Quote:
|
Originally posted by BkueKanoodle: Hmm, a question of threat huh? How about allowing a man who we already has made attempts to assassinate an ex US president, someone who shows that he has already used it. I think we'll be seeing lot of change in the stance from the Antiwar crowd from "no proof of WMD" to no "proof of threat from WMD" in the next few weaks as they attempt to shore up their rapidly eroding position. |
Go back and read what TF, myself, and various others have been saying. This isn't a shift in our stance. The finding will only clarify the real issue at the heart of this.
You will find that we have always said they have chemical/biological agents (though there has been debate on the weaponization of said agents, most of us believed they had that covered too). We have said from the get-go that there is a lot of room between the "status-quo" inspections and "Blow 'em up" stalemate. Some of us even gave suggestions. I brought up the Carnegie Mellon policy of co-ercive inspections, for example.
It's all on record if you care to go back through the archive.