On 25 Oct 2006 at 12:56, Nick Arnett wrote: > On 10/25/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > "WMD", right. A useless politicised term. I prefer the precise term > > "NBC". Which, indeed, he retained the capacity for. They're STILL > > finding stashes of decayed chemical warfare shells out there. > > > Are you saying that when we invaded, Iraq had working, stockpiled chemical > weapons? And yet today, George Bush, who has everything to gain by saying > so, failed to do so? Said the opposite -- that we couldn't find any such > weapons! > > You'd have us believe that now the adminstration is so clueless that they > are falsely admitting that Iraq didn't have such weapons? > > When did I enter Bizarro World?
When you insist on using "WMD", which is a politically defined term, and caring about press releases rather than facts. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack A fairly good guide to this. Plus the other agents used against Iran. Heck, the US and Britian SOLD Iraq many of the precursors to chemical weapons in that period, and analysis strongly suggested he hadn't use it all. Indeed... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1163896/posts etc. So...why DO you think Iraq did not still have a chemical weapons program? AndrewC Dawn Falcon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
