"Bush Squandered World Good Will after 9-11"
eric davis
04!!!!
eric.
CRL
eri...@hotmail.com wrote on 9/23/02 6:12 PM:
> Is this opinion more American Bashing? Hardly. Al Gore said it. Gore, for
> 04!!!!
>
> eric.
>
>
>
Yes this is as you say "American Bashing". Algore is the American doing the
bashing.
If you meant America Bashing Alogre is capable of it and at best his remarks
are political. gore will be shown the door in 04
taluga
matter no scumbag with a legal degree? everyone hates and distrusts lawyers,
yet we keep ending up with a choice of douchebags. absolutely anyone would
be better, with the exception of course, of anyone shilling "god".
"CRL" <ch...@littig.com> wrote in message
news:B9B53CC5.1D6C%ch...@littig.com...
eric davis
crock! You Bushophiles don't give a shize about true democracy, or freedom
of speech. After all, that imbecile was appointed President, not elected.
eric.
"CRL" <ch...@littig.com> wrote in message
news:B9B53CC5.1D6C%ch...@littig.com...
no
eric davis wrote in message ...
>Is this opinion more American Bashing? Hardly. Al Gore said it. Gore,
for
>04!!!!
Gore ruined his chances for '04. He should have taken a middle road. Laura
Ingraham made a fool out of him on her radio show.
The old conditions could easily be ineffective, for the weapons inspection
team. Advance warning must be given; it's a farce. Gore should at least have
granted that a new resolution should be considered. The Russians and French
may consider it.
>eric.
no
on the topic. He is in a position of responsibility in the Democratic Party,
and should have waited for some word from Daschle. I didn't know Gore was
with the radical Left with Susan Sarandon, Ed Asner, and Angela Davis. I'm
embarrassed for him.
.............
eric davis wrote in message ...
Bnzmn600
>Ingraham made a fool out of him on her radio show.
>
>
No he didn't, his speech got a lot of positive attention, just because you
think so doesn't mean others persived it the same way...obviously not.
eric davis
in it. Gore's best chance of winning in 04, is if the current moronic
president decides to run again. In which case, Gore will win in 04, and the
world will be restored to some sanity.
eric.
"no" <rann...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mHRj9.11333$k27.9...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
no
eric davis wrote in message ...
In SF. The right wing talk shows tore his speech apart. Bush has a 70%
approval rating where it counts, the US public.
>and had a lot of wisdom
>in it. Gore's best chance of winning in 04, is if the current moronic
>president decides to run again. In which case, Gore will win in 04, and
the
>world will be restored to some sanity.
You're a Canadian. I consult with the DNC. I say Gore is damaged goods.
Clinton did nothing for 8 years.
The talk show hosts went to great lengths to show that Bush is a man of
action as opposed to Gore. And Gore didn't respect the rule of law much
during his tenure. I'm not a Bush fan. But Gore should have waited for
Blair's evidence first. Now he's seen as a radical. As for international
law, Clinton didn't agree with resolutions against Israel, the same with
Bush.
no
Bnzmn600 wrote in message <20020924005546...@mb-fb.aol.com>...
>>Gore ruined his chances for '04. He should have taken a middle road. Laura
>>Ingraham made a fool out of him on her radio show.
>>
>>
>
>No he didn't, his speech got a lot of positive attention
He should have waited for Blair's evidence. The radio talk show hosts had a
funfest showing Clinton's follies with Saddam and Osama bin Laden.
................
TonyZ2001
wrote:
>Is this opinion more American Bashing? >Hardly. Al Gore said it.
Yes it is American bashing, Gore doesn't care about America, he cares about
getting Gore elected.
Tony
TonyZ2001
wrote:
>Gore went beyond what the vast majority of Democratic Congresspersons said
>on the topic. He is in a position of responsibility in the Democratic Party,
>and should have waited for some word from Daschle. I didn't know Gore was
>with the radical Left with Susan >Sarandon, Ed Asner, and Angela Davis. >I'm
embarrassed for him.
You didn't know that Gore was a far left wing wacko? Then you haven't been
paying attention.
Glad you finally opened your eyes though.
Tony
TonyZ2001
wrote:
>His speech was quite well received by >most people,
LOL!!!!!!!!
Who, you and your small group of Saddam supporters?
Tony
TonyZ2001
wrote:
>
>Gore ruined his chances for '04. He should have taken a middle road. Laura
>Ingraham made a fool out of him on her radio show.
>
>The old conditions could easily be ineffective, for the weapons inspection
>team. Advance warning must be given; it's a farce. Gore should at least have
>granted that a new resolution should be considered. The Russians and French
>may consider it.
Yep, Gore looked and sounded like a robot and ruined whatever chance he had at
a comeback.
Tony
TonyZ2001
wrote:
>No he didn't, his speech got a lot of positive attention, just because you
>think so doesn't mean others persived it >the same way...obviously not.
LOL!!!
From who Moron, from who?
Tony
no
I checked, and no prominent Democratic Congressman supported Gore's speech.
Jimmy Carter repeated similar sentiments though. But he is not voting on the
Congressional resolution. One of the most left wing Democrats, Sen. Carl
Levin, stated that *only* Iraq should be targeted with the resolution which
might be voted on next week. Gore spoke for himself, and went out on a limb,
using terms that were inappropriate for now.
The evidence from Blair though was not very impressive, even to his own
Parliament. Many people were expecting more. I think Bush must produce more
evidence in building his case for an attack on Saddam, because of the
possible costs.
I think a lot of Americans are listening to right wing talk show hosts, on
the topic of Iraq. They are experts on spin. It would be difficult to defeat
their current rhetoric.
Flyfish
news:JdNj9.3885$ls3.4...@news20.bellglobal.com:
> Is this opinion more American Bashing? Hardly. Al Gore said it.
> Gore, for 04!!!!
>
> eric.
Ha ha, of course it’s Bush bashing. Bush squandered world “good” will
because he didn’t stop to kiss their asses and do nothing like his, so
“successful” predicessor.
Flyfish
--
"The road to tyranny, we must never forget, begins with the destruction of
the truth."
-- President Bill Clinton [he ought to know].(October 15, 1995, University
of Connecticut)
"Over 17,000 verified scientists in the U.S. have signed a petition saying
that there is insufficient evidence of global warming. . . ."
-- From "Kofi Annan Issues UN Millennium Summit Report," Discerning the
Times, April 2000, page 2.
"Data from earth satellites in use since 1979 do not show any [global]
warming. . . During the period 1940 until 1975, the climate actually
cooled. There was real fear that we were entering another ice age. . . .
The climate did warm over the last 100 years and that's why icebergs are
breaking off. . . But the warming took place between 1880 and 1940 [prior
to most carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases produced by man] so that it is
a bit warmer now than it was 100 years ago."
-- From "Hot Topics, Cold Truth," by Dr. S. Fred Singer, The New American,
January 31, 2000
eric davis
eric.
"TonyZ2001" <tony...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020924071133...@mb-fr.aol.com...
Bnzmn600
>the topic of Iraq. They are experts on spin.
And who would that be please ?, name the hosts you're talking about and explain
their spin please.
> Gore spoke for himself, and went out on a limb,
>using terms that were inappropriate for now.
inappropiate ?, whats not appropiate about him saying that we should finish
first things first before starting a new situation?.
Bnzmn600
Ok, Blair is done with his speech, now would you please give me the NEW
evidence Blair presented today?
Bnzmn600
>
>Who, you and your small group of Saddam supporters?
>
>Tony
>
>
>
Pantyboy, you fool, what would you have said if GWB right after 911-01 said
that Bin Laden and his al queda did but it, but first we have to go into Iraq
and oust saddam!!!.
00:00:00Hg
<bnzm...@aol.com> wrote:
Gore joins you as a fucking idiot.
00:00:00Hg
<rann...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I think a lot of Americans are listening to right wing talk show hosts,
> on the topic of Iraq. They are experts on spin. It would be difficult to
> defeat their current rhetoric.
Because the truth needs no spin, Bush will win.
no
Bnzmn600 wrote in message <20020924111904...@mb-fn.aol.com>...
>>He should have waited for Blair's evidence.
>
>Ok, Blair is done with his speech, now would you please give me the NEW
>evidence Blair presented today?
It was well-received by the American public. That's what's important. 11
years Saddam has been effective in keeping his wmd program alive. Current
intelligence says Saddam can use wmd's within 45 minutes notice. Also Saddam
has 20 known Scuds which he should not be allowed to have which are medium
range missiles capable of traveling 400+ miles; plus he has mobile
bioweapons labs.
The point is someone other than American White House reps is doing the
talking.
no
Bnzmn600 wrote in message <20020924111638...@mb-fn.aol.com>...
>>I think a lot of Americans are listening to right wing talk show hosts, on
>>the topic of Iraq. They are experts on spin.
>
>And who would that be please ?, name the hosts you're talking about and
explain
>their spin please.
Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh. Check their websites for their savaging of
Gore's speech which they will concentrate on for a week at least. I don't
want to concentrate on their spin. The thought of a Republican Senate and
House, is crappy.
...............
00:00:00Hg
<rann...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh. Check their websites for their
> savaging of Gore's speech which they will concentrate on for a week at
> least. I don't want to concentrate on their spin. The thought of a
> Republican Senate and House, is crappy.
>
Better get used to the idea.
Bnzmn600
>talking.
I see, so No new evidence.
no
Bnzmn600 wrote in message <20020924231002...@mb-ce.aol.com>...
>>The point is someone other than American White House reps is doing the
>>talking.
>
>I see, so No new evidence.
I didn't know the Iraqis were 45 minutes away from using wmd's. I didn't
know Iraq has 20 Scuds capable of traveling 400 miles (against agreement).
That I learned today. The question is: do you trust Blair's intelligence
sources, or do you need to touch the missiles with Saddam riding the
missiles 400 miles and Al-Jazeera newsmen standing at take off and landing,
before you believe Blair's report.
Bnzmn600
>sources, or do you need to touch the missiles with Saddam riding the
>missiles 400 miles and Al-Jazeera newsmen standing at take off and landing,
>before you believe Blair's report.
>
>
was than I offer my appology.
Having those weapons does not prove imminant threat by Iraq, after all Israel
has much more.
If there was anything that BB (bush and blair) know, that the rest of the world
does not know (yet) than that evidence would have discussed by now.
Obviously I wasn't the only one expecting hard evidence from Bush when he
addressed the UN, and today from Blair when he addressed the house.
Seems to me blair added a little spin to the already known claims of the bush
administration.
I don't know what gives, but I don't have a good feeling about any of this,
maybe it's the german in me, actually it is, I just don't take words for
granted, the claims don't seem to be bothering the rest of the world, and maybe
this is a personal issue for gwb, and I say it again, maybe there are threats
specificly to the united states.
But to say that saddam is threat to the entire world all based on no hard
evidence is mind bending.
Let along all the propaganda about, how can anybody expect saddam to sit there
and wait to be attacked by the US, it's obvious to him.
I can't see saddam sitting there not doing anything about it, if saddam strikes
out at anybody now that the US proclaimed it would invade regardless of the UN
as early as December maybe march, than the good ole US is to blame.
Flyfish
news:UG6k9.1261$u56....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
> Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh. Check their websites for their
> savaging of Gore's speech which they will concentrate on for a week at
> least. I don't want to concentrate on their spin. The thought of a
> Republican Senate and House, is crappy.
Had Gore not been so blatently dishonest in his speech it might have made a
difference. Gore however, wasn't speaking from conviction, he's
differentiating himself from Daschle and the other potential Democratic
candidates for 2004 and in his desperation, continues to bend the truth to
suit his goals.
Flyfish
> Sorry, Gore told it straight as has Scott Ritter. The rest of the
> world sees that the real liars are the Bush-Cheney Chicken hawks, and
> vicious blood thirsty vermin, like Limbaugh, as do many Americans.
>
> Limbaugh and his Stooges represent the very worst of America.
>
> Right now you have a President, who shamefully is politicizing the
> war, so to be critical of the war-talk, is to be unAmerican.
>
> eric.
No Gore lied and/or streached the truth. For example his claim that Bush
has been unable to get UN approval for any action against Iraq is a
definate streach, given that the Resolution is still being drafted and no
vote has been taken. It's a lie, intended to make Bush look bad. The
number of mistruths and outright lies is not a new record for Gore, but
it's certainly up there.
I find Limbaugh to be funny, in his limited bigoted way, but I rarely
listen to him because it's often a streach to believe what he says. I
don't find Limbaugh any more biased or dangerous than Phil Donahue or
Noah the chump Chomsky, and he's certainly alot more honest about it.
Gore is posturing, his own vice presidential running mate denouced his
speech for the mistruth it was. Gore still desperately wants to be
president, all the worse for the US.
eric davis
sees that the real liars are the Bush-Cheney Chicken hawks, and vicious
blood thirsty vermin, like Limbaugh, as do many Americans.
Limbaugh and his Stooges represent the very worst of America.
Right now you have a President, who shamefully is politicizing the war, so
to be critical of the war-talk, is to be unAmerican.
eric.
"Flyfish" <Fly...@not-here.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92944F2A5BFDC...@130.133.1.4...
eric davis
facts. It is quite clear that the whole world is against unilateral action,
and the world, save possibly Britain is just not going to accept a
resolution to attack Iraq. That's not lying. For you to say otherwise is
twisting Gore's words to make him look bad. Similar tactics against Ritter,
and all who speak against the war talk is typical Bush-America propaganda.
And let's not forget that it was the Bush administration that wanted to set
up the department of Misinformation, ie lies. That department certainly
does exist, seeing that Bush will do anything to manipulate the world to go
to war. It might work in America, in the short term, but its' not working
even in the short term, worldwide.
Gore in 04.
eric.
"Flyfish" <Fly...@not-here.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92945628DB744...@130.133.1.4...
Flyfish
> We're never going to agree here, that's for certain. Gore simply
> stated the facts. It is quite clear that the whole world is against
> unilateral action, and the world, save possibly Britain is just not
> going to accept a resolution to attack Iraq. That's not lying. For
> you to say otherwise is twisting Gore's words to make him look bad.
> Similar tactics against Ritter, and all who speak against the war talk
> is typical Bush-America propaganda. And let's not forget that it was
> the Bush administration that wanted to set up the department of
> Misinformation, ie lies. That department certainly does exist, seeing
> that Bush will do anything to manipulate the world to go to war. It
> might work in America, in the short term, but its' not working even in
> the short term, worldwide.
>
> Gore in 04.
> eric.
True if you're willing to believe Gore's mistruths then there can be no
agreement. Gore distorted the truth, and went against his own public
record. Many of his Democratic compatriots are disclaiming his speech.
It's a bunch of policital BS. There appears to be an emerging consensus
that he committed political suicide, more power to him.
Ritter on the other hand, has a similar record to Gore. In 1998 he quit
UNSCOM because they were failing to disarm Iraq and wanted to go public
with his feelings that UNSCOM inspections were a joke, and destined to
fail. Ritter has now, for whatever reason, be it $400K in film money, or
just plain annoyance at the bullshit of the Clinton white house,
completely reversed his previous position on Iraqui compliance. In the
final analysis he has no credibility since he has yet to explain how, by
not being in Iraq for 4 years, he now can be certain that Iraq is
disarmed.
00:00:00Hg
<eri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Gore simply stated the
> facts.
Nope. Gore cut his own throat with doublespeak.
His own party is now dumping his ass faster than
if he'd called Jessie Jackson a nigger.
WH
"no" <rann...@earthlink.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:8F6k9.1256$u56....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
But it is their "Yes man" in Europe and holds as much weight as it would
have if it was the American White House reps who said it!
WH
no
Bnzmn600 wrote in message <20020925003710...@mb-ce.aol.com>...
Well first Blair is confirming what most people already knew, that Saddam
has wmd capabilities, has been seeking material for making nuke bombs, and
has Scud missiles for delivering them to parts of Europe, and to Israel, and
the Arab nations.
So I agree with most of what you stated. And there was no shocking
revelation from Blair.
The only thing that would make Iraq worthy of an attack (in my opinion)
would be clear evidence of Iraqi ties to known terrorist groups which have
struck the US severely; ie., the al Qaeda. So far there have been rumors and
squelched rumors. The latest is a revival of rumors that the NATO ministers
are being presented with evidence of ties between al Qaeda and Iraq.
Rumsfeld won't spell it out though. Here's the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/25/us.iraq.alqaeda/index.html
>Let along all the propaganda about, how can anybody expect saddam to sit
there
>and wait to be attacked by the US, it's obvious to him.
>I can't see saddam sitting there not doing anything about it, if saddam
strikes
>out at anybody now that the US proclaimed it would invade regardless of the
UN
>as early as December maybe march, than the good ole US is to blame.
The White House should not be blamed for announcing it's intentions. If
Saddam strikes, he will be dealt with. But if Bush struck without informing
the world why, through formal routes, he would be condemned for that also.
The fact that the formal avenue takes months, or perhaps years, is not
Bush's fault.
no
WH wrote in message ...
Are you implying that Blair is a scoundrel, and a puppet of the WH? ;)
Under that boyish-look charm, is an immature gullible boy?
There are some nations on the verge of backing the US, if they see the right
evidence, and if they see the right things in the Security Council. Spain,
Italy, and Australia (governments) would be among them.
>WH
Bnzmn600
>Saddam strikes, he will be dealt with. But if Bush struck without informing
>the world why, through formal routes, he would be condemned for that also.
>The fact that the formal avenue takes months, or perhaps years, is not
>Bush's fault.
>
Look at it this way, if Iraq and the US were side by side, the formal avenues
would come too late, both countries would strike at each other.
However the situation is, that saddam can't lunch a so called "pre emptive
strike" against the US, cause he's got nothing to deliver it with this far, and
you're not gonna convince me :-) that all this US war pressure is to safe the
countries saddams weaponary could reach, therefore I can't be convinced that
the so called "immidiate threat" is as severe as the bush administration is
trying to sell it to us.
>But if Bush struck without informing
>the world why, through formal routes, he would be condemned for that also.
No, absolutly no problem, he's done that, he doesn't have the approval from the
UN and the house, but nobody would condem him now if he lunched an attack right
now, because, once in Iraq, we should have solid rock evidence delivered world
wide in the news, and Bush would become an overnight hero for following his
gutt feeling without aproval.
But since that isn't the case bush must wait, but it seems to me that his war
plans can't wait due to the upcoming elections, after the elections and with no
war, you will most certainly not hear "Iraq" in the news anymore on a daily
bases.
However, I'm certain, that we're at, or in the middle of an all out war by no
later than march 2003.
All this war talk however, could make saddam a little tense, and if he has bio,
and chemical weapons, or any weapons of mass destruction for that matter, which
I'm not disputing, then I see dark days ahead for the US's beloved ally
....Israel.
If put myself in saddam shoes, say a big bully teenager and his little brother
teasing me/ threatening me to beat me up from behind a wire fence, but his
little brother is on my side of the fence...well if I see no way out, his
little brother gets it.
no
Bnzmn600 wrote in message <20020925204021...@mb-fw.aol.com>...
>>The White House should not be blamed for announcing it's intentions. If
>>Saddam strikes, he will be dealt with. But if Bush struck without
informing
>>the world why, through formal routes, he would be condemned for that also.
>>The fact that the formal avenue takes months, or perhaps years, is not
>>Bush's fault.
>>
>
>Look at it this way, if Iraq and the US were side by side, the formal
avenues
>would come too late, both countries would strike at each other.
>However the situation is, that saddam can't lunch a so called "pre emptive
>strike" against the US, cause he's got nothing to deliver it with this far,
and
>you're not gonna convince me :-) that all this US war pressure is to safe
the
>countries saddams weaponary could reach, therefore I can't be convinced
that
>the so called "immidiate threat" is as severe as the bush administration is
>trying to sell it to us.
Unless Saddam has ties with terrorist groups. Even some mad Russian
scientist could give terrorists viruses. The US has smallpox vaccines ready,
but not against mutant and resistent strains. So Saddam might indeed have a
way of striking the US, though it hasn't been proven. I'm waiting for proof
of Atta's links to Saddam, and other such links.
I need to see more evidence like the following:
http://209.50.252.70/p_en/articles/archives/00000069.htm
concerning an article at:
http://www.praguepost.com/P02/2002/20605/news1a.php
>>But if Bush struck without informing
>>the world why, through formal routes, he would be condemned for that also.
>
>No, absolutly no problem, he's done that, he doesn't have the approval from
the
>UN and the house, but nobody would condem him now if he lunched an attack
right
>now, because, once in Iraq, we should have solid rock evidence delivered
world
>wide in the news, and Bush would become an overnight hero for following his
>gutt feeling without aproval.
Chris would demand gutting and filleting Bush.
>But since that isn't the case bush must wait, but it seems to me that his
war
>plans can't wait due to the upcoming elections
The elections play a role.
>, after the elections and with no
>war, you will most certainly not hear "Iraq" in the news anymore on a daily
>bases.
>However, I'm certain, that we're at, or in the middle of an all out war by
no
>later than march 2003.
>All this war talk however, could make saddam a little tense, and if he has
bio,
>and chemical weapons, or any weapons of mass destruction for that matter,
which
>I'm not disputing, then I see dark days ahead for the US's beloved ally
>....Israel.
Israel and the US are watching Iraqi missiles and strange movements closely.
Israel announced they would strike with wmds, if Iraq strikes Israel with
wmds. Plus Israel has advanced Arrow anti-missile missiles. Saddam knows
Israel would obliterate Baghdad if he launched chem or bio weapons against
Israeli cities. Real deterrence often works to deter.
.............
TonyZ2001
wrote:
>I didn't know the Iraqis were 45 minutes away from using wmd's. I didn't
>know Iraq has 20 Scuds capable of >traveling 400 miles (against agreement).
I've been telling and showing you these things for years Dee, you choose to
close your eyes.
Tony
TonyZ2001
wrote:
>I'm not trying to dispute that saddam has such weapons, if it sounded like I
>was than I offer my appology.
>Having those weapons does not prove >imminant threat by Iraq,
LOL!!!
So you trust a man with a history of using WMD and a history of invading and
attacking his neighbors not to do so again?
Tony
TonyZ2001
>Date: 9/25/2002 12:49 PM Eastern
wrote:
>But it is their "Yes man" in Europe and holds as much weight as it would
>have if it was the American White House >reps who said it!
In other words there is nothing that can be said nor shown to Chris that will
change his mind.
He is what you call a Rock Head.
Tony
Bnzmn600
>attacking his neighbors not to do so again?
>
>Tony
Trust him no less than all the other thugs, he hasn't done anything to me.
Bnzmn600
>
>So you trust a man with a history of using WMD and a history of invading and
>attacking
Hiroshima, Nagasaki Tonyboy
Flyfish
news:20020926112826...@mb-ml.aol.com:
Well lets see Truman is dead now right? I guess that "threat" is gone isn't
it? Or are you jealous that Hilter's nuke program got bombed into the stone
age and the US was first? I imagine had the US not sent all those B17's on
daylight raids, (despite not having much impact on the war, everyone knows
the Russians, Brits and the French really won the European war, it says so
in the latest version of revisionist history 101) the first nuke would have
been German and dropped on London no doubt. You must be deeply
disappointed.
eric davis
should trust the one who supplied him with these weapons.
eric.
"TonyZ2001" <tony...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020926084710...@mb-fk.aol.com...
no
objectivity would have guessed Saddam has at least chemical weapons, and
bioweapons.
....................
TonyZ2001 wrote in message <20020926084605...@mb-fk.aol.com>...
Bnzmn600
>disappointed.
>
>Flyfish
>
Flyfish, you know me better than that.
I know you dislike my constant US bashing, but you know I don't support any
nuking, and you know I'm not a german patriot just because I'm german.
I would bash germany just as much as I do the US right now if the table were
turned.
TonyZ2001
wrote:
>TonyZ2001 wrote in message <20020926084605...@mb-fk.aol.com>...
>>>"no" rann...@earthlink.net
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I didn't know the Iraqis were 45 minutes away from using wmd's. I didn't
>>>know Iraq has 20 Scuds capable of >traveling 400 miles (against
>agreement).
>>
>>I've been telling and showing you these things for years Dee, you choose to
>>close your eyes.
>>Tony
>Huh? I knew they had wmd's and Scuds, but not the exact numbers. Anyone with
>objectivity would have guessed Saddam has at least chemical weapons, and
>bioweapons.
But if you had listened over the years you would have known that Iraq had many
missiles that could reach Israel and beyond.
BTW, many people here still deny that Saddam has any WMD, you can see them post
everyday.
Tony