True. But this was a WMD inspector.
you oddly suggest it could have only been "end product" WMDs Saddam was hiding is odd to me -
I guess you're right, WMD is not the "only" possible thing Saddam could have been attempting to hide through his attempted bribery of the WMD inspector. That he bribed the WMD inspector because he wanted to hide WMDs of one form or another, is, however, the most reasonable inference to draw. I claim no more and no less.
Okay - First off producing WMD's is not the equivalent of simply having a "box" at point A
True but in my example I am asking what residuals are left at point B, not point A. I am willing to stipulate that all sorts of icky gooey residuals are left at point A (from producing the WMD), but then it is moved to B, and then to C, and I am asking what residuals are left at B.
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) -
LOL. So by "residuals" you mean, in some cases, "witnesses"?
And so what you're saying is that there were no WMDs in Iraq because no witnesses have copped to driving them around, moving them, etc.? That's it? That's what the entire "no WMD" claim is based on? Wow.
That's a much weaker argument than I'd thought you'd been attempting.
Suppose that a truck driver drove the box of WMDs from point B to point C, and point C is in Syria. The truck driver stays in Syria. (Maybe that's where he came from. Or, maybe he's a Russian who came from Russia to help with the move, and now he's in Russia.) Then we send our inspectors to Iraq. They will not find the "residual" truck driver in Iraq. They will declare that Iraq was free of WMDs on that basis, not having found anyone who will admit "Yes I drove them to Syria"?
Boy is that stupid.
And it doesn't answer my question. This "human element" need not remain at B after doing his thing. But I asked what "residuals" were left at B. Back to square one.
One would also find residuals of the paper-trail element
So all transactions involving illicit items leave paper-trails? Do you really believe that? I have to say, if this is really how our investigators think and operate, they're even dumber than I had imagined.
Also, even if they keep a paper trail of the transaction from A to B to C, it need not remain at B. It need not be at any of those locations. Paper trails can be burned. Shredded. You are speaking as if papers are permanent and stationary objects.
Also you conveniently leave out that there would / could be residuals at point A as well as B (not just B) -
Right but let's just say that the box was made pre-1991. Point A was therefore "cleared" of "residuals" since that time. (Boy I hate talking like this.) So it's only point B, and point C, in Syria. You: "No residuals at B means no WMDs were in B." Which is, of course, silly. That's my point.
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"
I assume that "we" were "looking for" all that you say. However, if some of the stuff we are looking for is in Syria, then we are not going to find it in Iraq, and looking in Iraq is a poor way to determine whether they existed.
And now it turns out that even many of the "residuals" you speak of - witnesses, paper trail - far from being stationary objects, can actually move around. Your mentality has us "inspect" a country, and say that because no witnesses talked to you and you couldn't find paper trails, "Therefore no WMD were in this country."
Truly. idiotic.
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).
Yes, ideally it works the opposite way and you don't have to rely on getting lucky. I am sure that is how a dream investigation would go. However, if you don't get lucky, and can't find a trail to follow, do you give Iraq a clean bill of health?
Idiotic.
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).
LOL.
Nobody can understand it because you haven't described what the hell you are talking about with any specificity. What is magical about the 10-year time length? What is "too short" about the 10-month time length? What needs to happen that takes longer than 10 months? You can't describe or address these things because you don't know what the hell you are talking about. You are tossing out phrases you've apparently read somewhere such as "residual", "human element", "hex operations" etc. and hoping that we'll be impressed.
Tell me just one example of a "residual" that cannot possibly be moved or cleared away from our location A within a ten-month time-span. And tell me the physical laws that prevent moving/clearing this "residual" within 10 months. I dare you!
P.S. I hope you are not a native English speaker. Your writing suggests either horribly messed-up, illogical thought processes or English not being your native language, so I hope for your sake it's the latter.
P.P.S. You conveniently ignored that the Duelfer report states that we have found WMDs. How does that figure into your whole "we've found NO WMDs" thesis I wonder?
No - those WMDs were from Saddam's late 80's development - There was nothing new there, we knew of these, (in fact some came from a buried site) -
But I never said there were no WMDs from the late 80's - the point was from an "active" WMD program (and you keep running to his late 80's program to try and make your case).
The bottom line is, if that is what we were looking for late 80's WMDs then why doesn't GWB just come out and declare "WE FOUND THEM" - Why hasn't VP Cheney -
Why didn't GWB do so in ONE debate with Kerry - Because he knows that is not the premise that was put forth prior to us going in -
GWB is an honest man , looking for honest answer regarding any active / current WMD program going on within Iraq (post his late 80's program).
That is what you cannot answer if your premise is correct - Why hasn't the WH declared "we found them!" - Why didn't GWB say this at all to the American public during an ENTIRE ELECTION -
Because he knows that isn't correct - (yet you somehow suggest it is...and you know better then President Bush...please).
Weaponized Anthrax, Weaponized Mustard Gas with both leave off an chemical residual that is traceable up to 12 to 18 months after it has been cleaned / removed.
Game...set ....match... You lose.
Weaponized Anthrax, Weaponized Mustard Gas with both leave off an chemical residual that is traceable up to 12 to 18 months after it has been cleaned / removed.
Game...set ....match... You lose.
Entire scientist's and staff (and family of both) cannot all reasonably be assumed to have just "left" - We have interviewed literally tens of thousands - We have offered "get out of jail free cards" to many if any can produce viable information with regard to an active WMD program.
The residuals (of the chemical element) cannot simply be removed easily once they are processed through to a weaponized state -
The list could go on and on as to why it would be virtually impossible for a third-rate Country like Iraq to have the ability to completely sweep away an active WMD program right before our eyes (America) and do so well enough that American technology couldn't find residuals of this production, post its removal (within a realistic time frame....say within a year or two).