George Oilwell

Remember people, september is the month for releasing 'new products'.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/r...20030809.shtml
http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=2728

Ion

Exactly:
The questions will arise then, as:

1.) how good the information on WMDs is, given Bush's pattern?

2.) if the information is good for once, was the information known in January 2003 and before, in order to justify the war in February 2003?

Feather

The amusing thing is when Bush and is repugnant friends accuse Democrats of politicizing the war.

It's amusing because waiting to release the information until very close to the next election is nothing more than politics.

Armchair dissident

What's the betting that the "findings" will be announced shortly before 11th September, so that should any discrepancy be found, reporting such discrepancies on or after 11th will be shouted down by god fearing American patriots

Meh. Wonder if they've bothered to tell President Blair yet? He could do with a helping hand...

Me? Cynical? Nah.

Happy Wonderer

Oh yeah, they have a lot of, um, dirt and dirt has anthrax in it, and look here in this supposed "high school biology lab" is this petri dish and some, er, growth medium, so they could grow anthrax, like, a really big freaking pile of anthrax, and then they could use this here missile to um, dump it on Israel, or maybe they could mail it to the US or something so this proves that they had WMDs and say, look at those terrorists coming back across the border from Iran. Would you look at that! Man, we gotta do something about that.

hw

Seriously, don't you have to possess some pretty advanced delivery systems for biological weapons to become weapons of mass destruction?

enfant terrible

No way. It has to be September of the election year.

baurelio

actially, no. that's why certain scientists are more affraid of chemical and biological weapons than nuclerar weapons being used in an attack on the us.

Armchair dissident

Nuclear weapons may require a more advanced delivery system than chemical or biological weapons, but that does not mean that chemical or biological weapons do not require an advanced delivery system.

Given this caveat, define which "certain scientists", and define the risks these scientist puts to each scenario. (That of biological, chemical or nuclear attack actually happening. That of each type of weapon actually being held by Iraq before the war, and the number of casualties that could actually be realised on the american or european continent. i.e. the pretext for war.).

(European continent included because I'm european, and I'm just as interested in why Blair went to war).

Ion

Any news about this, baurelio?
It's been three hours since your claim, and still no backing up...

Are you trying to pull Bush-type claims, in this forum?

Ultron

Advanced biological warfare delivery system:
1 letter
1 stamp
1 teaspoon Anthrax