Act 1: "We can't believe that Iraq no longer has WMD. All we have is Saddam's
word that he got rid of them, and he's a lying
snake in the grass all day, every day!"

(Protagonist catches Saddam, subjects him to CIA "interrogation" for a week or
so)

Act 2: "We now know for a fact that we were right all along, and Saddam Hussein
had WMD. We have his *personal word* of assurance on the matter, and that's
good enough for us!"

Standards of evidence often change, depending upon what one is hoping to prove.

Had to laugh at the early news reports about Saddam's interrogation. He was
described as "not cooperative" because he
continued to deny having weapons of mass destruction. The rotten *******
deserves everything he's going to have coming to him, but he may as well
realize that he only answer the administration is prepared to accept on the WMD
issue is "yes." Whether true or not, it will be politically useful.

That assumes most of us even care about the political flappings. hehe

We *all* agree he *had* chem / bio weapons. He never provided proof of
destruction. If they were destroyed, I want him to prove it. If he sent
them away, I wanna know *where*.

It's still real simple.

Interesing story how the Mossad had planned to ice him in '92 for his stunts
shooting scuds at Israel during GW-1.
Too bad they didn't follow that through.

-W


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
news:20031217121901.11114.00001152@mb-

The rotten *******
deserves everything he's going to have coming to him, but he may as well
realize that he only answer the administration is prepared to accept on
the WMD
issue is "yes." Whether true or not, it will be politically useful.