>Nice try, Jim. I've been very, very clear as to which of my statements are repeating of facts and which are conjecture.
>
>And speaking of facts... when did I ever claim the gassing happened in the mid 90s? It was 1988 by the way, and the evidence was uncovered -- despite constant denials from Saddam -- almost *5 years later*... a good time frame, I think. So, using that model, we'll have evidence of WMD in, oh... about two years. That was conjecture, by the way.

Have a look at Re: Bomb, Bomb, Bomb - Bomb, Bomb Iran Thread #1112935 Message #1113761

>
>>Why do you throw in "terrorist state" in describing Iraq? Surely paying Palestinian families of suicide bombers $25,000. (or whatever it was) isn't the only reason, is it?
>
>Let's see... there was the gassing of uprisers, the invading of Kuwait, the bombing of Israel, the building of a WMD arsenal, the threats of attack, ignoring repeated UN sanctions for 11 years, throwing out inspectors. I'd say any one of those doesn't put your leader (and you by association) on the list, but all of them? You don't have to be caught running an al-Qaeda sleepover camp to qualify.

What gassing of uprisers?
What bombing of Israel?
What building of a WMD arsenal after 1991?
What threats of attack after 1991?
Meanwhile, there were no terrorist camps under Saddam's control. There was no dialog between Saddam and Bin Laden or any other terrorist. There was no yellowcake on its way to Saddam. Sorry, but "terrorist state" may help the argument for war but it is decidedly not "fact".

>
>>Why do you repeat the incorrect assertion that there were gassings of his own people after the 1991 war? (the gassing at Halabja (sp?) was in the mid-1980s).
>>
>>Why do you continue to point to Syria as the hiding place for Saddam's WMD when even the Administration, which never misses an opportunity to press "facts" that bolster its case, has not pushed the issue?
>
>So, lemme get this straight... you're willing to trust our administration when they don't tell you something, but you're not willing to trust them when they do. Oh, that's right... the selective belief argument. Showing your "anti-US at all costs" stripes again, eh?

That's pure silliness. Bush was quick to claim they found the WMD trailers. It was big news when some scientist dug up a piece of machinery formerly used for Saddam's nuclear program. Why wouldn't the White House proudly proclaim that the WMDs had been moved????
"Anti-US at all costs"... get real. Anti-Administration policy on warring in general, yes. Anti-Administration "planning" capabilities/results, yes. Anti-US, never.

>
>>You say you deal only with the facts?
>
>Ayup... no point in dealing with anything else. Unless, that is... I just hate the US and our administration.

Silliness.