Previous entry:
Fashion Clues for the Clueless
Next Entry:
Larger-Format Photography
Home:
One Truth For All
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Archives
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 1969
January 24, 2004
Well, There's a Surprise
On Yahoo News this afternoon, an admission from Colin Powell (naturally they make the black guy make the announcement) that Iraq may not have possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Powell acknowledged that the United States thought deposed leader Saddam Hussein had banned weapons but added, "We had questions that needed to be answered."What was it?" he asked. "One hundred tons, 500 tons or zero tons? Was it so many liters of anthrax, 10 times that amount or nothing?"
Maybe I'm in the wrong on this, ethically, but I think that if the proof was not quite so concrete, and they might have had nothing, we had no reason to invade and depose their leader on the pretext that he was preparing to use WMDs against the US.
Posted by ayse on 01/24/04 at 5:09 PM