Not exactly what I was looking for, but an interesting read:
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=191
I presume you don’t mean to offer this as representing an “imminent threat”?
Really? Do you have a cite? From what I recall the only chemical weapons they found were left over shells from the Iran/Iraq war.
Also, Punkypoo, both those cites are from '04. From what I recall, no evidence was ever found for the mobile weapons labs.
1: Saddam’s al-Samoud 2 missiles had arguably slightly more range than the UN permitted, but were being destroyed even up tp the time of the invasion itself:MORE MISSILES DESTROYED AS TALKS DRAG ON
2: That’s hard to do if you have no chemical or biological weapons.
3:No mobile chemical or biological weapons facilities were ever found. The CIA lied, and tried to convince Americans that a hydrogen production trailer was actually a mobile bio-weapons fermentation facility . The story fell apart once actual microbiologists got a look at the photographic evidence.
I don’t recall if Kay considered this time window an imminent threat or not. Which is why I was looking for his report. Though he apparently considered them a threat.
One, because of their nuclear program. Though small, he specifically referred to this as an “urgent issue” to the senate.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/
And two, Iraq had been creating the poison Ricin.
A caption glued to the pictures said “Mobile Bio-Weapon Production Lab” but it peeled off of one that said “Rusted Out Pile of Busted Pipes and Shit”.
And I appear to be correct. From the Iraq Survey Groups final report:
That’s funny 
Time to go hang with the kids before bedtime. Good night all.
Colon Powell:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/12/sprj.irq.powell.ricin/
I’m growing Castor beans along my driveway this summer.
If I grind the seeds up with my cuisinart this fall, the FBI could get very interested:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23405226/
Ricin is NOT the big scary chemical weapon of mass destruction that people have been lead to believe it is. It is a 55,000 kilodalton protein.
Some googling seems to indicate that the only source for the ricin thing was David Kay. It wasn’t in the Iraq Survey Group’s report (and indeed, seems to be contradicted in the same). Given that the report was the coalition’s attempt to justify the war effort, I doubt they would’ve overlooked it.
Holy shit, people actually still believe this in 2009? This is honestly shocking.
Iraq could produce ricin? No shit, Sherlock? Gabon could produce ricin. Ivory Coast could produce ricin. Your evil twin, the one yer parents keep in the attic and feed fish heads? He could produce ricin, give him a junior chemistry set and a pile of castor beans. There was a time when ricin represented the cutting edge of Bulgarian technology. That time is past.
We knew he had poisonous gasses. We sold them to him during the Iraq/Iran war. We also knew they had a limited shelf life and were worthless when Bush decided to go in.
The story I heard after the invasion was that Saddam was spending money on supposed WMD programs, but his subordinates were diverting that money to other purposes while giving him false status reports. But I didn’t hear much more of that in the past few years.
But that story can be matched into the FBI reports–so perhaps in the new scenario Saddam gives money to WMD programs, knows full well that it’s not going to be used for it, but doesn’t admit that–helping the illusion that he has them to keep Iran at bay. Then his subordinates use it for other things, which also gives more control over people further down the chain–if they need to be purged, they have a reason.
It’s highly unlikely Saddam genuinely thought he had stockpiles of chemical weapons. The thing about Hitler being lied to at the end of World War II is all the generals around him knew the score–they knew in a week’s time, two week’s time they were all going to most likely be dead or captured by the Soviets (arguably worse than dead.) They probably saw no reason to upset Hitler or risk him stripping them of command in a fit of rage and having them locked up (at least with their freedom they had a sliver of a chance of making a run for the Western Allies’ lines once things got real bad); the situation with Saddam was much different.
Firstly, while Iraq was mostly a very poorly run shit hole for the entirety of the 1990s and into 2003, it was still a coherent, unified country. It was not Germany at the tail end of World War II, a country being overran on both its major borders by massive invading armies, that had suffered the virtual elimination of an entire generation of its best and brightest, and whose capital was on the verge of falling to a brutal enemy. People lying to Hussein in the late 90s or early 00s had no reason to believe Saddam wouldn’t be leader five, ten years later. It was not in their interest to lie about something like that.
Finally, Saddam’s son was also integral and informed on the state’s security and military readiness. I do not think he would have lied to his father about this, and I think given his position his subordinates could not have easily kept it from him.
Chemical weapons are a basic part of every military arsenal. Hell, I’d bet the *Belgians *have chemical weapons.
Even if he did believe he had the stockpiles, that just moves the decision to bluff backwards to when he opens the “In case of US invasion, break glass” bunker and realises he doesn’t have any chemical weapons after all. So it sounds like a theory that doesn’t provide any useful insight and doesn’t have any evidence to back it up.
And yet, 188 countries have agreed to eliminiate their chemical weapons stockpile by 2012.
They don’t. It’s the same old cynical right tactic of repeating old discredited arguments to defend their ‘side’. It’s basically trolling.