Iraqi defector now admits to lying about WMD's in IRAQ

[Skybird]

^ Basing on hear-say and driven by rethorics.

I refer to Wolfowitz' paper declaring regime change in Iraq a neocon top priority for strategic US policies already in I think 1993 or 1994 - no matter whether WMDs are present in Iraq or not. A position that very prominently was voiced to the public then by Richard Perle (who 2 or 3 years ago expressed cautious and hesitent regret over his role in it all).

Thus I claim time and again that Bush would have attacked Iraq anyway, no matter WMDs, 9/11 and Al Quaeda claims. These were just used to deceive the American public and make it war-willing. The Americans would not have cheered for the war if Buish had based it just on a politcal paper and the business interests of his political buddies who had close and profitable ties to Haliburton and Carlysle ( damn, I will never learn how to spell the latter correctly).

Regarding WMD, while Iraq has had huge stocks of chemicals in the 80s, it got rid of them and had no usable quantities of them anymore in the years before the 2003 war. Anmd so, only traces for former storeages of chemicals in earlier years were found - but all of them old and being traces only, no find there was hinting at mobile chemical factories or usable military weapons or stockpiled agents to produce them on the fly. They found empty tubes of quzite some age, and chemcial traces indicasting that years ago somehwere were stored some chemical weapons. Oh myx - when you clean your appartement, here and there some traces of dust and the former disorder of items and books are likely to stay - and so it was in Iraq, too. When the Bush adminstration said - and others echoied in the chorus - that "we klnow he has WMDs, and we know where they are", he was and they were lying. It was rethorics, to boost the people's war mood. Like the London missile meo was, too. Propaganda. Deception - of the own people.