"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
|
| I can't see much of a difference for the world with Saddam missing (he
| isn't, really, by the way). I am now absolutely certain - as most news
| watchers - that Saddam didn't pose nearly the threat that some were led
| to believe. There are no WMD, period.

I take it we've all seen the list of quotes from the Deomcrats that stated
EXPLICITLY that Saddam had them and what a danger they were....right up
until GWB took out after them.

Saddam's own military commanders all believed that Saddam had WMD. They
have
told investigators that they still believe it. Each of them thought the
WMDs
were under the command of some other commander. Maybe Saddam was bluffing,
but it turns out to have been a very dangerous bluff. It still does not
mean
that the US is 'losing' the war.

And defectors have been saying it for several years (those who'd worked in
the development programs).

Saddam had nearly two years or more to ditch the stuff and many willing
accomplices toward that end.

You know, it is funny. Here we have guys like you saying that CIA was too
alarmist about WMD in Iraq, but not alarmist enough about 9/11. You can't
have it both ways. These Senate investigations with their attendant
political grandstanding will end up doing as much or more damage to the
intelligence community as the Church hearings did a generation ago. We
will
be left deaf, dumb, and blind, and have people like you to thank for it.

--
"Democrats who complained that Bush was too slow to act on
doubtful intelligence re 9/11 now profess to be horrified that he
was too quick to act on doubtful intelligence re Iraq. This is not
a serious party." - Mark Steyn: The Spectator