Would you explain to me the faults in my logic when I say that you are stating this incorrectly.
Stephen, I klnow lots of people who can assemble an argument based in, first, sound propositions, second, introduction of a hypothesis given by the domain of those propositions, third, a coherent verification or falsification of said hypothesis made in the form of logical argument.
Yet, my experience is that people who are usually logical developed those chops naturally and without any coursework.
This said, a discussion of WMD in Iraq isn't rocket science.
You've formed a hypothesis: WMD existed in Iraq sometime right before or at the time of the invasion of Iraq.
What would count as evidence for the material existence of WMD? (How about: weapons of mass destruction in a semblance of the form constituting a realizable threat?)
You've introduced all sorts of non-material propositions into the argument. Informally viewed, these are each straw men; are weak arguments offered as dispositive arguments.
They are weak because they are speculative, and, also, they point right back to the unproved hypothesis. But they are worse than being speculative because they don't introduce any dispositive evidence in their own right. None of those quotes settle anything, and they're illogical with respect to your claim because they aren't even in the form of evidence that would
materially and indicatively support your claim.
The fact that WMD's were not found is not the same as proving that they did not exist.
Exactly. My only evidence for their not existing is the complete lack of evidence for their existing.
Now you have introduced quotes from the 1999 UNSCOM report. This report makes several evidentiary posits.
1. However, a dozen mustard-filled shells were recovered at a former CW storage facility in the period 1997-1998.
Although mustard gas isn't a WMD, nevertheless, this finding supports a claim that Iraq had gas weaponry in 1998. Thus, it is not dispositive in anyway with respect to your unproven claim.
2. Iraq presented the information sought on the disposition of tail sections but field inspection activities are still required to verify the full accounting for these weapons.
No account has been made. In fact, the detritus of delivery systems (such as the Al Samoud 2) were found post invasion. However, once again, inspectors (see Kay 2003;
https://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html) found no evidence of those systems being weaponized with WMD in the relevant timeframe. Nor did Mr. Duelfer (See:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html) <A>
3. Iraq also denies that it weaponized VX. Sampling by the Commission of special warheads has thrown significant doubt upon this claim.
See <A>. No evidence was found of deliverable VX or any substantive nerve agent WMD suggstive of capability in the relevant timeframe.
4. Iraq presented such clarifications in July 1998. Field verification is still required to increase the degree of confidence that all equipment has been accounted for.
The complete accounting was never provided by Iraq/Saddam. However, in Hans Blix's reports to the UN, no positive claim was made for the existence of CW capability in the time period we're concerned with. Then, from this, we move to <A> and the findings of the Kay/Duelfer reports, referenced above.
5. These declarations have been assessed by the Commission and by international experts as incomplete, inadequate and containing substantial deficiencies.
Yes, but, so what? This is a super example of a straw man, relevant to some other claims but not of any import to the single one under discussion. Yes, it is a fault of either your education or cognitive abilities (sorry!) that you trot this irrelevancy out in public.
6. In the Commission's view, Iraq has not complied with requirements of the relevant Security Council resolutions on the disclosure of its biological warfare programme. A full, complete and verifiable disclosure of all its biological weapons activities needs to be presented by Iraq.
Likewise. Irrelevant; immaterial; not even existing within the logical category via which a material claim, let alone evidence, could be introduced in support of your unproven claim.
I can't do anything about your nonsensical illogical approach, Stephen. Pre-invasion, there was alot of circumstantial evidence, and you've, basically, brought it here in all its subjunctive irrelevance.
However, none of it leads to the single bit of evidence that would count for something pertinent to your claim: actual evidence of the actual WMD weaponry constituting an actual capability in 2002-2003.
I suspect now you won't deliver the goods, yet, I do figure that if Blix, Kay and Duelfer couldn't deliver the goods, some dude in Lakewood won't be successful where they failed. Although, if you could, it would make for a momentous LO headline: LAKEWOOD INVESTIGATOR DISCOVERS WMD IN IRAQ FROM LIVING ROOM LAZY BOY. This would be very cool! You'd become very famous instantly and get to flirt with Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin and Katie Couric.
I'm not sure why you think I will suddenly become cognitively impaired and thus seduced by your own illogic and irrationality. It won't happen. So, the tiring cut-and-paste of "besides-the-point" crap might as well come to an end. It serves no purpose and only highlights your inability to present valid evidence in support of your claim.
I'm reminded of the firestorm the Kay Report created when it became patently obvious that the UN inspector's inability to find--in the 1st quarter of 2003--active WMD, was because there weren't any WMD to find in Iraq.
It was a stirring moment of 'counter-mendacity.' Our emperor was suddenly naked and looking very much like a war criminal, having committed the US to an illegal war and the expenditure of blood, treasure and hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.
