So you agree that David Kay wasted a billion dollars searching for weapons that were not in Iraq?
No common ground here. The operative word in your reply is "were". Yes, the WMD in the articles I cited "were" in Iraq prior to the war. After they were shipped out of the country, the operative word should be "are", as in they "are" not in Iraq. Got it? With your ringing endorsements of WND as a credible source, I am surprised that you missed this story. An excerpt:
The vial of botulinum bacteria discovered in Iraq by U.S. arms inspectors which experts call the most poisonous substance known to man is "a weapon of mass destruction," the State Department's top spokesman announced yesterday.
"Botulinum kills people, it kills people in large quantities. Botulinum is a weapon of mass destruction, yes," said State spokesman Richard Boucher," according to an Agence France-Presse report. "Anything that destroys on a massive scale is a weapon of mass destruction."
So WMD "are" in Iraq as well, which makes your whole premise wrong.
So which is it: are the WMDs in Iraq, Syria or Boise?
posted on 01/16/2004 10:05:10 AM PST
(And I'm saying that men can live together without butchering one another. -Josey Wales)
So let me get this straight. We "knew" the WMD's were in Iraq before the war. Rumsfeld said he knew where they were a week before the war started. But then Iraq "shipped" them out of the country? Wait a second. So are we "safer" or not now? It seems if we "knew" where they were before the war- but don't know- means we are at a greater risk than before we invaded. Is my logic flawed here?
PS- we didn't task a satellite to watch the sites we "knew" had WMDs before the war?
posted on 01/16/2004 11:11:46 AM PST
("If you see ten troubles comin down the road, nine will run into the ditch before they reach you")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson