Why dosen't the media/general US public realize there were WMD's in Iraq.?

Question

If the following were found in Iraq, why do people still think that there weren't WMD's in Iraq.
1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents
17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)
Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas.
Thousands of war heads that were compatible with chemical agents.
15 seperate WMD attacks (Mustard, Nerve Agent, Tabun, CS) against the Kurds, Shia's, and Iranians.
As early as 1974 Suddam was trying to aquire Nuclear technology, whether for energy and/or weapons can be debated but he didn't have a good track record.

Also Iran was under long time destruction by Suddam, why don't they support what the US is doing in Iraq?
I understand that these actions and some of the supplies could have been from before the first gulf war, but it's a fact that Suddam had WMD's, I would think he would have used them eventually.

I'm just asking because liberals I know still think that there were no WMDs. Also the media(general stereotype) and democrat leaders insist that there were no WMDs. I just wonder how some people can still say that with all the evidence we have?

Sources :
Wikpedia (and from there a bunch of sources)
I think under WMD's it has a bunch of information and related sources and such.

Answer 1

Not Wikipedia. I just read that article (first link below) and all of the munitions mentioned were from the first Gulf War, with the exception of what might fill a pickup-truck of miscellaneous leftovers.

The 1.7 tones of radioactive material is apparently correct (second link below). But enriched uranium is not a WMD. Granted, it is one of the many components required for building them. But Iran also has just as much enriched uranium they've made themselves. That doesn't mean Iran or Iraq had actual nuclear weapons technology.

The rest of the chemical components were either degraded past point of usefulness, or (for the large volumes) the sources were talking about things like ammonia and fertilizer, which could be turned into chemical weapons.

Also, the "warheads capable of chemical attacks" includes smoke grenades, which have the same dispersal mechanisms used to release any other gaseous agent.

There's an old adage in the math world. "Anything can be proven statistically given the correct sample set." It's the same in media and politics. "Any statement can be proven true if you spin the facts correctly."

Answer 2

coragryph is right as to the facts and you know it. These were old, useless weapons, no threat to America in 2003. They were not WMDs.

"Questions" such as this are posed frequently, not to really ask for opinions, but rather to reinforce rumors, change attitudes, manipulate beliefs.

Could you be part of a neocon project to influence public opinion in a small way through Y! answers? Are you paid as a summer intern, or are you just earning your stripes as a volunteer for some church or right wing Republican group? I suppose you could be acting informally on your own after injesting a hint to do this, but I doubt it. In any case, your intent to spread misinformation, to keep people in political lockstep is evident. There were no WMD's found in Iraq. I dare you to pick this as best answer and have it at the top of the page! You won't because you know I speak the truth, and as a minor league stealth propagandist, you lack the requisite verbal skills to prove me wrong!

Answer 3

A recent poll show 1/2 of all American believe there were - up 36% from last year. Word is leaking out no matter what the media does to hide it - including the below article that dismisses wmd as well.

Answer 4

Why do you keep telling this BS????

You are not telling the truth, and even Bush isn't stupid enough to claim 15 year old war heads are exactly wmd's.
Bush has already said they found none! Don't believe your leader?

Quit pushing lies!

Answer 5

The last poll taken on that subject showed fifty percent for and fifty percent against. So, pick the side you want.

Answer 6

What are you asking, that the media and liberals apologize for being wrong? Never happen.

Answer 7

i really think their was but udday or one of his sons move them to Iran or Syria before they could be found

Answer 8

Please provide the sources of your information.