From: John K Clark (jonkc@att.net)
Date: Sun May 11 2003 - 08:33:26 MDT
"Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury@aeiveos.com>
> Well, the NY Times is offering some evidence of a smoking gun:
Yes, that was interesting but in all honesty I think it's a big
overstatement to call it a smoking gun, certainly before the war I expected
they'd find one hell of a lot more much sooner than this. In fact I expected
the stuff to be used in combat. And apparently these trucks were never
operated, no trace of unusual biological material could be found in them; I
don't see why they'd go to all the trouble to scrub them down that
completely when the evidence could be destroyed much easer and better by
just blowing them up. Also, the only reason I can think of as to why Saddam
didn't use WMD at the end when his other options were approaching zero was
that he didn't have any. It's embarrassing to say so but true I think.
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 11 2003 - 08:46:08 MDT