if Iraq did in fact destroy all WMD, as he stated he did, and as we are now beginning to acknowledge, how do we "justify" [read: "make legal"] our recent BoyzWithToyz party?" He doesn't plan to - mention of it will be out of sight due to the "co-operation" of the media, and the rest of the world knew there was no justification for the attacks anyhow. In

at Sunday, April 27, 2003 11:30 PM, Tyler Durden <camera_lumina@hotmail.com> was seen to say: the mind of the majority of americans saddam was directly or indirectly responsible for the 9/11 attack (and Shrub really needed to win a war with *someone* over that; OBL is conspicious in his non-capturedness, but that is the problem that the Russians had with him back when the CIA were training and funding him, so that the US can't now find him (when he was trained by them and had all that experience dodging the russians) is little surprise). Note that the promised evidence (that was "utterly convincing" but "could not be released due to security considerations") has not only not surfaced, but probably never will (excepting the equally convenient find of "OBL's planning PC" by the Wall St Journal and their cracking of the EFS on there in three days - which may be possible if http://www.crackpassword.com/products/prs/otherms/efs/ isn't snakeoil, but that OBL trusted american export crypto seems unlikely given his traning)

ANd don't forget that whole loadacrap about their WMDs being destroyed "hours before the arrival of UN inspectors". Guess they took all that sarin gas and flushed it down the toilet, huh.... The intel was creatively edited at best. Given the way the US treats countries that *do* have WMD (such as N Korea) the very fact that the attack went ahead is probably all the evidence you need that the US didn't expect saddam to have a usable defensive force, never mind a WMD or three.

In the end I think it's clear that they really didn't feel they needed to work too hard to create credible lies. And it looks like they don't need to....