Can't have happened. That would mean that Iraq had a bomb program and was just a few implementation steps away from having active WMDs. (What did the Times say? A year?) Which would mean that there WERE WMD risks in Iraq at the start of the war, which would mean Bush (and Clinton et al) were telling the truth.

Excuse me, I think I hear heads exploding in Berkeley.

We should not forget that Saddam Hussein was "our rogue" for a long time. Hussein was eqiupped and supported by the US (of course the CIA trained iraqi troops in torture techniques) to fight Iran. Indeed the 1st Gulf War (the Iran-Iraq war) was initiated by Iraq on behalf of the US. So keeping that in mind everything else that followed is just plainly insane so I am not surprised by this story.

Tadeusz: Tres bien – at least one person admits the fact!! :)-

>> Excuse me, I think I hear heads exploding in Berkeley.

And any unexploded heads will subject to Sha'ria's Scimitar if people continue to willfully not believe what comes out of the mouths of Islamist babes:

http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/12min.htm

Anyone know where I can find a copy of the documents?

The government didn't accidentally post it,,, they posted the documents on purpose.

Sigh ... to Charlie Martin – No explosions. There a big difference between "Iraq might've been a year away from a bomb in 1990", when it was rich and powerful, which is halfway believable and "Iraq might've been a year away from a bomb in *2003*", when it was thoroughly defeated in a war, under sanctions and inspections regimes, with its nuclear facilities destroyed or monitored (and no, it's not cumulative, much of Iraq's bomb-making capability was *destroyed*)

Actually, the heads exploding should be the right-wingers, for holding the ideas that 1) The media is liberal anti-adminstration and 2) the media would so casually confirm a key war point.
It's actually pretty interesting how they can mentally accommodate those two ideas without conflict.