From: "Mark" 


"Geo."  wrote in message
news:416886d9$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:41653a94{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>> As I've been saying all along, the presence, or not, of WMD is hardly the
>> point nor the justification for the removal of Saddam.
>
> It is however the point for the justification for the removal of Bush.

I'm afraid I simply don't see that logic. But if you can read the below
pieces and the report itself following those and still come to that
conclusion - then run and vote Kerry early and often. It's not something
that I feel safe doing based on the emptiness of his "plans" and
his obvious attitude of diplomacy and appeasement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/09/opinion/9brooks.html
With sanctions weakening and money flowing, he rebuilt his strength. He
contacted W.M.D. scientists in Russia, Belarus, Bulgaria and elsewhere to
enhance his technical knowledge base. He increased the funds for his
nuclear scientists. He increased his military-industrial-complex's budget
40-fold between 1996 and 2002. He increased the number of technical
research projects to 3,200 from 40. As Duelfer reports, "Prohibited
goods and weapons were being shipped into Iraq with virtually no
problem."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_041008.htm
"U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons" read the headline on the
October 7 Washington Post. "Report on Iraq Contradicts Bush
Administration Claims" read the subhead. But these headlines conceal
the real news in the report of Iraq Survey Group head Charles Duelfer. For
the report makes it plain that George W. Bush had good reason to go to war
in Iraq and end the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD
(Weapons of Mass Destruction):
http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/iraq/cia93004wmdrpt.html

Key Findings: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/dciwmd93004kf.pdf

Volume 1: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/dciwmd93004rpt-1.pdf

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5