I just pulled this excerpt from the Iraq Survey Group's final report under the section entitled
"Sorting Out Whether Iraq Had WMD Before Operation Iraqi Freedom"

"ISG (Iraq Survey Group) has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the
available evidence from its investigation—including detainee interviews and document exploitation—leaves
open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant
capability."


Again, the small piles of degraded gas shells were not then, and are not now, a threat to the
United States. We knew Iraq has such weapons, but they were not the weapons Bush led everyone to
believe Iraq had.

This report is THE report the US Government prepared in regards to WMD's.

So I say to you and anyone else who continues to advance the notion of WMD's - Read this
report.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/


Anyone who continues to state that Iraq had WMD's after reading the US Governments OWN report
simply is in denial.




>>Now if I broke into your house and attacked you or your family, then self defense is justified.
>
>The laws are a little different in Texas, but generally that is true. Although it isn't in the UK.
>
>>I don't agree. No one, individuals or countries, has the right to attack another based on a perception of
>>danger. Not only does there have to be the threat, but the means to carry it out has to exist.
>
>The means DID once exist in Iraq, Saddam was required under the terms of the 1st Gulf War cease-fire to prove they no longer did, and he did not cooperate.
>There was no "innocent until proven guilty" clause in the cease-fire.
>
>>There are some third world countries in Africa who have no air force, no navy and very small amries. If they threatend the the US, do we go attack them because someday they might actually be capable of following through on that threat?
>
>Specious arguement.