More evidence of Virginia's blueness...

[Truth Detector]

Are you suggesting that Bush was unaware of the caveats and qualifiers contained in NIE's concerning Iraq's WMD stockpiles? Are you suggesting that our president did not read the National Intelligence Estimates prepared for him?

But according to a dishonest moron like you, these people were not AS certain as Bush having the same intelligence:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Yep, Billybob here sounds real uncertain doesn't he shit-for-brains.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

I cannot imagine a more uncertain statement than “he will use” right shit-for-brains?

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

Here's a bunch of uncertain Democrats shit-for-brains.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Another uncertain claim by the former Sec State right shit-for-brains?

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

I cannot imagine a more uncertain claim than someone who says "there is no doubt" eh shit-for-brains?

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Stating that "we know" has always had an uncertain connotation to it hasn't it shit-for-brains?

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

Another Democrat who is so uncertain, he states the noncommittal statement "we are confident." Isn't that right shit-for-brains?

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

Another Democrat who seems so unsure, he used the words "to disarm" instead of "might disarm", right shit-for-brains?

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

Of course we can also suggest that stating that there is "unmistakable evidence" is merely a caveat right shit-for-brains?

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

Democrat Bob Graham is real uncertain in this one right shit-for-brains?

I will leave you with this final comment from the current Sec Defense and ask that you please stop embarrassing yourself with the constant meme that somehow Bush was the ONLY man in the entire world that actually KNEW Saddam didn't have WMDs and somehow fooled EVERYONE, by lying, into thinking he did.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

You really are THAT pathetic, THAT dishonest and THAT stupid.

 

[Jarod]

But according to a dishonest moron like you, these people were not AS certain as Bush having the same intelligence:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Yep, Billybob here sounds real uncertain doesn't he shit-for-brains.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

I cannot imagine a more uncertain statement than “he will use” right shit-for-brains?

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

Here's a bunch of uncertain Democrats shit-for-brains.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Another uncertain claim by the former Sec State right shit-for-brains?

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

I cannot imagine a more uncertain claim than someone who says "there is no doubt" eh shit-for-brains?

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Stating that "we know" has always had an uncertain connotation to it hasn't it shit-for-brains?

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

Another Democrat who is so uncertain, he states the noncommittal statement "we are confident." Isn't that right shit-for-brains?

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

Another Democrat who seems so unsure, he used the words "to disarm" instead of "might disarm", right shit-for-brains?

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

Of course we can also suggest that stating that there is "unmistakable evidence" is merely a caveat right shit-for-brains?

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

Democrat Bob Graham is real uncertain in this one right shit-for-brains?

I will leave you with this final comment from the current Sec Defense and ask that you please stop embarrassing yourself with the constant meme that somehow Bush was the ONLY man in the entire world that actually KNEW Saddam didn't have WMDs and somehow fooled EVERYONE, by lying, into thinking he did.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

You really are THAT pathetic, THAT dishonest and THAT stupid.

1. IN none of your quotes did anyone say Saddam HAD WMD.
2. None of those quotes were used as a case for invading Iraq.

 

[Truth Detector]

There are none.

Really?

Members of the House of Delegates

The House of Delegates is composed of 100 members, 53 Democrats and 47 Republicans, from 67 delegate districts throughout the state. Delegates serve two-year terms with all of the seats in the House up for election every two years.

Facts have never been a Liberal skill.

 

[Jarod]

Really?

Members of the House of Delegates

The House of Delegates is composed of 100 members, 53 Democrats and 47 Republicans, from 67 delegate districts throughout the state. Delegates serve two-year terms with all of the seats in the House up for election every two years.

Facts have never been a Liberal skill.

Sorry, you lose, you failed to pay attention to the statement.

 

[Truth Detector]

1. IN none of your quotes did anyone say Saddam HAD WMD.
2. None of those quotes were used as a case for invading Iraq.

You might want to read them again; this time while using your brain instead of those rose colored partisan glasses dunce.

I don't know how anyone can be as dishonest as this after reading that list. But no one has ever accused you of being truthful or honest have they Counselor?

 

[Truth Detector]

Sorry, you lose, you failed to pay attention to the statement.

Oh that's right, we are going to pretend that Virginia never had any Republican Senators and probably never will because the state is deep blue according to youuuu; my bad.

 

[NOVA]

But according to a dishonest moron like you, these people were not AS certain as Bush having the same intelligence:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Yep, Billybob here sounds real uncertain doesn't he shit-for-brains.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

What weapons of mass destruction if you don't have any...
I cannot imagine a more uncertain statement than “he will use” right shit-for-brains?

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

Here's a bunch of uncertain Democrats shit-for-brains.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Another uncertain claim by the former Sec State right shit-for-brains?

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

I cannot imagine a more uncertain claim than someone who says "there is no doubt" eh shit-for-brains?

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

How can he store something he doesn't have ???

Stating that "we know" has always had an uncertain connotation to it hasn't it shit-for-brains?

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

Confident he retains them and you deny anyone says he has them ?....How stupid are you....really ?

Another Democrat who is so uncertain, he states the noncommittal statement "we are confident." Isn't that right shit-for-brains?

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

Disarm Saddam of something Jarod claims no one said he had....is that possible

Another Democrat who seems so unsure, he used the words "to disarm" instead of "might disarm", right shit-for-brains?

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

Of course we can also suggest that stating that there is "unmistakable evidence" is merely a caveat right shit-for-brains?

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

Democrat Bob Graham is real uncertain in this one right shit-for-brains?

I will leave you with this final comment from the current Sec Defense and ask that you please stop embarrassing yourself with the constant meme that somehow Bush was the ONLY man in the entire world that actually KNEW Saddam didn't have WMDs and somehow fooled EVERYONE, by lying, into thinking he did.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

You really are THAT pathetic, THAT dishonest and THAT stupid.

Jarod;1424746]1. IN none of your quotes did anyone say Saddam HAD WMD. [/SIZE]
2. None of those quotes were used as a case for invading Iraq.

Its sad that someone as totally ignorant as you is allowed to vote....I'm so glad you're a democrat....

 

[maineman]

But according to a dishonest moron like you, these people were not AS certain as Bush having the same intelligence:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Yep, Billybob here sounds real uncertain doesn't he shit-for-brains.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

I cannot imagine a more uncertain statement than “he will use” right shit-for-brains?

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

Here's a bunch of uncertain Democrats shit-for-brains.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Another uncertain claim by the former Sec State right shit-for-brains?

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

I cannot imagine a more uncertain claim than someone who says "there is no doubt" eh shit-for-brains?

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Stating that "we know" has always had an uncertain connotation to it hasn't it shit-for-brains?

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

Another Democrat who is so uncertain, he states the noncommittal statement "we are confident." Isn't that right shit-for-brains?

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

Another Democrat who seems so unsure, he used the words "to disarm" instead of "might disarm", right shit-for-brains?

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

Of course we can also suggest that stating that there is "unmistakable evidence" is merely a caveat right shit-for-brains?

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

Democrat Bob Graham is real uncertain in this one right shit-for-brains?

I will leave you with this final comment from the current Sec Defense and ask that you please stop embarrassing yourself with the constant meme that somehow Bush was the ONLY man in the entire world that actually KNEW Saddam didn't have WMDs and somehow fooled EVERYONE, by lying, into thinking he did.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

You really are THAT pathetic, THAT dishonest and THAT stupid.

just highlight the quote from any of those democrats other than Gore that says there is absolute certainty that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's.

That's all I ask.

 

[maineman]

Oh that's right, we are going to pretend that Virginia never had any Republican Senators and probably never will because the state is deep blue according to youuuu; my bad.

no one is saying that they never had any or never will have any...we're just saying that, today, they don't have any. Do you disagree with that?

 

[NOVA]

just highlight the quote from any of those democrats other than Gore that says there is absolute certainty that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's.

That's all I ask.

know (nō)v. knew (no̅o̅, nyo̅o̅), known (nōn), know·ing, knows
v.tr.1. To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.

2. To regard as true beyond doubt

But I don't feel like playing word games with you today.....so shove the fuck off.

 

[Jarod]

Biological and chemical weapons are not necessary WMD. Just ask Dixie. He once claimed a bottle of Clorox bleach is a chemical weapon.

 

[Truth Detector]

just highlight the quote from any of those democrats other than Gore that says there is absolute certainty that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's.

That's all I ask.

Stunning; you really are THAT dishonest because no one can be this incredibly stupid... but then you work very hard every day to prove that you really are.

Dismissed; you're too stupid to try to have a serious conversation with.

 

[Truth Detector]

Biological and chemical weapons are not necessary WMD. Just ask Dixie. He once claimed a bottle of Clorox bleach is a chemical weapon.

Another dishonest ingorant dunce. Color me shocked. This comment is simply too stupid to comment on; seriously.

 

[Truth Detector]

no one is saying that they never had any or never will have any...we're just saying that, today, they don't have any. Do you disagree with that?

You're right; they just won an election. Virginia has a history of Democrats representing them, yet the point being made now is what?

 

[Jarod]

You're right; they just won an election. Virginia has a history of Democrats representing them, yet the point being made now is what?

That for the first time since the Civil Rights Movement began, ALL of Virginia's state wide elected officials are Democrats.

 

[NOVA]

Key Judgments [from October 2002 NIE]
Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction
We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these Key Judgments.)

We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq's WMD efforts, owing to Baghdad's vigorous denial and deception efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD programs.

Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

* Iraq's growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases Baghdad's capabilities to finance WMD programs; annual earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled, from $580 million in 1998 to about $3 billion this year.

* Iraq has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production.

* Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.

* Although we assess that Saddam does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them. Most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that UNSCOM inspectors departed--December 1998.

How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.

* If Baghdad acquires sufficient fissile material from abroad it could make a nuclear weapon within several months to a year.

* Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until 2007 to 2009, owing to inexperience in building and operating centrifuge facilities to produce highly enriched uranium and challenges in procuring the necessary equipment and expertise.

o Most agencies believe that Saddam's personal interest in and Iraq's aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge rotors--as well as Iraq's attempts to acquire magnets, high-speed balancing machines, and machine tools--provide compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad's nuclear weapons program. (DOE agrees that reconstitution of the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes probably are not part of the program.)

o Iraq's efforts to re-establish and enhance its cadre of weapons personnel as well as activities at several suspect nuclear sites further indicate that reconstitution is underway.

o All agencies agree that about 25,000 centrifuges based on tubes of the size Iraq is trying to acquire would be capable of producing approximately two weapons' worth of highly enriched uranium per year.

* In a much less likely scenario, Baghdad could make enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon by 2005 to 2007 if it obtains suitable centrifuge tubes this year and has all the other materials and technological expertise necessary to build production-scale uranium enrichment facilities.

We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosarin), and VX; its capability probably is more limited now than it was at the time of the Gulf war, although VX production and agent storage life probably have been improved.

* An array of clandestine reporting reveals that Baghdad has procured covertly the types and quantities of chemicals and equipment sufficient to allow limited CW agent production hidden within Iraq's legitimate chemical industry.

* Although we have little specific information on Iraq's CW stockpile, Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents--much of it added in the last year.

* The Iraqis have experience in manufacturing CW bombs, artillery rockets, and projectiles. We assess that they possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads, including for a limited number of covertly stored Scuds, possibly a few with extended ranges.

We judge that all key aspects--R&D, production, and weaponization--of Iraq's offensive BW program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf war.

* We judge Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives.

o Chances are even that smallpox is part of Iraq's offensive BW program.

o Baghdad probably has developed genetically engineered BW agents.

* Baghdad has established a large-scale, redundant, and concealed BW agent production capability.

o Baghdad has mobile facilities for producing bacterial and toxin BW agents; these facilities can evade detection and are highly survivable. Within three to six months [Corrected per Errata sheet issued in October 2002] these units probably could produce an amount of agent equal to the total that Iraq produced in the years prior to the Gulf war.

Iraq maintains a small missile force and several development programs, including for a UAV probably intended to deliver biological warfare agent.

 

[NOVA]

Biological and chemical weapons are not necessary WMD. Just ask Dixie. He once claimed a bottle of Clorox bleach is a chemical weapon.

Are you claiming that bleach cannot be used as a chemical weapon ?....Is THAT what you're REALLY telling us ?

 

[Jarod]

Are you claiming that bleach cannot be used as a chemical weapon ?....Is THAT what you're REALLY telling us ?

No, I am sure it could be, but a single bottle in a woman's cupboard does not make a chemical weapon, or a wmd.

 

[maineman]

Are you claiming that bleach cannot be used as a chemical weapon ?....Is THAT what you're REALLY telling us ?

are you really saying that countries with supermarkets stocked with Clorox really, in effect, have stockpiles of WMD's

 

[maineman]

Hey Write.... why don't you post the pages of caveats and qualifiers from that same NIE?

just curious.