Will "No WoMD" come back and bite us on the bum??

..Thankfully none of the current gaggle of Democratic contenders has hung their hat on this sole issue, but I am getting a sinking feeling in my gut that there's going to be some sort of grand announcement that they've either been found, or evidence that SH removed them at the last minute due to *'s manly threats of violence and the Reich-Wing media in this country will crucify every single person that had the temerity to question *'s integrity...

I hope that it is simply my tin-foil hat buzzing extra loud, but I wouldn't put it past these bastards to manipulate this..would you??

I hope I'm wrong.

TB

it doesn't matter anymore. If Saddam ever had them, he couldn't procure them in time to use them, they are in such remote locations that we can't find them (rendering them obsolete anyways), but more likely, they just don't exist. It's a non-issue.

A WMD is not some poison chemical in a barrel. To be a weapon, it has to be "weaponized". Something that can be used on a delivery system.

It's VERY difficult to kill large numbers of people without endangering yourself with gas, nerve agents etc.

It could also account for Dubya's smugness recently.

My head really jerked to attention when Wesley Clark was being interviewed recently and said that he was sure Saddam had some WMDs.

That statement was absolute innoculation and I knew it meant that Clark has some inside knowledge that something is going to break.

Like you said, our other candidates have been cautious about hanging their respective hats on the WMD issue. probably a good thing.

Because Rummy sold/gave them to him. The question is: Did Saddam have WOMD when Chimpy ordered the Blitzkrieg? But more importantly, where is the evidence that Saddam ever intended to team up with al_Qaeda and give/sell them WOMD--even though al_Qaeda hated the secular Hussein and wanted him dead? Would the Chimp give/sell nukes to ELF?

Bwah! Great one liner.

The answer? NO!!!!

Same with Saddam & Osama. They're polar opposites.

I, too, think it's likely that Saddam had something. It just seems that Bush vastly overstated the threat.

SH was working on something too.

... to justify an unprecedented, offensive, pre-emptive, invasion and conquest of a sovereign nation against world opinion.

I'm sure the Clinton administration was also "convinced" of this obvious reality as well.

and begin screaming, the wmd's are in Syria and we need to attack. American soldiers lives mean nothing to him. Just like when he was govenour of Texas and he executed people without reading transcripts of there cases.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=13334377&method=full&siteid=50143

And I read somewhere else this morning that the claim is to be they are in Lebanon.

I remember him saying right after the U.N. began inspections, it has been 5 days already and they have'nt found any thing.

So now "they are in Lebanon"? Before, we heard "they are in Iraq".

The Mirror article includes statements such as:
"...evidence on how the WMDs were removed by Saddam Hussein prior to invasion."
"...ex-Iraqi military personnel are being used to gather intelligence."
"...providing evidence of the means of removal of weapons."
"...senior figures in the Iraqi regime who told him of deaths and injuries among military personnel used to conceal "highly toxic" weapons."

The article says that "they are waiting for the right moment" to release the information. Yeah, like after Bush slips below 50% in most polls.

But still no actual weapons, I see. Just "evidence" that they've been removed. Not even actual people who were injured by chem/bio weapons. Just "stories" of this.

That's what this amounts to so far, and likely will amount to. Just "stories". No weapons. Just another impossible to disprove allegation that the weapons are (now) in another country.

Well, there is one way to disprove it: Invade, conquer and occupy the country.

But didn't we already try that one?

They'll have to cart out an nuclear-tipped ICBM marked "Target:NYC" in Iraqi writing for this to register, and it would still be believed to be a plant by most.

The upcoming report by Kay and the bunch over there is said to have some startling revelations, but they are already downplaying expectations and talking about "documents" and "proof" that there was an effort by the Iraqis to re-start and conceal proscribed weapons programs.

DUH! No one ever said the Iraqis were being totally honest! The issue is "Were they an imminent threat that necessitated immediate and unprecedented pre-emptive war, the unprovoked invasion, conquering, and occupation of a sovereign nation against world opinion?" The answer, obviously, is NO. No matter what they "find".

I wonder exactly what will be revealed in September, but I'm skeptical at best.

"But real progress has been made on the ground in Iraq with providing evidence of the means of removal of weapons"

Okay so now we've gone from "within 45 mins" to "weapons program" to "means for removal". What exactly does means for removal mean?

Saddam possessed moving vans?

:wtf:

But I think that time has passed. The Bushistas could roll out a bona fide nuclear device in Baghdad tomorrow, but the damage has been done. "No weapons of mass destruction" has served the purpose, which was to get the media and the public to start questioning this corrupt administration and its bogus rationales.

The questions didn't stop at that one issue, as they shouldn't, and now there are questions being bruited about all sorts of things (the Northeast Blackout and any connection to Dick Cheney's Double Secret Energy Meetings, the EPA report about the post-September 11 air around the WTC collapse, etc.) that the Crony Cabal would rather had been forgotten forever.

The djinn is out of the bottle, and the questions are going to keep piling up. This bunch doesn't handle criticism very well.

The point was not just that SH had them, but that he would be able to use them at a moment's notice. Clearly that did not happen. Not only that, but the 'intelligence' on which we based these claims has already been demonstrated to have been manifestly lying/wrong. The phantom WMDs weren't where we 'knew' they were, and the specific claims that the WH made abotu them (the uranium import, the aluminum tubes, the "armageddon in 45 minutes" hoohah) have all been debunked. Similarly, every time the army has gleefully announced evidence of WMDs it has turned out to be someone's compost heap in the end. This administration has been crying wolf for way too long; nobody will care what they can find in Lebanon.

Of course, the flip side to that is a lot of people don't actually care whether the WMDs existed or not--why is a mystery to me, I must say, but nevertheless it's true. But the upshot of it is, if we suddenly 'discover' WMDs in another country (especially one that we conveniently would have to invade in order to verify their existence), anybody who gave a shit about the issue in the first place will already be unlikely to fall for this tactic again.

To me, the constant repetition of "WMDs will eventually found" just sounds like pure desperation. They could find a million in Syria tomorrow and it wouldn't change the fact that everything they told us about these WMDs was lying or wrong. Anyway, the "oh, we couldn't find 'em cause he moved them" thing is more ludicrous than usual, even for this administration. What's the point of HAVING a nuclear/chemical/biological weapons program if you're not going to USE it during a friggin' hostile invasion?

Any Democrats who are holding off on going after BUsh because WMDs "might be found" are, IMHO, craven idiots. It's too late for that dog to bite. We can stop waiting. Godot has left the building, people.

C ya,

THe Plaid Adder

There are two relevant questions:

1. Did Iraq present an imminent threat to the the United States?

2. Did the idiot's administration lie to the American people, to congress and to the UN to make us/them believe that there was an imminent threat?

Every Dem running for Pres should have this tatooed on the back of their hand.

proving the French and Germans wrong."

has finally given up on finding a way to punish France.

up any slight evidence so that public is convinced Bush was right.

The only smart way to address this right now is to say, 'there's a lot of information that isn't in yet, and we should look into it.'

the argument was NOT that there might be residues rotting in 55 gallon drums in some corner of the desert...but that Iraq had them right at hand and in such profusion that they could launch a serious attack on Britain and the US in just 45 minutes.

It was a silly assertion, which is why most of the world protested the war before it ever launched.

If Iraq really had the weapons, why wouldn't they have used them when they were invaded?

How dumb would you have to be to believe at this point that they had JUST been discovered now?

Who ever said anything about WMDs?

;-)

announce maybe in may or june?