[Galtoid]

What are we to make of this?

[Nathan Zachary]

What do you think? Bush knew, therefore he lied.

[umgud]

What are we to make of this?

We're amatuers. Better wait on the pro's, like Chrissy Matthews to telll us what this means.

[roses of sharon]

LOL, another leftwing attempt to defend Saddam and Sons.

Same ol, same ol.

Saddam was innocent, he was contained forever and indefinitely, he was just an innocent bystander, he hated terrorism and would never, ever, fund, train, or support those bad guys, he was a gentle tyrant who just wanted the best for his people, he was picked on mercilessly by the US, he tried soooooo hard to comply with his surrender agreement, but the dog ate his homework!

Oh, and he hates Bush, so he's an alright guy.

[SevenMinusOne]

WMD were the main justification for President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq three years ago, but no such weapons have been found.

Here is what to make of all this - A complete false-premise the MSM / DEM's will not stop using......NOR will the GOP/RNC stand up and fight against.

The WMD equation was merely one of more then a dozen reasons we moved on Iraq (to remove Saddam).

[DakotaRed]

Isn't it more than just a little suspect that this "undisclosed report" comes to light right after the release of the Saddam tapes and documents?

At the time, would his word have been sufficient to counter the intelligence of nearly the entire world, given that he was addressing the UN General Assembly claiming Bush was lying and starting the war for oil?

Still, comparing what Saddam said on the tapes and what this "source" said back then, it appears they do not match. Maybe this "source" knew more than Saddam did himself?

[groanup]

What are we to make of this?

I say we invade Iraq and make that SOB prove that there are no WMD's.

[Fruitbat]

What are we to make of this?

Why the hell has this been released? Isn't this still classified?

[Royal Wulff]

The agency had been hoping for a public relations coup, the network said.

It sounds like utter BS. Why would the agency encourage a key source to defect. It makes no sense, either in an institutional sense nor in the selfish motivations of the CIA bureaucrats running this agent.

If the guy had defected, it would not have been the CIA that would get the credit.