Hi Neocon; Re: "I am sorry, the Economist is a more credible source than you, and reflects my own recollections of the Unmovic report."
The basic fact is that Bush and Blair swore that Iraq had WMDs, but it is now clear that there were none. For whatever reason, Saddam got rid of them. And another basic fact is that I wrote, in this thread, that Saddam would disarm back in September. As far as that goes, you should compare what I wrote about what Saddam would do with what The Economist was writing at the time, LOL.
Remember Margret Thatcher? Reagan's good buddy? Have you seen what her party now says about the WMD issue? Here it is:
Blair hits back over Iraq weapons
Katherine Baldwin, Yahoo UK, June 5, 2003
Prime Minister Tony Blair has announced a parliamentary inquiry into the case his government made for attacking Iraq as he sought to crush claims he hyped up weapons evidence to justify war.
...
"If we can be deceived about this, then what can we not be deceived about?" former government minister Clare Short, who resigned over the handling of post-war Iraq, told parliament.
The leader of the opposition Conservatives went further:
"Nobody believes a word now that the prime minister is saying," said Iain Duncan Smith.
uk.news.yahoo.com
That's right. Britain's own conservative party doesn't believe that Bush and Blair spoke the truth. And that's the same conservative party that supported the war on Iraq, so you can't accuse them of being Saddam lovers.
It's over dude. Go look in your local newspaper and see what the editorials are saying.
-- Carl |
