CIA still holds that the labs in the buried vans could make unconventional weapons

[JAR]

According to an LA Times article I read yesterday, the CIA still holds that the mobile labs buried in the ground could be used to make unconventional weapons.

That Saddam would make his labs mobile and that he would bury them makes it seem most likely that they were used for making unconventional weapons,which are things Saddam wasn't supposed to make. That would be his motive for making the labs mobile and for burying them. He was trying to hide something from us so we wouldn't know he had it.

The two other theories I've read which are not upheld by the CIA along with the reasons I think they're unlikely to be true are given below:

Theory #1. They were used for making conventional weapons:

I think that theory is unlikely to be true because a)It was much easier for Saddam to purchase conventional weapons than it was for him to make them, and b)I can't think of any reason he would make these labs mobile labs if all they were used for was for making conventional weapons.

Theory #2: They were used for making helium for weather balloons:

I think that theory is unlikely to be true because a)It was much easier for Saddam to purchase helium than it was for him to make it, and b)I can't think of any reason he would make these labs mobile if all they were used for was for making helium.

Perhaps there is something I'm not taking into account. If there is, please tell me about it.

[Shinytop]

Weather balloons for artillery need to be used all over the battlefield, hence mobile labs.

But forget that if you want. The fact is that the labs without any WMD prove not a damn thing with regard to Bush's assertion that their weapons were many and ready to use.

Let them argue and assert all they want, they have not yet proven any WMD and are much too late to prove an imminent threat.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Shinytop
Weather balloons for artillery need to be used all over the battlefield, hence mobile labs.
Thanks for the information. I didn't know that.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Shinytop
Weather balloons for artillery need to be used all over the battlefield, hence mobile labs.

If these mobile labs are of a type that are commonly used for weather balloons for artillery, why haven't we found tons of these things being that they're commonly found with artillery?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by JAR
According to an LA Times article I read yesterday, the CIA still holds that the mobile labs buried in the ground could be used to make unconventional weapons.

That Saddam would make his labs mobile and that he would bury them makes it seem most likely that they were used for making unconventional weapons,which are things Saddam wasn't supposed to make. That would be his motive for making the labs mobile and for burying them. He was trying to hide something from us so we wouldn't know he had it.

The two other theories I've read which are not upheld by the CIA along with the reasons I think they're unlikely to be true are given below:

Theory #1. They were used for making conventional weapons:

I think that theory is unlikely to be true because a)It was much easier for Saddam to purchase conventional weapons than it was for him to make them, and b)I can't think of any reason he would make these labs mobile labs if all they were used for was for making conventional weapons.

Theory #2: They were used for making helium for weather balloons:

I think that theory is unlikely to be true because a)It was much easier for Saddam to purchase helium than it was for him to make it, and b)I can't think of any reason he would make these labs mobile if all they were used for was for making helium.
Lol.... I was thinking of turning my wife in. After all, the pots and pans she has could be used to make unconventional weapons....

As for the weather balloons......How many times do people have to explain this to you? Do you expect an artillary unit to carry around bloody great big tanks of pressurised gas?? No, they use a small simple cheap still and some simple chemicals to produce hydrogen, not helium.

You are really clutching at straws now JAR. You are now reduced to stories like "There exists bits and pieces of stuff that if put together in a certain way (after digging them up from where they have been dumped and buried) they could possibly be used to make something naughty....What a joke..... whats the next wacko theory? Charge children for possession of Meccano sets because they could potentially build something nasty with them?

I have fertilizer in my shed....I could make a bomb!!!! and that broom handle! It could easily be sharpened into a spear! quick, call the FBI!!!

[Earthborn]

Theory #2: They were used for making helium for weather balloons:Hydrogen, not helium.

Helium is actually very difficult to make, you'll have to mine it or filter it out of the air (which contains very little). Helium is also heavier than hydrogen, so the weather balloon can't reach as high.

Hydrogen however is very easy to make: some acid, and some metal strips, put them in a pot together, and the hydrogen bubbles up. It's cheap to make on the spot.

Iraq could have bought hydrogen, but it is very hard to handle for a long time. It makes much better sense to make it on the spot, where and when you need it. If you want to launch balloons from various places, the only way you can do it is with mobile factories.

Experts have examined the trucks and concluded that most likely they were used for making hydrogen. There was no way anyone could have made conventional weapons with them, and for making biological or chemical ones it lacks many control mechanisms.

Why the Iraqis buried them is anyone's guess. But if the CIA still wants to maintain that they were for making 'unconventional' weapons (maybe the Iraqi equivalent of a 'hydrogen bomb'... a balloon with a fuse :) ) then they should expect they will be the laughing stock for decades to come.

[scotth]

Originally posted by Shinytop
Weather balloons for artillery need to be used all over the battlefield, hence mobile labs.


It would be rediculous to suggest that the production of helium would for any reason need to be close to a battlefield.

Helium would not need to be produced any closer the front than gunpowder for example.

In the U.S., we don't place helium making facilies close to where helium is needed. We place them where it is convenient to make helium and ship from there.

Helium cannot be "manufactured", it can only be filtered from found sources and even that is not alot of fun to do.

A small lab would take a long time to make enough helium to fill a couple of weather balloons. Large volumes a material (probably natural gas) will need to be passed through this lab to filter the helium out of it. And hopefully they have uranium ore in the ground close to where this natural gas comes from, or the gas won't have much helium in it.

Helium is removed from natural gas cryogenically. In this case, that means the cool the mixture so much that every other gas in it, beside helium has condensed or frozen. Then draw off the helium. Difficult to do on a large scale.

And finally, helium for weather balloons is not a "high value target", really. It simply isn't worth the effort to make their helium production mobile to protect it.

In fact, I would be very surprised to hear that Iraq launched a single weather balloon in support of their artillary during the entire conflict.

Having said all that in defense of Jar's first theory.

I still agree with Shinytop that have not proven MWD yet.

I would say that this buried van discovery most likely indicates a production capability. It also seems unreasonable to believe they would have production cablilities and never made any. Where are they now?

I don't know. They could be destoyed. They could have been destroyed before we got there. I am not convinced of that, bit it is possible. I suspect we will know with near certainity sometime in the not too distant future.

I'll wait 'til we know, before I am ready to crucify anyone. I'm patient because I know we will find out. Right now we are just speculating that the intelligence was wrong.

Edited to add: The Helium correction to Hydrogen was typed in while I was typing this whole mess in. Some of this is now moot, a good bit of is not. For instance, it seems unlikely that they would have such a need desperate need for hydrogen close to a battle that they would have mobile hydrogen labs and to bury them.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Earthborn
[snip]
Why the Iraqis buried them is anyone's guess. But if the CIA still wants to maintain that they were for making 'unconventional' weapons (maybe the Iraqi equivalent of a 'hydrogen bomb'... a balloon with a fuse :) ) then they should expect they will be the laughing stock for decades to come.
The Iraqis were burying things because they wanted to regain them when they regained their territory. [Edited to add: This may be incorrect. My father said that the article that I got the information from didn't say why the Iraqis buried what they buried.] Other things besides the mobile labs were buried, such as planes and tanks.[Edited to add: That's incorrect due to my bad memory. According to my father, the article that I got this information from didn't say anything about tanks being buried. It mentioned planes being buried, but no tanks.] According to an Iraqi general who was ordered to bury tanks(I think that's what I remember that he was ordered to bury), the burying of tanks rendered them useless. After they are buried, they don't work anymore. The general said it was one of Saddam's sons who ordered him to bury his tanks. [Edited to add: This is incorrect. It wasn't tanks that he was ordered to bury, but planes, and the planes were useless after they were buried.] I can't remember which son it was.

The U.S. fighters were so efficient at destroying ground vehicles that it was extremely unsafe for the Iraqis to move their tanks from fortifications. The same Iraqi general quoted above said that he would lose tanks from patrolling fighters everytime he moved his unit. He was constantly being given orders by the same son who ordered him to bury tanks. [Edited to add: The general was ordered to bury planes, not tanks.] He said that that son of Saddam ordered troops like a kid playing a computer wargame.

[JAR]

Due to my bad memory, the post I wrote right before this one was inaccurate. I've added stuff to the post to show where my inaccuracies are.

[subgenius]

The CIA apparently can't find its butthole in an outhouse, and spends more resources defending its indefensible incompetence (covering the aforementioned a**hole with paper) than in gathering good information.

Just trust me on this one. Or don't.

[CapelDodger]

The system was sold to Iraq by the Brits in 1982. The balloons are used in measuring wind-speed to improve artillery accuracy. More modern systems use doppler radar techniques. Or so I'm told. Sorry, no references.

[LW]

Originally posted by Earthborn

Hydrogen however is very easy to make: some acid, and some metal strips, put them in a pot together, and the hydrogen bubbles up. It's cheap to make on the spot.

And add 10 liters of warm water.

Iraq could have bought hydrogen, but it is very hard to handle for a long time. It makes much better sense to make it on the spot, where and when you need it. If you want to launch balloons from various places, the only way you can do it is with mobile factories.

I don't know enough about the mobile vans to make any serious guess for their purpose, but I have the advantage that I served 6 months as an artillery weatherman and sent ~50 weather balloons up to the sky .

In the "live" artillery weather reports we used bottled hydrogen but during our training we made it ourselves using large kettles.

I see no compelling reason to have a full lab for hydrogen manufacture, as the only thing necesessary are a large pressurised kettle (weights around 20 kg), warm water, cold water, and some chemicals. These can be transported on ordinary trucks or even small cars. However, I see no reason to absolutely rule out the possibility, either, as some one in the Iraqi military might have seen such a reason.

By the way, one of the nastiest feelings that I've ever had was during training when the previous weather squad hadn't cleaned the pressurised kettle well and its tubes froze solid. We didn't notice that until we had started the reaction. So, we were standing beside a large pressurised pot filled with acid that got more and more pressurised by generated hydrogen. Not a nice feeling. After examining the situation our instructor removed the tubes and let the hydrogen escape to open air.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by JAR
Due to my bad memory, the post I wrote right before this one was inaccurate. I've added stuff to the post to show where my inaccuracies are.
Speaking of inaccuracies, remember your contention that the WMDs would be found shortly (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22027&perpage=40&pagenumber=1)? You haven't posted to that thread in over a month. While you're in a conciliatory mood, I think you should at least put in a guest appearance to comment on the innacuracy of that post.

[corplinx]

The other possibility is that buried truck trailers or vans or whatever haven't been found yet. It was sort of an assumption that the trailers we found _above_ _ground_ were what the CIA intel was about.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx
The other possibility is that buried truck trailers or vans or whatever haven't been found yet. It was sort of an assumption that the trailers we found _above_ _ground_ were what the CIA intel was about.

Well, that settles it for me then. They could have anything buried under the ground, so they are guilty.

[CapelDodger]

From LW:
I see no compelling reason to have a full lab for hydrogen manufacture, as the only thing necesessary are a large pressurised kettle (weights around 20 kg), warm water, cold water, and some chemicals
Actually the term "labs" has simply been applied to the vehicles. They're actually medium-sized flatbeds, not even sealable. There are no sterlising units, just big pots or, perhaps, kettles. Remember, they were dubbed "labs" sight-unseen.

[originalgagster]

the WOMD will be discovered soon enough. Inside a UFO, piloted by elvis, landing on the loch ness monsters head.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by LW


And add 10 liters of warm water.



I don't know enough about the mobile vans to make any serious guess for their purpose, but I have the advantage that I served 6 months as an artillery weatherman and sent ~50 weather balloons up to the sky .

In the "live" artillery weather reports we used bottled hydrogen but during our training we made it ourselves using large kettles.

I see no compelling reason to have a full lab for hydrogen manufacture, as the only thing necesessary are a large pressurised kettle (weights around 20 kg), warm water, cold water, and some chemicals. These can be transported on ordinary trucks or even small cars. However, I see no reason to absolutely rule out the possibility, either, as some one in the Iraqi military might have seen such a reason.

By the way, one of the nastiest feelings that I've ever had was during training when the previous weather squad hadn't cleaned the pressurised kettle well and its tubes froze solid. We didn't notice that until we had started the reaction. So, we were standing beside a large pressurised pot filled with acid that got more and more pressurised by generated hydrogen. Not a nice feeling. After examining the situation our instructor removed the tubes and let the hydrogen escape to open air.

The other compelling argument for the labs being used to produce hydrogen for balloons, would be, uh... balloons. By the same argument that people say there have been no WMD found, I say neither have there been any balloons found. There have not been any balloons found on or near the mobile labs, nor has there been any intel reports of balloons used during the war, nor any documentation found on using the ballons. Not even photos of the balloons.

At least the CIA has photos of suspected WMD sites and weapons.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


The other compelling argument for the labs being used to produce hydrogen for balloons, would be, uh... balloons. By the same argument that people say there have been no WMD found, I say neither have there been any balloons found. There have not been any balloons found on or near the mobile labs, nor has there been any intel reports of balloons used during the war, nor any documentation found on using the ballons. Not even photos of the balloons.

At least the CIA has photos of suspected WMD sites and weapons.

Then they'd better break them out quick! (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4637.htm)

The 1,400-strong Iraq Survey Group, sent out in May to begin an intensive hunt for the elusive weapons, is expected to report this week that it has found no WMD hardware, nor even any sign of active programmes. The inspectors, headed by David Kay, a close associate of President George Bush, are likely to say the only evidence it has found is that the Iraqi government had retained a group of scientists who had the expertise to restart the weapons programme at any time.

Foreshadowing the report, Mr Bolton said the issue was not weapons, or actual programmes, but "the capability that Iraq sought to have ... WMD programmes". Saddam, he claimed, kept "a coterie" of scientists he was preserving for the day when he could build nuclear weapons unhindered by international constraints. "Whether he possessed them today or four years ago isn't really the issue," he said. "As long as that regime was in power, it was determined to get nuclear, chemical and biological weapons one way or another. Until that regime was removed from power, that threat remained - that was the purpose of the military action."


Maybe Saddam should have executed those scientists to reassure the ever-paranoid US government?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Well, that settles it for me then. They could have anything buried under the ground, so they are guilty.

I was just throwing that out as a suggestion AUP. I didn't say I believed it or put any credence in it.

[ImpyTimpy]

If they found balloons do you honestly think that press would report on it?

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

The other compelling argument for the labs being used to produce hydrogen for balloons, would be, uh... balloons. By the same argument that people say there have been no WMD found, I say neither have there been any balloons found. There have not been any balloons found on or near the mobile labs, nor has there been any intel reports of balloons used during the war, nor any documentation found on using the ballons. Not even photos of the balloons.

At least the CIA has photos of suspected WMD sites and weapons.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Maybe Saddam should have executed those scientists to reassure the ever-paranoid US government?

Maybe Saddam should have let those scientists be questioned without Iraqi minders. What needed to happen before the war to actually get any clear picture of what was going on was for Iraqi weapons scientists and their families to be brought out of Iraq for questioning so that they would not have to fear being tortured and executed. But Saddam did not let that happen, and the UN was doing absolutely nothing to make him. I think our paranoia was quite justified given his continued obstruction of the inspectors. Did you have a plan that would get him to comply? :rolleyes:

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Maybe Saddam should have let those scientists be questioned without Iraqi minders. What needed to happen before the war to actually get any clear picture of what was going on was for Iraqi weapons scientists and their families to be brought out of Iraq for questioning so that they would not have to fear being tortured and executed. But Saddam did not let that happen, and the UN was doing absolutely nothing to make him. I think our paranoia was quite justified given his continued obstruction of the inspectors. Did you have a plan that would get him to comply? :rolleyes:
Well now Saddam's not there. We can question them without anyone ever even knowing. Why have they not provided us with the information that Bush et. al. so desperately need? But you are only partially correct about the freedom to question the scientists withoug "minders". The UN had gotten Saddam to agree to allow the scientists to be privately questioned before the invasion. It was considered a major diplomatic coup for the UN and it raised hope that it might keep the US from invading. But it was a foolish hope. The US had decided to invade months before the actual invasion. The only question was how many countries could they convince to support them.

And yes, our paranoia might have been justified, though I doubt that as many people would have been so paranoid had the administration told us the whole truth rather than only the parts that supported them. Even given that, our reaction to this one-sided evidence was still over the top.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tricky

Well now Saddam's not there.


Yes. Because we kicked him out.


We can question them without anyone ever even knowing. Why have they not provided us with the information that Bush et. al. so desperately need?


Things are indeed looking like Saddam's nuclear, bio, and chem programs were on hold, though there is no evidence to suggest he had permanently abandoned them, and everything about his past actions suggest he would resume at the earliest opportunity. But you seem to be overlooking something: we couldn't actually know for sure what his current weapons program status was as long as Saddam obstructed us. And we only know it now because we DID go in. So basically you're using information that we only know BECAUSE we went in to try to say we shouldn't have gone in. I certainly wasn't willing to take Saddam's word for it that he had dismantled all his weapons programs. Why were you?


But you are only partially correct about the freedom to question the scientists withoug "minders". The UN had gotten Saddam to agree to allow the scientists to be privately questioned before the invasion. It was considered a major diplomatic coup for the UN and it raised hope that it might keep the US from invading. But it was a foolish hope.


Yes, it was a foolish hope, because Saddam never followed through on that promise. What does it say about the UN that extracting an empty promise from Saddam is considered a diplomatic victory? Was it a diplomatic victory to get him to agree to disclose all information about his nuclear weapons program, even though he never actually did so even after more than a decade? Promises from Saddam are less than worthless, because some people actually mistakenly believe them.

[nightwind]

My theory is that they are giant moonshine stills. :D

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Things are indeed looking like Saddam's nuclear, bio, and chem programs were on hold, though there is no evidence to suggest he had permanently abandoned them, and everything about his past actions suggest he would resume at the earliest opportunity.
On hold? No facilities at all is what you call "on hold"? Whatever his past actions were, we simply cannot use what he did ten or twenty years ago as an excuse for invading now. What we were doing was appropriate, i.e. having inspections. It looks like the inspections were doing a good job. They even found and destroyed a few prohibited weapons (though they were not WMDs).

Neither can you use anyone's prophetic abilities to tell what he would do in the future as an excuse for invasion. We don't allow it in US law (or at least we didn't before the Patriot Act). We shouldn't advocate it in international law.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
So basically you're using information that we only know BECAUSE we went in to try to say we shouldn't have gone in. I certainly wasn't willing to take Saddam's word for it that he had dismantled all his weapons programs. Why were you?
Because that is the lawful way to do things and the US, in my opinion, should endeavor to be on the side of the lawful. What you suggest is equivalent to getting a search warrent, but then shooting the suspect before the search is completed because he had a criminal record.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Yes, it was a foolish hope, because Saddam never followed through on that promise.
He didn't really have time. These were in the last days before the war. But even we had been able to interview them, they obviously would have been able to tell us nothing. Do you think that would have stopped Bush from invading?

Originally posted by Ziggurat
What does it say about the UN that extracting an empty promise from Saddam is considered a diplomatic victory? Was it a diplomatic victory to get him to agree to disclose all information about his nuclear weapons program, even though he never actually did so even after more than a decade? Promises from Saddam are less than worthless, because some people actually mistakenly believe them.
As has been noted before, there are many reasons why Saddam might wish to appear to be "standing up to the Evil West". But the simple fact is that he was complying, slowly and grudgingly means that the invasion was unnecessary.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tricky

On hold? No facilities at all is what you call "on hold"?


For chem and bio, facilities are the trivial part, it's the expertise that matters. If you've got people who know how to make the stuff, you can produce plenty of weapons in a fairly short amount of time. And you bet your ass he was keeping tabs on his weapons scietists. As for nuclear weapons program, yeah, we know that he had this on hold, because we were told so explicitly by the scientist who produced those hidden parts and plans, which were hidden expressly for the purpose of restarting the program at a later date.


Neither can you use anyone's prophetic abilities to tell what he would do in the future as an excuse for invasion. We don't allow it in US law (or at least we didn't before the Patriot Act). We shouldn't advocate it in international law.


We don't allow that because it can interfere with individual rights. But since when do dictatorships have inherent rights? I'm really not sorry we trampled on Saddam's precious sovereignty, so don't ask me to be. And I find it perpetually ironic that people try to cite international law to defend Saddam, of all people. The man perpetually flouted international law, then hid behind it, essentially asking the French and Russians to try to protect him from punishment for his violations. And they complied. The UN security council is a joke. It provides security to no one.


He didn't really have time. These were in the last days before the war.


The demand was there for years, he could have accepted it more than a decade ago. You're basically complaining because Saddam didn't figure out in time that we weren't bluffing. Boo hoo, so sad, better luck with the next dictator you want to stand behind.


But even we had been able to interview them, they obviously would have been able to tell us nothing.


Yes, because Saddam would have killed them and their families if he even suspected they told inspectors anything. What we needed to do, and what Saddam never offered, even at the end, to let us do is remove the scientists AND their families from Iraq for questioning, so that Saddam could not threaten or blackmail them.


But the simple fact is that he was complying, slowly and grudgingly means that the invasion was unnecessary.

Now that's what I call rationalizing. He was not complying. He was backing down a little because we had an army on his doorstep, but he clearly never had the intention of coming into full compliance. We could not keep that army in place indefinitely. As soon as it was gone, there was no chance he'd continue to cooperate, and we'd just be back in the same place again. Why exactly should we continue playing that game of his?

I see you didn't respond in that other thread concerning casualty ratios either.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Then they'd better break them out quick! (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4637.htm)



Maybe Saddam should have executed those scientists to reassure the ever-paranoid US government?

Here's a link to the declassified photos and documents:

Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs (http://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm)


Was the moonwalk staged in a Hollwood studio? You be the judge.


edited because I can't spell worth a cr*p today

[a_unique_person]

maybe they were these sorts of balloons

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
maybe they were these sorts of balloons

Number six... I am number one :D

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by nightwind
My theory is that they are giant moonshine stills. :D

You mean we're spending 170 billion clams to enforce prohibition in Iraq??? :eek:

Perhaps I should rethink my position on this issue :p

[subgenius]

Funny you should mention enforcing prohibition, the Saudi's are good at that, even if you're innocent.

SAUDIS SENTENCED ME TO CRUCIFIXION, SAYS FREED BRITON
Sun Sep 07 2003 12:06:33 ET

"A Briton who faced a death sentence over his alleged part in a car bombing campaign said he falsely confessed to involvement after being repeatedly tortured over nine days.
.....
Mr Mitchell, who was living in Riyadh with his wife and two-year-old son, was accused of being part of a bombing campaign linked to an underground turf war over the selling of illegal alcohol in Riyadh."
http://drudgereport.com/flash3.htm

Ah, the joys of not seperating church and state.

"Crucifixion? No I'm to be set free........no, just kidding, yes, crucifixion...."--Monty Python: "Life of Brian"

[LW]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
If they found balloons do you honestly think that press would report on it?

Artillery weather balloons are not exactly a new and surprising technology. I'm not completely certain when artillery weather service started, but my guess would be during WWI. The earliest explicit mention that I've seen was in Ekman's Tykistön taktillinen toiminta, published in 1936.

The methods have changed. Originally the balloons were red and had 64 cm diameter. Their movement was followed using a theodolite. When I was in army we used ~150cm diameter balloons with radiosondes (Vaisala RS80 (http://www.vaisala.com/page.asp?Section=8473)) attached. A large antenna tracked the movements of the sonde automatically. Nowadays it is possible to add a GPS receiver to one to make even more accurate tracking possible.

But anyway, artillery guns and weather balloons go together.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


Here's a link to the declassified photos and documents:

Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs (http://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm)


Was the moonwalk staged in a Hollwood studio? You be the judge.


edited because I can't spell worth a cr*p today

Ah, the good ol' documents that Colon Powell used to convince the UN of the imminent threat of Iraq's WMD programmes. Tell me... what did they find at those sites?

They found what?

What did you say?

Can't hear you...