"They might have been moved to Syria." There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence for this statement. It is just a safety blanket to explain the glaring discrepency between what Bush said, and what has turned out to be actual fact in Iraq.
The other parts of your post are similarly speculation on your part, and have nothing to do with the reasons Bush put forward to the people for invading Iraq. He said that Iraq was a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER...Rumsfeld said that Iraq was an IMMEDIATE THREAT to the United States and that there was no greater terrorist threat facing the US today. These quotes must have missed you, because these were the reasons for going to war with Iraq. Not that Saddam might someday build WMD. Or he intends to rebuild his biochemical stockpiles. This rubbish and supposition was never used as a reason for war, because they form no basis for a preemptive strike of the nature which the United States launched. These Statements we know are false, and we know that there were several people telling the Administration that they were false. And we know that for their own reasons which were not articulated to Americans or the International community, they went ahead and invaded Iraq anyway. You have apparently been brainwashed, you've been placed quite neatly into a little box from which you cannot emerge without saying," I was wrong, I was lied to and I bought it", and most people just aren't capable of saying those things. But there is nothing, no evidence to prove your President's reasons for preemptively and unilaterally invading Iraq without the overwhelming support of the Gulf War behind the US. So you repeat the lies like a parrot, and invent theories to back up those lies. And as any shred of new evidence comes to light, you try to retroactively apply that as a reason for going to war. All you can provide are weak excuses that have no place in the discussion, since the attack against Iraq was never predicated on any of those factors. If Iraq does not have any WMD stockpiles, or active bio-warfare labs, then the reasons for attacking it as put forward by Bush did not exist.That's it in one sentence. And we know it does NOT and did NOT have stockpiles of WMD at the time it was invaded. But I don't hold it against you. Btw, I wholeheartedly supported the war against Iraq, I believed the rhetoric too. But when the truth was revealed, I swallowed my pride and told the same people with whom I argued quite vehemently that I was wrong, and they were right. -Gel -----Original Message----- From: Sam Morris Do you mean stockpiles? No. Do I think they ever had stockpiles? Not sure, possible. They might have been moved to Syria. Do I think Saddam gave up on WMD's altogether? Hell no. I think he was waiting for his payoffs to kick in and when the sanctions were removed he would have jumped back into his nuclear weapons program. As for pipa.org all there reports attack Bush or Conservatives and they're funded by left wing attack groups. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:134783 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
