On the trains to Syria.


>Here's things that have always bothered me about the whole WMD issue.
>
>It is absolutely certain Saddam had them for a while as the Kurds and the Iranian Army can attest to. If he had gotten rid of them, then why play the games with the UN and put up with the embargo?
>
>I think that's why Clinton and Bush erred on the side of assuming he still had them. I don't buy this "Bush lied" garbage because the logic dictates otherwise.
>
>So, it is 100% he had them as recently as 1990. Where did they go???
>
>>>>>>>This should be excellent. Presented in 2 parts over tonite and tomorrow nite:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I missed the first part, but the second seemed to rehash some previous Frontline documentaries. Overall, I think they're excellent, but I'm not sure how balanced they are. Did they show anything about most countries believing Saddam had WMDs?
>>>>>
>>>>>Many countries, prominently including Germany and France, wanted to let the UN task force find WMDs before assuming they were there. We were the ones who blew off the UN after a while and insisted on invading even in the absence of evidence. Lots of Americans were angry at our long time European allies at the time. In retrospect, we would have been wise to heed their prudence. It doesn't take that much longer to do it right.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You mean the UN task force that was currently kicked out of Iraq (and had been more than once previously)? That was working well.
>>>
>>>I mean the UN task force that was in Iraq for weeks or months looking for WMDs. Do you mean it wasn't working well because they didn't find any?
>>>
>>
>>For starters, anything UN doesn't work well.
>>
>>Aside from that, not being in Iraq because they were kicked out because they were trying to look in 'unapproved' places makes them somewhat ineffective don't you think?