posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 11:10 AM
You know Skadi....here is the irony....I READ the article.
The article is entitled:
"Iraq arms hunt in doubt in '02"
Then the article details "why". In such, "they" are admitting what Skadi?
Here's what is admitted:
"....the possibility that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction might never be found."
Then the article goes into why
such WMD would not be found. Words and phrases like:
....."tactics, guerrilla warfare, looting and lying by Iraqi officials would undermine the search for banned Iraqi weapons"....."Locating a
program that ... has been driven by denial and deception imperatives is no small task"....."The report went to the National Security Council but
was not specifically shown to President Bush"....."Finding things in Iraq is always very tough"....."There will always be unresolved
ambiguity about the fate of the Iraqi arsenal"....."The study considered but rejected the possibility that Iraq had no banned
weapons"....."trying to find multiple needles in a haystack ... against the background of not knowing how many needles have been
hidden"....."Some of the obstacles outlined by the study included the expected rapid movement of U.S. ground forces over wide areas, leaving
critical sites vulnerable to looting. Guerrilla warfare, the report predicted, also would make the weapons search difficult."
No....perhaps you and others need to clarify how this article and others empirically says what many of you are "thinking and interpreting" it to
"Why do you still cling to it?"
Why? Because I have seen the official 'parts' of the official intelligence used....I have seen the official UN/UNSCOM findings and documentation on
Saddam/Iraq's WMD programs, what was declared, what was destroyed and documented and what was declared and NOT destroyed nor documentation to explain
where those undestroyed weapons are at. Your case of proving and claiming that Iraq has NO WMD
is as unproven as those who argued and argue
that Iraq had/has WMD. Thats "why".
"Hell, even rabid right wing mad dog O reilly has apologized and voiced criticism of the admin and the lies."
Really? Have you read what Mr. "Waffling" O'Reilly has said as of late after
making such apology....you know, the very same guy that you,
blasted, condemned and virtually tore apart, along with FAUX News network, and now
, IRONICALLY, you and those same others are
taking him at his word?! Oh, because he said and mentioned something you and others wanted to hear?! BTW, read his lasted comments in an article he
wrote yesterday. I posted it and his commentary here:
"It's your turn to admit you were wrong!"
Post number: 372785
URL to article:
Read? I did
*edited for correcting link
[Edited on 13-2-2004 by Seekerof]