Comments on: Wait, Saddam Had WMD, Part II

By: Dr Zen

Dr Zen — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:23:49 +0000

I have some castor oil in my kitchen. Better send some bombers to end my chemical weapons programme!

By: Sadly, No! » Crazier-Than-Usual Tuesday Steps In Its Own JR Dieckmann

Sadly, No! » Crazier-Than-Usual Tuesday Steps In Its Own JR Dieckmann — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 05:39:03 +0000

[...] be hearing more about these proven facts about the existence of Iraqi WMDs, which have been withheld from us by the liberal [...]

By: Common Sense Political Thought » Archives » I might just get banned from the Mahablog — again!

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:53:55 +0000

[...] Thinker Don Surber Gateway Pundit Pirate’s Cove Neptunus Lex Patterico’s Pontifications Sweetness and [...]

By: Silke

Silke — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 02:12:43 +0000

Teach, one potential component of a weapon does not make it a weapon. I guess by that definition Niger also has WMDs, right?

By: John Ryan

John Ryan — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 01:03:43 +0000

Teach you just don’t get it about yellowcake. It makes about as much sense to say that steel can be used to make atomic weapons. No you can not create atomic weapons out of yellowcake. You also need an incredibly large infrastructure none of which has ever been discovered. Saddam would have needed at least as much and probably twice as much time as the Iranians and they are still no where near close. And they also had the plans something which Saddam never had as Pakistan chose to sell them to his mortal enemies the iranians

By: William Teach

William Teach — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:55:29 +0000

Mortimer, it is not my claim, that excerpt came from the NY Times.

Keep moving those goal posts, Joe. If you read the 2003 SOTU, you will see it is about denying Saddam his programs, of which nuclear was one of them. But, I guess, unless the bomb is actually going off, it doesn’t count, eh?

There is no winning with the lefties, MBP. They will change their position to a more nuanced one to avoid saying “oh, shit, he actually had some of the material we were worried about.”

Define wmd, Silke. Can you not create weapons out of yellow cake? It is the primary type for making weapons. Most of it came from the weapons design plant that the Israeli’s blew to hell. Does it have to be actually going off to count?

By: Silke

Silke — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:37:05 +0000

Saddam had unprocessed yellowcake, not WMDs.

By: manbearpig

manbearpig — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:00:18 +0000

Yes, how dare anyone bring up old news… nothing to see here, move along.

This is the equivalent to saying I have constructed a bomb at my house, but since I have yet to manufacture the detonator, there is no problem.

So the UN knew about this material, and did nothing about it, leaving it in tact for Saddam to use at a later date. Now I’m not saying that this proves Iraq had WMDs, but they had the material used to manufacture them. If they weren’t planning on re-visiting the issue why keep it around, and more importantly, if the the UN knew about it, why was Iraq allowed to keep it?

How dare anyone ask that question.

By: John Ryan

John Ryan — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:12:52 +0000

Teach it takes a lot more than yellowcake to make an atomic bomb. Iran a country 4 times as big and rich as Iraq is still YEARS away it takes an incredibly large infrastructure thousands and thousands of centrifuges among other items. Saying that Saddam had WMD is stupid, no one believes it.

By: JoeCitizen

JoeCitizen — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:53:37 +0000

Everyone has always known about this yellowcake. UN inspectors had it catalogued. How can you actually try to claim that this is some new revelation, or tells us anything we didnt know before. Are you really THAT uninformed, or are you playing some dishonest game?

ANd WMD??? Do you have the slightest clue as to what yellowcake is, and the distance one must go to get from yellowcake to a weapon?

This post should be quite the embarrassment. It actually strengthens the caes of the other side, since it shows the war supporters to be either totally clueless or totally dishonest.