Robert posted this below, from The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, in a thread in which you participated, so, for the moment at least, I'm going to be charitable and assume you're having trouble with your short-term memory.


Just two hours after U.S. warplanes began attacking Iraq on January 16, President Bush went on national television to report the goals of the assault. "As I report to you, air attacks are under way against military targets in Iraq. We are determined to knock out Saddam Hussein's nuclear bomb potential," the president said, before ticking off other objectives.

The prominence Bush gave to Iraq's nuclear "potential" repeated a theme that the administration began pushing vigorously last November as a rationale for the use of military force against that country. But after a months-long investigation of the requirements any country would need to build nuclear weapons, and an assessment of Iraq's ability to meet those requirements, we conclude that Saddam Hussein was many years away from developing usable nuclear weapons.

Indeed, the Iraqi nuclear bomb-making capability was so primitive that the international sanctions put in place after the August 2 invasion may have had more substantive effect than the tons of bombs dropped by U.S. and allied planes five months later. "There may be good reasons to go to war with Iraq," one U.S. government official said before January 16, "but Iraq's nuclear program isn't one of them."



(My emphasis, and please bear in mind that the scientists are talking about the elder Bush and the Gulf War.

When I'm not feeling so charitable, I recognize that it's not a very clever or subtle tactic that you employ, but it is probably effective.

Just keep repeating the same lies over and over, no matter how often disproven, and eventually, the voices of reason will be shouted down, and the lies will prevail.

'Not a pretty picture, but there you are.

sp