I agree with your conclusion about reading comprehension, but it's yours. I said: Saddam: What We Now Know Bin Laden struck first, but Saddam was at least as big a terror threat.
The report said they were working on and capable of restarting and Anthrax program in two weeks. The article all mentioned Saddam promoting and working with terrorists to target Americans and I provided the link to that also. Maybe if you're argument had merit you wouldn't have to deflect with personal attacks. Just saying. . On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: > > There are two sides to a discussion but not two sides to objective facts. > > Sam said that the conclusion that Saddam's Iraq was a threat for > weapons of mass destruction was based on a particular report. I pull > up the report and show where the report says that Saddam's Iraq was > not a threat for weapons of mass destruction. That isn't a discussion, > it's reading comprehension. > > Judah > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:342727 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
