> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Nick Arnett > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 6:53 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: RFK Jr. interview available in many places on the net > > > > I wasn't sure if you obtained your quoted directly. A quick read of that > > estimate shows numerous claims that Hussein had significant WMDs in his > > possession. > > > > Try again. It says no such thing. Having stockpiles of chemical and > biological agents is not the same as having biological and chemical > weapons of mass destruction. It's like having bullets, but no guns > for them.
Ah, that's what you are hanging your hat on? If I understand you correctly, you are saying they don't have delivery systems? But, they clearly do. They have missiles, bombs, and artillery shells. It is possible, that they would not be equipped to put the two together quickly. But, the report said the exact opposite: "The Iraqis have experience in manufacturing CW bombs, artillery rockets, and projectiles. We assess that they posses CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads, including for a limited number of covertly stored Scuds, possibly a few with extended range. We judge that all key aspects--R&D, production, and weaponization--of Iraq's offensive BW program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War. We judge Iraq has sime leathal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operations." To use your analogy, I can see why you don't see a loaded gun described in this report. But, I think it is clear that they are describing someone with a gun in his hands and a box of shells on the table in front of him. > > > > "They never said there was an 'imminent' threat. Rather, they painted > an > > objective assessment for our policymakers of a brutal dictator who was > > continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might > constantly > > surprise us and threaten our interests." > > > > is consistent with the released version of the report. > > > Yes, and it rather unambiguously implies that they did not see evidence of > WMDs, since Tenet surely would have considered them an imminent threat. There are several problems with this assessment. 1) The report clearly stated that they had biological agents ready for quick weaponization, as well as bulk fills for chemical weapons. Indeed, the version of saran that they used has the agents combined just before use. 2) Not being an imminent threat does not mean a county does not have WMD. France doesn't constitute an imminent threat, even though it has a number of H-bombs...which are clearly WMD. 3) Not stating that there was an imminent threat is not the same as stating that there is not an imminent threat. 4) Tenet testified in defense of the report after it was known that there were not any MWDs. At that time, there clearly wasn't a threat. 5) Later in the report, the likelihood of an immediate unprovoked attack by Hussein on the US was assessed as low. In that sense, there wasn't an imminent threat. >>I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, >>without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of >>time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, >>long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain >>aspects of their nuclear weaponization program > > > I'm not arguing that that isn't true. The ability to get a program going > again is not the same as having WMDs that constitute an immediate, > imminent > -- pick your word from all the words the adminstration used -- threat. But, that was said in '98 by Scott Ritter...and Hussein had 5 years to advance his programs in secret since then. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
