You are doing what was required - provide supporting facts. Now you are indignant because forced to do what your were required? I am amused ... an emotion.

Your Washington Post citation discusses what would be an insurgent lab attempting to create some unknown chemicals. Why do you post this as proof of Saddam's WMD program? It is clearly not. A slew of dangerous chemicals not assembled to produce anything. Meanwhile we make semiconductors with same chemicals that were also used as chemical weapons. Does that prove I too am building a WMD? And still none of this has anything to do with Saddam as aimeecc claims. Even that Fallujah lab was apparently created after Saddam was gone.

Your usa.today article from 2004 of what Polish troops suspected was later found, as I recall, to not be weaponized chemicals. Meanwhile, periodically found were empty shells that were once part of Saddam's WMD program. Empty shells because that WMD program was destroyed by UN sanctions - again contradicting aimeecc's assertions.

David Kay who led the ISG effort strongly believed he would find these WMDs. But as reported repeatedly, no such weapons - including chemical weapons - were found.

One fact that still puzzles all is where something like 35% of the chemical weapons went. It was well known (except where spin remains popular) from interviews that Saddam ordered the destruction of his WMDs in 1995. Also known is that records of what and how much were destroyed where were poorly maintained or did not exist.

When he resigned in January 2004 as head of ISG, and from Fiasco by Thomas Ricks Kay further explains where so much of these false rumors come from. Let's move on to that Duefler report - the final ISG report in October 2004. Key findings from Regime Strategic Intent: IOW Saddam would have restarted his WMD programs due to an Iranian threat. But he had no plans and had no actions. aimeecc ignored that important fact. Saddam had no plans and had no actions. Saddam needed sanctions to end so that he could address his Iranian threat. He had no intent to attack America despite popular myth (spin) that suggested otherwise. Saddam did everything necessary to meet UN restrictions while still bluffing - because Saddam's threat was Iran - not America or Israel. Above quote directly contradicts aimeecc's claims. Saddam did not even have capacity to start a legitamite chemical industry - let alone a weapons program. As noted above, even I worked in transistor factories that use chemicals also used for chemical warfare. Using spin, both Saddam and I could be accused of a chemical weapons program. Which means Saddam had no ongoing WMD programs or WMD weapons stored as amieecc would assume. But then tw has been saying same all along. Saddam terminated all chemical weapons programs in direct contradition to posts by aimeecc.

aimeecc - your interpretation of the final SIG report forgets to include parts where Saddam then gave up all his chemical weapons. Forgetting that part is called telling a half truth - also described as spin. Such forgetfulness is also found among those others who use poltical agendas rather than facts. Saddam was not a threat to anyone in 2001. Why do you believe he had WMDs when he clearly did not? Why do you forget to mention the bottom line conclusions bluntly stated by both David Kay and by Deufler's reports? Saddam had no WMDs no matter how you spin it.

So, we know they were destroyed because somebody said so. Were these the same somebodys that told us who to send to Gitmo?

We know they were destroyed because the people who said so did so without torture, were tested by professional interviewers confirming their stories against others testimony, and because many of the interviewees even implicating themselves by being so honest. The report notes how interviewers were surprised how many were so candid about everything. The Duefler report includes a section on why they know their report is so accurate.

Furthermore hard evidence confirms what was discovered in those interviews. The facts were overwhelming. Gitmo was not taking Iraqi prisoners. Gen Miller had not yet started up American torture chambers in two cell blocks in Abu Ghiad.

However later on as the administration was frustrated with no finding WMDs, then torture was approved. One Iraqi General was killed in Abu Ghriad while being tortured because he would not give up WMDs - so that report says. But then he could not give up what did not exist. So Americans basically murdered that man for no reason other than Cheney's poltical agenda.

Don't miss another fact also included in previous posted quotes. Claims by both George Jr and Cheney use 11 September to justify "Mission Accomplished". Many posts by another here denies that fact. But again, he often uses poltical agendas to justify his conclusions. The reality was both George Jr and Cheney claimed Saddam was allied with bin Laden. To say otherwise is to rewrite history - to spin it.

Where is this report? I missed that one. Please cite.

Actually, I had first asked you to back up your claim that the finding of WMDs was a hoax. You have yet to post any of you "hoax" facts.

Let's see... since you are too lazy to find any more information...

New York Time May 18, 2004
NERVE AGENT
Army Discovers Old Iraqi Shell Holding Sarin, Illicit Weapon
By DEXTER FILKINS

BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 17 — American commanders said Monday that they discovered an Iraqi artillery shell last week containing sarin, one of the deadly nerve agents that Saddam Hussein said he had destroyed before the war began last year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/18/in...rint&position=

Is Sarin used to wash clothes in? I guess that's the new way to do laundry - wash it in an artillery shell filled with Sarin. Because every one knows that artillery shells containing Sarin can be used for things other than a weapon.

Wait - I thought you said all of these artillery shells filled with Sarin were destroyed by Saddam years before the invasion? Than how can it be?

BTW, most people don't need someone else to google news for things that were reported widely on. If this was some random news event that only one newspaper reported on... well, than I don't mind finding it for you. But dozens of newspapers (hundreds if you count international media), mainstream new sources, have reported multiple times on findings of either actual weapons, or the chemicals used to produce them. Just because you choose to tune out the news that does not support your point of view does not negate your responsibility as a spewer of facts (and spewer of spin) to know about the real actual facts.

:brikwall:
I'm telling you it is useless. TW finds it completely unnecessary to provide support for his arguments once he "knows" them to be true. It is your job to go find the info he knows to prove you are enlightened.

I know... but I have to occasionally defend myself against the all knowing but doesn't need to back up his statements with facts tw.

I never claimed to be enlightened ... :)

The classic and well documented approach to a Conspiracy Theorist argument...

Did someone in here call me? :tinfoil: