[BillM]

"In a radio address last September, for instance, he warned that Iraq could wage "a chemical or biological attack in as little as 45 minutes," which might strike some people as imminent if you happened to be 46 minutes away from shelter."

Is this accurate or taken out of context?

[Steve_Seattle]

"chemical or biological attack within 45 minutes"

Keep in mind that before the war, some OPPONENTS of the war cited the threat of Saddam's chemical or biological weapons as a reason for NOT sending in our troops. The argument before the war was not so much about whether Saddam had WMD's, but rather how to go about finding them. The belief in Saddam's WMD programs was widely expressed during the Clinton administration - and long after - by prominent Democrats. We can't let liberals get away with the absurd claim that it was only Bush who ever said Saddam possessed WMD's.

[lepton]

It's out of context. The statement referred to launching on his neighbors, and that Iraq possessed weapon systems that were capable of being loaded and launched within 45 minutes of the order being given - which is true. The U.N. found some such missile systems in the run-up to the war.

[okie01]

"In a radio address last September, for instance, he warned that Iraq could wage "a chemical or biological attack in as little as 45 minutes,"

I've always seen that claim attributed to Tony Blair. The neo-appeasers in the UK continue to make it an issue. But I don't recall Bush ever making this claim and I question Brazaitis' accuracy on this count.