On Aug 2, 2006, at 8:26 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On 8/2/06, jdiebremse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And this was before the war? And they concluded that *none* of the
stockpiles were weaponized.
Yes, John. Again, I'd urge you to go to the sources.
There was no delivery system that they were aware of, just an
> intention or programs to create them. Makes it kind of hard to
> argue for an imminent threat, doesn't it?
It depends how long it would take to weaponize them, among other
factors.
"Immediate" has only one meaning in this context, as far as I know.
I've been staying out of this thread (I'm actually learning to hold
my tongue at this late date), but I came across this, which seems to
be on point:
"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not
imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having
nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be
just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological
weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
— Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
That's all for now,
Dave
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
