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.
No. I'm saying it's a possibility, based on these reports we're hearing.
You're saying it's an impossibility, that you KNOW these reports don't describe WMD etc.
Hey, correct me if I'm wrong but that's what it sounds like you're saying.
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
I'm not saying it "had to" be WMD. I'm saying it could have been. Do you disagree?
You are assuming based on even less Intel that WMDs have been moved to Syria.
I'm not "assuming". I'm drawing the most reasonable inference from the data at hand. What's your problem with that?
The only problem you could have with that would be if you claimed to KNOW that WMD were NOT moved to Syria. Is that what you're claiming? It sure seems like it.
[Duelfer report] No - those WMDs were from Saddam's late 80's development
Can you point out where it says that in the Duelfer report? Thanks.
Anyway, I suspect you're right, the shells found came from "old" development. SO WHAT? WMD are WMD. So you can't go around saying we've found "NO WMD". Capisce?
But I never said there were no WMDs from the late 80's - the point was from an "active" WMD program
First of all you DID say - repeatedly - that we've found "NO WMD". Now you admit this was wrong. Now you say that you only meant that we've found no WMD that were created after such and such magical date.
Second of all, who the heck cares when the WMD were created? Is that where your goalposts are?
That is what you cannot answer if your premise is correct - Why hasn't the WH declared "we found them!"
The Duelfer report does. It reports that we've found 53. That not good enough for you?
Why didn't GWB say this at all to the American public during an ENTIRE ELECTION -
Because he knew he could win without wading into this WMD mess? Anyway, this calls for speculation as to GWB's psychology. Has nothing to do with the material issue of whether WMDs were in Iraq. They were, and you admit as much.
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.
If the anthrax is in some sort of applicator or container, in a warehouse - and then the container is moved - there will be "residuals" in the warehouse?
If the mustard gas is in some sort of shell, in a warehouse - and then the shell is moved - there will be "residuals" in the warehouse?
You know what? I don't think so. This gets back to my "A to B to C" thought experiment.
I agree there will be residuals in location A (where the stuff was created and loaded). But not at B. So, say we examine a suspected location B (where we think shells etc. were stored). We find no "residuals". But this tells us NOTHING if the weapons were manufactured at a site A that we don't know about, and then moved to a site C (e.g. Syria) we have no access to.
Entire scientist's and staff (and family of both) cannot all reasonably be assumed to have just "left"
Ok so this is back to saying that Iraq had no WMD programs because no witnesses have told us Iraq had WMD programs. In case it's not clear, I am... less than impressed with this reasoning. Your mileage may vary.
Anyway, you've admitted that Iraq had WMDs so I'm not sure why you think the goalposts need to be placed at Iraq having had "active programs". Whether one agrees with your or my interpretation, the fact remains that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolution 1441. Beyond that, you and I can look at the data and draw different inferences.
Bye,