"Proof of WMD

It's worth noting in all the debate over the missing explosives in Iraq that one of the three kinds of explosives at the center of the debate is HMX.

Why is that important? As former weapons inspector David Kay, who later lead the Iraq Survey Group's hunt for WMD in post-liberation Iraq, explained to CNN's Aaron Brown in a recent televised interview, HMX is a key component of nuclear bombs. Siad Kay, "HMX is in powder form because you actually use it to shape a spherical lens that is used to create the triggering device for nuclear weapons."

Therefore, it is now beyond doubt that Saddam's regime was in possession of at least some components of nuclear weapons of mass destruction as late as just weeks before the March 2003 start of the war, in violation of UN Resolution 1441 which required him to disclose and dispose of such materials. His failure to comply with 1441 created the legal justification for war.

President Bush told the truth about Saddam's WMD program. The tons and tons of HMX is more evidence of that."

Oh dear!

The IAEA was in Iraq inspecting several sites before the war. Many of those reports are available on their website, and I'm sure the U.S. has access to the ones that are not.

Was the HMX that everyone knew Saddam had used as a justification for war before the war?

The HMX was part of Saddam's nuclear weapons program, which was cited by Cheney in the famous mis-quote the left trots out as a "lie".

So, yes, it was cited.

Bill,

David Kay, in that same interview, stated unmistakably that the explosives were not WMD. They are dual-use, which is why the IAEA didn't require Saddam to dispose of them. They allowed them to remain in Iraq, and sealed them for monitoring.

This was not a legal justification for war, no more than Saddam having missiles would have been (missiles being a component of nuclear weapons as well). The intelligence remains faulty, the justification for the Iraqi war continues to be non-existant, and your desperation in excusing this unexcusable lapse of Bush's judgment is noted.

Oh, goody, from a poster at Roger L. Simon's blog.

By the way, I also stumbled across a story online from January 2003, dealing with Britain selling HMX pellets to Iran (yeah....., Iran, and on the eve of regime change bext door no less). The HMX was to be for civilian applications only, and Britain was confident Iran wouldn't convert the stuff to military use, despite some opposition to the sale domestically and in Israel. What was really noteworthy, was there seems to be no indication the IAEA gave a flying f%#$ about the sale. All those seeking to use this story to topple Bush have been playing up the destructiveness of this stuff, to the point where you'd think a piece of HMX the size of a smartie would flatten Chicago. Now I see Britain was selling the same stuff to Iran, last year, and no one cared.

Actually, boloboffin, missiles of above a certain range indeed were banned by the UN sanctions and covered by the applicable UN resolutions and Saddam's failure to fully disclose and completely dispose of them would constitute casus belli under UN Res. 1441. Have you read 1441 and the other relevant UN resolutions? I have.

Did Saddam have missiles above that range?

No?

Then there's no casus belli.

But we do have an adminstration of incompetence who've allowed these high-quality explosives to fuel insurgency bombs against Americans and Iraqis. And we've got you cherry-picking what David Kay said to make excuses for them.

And today we get Osama himself, popping up alive and well. If Bush hadn't outsourced Tora Bora, Osama wouldn't be making videos today, would he?

How badly does Bush have to screw up things before you'll admit to what's happening?

"They allowed them to remain in Iraq, and sealed them for monitoring".

.....and then kicked them out of the country. I am sure the Iraqi's used the honor system and didn't think about unsealing them.

If you look here:

Congressional Resolution on Iraq (Passed by House and Senate October 2002)

Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html

You will find 22 "whereas" laid out. There are reasons other than WMD.

I wonder how Roosevelt would have been able to prosecute WWII if these guys had been whining about the US invading Tunisia after Pearl Harbor. There were not a whole lot of Japanese in Tunisia, nor in Morocco, nor in Sicily, nor in France. Was there a "casus belli"?

Bush kicked the IAEA inspectors out of the country, Darrell. He had bidness to do, if you recall, a little shock and awe going down in the neighborhood. And the whole point of the Kay interview was that the Iraqis under Saddam did leave the seals intact. Unless you can figure out a way to offload barrels and crates through a ventilation shaft, those explosives were there when the Army arrived at al-Qaqaa. The seals were intact.

punslinger: WMD was always the ace in Bush's hand before the war. When it became apparent that Chalabi and crew had been lying to them, then we got all the "liberation" talk. And Roosevelt may have gotten a little flak if he'd invaded Mexico instead of an key position in an war with the Axis powers. Iraq wasn't the center of a terrorist threat to America until we invaded. You've heard of the "flypaper" argument, and which side of the aisle it originated on, I'm sure.

by: at

Both of us being seekers of truth and all, would do weel to study the Congressional Resolution on Iraq. The problem with the MSM is that we get only soundbites on the nightly news. 15 seconds our of a much longer speech does not really cut it when we look at the big picture.

When we think that the Bush administration is pushing one rationale, we are getting that impression from the sound bites. There were a lot of reasons expressed for going into Iraq. The WMD was emphasized after the resolution was signed and we were trying to convince the UN to go in with us.

That most people don't get the big picture is not really the fault of the administration but rather the short attention span of the public.

Kerry says that he will hunt and kill terrorists wherever they are. Just not in Iraq apparently.

I like the flypaper theory. If we draw a bunch of terrorists into Iraq to be killed, it saves us from having to invade all of the other countries in the area to hunt and kill terrorists, like Kerry says. It shows the adaptability of the administration.

You admit that Tunisia was key position. Did we have a specific declaration of war against Tunisia, or was it more of a common sense idea (That generation seemed to have more common sense than we do) that since, hey, we are at war with Germany, and here's some Germans in Tunisia, lets kill them.

I don't recall that we specifically declared war on France, did we?

Hmmmm, Bush was the only one to kick the IAEA out of Iraq?

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9811/11/iraq.02/