How about this? It too looks rather gun-like:
The main connection between Saddam and Terrorism is Bush… that about sums it… plus some silly money given to “martyr’s” families. (Did he actually pay up ?)
Even if a terrorist or two passed through Iraq and received a bit of training, money or protection… it hardly constitutes a legitimate reason to invade a country. NO WMDs… NO terrorism… No Reason.
I’ll be so surprised if no banned weapons turn up. (Though less so now than a year ago.)
I’m not sure how long this “We’re still looking,” thing can go on.
Surely they had something. If I was Hussein, I’d’ve. Hussein wasn’t paranoid. People really are out to get him.
There were WMD at sometime in Iraq… but building palaces took precendence during the sanctions it seems… any WMD they had were probably few and not that effective anyway. Add to that bombing, a little deliberate destruction and general economic disaster that was Iraq… and WMD are unlikely to exist.
Finding one or two old mustard gas shells wouldn't be enough either... only if the media make a big fuss out of it.Isikoff and Hosenball of Newseek have pretty much disemboweled this bit of flummery…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3741646/
(With appropriate thanks to Talking Points Memo’s Josh Marshall, without which no citizen can claim to be informed…)
Until the CIA gets their panties in a wad over some report, I’ll be content to merely wait and see.
The CIA has the resources and expertise to analyze and vet these sorts of things that newspapers don’t.
Reaching the bottom of the barrel Squink 
You know, I tought you were kidding about taking those sourses seriously.
Suffice to say, that I don buy it for the reason that very little could have escaped detection going trough Siria, on top of that, AFAICR Siria allegedly has their own chemical weapons program, and it is unlikely they could aid the sitting duck dictator when bombs started to fall. Risking to bring more attention to their efforts and be invaded next. Remember that if we want to continue with the charade, that the administration’s line was that “Saddam had tons of the stuff.” and by this time, what an administration official says, I would take it with a monumental grain of salt.
Only after finding holes on the news bit, one then has to consider the source:
Debka? Sorry, they are worse than the Telegraph and that is an achievement. :dubious: If the Telegraph has been caught twice with forged documents, Debka has been found many more times with scoops that turned to be just smoke, I found them interesting before, but they have a large pro-Israel ax to grind, and after the trash from the Afghan war (One big “scoop” was that Chinese troops were going to invade Afghanistan) I dropped them from my trusted links.
elucidator: I posted the link even before Marshall got it. 
I also read about this at talkingpointsmemo.com who , as always, does a great job in exposing this junk. I have long since stopped taking the Telegraph or William Safire seriously especially on this story. But I have to wonder about supporters of the war. When is the limit to your credulity reached? Has anyone kept count of the suspiciously convenient documents that only the Telegraph seems to find? Or the number of dubious theories that Safire peddles that are later shot down?
Wow. Just…wow.