In message , Kevin
Brooks writes
You are forgetting that Vkince and his ilk only consider it a WMD
program if they can point to a physical and truly massive stockpile of
active agents already in a weaponized state.

The ones that were declared as being at 45 minutes from hitting Britain?

These WMEs were meant to exist, in large numbers, such as to pose a
clear and obvious danger to the US and UK. There's significant open
water between that level of threat, and "well, we suspected he might
have some hidden somewhere, but it turns out he didn't".

Now, the pre-war claims of large, lethal, long-range and ready-use
weapons have been hastily backpedalled. In fact, the war apparently
wasn't about WMEs at all (nobody seems willing to go firm on what it
_was_ about).

That approach makes it so
much easier for them to continue to bash Bush and the US.

I'm an old-fashioned sort of guy: I like to see people (even
politicians) pick a story and stick to it; or accept that intel is not
perfect.

Trouble is, at least over here, it appears that the answer was decided
before the intelligence was studied: we _were_ going to war with Iraq,
and the analysts were going to produce the answers to suit.

And BTW: you
can add the development of the tactical ballistic missiles that
exceeded the range allowed per the resolutions/cease fire agreement in
your list as well.

Not WMEs, and who cares about the UN anyway? It's either relevant or it
isn't - pick one.



This war has got the US and UK militaries tied up for the foreseeable
future.

What have we gained to offset that cost?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk