Tuesday, Oct. 25, 2005 | 9:33 a.m.
Every day I still see or hear the mantras pulsating from the liberal media that either "Bush lied" or "there were no WMDs." It was repeated by Richard Roth's letter of Oct. 19, once again claiming there were no weapons of mass destruction. Apparently, he did not believe former President Bill Clinton, who publicly stated such. Was that because he is a known liar?
Last Wednesday on the Fox News Channel an author-historian, who has followed Saddam Hussein for 20 years, said that Saddam had WMDs, not large amounts, but nevertheless had them. He also added that "he was very clever, indeed, in getting rid of them." He thinks that the truth will come out over time. Another letter writer, Ray Harbert, called the president a "Nero" on Oct. 8. Perhaps future historians, away from this partisan political climate, and after seeing democracy in the Middle East, will change the "n" in Nero to an "h."
We already know that Saddam gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the families of suicide bombers and was trying to purchase yellow cake from Niger. If anyone wants printed data substantiating Saddam's support of terrorists against America, including Osama bin Laden, they could read a report from cnsnews.com dated Oct. 4, 2004, "Saddam Possessed WMDs; Had Extensive Terror Ties."
Gaye McDonald
Henderson
archive
