It is quite sickening that we are arguing about specific statistics and numbers of Iraq population being killed or injured. Just common sense shows that that country is suffering. The next question then is what has the US and allies achieved and are things getting any better. Answer: nothing achieved, fake reason for even getting started there and no, instead things are getting worse. So what the "hell" (literately) are we doing there. That is the issue and not if the numbers are accurate. Who knows?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Like millions of others, I've followed our grand adventure into Iraq with slack-jawed wonder. Not only at the horrific violence, but at how we have reacted to it.

The conversation seems never to be about the reality of us invading a country, toppling the government, then failing to secure it. No, there are nuances over whether we actually found WMD, 9-11 connections or whether Iraq is the central front of the war on terror.

Slowly, America is awakening to the awful reality...ever so slowly. Now we're parsing out statistical methodology. Incredible.

I weep for the way history will record this. And I somehow doubt the historians will focus on the nuances offered to justify this debacle.

Hard to believe this was written a little over a year ago and we're still debating the minutia instead of the substance:

...Mr. President, who could blame you if your mind wanders back to that top-gun moment two years ago, or one year ago at your convention when you stood triumphant before delegates drunk on corporate hootch and your hokum and pronounced yourself fit to lead this country for another term.

But so much has gone awry and so much you said that night was so wrong and you knew it. Today, we know it too.

You told us that you "wake up every morning thinking about how to better protect our country." Today we know that you may wake up thinking about it but you sure don't bother to check the weather forecast before you go to bed.

You told us "the murderous regimes of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban are history," but today we know both are back and as deadly as ever. You said that "there's nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat," and today we know that despite the simplicity of that proposition 1,759 more American troops have died since you declared mission accomplished...
from Mission Demolished 9/13/05
http://www.eyewitnessmuse.com/diary.php?p=149

A young Iraqi Woman was gang-raped and murdered by five American soldiers in Iraq. The soldiers also killed her father, mother, and young sister in her family home south of Baghdad.

Read More ...

http://pakistan1947.blogspot.com/2006/09/war-to-colonise-hearts-and-minds_19.html

Put the Iraqi deaths in perspective. Iraq has approx. 26,000,000 citizens, and America has approx. 300,000,000. Bush admits about 30,000 Iraqi citizens have died as a result of the war, others estimate far more. Applying Bush's figure of 30,000 deaths to a population of 26 million would be equalivant to 345,000 Americans or one hundred times more than 9/11.
For every American soldier killed nearly 7 1/5 are wounded. Applying that ratio of wounded to killed, 224,700 Iraqis have been wounded in the war, which would equate to 2,584,050 Americans wounded.
This should demonstrate to Americans the impact of the war on Iraqis even under Bush's figures.

_WHAT_ have any Iraqis done to deserve to die at the hands of the United States Military Industrial Complex?

How does having the US Rent-a-Cops, used by the Internationally_Wealthy community, qualify as

being good for the United States?

This is King George lending his knights and military bindings to another country, for favors.

Saudi oil wells are reaching their 50th Yeare Anniversary.......gotta make sure that the sand brothers are covered and that China/India/Pakistan don't get that ME oil!

Gonna make some big Military Industrial Complex $BUCKS$ too........

check out Helen Caldecott: "The New Nuclear Danger, George Bush's Military Industrial Complex" a _must_ reader...

also g o o g l e Negroponte' and Honduras to find out where _your_ terrorists came from.........

put them in jail.

thanks.

States and war is always good for the economy.......

where are the United States Middle Class?

and why haven't emergency measures that resulted in the shutdown of services in the states providing of services and education "states are operating in the red," been remedied?

why have emergency measures become permanent measures?

why did the rich guys try to link the estate tax with the minimum wage change

and why are certain politicians calling the estate tax

"the death tax."?

because it's a misleading ad campaign? lead these people home....take them to jail.

my name is michael schrage and i hold an appointment with mit's security studies program (which is part of mit's center for international studies)..i have published peer review books and articles on the real-world application of statistical models in business...

...i was stunned by the bloomberg/lancet study's findings - precisely because they were so much at odds with other estimates - and did some due diligence with phd statisticians, bio-statisticians and others...in addition, as one can see by looking at steve moore's wednesday wall street journal op-ed , there have been other quantitiatively savvy commentators of the lancet 'accelerated peer review' study....

my review of the study and comments by both critics and supporters leads to my sad and unhappy conclusion that not only is the study flawed on its own terms - that is, too few cluster points, response rates that defy credulity, oversampling in urban areas and a bizarre unwillingness to recheck the more absurd statistical extrapolations of its 'finding' (the ibc analysis in this regard is particularly incisive) BUT the 'accelerated peer review process' was clearly an outright failure of professionalism and competence...

i can say without hesitation that the errors, oversights and issues raised by this report's 'methodology' - let alone its conclusions - could not and would not survive a doctoral thesis defense at any mit department where i have participated in dissertation defenses...

...to put it another way, this report is not 'superb science' - it is bad science that reflects poorly on its authors and worse still on lancet...one can support the war, one can be opposed to the war - one can feel that more people have died than estimated or fewer people in iraq have died than estimated...however, academics who cloak themselves in the methodologies and metrics of objectivity have an ethical and professional obligation not to pervert their professionalism for political ends...

in this, lancet, the bloomberg school and - yes - mit's center for international studies have failed...shame on them and shame on the media for lacking the wit, brains and due diligence to challenge them

Everyone should read the interactive conversation with Dr. Burnham. He answered real questions about the validity of the statistics, rather clearly.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/10/18/DI2006101801279.html

not only is the study flawed on its own terms

How?

- that is, too few cluster points,
Ever consider feasibility in a civil war?

response rates that defy credulity,
What, exactly, is "credulity" and how is it a scientific test of anything? You betray your supposed expertise. Immediately.

oversampling in urban areas

You mean, disproportionate to actual Iraqi urban population? #1. Prove it: #2: Feasibility? Civil War? Extreme danger? Come on.

and a bizarre unwillingness to recheck the more absurd statistical extrapolations of its 'finding'

What, in English, are you talking about?

This is just trash talk. Total lack of substance. IBC's critique, though I respect them, was anecdotal and nothing like repudiation.
Your experience on statistics in business schools, in the placidity of Massachusetts, is rather irrelevant to Baghdad.

lame.

Just got back from reading the live discussion. It was very informative, and another example of how valuable such a forum can be.

Just go to http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ and read what Riverbend, posting from Baghdad (as always), had to say yesterday. Or I could quote:

"For American politicians and military personnel, playing dumb and talking about numbers of bodies in morgues and official statistics, etc, seems to be the latest tactic. But as any Iraqi knows, not every death is being reported. As for getting reliable numbers from the Ministry of Health or any other official Iraqi institution, that's about as probable as getting a coherent, grammatically correct sentence from George Bush- especially after the ministry was banned from giving out correct mortality numbers. So far, the only Iraqis I know pretending this number is outrageous are either out-of-touch Iraqis abroad who supported the war, or Iraqis inside of the country who are directly benefiting from the occupation ($) and likely living in the Green Zone.

The chaos and lack of proper facilities is resulting in people being buried without a trip to the morgue or the hospital. During American military attacks on cities like Samarra and Fallujah, victims were buried in their gardens or in mass graves in football fields. Or has that been forgotten already?

We literally do not know a single Iraqi family that has not seen the violent death of a first or second-degree relative these last three years. Abductions, militias, sectarian violence, revenge killings, assassinations, car-bombs, suicide bombers, American military strikes, Iraqi military raids, death squads, extremists, armed robberies, executions, detentions, secret prisons, torture, mysterious weapons - with so many different ways to die, is the number so far fetched?

There are Iraqi women who have not shed their black mourning robes since 2003 because each time the end of the proper mourning period comes around, some other relative dies and the countdown begins once again."

The "rebuttal" that j provides is laughable. Just because YOU don't understand what Mr. Schrage is saying doesn't make it hokum. He's right, and if you need a dumbed-down version read Stephen Moore's op-ed from the WSJ. He clearly explains the critical flaw of the JHU study.

And when j asks about "feasibility in a civil war" it sounds to me like he's confirming the critics of the study. You are right, j, it would be difficult to do an accurate cluster sample in a war zone. That's why the Lancet study should not have claimed to have done that. They didn't, and they know it, but they want their results to appear credible, so they deny that they had any problems.

It would seem rather difficult to conduct a population survey study in the middle of a "civil war" and so the most reliable methods for tabulating casualties would be those methods employed by IBC and other media sources. Count the dead in reports from the scene and the hospital.

On another note, the numbers from the Lancet study seem ridiculous on their face. However, their results are questionable for another reason. They tell us that their survey found two violent deaths in the 18 months before the invasion. Was Saddam on a pre-topple vacation in those 18 months? I find it very hard to swallow these numbers, and the comparitive nature of the methodology forces the conclusions to rest on this incredible claim.

The study is bunk, and the only people who won't accept it are those that "need" evidence to support their "criticism" of the President's Iraq policy.

As others have stated here, you don't need new, outlandish, and possibly faulty evidence to critique this policy. Just open your eyes. Clinging to bad data just undermines your credibility more generally.

Ah, the mischief researchers get themselves into when they engage in games of statistics. A simple historical comparison exercise will allow me to illustrate the absurdity of the British-based Iraq Body Count research group's recent claims of 655,000 Iraqi war dead. If Iraq with its population of 26 million were to incur such a death rate, it would mean that one in every forty Iraqi citizens has already died in this war.
This astonishing rate stands in historical contrast to the 620,000 people who were reported to have died during our own American Civil War. In 1860, however, this country had a population of slightly more than 40 million people. This means that approximately one in every sixty four Americans died in the bloodiest of our wars.
To believe the nonsensical Iraqi war dead claim, a reader has to imagine a death rate that is over one and a half times that which this country suffered in our own American Civil War. If this so called Body Count Research Group truly believes this, they should also be required to show us all where the bodies have now gone.

I'm not a statistician, but I did study statistics in college and after reading the full report on lancet.com it seems pretty clear to even the untrained observer that there are flaws with the methodology. I don't mean to dispute the terrific human cost to this war, and I think we should get out as quickly as we can without provoking even more death. But there are some obvious flaws in the study and I think 600,000 is too high.

One, even though they claim to use 1,849 households, a lot of these were near each other so results would tend to be correlated, and therefore the confidence in the results is undermined. In fact, they only used 47 "clusters" or locations for the study, each cluster consisting of households all living next to each other. Even a non-expert can see that if a few battles or insurgent attacks happened to occur near only two or three of these clusters, the results would be skewed. Basically, 47 "clusters" in high-density urban areas where large battles are often fought seems to be the near equivalent of a sample size of 47.

Second, I would guess that the studies tended to mostly use urban locations. If the study were conducted effectively, this would get them MOST of the way, since something like 70% of Iraqi live in urban locations. But I would guess that the methodology for choosing locations must have also been flawed.

If 92% of respondents had death certificates, my first response as someone conducting a study like this would be to check how those certs are issued. Is there a record of how many certs are issued by the legal authorities? Is there any incentive for Iraqi citizens to "fake" a certificate (not suggesting this is likely, just wondering) for claiming benefits from govt? If there is a record of death certificates, does it square with these findings?

I would urge a second study correcting all of the identifiable flaws and see what the results are. They will be much, much higher than the piddling 30,000 that Bush claims, but not 600,000.

>The "rebuttal" that j provides is laughable. Just because YOU don't understand what Mr. Schrage is saying doesn't make it hokum. He's right, and if you need a dumbed-down version read Stephen Moore's op-ed from the WSJ. He clearly explains the critical flaw of the JHU study.

I read Stephen Moore's WSJ op-ed. Honest people can differ. But Moore is a Republican.

When Moore or Michael Schrage publish their opinions in a peer-reviewed journal I'll pay attention to them. Until then, the best information is the peer-reviewed study in the Lancet.

If the Bush Administration wanted the truth, they woul have collected statistics. Instead, they prohibited Iraqi hospitals from releasing statistics. So it is hypocritical for them to complain when somebody else compiles statistics. If you don't like the results, get your own data and publish it in a journal as respectable as The Lancet.

(BTW, as a long-time reader of The Lancet, I know that The Lancet was printing letters from Iraqi doctors protesting Saddam's brutality before GWB knew the difference between Iraq and Iran.)

Don't forget that "Republican science" is an oxymoron.

Do you all feel better after all the sanctimonious talk about how bad you feel for the deaths in Iraq? Good. Does that place you in a higher moral ground? Of course not. I've only read hysteria in lieu or reason.

Once Saddam Hussein took power, his removal, like Hitler's or Tojo's, or in the case of the careers of Milosevic, Mao, or Stalin, was always a question of bad (many dying in a war of liberation and subsequent strife) and worse (yearly mass murders unchecked, which in Saddam's case numbered tens of thousands a year). From Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo the U.S. military operates under constant global scrutiny, and when it errs, the world knows instantly -- unlike what the Chinese do in Tibet or the Russians in Chechnya or the French in the Ivory Coast or even the exact circumstances of how a Milosevic drops dead in The Hague.

To continue with your fantasies of self-righteousness, I suggest to start castigating the "empire" for not intervening to save the hundreds of thousands dead in Darfur, the millions starving in North Korea, the other millions killed in Congo, etc.

Any righteous sorrow remaining for the victims of Saddam Hussein?

I didn't think so.

One question...Where are all these bodies then? 600,000+ would mean corpses would be stacked like cord-wood...gimme a break! This report differs by a factor of 10 from other credible reports, and we are supposed to swallow this bunk? How about a little bit of common sense on this one people? How utterly ridiculous!

There is a major flaw in the Bush administration's criticisms of this study's results. When neither the Pentagon nor any other US Government representative does not, as a policy, track Iraqi deaths that are related to this war, on what basis can the Administration then say someone else's results are not credible? You have no data of your own to point to. Additionally, the comparison of the Iraqi death rate with that of the Civil War, as a proportion of the total population, is also problematic. The means by which many people have been killed in Iraq, especially suicide bombings, have the ability to kill a lot of people at one time. It makes no sense to me to compare the Iraqi death rate to a war that occurred almost 150 years ago, and used relatively less lethal weaponry.

The methodology of the study is so discredited that the CDC mentions the same methodology (cluster sampling) a whopping 242 times. The CDC shows cluster sampling as THE method of analyizing mass casualties in an example calling for study submissions and the CDC offers a 9-part tutorial on how to use cluster sampling in public health methodology. The US Senate unamimously passed S.2125 which contained a Congressional finding citing a cluster sampling study conducted in Congo by the Johns Hopkins School of Bloomberg School of Public Health. Why is the same methodology that's good enough for co-sponsors of S.2125 Sens. Sam Brownback and James Inhofe not good enough when talking about Iraq?

S.2125 Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-2125

CDC Cluster Sampling tutorial
http://www.cdc.gov/descd/MiniModules/pps/page01.htm

CDC Study example, Mass Casualites: Rapid community needs assessment using modified cluster sampling methods
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/masscasualties/research/community.asp

As we see on Television, the number of Iraqis dying on a daily basis are horrific. You are not going to get any firm numbers until this conflict is over, so you have to live with statistical estimates. We know that too many have died, and that is obvious.

"A young Iraqi Woman was gang-raped and murdered by five American soldiers in Iraq. The soldiers also killed her father, mother, and young sister in her family home south of Baghdad."

Yes, and we're putting them on trial, and will imprison their sorry butts if they're guilty. We do police our own - why can't the Islamic world do the same with their nutcases?

joe

No one is criticizing using cluster sampling. People are criticizing the entirely inadequate number of clusters used by the study in question. They took 42 locations and from that tiny number extrapolated a national death toll. That is simply completely rediculous. They also failed to obtain any demographic data from their respondants making it impossible to compare the results to the last good census. We have no idea if the people they sampled are in anyway representative of the Iraqi population.

TWash
The Bush administartion or anyone else for that matter can compare the results of this study to others that have used sound methodology.

No one that is saying this study is most likely bunk is trying to diminsh the value of life. That said there is a big difference between 60,000 and 600,000.

I think the Civil War example was great. If those weapons are too primitive for some how about something more recent?
Iraq lost less then 400,000 people to Iran in a total of eight years of modern warfare with civilian centers being targeted. How unorganized, sporadic conflict for three years could trump eight years of nationally organized determined killing by over 50% is beyond me.

Come on folks, only a couple dozen civilians have died in Iraq so far - TODAY.

Put your heads back in the sand. The people of Iraq are better off now that we've given them democracy.

Listen, as a tree-hugging upmember of the liberal elite, even I find these numbers staggering and hard to believe. I sincerely doubt that that many civilians have been killed, but not having been there, and walked the country I certainly can't say. What I will say is that Iraqi's are reporting about 100 violent deaths a day, which works out to 36,500 per year at that rate. In Vietnam we lost 25,000 soldier over the course of 8 to 10 years. That means that Iraq is losing a Vietnam war's worth of citizens every 8 1/2 months! Extrapolated for 3 years, that tops 100,000!! The Bush administration has said they believe it's closer to 30,000....which number is right? WHO CARES!! They all died for a power-hungry man's arrogance and deceipt! No matter what you do this year, just vote against everyone who has supported this debacle in Iraq so far! This government has allowed us to get distracted from our real enemies, Osama and the Taliban, to chase down a petty tyrant in Saddam. Am I sad he's gone? Does he deserve to return to power? NO! But this has cost far more in lives and international respect and trust than it was worth. Not only was it misguided from the start (I just wish the Dems had had the guts to challenge it, but with a Repub majority, all the positions of power on the congressional committees were held by Repubs as well, which means the Dems were allowed to see very little, and didn't have the stones to challenge this debacle!) but the plan to get out (there WAS a plan to get out, right?!) went out the window at day one....from 'This will be over in a matter of weeks, six months tops' and "The Iraqi's will be able to pay for their own reconstruction!" to the "Death throes of the insurgency" that have been going on for 2 1/2 years....Sending in underarmored equipment and soldiers has been a disgrace. The DISinformation is saddening at best, disgusting at it's worst.

When dealing with a sovereign nation, and the survival of it's indigenous population after we invade, it may behoove us to act in a more responsible and respectable fashion in the future, after all, While I won't have to explain Clinton to my kids, I WILL have to explain why we did this....Clinton will be an embarrassing footnote, this will be an embarrassing chapter!

what difference does it make how many Iraqi are dead?

did they do something wrong.

answer the fricking question.

what did Iraq do that we are over there shooting people?

answer the fricking QUESTION!!!!!

you gutless wonders of invention.

false flag attack, fabricated connection!

shut the eff up, you cowards.

Maybe all of you slobs ought to go over to Iraq and volunteer to fight for the terrorist or go over and help those people out of the stone age. If I had a gun pointed at my head (WMDs) and a guy (Sadaam) said he was going to pull the rigger I would kill him BEFORE he pulled the trigger! Whatwould you do? Shut up and go help them out one way or another.

are you?

you are a liar.

There were no WMD, and Saddam was in EMBARGO.

do you know what that means you cocker spaniel?

Sadddam was a sucker, that got sucker punched..........he got to be the _bad_guy_ so that the United States Elitists could go in and corner the market on oil..........

there's no other reason to be there, unless you're a blooming idiot......or getting paid to post blarney..........

Noriega and Saddam both screamed the same thing as they were being taken down................"we had a deal, why's he doing this to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

or don't you pay attention?

there is no Iraq, WTC, terrorist link.

there is a direct link to terrorists from the CIA to Negroponte' and Honduras....

g o o g l e HONDURAS and NEGROPONTE' if you want to know who the real terroristas are.........

and they're not in the middle east, regardless of what you've been sold....

who trained the al queerdas in Afghanistan?

if anyone did, who flew the planes into the WTC? look it up on wikipedia......saudis

"all you slobs,"

would eat you for breakfast.

I find it amazing that there's so much effort put into picking apart the Lancet's methodology when the military's counting, and the Iraqi government's counting, are never criticised despite being an obvious tissue of lies.

The numbers of bodies found are reported every morning by the police, who are up to their necks in the death squads. Who's to say they aren't just piling most of them into mass graves? Saddam did.

The monthly casualties are reported by the Iraqi Health Ministry, which is run by Sadrist militiamen whom the US accuses of being heavily implicated in death squads.

There are Health Ministry death squads operating within the hospitals themselves, according to this newspaper.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/29/AR2006082901680.html

Yet the Health Ministry's figures are supposedly more credible than the Lancet and Johns Hopkins, says the US government.

We're told to trust their count. According to the latest UN Report, the Iraqi Health Ministry reported zero casualties in Anbar province in July. One of the most violent provinces in the country, where numerous media reports of fatal incidents come out every day. How credible is that?
http://www.uniraq.org/documents/HR%20Report%20July%20August%202006%20EN.pdf

Or the US military, which was caught cooking the books on Baghdad casualty figures in August? When the morgue released nearly triple the figure touted by commanders, their spokesman Lt Col Barry Johnson had to admit that the US had only been counting "individuals targeted as a result of sectarian-related violence, to include executions," and had excluded "other violent acts such as car bombs and mortars."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090700768_pf.html

What's more, it was the US military that defined, according to its own hidden criteria, which killings it classed as "sectarian".

Despite being caught lying, the US military sneakily continued to claim it had halved deaths in Baghdad on its website.

How did authorities react to this embarrassing episode? Promise to provide actual numbers? Promise to count all violent deaths?

Nope. They banned the Baghdad morgue from releasing any more figures to the press. All future reporting will be done only through government channels, they say. And they built two satellite morgues, ensuring that no one institution would have a clear total of deaths in Baghdad.

At least this time, they didn't drive the morgue's director out of the country with death threats, like they did to the previous director, Dr Faik Amin Bakr.

Strangely, I've never heard anyone in the western press criticise THAT rather unusual approach to death reporting methodology.

Is this true?
"

May 2000, Dick Cheney said he was the best guy to be George Bush's Vice-President. Over the past 6 years, we've gone down a long, rather dark path toward creating a totalitarian fascist country. Look up the definition of those words in the dictionary if you don't believe me! We've watched the steady erosion of our civil rights, destruction of the middle class, the consolidation of the free press media into 5 companies, exported our manufacturing base, eliminated jobs, removed our right to declare bankruptcy, enhanced eminent domain to take away property rights, broken our union working force, invaded a sovereign nation, removed habeas corpus from the constitution for our citizens as well as for all of those "unlawful enemy combatants", permitted torture in our name and spent our two treasures of citizen's blood and money to control and occupy the fifth largest oil field in the world.

The boys in charge have dispatched the Ike Strike Force, as in Eisenhower Carrier group of the Navy, to sail for Iran's coast. The Ike Strike Force arrives off the coast of Iran around October 21-22, 2006. I have a feeling we are going to be invading Iran over the next couple of weeks. Or there will be a "triggering" incident so we CAN invade Iran over the next two weeks.
"

Hey stupid,
There is no question that Saddam Hussein HAD what we classify as "weapons of mass destruction". Between August of 1983 and March of 1988 there is clear-cut, undeniable, documented proof that no less than 10 times he used them in anger. Seven of those times they were used exclusively against the Iranians, who Iraq had invaded on September 22, 1980 after a long series of bitter border disputes. It is estimated that of the over 1.5 million Iranian casualties suffered during that eight year war of attrition, over 120,000 of the soldiers and civilians were targeted exclusively by Iraqi WMDs, with reports that upwards of 30,000 of them died from the effects of the chemical agents they were exposed to under orders of Saddam.
Two of the other three confirmed incidents involving Saddam's use of WMDs occurred in 1983, and both involved his own northern Kurdish civilian populations falling victim to them. In August of that year, Hussein's first recorded use of chemical weapons occurred, when he used them to attack Iranians who had entered the Iraqi garrison town of Hajj Umran, completely aware that it was full of Iraqi Kurds as well. While his first attempt at using these weapons resulted in fewer than 100 casualties, his second attempt a few months later, again aimed at Iranian soldiers and his own Kurdish civilians alike in the occupied northern Iraqi town of Panjwin, was significantly more successful. That attack killed at least 3,000 people (both Iranian soldiers and Iraqi civilians alike), and like the one before it, utilized mustard gas.
The final confirmed chemical weapons attack by Saddam occurred on March 16th, 1988, and yet again was directed at both Iranian soldiers and Iraqi Kurds, this time in the town of Halabja, Iraq. The aftermath of this attack was well-captured by foreign journalists and broadcast to a shocked world, with imagery of dead mothers still clutching their children and laying contorted where they fell in rigor, failing to escape the chemical fog that overwhelmed them and brought them down. Estimates go as high as 5,000 deaths from that one attack, with upwards of 75% of the casualties being Kurdish women and children (the men were, after all, off fighting the war). Known today as "Bloody Friday" throughout the Kurdish community the world over today, this attack cemented Saddam in the worlds eyes as being one of the most ruthless tyrants on the planet, but it also unfortunately proved to Iraq's leader just how effective these WMDs could be in taming both the battlefield and a rowdy civilian population.
Between 1986 and 1989, Saddam launched his "al-Anfal" campaign specifically directed against the Kurds that occupied the north of Iraq by throwing everything in his arsenal, WMDs included obviously, against them. The campaign was essentially run by a man named Ali Hasan al-Majid, better known to us in the West as "Chemical Ali", and I can guarantee you he is a man who did not earn that nickname because he always had the best drugs back in high school either.
Saddam cleared "Chemical Ali" (who was his Defense Minister and first cousin), to use not just mustard gas, but a whole cocktail of horrors, including the nerve agents Sarin, Tabun, and VX, as well as the blood agent Hydrogen Cyanide against the Kurdish population, and use them he did. VX in particular is the ugliest of the ugly, and it is widely recognized as one of the most dangerous chemicals ever created. As little as 10mg is enough to kill when the poison, the consistency of motor oil, is sprayed as a liquid or vaporized through evaporation and then gets absorbed into the body through the eyes and skin. Depending on the level of exposure, the effects of VX may take as long as an hour, or as short as 20 or 30 seconds to set in, but if you haven't had a shot of atropine immediately after exposure, you will be wanting another kind of shot shortly: a gunshot to the head in order to end the misery that is surely going to result in a hideous death as the weapons effects cause your body's entire nervous system to misfire and shut down.
While it is difficult to differentiate the exact numbers of Kurdish Iraqis killed by nerve agents and all the other chemicals in those attacks the Iraqi military launched over that 4 year period versus those killed by the conventional weapons they also had thrown at them, what is certain is that of the 182,000 Kurdish Iraqi's killed by their own military during that campaign, many thousands died as a result of being subjected to those WMDs.
While Saddam's WMDs helped significantly in staving off Iranian military forces and proved devastatingly persuasive at ending the Kurdish uprising, their effectiveness on the battlefield and as a terror weapon had a far more pronounced effect on Saddam Hussein's psyche. Keep in mind that throughout his rule, aside from a few defectors, very little was known about Saddam's true mindset. The CIA and every other Intel agency on Earth had psychological profilers working around the clock for over a decade, analyzing his actions in an attempt to identify the method to his madness. Following the invasion in 2003, it became apparent very quickly that those intelligence agencies, both foreign and domestic, had completely misread Saddam on several vital points, but they did nail certain, more obvious personality traits as well.
Many people have read, or at least heard about, the over 500 page "9/11 Commission Report" released in July 2004. That document, issued following an exhaustive in-depth analysis of the events leading up to, including, and after the September 11th attacks themselves, provides an excellent history of the event. While that comprehensive report should be required reading for every American in my opinion, there is another document that received far less press upon its release only two months later, but after reading it you may very well change your mind if you felt that Saddam Hussein was not a threat that needed to be eliminated. I am talking about the September 30th, 2004 "Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD." Perhaps if the government had of chosen a more palatable name, it would have received more attention.
The "Comprehensive Report" was compiled from both data intelligence collected, as well as exhaustive interrogations following the liberation of Iraq of captured or surrendering senior Baath Party officials, high and mid-ranking Republican Guard military personnel, Iraqi scientists, and of course HVT (High Value Target) #1, Saddam Hussein himself.
The report contains an in-depth analysis of Iraq's WMD policies right from the mouth of many of those involved with it, and the methodological breakdown details what amounts to an in-depth psychological profile of Saddam Hussein as a leader, outlining his mindset throughout his regime right up to its fall in 2003. Reading this document provides an incredible view of the world through the eyes of Saddam Hussein, and as distorted and sociopathic as that view is, it gives a candid insight into what made this monster tick.
The big question is, where did all the WMD's go? There is no documentation supporting that they were destroyed. ANSWER: They went to Syria, into the hands of another psychotic madman - Assad.

It's horrible to the extent that by being dead they no longer have the potential to buy things they don't need with money they don't have and thereby assist the living with propping up the global economy.

"what kind of idiot"

Thanks. Could not have sad it any better!

Still waiting for a wave of Liberals leaving MY country and helping out those poor people. Maybe those 1,000 dead people a day are being shoveled into mas graves and some guy is standing there just using a "Ditto" machine cranking off those death certs with a line of grieving widows stretching for miles and nobody sees it?!?!?!?!? yeah thats it thats ow these researches got their 98% percent of death certificates, they were waiting there at the front of the line!

AND, all 800,000 of the wounded Iraqis just have really good first aid kits at home so none of them needed to seek medical attention. I am sure those first aid kits were issued by the U.S. too.

Remember your duty as liberals is to head over to Iraq and be human shields to help the terrorist out, or maybe just to help sneak them across our mexican border!

"Between August of 1983 and March of 1988 there is clear-cut, undeniable, documented proof that no less than 10 times he used them in anger."

Yeah, and Caspar Weinberger said, "We're not sure it was Saddam who gassed those Kurds, cause that's not the gas we gave him."

He may have used it, but if not for US, he would not have had an opportunity.

Proud of My Country - No one beleived all those people were being killed in Germany during the 40's either.

OOPS.

BTW - I don't think that any Liberals live in your country. What country is it anyway? LALA Land?

Hey Proud of My Country.

Can't help wondering about your morals?

I guess one day when YOU step in front of your "maker" and summarize your deeds you must think it's GWB twin with the US flag in the back.

Hope you are not too surprised when it's not.

Sure that time will come. Without the terrorist you think we sneak our mexican border.

LOOSER!

Cary Martynuik

Grabbing for some straw? Arn't you! Keep grabbing.

Let me know when you found the WMDs.

Proud of your country -
"Remember your duty as liberals is to head over to Iraq and be human shields to help the terrorist out, or maybe just to help sneak them across our mexican border!" - POMC

We're here in America fighting terrorists and fascists. First the Republicans in Congress, then the Presidency. Then we're coming for uneducated, racist morons like you!

We're more likely to find BLT's in Iraq than we are to find WMD's. And it's a Muslim country!

Uneducated? I have three different degrees? You have? I just know that all I have to do is say one little thing and you tolern't peepul will start ranting and raving about how intolerunt we's publikins is. Isn't it odd how the liberals just can't stand it when somebody has a different view, what was it you said about the Nazi mentality? Everybody knew that Jews were being killed, nobody wanted to believe it.

Do you morons even know that the Islamic "religion" demands that the whole world be Muslim or ruled by Muslims? Your right we have nothing to worry about. Do you even know about the Muslim invasion and occupation of Europe? The Christians went on the crusades to take the "Holyland" muslims went on their crusade to conquer or destroy christians. Your right again we are very safe in this world.

As for the oil issue why don't you liberal idiots stop burning SUVs and let me drive a car that will kill the other guy and keep my family safe. Why don't you narrow minded idiots let us drill for oil in Alaska and where ever else we have it, since the footprint for a well is down to just about 1 acre of ground.

Another thing Golbal warming is a natural cycle and you idiots blame the US for everything. We emit less "Greenhouse" gas then just about any other nation on earth.

Intelegent responses only please

Ben - nice response. Really classy! That is what is to be expected from someone who is afraid to - or more accurately, is ignorant of - the facts. Funny how you never challenged my statements on the evidence presented, which is typical with those who like to pretend they understand the nuance and subtly of an issue as hyper-complex as the war on terror, but in reality would rather whine and cry than actually doing some homework first. As a terrorism analyst for a major NGO global think-tank who has spent almost a full decade specifically studying the mindset and threat potential of fundamentalist Islam, your pathetic unsupported retort is sadly most typical with what I have to deal with on a daily basis. Facts and evidence is all that SHOULD matter to people when attempting to analyze any issue that carries the complexity such as this topic does, but sadly, many like you would rather deal in hyperbolic rhetoric. Stay "in the box" little boy, because you are clearly up WAY past your bedtime if you think you have the slightest chance on Allah's green Earth of ever impressing me with your cretinous whining. With that being said, I NEVER claimed that the primary reason that the US invaded Iraq in 2003 was to find WMDs. That excuse was simply the palatable "master key" required to open the door and garner support to do so from the myopic ignorant masses who lack the foundational base of knowledge to ever fathom the multi-generational stratagem in play. Invading Iraq was an ABSOLUTE requirement to furthering the long-term war against radical Islam, you are simply too small-minded and short-sighted to grasp the complexity of the issue. I'd ask you to challenge the facts I presented, but we both know that is an exercise in futility. It is about time for your bottle and a diaper change.

OOPS
I should have said "Idustrialized" nation on earth. just for you pinheads that can't infer meaning in your readings.

Hey "Proud Of My Country"...rather humorous that you say "i have three degrees?". The fact that you actually used a question mark at the end of that claim was right on point, because to say that comment is questionable is a gross understatement! Even more telling was when you ended your post by typing "intelegent responses only please"! LOL
You can find many a spell checker or dictionary for free online, but i am sure someone as INTELLIGENT as yourself already knows that! Hell, i am not even saying i disagree with everything you wrote, but how can you ever expect to be taken seriously when you challenge other people's thoughts with retorts written in such a way that they just scream "stupidity" at the reader? You come across as a complete bag of bricks, and any viable points you might make (and there are a few in there somewhere) are totally lost in the hilarity and hypocriticality of your puerile presentation. At least your posts make for a whimsical read though, so i will thank you for that.

Speaking various languages I read both USA and European newspapers. Interesting to note that "Official, Federal Government controlled" USA perspectives are often 180 degrees different from the European collegues. Particularly when interpreting issues pertaining to Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, and now Iran - European Leaders are, as usual, more scared to use militairy powers but by the same token look at things from a much more global perspective - in the USA exactly the opposite on all counts. Reading the many BLOGS though it is obvious that there is a much stronger bond and sharing of points-of-view between the 2 sides of the Atlantic. Key issues BLOG shared include: (1) what is the US doing in Iraq (no idea); (2) what is going on with Israel and how in the world did they end up there (Fell of a cliff - Olmert is not to be trusted); (3) Now that US has lost power in Iraq what does this mean for Iran and Syria (They are getting very strong indeed - scary); and (4) How strong are the Moslem/Islam powers in Western Europe and how much longer until we see this in the US (Very and Soon, resp.). Obviously, what is happening at the "BLOG" level is a true concern about Western vs Arab powers and the latter getting the upperhand. What is also showing in these BLOGs is that these issues are rapidly getting worse and primarily because of Bush's narrow-mindness and global ignorance. Hopefully 2 years from now things will improve.

ThanKS Stupud! You Done ReEl good! Ya'll figerd my out?

No problem Cary, that was easy.

When I read your whining I get the impression you are still grabbing! Keep going!

Quoting you. "With that being said, I NEVER claimed that the primary reason that the US invaded Iraq in 2003 was to find WMDs. That excuse was simply the palatable "master key" required to open the door and garner support to do so from the myopic ignorant masses who lack the foundational base of knowledge to ever fathom the multi-generational stratagem in play. Invading Iraq was an ABSOLUTE requirement"

There we got the reason for the "straw". It's there for all us "stupid" so we may follow you "smart" into some dumb, immoral war.

Thanks for your clarification. That quote tells stories, not only about the war in Iraq.

Again keep grabbing for some "straw". Hope you find the truth. And please, stop lying to us and hopefully to yourself too.

Ben - clearly, the truth is too far over your head to see it. You call me a liar yet fail to provide a shred of evidence that ANYTHING I said was a lie, again solidifying the fact that you simply lack the intelligence or understanding of the issues at play to logically attack me. Hyperbolic rhetoric doesn't hold up at all in the face of the truth, and the clearly ignorantly-formed bias you carry blinds you to ever considering that you are grossly misled in your thinking. The second last thing I am is a Republican, and the last thing I am is a Democrat. I have no partisan agenda at all, and am only interested in the facts. Did the Bush Administration lie to the public about the reasons for invading Iraq? Damn right! Absolutely! If you honestly think that WMD's, or the pursuit of oil interests, or personal agenda, was the PRIMARY reason for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, then you are, as I said, a member of the myopic and ignorant masses. You and the vast majority of those who engage in uninformed debate have had your lack of knowledge of the enemy, the region, the culture, the history, all used against you to allow the Bush Administration to achieve their initial goal of garnering public support to invade Iraq. It clearly worked to perfection in 2002 and 2003, because enough of the public swallowed the WMD argument in particular to support the invasion.
Iraq is a vital component in a multi-decade, multi-generational stratagem to take on militant Islam and attempt to build and secure a level of stabilization in the Middle East in the LONG-TERM (not 5 years from now, but decades from now). I am NOT saying it is right or wrong, I am simply explaining the facts that you, and many like you, just do not yet grasp - or refuse to due to your preformed bias being too strong to appreciate that you lack the substratum of understanding to form a cohesive and informed opinion. This flaw in your thinking is one that I do not fault you for; you are just one of the average myopic thinkers who lacks the appreciation of the nuance and complexity involved - which is precisely why you had to be lied to in the first place by the Bush Administration in order to secure initial support.
I admit it was wrong of me to engage in name calling with you, and for that i apologize, but at least I can also cohesively explain an opinion and support it with evidence. If you are going to call me a liar when you cannot come close to disproving one thing i said, all you are doing is supporting my claim that you are grossly misled. Forming a strong bias on any issue without adequeately being capable of explaining WHY you hold that mindset is not only totally ignorant, it is incredibly arrogant, creating someone who honestly thinks they know what they are talking about but who lacks the foundational base of knowledge to engage in a competent debate. No lies or ignorance coming from me my friend, and no unsupportable claims either. As a terrorism analyst for a major global NGO think-tank who has spent nearly a decade studying the threat of radical Islam specifically, i may be arrogant on issues dealing with this subject matter, but I certainly cannot be accused of being ignorant, because i can back up what I say with facts and evidence - after all, any opinion is rather worthless otherwise.

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." (Sign hanging in Einstein's office at Princeton)

Cary, I could not have said it better. Nor do I believe that anybody else could have either. I believe you have not only hit the war issue "nail" squarely on the head but you also have driven home in one strike. Now could you explain to me why the "liberals" or anti-war Nazis or whatever you want to call them always respond with a nonsense rant without ever addressing the issues.

Ok, i typically lurk and laugh at these fools around here, but i just had to say that was prolly the best damn post i have read on the internet in A LONG time! That one is getting emailed around the office today!

Hey "proud of My Country" - That query you posed is one that i used to ask myself on a DAILY basis Sir. With my job duties as a terrorism analyst who specializes in the subject of radical/militant Islam, I am forced to face such foolishness constantly on this topic of the "war on terror". From ALOT of experience, i can tell you that what it comes down to is typical human ignorance.
It is well established that it is human nature to form initial opinions and bias immediately upon hearing the very basics of an issue, whatever said issue may be. That initial bias then becomes one's prevailing viewpoint, and makes it significantly harder to alter. Basically, most people are hardwired to think that their initial impression is the correct one, and rather than challenging themselves to prove or disprove that impression from an unbiased stance, they instead tend to give disproportionate weight to data that may support their initial opinion, while at the same time affording less weight to new theories or evidence that offers a diametric viewpoint. To put it more simplistically, no one ever wants to discover they are wrong, and therefore as a consequence they become more open to absorbing or giving credence to data that supports their preformed bias than they do to data challenging it. (Again, this is inarguable human nature, and has been well proven by many a study done on human intellect and the formulation of bias.)
Now, that strategy worked fine for countless millennia when our species as a whole was entirely uneducated and was typically faced with little more than rather basic survival situations, such as how best to categorize and evade predators, seek out and construct rudimentary shelter, hunt for and gather food, and (most importantly in relation to this argument) inter-tribal and exo-tribal conflict resolution. This engrained evolutionary survival trait of rapid bias-forming served (and continues to serve) the average person quite well when the issues/topic at hand are simplistic enough that they do not require significant study or analysis in order to gain a suitable requisite level of understanding. However, when one is dealing with an incredibly nuanced and deeply complex issue (such as the heterogeneous stratagem in play in the "war on terror" for example), it should be absolutely ridiculous to think one can rely on this most basic of methodologies to truly achieve an accurate and supportable opinion - yet true to human nature, many still rely on this technique.
While the COLLECTIVE intelligence of our species has increased remarkably in the last half-millennia (particularly due to the advent of Gutenberg's printing press in 1450), the FACT is that most people INDIVIDUALLY are still of average (and average is not smart) intelligence, and therefore, they primarily behave, think, and problem-solve the way the average person has for over 50,000 years, forming rather concrete opinions based on the most rudimentary of facts and the sparsest level of understanding of the issue - even when the topic is clearly multiplex and highly sophisticated in depth. This is classic (and definitively ignorant) human behaviour at its finest, and in the case of the "war on terror" (or any other hyper-complex topic for that matter), this problem of jumping to a hard-and-fast conclusion without possessing, or never even seeking to acquire, a truly informed and unbiased foundational base of knowledge on the subject matter is compounded heavily by a mass-media apparatus that is forced to present a story in the most juvenile manner possible. This is done in order to maintain a certain level of attraction and readability/viewability amongst the typically not-well-informed "average intelligence" mass audience. Anyone working in the media, if being honest, will tell you that they consistently must "dumb themselves down" to the lowest common denominator when reporting multiplex stories because they simply do not have the column inches or television airtime available to cohesively explain the deep background - even when that background may be a requirement to presenting an adequate and wholly accurate understanding.
*(post continued below)*

That fact is then coupled with a grossly obvious prevailing bias in today's mass-media that, rather than simply reporting an issue with impartiality, instead interjects a subtle-to-overt prejudice (typically motivated by a writer and/or editor/producer's personal political and/or moral bias) that has the effect of aiding in the solidification of the average reader/watcher's ignorant and ill-informed opinion.
To think one can understand an issue as nuanced and complex as "the war on terror" by reading a few headlines or absorbing a couple newspaper stories, or watching a few 150-second news segments on television, is incredibly foolish thinking, yet most (i.e. "average people") in our society do it all the time.
To steal the old saying, "opinions are like a-holes, everyone has got one". I would expand that by adding, "If you believe that your opinion is absolutely correct but you lack the knowledge base to cohesively support and explain your conclusion, or if you cannot present suitable facts and evidence to effectively counter an opposing opinion, then you are an A-HOLE."
Quick analogy examples for ya: Many people argue incessantly and ABSOLUTELY about sectarian violence in Iraq between the Sunni and Shi'a, yet when prodded, prove totally incapable of providing even the most basic of explanations to demonstrate they understand the ideological differences between these two primary denominations of the Islamic faith. Many form CONCRETE mindsets on anything and everything to do with the Islamic faith, even if they have never read the Holy Qur'an, the Hadiths, or Shar'ia, or cannot even give a basic explain of the faith's belief structure. Many engage in vicious verbal altercations and name-calling regarding how or how not to wage this war, but they cannot demonstrate they possess any real understanding of the operational art of military warfare and intelligence gathering.
When their arguments lack any appreciation of these most basic and vital pieces of data - data that are prerequisite requirements to really understanding an issue as complex as this - those people very rapidly recognize that they are losing the argument. They achieve the stark realization that they do not possess the foundational knowledge base to present an informed and supportable opinion, and when faced with someone they disagree with who can cohesively explain an opposing point of view and back it strongly with facts and evidence, all they can do to attempt to save face is engage in hyperbolic rhetoric or name calling.
So "Proud Of My Country", that answers your question of why people may respond with a nonsense rant without ever addressing the issues (and it is not only left-wingers that are guilty of this, as right-wingers do it with equal aplomb as well).
It all comes down to this: if one cannot cohesively explain how they have achieved that opinion utilizing supporting FACTS and EVIDENCE, then they should never consider their opinion to be concrete and unmovable, and neither should they even consider their opinion to be an accurate one. I certainly am not saying i am always correct in my opinions that I may voice here - not by a long shot, but you can bet your ass that I can at least explain and support not only why I feel the opinion I have achieved is correct, but also why the one you have achieved is wrong as well.

Cary Martynuik wrote:
--The big question is, where did all the WMD's go? There is no documentation supporting that they were destroyed. ANSWER: They went to Syria, into the hands of another psychotic madman - Assad.--

You got FACTS and EVIDENCE for that claim? There are other possibilities ya know. Or are you of the initia bias that the WMD existed and now its hard to change that bias, like our president, who joked about not finding WMD while servicemen and women were dying in Iraq?

Sully - Sorry for the misunderstanding. The bulk of the evidence garnered from post-invasion prisoner interrogations, from other intelligence sources both within Syria and Iraq, as well as external methods of intelligence from outside those nations, points to clear evidentiary path that does show more than a mere possibility that at least a portion of Saddam's WMD stockpiles were not unilaterally destroyed by the Hussein regime as claimed.
General Georges Sada, the former Iraqi Air Force 2 i/c under Saddam, has stated on the record that several Boeing Iraqi flag-carrier civilian aircraft had, in early 2002, been surreptitiously converted to a cargo-carrying capacity by removing the interior seats and amenities. These aircraft, under direct orders of Ali Hussein al-Majid (good ol' "Chemical Ali"), General Shalish (i am sure you already know he was one of the top-ranking Commanders in Saddam's Special Republican Guard), and multiple reports claim the Syrian contact handling the transfer was none other than Assif Shoakat (who of course is Bashar Assad's cousin, and you know who Assad is, right?). These aerial convoys were reportedly loaded with drums of chemical/biological agents and precursor chemicals in liquid and powder format, as well as centrifuge components. These aircraft, tracked and dutifully recorded by coalition AWACS, made a total of as many as 56 flights out of Iraq to several military facilities within Syria (want specific facilities? Ok - khan Abu Shamat, Shanshar, Al-Baydah, and Al-Masyaf - all sites that UN weapons inspectors have been denied access to since mid-2002 when these transfers occurred). These air-lift flights masqueraded as humanitarian aid missions that the Hussein regime claimed were delivering relief supplies to help in the aftermath of the Zeyzoun Dam collapse in northern Syria on June 4th, 2002. Incidentally, General Sada is a man who has provided the coalition forces plenty of credible and confirmable hard intelligence on other issues following the 2003/04 post-invasion roundup, and has also passed a lie detector test regarding this WMD transport issue specifically.
In addition, multiple reports from several different internal Iraqi military sources (reports that have been corroborated by men like former Iraqi Survey Group head David kay) also discuss Iraqi overland truck convoys moving chem/bio weapons, their precursor chemicals, plus refinement technology and apparatus into Syria in the days, weeks, and months prior to the 2003 US invasion. These reports are further bolstered by both NSA VISINT satellite imagery and JSTARS radar plot data that upon review, back up the fact that during the dates and times provided by the claimants, miltary convoys did indeed cross at Tal Afar and Tanif, as well as other frontier border checkpoints.
I have not even touched on the myriad reports coming from sources within the CIA, MI6, Mossad, DGSE, ISI, Dairat al-Mukhabarat, Mukhabarat al-Aama, to name a few of the alphabet soup intel agencies that offer HUMINT support for the claims, because i would be here ALL day and night. I can keep going, but i actually have some work to do.
Now, before i go, let me ask you a question Sully (obvious it's a rhetorical one, because i clearly already know the answer). Can you give me some reliable FACTS and EVIDENCE that prove my FACTS and EVIDENCE false, or even raise serious questions about their validity? Na, didn't think so.

Yep, I would state that it is safe to say that m'man Sully just got owned! Cary, remind me never to argue with You, ok? LMAO!!!!

Yep, I would state that it is safe to say that m'man Sully just got owned! Cary, remind me never to argue with You, ok? LMAO!!!!

Cary,
If that is the case;
A) Why did we allow it to happen? If we "knew" where the WMD's were, as Rumsfeld said at the time, wouldn't huge planes taking off from where they were, flying back and forth to Syria have been a slight tip-off?
B) Why has that not been mentioned, ever, by anyone in the administration? They want to invade and topple Syria too (Axis of Evil) and that seems like a pretty good reason, to do so.
C) Transporting WMD's is one thing, but could they have flown a whole lab out of the country? There would have been residue, detritus, something, that would have allowed our troops to pinpoint that although there were no longer any WMD's in Iraq, they had been there at some point. As it is there is no evidence.

I am skeptical.

To the person who wrote the BLT remark; one of the things that Americans are doing that is so disrespectful of the Iraqis, is that in the Green Zone they are eating pork, and for all I know BLT's too. BTW, don't steal Ali G's funny interview with Pat Buchanan. He's funny, you're not!

Cary M wrote:
--Can you give me some reliable FACTS and EVIDENCE that prove my FACTS and EVIDENCE false, or even raise serious questions about their validity? Na, didn't think so.--

You ask me to prove a negative, as though I have anything to prove. You are the one stating that WMD was moved to Syria. Its up to you to prove your statement, not up to me to disprove you. Sorry, but extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Making a claim and telling those who doubt you that it is up to them to prove you wrong is a poor debating method.

So please, convince me. Convince us all. I'm open to evidence but I see little in your posting. Lots of heresay and speculation, but little of anything solid. Point me to anything that is more than some Iraqi prisoner wanting to make his captors happy. Point me to a document. I've read Kay's final report. Guess what, no mention of WMD being moved anywhere. You can read what David Kay has said here:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html#sect0

Note the following in his Key Findings:
"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."

Note the sentance "There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter [1991] ..." You see, there was nothing to move to Syria according to Kay's report.

Now either you know something David Kay doesn't know and Bush refuses to let anyone know or you are just plain wrong. Consider that a possibility. Next time bring evidence that is much more convincing, for if Bush knew the WMD were in Syria you need to explain why he is not mentioning it nor attacking Syria. You'd also need to explain why Israel made no attempt to protect itself from chemical weapons Hezbollah could have obtained from Syria during their recent little war. In short, you need to show how the government's evidence against the existence of WMD is overcome by your evidence of its existence and transport. And remember, this government WANTS the evidence to exist, and they cannot provide any evidence.

Yep, I would state that it is safe to say that m'man Cary just got owned! Sully, remind me never to argue with You, ok? LMAO!!!!

"You ask me to prove a negative, as though I have anything to prove." Sully

Interestingly enough, that is what we asked Saddam to do time and time again in relation to the WMD's. The fact that he couldn't (no-one can) is one of the things that got us into the war to begin with.

Are we now going to ask Bashar Al-Asad to do the same? Not if Cary's evidence is what we have to go on.

Thom wrote:
--"You ask me to prove a negative, as though I have anything to prove." Sully
Interestingly enough, that is what we asked Saddam to do time and time again in relation to the WMD's. The fact that he couldn't (no-one can) is one of the things that got us into the war to begin with.--

Ah but we had UN weapons inspectors on the ground for a month before the invasion. Bush poo-pooed them, saying that Saddam would make sure they found nothing, contrary to history where in the early 90s the inspectors found a lot and monitored its destruction. The weapons inspectors could have proven a negative (no WMD) but Bush, instead of waiting for the result, pushed for the invasion. I remember at the time I was wondering why he disregarded the inspectors so willingly and pushed for the invasion. It's worth asking whether Bush KNEW they would find nothing.

Wow, the level of ignorance and clearly preformed bias is just pathetic, and for the reasons, we can just go back to Cary's well-written and well-supported earlier posts on ignorance and bias (best and most effective posts i have seen here in A LONG WHILE). Clearly, it's impossible to argue with guys who are begging for black and white answers when dealing with an issue that should be clearly obvious to all that it is every shade of grey imaginable. Christ, you guys whine like little girls, and clearly can't take it when you meet an intellectual superior. It is ABUNDANTLY clear this guy has FAR more knowledge of the issues than even the dude writing this original article does, and if You dont think Sully (and everyone else here disagreeing) has been beaten into submission, you're just being sad and grasping at tiny little straws to save face. Funny how Syria wont let anyone look in the facilities in their country...funny how published interrogations and published reports support what Cary says, to say nothing of intel findings...funny how you cant provide counter-arguments and only carry unsupported skeptisism as Your primary defense with NOTHING to back your your own partisan agendas up...you guys got no game at all! i dont read anything partisan-right or pro-bush in his writings at all, all i see is someone who can make claims and then ACTUALLY back them up clearly and support them in-depth with strong evidence, unlike you guys who LOVE to voice an ignorant partisan opinion without anything behind it that is even remotely convincing. I will listen to anything he says LONG before i pay attention to your ignorant whining! If you cannot remotely come close to disproving an argument or supporting your own adequately, then go get a good night's sleep and go back to school in the morning little boys, cause you're clearly up WAY past your bedtimes!

smarty pants, you make me laugh...
Cheney was saying days before the invasion that we KNEW where the WMD were, we had spy satallites over the KNOWN sites for weeks. Yet when we got there on the ground NOTHING was found. Cary and you can make up all the fantasy you want but the guys on the ground who did the investigation and reported to Congress say there never was anything there, at least since 1991. This is based not only on direct inspections but the paperwork they found as well. Read the Kay report I linked in my previous post to see for yourself.

Now, you can believe the heresay or you can read the official documents. Again, its up to you to bring the evidence to us, not for us to disprove your fantasies. And the main problem I have is that if Cary was right, why is the Bush administration saying there was no WMD? If Bush tought Cary's "evidence" was correct, he'd pounce on it to prove he was right. So please explain that.

How do we know that 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust? That's 6 million killed in about 6 years. That's preposterous. Can anyone provide 6 million death certificates? So, just like the Lancet report, the 6 million figure is fake. My guess is that only 30,000 Jews died in WWII. Hardly a "holocaust".

smarty pants wrote:
--funny how published interrogations and published reports support what Cary says, to say nothing of intel findings...funny how you cant provide counter-arguments and only carry unsupported skeptisism as Your primary defense with NOTHING to back your your own partisan agendas up...you guys got no game at all--

Published! Well that's different. Please provide links to those published reports and interrogations. That would be a good start because right now Cary and you have given nothing except a lot of talk. I pointed to Kay's final report. That is pretty definititive on there having been no WMD before or after the invasion. That's a pretty good document to prove Cary wrong. So if Cary or you have something that has been published that disputes Kay's report, BRING IT ON!

Ok...i am kind of amazed how the topic has entirely turned to a single line which was aggressively attacked that I wrote about Syrian involvement at the end of a lengthy email, and i am the first to admit that short of SFOD-D breaching the sites in Syria, not much can be offered to provide absolute proof that at least some WMDs were moved to Syria. This goes to the "black and white" issue that smarty-pants spoke of. When dealing with a notoriously hermetic and secretive regime as Saddam's was, unequivical evidence is hard to produce. That does NOT mean that there is no evidence however. I produced plenty of circumstantial evidence to support my claims (claims that are not just mine, but are supported by myriad HUMINT intelligence sources throughout the world). PLENTY of people have been convicted of murder based on NOTHING more than circumstantial evidence gang, and when multiple sources, multiple trails, multiple facts (only a few of which i addressed clearly) all point to a certain direction, a clear-cut case is still able to be built. The preformed bias that many of you carry is incredibly obvious to one who looks at this issue with an OPEN MIND, and you demand absolute proof...well, i am the first to admit that ABSOLUTE proof wont be found. If You do not wish to give any credence at all to MANY high-level Iraqi Military and Baath Party officials who brought these stories of WMD transfer to light (claims that appear to carry substantial weight as they are backed by circumstantial clarifying evidence from MANY intel sources), that is your absolute right not to believe it. Nothing i can do about that.
Sully - i guess i should have dumbed down my comment about you providing facts and evidence a bit more and broke it down, as i figured You would have been able to get the point from the previous posts. Sorry about that, i was obviously wrong. You insinuated that i reached my conclusions because i had an "initial bias that WMDs existed". I was able to show that i have no bias, but rather i have an informed opinion that was formed after reviewing mountains of circumstantial evidence that points to that logical conclusion. If you want black and white, eat an Oreo cookie...this is the real world my friend, and you seem to want to believe Saddam's claims that he destroyed ALL his WMD stockpiles, when Saddam or his officals cannot provide any evidence that he did destroy them ALL. If you feel Saddam's word is good as gold and worth something, then by all means, run with that, as it speaks volumes about your level of bias, but remember that those CLAIMS by Saddam are the only evidence (not really evidence at all) YOU can present to support that the circumstantial evidence i provided is incorrect. That demonstrates a clear preformed bias you carry, as i explained ad nauseam earlier. Your head is in the sand, you THINk your initial opinion is correct, and my point with my request to you was to get you to support your own ignorant opinions, which, as is common for those lacking the foundational base of knowledge on the subject, you failed to do.
Now, for those who claim that there were NO WMDs in Iraq following the 2003 invasion, the simple fact is that you are WRONG. The NGIC report nullifies the argument that NO WMDs were there, because the US Military found some post-2003 invasion. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
So, that PROVES unequivically that at least some WMDS still existed at the time of invasion, blowing apart anyone who claims that there were NONE, zip, zilch, zero - i am first to admit that that in itself does not PROVE that massive stockpiles were there, but coupled with all the other evidence, it is difficult to not give some level of credence to the Syrian stewardship claim when you cannot counter that theory - unless of course you are ignorantly biased, in which case what you think matters little anyways. Obviously, we know Hussein HAD WMDs, as he used them repeatedly, of that there is NO question. Some may very well have been destroyed unilaterally by his regime post-Desert Storm, and evidence suggests that some certainly appear to have went to Syria, but the FACT is that Hussein's upper echelon military planners have stated in interrogation that they were not even aware of any unilateral Iraqi WMD destruction until Saddam told them 2 months prior to the US invasion in 2003. They believed up until that point that Iraq still had a viable WMD arsenal in place to defend the nation, as did EVERY credible intel organization on the planet. Clearly, the fact that stockpiles were not found was a stunning intel failure (see, no bias here at all), but we know the regime had them because they have been used in the past and were not all destroyed during Desert Storm, the regime cannot account for the destruction of them (in a regime that was renowned for excellent paperwork and documentation skills), violated 17 UN resolutions in what could only logically be percieved as a clear effort to hide something, and plenty of circumstantial claims point to at least some of them moving to Syria. In the face of NOTHING but preformed bias clouding your views (or the word of Saddam, which you clearly seem to value and hold as credible), you still dont want to admit that there appears to be an evidentiary trail pointing to exportation. Again, you want black and white, and wont get it. It takes a deep understanding and education on the issues to appreciate the complexities at play, and that wont be gained by reading a couple articles in a paper or watching a segment on a news show and then jumping to hard and fast conclusions, but sadly, simple people demand simple answers to incredibly intricate and nuanced issues.
Now, i already said that WMDs were not the reason for invading Iraq - that was simply the excuse used to secure support for the invasion from the vast majority of people who are ignorant and myopic in their thinking and lack the substratum of understanding to absorb or appreciate the stratagem. Were you lied to about the reasons for invasion? YES! Of course you were...if you could think out of the box, you would have appreciated that in 2002 and 2003.
Why were you lied to? Pre-invasion, the Bush Admin (incorrectly) figured that just about every intel organization on Earth was correct and that Saddam still had WMD stockpiles, and the Admin assumed that they would find them after invasion and that would have justified to the ignorant masses their palatable and grossly simplistic claims ("lowest common denominator" again) that they needed to make in order to secure support for invasion. The intelligence was obviously wrong in that regard, no argument there, but pragmatically, that matters little, because (i will say it again) securing WMDs was NOT the real reason why the Bush Admin wanted to enter Iraq in the first place, it just gave them exactly what they wanted - permission from the citizens (and bulk of the world) to invade.
The best advice that can be given is get off the whole WMD whining kick - Yes, you were lied to! Yes, you had to be lied to because you can't appreciate the long-term stratagem. Yes, you are too short-sighted and lack the deep understanding or mindset to think not 2 or 5 years down the road, but 20, 50, even 70+ years into the future to get why we are there. That is classic average human nature though (as i explained cohesively in previous long-winded posts), as is jumping to hard and fast conclusions and building a rapid level of bias that, as many of you prototypically demonstrate, is notoriously hard to deviate from because ignorance and arrogance overwhelms you. The term "keep an open-mind" should always be a rule of thumb until an UNBIASED education on an issue allows for a well-founded and powerfully supportable opinion to form, but that concept is most definitely lost on many here who THINk they get it, want to TELL everyone they get it, but CANT explain or support how it is that they apparently "got it." Skeptisism is fine, but is really only valid or worthwhile if you possess the knowledge to build an effective counter to challenge well-supported claims your initial preformed bias has you desperately wanting to disagree with.