Illicit Arms Kept 'Til Eve of War, Iraqi Scientist Asserts

I find this very interesting. This article was published in the New York Times. It is very possible that the scientist who is providing the information, may be leading the U.S. to what may very well be the "smoking gun". Yet, this thread seems to have stirred no interest. Cat got your tongue?

It is interesting, can't wait to see what pans out.

It does sound promising.

Now, when Saddam's regime exists no more, presence or absence of WMDs is not so much important. Saddam will be unable to use these by all means. It is quite possible that Iraqi WMDs are being kept in Syria right now. maybe, they were transferred there by the arrival of the inspectors. Ignorabimus...

steissd- Maybe Saddam has been rendered impotent in Iraq, but my concern is how much of his "handiwork" fell into the hands of Al Queda.

I am also pissed off that while th U.N. was debating incessently, the Iraqis were either moving or destroying the "evidence". I too think that I will wait and see what develops!

I doubt very much that any one scientist working under Saddam was prevy to the full picture of their WMD program. I think we need to wait until more scientists and engineers come forward with specific information about what they also did during the past two-three months. c.i.

c.i.- I heard a commentator say that this scientist was privy only to a small part of the chemical warfare program. But I think that he is a good lead!

I do not think that it will get into hands of Al-Qaeda; it is more likely that it has already fallen into the hands of the Syrian regime.

We will just have to wait and see what develops.

Following...

bookmark

Does anyone know how much in way of financial incentive America is giving to the scientists?

Craven





Don't beat around the bush. Say it right out.

au,

I have not made this assumption, I also do not hold the suspicion that you are implying (reasonably).

If the scientist was paid it's a possibility, if he was not then it is not a possibility.

The story is young, it can go many ways from here. Whenever money is offered some say what they know you want to hear. There is no data to suggest that this is the case and my inquiry is to inform myself about the facts.

This is why I have a distaste for nationalistic paranoia.

Craven- Don't know, but I would guess that the U.S. is playing "Let's Make a Deal" with the captured members of Saddam's administration. Unless there was something in it for the captives, there would be no reason to talk, if torture is not involved.

Whether it's money, a plea bargain, or immunity from prosecution, I could not even speculate. I think that the government needs to weigh how valuable the information would be to the US, before there is some decision made as to what to offer the captives.

I know that the US is offering money, I am curious about the amounts.

I think Tommy can approve $5,000-10,000 by himself and am pretty sure that Rumsfield can approve up to $100,000.

I'm curious as to what category this scientist falls under.

Craven makes a valid point... shills do demand payment.

And let's admit it... prostitutes will say whatever you pay them to say. Hearsay is merely that until it helps to provide CONCRETE proof... in the case of Iraqui WMDs, identifyable residue is a must.

If the WMDs were in amounts adequate to pose a valid threat, they cannot have been destroyed without any corresponding residue.

Asking America to believe a story without corroboration is beyond arrogant... it's a flagrant slap at the intelligence of the citizenry.
(Not that we haven't been slapped in the past...)

I'm not making the case for this evidence being false and subject to the indivisual's greed. I am only muddying the waters, I have no supporting data and do not expect it. But the basic intent is what you mentioned. Question everything.

Thing is, the destruction of the WMDs is something hard to prove. This is a situation that is tricky for both sides.

Destruction immediately prior to the war would be used as justification for the war. At the same time that theory is one of the simplest to fake.

I think this one will go both ways, some will believe it's justification, others will believe it's propaganda.

I believe that it's probably true (time frame might be a bit flexible) but do not consider it justification any more than finding incriminating evidence after the fact justifies an execution justifies taking leave of due course.

It seems to me that Saddam gambled on the timing and lost big time. c.i.