"ToMh" <tl@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:_Qomg.25918$DR1.5781@trnddc02...[color=blue]
>
> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:RLKdnYKNOKnxjQfZnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@ez2.net...[color=green]
>>
>> "ToMh" <tl@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:d9mmg.4888$DI2.87@trnddc05...[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> "Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
>>> news:kclj92lgjh4smi5fc5tjgq5e0grnm66rv4@4ax.com...
>>>> OK....dims....
>>>>
>>>> Bush did NOT lie....
>>>>
>>>> What else do have?
>>>>
>>>> Bush is NOT a liar...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Bush passed off intelligence that he knew was not true. That is a lie
>>> regardless of what happens after.[/color]
>>
>> But, the intelligence is not a lie if it turns out to be true, even if it
>> takes 4 years to prove.
>>
>>[/color]
>
> Except these old pre-91 weapons had nothing to do with the intelligence
> that Bush used. Even so, if I made up a lie about you, say I said you were
> unfaithful to your wife, even though I had no evidence, and years later it
> turned out you really did cheat on your wife, would that make me any less
> of a liar?
>[/color]
No, you would still be the same liar, but you'd be less of a scoundrel I
suppose.
Saddam is thought to have 9000 metric tons (rounded up a bit because I
forget the exact figure, but 8793 metric tons comes to mind -- but what's
100 metric tons of WMD between friends?) of chemcial and biological weapons
dating to 1991 and before. This would include the then current production --
hard to prove -- along with the long standing stockpiles -- known to
exist -- that have apparently been found, or a portion has been found.
The UN and the USA, along with a host of other countries, all believed that
Saddam was using a powdered milk factory to produce chemical and/or
biological materials. Just because you do not believe the world's
intelligence community doesn't make it a lie.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Also it turns out that these are pre-91 weapons that even the defense
>>> department says are degraded and unusable,
>>> and not the WMDs that the White House was referring to when making their
>>> claims of WMDs.
>>>[/color]
>>
>> There are very few things worse than an unstable WMD.
>>[/color]
>
> They certainly are dangerous, but cannot be used as WMDs anymore.
>[/color]
Why not. instability does not translate to "safe". Instability means that
they can't be sure how safe the stuff might be to transport, or that only
900,000 people might die instead of 1,000,000.
