"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:DP1Bc.6932215$iA2.785449@news.easynews.com...

Katherine Wolfe a écrit:

You don't, get it. There was no vote. Resolution 1441 called for the

lifting of

the cease fire no matter what.

Do you truly not remember the "vote, no vote, we don't need a vote"
dance that Bush did right before we invaded? I certainly do.

I showed you that no?
http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2004_4_26.html Iraq had Chemical
Weapons, Israeli General Says (...) “Perhaps they

transferred

them to another country, such as Syria,” he said. “We very clearly
saw

that

something crossed into Syria. Perhaps they (the Iraqis) buried them,”

Yaalon

added (Laurie Copans, Associated Press/Ireland Online, April 26).

"perhaps...maybe...we saw something..." But the point is, Jean, we
didn't see what crossed into Syria, and if Iraq had the bunches of
chemical and biological weapons we would have seen *lots* of movement.
We didn't. No one did.

Where are the portable bioweapons laboratories being
pulled by tractor trailers? You can't just make this stuff and not

leave

any kind of a trail at all.

They found one.

Actually, they didn't. David Kay's interim report mentions two
trailers that were found in Northern Iraq, but says, "Investigation
into the origin of and intended use for the two trailers found in
northern Iraq in April has yielded a number of explanations, including
hydrogen, missile propellant, and BW production, but technical
limitations would prevent any of these processes from being ideally
suited to these trailers."

Iraq facilities are NOT monitored.

Yes, but they have been inspected since the invasion, and we haven't
found any evidence of Ames strain spores at any facility. Nor have we
found any of the sophisticated equipment that would have been
necessary for the grade of carrier that was used in the anthrax
letters.

But this shows the terrorists primitive method with high tech

weaponization like

Iraq had. It shows exactly terrorist hand.

Jean, I'm not going to get into the dozens of scenarios for delivery
that would have been just as low-tech, but a whole lot more effective,
because, frankly, I don't want to give anyone out there ideas.
Suffice it to say that Al Qaeda could have gotten a whole lot more
bang for the buck out of that anthrax, and all they would have needed
was a handful of people in a major metropolitan area to do it. I
thought, even at the time, that we had really dodged a bullet with the
letters, since there are so many more high-yield ways to deliver it.

Um, Jean - you're citing a nostradamus prophecy website? <boggle>

This is MY website, this group is about Nostradamus, this is the two
top

WMD

inspectors, Kay himself speaking about the anthrax saying Saddam is
the

most

likely source.

But in December of last year a report was made to UNMOVIC that "traces
of anthrax recovered from a bomb in early 2003 were of the same strain
Iraq declared in 1991 it had weaponized. " This was conclusively
proven to not be the Ames strain. Additionally, the facilities
inspected in Iraq were not found to use either the silica, or
polymerized glass, that researchers think are the most likely
dispersants in the anthrax letter samples.

We had no clear evidence that Iraq was the supplier of the Senate
anthrax, and, years afterward, we still don't. In fact, we have a lot
of data, after the invasion, that suggests that Iraq wasn't capable of
producing weaponized anthrax of this degree of sophistication. The
salient point in all this is that we need to keep looking for who did
produce it.

There's enough doubt as to which individual, corporation, or
governmental facility is guilty that I don't think we can legitimately
point to Iraq and say "They did it!" I think we need that degree of
certainty before we start landing troops on foreign soil. I think
you probably disagree with that, but I don't think we can just start
invading any of the countries that could have produced the anthrax,
because we'd be invading a dozen countries - Russia among them. A lot
of people *could* have done it - but right now, we still don't know
positively who *did* do it.

Bah... Upsetting things are the only ones to blame. ;-)

We aren't talking blame here, we're talking blood pressure! ;-)

I'll let the last round of this go to you, Jean, since you've
obviously got some set ideas, and while I certainly respect your right
to have them, I don't agree with them. There are a lot of people who
are arguing that the world has changed since 9/11, and we need to
respond to any possible threat, but when you look out there the world
is so full of possible threats we'd end up invading nearly everybody.

I think we need to think really carefully before we throw a century's
worth of diplomacy and strategic military containment away. I
especially think we shouldn't throw it away on any less than
incontrovertable evidence of imminent danger. I don't think we had
that in Iraq.

Katherine

"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:DP1Bc.6932215$iA2.785449@news.easynews.com...

Katherine Wolfe a écrit:

You don't, get it. There was no vote. Resolution 1441 called for the

lifting of

the cease fire no matter what.

Do you truly not remember the "vote, no vote, we don't need a vote" dance
that Bush did right before we invaded? I certainly do.

I showed you that no? http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2004_4_26.html
Iraq had Chemical Weapons, Israeli General Says (...) “Perhaps they

transferred

them to another country, such as Syria,” he said. “We very clearly saw

that

something crossed into Syria. Perhaps they (the Iraqis) buried them,”

Yaalon

added (Laurie Copans, Associated Press/Ireland Online, April 26).

"perhaps...maybe...we saw something..." But the point is, Jean, we didn't
see what crossed into Syria, and if Iraq had the bunches of chemical and
biological weapons we would have seen *lots* of movement. We didn't. No
one did.

Where are the portable bioweapons laboratories being
pulled by tractor trailers? You can't just make this stuff and not

leave

any kind of a trail at all.

They found one.

Actually, they didn't. David Kay's interim report mentions two trailers
that were found in Northern Iraq, but says, "Investigation into the origin
of and intended use for the two trailers found in northern Iraq in April has
yielded a number of explanations, including hydrogen, missile propellant,
and BW production, but technical limitations would prevent any of these
processes from being ideally suited to these trailers."

Iraq facilities are NOT monitored.

Yes, but they have been inspected since the invasion, and we haven't found
any evidence of Ames strain spores at any facility. Nor have we found any
of the sophisticated equipment that would have been necessary for the grade
of carrier that was used in the anthrax letters.

But this shows the terrorists primitive method with high tech

weaponization like

Iraq had. It shows exactly terrorist hand.

Jean, I'm not going to get into the dozens of scenarios for delivery that
would have been just as low-tech, but a whole lot more effective, because,
frankly, I don't want to give anyone out there ideas. Suffice it to say
that Al Qaeda could have gotten a whole lot more bang for the buck out of
that anthrax,

and all they would have needed was a handful of people in a
major metropolitan area to do it. I thought, even at the time, that we had
really dodged a bullet with the letters, since there are so many more
high-yield ways to deliver it.

Um, Jean - you're citing a nostradamus prophecy website? <boggle>

This is MY website, this group is about Nostradamus, this is the two top

WMD

inspectors, Kay himself speaking about the anthrax saying Saddam is the

most

likely source.

But in December of last year a report was made to UNMOVIC that "traces of
anthrax recovered from a bomb in early 2003 were of the same strain Iraq
declared in 1991 it had weaponized. " This was conclusively proven to not
be the Ames strain. Additionally, the facilities inspected in Iraq were not
found to use either the silica, or polymerized glass, that researchers think
are the most likely dispersants in the anthrax letter samples.

We had no clear evidence that Iraq was the supplier of the Senate anthrax,
and, years afterward, we still don't.

In fact, we have a lot of data, after
the invasion, that suggests that Iraq wasn't capable of producing weaponized
anthrax of this degree of sophistication. The salient point in all this is
that we need to keep looking for who did produce it.

There's enough doubt as to which individual, corporation, or governmental
facility is guilty that I don't think we can legitimately point to Iraq and
say "They did it!"

I think we need that degree of certainty before we start
landing troops on foreign soil.

I think you probably disagree with that,

but I don't think we can just start invading any of the countries that could
have produced the anthrax, because we'd be invading a dozen countries -
Russia among them. A lot of people *could* have done it - but right now, we
still don't know positively who *did* do it.

Bah... Upsetting things are the only ones to blame. ;-)

We aren't talking blame here, we're talking blood pressure! ;-)

I'll let the last round of this go to you, Jean, since you've obviously got
some set ideas, and while I certainly respect your right to have them, I
don't agree with them. There are a lot of people who are arguing that the
world has changed since 9/11, and we need to respond to any possible threat,
but when you look out there the world is so full of possible threats we'd
end up invading nearly everybody. I think we need to think really carefully
before we throw a century's worth of diplomacy and strategic military
containment away. I especially think we shouldn't throw it away on any less
than incontrovertable evidence of imminent danger. I don't think we had
that in Iraq.

Katherine