IIRC, Colin Powell showed the UN satellite pictures with yellow and red squares around munition plants in Iraq, with one of the colors (can’t remember which) representing a chemical munition plant.
I assume it can be stated as a fact this was incorrect, since we would have heard by now if these turned out to be actual chemical weapon plants.
What did these turn out be? Regular muniton factories? Non-weapon chemical factories?
I think this has a factual answer, and is not a debate. Please do not turn it into a debate, if at all possible.
There are no such things as “chemical weapons plants”.
Only “chemical plants”.
The Bush-Babies were pretty slow to grasp this basic truth. Any good chemical engineer could make chemical weapons, & virtually all chemical plants could mass produce them.
No evidence that Iraqi plant were producing Chem Weapons have been found.
Bosda, are you saying they were chemical plants that were not making anything used for weapons? And if so, how do you know this? Is it just an assumption, or what?
I’m looking for some concrete data as to what exactly those places turned out to be that Powell showed.
And please refrain from calling people “Bush babies” or whatever; we are in GQ. I would like this thread to remain in GQ, if at all possible.
I can’t say specifically about that one site, but one serious problem is that many suspected WMD sites were completely looted in the days after the war. Apparently, so many things were taken from suspected sites (as well as just about every other building that didn’t have a lock on the door or a guy with a gun posted out front) that the only way to really find out what was going on there is to talk to the folks who once worked there: there’s basically no physical evidence left to analyze.
Which I pretty much said in the OP when I wrote “I assume it can be stated as a fact this was incorrect, since we would have heard by now if these turned out to be actual chemical weapon plants.”
I think you misunderstand my question here. I am asking what they are, not what they are not. I already know they are not what Powell said they were.
There were a variety of satellite photos bandied about in Powell’s presentation. It was never clear, to me at least, which were supposed to be chemical weapons plants, and which were supposed to be weapons stockpiles. Here’s the current take on some of the photos:
There remains the possibility that Iraq had WMD capabilities and they were moved to Syria or another country. Some Israeli sources claim this, and this is hardly a pro-Bush explanation (I think letting the WMD’s escape to Syria is a far worse thing than being wrong about the WMD’s in the first place).
The links above include conclusions that the intelligene was “probably” false. I don’t see much in those stories beyond the obvious - we haven’t found anything so the intelligence was “probably false”.
One should consider in light of such conclusions that there was some, albeit small, concrete evidence of WMD’s, although admittedly not enough to “prove” Iraq had them. You had the nuclear reactor bombed by Israel in the early 80’s. You had multiple defectors claim the nuclear and biological programs were reconstituted. Iraq did have them in the 80’s and 90’s, and even used them on the Kurds. Iraq did not account for the destruction of the WMD’s they had. Iraq soldiers had hundreds of thousands of chemcial warfare unifiorms and equipment. Finally, someone did weopanize anthrax and attack the US with it via letters, and Iraq is one of few that had the capability and motive to do this. In retrospect this is not a lot but probably enough to say claims that the CIA “exaggerated” intelligence may be unfair; indeed, the CIA was probably being prudent. If similar signals existed for 9/11, either Clinton or Bush would have been scandalized.
!!! How so, and who says it was the CIA doing the exaggeration in the first place? Bosda asked explicitly for facts, not wild speculation and unsupported conclusions. That sort of stuff belongs in GD.
Squink, both of the articles you cited accuse the administration of exaggerating the pre-war intelligence. Technically the NYTimes article does not use the word “exaggerate,” but I don’t think you can argue that the Times article you cited isn’t making that claim by using different words.
I am sorry if you don’t like me pointing out that your articles fail to prove that there were not WMD’s in Iraq before the war which were later moved to another country. This remains a possibility.
I believe my response was at least as factually based and responsive to the OP as was yours. I hope you can become more tolerant of facts that do not agree with your preconceived notions. You are welcome to post in GD, but please do not tell me what to do.