[Numbers Guy]

Doubtful. You can't have a second chemical weapons factory siting until you confirm the first. As is, the Pentagon is backpedeling on the first story.

The headline states "chemical plant", not "chemical weapons factory". There's little doubt that the first is a chemical plant, it's just a question of whether it makes chemical weapons.

[ccmay]

There's little doubt that the first is a chemical plant, it's just a question of whether it makes chemical weapons.

Is it typical, in Iraq or anywhere else, for a legitimate chemical factory to be camouflaged so expertly it cannot be seen with surveillance satellites, and to have two generals and a battalion of soldiers guarding it?

-ccm

[pgkdan]

There's little doubt that the first is a chemical plant, it's just a question of whether it makes chemical weapons.

They make plastic baby bottles there...that's why there were 2 Iraqi Generals running the place.

[snooker]

David Kay was on PMSNBC. He said why would you place a commercial chemical plant in the middle of nowhere, camo the buildings, surround it with electrical fencing, have troops gaurding it, and have a two generals running it.

Maybe baby milk is real valuable and they have a lot of baby milk hijackings in Iraq.

Sounds fishey if you ask me. But we should know soon.

snooker