Comments on: Oh, Those Weapons of Mass Destruction

By: Anne Haight

Anne Haight — Sun, 02 May 2004 17:20:21 +0000

Pre-troll,

If those pictures are for real (the rape ones at the bottom, not the others), then holy fucking Christ.

By: tom preobsting

tom preobsting — Sun, 02 May 2004 12:47:02 +0000

I linked your site to mine, Truthprobe, which is a centrist political commentary. Check it out.

thanks

tom

By: Pre-troll

Pre-troll — Sat, 01 May 2004 06:02:14 +0000

I didn’t realize that United States soldiers were gang raping women:

The Abu Ghraib Prison Photos

I guess we can use 9-11 to justify anything…I’m up for a good gang rape and if we get caught we could just point to 9-11.

By: Bill Karwin

Bill Karwin — Fri, 30 Apr 2004 17:24:50 +0000

Anne, I appreciate your posting and the questions they raise. It seems to me that if you had access to this information, the Bush administration might have it too. Why, then, was it not presented in a detailed fashion when it became available? It would have been more solid evidence than anything they have used so far to convince the world that Iraq violated UN resolutions.

I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t think what they presented would not have been sufficient for a criminal conviction in a US court, so why is it sufficient to justify invasion, war, and regime change?

I agree with you that this issue goes beyond party affiliation. I would hold any president to the same standards. They should have presented more than rumors, assertions, and fuzzy photos to justify an action of such gravity.

By: Sigivald

Sigivald — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 18:04:40 +0000

As I recall, Kays’ report was issued after inspecting only 10% of the locations/depots/bunkers to be searched, and that he reported only that no stockpiles had been found and verified.

Not, as Mithras suggests, no “weapons”. Just no stockpiles of them. I guess it’s okay to have nerve gas as long as it’s not in a “stockpile”, and that that somehow negates the UN resolutions used to justify the war, and makes everything better.

Right?

By: Mithras

Mithras — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 04:14:29 +0000

Kay’s report contained much of this information. Kay doesn’t believe Iraq had WMD. Why is Mr. Insight Magazine correct and Kay wrong?

Also, without delving too deeply into this dreck, I note this quote: “‘Reference strains’ of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. ‘We thought it was a big deal,’ a senior administration official said. ‘But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of “starter set.”‘” First of all, what was found was a single botulinum strain – C. Okra – that could be used to generate toxin. That strain is found in soil all over the world. It was left in some scientist’s refrigerator with a bunch of other reference strains for non-threatening organisms. So, the “senior administration official” (named Feith, presumably) is just factually wrong. And there still are no WMD.

Hey, but it’s okay, because there are no shredders being used to murder people anymore. Oops, looks like they didn’t exist, either.

By: Sigivald

Sigivald — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:10:34 +0000

What’s even worse about the “pesticide” result is that, IIRC, many pesticides are nerve agents.

That chemical X tests as “a pesticide” does not, as I understand it, mean “chemical X is not a chemical weapon”.