[Maceman]

CNN reported it is not a "smoking gun" in that it is not a nuclear weapon. But it sure is proof that Saddam had plans to keep his nuke program alive and able to be reactivated.

The report says it would have saved Iraq years and hundreds of millions of dollars with respect to resuming its nuke program.

[RAT Patrol]

Why have libs been allowed to define WMD down to being only about nukes anyway? We found chemical suits and antidotes and other things.

[July 4th]

CNN reported it is not a "smoking gun" in that it is not a nuclear weapon.

A U.S. official said it was not a smoking gun...that's all I was quoting.

But it sure is proof that Saddam had plans to keep his nuke program alive and able to be reactivated.

Absolutely!

[plain talk]

Because everyone's been dumned down by liberalism and lawyers run amuck, there will never be a smoking gun that Johnnie Cochran couldn't acquit Saddam of.

[ContentiousObjector]

Iraq had a weapons program, it's the worst kept secret in history.

It isn't being called a smoking gun, because it isn't. Remnants of the Iraqi weapons program are all over the place. And calling a gas centrifuge that you could find in any cow college and even some high schools a 'smoking gun' would look pretty damn stupid.

[DJ88]

CNN/NBC etc, blah blah blah all say that "this is not the smoking gun the President needed..etc." What exactly would be considered a "smoking gun"? The actual freaking MUSHROOM CLOUD?

Just a side note: as I was watching Andrea Mitchell, she nearly choked on the following sentence: "these plans date back to the early '90's...." but she couldn't quite get out "DURING THE CLINTON YEARS". But she did say that (ROFLMAO) Saddam Hussein HAD violated the UN Resolution by not turning this stuff over to Hans Blix".

Is she joking?

And since when is the NEWS MEDIA the ones who decided what is and what isn't the proverbial smoking gun. As an American citizen, I consider this a SMOKING GUN. And since I am helping to PAY for this war, I get to say that. ;-)