RE: "They were obviously not mobile labs even to a lay person like myself."
In point of fact, you miswrote there. They WERE definitely mobile labs, something which no one disputes; with canvas sides, curiously think steel in parts, equipment unnecessary and unsuited for production of hydrogen, and all. You only marvel that experts were debating because you aren't an expert, and fail to accept and recognize the valid reasons for the debate. I'm not an expert, and when I read of the questions and differing views, I accept that they exist. As to whether these mobile labs produced hydrogen for balloons which helped in firing artillery accurately, or could when connected together with other trailers produce god knows what (particularly, chemical vs bioweapons), was and perhaps is still a question for many.
I still know of no other mobile hydrogen production facilities anywhere in the world for support of balloons for weapons systems. Again, I've read that Iraqis had added to the doubt by testifying that hydrogen for artillery balloons was in fact transported in the normal way - and came from fixed facilities - not mobile labs. Perhaps there is now testimony and documentary evidence in the Dulfer report showing that Iraq indeed created this costly method of producing hydrogen (but I don't know that the report goes that far). The bottom is that these curious labs, the analysis of them, and Bush's statement after receiving a very different analysis, don't add up to anyone lying about anything. That notion simply isn't in evidence.
Dan B. |
