 |
 |
Call me a cynic, but I think a real question of access to truth/veracity, with truly philosophical irresolvability, will be raised when/if any such weapons are 'discovered'. Maybe none will, and that will be admitted, in which case I'm wrong. But it's hard to believe that some won't turn up. Question is, given the deeply dishonest nature of the entire business, whether we could ever believe they weren't planted. It doesn't take a crazed conspiracy theorist to believe it a distinct possibility that WMD, so called, might be planted; just a scaled up version of routine policing proceedures, planting drugs, etc. Not something that should be treated as out of the realms of normality - far from that, given what's at stake, and how mendacious the Bush administration and its supporters are on all this. How could we ever know? How could we be certain? What would constitute 'proof', given how much can be manipulated? We've already had reports of material being tested and found to be chemical weapons then tested again and found not to be. It really has to be an act of faith to accept some abstract test results coming from a laboratory. And who can have any faith in these neo-imperialist liars? geoff Geoff King [log in to unmask] -. So, not only is it not true that nobody is talking about WMDs anymore, but that the WMD = > search is developing as one of the hottest issues as the smoke clears.=20 > Robert Koehler >