Reiteration: Well the whole thing was based on lies, and they are essentially pleading with the judge (the American people) to believe them by lying and fabricating some more. It's all you can do when there's noithing but lies and fabrications to start with.
The New York Times had a prominent part in promulgating (Judith Miller, DoD PR operative) the lies and fabrications that got us where we are. Why should we believe anything they have to say about the subject now? Has their editorial policy changed to: "All The Truth That's Not Disingenous We Print"? Could the Iraqis have actually developed a nuclear weapon with the CIA... AKA US weapons inspectors running around to every warehouse-like building in Iraq? Even if intentionally delayed? I suggest, as a baseline: It used to take a week just to pack up a Hardinge Lathe for shipment to Singapore when I worked at Seagate. How long would it take to pack up and hide a gas centrifuge, and it's ancillary apparatus? How long to make a high tech electronics lab that would be neccesary to create that capacitor, or whatever part they want to claim is so effin' sensitive, dissappear? I retract that question, your honor! Leigh On 11/5/06, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
according to one of the "experts" (Tony Blankley) from the Moonie Washington TIMES on a local NPR station, this story from the New York TIMES went against what the NYT has been saying for awhile. That is, it said that Saddam would have had Ws of MD in 2005 or 2006 if the US hadn't invaded. Any thoughts?
