[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by oleg:
BTW, where are all those f..g Sadam' WMD ?
Any ideas except CIA&MI6 been on heavy drugs ???

Ideas on them not requiring fataly flawed thinking on the part of higher-ups:
1) The WMD components were used, and this did not get noticed at the time by the global community
2) The WMD components were hidden/stored/buried in Iraq, and have not yet been found
3) The WMD components were exported out of Iraq (given away/sold/traded)
4) The WMD components were hidden/stored/buried outside Iraq
5) The WMD components were destroyed, but Saddam, for some unknown reason / unknown insanity, didn't support that fact well.

Loose Reasoning:
Facts:
A) There is evidence (reciepts from US-based companies operating under UN sanction, mostly) that Saddam recieved WMD components.
B) The report sent to the UN by Iraq did not account for the current status of some of those WMD components to the public satisfaction of those in power in the US.
Assumptions:
A: Saddam would want to give evidence that they were destroyed (had they been destroyed) to get the UN off his back.
B: Saddam has his regeme keep correct, detailed paperwork when he wants them to do so.
C: Those in power in the US are being reasonable when they say the report Iraq sent to the UN did not adequately account for the WMD components destruction. (I haven't read the report, and will not comment on it directly)
D: The facts above are valid; a.k.a., the reciepts above were not manufactured and those in power in the US are being essentially honest in that they do not find Iraq's report to the UN satisfactory.

At most, the above facts and assumptions imply that one or more of the following is true:
1) The WMD components were used, and this did not get noticed at the time by the global community
2) The components were hidden/stored/buried in Iraq, and have not been found
3) The components were exported out of Iraq (given away/sold/traded)
4) The components were hidden/stored/buried outside Iraq
5) They were destroyed, but Saddam, for some unknown reason / unknown insanity, didn't support that fact well.

Using the above facts and assumptions, there is no way to choose which of them is/are correct. A detailed search of Iraq has the potential to shed some light on the probability of those possibilities -
1) a detailed search could potentially find traces of the WMD components having been used
2) a detailed search could potentially find hidden Caches of the components
3,4) a detailed search could potentially find evidence of the components being transported
5) evidence of the destruction of the components could potentially be found in a detailed search.

However, it is also concieveable that steps could have been taken to thwart the success of a search, rendering the effort futile. Paperwork could have been destroyed or deliberately not kept in the first place, or transactions could have been buried under a mountain of paperwork via harmless seeming codenames.

From what I have seen on the news, the search hasn't found much. Does this mean the components aren't there? No; nor does it mean that they are there, nor does it mean they never were there, nor does it mean many other things, especially because I've also read a news report where a member of a US search team was criticizing the methods he had been ordered to use. Mind you, the news in my area is severly slanted and not too terribly reliable, so that should be taken with a health dose of salt. If my assumptions aren't valid, then neither are most of my possible conclusions. I personally have no method by which to be certain on the subject. I have suspicions, but that is all they are, when it comes down to it.