Read other letters about this article

• Thursday, December 4, 2008 08:43 AM

  @Mark Denney

  Mark, may I call you Mark, Iraq didn't attack us on 9-11. There was no reason to attack a country that was contained. There was also no evidence of chemical weapons, (chemical weapons are Nuclear.... you know) There was even less evidence of biological weapons, just because someone shows you a picture of some semi's line up in the the desert, and they say those are mobile bio-weapons lab... hahahaha, do you know how difficult that would be to do? Mobile bio-weapons labs? OMG. like I said the American public and I don't blame them has little background in science, even less background in mobile labs.

  a British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer last week: 'They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons.'

  Most scientists were highly skeptical, yet the Administration pushed their lies, knowing they were lies, but why, the ultimate question is why? I am going to come back to my original question, since Iraq did not attack us on 9-11 and there was no evidence to support that they did, yet there was ample evidence the Saudi's were behind the attack, why on earth attack Iraq? They were contained and had been for years.

  Had the Iraqi's ever launched a bio-weapon attack, they certainly killed Kurds with chemical attacks but bio-weapons?

  There was no evidence. They were making it up as they went along. They thought it would be easy to take out Sadaam, they thought they could teach the Middle East a lesson about American Power. Guess what, it didn't work. And then everyone else found out about their lies. Please, scientists knew it, they said it and no one listened, as usual.

  I mean seriously, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, there was another from Egypt, another from Jordan and two more from Turkey I think, not one hijacker from Iraq. Why Iraq? What is the explanation for not directly confronting Saudi Arabia for their support of terrorists, they are real supporters of terrorists, it never was Iraq.

  —teresa Read teresa's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel