SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: KLP who wrote (503)5/5/2003 2:58:59 PM
From: JohnM  Read Replies (3) of 793914
 
What do you define as WMD, and do you define differently WMD, and Serious WMD?

Hmm, well if it turns out they find stuff everyone knew about before 98 and that, in any case, it was in no shape to be used, then I wouldn't consider that "serious" wmd.

If you recall, Bush tried to make the case that the US was in some immediate danger from Saddam's wmd, including nuclear, capabilities. If they can't find stuff that constituted some sort of immediate threat, then it makes their case much harder to make.

There is a middle grey area that has to do with their argument that wmd supplies could have been passed along to Al Q. They might use that argument if they simply find some old supplies around or some working labs or some such. But since they never made successfully the case for links between Al Q and Saddam, that argument strikes me as a nonstarter, save as political spin. And I assume you are not talking about that.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News