From: "Phil Payne" 

> Way over simplified, but hey it makes a better headline right?  At the
> time, two of the three teams felt there was evidence the trailers were
> used as mobile labs. One did not.

Bollocks.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,977853,00.html

We know what they were for - we even know who sold them to Iraq (Marconi)
and the chief designer was interviewed on UK television almost three years
ago.

Besides - even if they HAD been biological laboratories they were not large
enough to produce useable quantities of agents.  Any country is entitled to
defend itself, and defence against NBC weapons requires knowing what
they're like.  What's wrong with having laboratories (as distinct from
production facilities)?

>   At the time the Bush spoke of this, there was no conclusion.

Bollocks again.  Do you really believe all this shit you're fed?  I can't
get my mind around someone apparently so intelligent believing all this
crap.  Ever go outside?

> Turns out the minority team was correct, but this doesn't lead to the
> conclusion that was reached by the headline.  The Washington Post at its
> best.

No, the lying thieves in the White House at their worst.

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