see: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8716385%255E2702,00.html
"Pre-war advice: 'no new WMDs'" finishes by stating that the committee charge with the inquiry into pre-war intellegence was "able to compare and contrast the final ONA and DIO assessments with the public comments made by John Howard and his senior ministers in the lead-up to war." Why wasn't Mr Howard and his minister's post war comments also considered? Why is it that as soon as it become apparent that there were no WMDs, the government changed their reasons for going to war to that of "the existence of WMD programs", even though our spy agencies had told them "there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was building new chemical and biological weapons". This woud suggest that if the government hadn't lied to use before the war, it's apparent that they lied to us pretty soon after. Rodd ------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm ------------------------------------------------------
