If you were fully human rather than a bot who copied his own prior posts, I would wish you would address my simple thought experiment. To remind, it goes like this. An object (say, a chemical shell) is in a box. The box is at point A. Then it is moved to point B. Then it is moved to point C. Please tell me what "residuals" are left at point B?
But I do hear what you're saying: Basically, according to your extensive research and knowledge, "residuals" can be cleaned up in 10 years but not 10 months. Scientifically, can you explain why that is? Why is it physically impossible to clean up "residuals" (whatever they are exactly - it's still not clear) in a time shorter than 10 months? Does it have to do with their half-life?
The Duelfer report actually says exactly what I have been saying in many regards - That we have found that Saddam had all the capabilities to produce WMDs in a somewhat short time frame....but we have found NONE in the end product state
False, apparently.
“Beginning in May 2004, ISG recovered a series of chemical weapons from Coalition military units and other sources. A total of 53 munitions have been recovered.” Why haven’t you heard that? Possibly because that information was buried on page 97 of Annex F of Volume 3 of the Duelfer Report.
I guess you haven't read the Duelfer Report.
Lastly the World knew about Saddam's late 80's WMD program
so?
we do know what happened to great amounts of it [Saddam's known WMD program]....but we aren't sure about all of it
That's right. We are not. Therefore, you should not act as if we are.
Lastly, going into Iraq in 2003 we were certain that Saddam had reactivated his WMD program - From the looks of things on the ground it appears he had not reactivate it (and surly did not reactivate to the levels
Who moved the goalposts to whether he had "reactivated" anything? If Saddam had WMDs, but didn't "reactivate" the WMD program... then Saddam had WMDs.
And then you bring up "levels" of reactivation! Just in case you have to move the goalposts even further, eh? Preparing yourself for arguing that he had reactivated the program 25% but not 50%? 50% but not 90%? Right?
Which brings one back to the CIA estimate of how much WMDs Saddam even had back in the late 80's (does it not).
Um, what? The CIA estimate of how much WMDs Saddam had in the late 80s is relevant to whether a UN inspector was offered a bribe?
By this point I don't know where the heck your goalposts are. Or why I should care. My previous tangle with you was about WMDs being moved to Syria. That charge stands (and looky here, the story has made it to the New York Times, so you better argue with them too!).
Meanwhile, this thread is about Saddam offering a bribe to a WMD inspector. That charge stands and you haven't even attempted to address it. But you can't weasel your way out of this sticky issue: it's difficult for anyone with a brain to understand why Saddam would feel the need to bribe UN inspectors if he had neither WMD programs nor WMDs.
First off it isn't that hard to understand why Saddam would bribe a UN Official - Saddam was breaking all sorts of obligations set after the first Gulf War outside of soley the WMD issue! - (What don't you understand about that?) -
From building Froger II type missiles that exceeding the km requirements, to buiding manless aerial vechicles, to stealing from the food for oil program (the list could go on and on) - Those UN inspectors had the possibility (if doing their jobs correctly) to discover some if not all of these infractions -
We you oddly suggest it could have only been "end product" WMDs Saddam was hiding is odd to me -
As for copy and pasting I don't do that - What is odd is you repeat the same things as well in each post to me (yet you don't hear me complaining....you see my explaining where you are wrong...big difference).
To remind, it goes like this. An object (say, a chemical shell) is in a box. The box is at point A. Then it is moved to point B. Then it is moved to point C. Please tell me what "residuals" are left at point B?
Okay - First off producing WMD's is not the equivalent of simply having a "box" at point A - But nevertheless - even in your scenario one would find residuals of the "human element" certainly (those that produced the box, bought the box, shipped the box, put items in the box, sealed the box, re-shipped the box, etc, etc) -
One would also find residuals of the paper-trail element - Being who bought the box, dimensions of the box needed, materials for building the box, prototypes of the box (or did they just get it right the first time!), disposal of boxes that didn't turn out right, etc, etc, etc -
Also you conveniently leave out that there would / could be residuals at point A as well as B (not just B) -
Now when you understand the complexities of producing WMDs over that of a "box"....the list of residuals grows immensely -
Again, what do you think we were looking for with regard to WMDs in Iraq - Do you seriously think the only thing we are looking for is the "end product" - Please. It works the opposite way - You look for a trail of residuals that lead you to the end product (unless you just happen to get lucky and find the end product to begin with).
As for the notion that why could an out of production / 10 year old program be cleaned up....by an active program cannot be cleaned up (perfectly residual free) in less than 10 months - Well, if you can't understand that.....you are simply being foolish (and wasting time).
One has to be willing to be intellectually honest...and with your above reasoning (10 year / 10 months) it is clear you are not willing to be intellectually honest and you simply look for facts to fit your preconceived notion (a terrible flaw to have).
That's right. We are not. Therefore, you should not act as if we are.
But I don't act like I know - I simply state the facts of what we do know - It is you who keeps insisting that our Intel on the amounts of Saddam's late 80's WMD must have been accurate - It is you that keeps saying they were moved to Syria (or perhaps somewhere else) -
I have simply stated that there is no "hard Intel" to suggest any such thing - At least not more Intel than we had on Iraq prior to our invasion in 2003 (when our own CIA said it was a SLAM DUNK they knew where they were located) -
Well that Intel turned out to be wrong - Completely wrong - Yet you are now trying to suggest with even much less evidence (in fact no evidence outside of large convoys leaving Iraq before a war.....Oh my, who could imagine that?? - The notion that all sorts of things could have been in those convoys escapes you completely....no it had to be WMDs....that is just silly).
But again it is you that is assuming - You are assuming based on even less Intel that WMDs have been moved to Syria.
I mean could you imagine Powell going before the UN and saying "we saw convoys" and "this one ex-KGB guy says he thinks they are there" -
Powell gave a very detailed item by item reasoning for why we thought we knew Saddam had an active WMD program going - About how we thought we knew exact locations of "said" WMDs, etc, etc -
Yet even with all this Intel (as is the real world) it turned out not to be so - Yet again, you keep insisting that even with less Intel that surly they are in Syria. (they just have to be....because I believe it). Doesn't work in the real world.
Didn't the Duelfer report say that they had "seed stocks" of some WMD type material?