It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You've tried this link multiple times in the past, Seekerof, and I even debunked this one months ago. Link below.
Originally posted by Seekerof
"Nothing beens found"?
Suspected chemical warhead found in Kirkuk
Neither of these other two claims have had any substantiating follow up to determine if they were real. They're bogus propoganda until proven otherwise and they've had months to prove them real.
U.S. tests for possible chemical weapons
NPR said the rockets, BM-21 missiles, were equipped with sarin and mustard gas and were “ready to fire."
Marines reportedly find cyanide, mustard agents in Euphrates
You must be refering to "sufficient quantities" to appease, maybe?
"Nothing" is an absolute and that "absolute" is bogus.
Originally posted by jimboorder
I served ina army unit assigned in Kirkuk.
fortunately, I snaped some pics. Also, the pic of the warhead earlier posted....I think I discovered it. It was at the Kirkuk government building, which we took and I found a weapon stash and there were I believe 4 of those warheads.
Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Does sound like a legitimate possibility.
But you have to wonder how it'd make Bush look. If he waited that long to use it as a re-election tool, what does that say about him?
You are pushing the limits of semantics regarding what Saddam was supposed to have with regards to the justification for resolution 1441 which caused this invasion. As has been said before on here, you are truly the spinmaster of ATS.
Originally posted by Seekerof
Heelstone, you 'debunked it' and yet did not grasp what I was and have been saying all along. It matter'd not to me that the warhead(s) had no chemicals in them, what matter'd was that Saddam was NOT supposed to have the warheads period!
Work that one for me will ya?
Semantics my arse....dude, even the French said that 1441 was enough justification for the US to take out Saddam. You need me to find that? I also quoted that from a previous past article.
At a lunch in the White House on January 13 last year, Maurice Gourdault-Montagne, an adviser to the president, Jacques Chirac, and Jean-David Levitte, the French ambassador in Washington, put the deal to Condoleezza Rice, the US national security adviser.
In an effort to avoid a bitter US-French row, the French officials suggested that if the US was intent on war, it should not seek the second resolution....
Instead, the two said that the first resolution on Iraq, 1441, passed the previous year, provided enough legal cover for war and that France would keep quiet if the US went to war on that basis.
The deal would suit the French by maintaining its "good cop" status in the Arab world and safeguarding Franco-US relations.
Originally posted by heelstone
You spinning this subject now has completely confused your stance on it. This really is the last time I reply to any WMD post you may make as now you are simply going at a devil's advocate route to justify your position despite the glaring lack of evidence otherwise. Why bother discussing it further with you once you take such a position? Its an old subject anyway and at this point, I'm dropping it to avoid having you create any further confusing and ridiculous remarks about it.
[Edited on 28-4-2004 by heelstone]
What the Bush administration really said about the threat from Iraq.
....debate has raged over the phrase "imminent threat." Many liberal critics have asserted that a central claim in President Bush's case for war in Iraq was that Iraq posed an "imminent threat." They argue that it's now clear that no such threat existed, and thus the President's argument has been revealed as deceptive or illegitimate. Conservatives retort that Bush never actually used the phrase and in fact specifically used language indicating that the threat was not imminent on several occasions.
As a factual matter, conservatives are largely correct and liberal critics and journalists are guilty of cheap shots or lazy reporting. However, the evidence is not completely clear and both sides are guilty of distorting this complex situation for political gain. Specifically, while there's some evidence indicating the Bush administration did portray Iraq as an imminent threat, there's much more that it did not. Those attempting to assert that the White House called Iraq an imminent threat are ignoring significant information to the contrary. Similarly, those who say the Bush administration never used the phrase or implied as much are ignoring important, though isolated, evidence.