Tal responds to me:
quote:
Link? Source?
I provided them. Don't you remember all that quotation from Hans Blix? Do you not remember the confessions from Tenet? What about the Downing Street memos? The Duelfer report? Do you seriously not know about these things?
quote:
One of my instructors was a weapons inspector in Iraq. They didn't have complete access.
As you said: Link? Source? Why should anybody "My father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate said so!" over the chief UN inspector giving testimony before the UN?
Question: When did your "instructor" engage in inspections? You will note that Blix's report happened right before Bush pulled the inspectors out.
Do not confuse obstruction on the part of Hussein previously to continued obstruction right up to the moment of invasion.
quote:
You'll note I cited Kerry and Gore too
Indeed, and it's precisely the same logical error: Blaming somebody else for Bush's decision.
Hint: Neither Clinton nor Kerry nor Gore were president.
Hint: Gore specifically and directly stated that Bush should not invade Iraq before we did.
What did Gore know that Bush didn't?
quote:
Mr. Blix in Feb 04.
Ahem.
We didn't invade Iraq in 2004. We invaded in 2003. The question before is whether or not there was any information or intelligence or report from
BEFORE the invasion that indicated that there were no WMDs to be found.
It turns out that there were. Blix was one of them, begging for more time to complete the inspections which Hussein was cooperating with and had found nothing.
By the way, you're misquoting the article. Here is what it actually said:
During that time, the Iraqis managed to hide an advanced nuclear weapons development programme from the IAEA.
It was only discovered after the Gulf War in 1991.
Hmmm...so it would seem that what Blix was saying is that Iraq was fooling people regarding its WMD research capabilities....
[b][i]...BUT WE FOUND OUT ABOUT IT.[/b][/i] And on top of that, we found out about it [b][i]TEN YEARS BEFORE WE INVADED.[/b][/i] You seem to think that the situation in Iraq was identical in 2003 to what it was in 1993.
Oh, and here's another quote from that article you seem to have overlooked:
Now that the war has finished, he has made clear his feeling that the US and UK had exaggerated, or "over-interpreted" - as he put it - the case for war.
So where do you get this idea that Blix wasn't of the opinion that Iraq had fooled the inspectors?
quote:
That still doesn't refute David Kay.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
It most certainly does contradict Kay. Blix said they had not found any indication of chemcial, nuclear, or biological weapons. How is that not a contradiction of the claim that intelligence indicated Iraq had them?
quote:
Second suspected mobile weapons lab found in Iraq
What part of "suspected" do you not understand? It turns out that it wasn't real. That article you posted was from May of 2003. It's been four years since and nothing has turned up.
quote:
Again, you use phrases like "all evidence." Please post a link.
It's called "the newspaper." Are you seriously saying you haven't been reading them?
Here's a hint: Why do you think the United States called off the search for WMDs in Iraq in Januray 2005? As Scott McClellan said:
"Our friends and allies had the same intelligence that we had when it came to Saddam Hussein. Now we need to continue to move forward to find out what went wrong and to correct those flaws."
Here's what Blair said in 2006:
"I have to accept that we have not found them [Iraqi WMD], that we may not find them," Blair said before the House of Commons Liaison Committee.
Do you seriously not know about this?
quote:
Oh...there were those 500 chemical weapons with sarin and mustard agent.
You mean those [b][i]WORTHLESS[/b][/i] canisters? Those munitions were so old that the chemical agents had degraded to be of no use. They were from the 1980s. And we all know who was president at the time and giving chemical weapons to Hussein at that time, don't we?
Since you seem to like Kay so much, let's hear what he had to say:
“In terms of toxicity, sir,” Kay told Weldon at one point, “I suspect in your house, and I know in my house, I have things that are more toxic than sarin produced from 1984 to 1988.”
Not only that, but the munitions that were found had been disabled and couldn't be used directly, nor could the agents be extracted from them:
[T]wo briefers for the Defense Intelligence Agency explained that the recovered weapons were too degraded to serve their original purpose and too delicate to be used as roadside explosives. “These munitions that were found were badly corroded in most cases,” said DIA analyst Col. John Chiu. “Some were deliberately dismantled, if you will, to prevent them from being used.” To make matters worse, Terence Taylor, a former member of the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq, testified that the warheads’ designs made the nerve gas almost impossible to use outside of its original purpose. “I think it would be very difficult to extract the nerve agent from these weapons,” he said.
By the way, you know better than to trust CNS. They, like Fox, are not real news services.
quote:
Bomb said to hold deadly sarin gas explodes in Iraq
And what were the details of this? It wasn't a roadside bomb. Instead, according to the US Army, it was a botched attempt to create a high-explosive. Again, since you seem to trust Kay, why aren't you paying attention to his conclusion that they were left over from the decommissioning from the 90s? As he directly stated:
"I rather doubt [that it was creation of sarin] because it appears the insurgents didn't even know they had a chemical round."
So it would seem that this "sarin bomb" of yours was simply a leftover shell from the 80s that was overlooked in the 90s and then used in the 00s by people who didn't even know it was a chemcial bomb.
Not exactly proof that Hussein was creating WMDs, now is it?
quote:
Polish Troops Find Sarin Warheads
I see you've moved to Fox. You know better than to trust them. The Polish find wasn't real, either. As was reported just mere hours later after the Agence-France Presse report that Polish troops had found them:
Meanwhile, a dozen warheads that Polish forces said on Thursday contained mustard gas or sarin contained neither, according to US forces, who tested the 122mm munitions.
So it would seem that the AFP jumped the gun. They had to retract the story just hours after it was reported.
When did Fox ever get around to retracting it?
quote:
Chemical Munitions have been used against US Forces many times.
Not in any way connected to the reason given for invasion of Iraq. There were no WMDs in Iraq. Both the United States and the Brits have made direct statements claiming that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
If you aren't going to believe Bush when he says that there were no WMDs in Iraq, who are you going to believe?
quote:
This go around we've had several instances of chemical weapons in IEDs.
No, we haven't. What we have had, at best, is insurgents using ancient weapons from the 80s that were overlooked in the 90s trying to recycle the explosives from them into IEDs and other high-explosive devices and not realizing that they had their hands on chemical weapons.
Of course, since those weapons were 20 years old, the chemical agents in them were of no consequence.
Therefore, the short answer is that no, there haven't been any instances of chemical weapons being used against the US in our invasion of Iraq.
So if Hussein had them, why didn't he use them? We know that he had no problems using them since he gassed the Kurd and the Iranians using the chemical agents that Donald Rumsfeld gave him at the behest of Ronald Reagan.
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
™ Version 4.2
