In which, i do feel someone like him would be prone to using them on 'his enemies'.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs

Originally posted by: conjur
Not necessarily. When was the last time he had used WMDs? He had plenty of chances to use them against us during the 1991 Gulf War and afterward against the Kurdish and Shiite rebellions. I think Saddam toyed with the U.N. and use an appearance that his WMDs existed to somehow seem as if he held some high cards in his hands.

Then why didn't he show his hand when his bluff was called?

Maybe because he didn't want to? Maybe he didn't want Iraq nuked?

Also, it wouldn't have been a complete bluff. He had them and everyone knew it.

In 1991, yes.

You just shot yourself in the foot. You said he didn't use them in 1991 Gulf war, yet it was after that that UN inspectors came in and started destroying the WMDs. He obviously had them during the 1991 Gulf War.

Not in the least did I shoot myself in the foot. How did I? I never said he didn't have them in 1991 nor afterward. I've said he most likely didn't have them when we invaded in 2003. There is no proof despite the Bush administration claims they knew Saddam had WMDs and they knew where they were.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TravisT

Originally posted by: conjur
Not necessarily. When was the last time he had used WMDs? He had plenty of chances to use them against us during the 1991 Gulf War and afterward against the Kurdish and Shiite rebellions. I think Saddam toyed with the U.N. and use an appearance that his WMDs existed to somehow seem as if he held some high cards in his hands.

So Saddam was just playing around (toying) when he raped hundreds of innocent women as well?

Nice of you to smile about that aspect of his regime. :roll: But, let's stay on the topic of the WMDs, eh? I mean, that was the crux of the Bush decision to invade...the "fact" Saddam had stockpiles of them and Bush and Co. knew where they were.

I personally do feel as though Saddam had WMD's at one point in time in his posession or was extremely close to having them. In which, i do feel someone like him would be prone to using them on 'his enemies'.

In that respect, you may be right. But, did that justify an invasion of Iraq last year when containment was working rather well and there was virtually NO worldwide support for an invasion as Iraq hadn't attacked anyone nor shown signs of doing so?

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: EXman
Kilxx and Conjur since we are so dumb and failed all our classes can you enlighten us to where thes WMD's that were proven to be there that he already used went? Untill you bring that answer out your butt please excuse us while we laugh at you all.

Just answer the question what did Saddam do with his Real WMD's that have been proven that he had in the early 90's? Yes Proven. :roll:

You just really don't like to read, do you?


UNMOVIC worked throughout the 90s to destroy and dismantle the WMDs and the programs to create them. And, here are David Kay's own words:

http://in.news.yahoo.com/040406/137/2ceq7.html

By the time he resigned in January this year Kay said he had come to believe Iraq did not possess any large stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons when the United States invaded.

"I believe they became incapable after 1998 of really producing a coherent program," he said. "By December I clearly had told everyone that, but it's not true in July."

Vanity Fair reported Kay said he was ready to quit in December but Tenet pleaded with him to stay on because it would look bad if he left early.

Your buddies Bush/Powell/Rumsfeld have stated they not only knew Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs but they knew where these WMDs were. So, I ask you again, where are they?

Another BS post not answering the question just posing another one.

UNMOVIC worked throughout the 90s to destroy and dismantle the WMDs and the programs to create them. And, here are David Kay's own words:

http://in.news.yahoo.com/040406/137/2ceq7.html

you need to read the Whole thing! It never says all WMD's were destroyed EVER. It does not answer my question

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former U.S. weapons inspector David Kay said on Monday that he had not concluded by July 2003 that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction as reported by Vanity Fair magazine.

Kay told Reuters he was working on four hypotheses in July and did not conclude until later last year that Iraq probably did not have such weapons.

President George W. Bush cited the banned weapons as the main reason for taking the United States to war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq in March 2003.

In a lengthy report in its latest issue which goes on sale this week, Vanity Fair said that less than a month after arriving in Iraq as the CIA-appointed leader of the hunt for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, Kay said he sent an e-mail to CIA Director George Tenet saying "it looks as though they did not produce weapons." So they could be not producing but what about their older weapons

The magazine noted that the e-mail was sent in July, yet it would be months before the U.S. Congress and the public were told of Kay's conclusion.

Questioned about the report, Kay told Reuters in a telephone interview that in the e-mail to Tenet he was merely putting forward theories of why no weapons of mass destruction had been found.

At the time he said he believed the most probable explanation was that Iraq had dual-use facilities capable of being switched from producing commercial products to developing banned weapons quickly if needed.

"It wasn't a case of just suddenly realizing, it was a case of as early as July looking around for other explanations of the failure to find weapons," Kay said.

"It was beginning to more and more look like to me that the best theory that fit the facts was that they had not produced large amounts of weapons but had configured their program to surge and mobilize production as needed, on demand," he said.

"I did not tell him (Tenet) that I didn't believe there were weapons," Kay told Reuters.

Kay said he also considered other theories -- among them that the banned weapons had been moved to Syria or that they had been destroyed before the war or were so well-hidden that U.S. forces could not find them.

By the time he resigned in January this year Kay said he had come to believe Iraq did not possess any large stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons when the United States invaded.

"I believe they became incapable after 1998 of really producing a coherent program," he said. "By December I clearly had told everyone that, but it's not true in July."

Vanity Fair reported Kay said he was ready to quit in December but Tenet pleaded with him to stay on because it would look bad if he left early.

Kay told the magazine that Tenet said, "If you resign now it will appear like we don't know what we're doing and the wheels are coming off." Kay resigned on Jan. 23.

A CIA spokesman had no immediate comment.

According to Vanity Fair, after he sent the July e-mail, Key received a phone call in Baghdad from CIA deputy director John McLaughlin, who told him: "We have to be very careful how we handle this."

"I didn't view that as inappropriate," Kay told Reuters. "Any time you're throwing hypotheses out, you've got to be sure that you have the facts to support them and obviously I had facts that were fitting four hypotheses."

Kay even says they could be in Syria a hotbed on Terrorism or do you doubt that as well

just answer the question don't dodge it with half facts and partisan speculation

Personally I think the technology and some percentage went to Syria. but that is JUST AN OPINION. at least I can admit that my opinion is just that an opinion instead of treating it as fact as you all have.

 

[onelove]

since the WMDs *must* still exist (and "Weapons of Mass destruction found" according to thread title), how can we return sovereignty to Iraq without accomplishing the mission of disarming Iraq? Since Iraq is to be a "democracy" doesn't that mean the 80% shiites will turn it into a mini-Iran? (a Dr. Evil mini-me?) oh nevermind - just everybody say: "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" &amp; it will come true.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: EXman
Kilxx and Conjur since we are so dumb and failed all our classes can you enlighten us to where thes WMD's that were proven to be there that he already used went? Untill you bring that answer out your butt please excuse us while we laugh at you all.

Just answer the question what did Saddam do with his Real WMD's that have been proven that he had in the early 90's? Yes Proven. :roll:

You just really don't like to read, do you?


UNMOVIC worked throughout the 90s to destroy and dismantle the WMDs and the programs to create them. And, here are David Kay's own words:

http://in.news.yahoo.com/040406/137/2ceq7.html

By the time he resigned in January this year Kay said he had come to believe Iraq did not possess any large stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons when the United States invaded.

"I believe they became incapable after 1998 of really producing a coherent program," he said. "By December I clearly had told everyone that, but it's not true in July."

Vanity Fair reported Kay said he was ready to quit in December but Tenet pleaded with him to stay on because it would look bad if he left early.

Your buddies Bush/Powell/Rumsfeld have stated they not only knew Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs but they knew where these WMDs were. So, I ask you again, where are they?

Another BS post not answering the question just posing another one.

Uh...I answered your question (I bolded your question to make it easier for you to see what you asked me. My response was the David Kay summarization.

Answer mine:

Your buddies Bush/Powell/Rumsfeld have stated they not only knew Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs but they knew where these WMDs were. So, I ask you again, where are they?[/quote]

you need to read the Whole thing!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former U.S. weapons inspector David Kay said on Monday that he had not concluded by July 2003 that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction as reported by Vanity Fair magazine.

<snip>

<cut to the chase...the summary>
By the time he resigned in January this year Kay said he had come to believe Iraq did not possess any large stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons when the United States invaded.

"I believe they became incapable after 1998 of really producing a coherent program," he said. "By December I clearly had told everyone that, but it's not true in July."

Vanity Fair reported Kay said he was ready to quit in December but Tenet pleaded with him to stay on because it would look bad if he left early.

Kay even says they could be in Syria a hotbed on Terrorism or do you doubt that as well

just answer the question don't dodge it with half facts and partisan speculation

Kay had four hypotheses, yes, in July 2002. By Jan. 2003, though, he was down to one belief and it's highlighted above.

Just what are they teaching in schools these days that new students are coming out with such horrendous comprehension skills at reading??