So if that's the case then the US should invade all other countries under dictatorships who have an intention of developing a WMD program? Oh wait but they wont have as large a corporate money making potential as Iraq.

I wish they would stop dancing around the issue, The US used intelligence from the UK with which there was reasonable doubt that it may have been 'sexed-up' in order for the war to go ahead. The BBC today programme by Gilligan which made these claims about the honesty of the document was critised by BBC's own paronama investigation but questions still have to be asked on Dr Kelly ( the supposed informant for Gilligan's report ) and his supposed 'suicide', if all Gilligan's claims were false.

And this report today supports this doubt. Yes Saddam may have been trying to start up a program again if the sanctions were not in place, but the general view was that he would not use them unless attacked ( if he was not stopped by the international comminity first ), and that the 45 minute claim was fabricated to say the least.



[edit on 6-10-2004 by Snoopdopey]

OK, I guess it's not that the press seems to be concentrating on things that may be politically motivated, that might be just fine. So what has been reconfirmed is that Saddam posed no threat and that all of the reasons Bush gave to invade Iraq turned out to be false. Great, so what happens now? Why the hell does stuff like this always stop here? How come main stream media doesn't say, well if all of that stuff isn't true, then why did Bush want to invade Iraq? It seems pretty obvious, but people always only hear bits and pieces of the big picture over a long period of time and don't grasp what it is that really happened. Some of the major media outlets need to do a comprehensive report on all aspects of the US invading Iraq. I mean just for starters, the President's whole family is in the oil business; his VP was CEO of haliburton; most of his staff has been in the oil business; the US knew about the oil for food corruption in 2000 and let it continue until last November; JP Morgan Chase, whose execs are close to the Bush Admin are in charge of the 13 bank affiliation running Trade Bank of Iraq, which replaced the banks running the Oil For Food Program(Chase Manhattan and BNP Peribas); members of the JP Morgan Chase board include Betchel CEO Riley Betchel and Exxon Exec Lee Raymond; they cover anything the Iraqi govt. needs and eventually get repaid from oil revenues, which the US used to be responsible for and can't account for $8.8Billion-the NY Fed got subpeanaed to turn over all documents relating to that account yesterday; the CPA, Paul Bremer and a Texas law firm with close ties to Bush have already written basically every law relating to the structure of government(and probably every person who will be "elected" to it), economics, oil and the banking industry and made it so they can not be changed without the Iraqi President and both of his VPs approval-they will likely be the ones currently acting them and will serve 5 year terms. This is just the obvious things, I can only imagine how bad it really is. So in simpler terms, Iraq is completely dependent on a few foreign banks(account for over 90% of banking industry), some of which are owned by the same people, who finance anything Iraq needs in return for revenue from their primary asset, oil (95% of their revenue) and also the 2nd largest oil reserves in world, which is an industry being run by foreign companies whose execs have close ties to eachother and Bush and some of whom are on the board of execs st the company(JPM) running Iraq's banking industry.

Gee, since most of them are buddies, I wonder if there is any corruption going on in the transactions between the oil companies and the banks? They are likey running an operation very similar to the Oil For Food scandal, they just switched companies and there is no Saddam to take any of the profits.