So let me see if I've got this right:

Submitted by Seamus (United States), Oct 7, 2003 at 11:40

If it turns out that Saddam indeed had no WMDs, then the "WMD Lies" referred to in the title were his truthful statements that he had no WMDs, since we naturally assumed he was lying and thus were deceived by his truth-telling? In fact, the more he truthfully denied having WMDs, the more of a liar he was. Of course, if he had actually had WMDs, then those denials would have been lies, too. I guess it really doesn't matter what he said, since it was well known that, as in Lillian Hellman's case, *whatever* he said was a lie, including the words "if," "and," and "but."

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".