> On the contrary, Saddam Hussein's government was actively
> working on them. That is why some people were worried in 2002
> -- they really did not think that Saddam Hussein was lying when
> he claimed to be continuing the effort.
And we haven't found evidence of this, two years after invading,
because...?
Either they did not exist or the US failed to secure them early on and
others took them.
The point is that in 2002 and early 2003 some people worried that
Saddam Hussein was not lying. The UN had found that he had used
dangerous weapons before and that he had spent fortunes developing
others.
If the Iraqi government had waited until it had nuclear weapons, Iraq
might well have become the first country since 1945 to annex all of
another country successfully (country as recognized by the UN as a
1648 `Treaty of Westfalia' type of country, not as a `protocol state'
such as South Vietnam)
The Bush administration now says Saddam Hussein was lying in 2002.
Perhaps they are right. I certainly hope so. But as Blix said in his
reports, the UN inspectors could not give assurances that Saddam
Hussein was not lying. Indeed, Blix's first report said that the then
Iraqi government was hindering inspections.
--
Robert J. Chassell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
