A Usenet persona calling itself riverman wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself riverman wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
He did. Evidence of Sarin was found on the battlefield, and numerous
Sarin-filled artillery shells were found.

Where is your source for this?

The "many" was a misstatement. Two WMD artillery shells were found, one
with
Sarin, the other with mustard gas. Both were probably parts of stockpiles
used during the Iran-Iraq war and on the Kurds which Hussein said had been
destroyed. Where there's one, there's most likely more.

It was barely reported by the major news media during the invasion, then
it
disappeared from the radar.

"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery
round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark
Kimmitt
(search), the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad.
"The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which
was
discovered by a U.S. force convoy."

Fox News, Monday, May 17, 2004

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

Well, that's Fox news, who I think we can agree have traded off their
credibility for sensationalism and an openly confessed pro-Bush bias quite a
while ago.

No, we most certainly cannot agree. At worst, Fox News presents a reasonably
balanced view of the news that struggles to overcome the pervasive
ultra-liberal left-wing bias of virtually all other major media sources.

Nontheless, Fox and all the other news agencies reported that the
conclusion was that this bomb was an artifact left over from the Pre-1991
era,

Which was supposed to have been destroyed long ago. Where there's one,
there's very likely others, probably buried in the desert in massive
stockpiles that we have not yet discovered. You are aware that there are
miles and miles of deeply-buried underground bunkers and tunnels under
Baghdad alone that Saddam built in the 12 years after the original invasion.

There is no reason to believe that he did not construct similar bunkers in
remote regions to store his WMD's, along with other munitions. The
insurgents in Iraq are getting their munitions from somewhere.


that the people who rigged it probably had no idea that it contained
binary Sarin,

Which is utterly irrelevant to the issue, which is that it constitutes more
proof positive that Hussein had, and used WMD's.

and in his later report, Duelfer concluded that the existance
of this bomb did not constitute evidence that there was any ongoing WMD
program.

Who said anything about "ongoing?" He had WMD's, he used them on the
Iranians and the Kurds, he stockpiled such munitions in large quantities,
and he refused to permit UN inspections intended to ensure that ALL those
stockpiles had been destroyed.

That's entirely sufficient.


If you are merely stating that some left over munitions exist, I don't think
anyone who ever shopped at an ArmyNavy store would disagree. If your
statement is that Saddam intentionally hid weapons from the pre-1991 era
from the inspectors with the intent to use them later, and the discovery of
these bombs are proof, then I refer you to Fox news again, and an excerpt
from Charles Duelfer's report:

"Duelfer, a special consultant to the director of Central Intelligence on
Iraqi WMD affairs, found Saddam wasn't squirreling away equipment and
weapons and hiding them in various parts of the country, as some originally
thought when the U.S.-led war in Iraq began, officials said. Instead, the
report finds that Saddam was trying to achieve his goal by retaining
"intellectual capital" - in other words, keeping weapons inspectors employed
and happy and preserving some documentation, according to U.S. officials."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html

What makes you think that Dueifer is infallible?

Besides, the quote itself proves my point. At the time, the best
intelligence we had indicated that Saddam DID have WMD's, that he HAD
deployed them and killed thousands of his own citizens with them, that he
WAS very likely squirreling them away in the desert during the 12 years he
defied the UN sanctions, and that he WAS playing a shell-game with UN
inspectors to prevent them from finding the evidence.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but the fact remains that at the time the
decision to go to war was made, the available evidence supported the
president's decision.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser