Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found in Iraq Can Democrats admit they lied and caused people to die?

Question

Funny how the excuses shift.

Answer 1

whoblitzell...since the stuff they found isn't dangerous, lets bury it in your backyard, okay?

Saddam was a saint-of course he had no WMDs. That's why he wouldn't give the UN inspectors complete access, right? The guy buried entire combat jets-intact-in the desert. Is it perhaps possible that he has buried other, smaller things as well?

Answer 2

Depleted sarin is not a weapon, 500 outdated shells from the Iraq-Iran war are not 'mass' and dried up chemicals can't destroy anything. These are not WMD, WMD have not been found in Iraq. Depleted sarin HAS been found in Iraq, but it means absolutely nothing.

By the way, it was the American government that gave Hussein that technology to begin with to fight a proxy war with Iran.

edit:

I don't think you people understand this: It is NOT an opinion that the depleted sarin is not dangerous. It is a FACT. It is a scientific fact that sarin cannot remain potent for two decades. These are not weapons of mass destruction. Stop believing everything you watch on the TV and go out and do some actual reading from independent sources.

<>

Saddam Hussein being evil has nothing to do with whether he had WMD or not. This is a logical fallacy known as ad hominem.

<>

In 2003, the reason the UN inspectors were pulled out is because GEORGE W BUSH started the Iraq War with the airstrikes on Baghdad. Saddam didn't kick them out, we did.

<>

Possible, yes. Likely, no. Burying 'hundreds of tons of VX, anthrax and mustard gas' isn't exactly something you can do overnight. It isn't something easy to get away with, especially when your country is under UN surveillance and being spied on 24/7 by American predator drones. If Saddam had buried them, we would have found them by now.

Someone that hated Saddam would have came forward and disclosed the location. Holes don't dig themselves.

Answer 3

That's a total load of crap. Depleted sarin is not a 'weapon of mass destruction'. It isn't even a weapon.

"He [David Kay] said experts on Iraq's chemical weapons are in almost 100 percent agreement that sarin nerve agent produced from the 1980s would no longer be dangerous."

The above is from a Yahoo! article.

And this from FOX News:

"A senior Defense Department official, however, made the following clarifications:

• These findings do not reflect a WMD capacity that was built up after 1991.
• These are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had.
• These are not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

If even DoD and Fox News is admitting these aren't evidence of anything, then that's game over for the pro-war side.

Nice try, gentlemen.

Answer 4

The very intelligence offers that were cited in the report also stated, "There is no evidence today of any post-1991 WMD munitions," that is, munitions that were produced after U.N. inspections and sanctions began after Operation Desert Storm in early 1991." Also, they say that the count was "around 500 shells", and that many of them were degraded.

So, 2,500 Coalition lives and 35,000 Iraqi civilians for 500 unfilled shells that were over 22 years old. That's 75 lives per weapon, most of which were unfilled or degraded to the point that they couldn't have been used in any form.

Well worth it, I think. (sarcasm)

And, how would a Democratic lie (I assume your saying that "There are no WMD's" was the lie?) cause anyone to die?

There is absolutely nothing new here that wasn't already known.

Red herrings and paper tigers from a Senator (Sentorum) who is NOT going to be re-elected and is desperate.

Answer 5

While I agree with your point that WMD have been found in Iraq,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101837.html
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/

I think your tone is purposefully inflamatory. I support the war in Iraq and the taking out of Saddam Hussein, as well as key AQ leaders because I think it is the right thing to do for America and the free world. However, I do not think America wins by constantly dividing along bipartisan lines over key issues. My philosophy is "fix the problem, not the blame" rather than constantly point and gloat when my viewpoint scores a victory or sulk despondently when I disagree with a winning viewpoint from the "other" side of the aisle. I think open and spirited discussion is healthy and beneficial for the nation, but am opposed to intentionally antagonizing rhetoric.

Answer 6

Don't you mean weapons of mass distraction ?

Nothing has been found in Iraq that supports your statement.

Saddam was certainly a tyrant, a mass murderer and a danger to peace within the Middle East, but he didn't have any WMD's. That has already been acknowledged by President bush.

Answer 7

They have? Where? I'm a Bush supporter but I haven't heard this anywhere, not even Fox News. Don't stupe to their levels by making things up to support the truth. No one believes liars once they lie. That's part of their problem. (Not that I don't believe they weren't there and Saddam moved them.)

Answer 8

man those where old weapon of mustar gas nothing like they told us that was there. it suppose to be 10 ton of this wmd stuff .now they went out end the desert and found theses old weapon that no one could ever use 500 of them i think and want the American peoples to believe that there was this big stock pile of stuff .the peoples of the USA is not stupid .man

Answer 9

that the CIA sold to Iraq to fight Iran, not produced in Iraq after gulf war 1.

Try again Neocon.

Answer 10

In the prison walls of your mind ONLY "liberals" lie?

You spin EVERY peice of news to fit what you want??

Bush never ever caused anybody to die?
WTF??

You're a nationalistic sicko. Get help