[Comrade Ogilvy]

According to Britain's Sunday Times, Dr. David Kelly had amassed convincing evidence that Saddam Hussein had built and tested a dirty nuclear bomb as long ago as 1987, and was perfectly capable of building the deadly weapons right up to the final months of his regime

Dr. Kelly presented evidence of the bomb to the British government back in 1995 and recommended to Foreign Office officials that it be highlighted in the government's intelligence dossier on Iraq, which spelled out the reasons justifying an attack on Saddam's regime. However, the Times reports, despite secret Iraqi documents being produced to prove its existence, for unexplained reasons it was not included.

Moreover Kelly insisted that said Iraq still "possessed the know-how and the materials to build a radiological weapon, "adding that the threat posed by such weapons was potentially more serious than some other weapons of mass destruction because Iraq still retained the main ingredients to build dirty bombs such as nuclear material and high explosives.

In private, Kelly is said to have believed the evidence should have been included in the dossier because of the possibility that Iraq could reactivate the program even after it had been stripped of other non-conventional weapons.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article ... 3308.shtml
The publisher of the story might be biased-conservative, but since it was sourced, I considered it relevant.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

The publisher of the story might be biased-conservative, but since it was sourced, I considered it relevant.

Sourced? Have you even tried to look it up at timesonline.co.uk? I did, and I could not find whatever you are talking about. Please post a link that is credible enough to back your tales! Furthermore, I would never in a million years call newmax.com anything but biased.

Your link has nothing to do with sober journalism, and you know it!

[Comrade Ogilvy]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,2087,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_pag ... 01,00.html
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0307/S00254.htm
http://www.janes.com/security/law_enfor ... _1_n.shtml

The source was sited in the first sentence of the first quote. How will you discredit it now?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Thank you JT123.

I'm confused why you did not add these links to your original post. Will read it all later.

Thank you, again.

[briansmith]

Yeah, quote Dr. Kelly as if he's a viable source after you have him suicided, and you use his dossier as toilet paper right beside the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the U.N. Charter, and the Geneva Convention. Great idea. Yeah, true character, true character.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Yeah, quote Dr. Kelly as if he's a viable source after you have him suicided, and you use his dossier as toilet paper right beside the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the U.N. Charter, and the Geneva Convention. Great idea. Yeah, true character, true character.

Lets quit with the cry-baby antics. Im just showing theres always two sides to every story. If your gonna believe Dr. Kelly today, then why shouldnt we believe him yesterday? All the evidence so far leads me to believe it was the BBC doing the 'sexing' up. Dr. Kelly confirmed this, even 8 years ago.

[briansmith]

Cry-baby antics? Right...

I fully believe that Saddam would have been working on a dirty bomb, a full-on nuclear project, a chemical weapons project, a biological weapons project, and who knows what else... in 1987. Remember that Reagan-Bush was still paying for it then.

Remember that Iraq was still being financed and supported by the United States in the senseless proxy-slaughter known as the Iran-Iraq War.

So sure, I believe most of Dr. Kelly's report about a dirty bomb dating back to 1987, and I also believe most of his dossier which was released before he was suicided by the warmongers.

No one's perfect, so I can't claim all of both are correct, but I think most is a fair judgment.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Just a minor detail! But why does newsmax.com (and maybe JT) make the following claim:

In private, Kelly is said to have believed the evidence should have been included in the dossier because of the possibility that Iraq could reactivate the program even after it had been stripped of other non-conventional weapons.

Their source tells the complete opposite story and Dr. Kelly has unmistakably denied that any evidence of an ancient program should be included.

We are talking about an historical aspect of some 15 years ago. Iraq claimed, and I think we believed them, that that project was terminated in 1988 (before the Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday 15 July 2003).

The statement was, however, made by Mr John Maples of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

At the weekend Maples said he remained puzzled over why the Government had excluded evidence of the dirty bomb from its dossier.

I do not think it is given much, if any, prominence in the dossier, either in the history or in current threats, and yet if Iraq had the technology and ability to detonate a dirty nuclear bomb I would have thought that was pretty significant. I hesitate to say that there is no mention of it in here because I may have missed it, but I do not think there is (before the Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday 15 July 2003).

Falsely quoting a dead person, which has denied any real evidence of WMD in Iraq, won't prove anything. I did believe Dr. Kelly yesterday, but how can I believe the just opposite view of a Republican organisation that is obviously far from the truth? I most certainly don’t believe anyone who has a clear and present interest in forging or misinterpreting Dr. Kelly's views. Newmax.com is certainly one of them.

JT123, stick to real journalism. Thanks once again your second line of links. I found them much more interesting and truthful.

[briansmith]

What more can I say?

Way to go RudeBwoy.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Their source tells the complete opposite story and Dr. Kelly has unmistakably denied that any evidence of an ancient program should be included.....Falsely quoting a dead person...

I must be misunderstanding you because I cannot see where your going with this. First of all, newsmax made no such quotes, please show me if i've missed them. Your argument is misleading. And if you notice, the article says "In private, Kelly is said to....." not quoted, but followed up with:

"They (the government) were obviously looking for ways of making the dossier as attractive as they could, and as threatening as they could, and you would have thought Iraq's ability to let off a dirty nuclear weapon was pretty serious."

Maybe you could post the times-online article, as I would like to read it but I wont 'pay' for news. BTW, isnt the Times Online affiliated with the BBC? Which if that is the case, would bring news they report on Dr. Kelly into serious, question.

JT123, stick to real journalism. Thanks once again your second line of links. I found them much more interesting and truthful.

You also found that they mimiced the information presented in Newsmax's article.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Well if you don't get it, you don't get it. How about reading the post once more. If you still don't get it then just ignore it. I'll hate to associate you with mental midgets.

"They (the government) were obviously looking for ways of making the dossier as attractive as they could, and as threatening as they could, and you would have thought Iraq's ability to let off a dirty nuclear weapon was pretty serious."

Again, you are quoting Mr. Maples! How stupi...

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Well if you don't get it, you don't get it. How about reading the post once more. If you still don't get it then just ignore it. I'll hate to associate you with mental midgets.

Your post had nothing to do with the relevancy of the story. The post was not to dispute the validity of newsmax.com. I dont think YOU get it. BTW, you didnt answer my question about timesonline/BBC, nor did you respond to my request for posting the article, and lastly, you did not show me where newmax 'misquoted' anybody. So if you cant stay focused, nor respond to more than one point, you should re-evalute who your calling a mental midget.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

...you didnt answer my question about timesonline/BBC, nor did you respond to my request for posting the article...

How would I know if the Times is associated with BBC. I'm on the opposite side of the Earth! Have only seen a hardcopy of the Times.

and lastly, you did not show me where newmax 'misquoted' anybody

One final time just for you JT123.

In private, Kelly is said to have believed the evidence should have been included in the dossier because of the possibility that Iraq could reactivate the program even after it had been stripped of other non-conventional weapons.

Welcome to the land of mental midgets!

[Comrade Ogilvy]

In private, Kelly is said to have believed the evidence should have been included in the dossier because of the possibility that Iraq could reactivate the program even after it had been stripped of other non-conventional weapons.

How is this a misquote?