Remember folks when you read this ...THERE WERE NEVER NEVER any WMDs!!!

[the_human_being]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

No. The dispute was over WMD's which includes chemical weapons. The Liberals crucified Bush over his claim that Saddam had WMD's. Bush was right.

 

[Kondor3]

I thought it was "weapons of mass destruction." That includes chemical weapons. I could be wrong, but I don't recall them specifying the exact type of weapon, just WMDs.

weap·on of mass de·struc·tion
noun
plural noun: weapons of mass destruction

1. a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.

Everybody on the face of the planet already know that Saddam had chemical weapons - for years prior to the invasion.

Everybody on the face of the planet already knew that Saddam had biological weapons - for years prior to the invasion.

What tipped the scales in favor of invasion was the third leg of the weapons triad - nuclear weapons.

Supposed yellow-cake uranium shipments from South Africa and highly advanced research and materials-processing facilities and knowledge-base.

Nobody went to war to take Saddam's chemical weapons away from him - that was old news, predating the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

Nobody went to war to take Saddam biological weapons away form him - that was old news, predating the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

People went to war to stop Saddam from developing and deploying nuclear weapons - a supposed new state of affairs.

Doesn't matter how the arguments for the casus belli were formalized, at the UN, or, more loosely, amongst the American People.

What DOES matter is the focus of the arguments leading up to the formalizing of the casus belli.

And that focus was nuclear weaponry - the NEW element in the weapons triad that could be made to serve as the flash-point for an alarm, sufficient to go to war over.

You know that just as well as I do, whether you choose to concede the point here or not.

Kondor, stop saying EVERYONE knew he had chemical weapons. You are double talking out of your ass right now.

You say chemical weapons are WMDs, and claim the left always knew he had those when the war started?

WRONG!!!!

For 15 years they claimed NOTHING was found. They did not limit it to NO NUCLEAR weapons. Are you really going to stick with that claim?

Chemical weapons ARE WMDS!

AND .... they only starting claiming that Sadaams Iraq had no WMDs AFTER it became fashionable as a means to attack George W.

Prior to that the Dems were right in line claimin Hussein had WMDs ... uh that's Sadam Hussein , not .. Barrack Hussein , he just has tools

Generally speaking, the Democrats were just as full of shit about Saddam, WMD's, etc., as the Republicans.

To the devil with partisan politics in this regard - what signifies is a false casus belli (nuclear weapons focus), and the price we paid as a result.

4000 of our kids are lying the ground because we got it wrong - or because we were lied to - take your pick - both perspectives may have some merit.

Lied to, bad intel OR he managed to hide them or destroy most of them b4 we got there ... he had plenty of warning.

But Nukes were never really a major part of the picture - it's just you tools trying to rewrite History again. It's a little more difficult when its Modern History isn't it ?

Excuse me?

Fool?

Rewriting history?

What the hell are you talking about?

Did the world not already know for years before the 2003 Iraq War, that Iraq had chemical weapons, and had not yet seen fit to go to war over those?

Did the world not already know for years before the 2003 Iraq War, that Iraq had biological weapons, and had not yet seen fit to go to war over those?

Nuclear weapons were the new factor in the calculation to go to war.

Nothing 'revisionist' about that.

 

[Indofred]

Why did it need to be secretly reported?

Because it's a load of old shit.
They were desperate to justify the American illegal invasion, so they would have splashed this all over the press ... if it was true.

 

[Theowl32]

Everybody on the face of the planet already know that Saddam had chemical weapons - for years prior to the invasion.

Everybody on the face of the planet already knew that Saddam had biological weapons - for years prior to the invasion.

What tipped the scales in favor of invasion was the third leg of the weapons triad - nuclear weapons.

Supposed yellow-cake uranium shipments from South Africa and highly advanced research and materials-processing facilities and knowledge-base.

Nobody went to war to take Saddam's chemical weapons away from him - that was old news, predating the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

Nobody went to war to take Saddam biological weapons away form him - that was old news, predating the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

People went to war to stop Saddam from developing and deploying nuclear weapons - a supposed new state of affairs.

Doesn't matter how the arguments for the casus belli were formalized, at the UN, or, more loosely, amongst the American People.

What DOES matter is the focus of the arguments leading up to the formalizing of the casus belli.

And that focus was nuclear weaponry - the NEW element in the weapons triad that could be made to serve as the flash-point for an alarm, sufficient to go to war over.

You know that just as well as I do, whether you choose to concede the point here or not.

Kondor, stop saying EVERYONE knew he had chemical weapons. You are double talking out of your ass right now.

You say chemical weapons are WMDs, and claim the left always knew he had those when the war started?

WRONG!!!!

For 15 years they claimed NOTHING was found. They did not limit it to NO NUCLEAR weapons. Are you really going to stick with that claim?

Chemical weapons ARE WMDS!

AND .... they only starting claiming that Sadaams Iraq had no WMDs AFTER it became fashionable as a means to attack George W.

Prior to that the Dems were right in line claimin Hussein had WMDs ... uh that's Sadam Hussein , not .. Barrack Hussein , he just has tools

Generally speaking, the Democrats were just as full of shit about Saddam, WMD's, etc., as the Republicans.

To the devil with partisan politics in this regard - what signifies is a false casus belli (nuclear weapons focus), and the price we paid as a result.

4000 of our kids are lying the ground because we got it wrong - or because we were lied to - take your pick - both perspectives may have some merit.

Lied to, bad intel OR he managed to hide them or destroy most of them b4 we got there ... he had plenty of warning.

But Nukes were never really a major part of the picture - it's just you tools trying to rewrite History again. It's a little more difficult when its Modern History isn't it ?

That's a lie Greenbean....it WAS about WMD'S, in the form of waking up to the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud....NUKES

it WAS about yellowcake....for NUKES

it WAS about NUKES that could hit us in 45 minutes...

It is you that has conveniently forgotten what we were being told by the administration at the time....

Look everyone, liberals are now trying to claim chemical weapons were not part of the WMDs.

They also deny that saddam was putting that information out on purpose about nukes, and it was confirmed by defectors, including his two son in laws.

They clearly deny that the country simply enforced the policy of the country that had been signed by Clinton. The Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs.

They clearly will not allow themselves to see that the WAR ON TERROR was always going to be about more than getting al qaeda or bin laden.

They are shifting like the sands of Egypt right before our eyes.

 

[mudwhistle]

Chemical weapons were always included under the umbrella of WMDs. Also, it has been proven that saddam deliberately put out information that he was trying to establish nuclear capability.

His two son in laws revealed a long time ago that saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons. They were executed.

Nolo contendere.

Finding chemical weapons there was no surprise.

Finding nuclear weapons (or precursor components) would have validated the 2003 casus belli for invading Iraq.

Unfortunately, that never happened.

Again,, chemical weapons are certainly WMDs. Also, saddam put out false information (most likely on purpose) that he was in the process of attempting to get nuclear materials. That was probably true. He saw Iran as a true threat and he knew he would be in real danger if Iran became a nuclear power.

Again, his two son in laws revealed what he was wanting to do and the reasons why he kept his infrastructure for WMD production.

This was also clearly revealed by UNSCOM the UN independent council.

These unusable, leaking shells with unstable contents were not wmds

They we're usable and it doesn't take much of a dosage to cause a reaction. There is usually some residual spillage when filling warheads. The trick is wearing protective gear when handling them.

Plus, according to the NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE, they were used.

So, he can shove that up his ass.

When used they become gas and shrapnel. Hard to believe that Bullshit.

 

[healthmyths]

4,000+ young American lives, tens of thousands of lost limbs and minds, thousands of destroyed families over one trillion dollars that we didn't have, and an even more destabilized Middle East.

For that?

No thanks.

1.2 million children ALIVE today because they weren't starved by Saddam's refusal to admit he DIDN"T have WMDs!
And now we know he DID!
Or how about these Iraqi's
"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ... Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves. Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq. And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein -- the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic

You do realize that sending Americans to die by the thousands so some people in some other country can 'feel better' is not a just cause...

...a just cause for American military action is when there is a dire threat to our vital interests.

We had no vital interests in Iraq, therefore the invasion cannot be justified.

You have not right talking about our soldiers death's. After Obama successfully ends the iraq war, and then lets iraq be over run by terrorists. So all those soldiers died in vain. You have no credibility. Anyway Obama sends 3000 soldiers to fight Ebola, which they are not trained to do. How many will die?

You can believe that bullshit rightwing propaganda if you want, but it won't make it true.

Yea that bastion of Right wingers...
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

 

[mudwhistle]

Why did it need to be secretly reported?

Because it's a load of old shit.
They were desperate to justify the American illegal invasion, so they would have splashed this all over the press ... if it was true.

Yeah, nothing ever happens in the universe unless it is reported by the MSM.

 

[ogibillm]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

No. The dispute was over WMD's which includes chemical weapons. The Liberals crucified Bush over his claim that Saddam had WMD's. Bush was right.

Everybody on the face of the planet already know that Saddam had chemical weapons - for years prior to the invasion.

Everybody on the face of the planet already knew that Saddam had biological weapons - for years prior to the invasion.

What tipped the scales in favor of invasion was the third leg of the weapons triad - nuclear weapons.

Supposed yellow-cake uranium shipments from South Africa and highly advanced research and materials-processing facilities and knowledge-base.

Nobody went to war to take Saddam's chemical weapons away from him - that was old news, predating the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

Nobody went to war to take Saddam biological weapons away form him - that was old news, predating the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

People went to war to stop Saddam from developing and deploying nuclear weapons - a supposed new state of affairs.

Doesn't matter how the arguments for the casus belli were formalized, at the UN, or, more loosely, amongst the American People.

What DOES matter is the focus of the arguments leading up to the formalizing of the casus belli.

And that focus was nuclear weaponry - the NEW element in the weapons triad that could be made to serve as the flash-point for an alarm, sufficient to go to war over.

You know that just as well as I do, whether you choose to concede the point here or not.

Kondor, stop saying EVERYONE knew he had chemical weapons. You are double talking out of your ass right now.

You say chemical weapons are WMDs, and claim the left always knew he had those when the war started?

WRONG!!!!

For 15 years they claimed NOTHING was found. They did not limit it to NO NUCLEAR weapons. Are you really going to stick with that claim?

Chemical weapons ARE WMDS!

AND .... they only starting claiming that Sadaams Iraq had no WMDs AFTER it became fashionable as a means to attack George W.

Prior to that the Dems were right in line claimin Hussein had WMDs ... uh that's Sadam Hussein , not .. Barrack Hussein , he just has tools

Generally speaking, the Democrats were just as full of shit about Saddam, WMD's, etc., as the Republicans.

To the devil with partisan politics in this regard - what signifies is a false casus belli (nuclear weapons focus), and the price we paid as a result.

4000 of our kids are lying the ground because we got it wrong - or because we were lied to - take your pick - both perspectives may have some merit.

Lied to, bad intel OR he managed to hide them or destroy most of them b4 we got there ... he had plenty of warning.

But Nukes were never really a major part of the picture - it's just you tools trying to rewrite History again. It's a little more difficult when its Modern History isn't it ?

Excuse me?

Fool?

Rewriting history?

What the hell are you talking about?

Did the world not already know for years before the 2003 Iraq War, that Iraq had chemical weapons, and had not yet seen fit to go to war over those?

Did the world not already know for years before the 2003 Iraq War, that Iraq had biological weapons, and had not yet seen fit to go to war over those?

Nuclear weapons were the new factor in the calculation to go to war.

Nothing 'revisionist' about that.

chemical weapons were included, but what we were sold was active wmd programs. these finds are certainly not proof of active programs - and they aren't even wmds, since, again, they were not able to produce the 'mass destruction' necessary.

 

[healthmyths]

This makes three! It must be on Drudge.

Predictable nutters never fail.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0
OK... Drudge doesn't write one story do you understand?
Drudge writes headlines that link to stories oh say written by that RIGH WING paper NYT!

 

[mudwhistle]

Everybody on the face of the planet already know that Saddam had chemical weapons - for years prior to the invasion.

Everybody on the face of the planet already knew that Saddam had biological weapons - for years prior to the invasion.

What tipped the scales in favor of invasion was the third leg of the weapons triad - nuclear weapons.

Supposed yellow-cake uranium shipments from South Africa and highly advanced research and materials-processing facilities and knowledge-base.

Nobody went to war to take Saddam's chemical weapons away from him - that was old news, predating the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

Nobody went to war to take Saddam biological weapons away form him - that was old news, predating the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

People went to war to stop Saddam from developing and deploying nuclear weapons - a supposed new state of affairs.

Doesn't matter how the arguments for the casus belli were formalized, at the UN, or, more loosely, amongst the American People.

What DOES matter is the focus of the arguments leading up to the formalizing of the casus belli.

And that focus was nuclear weaponry - the NEW element in the weapons triad that could be made to serve as the flash-point for an alarm, sufficient to go to war over.

You know that just as well as I do, whether you choose to concede the point here or not.

Kondor, stop saying EVERYONE knew he had chemical weapons. You are double talking out of your ass right now.

You say chemical weapons are WMDs, and claim the left always knew he had those when the war started?

WRONG!!!!

For 15 years they claimed NOTHING was found. They did not limit it to NO NUCLEAR weapons. Are you really going to stick with that claim?

Chemical weapons ARE WMDS!

AND .... they only starting claiming that Sadaams Iraq had no WMDs AFTER it became fashionable as a means to attack George W.

Prior to that the Dems were right in line claimin Hussein had WMDs ... uh that's Sadam Hussein , not .. Barrack Hussein , he just has tools

Generally speaking, the Democrats were just as full of shit about Saddam, WMD's, etc., as the Republicans.

To the devil with partisan politics in this regard - what signifies is a false casus belli (nuclear weapons focus), and the price we paid as a result.

4000 of our kids are lying the ground because we got it wrong - or because we were lied to - take your pick - both perspectives may have some merit.

Lied to, bad intel OR he managed to hide them or destroy most of them b4 we got there ... he had plenty of warning.

But Nukes were never really a major part of the picture - it's just you tools trying to rewrite History again. It's a little more difficult when its Modern History isn't it ?

Excuse me?

Fool?

Rewriting history?

What the hell are you talking about?

Did the world not already know for years before the 2003 Iraq War, that Iraq had chemical weapons, and had not yet seen fit to go to war over those?

Did the world not already know for years before the 2003 Iraq War, that Iraq had biological weapons, and had not yet seen fit to go to war over those?

Nuclear weapons were the new factor in the calculation to go to war.

Nothing 'revisionist' about that.

Over 2000 tons of uranium waiting to be processed says it was a good possibly.

 

[Theowl32]

Liberals are everywhere on this thread. I know Kondor is not a liberal, but he can clearly see how liberals always claimed saddam did not even have chemical weapons. I am not sure why he is denying that when he says EVERYONE knew he had chemical weapons.

The left claimed he had NOTHING.

Also, I am not sure why Kondor would deny that saddam put out information (on purpose) that he was trying to get nuclear weapons. He clearly had the infrastructure in place for a reason, as confirmed by UNSCOM.

The country clearly made it a policy by signing the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs under Clinton for a reason. Then again, the left does not or care that Clinton awarded Halliburton at least 4 no bid contracts. Just to further illustrate how pathetic liberals are, and how they do not stand for shit. They are an utter waste of my time.

Kondor, I am little surprised at you though.

 

[healthmyths]

Not exactly a mushroom cloud is it? We knew about Saddam's aging and mostly un-usable stockpile of chemicals, no one in the world could have made the case to invade over that alone. Bushco said he had a functional nuclear program and weaponized biologicals along with the missiles to deliver it to Europe. That's the lie that justified our invasion.

More importantly

Saddam had the opportunity to use these aged weapons TWICE in Dessert Storm and Iraqi Freedom and declined to do so. He knew what the repercussions would be if he crossed that line. Saddam was contained and not a threat outside his borders

Bush attacked anyway

A bigger impact has been a destabilization of the whole region. Bush claimed we would be treated as liberators and would be out quickly. He never said anything about needing to be there for decades

1.2 million kids are alive today because Bush believed as these people did Saddam had WMDs...which the NYT now proves he did!
"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998 WHERE'D SHE GET THIS INFORMATION BEFORE BUSH?
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.

 

[mudwhistle]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

No. The dispute was over WMD's which includes chemical weapons. The Liberals crucified Bush over his claim that Saddam had WMD's. Bush was right.

Kondor, stop saying EVERYONE knew he had chemical weapons. You are double talking out of your ass right now.

You say chemical weapons are WMDs, and claim the left always knew he had those when the war started?

WRONG!!!!

For 15 years they claimed NOTHING was found. They did not limit it to NO NUCLEAR weapons. Are you really going to stick with that claim?

Chemical weapons ARE WMDS!

AND .... they only starting claiming that Sadaams Iraq had no WMDs AFTER it became fashionable as a means to attack George W.

Prior to that the Dems were right in line claimin Hussein had WMDs ... uh that's Sadam Hussein , not .. Barrack Hussein , he just has tools

Generally speaking, the Democrats were just as full of shit about Saddam, WMD's, etc., as the Republicans.

To the devil with partisan politics in this regard - what signifies is a false casus belli (nuclear weapons focus), and the price we paid as a result.

4000 of our kids are lying the ground because we got it wrong - or because we were lied to - take your pick - both perspectives may have some merit.

Lied to, bad intel OR he managed to hide them or destroy most of them b4 we got there ... he had plenty of warning.

But Nukes were never really a major part of the picture - it's just you tools trying to rewrite History again. It's a little more difficult when its Modern History isn't it ?

Excuse me?

Fool?

Rewriting history?

What the hell are you talking about?

Did the world not already know for years before the 2003 Iraq War, that Iraq had chemical weapons, and had not yet seen fit to go to war over those?

Did the world not already know for years before the 2003 Iraq War, that Iraq had biological weapons, and had not yet seen fit to go to war over those?

Nuclear weapons were the new factor in the calculation to go to war.

Nothing 'revisionist' about that.

chemical weapons were included, but what we were sold was active wmd programs. these finds are certainly not proof of active programs - and they aren't even wmds, since, again, they were not able to produce the 'mass destruction' necessary.

Must I repost the definition of WMDs again?

I posted it on my thread.

 

[Ringel05]

If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.

The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.

Chemical weapons were always included under the umbrella of WMDs. Also, it has been proven that saddam deliberately put out information that he was trying to establish nuclear capability.

His two son in laws revealed a long time ago that saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons. They were executed.

Nolo contendere.

Finding chemical weapons there was no surprise.

Finding nuclear weapons (or precursor components) would have validated the 2003 casus belli for invading Iraq.

Unfortunately, that never happened.

Again,, chemical weapons are certainly WMDs. Also, saddam put out false information (most likely on purpose) that he was in the process of attempting to get nuclear materials. That was probably true. He saw Iran as a true threat and he knew he would be in real danger if Iran became a nuclear power.

Again, his two son in laws revealed what he was wanting to do and the reasons why he kept his infrastructure for WMD production.

This was also clearly revealed by UNSCOM the UN independent council.

These unusable, leaking shells with unstable contents were not wmds

Aren't we lucky you were there to tell us this before we found them......... If they were "disposed" of it was a very, very bad job, the more plausible reason is they were hidden and since when couldn't the contents be inserted into new delivery containers.......
Keep playing the whirling dervish.......

 

[Care4all]

Kondor, stop saying EVERYONE knew he had chemical weapons. You are double talking out of your ass right now.

You say chemical weapons are WMDs, and claim the left always knew he had those when the war started?

WRONG!!!!

For 15 years they claimed NOTHING was found. They did not limit it to NO NUCLEAR weapons. Are you really going to stick with that claim?

Chemical weapons ARE WMDS!

AND .... they only starting claiming that Sadaams Iraq had no WMDs AFTER it became fashionable as a means to attack George W.

Prior to that the Dems were right in line claimin Hussein had WMDs ... uh that's Sadam Hussein , not .. Barrack Hussein , he just has tools

Generally speaking, the Democrats were just as full of shit about Saddam, WMD's, etc., as the Republicans.

To the devil with partisan politics in this regard - what signifies is a false casus belli (nuclear weapons focus), and the price we paid as a result.

4000 of our kids are lying the ground because we got it wrong - or because we were lied to - take your pick - both perspectives may have some merit.

Lied to, bad intel OR he managed to hide them or destroy most of them b4 we got there ... he had plenty of warning.

But Nukes were never really a major part of the picture - it's just you tools trying to rewrite History again. It's a little more difficult when its Modern History isn't it ?

That's a lie Greenbean....it WAS about WMD'S, in the form of waking up to the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud....NUKES

it WAS about yellowcake....for NUKES

it WAS about NUKES that could hit us in 45 minutes...

It is you that has conveniently forgotten what we were being told by the administration at the time....

Look everyone, liberals are now trying to claim chemical weapons were not part of the WMDs.

They also deny that saddam was putting that information out on purpose about nukes, and it was confirmed by defectors, including his two son in laws.

They clearly deny that the country simply enforced the policy of the country that had been signed by Clinton. The Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs.

They clearly will not allow themselves to see that the WAR ON TERROR was always going to be about more than getting al qaeda or bin laden.

They are shifting like the sands of Egypt right before our eyes.

No, it was not about chemical weapons that put America behind the President, it was about a NUCLEAR WMD threat that was hyped by the administration....it was about yellowcake and
Valerie Plame's husband exposing the LIE THE ADMINISTRATION WAS SAYING ON IT.... it was about waking up to a Mushroom cloud...

WE KNEW saddam had chemical weapons, and chemical weapons that were deteriorating...

Chemical weapons could not reach us here in the USA, they were of no threat to the USA that required us to start a war against a sovereign nation, and put our men out there to die for....

STOP rewriting history to make yourselves 'feel' better....now that all our guys are DEAD and MAIMED.

 

[Theowl32]

AND .... they only starting claiming that Sadaams Iraq had no WMDs AFTER it became fashionable as a means to attack George W.

Prior to that the Dems were right in line claimin Hussein had WMDs ... uh that's Sadam Hussein , not .. Barrack Hussein , he just has tools

Generally speaking, the Democrats were just as full of shit about Saddam, WMD's, etc., as the Republicans.

To the devil with partisan politics in this regard - what signifies is a false casus belli (nuclear weapons focus), and the price we paid as a result.

4000 of our kids are lying the ground because we got it wrong - or because we were lied to - take your pick - both perspectives may have some merit.

Lied to, bad intel OR he managed to hide them or destroy most of them b4 we got there ... he had plenty of warning.

But Nukes were never really a major part of the picture - it's just you tools trying to rewrite History again. It's a little more difficult when its Modern History isn't it ?

That's a lie Greenbean....it WAS about WMD'S, in the form of waking up to the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud....NUKES

it WAS about yellowcake....for NUKES

it WAS about NUKES that could hit us in 45 minutes...

It is you that has conveniently forgotten what we were being told by the administration at the time....

Look everyone, liberals are now trying to claim chemical weapons were not part of the WMDs.

They also deny that saddam was putting that information out on purpose about nukes, and it was confirmed by defectors, including his two son in laws.

They clearly deny that the country simply enforced the policy of the country that had been signed by Clinton. The Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs.

They clearly will not allow themselves to see that the WAR ON TERROR was always going to be about more than getting al qaeda or bin laden.

They are shifting like the sands of Egypt right before our eyes.

No, it was not about chemical weapons that put America behind the President, it was about a NUCLEAR WMD threat that was hyped by the administration....it was about yellowcake and
Valerie Plame's husband exposing the LIE THE ADMINISTRATION WAS SAYING ON IT.... it was about waking up to a Mushroom cloud...

WE KNEW saddam had chemical weapons, and chemical weapons that were deteriorating...

Chemical weapons could not reach us here in the USA, they were of no threat to the USA that required us to start a war against a sovereign nation, and put our men out there to die for....

STOP rewriting history to make yourselves 'feel' better....now that all our guys are DEAD and MAIMED.

You are on ignore you miserable, double talking lying piece of shit.

 

[mudwhistle]

Nolo contendere.

Finding chemical weapons there was no surprise.

Finding nuclear weapons (or precursor components) would have validated the 2003 casus belli for invading Iraq.

Unfortunately, that never happened.

Again,, chemical weapons are certainly WMDs. Also, saddam put out false information (most likely on purpose) that he was in the process of attempting to get nuclear materials. That was probably true. He saw Iran as a true threat and he knew he would be in real danger if Iran became a nuclear power.

Again, his two son in laws revealed what he was wanting to do and the reasons why he kept his infrastructure for WMD production.

This was also clearly revealed by UNSCOM the UN independent council.

These unusable, leaking shells with unstable contents were not wmds

They we're usable and it doesn't take much of a dosage to cause a reaction. There is usually some residual spillage when filling warheads. The trick is wearing protective gear when handling them.

Plus, according to the NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE, they were used.

So, he can shove that up his ass.

Not in their intended manner. Additionally, they weren't capable of causing mass destruction

One shell if fired accurately, could cause hundreds of casualties. He had over 5000 of them. Fire a few of them and instead of 4000 dead it could have been 10,000 in one attack.

Sounds like a WMD to me.
Iran Iraq War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Kosh]

AND .... they only starting claiming that Sadaams Iraq had no WMDs AFTER it became fashionable as a means to attack George W.

Prior to that the Dems were right in line claimin Hussein had WMDs ... uh that's Sadam Hussein , not .. Barrack Hussein , he just has tools

Generally speaking, the Democrats were just as full of shit about Saddam, WMD's, etc., as the Republicans.

To the devil with partisan politics in this regard - what signifies is a false casus belli (nuclear weapons focus), and the price we paid as a result.

4000 of our kids are lying the ground because we got it wrong - or because we were lied to - take your pick - both perspectives may have some merit.

Lied to, bad intel OR he managed to hide them or destroy most of them b4 we got there ... he had plenty of warning.

But Nukes were never really a major part of the picture - it's just you tools trying to rewrite History again. It's a little more difficult when its Modern History isn't it ?

That's a lie Greenbean....it WAS about WMD'S, in the form of waking up to the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud....NUKES

it WAS about yellowcake....for NUKES

it WAS about NUKES that could hit us in 45 minutes...

It is you that has conveniently forgotten what we were being told by the administration at the time....

Look everyone, liberals are now trying to claim chemical weapons were not part of the WMDs.

They also deny that saddam was putting that information out on purpose about nukes, and it was confirmed by defectors, including his two son in laws.

They clearly deny that the country simply enforced the policy of the country that had been signed by Clinton. The Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs.

They clearly will not allow themselves to see that the WAR ON TERROR was always going to be about more than getting al qaeda or bin laden.

They are shifting like the sands of Egypt right before our eyes.

No, it was not about chemical weapons that put America behind the President, it was about a NUCLEAR WMD threat that was hyped by the administration....it was about yellowcake and
Valerie Plame's husband exposing the LIE THE ADMINISTRATION WAS SAYING ON IT.... it was about waking up to a Mushroom cloud...

WE KNEW saddam had chemical weapons, and chemical weapons that were deteriorating...

Chemical weapons could not reach us here in the USA, they were of no threat to the USA that required us to start a war against a sovereign nation, and put our men out there to die for....

STOP rewriting history to make yourselves 'feel' better....now that all our guys are DEAD and MAIMED.

So the far left press sold the idea of Nukes? Even though Powell cited chemical weapons and mobile chemical labs?

 

[kiwiman127]

“Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.”
“The regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.”-George W Bush September 12, 2002

The above reflects what was pounded into the heads of Americans.
However, the chemical weapons that were found were from Saddam's pre-Gulf War of 1991 days.
Clearly, the right is misrepresenting actual facts with their assertions. The chemical weapons found were over tens years old. Saddam had not reconstructed his chemical weapons program, which the Bushies claimed. There is as of today, absolutely no evidence of a reconstructed chemical weapons program by Saddam..

 

[Care4all]

Generally speaking, the Democrats were just as full of shit about Saddam, WMD's, etc., as the Republicans.

To the devil with partisan politics in this regard - what signifies is a false casus belli (nuclear weapons focus), and the price we paid as a result.

4000 of our kids are lying the ground because we got it wrong - or because we were lied to - take your pick - both perspectives may have some merit.

Lied to, bad intel OR he managed to hide them or destroy most of them b4 we got there ... he had plenty of warning.

But Nukes were never really a major part of the picture - it's just you tools trying to rewrite History again. It's a little more difficult when its Modern History isn't it ?

That's a lie Greenbean....it WAS about WMD'S, in the form of waking up to the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud....NUKES

it WAS about yellowcake....for NUKES

it WAS about NUKES that could hit us in 45 minutes...

It is you that has conveniently forgotten what we were being told by the administration at the time....

Look everyone, liberals are now trying to claim chemical weapons were not part of the WMDs.

They also deny that saddam was putting that information out on purpose about nukes, and it was confirmed by defectors, including his two son in laws.

They clearly deny that the country simply enforced the policy of the country that had been signed by Clinton. The Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs.

They clearly will not allow themselves to see that the WAR ON TERROR was always going to be about more than getting al qaeda or bin laden.

They are shifting like the sands of Egypt right before our eyes.

No, it was not about chemical weapons that put America behind the President, it was about a NUCLEAR WMD threat that was hyped by the administration....it was about yellowcake and
Valerie Plame's husband exposing the LIE THE ADMINISTRATION WAS SAYING ON IT.... it was about waking up to a Mushroom cloud...

WE KNEW saddam had chemical weapons, and chemical weapons that were deteriorating...

Chemical weapons could not reach us here in the USA, they were of no threat to the USA that required us to start a war against a sovereign nation, and put our men out there to die for....

STOP rewriting history to make yourselves 'feel' better....now that all our guys are DEAD and MAIMED.

So the far left press sold the idea of Nukes? Even though Powell cited chemical weapons and mobile chemical labs?

The press quoted what President Bush, and vice pres Cheney and condi rice, and rumsfeld and wolfowitz said..... if what the president and the administration implied about Nukes was not important, then why did the administration push the idea?