Here are a couple of interesting links about the current state of Saddam's WMD.

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/05/11/World/Investigative.Reportsaddams.Wmd.Have.Been.Found-670120.shtml
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=670123

Pretty interesting reading. I wonder when the alphabet networks and the times will pick up on this? I am still waiting for Sean (Hanity) to bring this up.;)

Interesting articles - I wonder why the Bush camp are not promoting this info to the max?

1) The whole "weapons of mass destruction" thing is bullshit. We have weapons of mass destruction. Pakistan, India, China, North Korea, and Russia also have these weapons.

2) I was not that moved by your article. Legit news gets picked up by other news agencies. Something like this should be on every channel.

Originally posted by Ed Blank
1) The whole "weapons of mass destruction" thing is bullshit. We have weapons of mass destruction. Pakistan, India, China, North Korea, and Russia also have these weapons.


True, but we don't use them to keep order in our country like Sadaam did. If he will gas his own people - passing them on or threatening his neighbours is easy to imagine. Lets think - he attacked his neighbours twice and used WMD in the war with Iran.

If it was such Bullshit - why did the UN have many resolutions about it - including 1441 which was 15-0 on the council :confused:

Originally posted by Ed Blank
1) The whole "weapons of mass destruction" thing is bullshit. We have weapons of mass destruction. Pakistan, India, China, North Korea, and Russia also have these weapons.

2) I was not that moved by your article. Legit news gets picked up by other news agencies. Something like this should be on every channel.
.....And, we've got the appropriate ad to go with it!

http://www.rushlimbaughonline.com/gallery/gwmissiletoy.jpg

Originally posted by Ed Blank
1) The whole "weapons of mass destruction" thing is bullshit. We have weapons of mass destruction. Pakistan, India, China, North Korea, and Russia also have these weapons.

2) I was not that moved by your article. Legit news gets picked up by other news agencies. Something like this should be on every channel.

Why is the WMD argument "bullshit"? The chemical and biological weapon strains that we have, and that other coutries are allowed to have are for research purposes only. Sure we have nuclear weapons but we are on of 5 nations allowed to. Pakistan and India never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty and are not bound to it as is Cuba and Israel. Cuba, however, is part of a pact keeping nuclear weapons out of the Carribean. North Korea we are still in the process of trying a diplomatic approach with them. It has been 18 months since they stated they were in violation of a Clinton era treaty and a year since they pulled out of the NNPT.

Saddam on the other hand was prohibited from having any of these weapons as well as missles that could go over a certain distance. For 13 years he defied the UN through 14 or so resolutions...the culmination of which was 1441 wich authorized the use of force if he was in material breach. When it came time to act on that resolution other security council members balked...and as we are finding out...for reasons of their own greed, bribary, and Iraqi oil.

If you read both articles they clearly state why "legit news" organizations have not picked up on this story. I know if WMD are found in Iraq it only bolsters the justification for war and the people in the "I hate Bush" camp would not be happy. It is too easy for them to say he "lied" and that is why he is such an evil person. Take that away and their anger is no longer justified.

If it was true, then the Bush Administration would be pushing this 24-7. "Senior administration official"? UN Oil for Food corruption? We've seen stuff like this before, and they've all been jumping the gun and claiming something like a deserted oil truck is carrying bio chemicals. Plus, even if all of those news organizations are bleeding heart liberals(HAHA), then why doesn't FOX have it? The land of asumptions and morons? Oh, and why is the picture just a satelite shot? What the hell does that say? "Lookie! I found a BUILDING!"

lol, if this was true Bush would be all over it. He isn't...so this is just BS

prison laboratory complex that may have been used for human testing of BW agents

Notice the may

"Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist

Reference strains under a sink... We are waging a war over chemicals we find under a sink? I'm sure that was a big global threat, Comet and that poisonous dish washing detergent.

New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin that were not declared to the United Nations.

Research does not imply having the chemicals. If they had them there would be a big fuss about them.

drones, "not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 kilometers [311 miles], 350 kilometers [217 miles] beyond the permissible limit
Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1,000 kilometers

The US is over 2,500 miles or 4000 kilometers away from Iraq. Not a threat to us, so why a pre-emptive strike?

Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited Scud-variant missiles

Just like the aluminum tubing, right?


Now take a look at a couple of the headlines of your website:

Bin Laden, al-Sadr and Kim Jong-il are using John Kerry's defeatist anti-Bush campaign both to stir up anti-Americanism worldwide and to divide Americans

Not All Veterans Are Kerry's 'Brothers'

John Kerry flies hairdresser to Pittsburgh for expensive touch-up before TV appearance.

Not one against Bush, all against Kerry. They are trying to smear him because of getting a touch-up. This is a hardcore Republican site, verging on extremist. I would not trust what they say.

One more reason to suspect this publication.

From the website's "about us" page:

Insight on the News is a national biweekly newsmagazine published in Washington by the Washington Times Corp. As Newsweek is the sister publication of the Washington Post, Insight is the sister publication of the Washington Times.

The Washington Times Corp. is owned by the Rev. Sun-Yung Moon. This is a "moony" magazine.

As soon as a "credible" news source has information about Saddam's WMD I will be sure to post it here.:D

Speaking of weapons of mass distruction (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end.php)....

WTF ^^(mate)?

What's going on, eh?

the leftists will fight with their last breath against any claim of a WMD discovery. If they are found, the left will disapear and be gone for a long, long time, as it is their bread and butter, and only claim agaisnt the war. Its funny how when a "senior administration official" leaks something damaging to bush its all good, but when "a senior administration official" says something that may help the war effort, he is laughed off as some anonomous "senior administration official"

the only reason? haha....Trav you are so funny....lalala. If this was true Bush would be all over it, he isn't....ever think of that?

like I said, if WMD are found the leftist propaganda regurgitators like overdose will be in stunned silence, and really have nothing left to piss and maon about. I shouldnt say that, they will always piss and moan like litle girls.

I guess you'll have something to say when they find the weapons...

damn right

Even if the President finds these Weapons of Mass Destruction it’s still our own fault. We are the ones who gave Saddam his weapons, and the irony is, is that North Korea has them. We have proof of their weapons, and we let them do what they want in the world.

But lets not forget the other countries that deal with torture around the world. Cuba, Sadie Arabia, Iran, North Korea, African countries, and even our own death penalty? What about saving those civilians? Africa, AIDS? We could help civilians everywhere, but we pick Iraq…because Saddam possess “WMD’s”, but so does North Korea…but at least we have proof of North Korea's weapons.

That’s the irony of this liberation. But this liberation isn’t even a liberation. The people don’t want us in Iraq, according to a poll taken in that country.

….it’s just downright funny. It’s only because of Bush’s father. Since day one Bush has wanted to go after Saddam…because Saddam hated Bush’s father and the Bush family. So 9/11 fell right into Bush’s hands and he used the deception after 9/11 to influence his war on terrorism. But lets not forget, Iraq has no connection to 9/11...so why are we even in Iraq?

It's way too late to produce any WMD's now and expect anyone to believe it. Chrissakes -- Leno and Letterman are already joking about it.

Secondly, they told such a wild lie about the wmd's that it will be nearly impossible to come up with anything that even remotely resembles what they said. Ya'all remember doncha? Nuclear weapons pointed at Israel and the United States which were deliverable in 45 minutes -- LMAO -- who the hell believed that one. Then there was the chemical weapons -- 50,000 gallons (or was it pounds?) and so on and so forth.

We're not talking a few firecrackers and cherry bombs here ... they claimed outrageous amounts of weapons and that's what they have to produce.

Dop

I don't care. I'll appologize even if they find just a little. Which I am highly doubting.

Well any weapons he does have, we gave him. So...that's something to think about.

again, a liberal implying that since we have helped saddam in the past we have no right to do anything about him now. its such a stupid line of thinking. it doesnt take anything into account that was happening at the time or happening now. to them we gave him the weapons and then decided to take him out for having weapons we gave him. wake up already.

Originally posted by Travh20
again, a liberal implying that since we have helped saddam in the past we have no right to do anything about him now. its such a stupid line of thinking. it doesnt take anything into account that was happening at the time or happening now. to them we gave him the weapons and then decided to take him out for having weapons we gave him. wake up already.

Ironic isn’t it…because the weapons we gave him, he did indeed disarm. For there are no WMD’s in Iraq. The UN found no WMD’s, so he must of done what we told him to do. So why attack him, since he did what we asked of him.

are you saying saddam is an honorable man, and can be taken for his word? you are the same type of person who believed hitler when he pledged in the reichstag not to attack anyone. you are willing to believe a murderous tyrant over your own government for the slim chance of a few more years of fragile peace, all the while condeming the same iraqis you now grieve over to more terror and murder at saddams hand.

Originally posted by Travh20
are you saying saddam is an honorable man, and can be taken for his word? you are the same type of person who believed hitler when he pledged in the reichstag not to attack anyone. you are willing to believe a murderous tyrant over your own government for the slim chance of a few more years of fragile peace, all the while condeming the same iraqis you now grieve over to more terror and murder at saddams hand.

Trav, that is why the UN was sent into Iraq…to see if Saddam did indeed disarm. What was proven in Iraq, was that he did indeed disarm. No you shouldn’t trust him, and that is what the UN if for, and that is exactly what the UN did.

UN= league of nations, who also saw hitler as not much of a threat and gave japan a verbal reprimand for invading china. seriously, everything that is happening has already happend in the run up to WW2. The one country trying to stop the slide into WW3 is being attacked by beauracrats. your way of thinking has been tried, chamberlain believed hitlers empty promises in a desire to give the people what they wanted, peace. i have said it before and will say it again,. just becasue there is no war doesnt mean there is peace.

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
Trav, that is why the UN was sent into Iraq…to see if Saddam did indeed disarm. What was proven in Iraq, was that he did indeed disarm. No you shouldn’t trust him, and that is what the UN if for, and that is exactly what the UN did.

David Kay stated in his report that Iraq was in blatant violation of UN res. 1441. When the UN inspectors went back in they found missles that were capable of distances farther than allowed. The UN also could not account for the WMD that Saddam had when they were kicked out in 1998 and although Iraq claimed that they destroyed them could offer no proof. I do not consider that disarming. Unless you can prove what the UN could not, and indeed Saddam had disarmed by showing us how Iraq destroyed of the weapons and that their missles could not fly the distances prohibited by the UN you cannot say he disarmed.

Originally posted by The Republican
David Kay stated in his report that Iraq was in blatant violation of UN res. 1441. When the UN inspectors went back in they found missles that were capable of distances farther than allowed. The UN also could not account for the WMD that Saddam had when they were kicked out in 1998 and although Iraq claimed that they destroyed them could offer no proof. I do not consider that disarming. Unless you can prove what the UN could not, and indeed Saddam had disarmed by showing us how Iraq destroyed of the weapons and that their missles could not fly the distances prohibited by the UN you cannot say he disarmed.

Offer proof of destroying something? That's a little unrealistic if you ask me. It's wonderful, how I was shown no reports of Iraq having WMD's...and we have been in Iraq for over a year and we have found nothing. Bush even made a joke about not finding any...isn't that sweet.

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
Offer proof of destroying something? That's a little unrealistic if you ask me. It's wonderful, how I was shown no reports of Iraq having WMD's...and we have been in Iraq for over a year and we have found nothing. Bush even made a joke about not finding any...isn't that sweet.

And your point is? Up until the war every one in America believed Iraq had WMD...from the previous administration to John Kerry to the current administration. You do realize that the ammount of weapons we are looking for can fit into a garage and we are searching a country the size of California. Even a moron could hide them well enough so as not to be found easily. While I will admit that I am disapointed in our intelligence agencies for their reporting on Iraqi WMD I have no doubt that there are still WMD somewhere in Iraq. I wish I could see the look on your face when they are found and wait to see what spin you put on it.

if he was going to destroy them why kick out the inspectors? wouldnt it make more sense to have the UN present to document it? you want so desperatly to be able to believe uncle saddam, even if its just to get a cheap shot in on your number 1 enemy, GW Bush. all your theorys go one way, in support of saddam, it seems you cant possibly see a way or reason that saddam might actually lie to the world about what he had or what he did with them.

Originally posted by The Republican
And your point is? Up until the war every one in America believed Iraq had WMD...from the previous administration to John Kerry to the current administration. You do realize that the ammount of weapons we are looking for can fit into a garage and we are searching a country the size of California. Even a moron could hide them well enough so as not to be found easily. While I will admit that I am disapointed in our intelligence agencies for their reporting on Iraqi WMD I have no doubt that there are still WMD somewhere in Iraq. I wish I could see the look on your face when they are found and wait to see what spin you put on it.

Everyone thought this, up until the UN went into Iraq. I believed Saddam did, but once the UN came out empty handed...I knew that Saddam had nothing.

Our satellites are capable of searching Iraq, and we have been in Iraq for over a year, and I believe if they had anything we would have found it.

Or if they had anything, I'm sure they would have used it...by now

maybe they were shipped out in all that time saddam had while the french and germans were stalling. maybe if we just went in instead of asking people that dont even like us for permission to uphold thier own resolutions things might have been different.

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
Everyone thought this, up until the UN went into Iraq. I believed Saddam did, but once the UN came out empty handed...I knew that Saddam had nothing.

Our satellites are capable of searching Iraq, and we have been in Iraq for over a year, and I believe if they had anything we would have found it.

Or if they had anything, I'm sure they would have used it...by now

Well it is pretty obvious that the sattelite photos from before the war were pretty inaccurate from the evidence on the ground once we got there. Why are you putting faith in them now? They provided the exact intelligence you are criticizing Bush for using as part of his justification.

Also had Iraq used WMD it would have proved to the world they had them and given all the justification the world needed for the war and there would not be people like yourself going to bat for Saddam.

All the UN proved when they went back was Saddam was in material breach of 1441 with his missles and that Iraq could not account for the weapons he was verified as having in 1998.

Originally posted by The Republican
Well it is pretty obvious that the sattelite photos from before the war were pretty inaccurate from the evidence on the ground once we got there. Why are you putting faith in them now? They provided the exact intelligence you are criticizing Bush for using as part of his justification.

Also had Iraq used WMD it would have proved to the world they had them and given all the justification the world needed for the war and there would not be people like yourself going to bat for Saddam.

All the UN proved when they went back was Saddam was in material breach of 1441 with his missles and that Iraq could not account for the weapons he was verified as having in 1998.

bla, bla, bla
spinning things, I see

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
bla, bla, bla
spinning things, I see

Spinning? After I have called you on spinning in countless posts this is how you respond. LOL Unlike you everything i base my arguments on is fact that has not been twisted or spun into something that I could use. So please show me where I have spun something...if not shut up.

Originally posted by The Republican
Spinning? After I have called you on spinning in countless posts this is how you respond. LOL Unlike you everything i base my arguments on is fact that has not been twisted or spun into something that I could use. So please show me where I have spun something...if not shut up.

Shut Up? ouch.
No, they came back empty handed. All reports show they found nothing. That's just the bottom line.

Our intelligence said they did, or so Bush says. But regardless he has the UN's facts right in front of his face.

We went into Iraq on the possible thought of him possessing WMD's, which is arrogant and ruthless.

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
We went into Iraq on the possible thought of him possessing WMD's, which is arrogant and ruthless.

Ruthless? Arrogant maybe, but not ruthless. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

Ruthless is a bit too strong...ill-conceived, hasty, and poorly-planned I would go along with.

damn armchair generals