Try harder, Raoul.
A nuclear plant requires hundreds of engineers ...
The engineers have been coming forward.
... lots of contacts outside ...
Contacts in Africa have been introduced into evidence. And as for requiring outside contacts, recall North Korea's surprising announcement earlier this year. Of course, some might insist this to be but another example of the U.S. not watching close enough -- but then they complain that we watch too much. Choose a path and stick to it.
We cannot be everywhere, but we will try -- and take what political shrapnel comes.
... and many years before it becomes what it's meant to be.
Thankfully, the many years were not yet complete.
The hunt remains on. The naysayers "demanded" high level Iraqi victims, and we are finally able to produce. Progress is being made, but please do not expect the supposed nuke "facilities", which would have been constructed with tactical, mobile capabilities in mind, to be found any time soon. I don't expect them to have remained in-country once U.S.-led (am I the only one here who actually likes that term?) Coalition Forces crossed onto Iraqi soil -- and the back door remain the Syria conduit that remained open for exiles and defectors throughout the battle for Iraq, and is still open today.
Cheers,
Dan
Current Events » in reply to re: papers or plant
re: 'A nuclear plant requires . . .'
The whole thread (22 posts)
- Why it might be harder than you think to find WMD in Iraq
- Because they don't exist
- re: Why are nuke weapons program papers being found buried in scientist's backyard with instructions to 'reincorporate them' once UN sanctions were finally lifted . . . ?
- You are refering to the Clinton White House aren't you?
- Clinton on nuclear weapons in Iraq
- re: You are refering to the Clinton White House aren't you?
- NEWSFLASH!
- re: NEWSFLASH!
- Lame ducking?
- P.S.
- re: Lame ducking?
- Tom Brosz Patented 'Proof by endless and ad nauseum iteration' (aka Linguistic self-stimulation)
- Lame ducking?
- re: 'It is nice to see ol' Bill being quoted in a positive light for once . . .'
- re: NEWSFLASH!
- NEWSFLASH!
- Because they don't exist
