1
   

Where Are All The W.M.D.s?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 May, 2003 04:10 pm
Some communities and states in the US are approving legislation to outlaw Patriot I and II. It'll be an interesting challenge when the feds begins to enforce Patriot I and II against those local and state governments. Who do you think will win this battle? Wink c.i.
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 May, 2003 11:29 pm
It seems the latest thing from Washington is that it doesn't matter if we find or don't find WMDs. We have ccomplished a great mission. Well, remember when fearless leader said we want Osama dead or alive? But that changed, too. And sooner or later someone will bring up Powell's impassioned speech at the UN, full of certainty about the WMDs, the possession of, the whereabouts of.

What I'm thinking about is that expression about "when thieves fall out." When things start to go wrong, this crowd won't stick together. And it will be interesting to see who throws who to the wolves. And there will be wolves waiting.

VNN - you know better than that about polls. And that particular one from the Sunday New York Times is meaningless. Who was asked what where?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 May, 2003 11:45 pm
Quote:
"Polls: Public Willing to Overlook Failure to Find WMD"

...
...
But even if the weapons are never found, it may be smart politics to let the subject drop. ''Our constituents like a victory, and at this point it's a victory,'' said Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.). ''In the beginning, our constituents were saying, 'They better find weapons of mass destruction.' With it over so quickly, we are not hearing that refrain.''
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 May, 2003 11:57 pm
This has already been done in Santa Fe, ci, and is about the same as California deciding not to prosecute for medicinal use of pot. Federal law can still be enforced and prosecuted by federal personnel. I mean, it has about the same effect as a state or town deciding to not enforce the federal income tax.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2003 03:28 pm
Most of us understand the 'power' of the feds to enforce their laws. The big question is, when will the feds challenge those communities and states that have challenged the legality of Patriot I? c.i.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2003 04:06 pm
c.i
The local governments will lose. They cannot supersede federal law. If you remember there was a recent case where the state sanctioned the growing and sale of marijuana and the federal government convicted the individual in federal court based on federal law. I think that happened in your neck of the woods.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2003 04:11 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Quote:
Polls: Public Willing to Overlook Failure to Find WMD"[/URL]

...
...
But even if the weapons are never found, it may be smart politics to let the subject drop. ''Our constituents like a victory, and at this point it's a victory,'' said Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.). ''In the beginning, our constituents were saying, 'They better find weapons of mass destruction.' With it over so quickly, we are not hearing that refrain.''


And what victory it has been! A country bordering on anarchy, everything of value being looted, and no idea of what we do next. But I'm glad my country is having a "feel-good" moment over this...
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2003 04:44 pm
I wonder why President Bush would say this when touring Auschwitz:

Quote:
At one point Mr. Bush turned to Ms. Swiebocka and asked, "Do people challenge the accuracy of what you present?" Mr. Fleischer, who was accompanying the president a few paces behind, said he could not hear the answer.


My answer: It's pretty clear that Bush -- who loves to make himself out a victim (of liberal bias) too -- asked the question because he sees himself in the same boat regarding his inability to prove that Saddam Hussein possessed biological and chemical weapons, the cornerstone of his rationale for invading a sovereign nation. Of course, without that rationale, Bush begins looking more like the international aggressor, not Hussein.

The difference is this: The evidence of the Holocaust is simply irrevocable. The evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is, evidently, unrecoverable.

Bush's willingness to play on the Holocaust imagery is particularly craven considering that his own grandfather was one of the great American capitalist contributors to the Nazi war machine. But this whole exercise was just another public-relations gambit, intended to draw a parallel between Hussein and Hitler. It appears the Busheviks -- who are increasingly unpopular around the world -- are hoping they can pull the same wool over the eyes of the international community that they have with a substantial portion of the American public, not to mention the entire population of the punditocracy.

Unfortunately, Bush's analogy is not only ahistorical, it is every bit as revisionist as the kind of "Holocaust denial" as that practiced by the right-wing Institute for Historical Review and its sympathizers. Saddam was no Hitler. He was a tinpot who could barely run his own country.

And yes, Mr. Bush, people do question the accuracy of the recounting of the Holocaust. They are all on the right, and include such conservative stalwarts as Pat Buchanan.

They are liars.

And so, I might add, are the politicians who led us to war by telling us Saddam had nukes.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2003 09:09 am
The trailers, pointed to as a smoking gun by Bush, are in dispute in this article from the NY Times. I had heard on a Pacifica radio program some time ago that they were not suitable to the purpose, but here is the first other source I have noticed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/07/international/worldspecial/07TRAI.html
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2003 09:33 am
This entire enterprise has been farce right from the beginning. It will remain farce right through to when it ends.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2003 11:51 am
Frank, And when can we expect that to happen? c.i.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2003 02:47 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Frank, And when can we expect that to happen? c.i.



Beats the piss out of me, but I'd be willing to make a substantial bet that it won't happen before the next presidential election.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2003 03:56 pm
I already figure that out! Wink c.i.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2003 12:59 am
From today's 'Observer':
Quote:

Blow to Blair over 'mobile labs'

Saddam's trucks were for balloons, not germs

Peter Beaumont and Antony Barnett
Sunday June 8, 2003
The Observer

Tony Blair faces a fresh crisis over Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, as evidence emerges that two vehicles that he has repeatedly claimed to be Iraqi mobile biological warfare production units are nothing of the sort.

The intelligence agency MI6, British defence officers and technical experts from the Porton Down microbiological research establishment have been ordered to conduct an urgent review of the mobile facilities, following US analysis which casts serious doubt on whether they really are germ labs.

The British review comes amid widespread doubts expressed by scientists on both sides of the Atlantic that the trucks could have been used to make biological weapons.

Instead The Observer has established that it is increasingly likely that the units were designed to be used for hydrogen production to fill artillery balloons, part of a system originally sold to Saddam by Britain in 1987.

The British review follows access by UK officials to the vehicles which were discovered by US troops in April and May.

'We are being very careful now not to jump to any conclusions about these vehicles,' said one source familiar with the investigation. 'On the basis of intelligence we do believe that mobile labs do exist. What is not certain is that these vehicles are actually them so we are being careful not to jump the gun.'

The claim, however, that the two vehicles are mobile germ labs has been repeated frequently by both Blair and President George Bush in recent days in support of claims that they prove the existence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

During his whistle stop tour of the Gulf, Europe and Russia, Blair repeatedly briefed journalists that the trailers were germ production labs which proved that Iraq had WMD.

But chemical weapons experts, engineers, chemists and military systems experts contacted by The Observer over the past week, say the layout and equipment found on the trailers is entirely inconsistent with the vehicles being mobile labs. Both US Secretary of State Colin Powell, when he addressed the UN Security Council prior to the war, and the British Government alleged that Saddam had such labs.

A separate investigation published by the New York Times yesterday discloses that the trailers have now been investigated by three different teams of Western experts, with the third and most senior group of analysts apparently divided sharply over their function.

'I have no great confidence that it's a fermenter,' a senior analyst said of a tank supposed to be capable of multiplying seed germs into lethal swarms. The government's public report, he said, 'was a rushed job and looks political'. The analyst had not seen the trailers, but reviewed evidence from them.

Another intelligence expert who has seen the trailers told the US paper: 'Everyone has wanted to find the "smoking gun" so much that they may have wanted to have reached this conclusion. I am very upset with the process.'

Questions over the claimed purpose of trailer for making biological weapons include:

· The lack of any trace of pathogens found in the fermentation tanks. According to experts, when weapons inspectors checked tanks in the mid-Nineties that had been scoured to disguise their real use, traces of pathogens were still detectable.

· The use of canvas sides on vehicles where technicians would be working with dangerous germ cultures.

· A shortage of pumps required to create vacuum conditions required for working with germ cultures and other processes usually associated with making biological weapons.

· The lack of an autoclave for steam sterilisation, normally a prerequisite for any kind of biological production. Its lack of availability between production runs would threaten to let in germ contaminants, resulting in failed weapons.

· The lack of any easy way for technicians to remove germ fluids from the processing tank.

One of those expressing severe doubts about the alleged mobile germ labs is Professor Harry Smith, who chairs the Royal Society's working party on biological weapons.

He told The Observer 'I am concerned about the canvas sides. Ideally, you would want airtight facilities for making something like anthrax. Not only that, it is a very resistant organism and even if the Iraqis cleaned the equipment, I would still expect to find some trace of it.'

His view is shared by the working group of the Federation of American Scientists and by the CIA, which states: 'Senior Iraqi officials of the al-Kindi Research, Testing, Development, and Engineering facility in Mosul were shown pictures of the mobile production trailers, and they claimed that the trailers were used to chemically produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.'

Artillery balloons are essentially balloons that are sent up into the atmosphere and relay information on wind direction and speed allowing more accurate artillery fire. Crucially, these systems need to be mobile.

The Observer has discovered that not only did the Iraq military have such a system at one time, but that it was actually sold to them by the British. In 1987 Marconi, now known as AMS, sold the Iraqi army an Artillery Meteorological System or Amets for short.

Saddam's trucks were for balloons, not germs
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2003 10:22 am
According to today's latest news about those two vans, the CIA claims they 'WERE' chemical labs. As if we're going to trust the CIA. c.i.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2003 11:19 am
They need more time. Of course the UN needed more time, but there was no more time. How come a US month is five times longer than a UN month???
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2003 12:45 pm
All in the 'perception' Wilso...... c.i.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2003 12:47 pm
Possibly because the UN was hamstringed by a thousand "diversions" (or so we were told), and the US now has free reign to go wherever they want in that country, whenever they want.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2003 12:53 pm
Ex-Official: Evidence Distorted for War
By JOHN J. LUMPKIN
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration distorted intelligence and presented conjecture
as evidence to justify a U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a retired intelligence
official who served during the months before the war.
``What disturbs me deeply is what I think are the disingenuous statements made from the
very top about what the intelligence did say,'' said Greg Thielmann, who retired last
September. ``The area of distortion was greatest in the nuclear field.''
Thielmann was director of the strategic, proliferation and military issues office in the
State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. His office was privy to classified
intelligence gathered by the CIA and other agencies about Iraq's chemical, biological and
nuclear programs.
In Thielmann's view, Iraq could have presented an immediate threat to U.S. security in two
areas: Either it was about to make a nuclear weapon, or it was forming close operational
ties with al-Qaida terrorists.
Evidence was lacking for both, despite claims by President Bush and others, Thielmann said
in an interview this week. Suspicions were presented as fact, contrary arguments ignored,
he said.
The administration's prewar portrayal of Iraq's weapons capabilities has not been
validated despite weeks of searching by military experts. Alleged stockpiles of chemical
and biological weapons have not turned up, nor has significant evidence of a nuclear
weapons program or links to the al-Qaida network.

CNN NEWS
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001/20030607/111975905.htm
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2003 12:54 pm
With all the freedom they have to inspect any location, what will their next excuse be? Oh, I have it; Iraq is the size of California, so it's gonna take some time. c.i.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/02/2024 at 04:10:37