Blair's spokesman called yesterday for patience to allow the US/British to find evidence of weapons 'programs'. The newscaster gave him a hard time and brought up the point that the word 'programs' wasn't mentioned before the war.
If they're going to use weapons 'programs' as evidence then a few files and plans for WMD will be sufficient for them to say 'There you are...we found evidence of Saddams WMD programs...we were right all along.'
thats not the point......of course theres always still time. but if they planted evidence now, what would that prove? it would prove that they DIDNT know there werent weapons there to begin with. and isnt that what everyone has been contending...that they flat out lied? if they knew full well there were no weapons in iraq, and there were plans to plant evidence after the war, it wouldve been done WAY before now.
Only an idiot would try to plant evidence because it is no doubt that he would be caught doing it.
well, youll have to argue with the conspiracy theorists on that one. they would have us believe that bush was behind 9/11, so if thats true, he could no doubt plant a small specimen of anthrax. (obviously i dont buy into all the conspiracy garbage.)
ive been told by many posters on here that planting evidence in iraq would be a snap for the u.s......honestly, i dont know how hard it would be, but i would guess that if the quantity was small enough, and the people "in the know" were few enough, it wouldnt be that difficult to contain the secret.
I, for one, have never thought that Bush is an idiot.
well, youre one of the few bush opposers that dont then.
I was making to point that the evidence that is needed to 'prove' Blair/Bush right doesn't now have to be drums full of anthrax.
They have changed the wording to say WMD 'programs'. This evidence can now come in the form of computor disks, dossiers and interviews with scientists.
I was very surprised when No WMD were found. Not that I thought that there were any there, but I thought that they would have found them, no matter what.
It is not beyond them to plant evidence, they've done it before and they'll do it again.
Blair is coming under increasing pressure. He is even being shouted at in Parliament by the opposition leader for trying to tar him with the same brush. His face was a picture, totally bewildered that he was being called a lier in front of the whole parliament, and then the whole house cheering....poor Tony.
They have changed the wording to say WMD 'programs'.
wasnt that just one sentence from blair, or has this come from both sides now (you are saying "they")? i havent heard that from bush or rumsfeld, but maybe i missed it. personally, i think it was just a statement that is being blown way out of proportion.
This evidence can now come in the form of computor disks, dossiers and interviews with scientists.
this doesnt support your opinion that they could still plant evidence.....this type of evidence has already been uncovered. "proof" of the fact that there were weapons "programs" has already been uncovered, many times over....why would they need to plant anything further? the only thing they could possibly need to plant at this point would be actual evidence of wmd, such as a sample of anthrax (that was my example).....and if this was done now, it would only prove that they didnt know there wouldnt be weapons found...otherwise the planting wouldve already taken place....dont you agree?
The evidence of WMD 'programs' could probably be found in every country of the world...that is not what we were told Saddam had. We were told he had the actual Weapons themselves.
Changing the language at this stage to say evidence of 'programs' is dis-honest at best. Rumsfeld has claimed that there was NO new evidence of WMD in Iraq before the war, just the perspective changed through the 'prism' of what happened on sept 11th...again totally changing what they said before the war, that there was a clear and present danger to the security of the US and Britain.
We were also told by Tony Blair in the commons that Saddam could launch an attack in just 45 minutes. That was a total and blatant LIE.
you keep skipping over my points and reaffirming points that are out of context.
The evidence of WMD 'programs' could probably be found in every country of the world...that is not what we were told Saddam had. We were told he had the actual Weapons themselves.
exactly, and you said:
There is still time to plant evidence.
so, if what we are trying to prove is that he had actual weapons themselves (as i said, ive yet to hear bush say that we are merely looking for "programs", and i really thing that statement by blair is being blown out of proportion), then what exactly would we need to plant? you said there is still time to plant evidence......what type of evidence are you talking about?
just the perspective changed through the 'prism' of what happened on sept 11th...again totally changing what they said before the war, that there was a clear and present danger to the security of the US and Britain.
thats not "changing" what was said......in fact it makes perfect sense. to me, (someone who doesnt buy into the "bush planned 9/11" theory, mind you), september 11th proved that there was more of a clear and present danger than previously believed. how is this contradictory?
They have changed the evidence needed from actual weapons to evidence of 'programs'.
But, I still think that if they feel the only way out of the mess they have gotten themselves in is to un-cover actual weapons, then they will, by any means.
How large a cache of weapons will be needed to provide this much needed proof? Not much. Maybe a few rockets of VX gas would be enough, or maybe a couple of barrels of any banned chemical. It doesn't matter about the size of the haul, as long as some are found, and I really think they will find some soon. And yes I do think they are capable of planting it....they've shown a total disregard for the rules so far, what makes you think that they wouldn't?
They have changed the evidence needed from actual weapons to evidence of 'programs'.
and AGAIN, who is "they"? has bush said this? rumsfeld?
It doesn't matter about the size of the haul, as long as some are found, and I really think they will find some soon.
okay, so weve established that you think they will still plant actual weapons....so now we can go back to my original point. if they plant weaopns NOW, it will prove that they DIDNT know there werent any there; that they in fact thought they WOULD find weapons in iraq....otherwise, they wouldve made SPECIFIC plans to plant weapons LONG AGO in order to avoid all this controversy. or maybe they didnt forsee anyone having a problem with no weapons being found? come now, if they knew there werent any weapons there, and they planned to plant them....why wait until now? why not plant them immediately after the war? please show me your logic.....im very interested to hear it.
And yes I do think they are capable of planting it...
read back through my posts to robyn, and youll see that i have already agreed with you on this point.
