(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , Renata
wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 06:01:18 GMT, Nate Perkins
wrote:

(Doug Miller) wrote in
. com:

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Renata
wrote:

So, where are the WMD?

...

I think *all* of us would like to know what happened to them.

Most of us tend to put weight on the reports of the president's own
investigators, who concluded that they were destroyed shortly after
the '91 Gulf War:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Oct6.html

Of course you could believe that they are in Syria, Iran, or buried
in the desert. There is little or no evidence to support those
notions.

Thus Doug, I state you live in your own little plane of existence.
See, not an insult, but more of a statement of fact.

(i.e. in spite of quite a bit of evidence to the contrary, no evidence
to support your theory, no trace left of any of these labs (or the
material they were supposedly producing), etc. you continue to cling
to your theory)

Talk about living in your own little world... you continue to ignore
the FACT that there is NO evidence that Iraq actually destroyed all
its chem/bio weapons. The Duelfer report concludes that they were
destroyed "in secret". This conclusion is on its face unsupported, and
unsupportable: if it happened in secret, how do we know it happened at
all?

Usually when people insist on the proof of a negative, it's a pretty
sure sign that they aren't interested in the reasonable weight of
evidence.

I think you oversimplify the Duelfer report's conclusions on how WMDs
were destroyed. The report draws a full timeline of several rounds of
destructions, the majority of which were under UN supervision.

The UN required that they be destroyed under UN supervision, in order
that the whole world would KNOW that they had been destroyed. That did
not happen, and thus it is NOT known what became of them.

That's a pretty weak reason to wage a preemptive war.

Moreover, it seems fairly ironic that details of UN supervision are now
claimed to be so critical -- but at the time, the administration was
disrespecting the UNMOVIC inspectors by likening them to "Inspector
Clouseau" (Powell) or a "sham" (Rumsfeld).