Note that Saddam was pursuing this even as late as March 2003!
PING
"But Spertzel believes Saddam was cooking up an even more sinister plan — putting the poisons on department store shelves across the United States and Europe. He said that plan was "actively pursued" as late as March 2003. And that plan was at least, in part, funded by Saddam's corrupt Oil-for-Food activities. "
I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!!! Saddam had it in for the US? (I'm also available to buy a bridge, too)
Sarin in perfume bottles? What an idiot that I didn't finish the novel five years ago.
Yeah, but he was no threat. It should be apparent that Iraq is nowhere near being a useless war with no reason to have taken out the regime. I see the media doesn't want to discuss any of this because to them Bush just made up all the WMD claims. Iraq was never a threat, just one made up by the administration. The Demonrat party doesn't have to answer to their own statements when they call Bush a liar.
If true, from this the numerous co-conspirators in Oil For Food are guilty of far more than simple corruption and this fact makes the case for far more aggressive actions to root out and punish those involved.
What's that you say - when h*ll freezes over?
And we'll cut off payment to the UN when?
Isn't David Asman from FNC suppose to do a show tonight about this??
*BUMP*! . . .
why would the MSM even look into this?? They don't have the manpower or time as they are too busy making up bogus stories on our President and troops...
Transcript: Rice's Speech on Transatlantic Ties
QUESTION: Madam Secretary, I would like to ask you a question about chemical and biological proliferation. Because we are lacking a multilateral system similar to the imperfect but at least existing system in the nuclear field, the IAEA and the NPT.
And here, what steps do we intend to take to have multilateral verification systems on chemical and biological weapons, knowing that all these efforts have stalled since the beginning of your administration four years ago?
RICE: Well, thank you.
In fact, we have been very active in trying to deal with the problems of chemical and biological weapons but, as you know, it's not easy.
You mentioned the problem of verification. The problem of verification is particularly severe and difficult with biological and chemical weapons because very often the very same means that one uses to make a biological weapon or a chemical weapon can be for completely innocent means: so-called dual-use products.
So that, for instance, the chlorine that can be used to purify a swimming pool can also be the basis for a chemical weapon. The same laboratory that can be used to find a cure for cancer can be used to make biological weapons.
And these are made in very small spaces that can be easily concealed.
It's especially difficult when you're dealing with very closed states that are making an effort to deceive and prevent verification from taking place.
I have no doubt that verification, for most of the world -- for European countries, for the United States, for many of our friends and allies around the world -- is much less of a problem because, of course, these are open societies.
And when they declare that they are not going to build something, there is La Monde or the New York Times or somebody that is going to make certain that the information gets out about what is being done.
RICE: The problem is with closed dictatorial societies that are trying to deceive.
So we have been party to the conventions and we have been active in the conventions. We need to redouble our efforts to make certain that, for instance, when we find some evidence that we believe points to biological or chemical weapons programs, that we are prepared to act to hold accountable those states in which it's found. It's a very serious problem.
It is also a serious problem for terrorism, because biological weapons or chemical weapons would be much easier for a terrorist organization. We in the United States experienced what just a little anthrax could do. And so it is a very serious problem.
It's a huge intelligence problem, given the closed nature of some of these societies.
But we do have the international conventions and we continue to work within them.
~snip~
I'm not surprised at all. I actually read the Deulfer report instead of relying on the MSM interpretations of it.
I've already had some dumb libs tell me that it isn't true because it is a Fox News story. Can you believe the willful ignorance of these people?
Tye LeftStream Media won't report on it because they're too busy being saddened that this didn't happen.
Guess who's getting a medal?
Excellent find.
Bump for more attention.
How the United Nations works (or doesn't):
A doctorate-holding relative has a business surrounding his speciality. In that role, he occasionally serves as a consultant to the United Nations. He recently prepared a report for the UN regarding the wisdom of a particular domestic issue in a 3rd world country. The conclusion of the report was that the proposed course of action was impractical because it involved some expensive equipment.
Well, his contacts at the UN called him and said "we can't submit this!" When he asked why, he was told, "Well, a european country is going to transfer to this nation tens of millions of dollars worth of equipment. And members of the government are getting a major kickback!"
In other words: don't rock the boat.
There's nothing the UN does in this world that we couldn't do ourselves as the United States more efficiently if we so desired. In a post cold-war world, there is no need for such an agency to begin with.
It's time to pull the plug.