In article , OzOne wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 12:16:19 +1000, Peter Wiley
scribbled thusly:


Iraq *had* WMD. That is an undisputable fact. When & where did they all
go? Either they're well hidden, which I strongly doubt after all this
time & embarrassment, they were shipped over a border (possible) or
they were all used up.

I don't know, the intelligence agencies didn't know and the people
relying on information from intelligence agencies didn't know either.
Hussein was very uncooperative with the UN weapons inspectors leading
them and pretty much everybody else to wonder what he was hiding. It's
apparent *now* that nobody can find WMD and therefore Hussein was not
an imminent threat. Unless you can prove Bush et al knew in advance
that there were no WMD left, you can't fairly call them liars.

It's nice to see how omniscient you are, Jonathan. Can you apply this
to tell me what stocks are going to radically change price by this time
next year?

PDW

Pete, I think the point is that the US was convinced that there were
huge stockpiles of WMD when the UN inspection guys were saying that
they had no evidence to support that and were not given access to the
US intelligence to confirm or refute the US conviction.

The US used the excuse that to allow the inspectors access to their
information would alert the Iraqis who would move the stuff.
Many saw then that this was a ploy by the US to keep their very
sketchy information to themselves so it couldn't be questioned or
dismissed.
Why?
To achieve the aim that Bush had even before he was confirmed as
president...to finish daddys business.
There is plenty of hearsay about these intentions, and to use the US
basis for invasion, "where there's smoke, there's fire"

Actually I agree with all of that. However, that doesn't make Bush et
al out to be liars as Jonathan keeps insisting unless they *knew* that
there were no WMD and said there were anyway. What it makes them is
misguided and willing to believe what was convenient for their aims
regardless of the scarcity of actual evidence. Hell, from what I read
and from past behaviour - gassing the Kurds, chemical warfare against
the Iranians - I would have said on the balance of probabilities that
he *did* have WMD and the means to deliver them in the geographical
area via missile. Refusal to cooperate with UN inspectors didn't help
him at all.

That's a lot different from *knowing* something isn't true and saying
that it is. Or at least that's the definition of a lie that I use. Who
knows, the way people have debased the language (the term genocide
comes to mind) maybe Jonathan thinks that making statements without
adequate factual basis *is* lying.

PDW