Hi Teribus,

Re; Scott and Blix



"Did they tell us in 1998 when the Iraq of Saddam Hussein was identified by the Security and Intelligence Agencies of the United States of America as posing the greatest threat??"

This is errant propaganda. Security and intelligent agencies knew very little about Iraq at the time and even today they know not much more.

" It was the content of that report that itemised in great detail the proscribed WMD programmes and research and development being undertaken inside Iraq."

The report was obviously based on little-known information at the time and if it existed as you say it did, then it has obviously been proven false.


"Their report detailed the weaponised stocks of Chemical and Biological agents as well as the stockes of precursor chemicals and dual-use items present in Iraq. Their report detailed weapons and delivery systems."

To that, I say, "Yellowcake, anyone?"

"Did the good Dr Blix tell us in 2003?"

Not many knew what was going on in 03. He wouldn't have known. Saddam was a paper tiger. He was put in place by the US as a deterrent to Iran. He was all talk and no substance as has been shown recently. Blix and Ritter finally realized that their findings were about to be propagandized by the Bush Administration and in their public statements reacted accordingly.

"The US search groups have only stated that they believe that it is highly unlikely that they will find anything - That is not the same thing as saying that there is nothing."

What US search groups? There are a lot of self-styled groups in the US that claim some kind of information. Many of them are puppets for Bush.

"One thing that is for certain now is that Iraq is no longer seeking WMD capability."

And it has been shown that Iraq never had that capability. It was smoke and mirrors.

"Scott Ritter - Good old unbiased, impartial, objective Scott Ritter.
Is that the Scott Ritter who was paid to produce a pro-Iraqi television programme??"

What does pro-Iraqi mean? They don't even have an Iraq. He was never in favor of Saddam as your implication suggests.


"As much as the chattering left puts their belief in the myth that there had to be one single issue that drove the situation, anyone who has actually done a bit of reading on the subject realises that there were a whole raft of reasons, all related to Iraqi non-compliance with the terms agreed and set down at Safwan."

I disagree that the so-called left has any belief of the kind. Actually, reading right-wing propaganda does not constitute objective analysis of the situation. I think your description, "a bit of reading" is accurate. Certainly not a full report.