Saddam's WMD Have Been Found

Insight Magazine ^ | 26 April 2004 | Kenneth R. Timmerman

[Dajjal]

BTTT

[Turbo Pig]

Great summary. Unfortunately, what is going to stick in my warped little mind the longest is your creative acronyms:-)

[Rockitz]

In other news, all of the major new media and countless anti-war protestors have rescinded their claims that "Bush lied"..........NOT.

[b4its2late]

A FReeper Keeper - Bookmarked!

[auggy]

"YOU WAIT AND SEE. IF SOMETHING BIG IS DISCOVERED FROM NOW TO THE ELECTION, THAT IS HOW THEY WILL SPIN IT!"

They don't have to spin it.

They just don't report it.

[Tailgunner Joe]

BTTT

[rwfromkansas]

"All that crap really could have been "pesticides". Are you REALLY saying you buy that?"

Heck no... But, until a test shows it is WMD, we don't really have proof. Obviously they don't put pesticides into shells, but still....for the world to say "Ah ha, they had WMD!" we need to find more than this. This article makes it sound like we found it all. We found a start.

You are right about my when we invaded comment though....he may have moved stuff to Syria just prior to the war.

[Dr. Frank fan]

["pesticides"] Heck no... But, until a test shows it is WMD, we don't really have proof.

There IS NO "test for WMD". I think this is just part of the fallacious thinking that is surrounding the debate. They tested these materials and in their chemical makeup they "resemble" pesticides. That's the fact on the table. There are no more further "tests" to do because we know what they are: pesticide-like materials.

There are only two explanations then:

1. They really are pesticides.

2. They are not pesticides, but something else.

You and I both, reasonably enough, reject 1. because the notion that Saddam would have stockpiled so many pesticides in camoflaged bunkers near military outposts is just laughable.

So we are left with 2. then. They are materials based on pesticide-like precursors, stored in drums, near military sites, camoflaged and placed in underground bunkers, but not actually pesticides nor is it at all plausible that they were intended for use as pesticides. But presumably when prepared and delivered by appropriate means, they could kill large numbers of humans. (This is true even of actual pesticides of course.)

That's what "WMD" MEANS! I don't even know what else people think a "WMD" would be.

At the bare minimum these were finds of "WMD" precursors. In other words, stuff that could be mixed with other stuff, or prepared appropriately, to be deliverable "WMDs", but not actually deliverable "WMDs". But to make that distinction is asinine. It's like saying that if you find an empty gun, and a bullet, that's not a weapon. Only if the bullet is in the gun, have you found a weapon. The bullet by itself is just a "precursor" and the gun by itself is just a "precursor". In a sense this is a true way to look at things, but still quite warped.

So we found "precursors" to WMD. We found material which could be used and was meant to be used, if/when the time arose, for WMD. That's good enough for me. Why wouldn't it be good enough for anyone? Who ever raised the bar to this absurd height that, unless we find a "loaded WMD gun", we haven't found ANYTHING? The charge against Saddam was NEVER "he has a loaded WMD gun", it was that he had, and was continuing to make, banned materials. Guilty as charged.

....for the world to say "Ah ha, they had WMD!" we need to find more than this

You are probably right but that's because "the world" has raised the bar to such an absurd height. Which was one of the main points of this article, in fact.

This article makes it sound like we found it all.

Not "it all". From the article: "In virtually every case - chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missiles - the United States has found the weapons and the programs...". The article is explicit about the fact that there are still things unaccounted for.

Best,

[LiteKeeper]

bump

[jonno]

bump

[SquirrelKing]

Great post! Bttt.

[jonno]

I have been through promises of...

Sadley, I agree with you. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...

[antivenom]

IT is in MHO...

What hasn't been located will be used in the VERY NEAR FUTURE...Saudi Arabia will be hit as well as our troops...there are MORE reasons for the smaller countries pulling their troops...they KNOW a chemical attack is imminent...and they aren't prepared to deal with one.

WMD will raise their ugly head BEFORE May31/June 1, 2004 in the Middle East...

[jonno]

hmmm

[alnick]

BIG WHOOP! So they had something with which they could restart their program with. It doesn't prove they had produced WMD's and had them right before or during our invasion.

It shows they had the capability and the intent. That's more than enough to be deeply concerned about, in the hands of Saddam, Uday and Qusay.

[rwfromkansas]

I will grant you that.

If they had the capability, that is pretty darn serious. I should not have meant it sound like nothing.

It is just that unfortunately, that isn't going to be what convinces the media to cover the story since it is not "clear" enough evidence.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

bttt

[right wing]

I may be a dufus pollyanna, but I really think that the Bush administration is on the verge of another shock and awe performance FOR the American people.

Ask yourself why Dr. Germ & Mrs. Anthrax were just released. Something BIG is brewing and it isn't a sizzling idiot suicide bomber.

[Thickman]

Just ask ISIS.