On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 03:37:41 GMT, PhysicsGenius
wrote:

Mike Patterson wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 23:42:02 GMT, PhysicsGenius
wrote:


Mike Patterson wrote:


I have the impression that you are one of the folks who believe that
the invasion of Iraq was based on a false claim of Iraqi complicity in
the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

No, I'm one of the folks who believe that the invasion of Iraq was based
on a false claim of Iraqi ownership of WMDs.


Oy. You're either a troll or oblivious to the world around you.

After the first Gulf war Iraq submitted documents inventorying their
biological and chemical weapons and delivery systems to the UN. Most
of those were never relinquished, which was the point of the YEARS of
attempts at inspections by the UN, which were blocked and evaded by
the government of Iraq.

As I said before, you got facts, I'm listening, but you look more like
either a politically motivated ignoramus or a troll right now.

As my sig indicates, the questions isn't "were there Iraqi WMD?", it's
"where ARE they?". Are they still in Iraq? In Iran? Jordan? London?
Israel? New York harbor?

The CIA and Bush were 100% sure where they were before the war began,
right? So that leaves us with 3 possibilities:

1) The bombs are still right where they were. Likelihood: Impossible.
After all, they looked and the bombs aren't there now.

2) The bombs moved. Likelihood: Improbable. How does one move a
presumably massive arsenal (you mentioned "delivery systems") in such a
way as to be hidden from the most advanced satellite recon in the world
while simultaneously fighting a losing war? And even if you moved it,
how would you keep it hidden from same? Neighbor countries would
probably less than enthusiastic about taking the hot potato after what
happened in Iraq.

3) They lied. (Or possibly worse: They are so imcompetent that they
really did think there were bombs there.) Likelihood: It's happened
many times before.

Or..#2 is likely

Posted on Sun, Dec. 07, 2003

Report: Source of Iraq Arms Claim Emerges
MICHAEL McDONOUGH
Associated Press

LONDON - An Iraqi officer has identified himself as the source for a
British claim about Saddam Hussein's weapons that sparked a
controversy marked by the death of a British government arms expert, a
newspaper reported Sunday.

The Sunday Telegraph said Lt. Col. al-Dabbagh identified himself as
the source for the British government's assertion that Iraq could have
deployed chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction within 45
minutes of a decision to do so. The paper gave the officer's surname
only, citing fears for his safety if he was fully identified.

Prime Minister Tony Blair's office declined to comment on the
newspaper report, which was featured in early editions published late
Saturday.

"We're not prepared to comment but we urge all those involved to
provide the Iraq Survey Group with whatever information they believe
they have," a spokeswoman for Blair's office said on customary
condition of anonymity. The ISG is the coalition body searching for
Saddam's alleged chemical or biological weapons.

The 45-minute claim was in a government dossier published in September
2002. A British Broadcasting Corp. report later accused the government
of "sexing up" the dossier to make a more convincing case for military
action. Government weapons adviser David Kelly apparently committed
suicide in July after being identified as the source for the BBC
report.

Kelly's death prompted a judicial inquiry that scrutinized the
workings of Blair's government and its use of intelligence in the
buildup to the U.S.-led war. A report from the inquiry is expected
early next year.

The Sunday Telegraph reported that al-Dabbagh was the former head of
an Iraqi air defense unit in the country's western desert. It said he
had spied for the Iraqi National Accord, a London-based exile group,
and provided reports to British intelligence from early 2002 on
Saddam's plans to deploy weapons of mass destruction.

Al-Dabbagh said cases containing chemical or biological warheads were
delivered to front-line units, including his own, in late 2002, the
paper reported. He said they were designed to be launched by hand-held
rocket-propelled grenades, and did not know what exactly the warheads
contained.

The government's September dossier said that "Iraq's military forces
are able to use chemical and biological weapons, with command, control
and logistical arrangements in place. The Iraqi military are able to
deploy these weapons within 45 minutes of a decision to do so."

The head of the MI6 spy agency, Sir Richard Dearlove, told the inquiry
into Kelly's death that the 45-minute warning in the dossier came from
an "established and reliable source," quoting a senior Iraqi military
officer who was in a position to know the information.

The Sunday Telegraph said al-Dabbagh believed he was the source for
that claim.

"I am the one responsible for providing this information," he was
quoted as saying. "It is 100 percent accurate.

"Forget 45 minutes, we could have fired these within half an hour,"
al-Dabbagh added. He said the weapons were not used because most of
the Iraqi army did not want to fight for Saddam.

The newspaper said al-Dabbagh works as an adviser to the Iraqi
Governing Council and said he has received death threats from Saddam
loyalists.

It reported that Iyad Allawi, the head of the Iraqi National Accord
and a prominent council member, confirmed that he had passed
information from al-Dabbagh on Saddam's weapons to British and
American intelligence officials in the spring and summer of 2002.


No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound
woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil?
Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence,
they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest
animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that,
and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make
it work.
- L. Neil Smith