Guess what, fool?

http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1107&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041006%2F1707201115.htm&sc=1107&photoid=20041006MAC107

This is classic skewing. The article title reads "U.S. Report Finds No Evidence of Iraq WMD." This is, of course, bullshit. But the news likes to hammer on about this for as long as they possibly can. Then you scroll down and you find this little piece of news:

Under questioning from Levin, Duelfer said his report found that aluminum tubes suspected of being used for enriching uranium for use in a nuclear bomb were likely destined for conventional rockets and that there is no evidence Iraq sought uranium abroad after 1991. Both findings contradict claims made by Bush and other top administration officials before the war the Bush administration before the war.

It's shaky evidence, I admit, but the part about uranium is a lie. For anyone who doesn’t know, we found a few tons of uranium a few months back. The press just brushes over all the WMD materials though because there were still NO WMD’S (Emphasis on the word NO.) And what else can we learn from this article?

But Duelfer also supports Bush's argument that Saddam remained a threat. Interviews with the toppled leader and other former Iraqi officials made clear that Saddam had not lost his ambition to pursue weapons of mass destruction and hoped to revive his weapons program if U.N. sanctions were lifted, his report said.

Oh, so he WAS after WMD’s. Wow, figured that one out.

Saddam believed his use of chemical weapons against Iran prevented Iraq's defeat in that war. He also was prepared to use such weapons in 1991 if the U.S.-led coalition had tried to topple him in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday that Saddam was ``a gathering threat that needed to be taken seriously, that it was a matter of time before he was going to begin pursuing those weapons of mass destruction.''
But before the war, the Bush administration cast Saddam as an immediate threat, not a gathering threat.
For example, Bush said in October 2002 that ``Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more.'' Bush also said then, ``The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.''
Interviews with Saddam left Duelfer's team with the impression Saddam was more concerned about Iran and Israel as enemies than he was about the United States. Saddam appeared to hold out hope that U.S. leaders ultimately would recognize that it was in the country's interest to deal with Iraq as an important, secular, oil-rich Middle Eastern nation, the report found.

It figures. We could have just let them go so that they could shoot chemical AND nuclear missiles at each other down the road. And people would ask the United States why we didn’t do anything about it. And once Saddam was done nukin’ up Iran, you think he’d stop there? HELL no.

The moral of the story: if you ever log onto AIM and the window that pops up reads “Final Report: No Iraq WMD,” don’t hesitate to open it up and take a read. They ALWAYS do this sort of thing when it comes to us Republicans.

Think you’ll hear about this on the news? Nah, not likely.