On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How you bothered to actually read the evidence rather than taking the politicans spin? There might be some actual material proving my point!
Read it? I've posted it. And my satire of Bush's idea that it was "not encouraging" that we didn't find any WMDs (or NBCs, if you wish) is not some politician's spin. It's mine, dammit, mine! I wrote it all by myself! Stuff this, I don't need this list where idiots like YOU are going to
deny that sarin shells have been found in Iraq despite EVERY piece of evidence and multiple declassified documents from the US Government refering to them.
I haven't denied that. I've just refused to leap to the conclusion that Iraq had either an active chemical weapons program or stockpiles of usable chemical weapons when we invaded. And they certainly haven't built any since then. A couple of leftover warheads with sarin hardly constitutes a stockpile, especially since Iraq launched lots of them against the Kurds, many of which undoubtedly were duds and are sitting around in the desert until somebody finds them and (a) disposes of them or (b) tries to use them against their enemies. Leftover duds, as I'm sure you know if you've read the documents about this, are almost certainly the source of the ones that have been found. No U.S. official has interpreted these discoveries as evidence that there was a chemical weapons program or stockpiles when we invaded, now have they? Your name-calling doesn't exactly go far to convince me that all those people are wrong, especially when there are so many who would find it "encouraging" to find such evidence. You have quite an uphill battle there -- at least it seems that way to this idiot. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
