Sam wrote: > >> - that Iraq had no WMDs > Debatable - beat to death
It's NOT debatable. There are no WMDs. IT's not being debated anymore BECAUSE it's not debatable. >> - that Iraq did *NOT* play a part in 9/11 > Nobody ever said they did Many of the Bush cronies implied that Iraq was involved. A ridiculously large percentage of American's BELIEVED they were involved because of the lies spread by the GOP about it, in order to run up support for an invasion. >> - that Hussein did *NOT* support terrorism > He most certainly did. Proven. Actually, it's been proven time and again that Saddam did NOT support terrorists - at least not financially or by providing safe haven for training. Hussein felt that terrorists couldn't be controled, and he didn't want them in his country. Probably one of his very few sane thoughts. >> - that Iraq was *NOT* an imminent threat. > The new docs say otherwise What new docs? Iraq had no WMDs, no chemical or nuclear weapons program of any kind and no real ability to get there because of the heavy sanctions they were under. Iraq was dirt poor after we bombed the shit out of them in the first Gulf War. They were a threat to no-one but the Iraqi people. Rick ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:220182 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
