Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that there were WDM in Iraq, and that they they were smuggled out of the country to Syria (inter alia?) before/during/after the invasion. Does this not suggest that invading Iraq was a really stupid way of dealing with the problem of Iraqi WMD? Or perhaps that we should have been prosecuting the war in order to prevent this outcome -- i.e., to get control of WMD? I'm just wondering why an outfit as conservative as the Washington Times thinks that they are defending the Administration by floating this claptrap.
|
Syria had WMD. It acknowledges as much. If Syria will do bad things with them, it could have done bad things before.
