Pulver

Karen Gordon wrote:
>
> Bush and Blair Lied About WMDs in Iraq;
> World Opinion Was Right to Oppose War
>
> By Harry Kelber - June 6, 2003
>
No body will remember because in the context of things it
has no importance, well below the miniscule importance of
Karen Gordon

Erik A. Mattila

Pulver wrote:
>
> Karen Gordon wrote:
>
>>Bush and Blair Lied About WMDs in Iraq;
>>World Opinion Was Right to Oppose War
>>
>>By Harry Kelber - June 6, 2003
>>
>
> No body will remember because in the context of things it
> has no importance, well below the miniscule importance of
> Karen Gordon

I don't know, Major. It looks like the lies are piling-up to epic
proportions. We may still be sorting them out by November '04.

Erik

Steve

Pulver allegedly said:

>
>
> Karen Gordon wrote:
>>
>> Bush and Blair Lied About WMDs in Iraq;
>> World Opinion Was Right to Oppose War
>>
>> By Harry Kelber - June 6, 2003
>>
> No body will remember because in the context of things it
> has no importance, well below the miniscule importance of
> Karen Gordon

You aren't paying attention.

By November 2004, their could well be 1,000 Americans dead in Iraq.

Bush's lieks will be front and center.

Nine Americans died this week.

15 months to the election - (15 x 4) + 2 = 62 weeks.

That's roughly 600 more dead Americans than the 240 already dead.

So we could see 840 dead IS soldiers in Iraq - because Bush lied.

--
Steve
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall

Stop The War

"Steve" <steve@nospam4me.org> wrote in message news:IB8Va.7885$9f7.916559@news02.tsnz.net...
> 15 months to the election - (15 x 4) + 2 = 62 weeks.
> That's roughly 600 more dead Americans than the 240 already dead.
> So we could see 840 dead IS soldiers in Iraq - because Bush lied.

Anybody that can do this kind of math, which is not hard,
can see that the Bush ship is going down in 2004. It is frustrating
and tragic that so many Americans will have to die, because
Bush is wrong. Bush has a vision, but it is not a vision of reality.
Bush's brain case does not let in outside thoughts and is too
almost dead from its DUI days to escape the Iraq mess it has
created.
Do you think we've already found the WMDs? Bush DOES!
Do you think U.N. inspectors were not let back into Iraq? Bush
DOES! Bush is delusional. Bush can't articulate a coherent paragraph
unless it is prewritten for him.

"You know, you read all kinds of things, of course, in American
newspapers -- it's sport here. I'm sure it is elsewhere, as well.
The gathering of the speculator, the leaker, the whatever --
what do you call them? The source -- people speaking out loud,
'The president has done this, the president is thinking this,'
Look, once the strategy is in place, I will let people know
whether or not I'm airborne or not. In other words, I'm not
trying to make any -- I don't need to dramatize the decision.
It's getting plenty of attention here at home. But we've got...
-- and look, I'm just gathering enough information to be rational
in what we do."
(Our Glorious President Bush Speaking Like He Is On Drugs!!!)


Bush is a walking advertisement: "Stay off the booze, or you will
end up like me!!!"

Pulver

"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
>
> Pulver wrote:
> >
> > Karen Gordon wrote:
> >
> >>Bush and Blair Lied About WMDs in Iraq;
> >>World Opinion Was Right to Oppose War
> >>
> >>By Harry Kelber - June 6, 2003
> >>
> >
> > No body will remember because in the context of things it
> > has no importance, well below the miniscule importance of
> > Karen Gordon
>
> I don't know, Major. It looks like the lies are piling-up to epic
> proportions. We may still be sorting them out by November '04.
>
I repeat — Nobody will remember because in the context of
things it has no importance

Erik A. Mattila

Pulver wrote:
>
> "Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
>
>>Pulver wrote:
>>
>>>Karen Gordon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bush and Blair Lied About WMDs in Iraq;
>>>>World Opinion Was Right to Oppose War
>>>>
>>>>By Harry Kelber - June 6, 2003
>>>>
>>>
>>>No body will remember because in the context of things it
>>>has no importance, well below the miniscule importance of
>>>Karen Gordon
>>
>>I don't know, Major. It looks like the lies are piling-up to epic
>>proportions. We may still be sorting them out by November '04.
>>
>
> I repeat — Nobody will remember because in the context of
> things it has no importance

And I repeat - we won't have to "remember" because it will still be
going on.

nobody

In article <3F25644C.5070402@oco.net>,
"Erik A. Mattila" <emattila@oco.net> wrote:

> Pulver wrote:
> >
> > "Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
> >
> >>Pulver wrote:
> >>
> >>>Karen Gordon wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Bush and Blair Lied About WMDs in Iraq;
> >>>>World Opinion Was Right to Oppose War
> >>>>
> >>>>By Harry Kelber - June 6, 2003
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>No body will remember because in the context of things it
> >>>has no importance, well below the miniscule importance of
> >>>Karen Gordon
> >>
> >>I don't know, Major. It looks like the lies are piling-up to epic
> >>proportions. We may still be sorting them out by November '04.
> >>
> >
> > I repeat ‹ Nobody will remember because in the context of
> > things it has no importance
>
> And I repeat - we won't have to "remember" because it will still be
> going on.


And President Bush will be reelected.

Erik A. Mattila

nobody wrote:
> In article <3F25644C.5070402@oco.net>,
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emattila@oco.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Pulver wrote:
>>
>>>"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Pulver wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Karen Gordon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Bush and Blair Lied About WMDs in Iraq;
>>>>>>World Opinion Was Right to Oppose War
>>>>>>
>>>>>>By Harry Kelber - June 6, 2003
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No body will remember because in the context of things it
>>>>>has no importance, well below the miniscule importance of
>>>>>Karen Gordon
>>>>
>>>>I don't know, Major. It looks like the lies are piling-up to epic
>>>>proportions. We may still be sorting them out by November '04.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I repeat ‹ Nobody will remember because in the context of
>>>things it has no importance
>>
>>And I repeat - we won't have to "remember" because it will still be
>>going on.
>
>
>
> And President Bush will be reelected.

You may be correct. Another year and a half of this administration and
only the wealthy will be able to afford transportation to the polls.

eam

Dan Listermann

"nobody" <nobody@nospam.nohow.noway.com> wrote in message
news:nobody-61364F.17244428072003@netnews.attbi.com...

-- > And President Bush will be reelected.

It is good to see that "nobody" believes this on a number of levels.


> In article <3F25644C.5070402@oco.net>,
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emattila@oco.net> wrote:
>
> > Pulver wrote:
> > >
> > > "Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
> > >
> > >>Pulver wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Karen Gordon wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>Bush and Blair Lied About WMDs in Iraq;
> > >>>>World Opinion Was Right to Oppose War
> > >>>>
> > >>>>By Harry Kelber - June 6, 2003
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>No body will remember because in the context of things it
> > >>>has no importance, well below the miniscule importance of
> > >>>Karen Gordon
> > >>
> > >>I don't know, Major. It looks like the lies are piling-up to epic
> > >>proportions. We may still be sorting them out by November '04.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I repeat < Nobody will remember because in the context of
> > > things it has no importance
> >
> > And I repeat - we won't have to "remember" because it will still be
> > going on.
>
>

nobody

In article <3F2595C4.1030804@oco.net>,
"Erik A. Mattila" <emattila@oco.net> wrote:

> nobody wrote:
> > In article <3F25644C.5070402@oco.net>,
> > "Erik A. Mattila" <emattila@oco.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Pulver wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Pulver wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Karen Gordon wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Bush and Blair Lied About WMDs in Iraq;
> >>>>>>World Opinion Was Right to Oppose War
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>By Harry Kelber - June 6, 2003
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>No body will remember because in the context of things it
> >>>>>has no importance, well below the miniscule importance of
> >>>>>Karen Gordon
> >>>>
> >>>>I don't know, Major. It looks like the lies are piling-up to epic
> >>>>proportions. We may still be sorting them out by November '04.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>I repeat Ð Nobody will remember because in the context of
> >>>things it has no importance
> >>
> >>And I repeat - we won't have to "remember" because it will still be
> >>going on.
> >
> >
> >
> > And President Bush will be reelected.
>
> You may be correct. Another year and a half of this administration and
> only the wealthy will be able to afford transportation to the polls.


And your problem with that is?

nobody

In article <vib61mqoq7vs95@corp.supernews.com>,
"Dan Listermann" <dan@listermann.com> wrote:

> "nobody" <nobody@nospam.nohow.noway.com> wrote in message
> news:nobody-61364F.17244428072003@netnews.attbi.com...
>
> -- > And President Bush will be reelected.
>
> It is good to see that "nobody" believes this on a number of levels.

Yep, and if I'm wrong I'm sure you'll point that out in November 2004.
Not that I'm holding my breath.


> > In article <3F25644C.5070402@oco.net>,
> > "Erik A. Mattila" <emattila@oco.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Pulver wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>Pulver wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>Karen Gordon wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>Bush and Blair Lied About WMDs in Iraq;
> > > >>>>World Opinion Was Right to Oppose War
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>By Harry Kelber - June 6, 2003
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>No body will remember because in the context of things it
> > > >>>has no importance, well below the miniscule importance of
> > > >>>Karen Gordon
> > > >>
> > > >>I don't know, Major. It looks like the lies are piling-up to epic
> > > >>proportions. We may still be sorting them out by November '04.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > I repeat < Nobody will remember because in the context of
> > > > things it has no importance
> > >
> > > And I repeat - we won't have to "remember" because it will still be
> > > going on.
> >
> >
>
>
>

Erik A. Mattila

nobody wrote:

>>>And President Bush will be reelected.
>>
>>You may be correct. Another year and a half of this administration and
>>only the wealthy will be able to afford transportation to the polls.
>
>
>
> And your problem with that is?

Well, that Monkey Boy would have another four years to do his damage,
naturally.

eam

Erik A. Mattila

nobody wrote:
> In article <vib61mqoq7vs95@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Dan Listermann" <dan@listermann.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"nobody" <nobody@nospam.nohow.noway.com> wrote in message
>>news:nobody-61364F.17244428072003@netnews.attbi.com...
>>
>>-- > And President Bush will be reelected.
>>
>>It is good to see that "nobody" believes this on a number of levels.
>
>
> Yep, and if I'm wrong I'm sure you'll point that out in November 2004.
> Not that I'm holding my breath.

A good thing you aren't holding your breath:
http://salon.com/news/feature/2003/0...bts/index.html

eam

nobody

In article <3F25E003.6070400@oco.net>,
"Erik A. Mattila" <emattila@oco.net> wrote:

> nobody wrote:
> > In article <vib61mqoq7vs95@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Dan Listermann" <dan@listermann.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"nobody" <nobody@nospam.nohow.noway.com> wrote in message
> >>news:nobody-61364F.17244428072003@netnews.attbi.com...
> >>
> >>-- > And President Bush will be reelected.
> >>
> >>It is good to see that "nobody" believes this on a number of levels.
> >
> >
> > Yep, and if I'm wrong I'm sure you'll point that out in November 2004.
> > Not that I'm holding my breath.
>
> A good thing you aren't holding your breath:
> http://salon.com/news/feature/2003/0...bts/index.html


I guess you need some shred of hope, but in a year and a half you're
gonna be real disappointed.

Pulver

"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
>
> nobody wrote:
>
> >>>And President Bush will be reelected.
> >>
> >>You may be correct. Another year and a half of this administration and
> >>only the wealthy will be able to afford transportation to the polls.
> >
> >
> >
> > And your problem with that is?
>
> Well, that Monkey Boy would have another four years to do his damage,
> naturally.

more nonsense -- unproveable and definitely off the wall stupid

Erik A. Mattila

Pulver wrote:

>>You may be correct. Another year and a half of this administration and
>>only the wealthy will be able to afford transportation to the polls.
>
>
> You persist with such ridiculous inanities.
>
> BTW there is a bunch of proof owing in another thread.
>
> Instead of wasting your time jerking off with like
> stupidities, how about you start collecting material to
> prove at least one of your silly ideas is real.

Sure, I can do that. What do you want as "proof."

eam

Erik A. Mattila

Pulver wrote:
>
> "Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
>
>>nobody wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>And President Bush will be reelected.
>>>>
>>>>You may be correct. Another year and a half of this administration and
>>>>only the wealthy will be able to afford transportation to the polls.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>And your problem with that is?
>>
>>Well, that Monkey Boy would have another four years to do his damage,
>>naturally.
>
>
> more nonsense -- unproveable and definitely off the wall stupid

What, that Bush will be in office another four years if he wins in '04?
Why is that "nonesense." It's a truism, and doesn't require "proof."

eam

Pulver

"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
>
> Pulver wrote:
>
> >>You may be correct. Another year and a half of this administration and
> >>only the wealthy will be able to afford transportation to the polls.
> >
> >
> > You persist with such ridiculous inanities.
> >
> > BTW there is a bunch of proof owing in another thread.
> >
> > Instead of wasting your time jerking off with like
> > stupidities, how about you start collecting material to
> > prove at least one of your silly ideas is real.
>
> Sure, I can do that. What do you want as "proof."

Give us what you can, If it is satisfactory you will know
it, if not we will make sure you know that as well.

Pulver

Pulver wrote:
>
> "Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
> >
> > Pulver wrote:
> > >
> > > "Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
> > >
> > >>nobody wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>>>And President Bush will be reelected.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>You may be correct. Another year and a half of this administration and
> > >>>>only the wealthy will be able to afford transportation to the polls.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>And your problem with that is?
> > >>
> > >>Well, that Monkey Boy would have another four years to do his damage,
> > >>naturally.
> > >
> > >
> > > more nonsense -- unproveable and definitely off the wall stupid
> >
> > What, that Bush will be in office another four years if he wins in '04?
> > Why is that "nonesense." It's a truism, and doesn't require "proof."
> >
> It is nonsense because only those five words are real The
> other 9 are the gist and that is stupid

U.S. May Already Have Iraq’s WMDs

by Joel Mowbray

As WMD hysteria reaches a frenzied pitch, comments by the
head of the U.S. team searching Iraq for WMD evidence should
give pause to the "Bush lied" crowd.

Dr. David Kay—the 63-year-old former U.N. weapons inspector
now heading up the American WMD team—recently remarked that
the United States will be “starting to reveal” WMD evidence
in six months.

Though he was circumspect at best, Dr. Kay’s comments
could indicate that U.S. investigators know quite a bit more
than they have revealed thus far.

Buzz inside the beltway has been intensifying in recent
days that the administration may have significantly more
evidence than it has publicly released, and Dr. Kay’s
comments have triggered even more chatter. Some of it may be
wishful thinking, but considering that some of the people
doing the talking are administration officials, declarations
that there are no WMDs may be premature.

Why would the Bush folks keep such politically high-value
information secret?

Possibly because, given the sheer number of guerrilla
forces present inside Iraq, U.S. investigators believe it
would be foolish to leak evidence piecemeal. Sources and
methods of intelligence-gathering could be “compromised”—a
polite way of saying those helping us or their families
could get killed—and the U.S. team's efforts could be
hampered if other would-be informants hold back out of fear.


townhall.com/columnists/joelmowbray/jm20030731.shtml

And with many of Saddam’s former henchmen still around,
U.S. investigators tipping their hand could make it easier
for Baathist thugs to destroy evidence or sabotage discovery efforts.

Not that critics of President Bush—the people who wanted
to wait endlessly while U.N. inspectors played footsy with
Saddam—are waiting for the canvassing to be completed before
slamming the commander-in-chief.

Liberal legend Teddy Kennedy (D-MA) has charged that
President Bush led the country to war "under false
pretenses." His colleague and presidential wannabe John
Kerry (D-MA)--who voted for the war--now is retreating to
the warm embrace of his liberal base, claiming that, in
essence, Bush duped him into supporting the liberation of
Iraq. Mincing no words, New York Times Paul Krugman stated
flatly, "There is no longer any serious doubt that Bush
administration officials deceived Americans into war."

[Please note that Krugman's job is to sell newspapers - not
tell the truth]

That there is WMD evidence inside Iraq - or possibly Iran
or Syria - makes logical sense, as there are really only
three WMD
scenarios:
1) Saddam didn't have any WMDs,
2) Saddam destroyed everything just before the war
began (or snuck it into Iran or Syria)
3) the evidence stuck around longer than Saddam did.

As Rumsfeld said before the war, “Any country on the face of
the earth with an active intelligence program knows that
Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.” No one argues, in
fact, that Saddam didn't have active WMD programs when the
U.N. inspectors left the country more than four years ago.
So for the first possibility to be correct, Saddam would
have had to have voluntarily ceased an operation that had
been his primary obsession for some two decades and kept no
records of having done so.

Which leaves us with two other possibilities, either of
which confirms Bush's pre-war arguments. It is possible that
Saddam destroyed stockpiles and his mobile labs on the eve
of war, but it is at least as plausible that he would not
part with his treasures so easily. With a high street value
and relative portability, though, it is also possible that
Saddam sold off at least part of his stash. Or he could have
used the time-honored tradition of simply hiding his
arsenal.

But until we have examined every last square inch of
Iraq—and Syria and Iran—the entire WMD debate is premised on
a hypothetical.

In the end, the investigators may only find indirect
evidence of WMD programs - human sources and documents - as
opposed to the kind of weapons “stockpiles” for which our
image-driven media salivates. A lack of camera-ready
evidence could be a problem, but a mountain of documents and
numerous human testimonials from Saddam's former scientists
could be enough to reaffirm the obvious: Saddam had WMDs.

©2003 Joel Mowbray

Erik A. Mattila

Pulver wrote:
>
> Pulver wrote:
>
>>"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
>>
>>>Pulver wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>nobody wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And President Bush will be reelected.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You may be correct. Another year and a half of this administration and
>>>>>>>only the wealthy will be able to afford transportation to the polls.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And your problem with that is?
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, that Monkey Boy would have another four years to do his damage,
>>>>>naturally.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>more nonsense -- unproveable and definitely off the wall stupid
>>>
>>>What, that Bush will be in office another four years if he wins in '04?
>>> Why is that "nonesense." It's a truism, and doesn't require "proof."
>>>
>>
>>It is nonsense because only those five words are real The
>>other 9 are the gist and that is stupid

This is speculaton, Pulver, and wishful thinking. BTW, I was giving you
guys some good material, tied to sources like The Whitehouse and Tucker
Carlson. I wouldn't expect you to even consider something from the vast
left wing conspiracy media. So what's this nonsense: Townhall.com.
Come on, you can do better than that.

eam

>
>
> U.S. May Already Have Iraq’s WMDs
>
> by Joel Mowbray
>
> As WMD hysteria reaches a frenzied pitch, comments by the
> head of the U.S. team searching Iraq for WMD evidence should
> give pause to the "Bush lied" crowd.
>
> Dr. David Kay—the 63-year-old former U.N. weapons inspector
> now heading up the American WMD team—recently remarked that
> the United States will be “starting to reveal” WMD evidence
> in six months.
>
> Though he was circumspect at best, Dr. Kay’s comments
> could indicate that U.S. investigators know quite a bit more
> than they have revealed thus far.
>
> Buzz inside the beltway has been intensifying in recent
> days that the administration may have significantly more
> evidence than it has publicly released, and Dr. Kay’s
> comments have triggered even more chatter. Some of it may be
> wishful thinking, but considering that some of the people
> doing the talking are administration officials, declarations
> that there are no WMDs may be premature.
>
> Why would the Bush folks keep such politically high-value
> information secret?
>
> Possibly because, given the sheer number of guerrilla
> forces present inside Iraq, U.S. investigators believe it
> would be foolish to leak evidence piecemeal. Sources and
> methods of intelligence-gathering could be “compromised”—a
> polite way of saying those helping us or their families
> could get killed—and the U.S. team's efforts could be
> hampered if other would-be informants hold back out of fear.
>
>
> townhall.com/columnists/joelmowbray/jm20030731.shtml
>
> And with many of Saddam’s former henchmen still around,
> U.S. investigators tipping their hand could make it easier
> for Baathist thugs to destroy evidence or sabotage discovery efforts.
>
> Not that critics of President Bush—the people who wanted
> to wait endlessly while U.N. inspectors played footsy with
> Saddam—are waiting for the canvassing to be completed before
> slamming the commander-in-chief.
>
> Liberal legend Teddy Kennedy (D-MA) has charged that
> President Bush led the country to war "under false
> pretenses." His colleague and presidential wannabe John
> Kerry (D-MA)--who voted for the war--now is retreating to
> the warm embrace of his liberal base, claiming that, in
> essence, Bush duped him into supporting the liberation of
> Iraq. Mincing no words, New York Times Paul Krugman stated
> flatly, "There is no longer any serious doubt that Bush
> administration officials deceived Americans into war."
>
> [Please note that Krugman's job is to sell newspapers - not
> tell the truth]
>
> That there is WMD evidence inside Iraq - or possibly Iran
> or Syria - makes logical sense, as there are really only
> three WMD
> scenarios:
> 1) Saddam didn't have any WMDs,
> 2) Saddam destroyed everything just before the war
> began (or snuck it into Iran or Syria)
> 3) the evidence stuck around longer than Saddam did.
>
> As Rumsfeld said before the war, “Any country on the face of
> the earth with an active intelligence program knows that
> Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.” No one argues, in
> fact, that Saddam didn't have active WMD programs when the
> U.N. inspectors left the country more than four years ago.
> So for the first possibility to be correct, Saddam would
> have had to have voluntarily ceased an operation that had
> been his primary obsession for some two decades and kept no
> records of having done so.
>
> Which leaves us with two other possibilities, either of
> which confirms Bush's pre-war arguments. It is possible that
> Saddam destroyed stockpiles and his mobile labs on the eve
> of war, but it is at least as plausible that he would not
> part with his treasures so easily. With a high street value
> and relative portability, though, it is also possible that
> Saddam sold off at least part of his stash. Or he could have
> used the time-honored tradition of simply hiding his
> arsenal.
>
> But until we have examined every last square inch of
> Iraq—and Syria and Iran—the entire WMD debate is premised on
> a hypothetical.
>
> In the end, the investigators may only find indirect
> evidence of WMD programs - human sources and documents - as
> opposed to the kind of weapons “stockpiles” for which our
> image-driven media salivates. A lack of camera-ready
> evidence could be a problem, but a mountain of documents and
> numerous human testimonials from Saddam's former scientists
> could be enough to reaffirm the obvious: Saddam had WMDs.
>
> ©2003 Joel Mowbray