Fred J. McCall wrote:

:Vkince, you should be the absolute *last* person to be hurling about
:accusations that anyone is "delusional".

Especially since Vince's delusions seem to be rewriting history. I'm
not sure just how he thinks "el Busho" managed to make the
intelligence services of the UK, France, Germany, Russia, and the US
all believe that Iraq had chemical weapons ready to deploy

nonsense From 29 jan


Russia's UN ambassador said that any fresh US evidence against Iraq will
have to contain "undeniable proof" that Baghdad has retained banned
nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. While welcoming plans for US
Secretary of State Colin Powell to reveal new information to the UN
Security Council next week, Ambassador Sergey Lavrov made it clear
Moscow would require convincing. "If countries have persuasive proof
that Iraq continues its (weapons of mass destruction) programme than
this proof should be presented," Lavrov said.

"We would like to see undeniable proof."

Responding to US President George W. Bush's State of the Union speech
yesterday, Lavrov said Russia's stance remains unchanged that weapons
inspections in Iraq should be allowed to continue.

"We have not seen any reason so far to undercut the inspection process,"
he said.

http://www.intellnet.org/news/2003/01/29/15996-1.html



(to the
point where the French were even initially offering to come in if we
were actually subject to a chemical attack, presumably to prevent
Saddam from doing something quite stupid and proving the French to be
liars).

I'd be REAL interested how he convinced Saddam and various Iraqi
military commanders of it. Remember, there are lots of reports from
field commanders that, while THEY didn't have chemical weapons, the
unit next door did. Obviously, SOMEBODY was spreading that rumour in
the Iraqi forces. I can just see Bush running from tent to tent
before the invasion.

no BUSH simply stated it as a fact In Nov 2002
http://www.intellnet.org/news/2002/11/20/13733-1.html
Top Stories - Reuters
Bush Warns Saddam Not to Deny Weapons Exist
21 minutes ago
Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!

PRAGUE (Reuters) - President Bush warned Iraqi President Saddam Hussein
on Wednesday that should he deny possessing weapons of mass
destruction, he will have entered his "final stage" as Iraq's leader.
"We're threatened by terrorism, bred within failed states. It's present
within our own cities," said Bush in a keynote speech ahead of a NATO
(news - web sites) summit. Bush said Iraq was an outlaw nation that
possessed weapons of mass destruction. He vowed Iraq would be held
accountable to the terms of a U.N. resolution that returned weapons
inspectors to Baghdad this week. "We now call an end to that game of
deception and deceit and denial. Saddam Hussein has been given a very
short time to declare completely and truthfully his arsenal of terror,"
said Bush.

"Should he again deny that this arsenal exists, he will have entered his
final stage with a lie, and deception this time will not be tolerated.
Delay and defiance will invite the severest consequences," he said.


end exerpt



Quite clever, these Evil Republicans, hey Vince?

Nonsense

Here is a March 19 AP report

U.S. Plans Hunt for Iraqi Bio-Weapons

By MARK FRITZ
Associated Press Writer

While the world awaits Saddam Hussein's fate, the main goal of the
U.S.-led military campaign is to embark on a scary scavenger hunt:
finding the elusive weapons that convinced the Bush administration to
wage war in the first place.The aim is to get to the toxic arsenals
before they can be deployed or moved, and perhaps show the world
evidence of a tangible threat that justified war.

As a March 3 Defense Department report noted, ``Though initial emphasis
was on the ouster of Saddam Hussein, the administration has more
recently pointed to weapons of mass destruction disarmament as its prime
objective.''Any attacks on the Iraqi leadership and its command centers
are expected to be carried out in concert with seizures of suspected
chemical and biological weapons sites, along with oil fields. Burning
oil would pose its own health hazard if Saddam sets Iraq's 1,685 wells
ablaze, as he did in occupied Kuwait during his 1991 retreat.

Finding the weapons that have eluded U.N. inspectors carries huge
practical and political ramifications for the Bush administration.
Failure to turn up significant evidence of biological, chemical or
nuclear arms research and production would raise questions about a
mission already condemned by much of the world. ``The difficulty is a
matter of intelligence,'' said Kelly Motz, an analyst at a nonpartisan
think tank called Iraq Watch. ``To find it rapidly and destroy it
rapidly, you pretty much need to know where it is.

``It's definitely the right idea and the right strategy, but in terms of
carrying it out, you're going to need better intelligence than what I've
seen so far.'' During the 1991 Persian Gulf war, the U.S.-led coalition
was flummoxed by Iraq's mobile Scud missile launchers, which constantly
eluded detection. It failed to locate any of them during the war,
according to the Defense Department report to Congress.

Failing to find significant evidence of biological and chemical arms
would mean one of two things: that U.S. claims they exist were
exaggerated, or that Saddam was successful in moving them out of the
country. Iraq denies it has any such weapons. ``If we find little
evidence ... it's going to be an embarrassment,'' Motz said. ``They're
banking that they are going to prove themselves. Either it's not there,
or it's been shipped across borders, which would mean that the mission
increased proliferation.''

Disagreements over whether Iraq is indeed a threat that justifies war
has splintered alliances and left the United States without many of its
traditional allies as it enters a conflict. ``I'm among the people who
are most curious to know'' if an invasion will uncover hidden weapons,
Hans Blix, the most recent in a long line of U.N. weapons inspectors,
told CNN Wednesday.....

Washington believes Saddam has stockpiles of mustard gas, a grisly
blistering agent used during World War I, as well as nerve gases and
biological agents such as anthrax, botulism and ricin......


end exerpt.


Bush did not declare a conditonal probability. He did not say

" they might have them, and we can't risk that possibility" Bush said
that WMDs existed and they don't. He knew before he went into war that
that the failure to find WMDs would make the USA the laughingstock of
the world. The world was not convinced by the pre war evidence, and
the lack of finds show that Bush was simply wrong. The important
question of the USA is why we were so wrong.

We owe an explanation to the families of the men and woemn who died there.


Vince