> 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.

I'm not waiting for an answer.
Bush believes that Islam is out to "conquer civilisation".

Didn't you hear him after 911 going on about a "crusade"?
Didn't you hear him tell that crowd of "elite" supporters at the dinner that
they were his "base".
His own Al Qaida.
He believes he is a Christian with a divine mission.
He believes that the Good Lord brought him back from the cliff-edge of
alcoholism to do great things.

I believe he is a pea-brained fundmentalist puppet. Ask Ariel Sharon.

Go to the Halliburton web site and click on the link where its says Investor
Relations.
Keep clicking till you come to the share price, then choose to display the 3
year graph.
Last time I checked the share price had risen from around $15 per share to
$32.

Still waiting for answers ?

Mosalie.





"Michael Baier" <[log in to unmask]> a écrit dans le message de
news:76SdnQ8D3es7z_ncRVn-qg@fidnet.com...
> >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 *
>

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