You just make things up as you go... There are NO protocols about "populated areas" which preclude normal intercept procedures. And NORAD were caught lying, even the DoD accept it and "investigated" it. "We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us. It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied." -Thomas Kean, 9-11 commission chair.
Going around in circles again.. You CLAIMED that the ISG report found biological weapons labs, and yet I asked you over and over and over again to quote the conclusion from the report. You can't, you won't, because it's NOT IN THERE. THAT is why you can't quote any passages about an active nuclear weapons program or biological weapons laboratories.. Instead you only find a mention of the handful of degraded chem weapons and Saddam's desires for the future. So all you can do is LIE about the findings of and conclusions of many dedicated people who did a very hard task in a volatile country. You should be ashamed for resorting to such disingenuous intellectual dishonesty. And instead of claiming something is there and then posting a link to the entire document assuring me the conclusion is there, sending me on a wild goose chase to find something that's not there, maybe familiarize yourself with the real findings of the report you claim backs you up: "Saddam's regime abandoned its biological weapons program and its ambition to obtain advanced biological weapons in 1995. While it could have re-established an elementary BW program within weeks, ISG discovered no indications it was pursuing such a course." -ISG report. Why do you need the same thing told over and over and over again? This is the THIRD time now. Also, your first link doesn't even work. Also, you can't even NAME the biological weapons labs or dangerous and lethal "organophosphates" you claim you found. Yeah you found such bad stuff but you can't mention what it is or quote the ISG report pointing it out either. That's a fail. Why should I need to prove all that, I didn't claim all that. Instead of making strawmans just provide evidence for your argument. And why are you shifting the burden of proof? YOU and BUSH claimed these highly lethal weapons there.. It is up to YOU to prove your case he has that stuff, not me to disprove you or prove a negative. Shifting the burden of proof is a predictible response when you can quite clearly see you've not actually got that evidence I've been requesting for MANY pages now.
, Did you read the interim and final reports I linked to? We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later: A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research. A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN. Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons. New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN. Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS). A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of� 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit. Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN. Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi. Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment. You can't, you won't, because it's NOT IN THERE. THAT is why you can't quote any passages about an active nuclear weapons program or biological weapons laboratories.. Instead you only find a mention of the handful of degraded chem weapons and Saddam's desires for the future. So all you can do is LIE about the findings of and conclusions of many dedicated people who did a very hard task in a volatile country. You should be ashamed for resorting to such disingenuous intellectual dishonesty. And instead of claiming something is there and then posting a link to the entire document assuring me the conclusion is there, sending me on a wild goose chase to find something that's not there, maybe familiarize yourself with the real findings of the report you claim backs you up: "Saddam's regime abandoned its biological weapons program and its ambition to obtain advanced biological weapons in 1995. While it could have re-established an elementary BW program within weeks, ISG discovered no indications it was pursuing such a course." http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/dkay100203.html http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1125087/posts Yes you do claim all that, prove he was in compliance and had given up all WMD programs and research and was never ever again going to be involved with WMD, what is the evidence that leads you to that conclusion inspite of the overwhelming evidence otherwise. And Clinton and Kerry and the CIA and UNSCOM and everyone else. Tell me conclusively what happened to the WMD UNSCOM was looking for and prove Saddam was no longer a WMD threat. I have already proven what he had, read the reports.
Have you not got the conclusion from the actual final ISG report? That's Kay's individual interim progress report, and a couple unnamed "administration officials".. You said the findings were said by the actual ISG report.
Yes I quoted them to you, from Duelfers final report From the final ISG report under Duelfer # 'Beginning in May 2004, ISG recovered a series of chemical weapons from Coalition military units and other sources. A total of 53 munitions have been recovered.' Why haven't you heard that? Possibly because that information was buried on page 97 of Annex F of Volume 3 of the Duelfer Report. Even if the number of WMD found were short of the 'large stockpiles' threshold demanded by invasion critics, what about the ability to produce and use WMD in a short amount of time? Here, the Duelfer Report is explicit. # '[Saddam Hussein] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.' # 'we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD production as soon as sanctions were lifted' # 'Saddam did express his intent to retain the intellectual capital developed during the Iraqi Nuclear Program.' # 'Iraq took steps to conceal key elements of its program and to preserve what it could of the professional capabilities of its nuclear scientific community.' # 'ISG found a limited number of post—1995 activities that would have aided the reconstitution of the nuclear weapons program once sanctions were lifted.' # 'Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable.' # 'Iraq's historical ability to implement simple solutions to weaponization challenges allowed Iraq to retain the capability to weaponize CW agent when the need arose.' # 'Iraq Could Maintain CW Competence With Relative Ease' # 'ISG judges that Iraq's actions between 1991 and 1996 demonstrate that the state intended to preserve its BW capability and return to a steady, methodical progress toward a mature BW program when and if the opportunity arose.' # 'Depending on its scale, Iraq could have re—established an elementary BW program within a few weeks to a few months of a decision to do so...' http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/...ds_really.html and the interim report spelled out what they had found to that point. Again, what is the premise of your conclusion Saddam had given up all intents to produce WMD and that he was in compliance with the UN sanctions? Every report shows otherwise. AND the fact remains Bush took him for the same reasons Clinton and the rest of the Democrats stated he needed to be taken out.
NONE of those things say anything about active nuclear or biological weapons programs or discovery of any weapons save the handful of degraded relics. YOU disputed me when I said the USG lies about Saddam's WMD capabilities and related intelligence. If you want to prove the words of your leaders you need better findings then this, after all Bush didn't sell the war on Saddam having a couple of leftover defunct mustard gas canisters. It's not the report of the entire team and their investigation; it's Kay's statement. You can't tout it as findings or conclusions, which was CLEARLY spelled out to you had you read the document: Not a final reckoning, and still seeking evidence. These alleged discoveries were NOT all confirmed to the point they could go in the final report. Many of these are the findings and conclusions which were abandoned by the time the team finished their work. No that's just you going off on tangeants.. I pointed you in the right direction, but you seem to have wandered off again, so I'll reorient you once more: The premise of my conclusion is NOT that Saddam was a holy saint who would never want a weapon any more lethal than a slingshot.. My conclusion is that the USG lied insofar as EXAGGERATING his capabilities and the weapons he possessed. Even Kay's progress report statement cited nothing about an active nuclear weapons program.. The fact also remains that the sky is blue on a clear day.. Not exactly RELEVANT facts now are they? Yes OTHER politicians might like war as well. Big deal. And you're lying anyway.. "The rest of the democrats" didn't state he needed to be taken out.. You just have some democrats that said it, and you dishonestly extrapolate that to mean all democrats? More democrats voted against the war than for it.
