Oil For Food Scandal...

Originally posted by conserv.pat15
It means that Saddam did not comply with resolution 1441.

Click to expand...

Briefing of the Security Council, 27 January 2003:
An update on inspections
Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix
The governing Security Council resolutions

Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.

Click to expand...

Originally posted by conserv.pat15
I never said he was.

Click to expand...

Originally posted by conserv.pat15
Kay found that Saddam was in material breech of resolution 1441.

Click to expand...

Originally posted by conserv.pat15
You are wrong.

Click to expand...

Originally posted by conserv.pat15
Read Kay's whole report.

Click to expand...

How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programmes? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed. Another matter - and one of great significance - is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for". One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

Click to expand...

Originally posted by conserv.pat15
Billo Really... "unaccounted for" WMDs is a violation of resolution 1441.

Click to expand...

Billo_Really said:

WTF is this? You want to explain this one?

Click to expand...

Originally posted by conserv.pat15
I can't make it any more clear.

Click to expand...

Billo_Really said:

Yes you can, unless you can't!

Did you even see my post before?

Click to expand...

Originally posted by conserv.pat15
Yes, I saw your post. Now, did you see my post...

"Unaccounted for" WMDs violates resolution 1441.

Click to expand...

Billo_Really said:

"Unaccounted for" does not mean they exist. So if they do not exist, how can that possibly be a violation?

Click to expand...

Fiercely Proud American said:

PeteEU:


Saddam's Arsenal

Click to expand...

Originally posted by conserv.pat15
The onus was on Saddam to prove that the destruction of these WMDs took place. As Blix said, Iraq gave many documents showing that these WMDs existed. Without proof that the WMDs were destroyed meant that Iraq did not give a complete declaration of their WMDs.

Inspections after the war began showed even further material breach of resolution 1441.

Click to expand...

Billo_Really said:

Prove it!

We've been there 4 years and haven't found jack s.h.i.t!

Click to expand...

Fiercely Proud American said:

Simon W. Moon:


Thank you for explaining your comment.

Although the USA is a permanent member of the UNSC, we did not violate the 12+ years of UNSC Resolutions imposing sanctions on Iraq - so the answer to your question would be NO.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I apologize if my comment was construed as insulting. I did not intend for it to be that way.

Click to expand...

Nothing. He was meant to be an example of US efforts to put heat on the UN (AKA, the smear campaign).

Click to expand...

I don't consider 12 years of sanctions so harsh that it killed half their babies inconsequential.

Click to expand...

The Institute for the Study of Genocide (ISG) and the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS)

Saddam is the Cause of Iraqis' Suffering
The Links Between United Nations Sanctions, Food and Medical Inadequacies in Iraq Since 1991, and States' Responsibility

Milton Leitenberg (Center for International and Security Studies, University of Maryland )

[Ed. note: Milton Leitenberg is a scientist by professional training who has worked on arms control, including biological and chemical weapons, for 35 years. The following article is an abridgment and update of a 1998 paper he prepared for the Conference on Peaceful Use of Biotechnology and the Convention on Biological Weapons in Trieste, Italy.]

The link between Iraq's interest in magnifying the malign effects of sanctions and developing weapons of mass destruction continues. In September 2000, Iraq thwarted the efforts of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to assess the effect of sanction and devise ways to enhance the nutritional and economic effects of the oil-for-food program (Barbara Crossette, New York Times, September 12, 2000, A1). Since 1998, Iraq has been exporting oil at pre-1990 rates but nevertheless still claims that sanctions are increasing child mortality despite the ability to use greatly increased national income from oil revenue to buy food and medicine through the oil-for-food program.

At the same time, Iraq has diverted attention from its violations by alleging a humanitarian crisis caused by the UNSC-mandated sanctions. The crux of this issue is that the deterioration of the nutritional status of children has been the result of policy choices made by the Iraqi government in the intervening years, rather than by the sanctions directly. Precisely because of exceptions included in the original UN Security Council sanctions resolutions, Iraq always had the ability since 1991 to import food and medicines, and Iraq additionally had both the currency reserves and sufficient current earnings with which to do so. The Iraqi government simply chose to use its money and its earnings for other purposes. Therefore, if child mortality and malnutrition have been excessive since 1991, that is not due to the sanctions directly, but to the choices that the Iraqi government has made for ten years on how to use its available funds under constrained circumstances.

Click to expand...

I'm not "playing dumb." I just didn't know the answer to your question. Is that okay?

Click to expand...

The only person who is qualified to make an assessment of the state of Iraqi weaponry, is Hans Blix. And he said there wasn't any since 1992.

Click to expand...

Sunday, July 17, 2005 5:08 p.m. EDT
The Uranium Joe Wilson Didn't Mention

By April 2003, when the U.S. invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein had stockpiled 500 tons of yellowcake uranium at his al Tuwaitha nuclear weapons development plant south of Baghdad.

That intriguing little detail is almost never mentioned by the big media, who prefer to chant the mantra "Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction" while echoing Joseph Wilson's claim that "Bush lied" about Iraq seeking more of the nuclear material in Niger.

The media's decision to put the Wilson-Plame affair back on the front burner, however, may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for President Bush - giving his administration a chance to resurrect an important debate they conceded far too easily about the weapons of mass destruction threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

"The United States has informed an international agency that oversees nuclear materials that it intends to move hundreds of tons of uranium from a sealed repository south of Baghdad to a more secure place outside Iraq," the paper announced in a little-noticed May 2004 report.

"The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program until it was largely shut down after the first Persian Gulf war in 1991, holds more than 500 tons of uranium," the paper revealed, before insisting: "None of it [is] enriched enough to be used directly in a nuclear weapon."

Click to expand...

Then you have "pages and pages" of bullshit!

Click to expand...

Don't push it!

Click to expand...

If I have a Constitutional right to address my grievances to the government, why do you think I should consider Benedict Arnold?

Click to expand...

You don't consider over 2000 sorties dropping over 600 bombs on over 300 pre-selected targets under the cover of no-fly zone enforcement a violation?

Click to expand...

Hans Blix, as well as other inspectors after we went into Iraq, also said that Saddam violated the resolution. Blix also said that Saddam had WMDs "unaccounted for."

Click to expand...

Text of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 on Iraq: November 8, 2002

United Nations
New York, New York
November 8, 2002

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution
[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,
Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq’s continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,
Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,
Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

Click to expand...

No he didn't! He said the exact opposite.

He also said that does not mean "...they do exist."

Click to expand...

HANS BLIX REPORT TO THE U.N
January 27, 2003

Full text of the report by Hans Blix, chief United Nations weapons inspector, to the U.N. Security Council on the state of weapons inspections in Iraq, as mandated by U.N. Resolution 1441.

HANS BLIX: Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-General: The resolution adopted by the Security Council on Iraq in November last year asks UNMOVIC and the IAEA to, quote-unquote, "update" the council 60 days after the resumption of inspections. This is today.

The updating, it seems, forms part of an assessment by the council and its members of the results so far of the inspections and of their role as a means to achieve verifiable disarmament in Iraq.

As this is an open meeting of the council, it may be appropriate briefly to provide some background for a better understanding of where we stand today. With your permission, I shall do so.

I begin by recalling that inspections as a part of a disarmament process in Iraq started in 1991, immediately after the Gulf War. They went on for eight years, until 1998, when inspectors were withdrawn. Thereafter, for nearly four years there were no inspections. They were resumed only at the end of November last year.

While the fundamental aim of inspections in Iraq has always been to verify disarmament, the successive resolutions adopted by the council over the years have varied somewhat in emphasis and approach. In 1991, Resolution 687, adopted unanimously as a part of the cease- fire after the Gulf War, had five major elements. The three first related to disarmament: They called for declarations by Iraq of its programs of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles; verification of the declarations through UNSCOM and the IAEA; supervision by these organizations of the destruction or the elimination of prescribed programs and items. After the completion of the disarmament, the council would have the authority to proceed to a lifting of the sanctions, and the inspecting organizations would move to long-term, ongoing monitoring and verification.

Resolution 687 in 1991, like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer to, required cooperation by Iraq, but such was often withheld or given grudgingly. Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons, and welcomed inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.

As we know, the twin operation, declare and verify, which was prescribed in Resolution 687, too often turned into a game of hide and seek. Rather than just verifying declarations and supporting evidence, the two inspecting organizations found themselves engaged in efforts to map the weapons programs and to search for evidence through inspections, interviews, seminars, inquiries with suppliers and intelligence organizations.

As a result, the disarmament phase was not completed in the short time expected. Sanctions remained and took a severe toll until Iraq accepted the oil-for-food program, and the gradual development of that program mitigated the effects of the sanctions.

The implementation of Resolution 687 nevertheless brought about considerable disarmament results. It has been recognized that more weapons of mass destruction were destroyed under this resolution than were destroyed during the Gulf War. Large quantities of chemical weapons were destroyed under UNSCOM's supervision before 1994. While Iraq claims, with little evidence, that it destroyed all biological weapons unilaterally in 1991, it is certain that UNSCOM destroyed large biological weapons production facilities in 1996. The large nuclear infrastructure was destroyed, and the fissionable material was removed from Iraq by the IAEA.

One of three important questions before us today is, how much might remain undeclared and intact from before 1991 and possibly thereafter? The second question is, what, if anything, was illegally produced or procured after 1998, when the inspectors left? And the third question is how it can be prevented that any weapons of mass destruction be produced or procured in the future.

Click to expand...

UN Confirms: WMDs Smuggled Out of Iraq
© June 18, 2004, Rod D. Martin

In a report which might alternately be termed “stunning” or “terrifying”, United Nations weapons inspectors confirmed last week not merely that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but that he smuggled them out of his country, before, during and after the war.

Late last week, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) briefed the Security Council on Saddam's lightning-fast dismantling of missile and WMD sites before and during the war. UNMOVIC executive chairman Demetrius Perricos detailed not only the export of thousands of tons of missile components, nuclear reactor vessels and fermenters for chemical and biological warheads, but also the discovery of many (but not most) of these items - with UN inspection tags still on them -- as far afield as Jordan, Turkey and even Holland.

Notably absent from that list is Iraq's western neighbor Syria, ruled by its own Baath Party just like Saddam's and closed to even the thought of an UNMOVIC inspection. Israeli intelligence has been reporting the large-scale smuggling of Saddam's WMD program across the Syrian border since at least two months before the war. Syria has long been the world's foremost state-sponsor of terrorism.

Perricos highlighted the proliferation danger to the Security Council, as well he should: UNMOVIC has no idea where most of the WMD material is today, just that it exists and it's gone; and anything in Syria is likely to be in Jerusalem or New York tomorrow.

Click to expand...

But it did show Iraqi cooperation. If you surf over to documents on that link, you will find what you seek.

Click to expand...

HANS BLIX REPORT TO THE U.N
January 27, 2003

One of three important questions before us today is, how much might remain undeclared and intact from before 1991 and possibly thereafter? The second question is, what, if anything, was illegally produced or procured after 1998, when the inspectors left? And the third question is how it can be prevented that any weapons of mass destruction be produced or procured in the future.

Click to expand...

Even if Saddam was in violation of 1441, that did not give the US the right to attack unilaterally.

Click to expand...

"Coalition of the Willing" Already Larger than the 1991 Gulf War coalitionby Paolo Pasicolan and Carrie Satterlee
WebMemo #225
March 19, 2003

Just one day after announcing a 48-hour ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq, President Bush once again has been criticized for "unilateralism." On the contrary, a large, and growing, number of countries have decided to join a "coalition of the willing" to liberate Iraq.

Secretary of State Colin Powell on Tuesday announced that, "We now have a Coalition of the Willing that includes some 30 nations who publicly said they could be included in such a listing," Powell said, "and there are 15 other nations, for one reason or another, who do not wish to be publicly named but will be supporting the coalition."1

Furthermore, several other countries not mentioned by Sec. Powell have publicly offered either political or military support for the war (see list).

To date, there are 54 countries that have joined the Coalition of the Willing--not including Canada, Germany, and France, which have recently offered conditional support. This does not include all of the 15 nations that have offered quiet support. The number of nations to date already eclipses the 1991 Gulf War coalition, which had 38 countries. 2

Click to expand...

I hope this helps.

Author: Scott Ritter

Click to expand...

Billo Really... "unaccounted for" WMDs is a violation of resolution 1441.

Click to expand...

U.S. flies radioactive material, suitable for dirty bomb, out of Iraq
By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press, 7/6/2004 19:45

WASHINGTON (AP) In a secret operation, the United States last month removed from Iraq nearly two tons of uranium and hundreds of highly radioactive items that could have been used in a so-called dirty bomb, the Energy Department disclosed Tuesday.

The nuclear material was secured from Iraq's former nuclear research facility and airlifted out of the country to an undisclosed Energy Department laboratory for further analysis, the department said in a statement.

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham described the previously undisclosed operation, which was concluded June 23, as ''a major achievement'' in an attempt to ''keep potentially dangerous nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists.''

The haul included a ''huge range'' of radioactive items used for medical and industrial purposes, said Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration.

Much of the material ''was in powdered form, which is easily dispersed,'' said Wilkes.

The statement provided only scant details about the material taken from Iraq, but said it included ''roughly 1,000 highly radioactive sources'' that ''could potentially be used in a radiological dispersal device,'' or dirty bomb.

Also ferried out of Iraq was 1.95 tons of low-enriched uranium, the department said.

Wilkes said ''a huge range of different isotopes'' were secured in the joint Energy Department and Defense Department operation. They had been used in Iraq for a range of medical and industrial purposes, such as testing oil wells and pipelines.

Uranium is not suitable for making a dirty bomb. But some of the other radioactive material including cesium-137, colbalt-60 and strontium could have been valuable to a terrorist seeking to fashion a terror weapon.

Such a device would not trigger a nuclear explosion, but would use conventional explosives to spread radioactive debris. While few people would probably be killed or seriously affected by the radiation, such an explosion could cause panic, make a section of a city uninhabitable for some time and require cumbersome and expensive cleanup.

Nuclear nonproliferation advocates said securing radioactive material is important all over the world.

A recent study by researchers at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies concluded it is ''all but certain'' that some kind of dirty bomb will be set off by a terrorist group in the years ahead. There are just too many radioactive sources available across the globe, the report said.

''This is something we should be doing not just in Iraq,'' Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, said when asked to comment on the Energy Department announcement.

Oelrich hesitated to characterize the threat posed by the uranium and other radioactive material secured in the secret U.S. operation because few details were provided about the material. The Energy Department refused to say where the material was shipped.

But Oelrich said it is widely believed that medical and industrial isotopes can be used in a dirty bomb.

The low-enriched uranium taken from Iraq, if it is of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, could have been of value to a country developing enrichment technology.
''It speeds up the process,'' Oelrich said, adding that 1.95 tons of low-enriched uranium could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.

Click to expand...

UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Friday, June 11, 2004

The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.

The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program.

The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared.

UNMOVIC acting executive chairman Demetrius Perricos told the council on June 9 that "the only controls at the borders are for the weight of the scrap metal, and to check whether there are any explosive or radioactive materials within the scrap," Middle East Newsline reported.

"It's being exported," Perricos said after the briefing. "It's being traded out. And there is a large variety of scrap metal from very new to very old, and slowly, it seems the country is depleted of metal."

"The removal of these materials from Iraq raises concerns with regard to proliferation risks," Perricos told the council. Perricos also reported that inspectors found Iraqi WMD and missile components shipped abroad that still contained UN inspection tags.

Click to expand...

Yes Saddam Did Have WMD's
By Doug Hagin (04/28/2004)

For months now America has listened to every Liberal politician and activist blast President George W. Bush for the lack of weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. We have listened as many of those same presidential critics have claimed that President Bush misled the nation about Iraq even having weapons of mass destruction.

Now the entire world knows Iraq did have them at one point because they had used them against Iran and the Kurds. The mass graves unearthed in Iraq certainly are testaments to Iraq’s possession of these weapons.

Yet the lack of such weapons found by our military forces have become a sore point for the Bush administration. Serious questions have been raised as to whether or not Saddam Hussein had destroyed his stockpile of weapons or whether he had shipped them away right before we went into Iraq to remove him and the threat President Bush told us he presented.

So where are those famed weapons of mass destruction? Where are the biological and chemical agents which so concerned our intelligence agencies? Did President Bush lie? Was he the victim of faulty intelligence? Could his Liberal critics actually have it right when they accuse him of misleading us?

The facts thus presented by the media do not paint a rosy picture for the president, but are those facts wrong? What if the intelligence describing Saddam’s weapons was correct after all?

According to new information coming out of Iraq our military is indeed finding weapons and evidence of weapons programs.

The Iraq Survey Group, or ISG, has found hundreds of activities which were prohibited under United Nations Security Council resolutions. Evidence of chemical, biological and ballistic weapons have indeed all been found yet the mention of these finds seems to fly far under the media’s radar. Why?
According to Charles Duefler, a former State Department official as well as deputy chief of the United Nations-led arms inspection teams the types of weapons found are not the specific weapons mentioned by President Bush. “

There is a long list of charges made by the U.S. that have been confirmed, but none of this seems to mean anything because the weapons that were
unaccounted for by the United Nations remain unaccounted for.”

Both Duefler and David Kay, found Iraq had “a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing it’s chemical-and biological-weapons programs” a senior administration official told Insight Magazine. According to this official inspectors have also found a prison laboratory where intelligence officials suspect biological weapons were tested on human subjects.

There is more that has been found though. Among these were uranium-enrichment centrifuges which have one plausible use to build nuclear weapons. Remember that President Bush was convinced Saddam was pursuing nuclear capabilities. Apparently he was right.

In addition Iraqi scientists have consistently told our inspectors they were under orders from Saddam Hussein to hide their activities from U.N. inspectors. Further, the missiles listed as threats to America have indeed been found yet the media has remained silent.

Not to say the media has an agenda but the evidence of WMD’s has indeed been largely ignored by the mainstream press. Everyone heard about it when David Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found no stockpiles of prohibited weapons. That was front-page news. Yet, when Kay testified about the discoveries of the ISG the silence fro the media was deafening.

In his testimony Kay also laid bare some other nasty secrets Saddam had been hiding from U.N. inspectors.

So-called reference stains from a wide variety of biological weapons were found in the home of a prominent Iraqi scientist. This was written off by the press as a sort of starter kit and deemed unimportant.

New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin that were not declared to the United Nations.

A line of unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, or drones, 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 kilometers [311 miles], 350 kilometers [217 miles] beyond the permissible limit.

Further, evidence from testimony of Iraqi scientists and documents show that between 1999 and 2002 Iraq was negotiating with North Korea for technology for various missiles. These missiles, of course, could have been armed with chemical or biological agents.

There is much more evidence laid out by Insight Magazine that our press seems not to deem worthy. This information is also available on World Net Daily. Every American should check out this evidence and re-think the criticisms of our decision to eliminate Saddam and the very real threat he posed to our nation.

Click to expand...

So, it seems that you're wrong in your assumption that the US wasn't involved. The US has gotten a free pass, that's all

Click to expand...

We've been there 4 years and haven't found jack s.h.i.t!

Click to expand...

Fiercely Proud American said:

What makes me mad at this is that the Administration should have come clean instead of attempting to hide it.

Click to expand...

Originally posted by Simon W. Moon:
I'm not sure that they had to attempt anything. The law is real and is necessary to keep our foreign intel services away from our citizens - akin to a 'posse comitatus' for the USIC's foreign intel divisions.

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Fiercely Proud American
I don’t understand your rationale – Bolton was appointed Ambassador to the UN after the major scandals broke – so how can anyone smear an organization that is already buried in **** 10 miles high ???

Click to expand...