Outsports Discussion Board > US FINDS WOMD.....in Maryland

Full Version: US FINDS WOMD.....in Maryland

Outsports Discussion Board > Outsports > Politics & Religion

RazorbackTX

May 28 2003, 08:14 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1227...,965319,00.html

The good news for the Pentagon yesterday was that its investigators had finally unearthed evidence of weapons of mass destruction, including 100 vials of anthrax and other dangerous bacteria.
The bad news was that the stash was found, not in Iraq, but fewer than 50 miles from Washington, near Fort Detrick in the Maryland countryside.
_________________________________________________

When do we start bombing Maryland....

charliecstl

May 28 2003, 08:48 AM

Rumsfeld said today that there may be no WOMD to find in Iraq. Of course, he also said that there may be some that are so well hidden, the thousands of people we have hunting for them may just not be able to find them. (Because the Iraqis had them so ready for attacking us.)

The BBC's take on the whole thing is that the issue is about to blow up in the UK. The government there used the whole WOMD issue as its sole legal reason for initiating the war. Apparently, in the UK, if you put something like this forward and it proves not to be true, the government has to answer for their false allegations.

How novel.

fantomas

May 28 2003, 09:17 AM

Well, Blair was trying to use the "mass graves" as a reason for the war, except that when Saddam was doing most of the killing, in 1991 after the US and Britain had urged the Shi'ites and Kurds to rise up against Hussein, neither Britain nor the US used the massacre as a pretext for going in and stopping him. Where were the protests then? It's such a farce.

BTW, what's with the renewed attacks against US forces, and the stream of accidents? Didn't W. triumphantly announce the cessation of battle in his flightsuit stunt?

[ May 28, 2003, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

RazorbackTX

May 28 2003, 01:18 PM

QUOTE

charliecstl:
The BBC's take on the whole thing is that the issue is about to blow up in the UK. The government there used the whole WOMD issue as its sole legal reason for initiating the war. Apparently, in the UK, if you put something like this forward and it proves not to be true, the government has to answer for their false allegations.

Looks like in the UK their holding Poodles' feet to the fire while here Chimp skates along cutting taxes and racking up record deficits.

fantomas

May 29 2003, 01:42 PM

Yubanet.com: The silent manipulator

QUOTE

Hank Starr: The Silent Manipulator
By Hank Starr, Nevada City
May 27, 2003, 07:06
Email this article
Printer friendly page

I hate it when people lie to me and try to manipulate me. I particularly hate it when it’s my President and/or my local newspaper that is doing the manipulating.

Last week, Jessica Lynch’s hometown newspaper, the Charleston (West Virginia) Gazette, confirmed that the Bush administration’s story, fed to and headlined by newspapers such as The Union, was all a lie. Jessica had neither been shot nor stabbed. Her injuries were caused when her vehicle overturned. The Iraqis had not tortured her. They hospitalized her and gave her medical treatment. The claims of a daring rescue and a deadly fire-fight were all phony. Our military knew that the hospital had been abandoned by Iraqi troops days before they rushed in, firing weapons and videotaping the operation. The unarmed Iraqi doctors and patients were needlessly handcuffed and terrorized to make the video look more spectacular.

And like most Americans, I was deeply concerned when, in his January State of the Union address, President Bush told us: \"…that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of Sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent ... upward of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents ... materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin ... 29,984 of these prohibited munitions ... an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.\"

After thousands of man hours and millions of dollars spent on a fruitless search for these weapons of mass destruction, it appears that this, too, was a lie. The only question is whether the Pentagon was lying to the President or whether the President was simply lying to us. As I recall, the principal issue of the Republicans, during the last election, was “character.” It was time, they said, to return honesty and integrity to the White House. In retrospect, stains on a blue dress seem rather insignificant by comparison.

fantomas

Jun 2 2003, 12:15 PM

Actually, questions. Let's say Iraq did have WMDs at the levels W. and Blair claimed. And let's say that as soon as Saddam knew the US was going to invade, he began destroying them. (I'll set aside the argument that his doing so would have satisfied the thrust of our UN resolutions and thus negated the war.)

1) Wouldn't our satellite systems, which were able to pick up incredible amounts of aural/oral intelligence chatter, as well as visual imagery, have noticed the possibly burning or destruction? We did pick up troop and artillery movements pretty easily.

2) Wouldn't there have been considerable or at least recognizable biochem residue? Certainly the US and its allies have the very best detection equipment. I have spoken with a chemist friend who says that given the sorts of chemical weapons and biological agents in the amounts that Saddam was purported to have, and given that they were said to be in weaponized form, it would have been impossible for him or his army to have completely scrubbed clean the areas in and around which he destroyed the weapons. Residue of non-WMD Iraqi and US ordnance is everywhere in Iraq now, but so far the US teams have not found even the slightest traces of NEW WMDs.

3) Isn't it strange that so far NOT ONE of the Iraqi scientists--including "Dr. Anthrax," etc.--has been able to point out even a credible site that W. could tout, and that the best that he and Lebensr. have been able to come up with is those trailers, which not only do not have any traces of biochems, but very likely--as the administration has admitted tacitly--could have been used for HYDROGEN production? Now, I am loathe to believe anything out of the Iraqis mouths, but I think it's odd that there aren't even TRACE bits of biochem; it's rather tough to clean up sarin, mustard gas, etc., or the biological agents these trailers supposedly were built to manufacture. Yet W. is still publicly claiming them as evidence....

4) Why, if nuclear weapons also were such a major factor in the rush to war, did the US military NOT secure nuclear sites in Iraq? We knew--know--where they are. Why did the military not immediately begin cataloguing and tracking very carefully the nuclear materials--from low-grade cesium to truly dangerous uranium--that are now said to have been freely and easily looted and stolen? Given how many of the Republican Guard simply shed their uniforms and blended into the civilian population, and given how ferociously anti-US the fedayeen Saddam were, and given that Saddam himself may be biding his time, wouldn't we at least have wanted to prevent at all costs the worst possible outcome--the transfer of nuclear materials to our sworn enemies?

[ June 02, 2003, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.