Changing the topic only serves to validate my point, because my points
are the truth and can't be disputed. How can any intelligent person dispute
facts that are already publicly known?


>If it's not "They Lied" it's "Cheny and Haliburton". Truth be known, Lady Bird Johnson owns more Haliburton stock than Dick Cheny. You should deversify, CBS is not the only news outlet anymore.
>
>>They might not have come right out & said verbatim that Iraq most
>>definitly posativly had nukes, but they sure as hell tried to
>>make a good case for it, becuase it was the whole basis for gaining
>>public support for war, which of course, when the truth be known,
>>turned against them. And rightly so.
>>
>>
>>>OK, then write Nukes.
>>>
>>>There was enough evidence to suggest that he did have a nuclear program.
>>>
>>>If you publicly pronounce what you believe to be true, and weeks/months later you are shown to be wrong, did you lie? So far I haven't seen anything compelling to make me believe that Bush, Cheny, Rumsfield, or Powell knowingly lied. If it existed the left would trot it out and beat Bush to death (politically) with it. I guess that if you say something often enough,true or not, eventually you will get someone to believe it.
>>>
>>>>The Weapons the US was concerned with are Nukes.
>>>>
>>>>The US went to war against Iraq on the incorrect presumption
>>>>that Iraq had a nuclear program.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Had WMD's.
>>>>>Used them on the Kurds.
>>>>>Used them on the Iranians.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Speculations aside, the fact is that there are no WMD's. Never were.
>>>>>>Iraq might have had ambitions - but wanting something and actually having them
>>>>>>is two different things.
>>>>>>