So is it possible that Iraq DID have WMD...and...

[PDittie]

...we ignored them?

Just ran off and left them in our rush to Baghdad?

Allowing them to be stolen?

I'm getting dizzy...

[Parche]

1. wmd

WMD is a NOOKULAR weapon, and saddam would have used that if he had one to defend himself,

They have never had Nukes, so they have never had WMD

[Shoeempress]

2. If there had been actual WMDs like weaponized Anthrax, which

were stolen by insurgents or terrorists, don't you think they would have used it by now?

[robbedvoter]

3. No dear. No WMD. UN tagged stuff - not worth going to war for

Especially since UN had it under control (them vile inspectors we kicked out)

[papau]

17. Photos of SEAL - no looting when we took control -from KSTP TV

Seals used by the IAEA (top). A seal on an Iraqi bunker door videotaped by a 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew on April 18, 2003 (bottom).

OK but which they had said more about this "seal" image that they posted to their web site.



BREAKING from KSTP (photos of IAEA seals)

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3741.html?cat=1

A 5 Eyewitness News crew in Iraq may have been just a door away from materials that could be used to detonate nuclear weapons. The evidence is in videotape shot by Reporter Dean Staley and Photographer Joe Caffrey at or near the Al Qaqaa munitions facility.

The video shows a cable locking a door shut. That cable is connected by a copper colored seal.

A spokesperson for the International Atomic Energy Agency told 5 Eyewitness News that seal appears to be one used by their inspectors. "In Iraq they were used when there was a concern that this could have a, what we call, dual use purpose, that there could be a nuclear weapons application."

[CarolynEC]

These were conventional explosives... powerful, kick-ass shit...

... but not WMD.

[EarlG]

4. There were no WMDs

But it does appear that if there had been, they would now be in the hands of terrorists. As it is, we've *only* given them 380 tons of high explosives.

The new pictures of the seals show that the explosives were there, as the Iraqis claim, as late as April 18 2003. There were no orders to guard the compound - the orders were to get to Baghdad and take Saddam as quickly as possible - so the compound was looted.

[proud patriot]

8. It also leads credence to "bush knew there were no WMD" going in

IMHO

[Bandit]

19. we've *only* given them 380 tons of high explosives.

Just from that one site. There is a report that there are over ten thousand such sites scattered around Iraq and are still unsecured.

[ClintonTyree]

5. No

n/t

[bullimiami]

6. UHHHHH NO!

the aholes on fox were trying to spin bush out of the dung heap with this one this afternoon.

no damn wmds. they didnt care about conventional weapons to start with. they were looking for the PROOF that their leader needed

[jdj]

11. actually, with the duefler (sp) report just having come out

what I am thinking is that they wanted to draw out the lie as close to election day as possible.

If they started with the premise that they knew the whole thing was a sham (and as I understand it Murdoch is a professional propagandist) and they were there to spin the story to close enough to the election so no one cared anymore, then really, they have succeeded. Smashingly.

[xray s]

7. It is pretty well proven he didn't

But if he DID, the way Bush went to war would have guaranteed any WMD would have fallen into the hands of terrorists.

Good point!

[The_Casual_Observer]

9. High Explosives, got it now?

And they left them because they had no political value at the time. They do have great political value now however....

[txindy]

10. Conventional weapons are not WMD.

Not even close. They are, however, great at blowing up lots of smaller objects - like our troops. That makes them destructive enough to protect them from being stolen, but not WMD-destructive. Not worthy of an invasion, particularly when the weapons were under lock and key.

[jdj]

13. is it true the shelf life of WMD's is something like 5 years?

so the WMD's would have been "expired" anyway, the bio and chem. weapons.

[txindy]

15. It would depend on the WMD. Some chemical compounds break down.

I don't know their timetables, though, sorry. But, yes, some do have definite shelf-lives.

[Kinkistyle]

12. Its like having 5000 megatons of firecrackers.

Yeah, its gonna cause some "mass destruction" when you set it off, but firecrackers are not WMD's. ;)

[bowens43]

14. No. There were no WMD.

[Sugarbleus]

16. don't believe so......... Inspectors scoured the country

tagging and cataloging everything. I believe whatever weapons of serious harm he had, were destroyed a long time ago..PLUS some things in that old inventory or "wmd" have a "shelf life"...

I remember watching the march to baghdad in the beginning; soldiers stopped here and there pointing out stock piles of conventional weaponry all over the place. As many as were possible (with limited manpower)were blown up by us. I also remember the Hazemat "kits" the imbeds showed as they marched towards baghdad...I always wondered if those things were "planted"... Boxes of bio suits and epidrine or whatever the antidote stuff is called, in schools and buildings.. many marked with the names of origin: FRANCE, RUSSIA.. etc.

Soldiers searched in rivers and dug holes looking for WMD..They looked at all sorts of stuff on their way to the "city"

IF there had been anything serious there, it had to be in the most minute and unstable quantities.........NOT TONS like Bushco claimed.

[UL_Approved]

18. What exactly could have been there?

Do we know yet that there was no nuclear material, or biological or chemical for that matter, in the vicinity? How long did KSTP correspondents have to scour the area and look at all the stuff? If they only had a day, there could have been a SCUD missile with a nuclear warhead go out the back door in pieces. We don't know what exactly left, and I would bet that only the people who have the stuff know what was taken. And why would people immediately use these weapons if they had them? Why not wait until you got more desperate or needed a bargaining chip? They've managed to hide out small arms and conventional explosives to date, why not pieces of a WMD?