[new cruelty]

The question is why?

More over, there are the words of others here in the United States that I would trust before looking abroad.

Rumsfeld says W-M-D may still be found in Iraq

Capitol Hill-AP -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says it is too early to say Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction before the U-S invasion last year.

Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee that U-S weapons inspectors need more time to reach a final conclusion about whether chemical and biological weapons existed in Iraq before the war.

Rumsfeld says he is confident that prewar intelligence was not manipulated by the administration to justify its war aims.

He offered several theories on why no weapons have been discovered, starting with the possibility that banned arms never existed. Rumsfeld called that "possible, but not likely."

Rumsfeld also said Iraq could have hidden some of the banned weapons. He told lawmakers that the hole in which Saddam Hussein was found "was big enough to hold biological weapons to kill thousands" of people.

He says such objects, "once buried, can stay buried."

[fdsa2]

Why not? my view is that freedom and liberty for Iraqies was never the main rationale for going to war, WMD was (remeber the speeches).

If not, why would Rumsfeld stick to the mantra? And why are the Weapons Inspectors reported to have concluded their work and returned to the US?

And remember Rumsfeld is only saying that the administration did not sex up the WMD intelligence, not that the intelligence was wrong.

I found it strange that high-ranking intelligence people on both sides of the atlantic (as late as today with Brian Jones in the UK) questions the validity of this?

I guess the "stay hidden" argument is plausible and we will see but I still like to see a new policy concerning this.