From: "Gary Britt" 


"Geo."  wrote in message news:415eae5c{at}w3.nls.net...
> "Monte Davis"  wrote in message
> news:4nerl05gsn5qclsk22vnc68vd4macue2f3{at}4ax.com...
>
> > Care to address my point? That is, give me *your* explanation why
> > George W. Bush was so much less successful in putting together a
> > coalition against Saddam Hussein in  2002-2003 than his father had
> > been in 1991-1992.
>
> That's a really simple answer, it's because other countries have their own
> intelligence sources and they were not seeing any convincing evidence of
WMD.
> But that's understandable, their leaders have an advantage over bush, they
> understand thought and logic and proof as opposed to being religious
nutters
> from a dildoless state..
>
> Geo.
>
>

The only thing true or merely accurate in what you wrote above is that your
answer was simple.  The other countries and the UN all believed Saddam had
and would use WMD.  Gen Tommy Franks recounts this quite accurately in his
recent book.  He fully believed and expected his troops would encounter WMD
attacks as they liberated Iraq.  Every leader in the middle east told him
to expect this to happen.  That Saddam had the weapons and would use them. 
The French, British, Italians, etc. all believed the same.  Kerry believed
it as well, but I'll give you that Kerry saying he believes something can't
be relied upon.

Gary

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