Botulinum 'is WMD' [State Department: Lethal bio-toxin 'kills people']

World Net Daily ^ | Oct. 4, 2003

[olliemb]

We are not in a quaqmire and we are not in a maze.

May I present your reasoning in a different lite. If you know your 16 year old might run into trouble simply b/c he is a 16 year old or b/c he has already done some things, you will preempt any activity that might contribute to his delinquency. For example, you don't allow certain activities, doing certain things since you know they can only lead your teen into trouble.

If when you smell something funny in their room but they deny any smell, do you then give them a pass b/c you could not prove anything wrong? Do you inspect their rooms or respect their privacy? Do you wait til the cops arrest your kid b/c she got caught with marijuana or do you try and preempt your suspicions.

The democrats and the news media cried out "connect the dots" when whining about 9/11 disaster. If our intelligence with the support of the international intelligence agreed there were WMD and needed another resolution, why then the doubt that only our intelligence was faulty? Should we then be wary about the intelligence of the nuclear programs in N. Korea and in Iran (denied having uranium for nuclear purposes)? Should we then be wary of the intelligence that so many people connect the dots between the SAudi government and the terrorists?

The duty of the president is to protect its citizens. As parents we have a role to protect our children. We do not allow them to be in harms way and when they are we should preempt their activities so that they don't go and ruin their lives. The same with President Bush. He saw the dots, knew by prior history of what Saddam could do and then put him out of business. The fact that so much was found that if Saddam left alone could eventually become an imminent threat is what we need to see in the argument.

We at least know that Saddam will not be around to finance any WMD program. If the WMD were sent to other nations, then that should be another preemptive attack. Unfortunately, the Eiffel tower has not been destroyed so it is hard to convince the Frenchies.

Imagine we would not be having this discussion had 3 countries voted for Iraq preemption--imagine if the 3 had voted for the strike, we would be discussing ARnold and Rush.

[blackie]

Botulinum toxin ~ Bump!

[Dolphy]

When you imploy a doctrine of preemption, you must provide convincing evidence that your attack would prempt an attack by an ememy, for example the photos provided during the Cuban Missle Crisis which clearly showed offensive missles on the island.

I disagree, September 11 changed everything. We are not talking about conventional warfare waged by conventional armies. The burden of proof rested on Saddam's shoulders when we could neither conclude he had destroyed his WMD or ended his pursuit of them. And this is not to mention the justification provided by Saddam's violation of the terms of the ceasefire that ended the first Gulf War.

On every count, from a human rights standpoint, to the international community's voice as expressed in multiple UN resolutions, to the evidence in Kay's interim report, the United States had justification to topple Saddam. But here is the real question that the President faced, do we trust Saddam not to arm a terrorist with a chemical or biological weapon or to otherwise hold the region hostage to these weapons leaving the US no choice but to intervene or submit to blackmail? I answered no then and nothing has moved me from that conclusion.

[Cold Heat]

Conservatives have trapped us in quagmire and we are in a maze that we can't get out of.

Screw the WMD.

These reasons are sufficient to do it again.

The regime thumbed it's nose at the U.N. for some thirteen years. A dozen or so U.N. decrees and agreements were all broken and had consequences.

Sanctions were not working and were killing the innocent while Saddam built palaces and bought weapons with oil for food money.

Saddam was sending money (some $35,000 to each family of the Palestinian suicide bombers in order to encourage more of the same, causing Israel to bull doze the homes purchased with the money and further incite the situation.

Genocide on a mass scale was occurring throughout the 13 years and showed no signs of letting up. it was even worse than we knew at the time.

With all this in mind, the chances that the regime might furnish weapons to some terrorist group that would do us or our allies harm was a real present danger and had to be addressed.

Not to forget that the Middle East has been in turmoil and he has attacked Kuwait and continued to threaten all in the region if he did not get his way.

If I forgot anything, please chime in, and I have not mentioned WMD a single time.

[Dog]

Thanks RC...

[Matthew James]

Ping...

[Dr. Frank fan]

was Saddam an immediate threat to the US.

What do you mean by "immediate"? Are you saying that if Saddam was merely an ongoing threat, a source of threats that would materialize in 5-10 years, then we should have done nothing?

When you imploy a doctrine of preemption, you must provide convincing evidence that your attack would prempt an attack by an ememy,

You misunderstand. It was not "an attack" (meaning, an attack that Saddam was about to launch - because nobody ever said this was the case) which we were trying to pre-empt. It was the possibility of attacks in the future using Saddam's arsenal. Even if those attacks wouldn't have come for 5 or 10 years.

Even as blind as conservatives are, they must volunteer that Saddam wasn't planning an attack at the start of the war.

Well I don't know what Saddam was "planning" or not planning but you are right, as far as it goes, that we didn't fight the war because we thought Saddam was About To Attack Us per se. We fought it because we wanted to prevent the possibility of future attacks, like I said.

One vial of botulinum toxin does rise to level of immediate threat

So what? No one ever said it was an "immediate threat" to begin with. You apparently simply did not understand what the President was trying to communicate to you. Go read his State of the Union address.

Saddam deserved what he got, and I don't cry for his passing, but please stop scrambling for justification.

Nobody's scrambling. The war was justified no matter what the Kay report says.

You won't find because this war wasn't necessary, and it was ill timed.

Those are your opinions and you're entitled to them.

Conservatives have trapped us in quakmire

What the hell is a "quakmire". Do you mean "quagmire"? Anyway, this is not a "quagmire". Do you know what that word means? Please go look it up.

[ALinArleta]

I think I had better check my icebox. I think I have some growing in there.

[ModelBreaker]

I'm waiting for the first botox joke from Michael Moore.

[CyberAnt]

I've heard this has already been turned over to the FBI.

Someone else said, the dems do not want this out for one basic reason - it says: Bush was right! Bush stuck to his convictions! Bush is a good guy! I'm going to vote for Bush.

It also says: the democrats are a bunch of lying idiots. Why would I ever want to vote for them.

[jwalsh07]

One vial of botulinum toxin does rise to level of immediate threat and might I remind you it took months in which to find it.

One gram of weaponised botulinum can kill hundreds of thousands. Care to revisit your unifomed opinion?

Here's a roadmap for the botulinum landing a city near you.

Uday to Fedayeen Saddam to Ansar al Islam to Al Qaeda proper to New York Harbor and into the waiting hands of the next Zacharias Moussoui.

By the way, hiding your head under the covers is not a sufficient response to jihadists who have been killing Americans unimpeded for the past twenty years.

[PhilDragoo]

"Botulinum toxin is the single most poisonous substance known" and "poses a major bioweapons threat because of its extreme potency and lethality, its ease of production, transport and misuse, and the potential need for prolonged intensive care in affected persons."

Eat it, Carl.

[WOSG]

You follow the 4 errors of the anti-war crowd:

1. pre-emptive? No it wasnt. Saddam had attacked us before and supported terrorists. He was at war with us for years through his support of terrorists.

2. Justified? Yes it was - and how.

3. lack of "imminent" threat means there is no threat? Not at all. When was OBL an 'imminent' threat? you cant answer a nonsensical question - you just dont know. If you wait until the threat is "imminent" you get 9/11 and pearl harbor.

3. Quagmire? far from it; the war was successful and so is the reconstruction. Every delegation from Iraq coming back marvels at how the media is reporting only the negative and failing to report the positive. majority of Iraqis are grateful to the US and want us there; electricity is back to pre-war levels, oil nearly so, and 90% of country is pacified. only in saddam's hometown area is it still restless. Find saddam and his baathist loyalists and the remaining militancy will fade. In the meantime, we caught 200 terrorists in the Iraqi 'bug-zapper'.

4. "we are in a maze that we can't get out of" Baloney - utter baloney. We are training the new Iraqi army and security forces and within 18 months Iraq will have elections and a new Government. Our security forces and aid will get them on their feet in the post-baathist era towards democracy and freedom. We have replaced an implacable enemy with a democratic ally in the region - a vast improvement for our national security.

[windchime]

Bump!

[Myrddin]

Any college student with a single semester of microbiology training can isolate Clostridium botulinum in a kitchen laboratory. It isn't rocket science. Purifying enough for use as a weapon would take some time. See link for standard lab procedures.

[Mo1]

Any college student with a single semester of microbiology training can isolate Clostridium botulinum in a kitchen laboratory. It isn't rocket science

And how many of those college students are using it to kill a whole lot of people???

[Mo1]

There is no doubt that Saddam wanted WMDs and used them against the Kurds. The question for which the conservatives aren't asking, was Saddam an immediate threat to the US. Did Saddam have the weapons and the means to deliver them at the begining of Gulf War the rerun. When you imploy a doctrine of preemption, you must provide convincing evidence that your attack would prempt an attack by an ememy, for example the photos provided during the Cuban Missle Crisis which clearly showed offensive missles on the island.

When would you consider an immediate threat??

You know .. I recall the Liberals & the UN telling us that Bin Ladin wasn't a treat to us in the USA.

I also recall the liberals & the UN telling us that N. Korea wouldn't make nukes because Jimmy Carter got an agreement with them

I also recall the Liberals & the UN telling us the Arafat was a peaceful man ..

And I also recall the Liberals & the UN telling us that Iran wasn't working on getting nukes either

I'm sorry .. I'll put my faith behind a real leader thank you

[Myrddin]

And how many of those college students are using it to kill a whole lot of people???

It only takes one. Any bets on whether there is at least one inclined to do it?

[radu]

The vial of botulinum bacteria discovered in Iraq by U.S. arms inspectors – which experts call the most poisonous substance known to man –

BRRRRRRRRR! Makes my skin crawl!

The Libs scream that it should be so easy to find the WMD's, as if they'll be huge items, like 55 gallon drums or something. And that since we haven't, they don't exist. B.S.! This report confirms what I've thought all along.....that So-Dammed has "nasties" stashed around the country, hidden in scientists' homes. Not in large drums but in small vials. One has to wonder just how many more vials are stashed in refrigerators around Iraq.

[Bubba_Leroy]

If they find anything less than a working hydrogen bomb then the democRATs will say it is nothing.

Of course, if they find a working hydrogen bomb then the democRATs will say that Bush planted it.