i agree. every one wanted to give the inspector months
and months, but, now they expect overnight to find
them... a little bit of double standards and also
political manouvering.
give it some time. if they find them, it will be
another open the door and hit yourself in the nose
trick for the opposition.


--- "Cleveland, Kyle E." <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Kat,
>
> Our comb really hasn't been that fine-toothed yet.
> The Iraqi "players" had
> plenty of time during the saber-rattling buildup to
> hide whatever they
> needed to hide.  The bio/chem agents don't really
> need much in the way of
> facilities to store the end product--they could be
> in a Baath house (no pun)
> anywhere in sympathetic territory.  The radiological
> agents would be more
> difficult to store, but if you could find a zealous
> party member who was
> ignorant to the safety issues that wouldn't be a big
> deal either.  Iraq
> ain't Russia, but it's certainly not Rhode Island
> either.
>
> My take is that we've probably found a boatload of
> stuff already with CIA,
> SAS and Spec Ops operators on the ground in Iraq and
> Syria.  It may be in
> our best interest to keep this quiet now so that
> other operations are not
> compromised.  I look at it this way:  As long as you
> keep my kids and my
> country safe, I don't need to know how you do
> it--just do it.  Since the
> "shooting war" is pretty much over, the media have
> packed up their cameras,
> their Christiane Ammanpours and gone home or
> elsewhere.  The real work can
> now begin without a bunch of "imbedded reporters"
> wanting to know what it's
> like to take a dump in the desert.
>
> Here are some hard truths that will make people mad,
> but also make it safer
> to be American:
>
> We are the only superpower in the world.  That makes
> folks like French
> bureaucrats mad because their collective memory
> recalls the days when they
> were a superpower too.
>
> Being the world's superpower, we can operate with
> diplomatic and military
> impunity--anywhere, anytime.  That also raises the
> hair on the collective
> necks of the former colonizing nations.  All I can
> say to them is:  every
> world power has had their glory days and then faded
> into impotence.  This
> will happen to America some day, just not today.
>
> It was American idealism that ended centuries of
> colonialism and conquest by
> nations all over the world.  Americans still
> operate, militarily and
> politically (to some degree), with that idealism and
> sense of "fair play".
> If there's going to be a "superpower" the world's
> nations should actually be
> relieved it's the US and not some other nation that
> does not have the same
> sense of national altruism (though it does wax and
> wane, it's still always
> there).
>
> Too many have lost the sense of outrage that was
> common on 12 September
> 2001.  There were far fewer civilian deaths in
> Hawaii on 7 December 1941,
> yet the collective cry for justice lasted far longer
> and was more strident
> sixty years ago.  Our attention span is so short
> that once the cool camera
> shots of bombs and bullets start to thin we are back
> to fretting about the
> economy and whether or not the Kentucky Derby was
> fairly won.  We have this
> luxury because our military might is so overwhelming
> and our sentries, on
> the whole, are so good at catching the would-be
> terrorists--and we have
> brave young men and women, British, American and
> ohers, who are willing to
> go do things that, on the surface, seem cold &
> callous.  Even cruel.
>
> We don't need to know the details of their mission
> or who's arm they twisted
> to gather the secrets.  We don't want to know.  We
> shouldn't know--no matter
> what CNN's producers or Geraldo Rivera or the UN
> Security Council say.  Just
> remember that the next time you get out of bed to go
> to a peace march or an
> ani-Bush rally, that there is some American,
> Canadian or British kid with a
> rifle searching in the rain and snow and heat in the
> wilds of Northeast
> Afghanistan or the Syrian border for someone who
> would have you executed in
> his country for marching; who would kill your
> children and parents for not
> wearing the burkha; who would castrate you or chop
> off your clitoris if you
> were even accused of disagreeing with his religious
> conviction.  Would you
> be willing to pay this price for "peace" in an area
> that has NEVER known the
> kind of peace you envision?
>
> So, off soapbox and back to your question, Kat.  I
> feel strongly that the
> WMD destruction is a piss-poor excuse for deposing
> Sadaam.  I wish that the
> administration had thought of something more
> plausable and concrete.  Hell,
> we may never find them, but it sure isn't why we
> invaded Iraq, and it sure
> wasn't for oil, either (silly idea, actually).  We
> did it to put the horse's
> head in the collective beds of Syria, Lebanon, Iran,
> Pakistan.  Using the
> language that has been spoken by every leader in the
> Mesopotamian region
> since the beginning of civilization, we told them
> that you had better keep a
> lid on your anti-western zealots, or else.
>
> Kyle
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kat [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 10:36 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: WMD's? What do you think?
>
>
> This is a question mainly for Kyle, but anyone can
> answer. ;-)
>
> Do you think we'll ever find *hard* evidence of
> WMD's in Iraq?  So far we've
> searched the country with a fine-toothed comb and
> stil have come up with
> miminal evidence.  What do you think, Kyle?
>
> That was one of my major concerns before going to
> war. It was a major
> justification for Bush but I wasn't so sure there
> would be evidence for us
> to find for the justification.
>
> Kat


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com