Quote:

---

Thank you for making me re-read those reports. I don't know where to start. How about your link to s-2004-160.pdf. You quoted a snippet of the article, but you failed to add this little nugget:

Quote:

---

1. Open source reports announced the discovery of some munitions in southern Iraq in January 2004, and speculated that those munitions contained prohibited chemical warfare agents. Subsequently, it was declared that the munitions in question did not contain prohibited chemical warfare agents.

...

14. UNMOVIC inspectors discovered munitions and munition components similar to items Iraq included in its declaration of December 2002. However, no linkage with prohibited programmes was conclusively established prior to the withdrawal of inspectors in March 2003.

---

---

Quote:

---

Now let's go to unmovic_jan6.pdf:

Quote:

---

In general, there is little evidence of change in the chemical and biological disciplines beyond that noted above. No proscribed activities, or the result of such activities from the period of 1998-2002 have, so far, been detected through inspections. . There are a number of chemical and biological facilities or production units that could be used for both proscribed and non-proscribed purposes. In order to verify and monitor the status of such facilities, information such as original documents concerning budgets, the employment of certain individuals, planning, imports and log books of key items of equipment should be provided to UNMOVIC.

---

---

Again, this doesn't say those shells weren't deadly.

Quote:

---

As for Maples, you might want to re-read that Washington Post article about what he said.

---

I did, there's nothing that he said that weakens his statement regarding the danger of those shells. Why don't you pick the quote that you think is important and post it?

Quote:

---

You're cherry picking snippets to validate your fears.

---

The reason it appears I'm cherry picking is because of the bias of the MSM. When the MSM makes a point that is detrimental to democrats, it's usually is written as a small nugget of information within a larger story. That Washington Post story clearly has his statement indicating that they were still deadly which agrees with those UN reports. You have nothing that says otherwise other than anonymous or un-named sources which smells like BS to me.

Kramer

Post Extras