# Are iraq's chemical warheads a smoking gun? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 17, 2003, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254 "2003-01-17T17:08:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/81 "2003-01-19T01:05:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by errata \* > \*\*I don’t see how these supposed acts of war compare to us bombing them periodically when we’re supposedly in a cease fire agreement. > Can you really call it a cease fire if it includes the right of one party to bomb the other? \*\* It’s not a supposed act of war, it’s an actual one. We enforce the no-fly zones, when Iraq violates the cease-fire, and/or attacks coalition aircraft. They have warheads that can carry chemical weapons. They are in violation of UN Resolution 1441. There is no question of any of this. ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/82 "2003-01-19T01:07:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by errata \* A. I do disagree, because the only persuasive evidence to me would amount to a smoking gun. So the only evidence you would find credible would be either a functioning nuke program with all the bells and whistles, or an attempted use or use of said weapon by Saddam? Do you think that the weapons inspectors are there to play hide and seek? That “doing their job” is to look for a working nuclear weapons program, and if they cannot find one then they go to the UNSC and tell them it is proof that Saddam is complying and no action is necessary? I submit that UNMOVIC and IAEA are there solely to verify that Saddam has dissarmed the weapons we know he has, and what happened to the materials that could be used for said weapons. And without pro-active cooperation they cannot do that. All of this jumping around in helicopters and surprise inspections are not even a significant of their mandate, but it is the only thing they can do with the lack of cooperation. Their duties are monitering and verification. Not to play Inspector Clouseau in an international version of The Pink Panther. [http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/1999/msg00826.html](http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/1999/msg00826.html) > [@](#): > > that UNMOVIC will establish > and operate, as was recommended by the panel on > disarmament and current and future ongoing monitoring > and verification issues, a reinforced system of > ongoing monitoring and verification, which will > implement the plan approved by the Council in > resolution 715 (1991) and address unresolved > disarmament issues, and that UNMOVIC will identify, as > necessary in accordance with its mandate, additional > sites in Iraq to be covered by the reinforced system > of ongoing monitoring and verification; The Inspectors _cannot_ establish compliance with the resolution by Iraq at their mandatory breifings just because they havn’t found anything. They can establish monitering and verification or suspected weapons material and programs, wich Saddam has yet to cooperate with. That is why Blix is talking so tough. He doesn’t want a war if they cannot find anything. His hands will be tied. The declaration says Saddam must not only cooperate, but be proactive and take all of his dirty toys out of hiding. So according to the UN, persuasive evidence would be lack of evidence of cooperation by Iraq. Not for war, but for breech of the resolution. > [@](#): > > C. No I don’t think disarming Saddam in and of itself is a causus belli. > The only thing that seems to make pre-emptive action worthwhile at all is clear and convincing evidence that he has an active and credible nuclear weapons program. So, as far as you are concerned, he can have all the biological and chemical weapons he wants? [/quote] The infrastructure and economy of Iraq is so devastated, I’m not convinced that Iraq can sustain a democracy anyway. Removing Saddam may only guarantee political chaos from a new more unstable dictator, or perhaps a radical fundamentalist goverment that would provide a new launch point for terror. Look at what happened to Afghanistan after the cold war. I’m still not convinced that even today they have the stability they need to pull off a sustainable democracy. Considering the ethnic tensions known to exist in Iraq, the deposition of Saddam could lead to another Bosnia type situation which could be much harder on the populace than the sanctions. [/QUOTE] So, at the risk of a possible worse regime taking his place, we should leave the situation as is. And you assert that it is likely that Afghanistan is worse off today than it was before 9/11? And if not worse, that action taken against them was ill considered because it is _possible_ they cannot make a worthy goal of it? ---
**Author:** ![hlujarn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/7bcc69/32.png) [@hlujarn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hlujarn)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/83 "2003-01-19T01:26:39Z")
k2dave: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by k2dave \* > \*\*I did know from awhile back even though I didn’t really link it in this thread (unintentionally). I still consider it a smoking gun because it seemed to me that these UN Inspectors are suppose to be spies of sorts anyway. It is their job to report intelligence on Iraq. \*\* Yes they are supposed to report intelligence on Iraq. To the Security Council, not the CIA. They are supposed to be neutral agents working on behalf of the UN. If they are not neutral, why the hell let them in? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/84 "2003-01-19T04:38:54Z")
Okay, let’s put this into perspective, because the nature of the inspections seems to be getting muddied again. First of all, the requirement on Iraq is NOT to ‘allow inspections’. The requirement on Iraq is to DISARM. The inspections are merely to verify that Iraq has disarmed. Furthermore, another requirement for inspections to succeed is that Iraq be totally honest and forthright. In other words, they should be actively helping the effort. As in "Here’s all our weapons programs. Here’s the old ones. Here’s a list of all the stuff we imported that could be used for making weapons, and here’s where it all is today. You can go here, here, and here, and verify that these precursor materials are still there, and have not been used to make weapons. " Instead, Iraq said, “What weapons? We have no weapons. We never had any. Precursor materials? Don’t know what you’re talking about. We have imported nothing that could be used to make weapons. We’re drawing a blank here. But hey, go ahead and look around if you want.” Now, consider that Iraq is about twice the size of Idaho. And they’ve had four years to hide their weapons of mass destruction. There could be underground storage, there could be chemicals stored in the homes of citizens, in jars in the basements of schools, under false floors inside Saddam’s palaces, whatever. Ask yourself this honest question: If you gave the state of Idaho four years to hide a few tonnes of material, and then brought in 50 jeeps full of inspectors driving around aimlessly, what do you think the odds are that they could find those weapons without any help? That’s why the Bush administration is saying that the inspections became irrelevant once Iraq handed in that bogus declaration. Because they know that finding the stuff is an impossible task without some guidance. Now, they have some intelligence, and some ideas. They’ve started doling out the intelligence, and that led directly to those 122mm shells. But if the Iraqis were clever about hiding the bulk of their weapons, the inspectors won’t find them even if they had ten years to motor around in their SUVs. And how about this scientist that is refusing to come out of Iraq to talk? Doesn’t that strike anyone as suspicious if they have nothing to hide? In fact, ALL of the scientists so far have refused. To me, that means exactly one thing - Saddam has informed them all that if they go with the inspectors and talk out of earshot, something terrible will happen to them, their families, or their friends. And that means he’s got something to hide. So this scientist comes out and blusters about how he’ll never leave glorious Iraq, and how great Saddam is, and reporters in the west are actually buying this as an honest sentiment? How gullible can you get? ---
**Author:** ![Jojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecd19e/32.png) [@Jojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jojo)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/85 "2003-01-19T05:13:11Z")
**Sam Stone** said: > [@](#): > > Now, consider that Iraq is about twice the size of Idaho. And they’ve had four years to hide their weapons of mass destruction. There could be underground storage, there could be chemicals stored in the homes of citizens, in jars in the basements of schools, under false floors inside Saddam’s palaces, whatever. > > Ask yourself this honest question: If you gave the state of Idaho four years to hide a few tonnes of material, and then brought in 50 jeeps full of inspectors driving around aimlessly, what do you think the odds are that they could find those weapons without any help? This may be applicable to chemical and bio weapons but not nuclear material. Nuclear material gives off a signal which can be detected by the Inspectors. No way is Saddam going to be storing nuclear material under school floorboards. Likewise with bio and chemical material. Suppose there was a leak or an accident of some kind which lead to a chemical or biological incident in an Iraqi town. Iraq is one of the most heavily surveillanced areas in the world - we would find out about it and then Saddam’s cover is blown. No, he’ll have ALL his material (chemical, biological and nuclear) in a safe place under guard where he can control it. If he’s got any such material, that is. The Inspectors aren’t “driving around aimlessly”. The last bunch of Inspectors were actually pretty confident that they found most of the stuff they were looking for. _Finding_ the stuff isn’t really a problem if they’re given sufficient time, at least this was what the Inspectors thought last time they were there. **milroyj** said: > [@](#): > > They have warheads that can carry chemical weapons. They are in violation of UN Resolution 1441. There is no question of any of this. [Wrong.](http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm) UN resolution 1441 talks about how Iraq is in breach of UN resolution 687 which states that Iraq must provide details of weapons that have a range of over 150 kms: > [@](#): > > Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material, The shells that were found only have a range of 20 kms so they don’t breach res. 1441. ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/86 "2003-01-19T06:35:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > **As to the rest, you _were_ fretting obsessively before the big call-out of Sept. 12th. Well, maybe. If you say so. Was anybody else? Were there editorials in major news outlets about the urgency of Iraq? Allies clamoring for action? Anything?** well earlier in the year, when Israel surrounded Arafat’s compound in Ramallah and sent tanks into Palestinian cities, myself and about 10 others had a debate/discussion going on with an eye toward the beginning of WWIII. (That being the ‘debate’ part of it.) SH was prominently mentioned, being one of the few leaders willing to back up the _intifada_ commitment with actual funds. And probably other things. I’d say the Israelis themselves, and by extension the pro-Israel groups in the US, have seen with alarm the situation escalating for a full two years before Bush addressed the UN. Since I’m neither Israeli nor Jewish nor necessarily pro-Israel in all things, I think it’s significant that just ‘random’ folks were speculating on the willingness of SH to actually use those WMD, and against whom, almost a year ago. Examples of prior media coverage: [http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020825-77873160.htm](http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020825-77873160.htm) August 25, 2002 > [@](#): > > Iraq’s ambassador to the United Nations yesterday defended his country’s aid to families of Palestinian suicide-bombers, saying the payments are an expression of Arab solidarity. > “Those are human beings without any resources. Those are our brothers who live in a very difficult situation,” Mohammed A. Aldouri said in a television interview. > “This is our solidarity with our people in Palestine, so certainly we have to give them a hand to help them overcome their problems,” he said. > Meanwhile, the mysterious death in Baghdad last week of the notorious Palestinian terrorist known as Abu Nidal revived suspicions about Iraq’s role in international terrorism even as President Bush begins to make the case for military action to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. [http://www.hrw.org/editorials/2002/iraq\_032202.htm](http://www.hrw.org/editorials/2002/iraq_032202.htm) The Wall Street Journal March 22, 2002 Indict Saddam By Kenneth Roth (Human Rights Watch) > [@](#): > > The Bush administration’s frustration with a decade of increasingly porous sanctions against Iraq has led to active consideration of military action. Yet one alternative has yet to be seriously tried – indicting Saddam Hussein for his many atrocities, particularly the 1988 genocide against Iraqi Kurds. > > As deposed Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic discovered, indictment for grave abuses can delegitimize a dictator and undermine his grasp on power. Even if Saddam escapes arrest, his indictment for heinous crimes would demonstrate that Iraq’s desire for normal international relations is a pipe dream so long as Saddam is at the helm. That would weaken Saddam’s support among the many governments that have been lining up for years to do commercial deals with him in anticipation of an end to sanctions. It would also encourage Iraqi officials to overthrow him. year before : [www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,172746,00.html](http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,172746,00.html) Monday, Aug. 27, 2001 > [@](#): > > [TIME.com](http://TIME.com): Iraq has shot down an unmanned U.S. spy-plane policing the “no-fly” zone. A decade after the Gulf War, the U.S. and Britain are keeping up the pressure on Iraq, but Saddam is fast rehabilitating himself in the eyes of his Arab neighbors on whom the Gulf War coalition depended. Where is all this going? and this one, note the date. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle\_east/1537128.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1537128.stm) 11 September 2001 > [@](#): > > Iraq says it has shot down a US spy plane over the south of the country. > The official Iraqi News Agency (INA) said the plane was brought down near the port city of Basra. > > “Iraqi anti-aircraft fire in the region of Basra on Tuesday brought down an American spy plane,” INA reported. > > Maj. Brett Morris, spokesman for a US-British military task force in the Persian Gulf, told the Associated Press the coalition force had lost an unmanned aircraft on Tuesday similar to a US spy plane lost last month. These aren’t for supporting an argument, just a few examples of media coverage that led _some_ people to think we might have a problem w/Iraq. Regardless of what Bush says. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/87 "2003-01-19T07:05:34Z")
If the chemical warheads aren’t a smoking gun, then how about this: [The fall of the Baghdad wall](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/19/wirq219.xml)? > [@](#): > > The teams of UN inspectors sent to investigate Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction arsenal made a stunning breakthrough last week when they uncovered evidence of Iraq’s attempts to build an atom bomb. > … > At the Ukhaider weapons depot, 90 miles south-west of Baghdad, inspectors had discovered 12 hidden artillery shells designed to carry chemical weapons. “We finally found something shaped like a weapon and not like a test-tube,” said one inspector. > > But while in public the inspectors were celebrating their discovery of the artillery shells, in private experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna were digesting the details of a substantially more significant find - the blueprint of Saddam’s nuclear weapons project. > > On the same morning that a team of inspectors had found the 12 artillery shells, another team of nuclear weapons experts had paid a surprise visit to the homes of two of Saddam’s leading nuclear physicists who worked for Iraq’s top secret for the Ministry of Military Industrialisation (MMI). > > The ministry, which is run by Saddam’s younger son Qusay, recently replaced the Military Industrialisation Organisation (MIO), the institution which historically has controlled the development of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction arsenal since the mid-1970s. > > In their eagerness to get into the scientists’ homes, some of the inspectors had been seen jumping over a garden wall. > > Once inside they found what one Western official has described as a “highly significant” batch of documents which, on closer inspection, revealed that Saddam’s scientists were continuing development work on producing an Iraqi nuclear weapon. > > Although these documents are this weekend still being examined by IAEA experts to establish the current state of Saddam’s nuclear weapons programme, the discovery could well turn out to be the “smoking gun” that officials in the Bush administration have pinned their hopes on obtaining in order to justify launching military action against Baghdad. This looks like a very, very big deal. Iraqi scientists smuggled out of the country, top secret papers hidden in Iraqi offical’s homes, and a direct contradiction of all of this in Saddam’s declaration. So, is this good enough? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/88 "2003-01-19T07:17:35Z")
Well, **Sam** I’m sure your thrilled, but lets face it, you were ready to go to war if it could be proven he had garden tools. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/89 "2003-01-19T07:20:03Z")
I guess it’s good enough for [The Guardian](http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,877650,00.html), which has changed its position and is now backing war. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/90 "2003-01-19T07:25:06Z")
Wait a second…“last week”? Truly a stunning discovery. Mighty quiet stunning discovery. So the _Telegraph_ sat on this story for a week? Why? And if there are documents, well, then, there must be a facility, mustn’t there? Can’t build a nuke in the garden shed, now can we? Perhaps a wee touch of skepticism may be in order here. But you do have a point, **Sam**. It may very well prove to be that Saddam bin Laden is almost as dangerous as they guy whose butt we’ve been kissing for the last week. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/91 "2003-01-19T07:32:42Z")
First off, **Sam** , the _Guardian_ article makes no mention of the “nuke docs”. Secondly, they talk about “may eventually be necessary”. A wee tad shy of “and is now backing war”. And, of course, Britain is already on board. Always has been. ---
**Author:** ![errata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/839c29/32.png) [@errata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/errata)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/92 "2003-01-19T08:55:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Saen \* > So the only evidence you would find credible would be either a functioning nuke program with all the bells and whistles, Well no I didn’t say functioning and didn’t intend that. > [@](#): > > or an attempted use or use of said weapon by Saddam? Sheesh, pretty severe. I suppose I might equally ask you if you only be satisfied when you bathe in the blood of Iraqi citizens. > [@](#): > > Do you think that the weapons inspectors are there to play hide and seek? That “doing their job” is to look for a working nuclear weapons program, and if they cannot find one then they go to the UNSC and tell them it is proof that Saddam is complying and no action is necessary? No I expect them to do their job to the best of their abilities. If the UN inspectors decide their work is fruitless for themselves, then we have to consider other options, but for now they’re still trying. I am still ready to give them that chance. > [@](#): > > So, as far as you are concerned, he can have all the biological and chemical weapons he wants? It was always fine when he was attacking Iran. Is he any less moral, democratically elected, or more dangerous now? Of course I don’t want _anyone_ to have chemical weapons, but that doesn’t mean I’m willing to kill and die over it. > [@](#): > > So, at the risk of a possible worse regime taking his place, we should leave the situation as is. That depends upon our long term commitment to region which is doubtful and for the most part unwanted by those that actually occupy it. Military conquest is generally a poor substitute for political will. > [@](#): > > And you assert that it is likely that Afghanistan is worse off today than it was before 9/11? I’m worried about the future of an unstable,poor, country with little economy or infrastructure and incredible dependence on foreign aid. Intervention by foreign powers may be the only thing that keeps them from devolving into a situation far worse than what existed when the Taliban had power. When that support dissapears, it could be the same story all over again. > [@](#): > > And if not worse, that action taken against them was ill considered because it is _possible_ they cannot make a worthy goal of it? I imagine that most Iraqis hate the US more than Saddam, even if they are afraid of the government. They aren’t asking for us to conquer their country. We aren’t liberating Kuwait here. ---
**Author:** ![errata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/839c29/32.png) [@errata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/errata)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 9:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/93 "2003-01-19T09:00:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > This looks like a very, very big deal. Iraqi scientists smuggled out of the country, top secret papers hidden in Iraqi offical’s homes, and a direct contradiction of all of this in Saddam’s declaration. > > So, is this good enough? Very interesting. The Telegraph certainly makes CNN look unbiased. They give a very different take about the papers than CNN. Maybe they have better sources. I’ll let this one sit a few days and see what some other news sources turn up. Potentially very bad news, but not related to the dozen chemical warheads found. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/94 "2003-01-19T15:14:17Z")
Well, gee, **Sam** , its Sunday morning now. CNN hasnt picked up on the Stunning News. Condie Rice is on Meet the Press, apparently she hasn’t been briefed. Probably out of the loop, huh? She’s got a whole list of Bad Things, the usual, but nothing about the Stunning News of Iruqi Naks. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/95 "2003-01-19T17:18:09Z")
The thing I find most striking about this “empty shells” thing is watching UN inspectors unscrew the nose plugs and then stick their noses right down over the opening while they tried to see inside. That and the fact that the US military regularly reports on ammunition that can’t be accounted for. There is no doubt a standard form for such reports since such errors are commonplace. Tempest in a teapot. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/96 "2003-01-19T17:41:51Z")
Elucidator, you must not be following the news very carefully. I just saw Rumsfeld on _This Week_, and the documents were mentioned. Here’s what [MSNBC](http://www.msnbc.com/news/842500.asp?vts=011920030915) had to say this morning: > [@](#): > > ``` > ElBaradei voiced frustration with Iraq on Saturday after inspectors raided the scientist’s house and found 3,000 pages of material apparently related to enrichment of uranium that could be used for nuclear weapons. > ElBaradei said that the research outlined in the documents had “something to do with laser enrichment.” > U.N. officials have said Iraq’s attempt at “laser isotope separation,” begun in the 1970s, failed and was largely abandoned by 1987 in favor of more promising approaches to enriching uranium for nuclear bombs. > Other senior agency experts, however, said the method — which could be used to make nuclear weapons — proved too sophisticated for the Iraqis to exploit at the time. > ElBaradei said the importance of the find appeared to be whether the Iraqis had included the information in the 12,000-page declaration they submitted to the United Nations last month. > > ``` Or there’s this quote from [CNN](http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/19/sprj.irq.wrap/index.html): > [@](#): > > The visit from Blix and ElBaradei follows a significant find by U.N. inspectors in Iraq last week. Nearly 3,000 pages of documents in Arabic that “appear to be related to laser-enrichment technology” were uncovered Thursday at the home of an Iraqi scientist, ElBaradei said. I think it would be fair to say that the media sources I’ve quoted above aren’t treating the find with the same kind of significance that the Guardian did. It may be because this came from British intelligence and not American intelligence, so the British papers are playing up the find. Or perhaps they have a source in the British government that has convinced them of how serious this is. Or maybe they just jumped the gun with some breathless reporting. And you know, there’s no reason to do this snarky, “Looks like your evidence was wrong, Sam!” nonsense. I posted the cites. If the information is wrong, it’s not my fault. The Guardian and the Telegraph are not the National Enquirer, you know. They are legitimate news sources and valid cites. But the information isn’t wrong. The documents were found. 3000 pages of information about nuclear program Iraq says doesn’t exist. The questions still outstanding are basically how old the documents are, and whether the documents indicate construction was actually done or whether it was still in the research stage (still a violation, but I guess you could argue that it’s not as serious. I wouldn’t, but some will). ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/97 "2003-01-19T17:51:43Z")
Well, if I misunderstood you, **Sam** , then I’m sorry. Did seem to have a “This just in from Action McNews” kind of quality to it. ---
**Author:** ![errata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/839c29/32.png) [@errata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/errata)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/98 "2003-01-19T17:52:27Z")
Here’s the scientists explanations on his writings:"Al Basri said the documents were primarily his own writings concerning work he carried out and abandoned during the 1980s, as well as other documents he considered inconsequential. " Will stand the light of day? Let’s wait a few days and see. The UN is currently analyzing them. Hans Blix and El Baradei are saying there’s some limited progress and they still seem hopeful. I retain that hope too. While the telegraph may not be the Enquirer, that piece Sam Stone linked to seems to be written more in the style of an op-ed. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/99 "2003-01-19T19:03:54Z")
How does one define “Weapon Of Mass Destruction”? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254/100 "2003-01-19T19:06:01Z")
Anything you can’t buy at a gun show. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-iraqs-chemical-warheads-a-smoking-gun/149254.md?page=6)