On 8/4/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, but there is a very good reason to not go with your interpretation of his remarks. John and I have, repeatedly, quoted from the declassified part of the report. Using the prevalent definition of WMD, these quotes clearly show that the report states that Iraq, in all likelihood, had WMD.
Bullshit, to be blunt. But, your specific statement that I questioned was that everyone knew that
Iraq had no WMD
Bullshit again. I never said that everyone knew Iraq had no WMDs.
Irrelevant. The point is that it was not a foundation for saying that > there were WMDs or there was an immediate threat. But, it specifically stated that there were WMDs, as commonly defined.
Bullshit. Show me one place in the published NIE where it says that Iraq had WMDs. It is not there. It says they had WMD programs and WMD efforts, but nowhere, nowhere does it say that they had WMDs. Nowhere. Yet our leaders didn't tell us that they had programs and could develop WMDs. They told us that they had them and were ready to attack America with their fleet of UAVs. They told us we shouldn't be so sure that Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons and that they were rebuilding their nuclear facilities, despite intelligence that said *if* they restarted their program, it would be years. Come on. The NIE paints a picture of Saddam wishing and hoping that he could weaponize what he had and get other programs going again. That's not a guy with WMDs, that's a guy with aspirations. No question that he used them in the past and was doing all sorts of bad stuff. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
