Then can someone explain why Lawrence Korb of The Center For American Progress just pronounced on MSNBC that the Kay report proved that there are no WMD in Iraq. Either Kay and Powell are wrong or Korb lied.

Trouble is, a rhetorical question is not enough for the committed Commies and Saddammies who populate our “media”. What would be enough? Maybe a duel. “Speak the truth or step outside!”

so are you saying the US isn’t interested in or developing the very same? Oh, that’s right. You don’t care as long as the US is doing it.

‘bsti’:

I am quite sure that the U.S. is “interested in” botulinum toxin only in so far as we may have to defend against it, and not “developing” (i.e. manufacturing) it unless that is the only way test our defenses.

Are you saying the U.S. is developing botulinum toxin with the purpose of releasing it on unsuspecting enemies? If so, you are a liar or a fool. If not, you certainly look as if you are trying to muddy the distinction between countries that can be trusted not to poison their enemies and those that cannot. Why would you be doing that?

To put it in very simple terms: if I see a group of tough guys driving down the street at twice the speed limit with their fingers on the triggers of some very lethal weapons, it doesn’t bother me, if they are policemen on their way to a crime scene. If they are criminal thugs on their way to kill, rob, or rape innocent civilians, I deeply disapprove. Does that make me a hypocrite? Or just a sensible guy who thinks it obvious that some weapons are quite properly in the hands of policemen but may not be appropriate for possession by criminals?

(Note to discourage tangents: I am well aware that Police vs. Criminals is not a perfect metaphor for Democracies vs. Brutal Dictatorships, and I am not saying anything about gun control, which is quite properly applied to convicted criminals in any case. My point is limited to showing the absurdity of the argument that if one group of people is allowed to have some weapon, everyone else must be allowed to have them too.)

I completely and 100% trust that the US will never have to use biological weapons in the future. I wonder though, would Israel show as much restraint as America would? Not that the Biological Weapons Convention has stopped nations from research, but as far as I can Israel has refused to even sign on.

wow! the usefull idiots indoctrinated with moral relativism by the left never fail to astound me with thier lack of critical thinking skills.

dr. weevil dont bother, he either knows what he’s doing or he’s just another trained chimp that only apears to have human cognition.

either way he wont admit to the rational reality of your argument, because he’s trying to convince other feeble minded fools that america is the real bad guy and saddam wasnt so bad or dangerous.

bsti So give me documentation on the number of times the U.S. has used chemical weapons. Please keep the list short if you can.

The behavior of the Establishment media, in its hysterical insistence that there weren’t any significant discoveries by David Kay & Co, is like wilful blindness. Them’s ostriches talking.

If we’re building up stocks of botulinum, it’s a safe bet we’re doing it for the benefit of plastic surgeons. (Love that Botox.)

logiccop - The U.S. government may not have used chemical or biological weapons as the means to destroy lives (conventional weapons work just as well for that end); but I think it is safe to say that the only biological warfare that has been visited on the U.S. (anthrax) was probably initiated by someone within the U.S. who had access to government-supported research and development in biological WMD agents.

I am pointing this out not to defend the atrocities of the Saddam regime and his immoral use of chemical weapons on his own people. Nor am I in any way attempting to equate U.S. policy, which I believe on the whole is the most humane in the world, with that of evil rogue states. Rather, I am simply pointing out that governments that tinker with WMDs of the biological or chemical variety, regardless of good intentions, must be prepared to assume some responsibility for tragic accidents or, worse, nefarious individual misuse of such deadly weapons that fall into the wrong hands.

Just a quick reminder of a news story concerning a Florida doctor remembering treating two of the highjackers for lesions consistant with anthrax exposure (and with equal quickness, buried); added to the Czech intel report of Atta’s meeting with a Iraqi spook (which they STILL stand by) might paint a alternative picture to Mr. Huck’s.

The CIA’s excessive willingness to paper over matters that don’t neatly fit does not negate alternative senarios. We must face the reality that there are far too many ‘politically reliable’ drones in the FBI and CIA that were assets in the previous administration that are little better the doorstops when measured against the needs of the current administration.

It’s an unpleasant thought, but one that must be faced squarely.

Jimmy Huck Tragic as it was the death toll in the U.S. anthrax attack, does not compare to the number of dead Iranians, Kurds and Shi’a perpetrated by Iraq. I absolutely agree about the nature of all WMD, but if the gate keeper to hell has to be someone let it be the United States. What disappoints me is the frankness I see in this comments column hasn’t begun to set in for those in our government who keep screaming Show Me The WMD.