It does not say "before the war" anywhere. what kind of bullshit biased blog is this?

That's the seeming logical assumption, that the stuff was removed before the war. UNMOVIC says it was there before the war, and it's not there now. If it removed after the war, the U.S. would have some of it and the Bush administration would be able to show it to the world and say, "Nyah nyah, we were right."

But since they don't have it, the seemingly logical conclusion is that it was removed right before the invasion. However, I went and read the UNMOVIC report from February (the latest doesn't seem to be online) and it doesn't definitively say when the stuff was removed, though at least some was looted post-invasion. So I have removed the words "Before the War" from my headline.

Bottom line, however, is that the UNMOVIC reports CONFIRM that Iraq had WMD materials and facilities before the war.

Not only is it the seeming logical assumption, it's the only logical conclusion. Unless of course the AP has gone all right-wing on us.

Powell showed the U.N. detailed images of inspection vehicles coming up the driveway of some of the facilities. He also showed suspicious trucks parked in the rear. Where are the images showing the trucks leaving and consequently where they went?

There is such disturbing inconsistency in the imagery and other evidence relating to the removal of equipment. We can read a license plate in a parking lot, and, with a UAV, can destroy a particular car in the desert containing a distinctly identified insurgent, yet the data on movement of WMD materials has somehow eluded us.

Also, it puzzles me why Saddam would, with invasion imminent, remove completely from the country his most virulent weapons. If he did so to keep from getting caught with them, then we assured the dispersion by invading.

Finally, if we presumed beforehand that he would attempt to spirit them out, then why was that activity not anticipated and dealt with well ahead of the invasion?

Is Qaa Qaa Chemical pronounced "Kah Kah"?

The February 2005 UNMOVIC that Bill links to says this: "In previous quarterly reports, UNMOVIC noted the reported looting and razing of sites that contained dual-use equipment and materials subject to monitoring, some of which have been discovered outside Iraq. The continuing examination of site imagery has revealed that approximately 90 of the total 353 sites analysed containing equipment and materials of relevance have been stripped and/or razed. Commission experts have also noted that repairs and new construction have begun at 10 sites."

These quarterly reports represent more information than you suggest. You seem to be saying that because the materials which might be used to make WMDs existed before the war do not appear to be in the same place today, they must have been moved before the war.

Yet the report says clearly that some of the materials were removed by looting, and that this is based on continuing analysis since the war began.

The looting happened after the war began, not before.

To me, some of the most compelling reasons given to go to war were based on Saddam's blocking of the UN inspectors from entering Iraq. Why are they still not allowed to inspect these suspected sites? Why not put people on the ground to inspect these buildings so that we don't have to guess about what might have happened to these materials that may or may not have been intended for WMDs?

Lt. Frizzle's blog does not allow comments, so I'll have to post here. I fail to see what this AP article proves. The UN knew these were "dual use" facilities. Presumably, they were inspecting these facilities and found they were being used legally (or else they would have been reporting on illegal weapons production, and we wouldn't hear all the bitching about our invasion.) There were problems with the effectiveness of UN weapons inspectors - but I suspect US forces checked these areas quickly after invasion and didn't find anything illegal either. It still doesn’t prove Iraq had WMD, only they have dual use facilities.

I really doubt WMD will be found in Iraq. If it hasn't been found by now, I have a hard time believing it will be found. I also don't think Bush lied about WMD. Iraqi commanders have stated that they thought units next to them had WMD. I don't know how you derive meaningful intelligence from a country that was deceiving even its own commanders.

Lt. Frizzle, thank you for your service. Stay safe.