I think now that the CBS reporters aren't even thinking about telling lies, its a way of life for them like it is for drug addicts. As in dealing with drug addicts, you begin to think, What's the point of trying to argue with them. Claims of Saddam's WMD had no foundation? There were all sorts of reports of WMD's, there was a time in the past when we know he had them because he used them. We have found sarin gas there now although not in large quantities. The Duelfer Report makes it clear Saddam wanted his neighbors to believe he had WMDs and , most important, he had the capability of making them. Somehow it is not enough to the left to tell the truth-- some of the claims Powell made to the U. N. rested on faulty evidence-- maybe it is the lawyer in me-- faulty evidence is not the same as no evidence. In law, it is a very big difference. For example, in a libel suit if you believed you were telling the truth, you can avoid punitive damages and you may avoid damages altogether, though the statement you made, believing it was true, turned out to be false. Is this too subtle and nuanced for liberals? If this reporter so casually repeats a Michael Moore lie as if it were true, he should not be a reporter.
White House adviser Rice 'likely' to succeed Powell - Coal - Food and Beverage - Forest Products and Paper - Industrial, Diversified - Mining and Metals - Oil and Gas - Natural Resources - Industrial Products & Services - Energy - Bond Market - Economy - War & Terrorism: "Iraq has dominated Powell's attention during his nearly four years with the administration. He will perhaps be best remembered for his appearance before the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, during which he argued that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein must be removed from power because he possessed weapons of mass destruction.
There is no evidence that those claims had any foundation. Powell has maintained all along that the use of force by the United States-led coalition in Iraq was justified."