This article, if true, is pretty damning.

Read it Here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11927856/)

So Why was he right on 2 of the things he was saying, but wrong on a 3rd?

Seems a little fishy to me.
I know no WMD were found after the invasion in Iraq, but there was an Iraqi General that said they moved all of the materials out into Syria under the pretense of helping out after a dam broke in that country.

So who was right? I know the simplest answer is generally the more likely; That Saddam had all ready destroyed his WMD that were given to him by the U.S. back in the 80's.
But he didn't provide any proof that he had. He kept messing with weapons inspectors, and keeping them from doing thier jobs.
He even expelled them from his country. All of this made him look very suspicious.
Couple that with the prevailing attitude of "never again" after 9/11 and he might as well painted a big target on his chest.

So Why was he right on 2 of the things he was saying, but wrong on a 3rd?

Seems a little fishy to me.
I know no WMD were found after the invasion in Iraq, but there was an Iraqi General that said they moved all of the materials out into Syria under the pretense of helping out after a dam broke in that country.

So who was right? I know the simplest answer is generally the more likely; That Saddam had all ready destroyed his WMD that were given to him by the U.S. back in the 80's.
But he didn't provide any proof that he had. He kept messing with weapons inspectors, and keeping them from doing thier jobs.
He even expelled them from his country. All of this made him look very suspicious.
Couple that with the prevailing attitude of "never again" after 9/11 and he might as well painted a big target on his chest.


I would guess that he was wrong on the 3rd as Saddam had kept the possibility of WMD's open, even amongst his generals, as a way to keep fear in the Iranians. Remember the Iranians definately had a bone to pick with him.

From what I understand right before the invasion Saddam admitted to his generals that Iraq had nothing other than conventional weapons, but, he had sent a letter to the UN stating that Iraq possesed no WMD's.

Now moving slightly off topic.

Bush has recently been stating that the components for building IED's are coming from Iran. I don't buy that.

I am most certain that they are coming from Iraq and consist of the explosives that we neglected to secure.

I would guess that he was wrong on the 3rd as Saddam had kept the possibility of WMD's open, even amongst his generals, as a way to keep fear in the Iranians. Remember the Iranians definately had a bone to pick with him.

From what I understand right before the invasion Saddam admitted to his generals that Iraq had nothing other than conventional weapons, but, he had sent a letter to the UN stating that Iraq possesed no WMD's.

Now moving slightly off topic.

Bush has recently been stating that the components for building IED's are coming from Iran. I don't buy that.

I am most certain that they are coming from Iraq and consist of the explosives that we neglected to secure.

You can probably put that in the too little, too late catagory.
As for the IED components coming from Iran, you are probably right about the materials coming from the unsecured munitions in Iraq.
But I think there is a little bit of support coming across the border either in manpower or money.
How are these insurgents eating, ect?

So Why was he right on 2 of the things he was saying, but wrong on a 3rd?

It may be a matter of scale. Shortly after the invasion, an old missile was discovered that farted a small, nonlethal cloud of sarin gas (readers might recall akipt crowing about this "discovery of WMDs"). Sabri may have known of such missiles and considered them the "stockpiled weapons and had 'poison gas'" whereas the military discounted them as insignificant. Hard to say without reading the documentation.
Bush has recently been stating that the components for building IED's are coming from Iran. I don't buy that.
At present, he's talking out his ass (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-03-14T193810Z_01_N14358184_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-USA-IRAN.xml&archived=False). Retired Major General Paul Eaton has some comments on it all, particularly Rumsfeld (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/opinion/19eaton.html?ex=1143003600&en=2bfb75f452afdf54&ei=5070).

I remember that.
I also remember thinking, where were the others?
Although the Military would have considered it insignificant, I wonder what the psycological impact would have been if that warhead woulda "Farted" on US soil?