On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 15:36:58 -0400, Brice Yokem <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>I think the press has an agenda.  I am less and less inclined to
>agree with anything published.  Previously, I have been of the opinion
>that the mainstream press simply used selective reporting to further
>it's agenda, but after Rathergate, it looks like they cannot be trusted
>to report only the truth that suits them, but now have to invent things.

Brice,

what reason would the US (not UN but the US) chief weapons inspector have
not to tell the truth?
The complete report will be made public if it not already is.
This guy is the second inspector that the Bush adminstration appointed and
he came to the same conclusion as the first.
The real question is: When so many questioned the intelligence, why was
Bush so eager to invade instead of double/tripple-checking his intel?
Almost everybody is waiting for this answer.
All warnings were ignored. People even Generals got fired/retired whenever
they didn't agree or questioned.
So, whats the real reason for the invasion?
Oil, the threat against Bush senior, ignorance or .....?

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Iraq had no active chemical, biological or nuclear
programs at the time of the US-led invasion in 2003 having given up its
weapons of mass destruction in 1991, the chief US weapons inspector
concluded in a report.

Charles Duelfer, head of the US Iraq Survey Group, found that Iraq's
nuclear capability, far from being reconstituted as the United States had
insisted before the war, was "decaying rather than being preserved" and
would have taken years to rebuild, an official familiar with the report
said.

The few chemical munitions found were made before 1991, and were decaying.
He said it would have taken one to two years to re-establish chemical
warfare production and "months" to resume production of biological agents.

The nuclear program was was setback by "years," he said.

"They would have had to do a lot. It's a big infrastructure they would have
had to recreate. Certainly not starting from scratch, not starting from
scrath. They had a lot of the talent," he said.

Although Saddam tried to keep teams of nuclear scientists together, the
official said, "He was further away in 2003 than he was in 1991."

"So the nuclear program was decaying rather than being preserved," he said

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *