Woodswun a écrit:
In article <gYHcc.12588372$Of.2102159@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <20040406081722.11951.00000726@mb-m06.aol.com>,
(TonyZ2001) wrote:
Saddam did have WMD plans says inspector
Brian Brady
WESTMINSTER EDITOR
SADDAM Hussein had the ability to unleash biological and chemical weapons "at
short notice" on foreign nations, according to a potentially explosive new
report by inspectors.
The leaked document, written by Charles Duelfer, the new director of the Iraq
Survey group, concludes that hard evidence does exist that Saddam had the
ability to wreak terror with the weaponry.
One doesn't "conclude" that hard evidence exists, one produces hard evidence.
Unless, of course, one is merely postulating.
Woods
The rest of the article explains the difficulty of declassifying it.
Any weapons that Iraq had would *not* be a security risk for the US, so there
would be no need to declassify anything. Further, even if you were to assume
that this was an issue, if any such hard evidence were found, it would be
trotted out to those members of Congress with security clearances - and nothing
has been trotted out to them (fake/"inaccurate" stuff notwithstanding).
There's no "hard evidence". Period. When and if any is found, we'll hear about
it from someplace other than an oped piece, like maybe the Pentagon.
Woods
Surely, if they make major finds within the two remaining years that are not
connected to tips, they'll talk about it. And they will, also, when there is no
more substance for concern, and they don't have to wait until they have all the
information they can get from snitches before they declassify the stuff they
have, although, granted, until they show it, it is hypothetical.
I just hope there are effective incentives that would insure the collaborators
freedom from prosecution. I don't know if they can get to the bottom of this
without such insurance. Unfortunately the Iraqis are not subtle like that, even
if they are not yet in control. They have to promise them things that will last
after they are gone. Like with Saddam, otherwise, there is not much incentive to
reveal the secrets...
J.
.
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq had abilty to unleash WMD on short notice |
07 Apr 2004 05:36:58 PM |
|
|
In article <a7%cc.1715079$iA2.203846@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <gYHcc.12588372$Of.2102159@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <20040406081722.11951.00000726@mb-m06.aol.com>,
(TonyZ2001) wrote:
Saddam did have WMD plans says inspector
Brian Brady
WESTMINSTER EDITOR
SADDAM Hussein had the ability to unleash biological and chemical weapons
"at
short notice" on foreign nations, according to a potentially explosive new
report by inspectors.
The leaked document, written by Charles Duelfer, the new director of the
Iraq
Survey group, concludes that hard evidence does exist that Saddam had the
ability to wreak terror with the weaponry.
One doesn't "conclude" that hard evidence exists, one produces hard
evidence.
Unless, of course, one is merely postulating.
Woods
The rest of the article explains the difficulty of declassifying it.
Any weapons that Iraq had would *not* be a security risk for the US, so there
would be no need to declassify anything. Further, even if you were to assume
that this was an issue, if any such hard evidence were found, it would be
trotted out to those members of Congress with security clearances - and
nothing
has been trotted out to them (fake/"inaccurate" stuff notwithstanding).
There's no "hard evidence". Period. When and if any is found, we'll hear
about
it from someplace other than an oped piece, like maybe the Pentagon.
Woods
Surely, if they make major finds within the two remaining years that are not
connected to tips, they'll talk about it.
Hard evidence, as in physical evidence, does not require divulging your sources.
Indeed, after having sacked the country, it can be assumed that any "tips' came
from leftover papers, no sources revealed.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq had abilty to unleash WMD on short notice |
07 Apr 2004 10:54:49 PM |
|
|
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <a7%cc.1715079$iA2.203846@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <gYHcc.12588372$Of.2102159@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <20040406081722.11951.00000726@mb-m06.aol.com>,
(TonyZ2001) wrote:
Saddam did have WMD plans says inspector
Brian Brady
WESTMINSTER EDITOR
SADDAM Hussein had the ability to unleash biological and chemical weapons
"at
short notice" on foreign nations, according to a potentially explosive new
report by inspectors.
The leaked document, written by Charles Duelfer, the new director of the
Iraq
Survey group, concludes that hard evidence does exist that Saddam had the
ability to wreak terror with the weaponry.
One doesn't "conclude" that hard evidence exists, one produces hard
evidence.
Unless, of course, one is merely postulating.
Woods
The rest of the article explains the difficulty of declassifying it.
Any weapons that Iraq had would *not* be a security risk for the US, so there
would be no need to declassify anything. Further, even if you were to assume
that this was an issue, if any such hard evidence were found, it would be
trotted out to those members of Congress with security clearances - and
nothing
has been trotted out to them (fake/"inaccurate" stuff notwithstanding).
There's no "hard evidence". Period. When and if any is found, we'll hear
about
it from someplace other than an oped piece, like maybe the Pentagon.
Woods
Surely, if they make major finds within the two remaining years that are not
connected to tips, they'll talk about it.
Hard evidence, as in physical evidence, does not require divulging your sources.
Indeed, after having sacked the country, it can be assumed that any "tips' came
from leftover papers, no sources revealed.
Woods
Who sacked what country? I doNt, ge you sometimes Woods.
And no, tips from papers will take two years to sort out, they got very scarce
tips from human sources, but this is very hard because they have nothing to
gain, especially if they risk more legal problem by coming forward.
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
