In article <bn6g40$u4osv$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>"Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
>Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too.
In 2003?
> Or ask the UN who as a body
>said that he had them.
Based on US info that we now know was a bunch of lies.
>Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
>them (OK, not a good source).
Again, not in 2003.
> The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
>He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
Then where are they?
>
>Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
>terror:
> Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left
>in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover
>evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend
>the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times
>within just 14 months, and it has submitted six different biological warfare
>declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.
>
> In 1995 Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of
>Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed
>that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to
>build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of
>weapons in significant quantities--and weapons stocks. Previously it had
>vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam's
>son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.
>
> Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an
>offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of
>botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25
>biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say
>UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its
>production. . . .
>
> Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and
>undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled
>monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of
>suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door, and our
>people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. . . .
>
> Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and
>closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has
>undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing
>debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have
>still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in
>Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large. . . .
>
> One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. . .
>..
>
> It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of
>this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to
>produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the
>feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that
>Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small
>force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its
>production program and build many, many more weapons. . . .
>
> Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to
>act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more
>opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and
>continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore
>the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the
>international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can
>go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
>
> And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. . . . In
>the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very
>kind of threat Iraq poses now--a rogue state with weapons of mass
>destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug
>traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
>
> If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his
>footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act
>with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations
>Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction
>program.
>
>
>
So where are those huge quantities? Where is the uranium? Where are those
drones that could deliver it all here?
Lies, all a pack of lies.
