Many of my own posts are on similar subjects and making similar points. Certainly they all express largely the same philosophy of life and politics. I like to think the different references bring a new perspective to my point of view, but I suppose that's a matter of opinion.
The article Don linked to was interesting, and described the puzzlement that many are expressing, including myself. If there were no WMD, why did Saddam obstruct the U.N. and then finally go to the mat for something that didn't exist?
I still think my "Emperor's New Clothes" theory may have something going for it.
Chief Iraqi WMD scientist to Saddam: "Oh, yeah, we are making GREAT progress. Look, here's our shiny new research trailer. Here's a movie of a dog being gassed. Can we have another five million for lab equipment?"
Then he goes back and pipes colored water or whatever around the lab. Instant death if the fraud is discovered, but maybe instant death if he comes up with constant failure, too.
This is not my first choice of scenarios...I still think the programs were spirited out of the country and the remains scrubbed clean long before we got in there. But I have no hard evidence either way.
Current Events » in reply to Don, this is becoming spam. Please avoid this topic unless you have something NEW to say.
Re: I disagree.
The whole thread (35 posts)
- BBC: Failure to find Iraqi arms 'surprising'
- Re:search for BBC news
- RI guess ignoring the finds of the bioweapon labs will be now be rationalized.
- Don, this is becoming spam. Please avoid this topic unless you have something NEW to say.
- Re: I disagree.
- Spam?!?
- Re: Spam?!?
- Re: Spam?!?
- Re: Spam?!?
- Keep on keepin' on, Don n/t (n/t)
- You go, Don!
- nope
- Re: BBC: Failure to find Iraqi arms 'not' surprising . . .
