Danes say tests on suspect mortar shells inconclusive

AP, SFGate.com ^ | 1/14/2004 | MATTHEW ROSENBERG

[FBD]

"Thanks for giving the game away, Amatuer."

Ha! You can't even spell amateur.

[JohnGalt]

Wow, you nailed me on the old "call him on his spelling" maneuver.

He is packing it in and packing it up
And sneaking away and buggering up
And chickening out and pissing off home,
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge.

[FBD]

OK FRiend,

I don't normally engage in flame wars, and that is what this conversation degenerated into. I’ll take credit for starting it, by calling you obtuse.

Take care.

[Itzlzha]

Looks like another dead end.

Really? Looks to me like the chemicals involved were from Russia, France or Germany, and pressure was brought to "Bury" the evidence...whether by US because of concessions from the Axis of Weasels, or by the Axis on the Danes to "do what Poland did"...did you see the French-made rockets with the 2003 date that were EOD'd for "safety" reasons?

[optimistically_conservative]

Did you catch Pollack's and Fallow's articles in the Atlantic?

Interesting analysis.

[Burkeman1]

I thought of all the fake stories this one was and is at least plausible. The Iraqis dis use tons of mustard gas mortar shells in and around the Basra front during the Iran/Iraq war. These shells might just yet proove to be badly deteriorated old mustard gas shells that were simply discarded by corrupt and lazy military that thought nothing of what these burried leaking and oozing chem weapons would have on the local drinkiing water. To my mind- they should find such shells all over that front. The only problem is these old shells are not the WMDs the administration or the resolutions that the UN passed were talking about in the lead up to war.

[JohnGalt]

You will want to read this:White House's 'rush to war was reckless'.

Article in the Christian Science Monitor on Pollack's article.

[optimistically_conservative]

Pollack's reversal is the most interesting to me.

His argument is that Bush came to the same conclusion (or maintained the same position) the Clinton administration had using the same intelligence.

He then argues that the intelligence was flawed based on assessments and assumptions relying more on Saddam's behavior and unknowns than knowns - but absolves the analysts, recommending instutional/structural changes to the intelligence community for greater independance to avoid politicization.

He argues that Bush committed a faux pas in making the case to the American public in making a stronger case than what the intelligence supported. But it was the same case Clinton/Pollack made based on the same intelligence (except the aluminum tubes/African uranium fiascos).

I can't help but think everyone "in the know" is shocked that no WMD has been found. Those against the war are using it for political advantage, even though they can be easily quoted from 1998 on saying there was WMD in Iraq. Those supporting the war but anti-Bush are looking to thread the needle in blaming Bush without smearing themselves or their comrades in the intel community. The folks that support the war and Bush are trying to distract everyone and just "move on."

[JohnGalt]

I agree with your concluding paragraph only with a couple additions: the anti-war Right continues to be ignored less some so-called conservatives have to actually demonstrate contrition...also, there remains a vocal faction of Republicasn, who, while embarrassing to the Bush Administration, are pro-war, superficially pro-Bush, agnostic to theintelligence community Republicans, who are sticking to their conspiracy theories on an AQ-Saddam-9/11 connection and "WMDs in Syria" malarkey.

[optimistically_conservative]

... who are sticking to their conspiracy theories on an AQ-Saddam-9/11 connection and "WMDs in Syria" malarkey.

There's some truth to that. We're basically back at ground zero. We can't trust what we "knew" and can't explain what happened.

Did WMD go to Syria? Don't know and that's a very bad thing.

Was Saddam and AQ linked? Perhaps superficially, but we can neither prove nor disprove alleged connections.

What ties did the 19 hijackers have to various organizations and states? Don't know, we can't even pin down for sure where Atta was and wasn't - and he's the only one I've seen even a decent attempt made.

Even more troubling is how much information is not known to maintain a secretive anti-terror campaign or political cover?

We've pretty much moved on to the next plot sequence in this drama leaving it for the historians to revise and extend.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

A link:

"The Unholy Axis": The President's claim of Iraq's linkage to terrorists (History Lesson )

[JohnGalt]

Are you comparing President Bush to President Clinton?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

NO!

[JohnGalt]

I already knew you were doing no such thing, I was only publicly demonstrating that the "Clinton said so, too" argument is not a strong or compelling argument particularly with those of us on the further Right.

As I said on the other thread, I think a good tactic would be to highlight that Bush ended the often cruel Clinton Era sanction regime that killed minimum 100,000 civilians, Albright said it may have killed 500,000.

Promise me you'll take that line out for a spin with the Lefties in your life and see how it fits you. If you hate it, fair enough, but please give it a try.

[optimistically_conservative]

Bush ended the often cruel Clinton Era

'nuf said

[pickemuphere]

Ok Billbears..I guess Dr. Hamza (Iraqi nuclear physicist) must have been lying to us in his book.

Dr. Hamza apparently was lying about the WMD program. And he was making a fortune in doing so -- selling his book, appearing on Fox, on Hannity's show, etc.

Some of you don't seem to realize that these ex-patriates had an ax to grind and a wallet to fatten.