To: alnick
Yours is a purely political argument. Most Americans are more interested in the national security aspect of this war.????? If there were no weapons there, there isn't really a national security risk now is there? So your argument of national security sort of falls flat on its face
BTW, where do you think WMD come from, if not WMD programs?
Do I know? Do I care? If he wasn't producing them, which Kay now admits, they could have come from previous production or nations friendly to Iraq at a time before the Gulf War. Now I'm not sure we want to start delving into that now do we?
184 posted on
01/27/2004 8:31:44 AM PST by
billbears
(Deo Vindice.)
To: billbears
????? If there were no weapons there, there isn't really a national security risk now is there? So your argument of national security sort of falls flat on its face BTW, where do you think WMD come from, if not WMD programs? Do I know? Do I care? If he wasn't producing them, which Kay now admits, they could have come from previous production or nations friendly to Iraq at a time before the Gulf War. Now I'm not sure we want to start delving into that now do we? Actually, Kay does NOT admit that Saddam was not producing weapons of mass destruction. Remember those sacks of mislabeled castor beans? I'm sure you do since you insisted that they were harmless.
Kay said that Iraq was working on producing ricin RIGHT UP UNTIL THE END.
And for you to pretend that you aren't aware that WMD programs lead to WMD is -- well, no one is that foolish.
187 posted on
01/27/2004 9:01:12 AM PST by
alnick
(A vote for anyone but George W. Bush for president in 2004 is a vote to strengthen Al Qaeda.)
To: billbears
If there were no weapons there, there isn't really a national security risk now is there? Oh, and yes, there was, according to Kay -- even more of a risk than we thought before going in.
Given your posting history, I'm sure you'll conveniently ignore what Kay actually said and stick to repeating selective soundbites taken out of context.
188 posted on
01/27/2004 9:03:28 AM PST by
alnick
(A vote for anyone but George W. Bush for president in 2004 is a vote to strengthen Al Qaeda.)
To: billbears
If there were no weapons there, there isn't really a national security risk now is there? Oh, and yes, there was, according to Kay -- even more of a risk than we thought before going in.
Given your posting history, I'm sure you'll conveniently ignore what Kay actually said and stick to repeating selective soundbites taken out of context.
189 posted on
01/27/2004 9:03:32 AM PST by
alnick
(A vote for anyone but George W. Bush for president in 2004 is a vote to strengthen Al Qaeda.)
To: billbears
He was funding terrorists. That is a national security matter.
229 posted on
01/28/2004 1:44:27 AM PST by
texasflower
(in the event of the rapture.......the Bush White House will be unmanned)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson