[CLUE-Talk] Bush to order bipartisian review of Iraq allegations of WMD

[G. Richard Raab]

On Sunday 01 February 2004 10:44 pm, Jeff Cann wrote:

> Some of us never believed any of the Administration's allegations, so it is
> so satisfying that as the truth comes out, we were right on.
>
> Anyone still believe there were WMD in Iraq?
>
Yes.
But I hate lumping these in all together.

I am still quite certain that there were/are biologicals and most likely 
chemicals. 
I have always doubted that they had nukes though.
With biologicals, we are talking about the ability to hide something as small 
as 100 small vials in all of iraq. You have forgetten all the media that Iraq 
had. Iraq was not into general research (Reagan's henchmen pushed them in the 
early 80's in this direction).

I do find it funny that ppl that belive GWB is not a liar. He knowingly lied 
about Iraq and the uranium collection, then blamed the CIA. 

Likewise, he blamed CIA/NSA for lack of intel on 9/11, yet and independant 
republican committee (and numerous other sources) came out recently and said 
that there was plenty of intel (that was without GWB cooperating and giving 
up what the white house had).

Further he is about to call for an investigation into the "lack of intel".
Yet, he has an investigation going on the traitor in the white house,
as well as an investigation on the Anthrax, even though there was a number of 
lies/blaming on that one (and several lies left to go).

Nothing yet on the last 2.



> I'll save my official I TOLD YOU SO after the independent reports come out
> next year.
>
> Jeff
>
> P.S.  To add more to the 'Bush lied' debate.  I encourage any Bush
> supporters to try and spin this lie:
>
> <quote>
> On Wednesday, for example, Bush suggested that war came because Saddam
> Hussein did not let inspectors into Iraq, when in fact it was the United
> States that called for inspections to end. "It was his choice to make, and
> he did not let us in," Bush said.
> </quote>

-- 
cheers
g.r.r.