Okay - for the morons:
The so-called 500 WMDs were pre-1991 degraded weapons that were only a threat to those who came upon them without proper protective attire. If you don't believe me, why don't you ask the Department of Defense - who has said these were not the weapons they were looking for. Don't believe that? Why don't you ask President Bush, who said: "The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there." That report was drummed up by Santorum - a discredited Senator who knows he's is going to lose his seat in Pennsylvania and will do anything to stay in power.
As for finding 450,000 tons of explosives? Explosives are conventional weapons, not WMDs. If explosives were WMDs and we were going to go into every nation that possessed them, we'd be invading about 150 more nations in order to win Bush's "War on Terror".
Get real. When will you admit facts - when you can't admit facts that even your beloved President admits, you're really deluded.
2006-08-07 11:31:41
·
answer #1
·
answered by WBrian_28 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
Saddam probably had chemical weapons. Hell, we all have chemical weapons in our house (bleach + ammonia = chlorine gass. It sponges your lungs).
As for Nuclear Weapons, Saddam would never had gotten it before Israel air striked it.
And Biological Weapons, If Saddam had biological weapons, they would all have degraded by now and ended up as a bunch of dead organisms.
The CIA agency has repeatedly told President Bush that there was no WMDs in Iraq, and the fact that in it's current state, Iraq could not afford to have such a program. Likewise, countries who supposidly sold Iraq nuclear materials never delivered the goods. Especially, "Red Mercury," which Iraq spent millions of dollars on purchasing (it doesn't exist).
Bottom line: Bush does not listen to Intel that conflicts with his purposes. Nor does he watch the news.
2006-08-07 11:24:51
·
answer #2
·
answered by Roger Y 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes. President Bush gave Saddam a number of warnings, and with the time that we were doing nothing Saddam was hiding his wmds into other countries. and that is why we may not be able to find anything. But there are still some weapons in Iraq.
2006-08-07 11:17:41
·
answer #3
·
answered by ace 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
In answer to your main question, Iraq had no WMD, I've always believed this. Some of the president's minions including Rick Santorium have tried to spread rumors that WMDs were found, but that the media refuses to report this. As if the Bush publicity (propaganda) machine would also neglect this story!
2006-08-07 11:16:17
·
answer #4
·
answered by TxSup 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is amazing how people want to glorify the enemies of the United States by double speak and political spin. They did find the chemical weapons of mass destruction.
This is little different from those who jump all over the United States for dropping nuclear bombs on Japan to end World War II. When Japan was forced to sign surrender terms it was only two days before the date they had scheduled to drop multiple dirty nuclear bombs on San Francisco. They had the bombs (with nuclear material delivered by submarine from Germany) and they had the delivery system of special sea planes to be delivered near to the West Coast by specially built submarines.
2006-08-07 11:26:53
·
answer #5
·
answered by Randy 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yeah, yeah, yeah. How do YOU classify the 450,000 TONS of high explosives actually found and documented? Some of this is known to have been stolen by the Iraqi terrorists out of ammo dumps before they could be fully secured by our forces, and these explosives are currently being used as improvised explosive devices against our uniformed men and women and against Iraqi government troops and civilians, while all you can think about is bashing Repulicans.
2006-08-07 11:21:03
·
answer #6
·
answered by senior citizen 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Dems Prior to Iraq Invasion:
Bill Clinton said on February 17th, 1998, "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force,
our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
Senator Hillary Clinton:
On October 10, 2002 she said, "In the four years since the inspectors left,intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his
chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability,his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists
including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked,Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity
to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
John 'cherry-picking' Kerry said on January 23rd, 2003,"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein.
He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime.He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently
prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.
His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."
On September 27th, 2002 Senator Kennedy said,"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is
seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Even worse, they have intentionally denied acceptance of the results of the bipartisan Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States
Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction lead by Judge Laurence H. Silberman and former Sen. Charles S. Robb (D-Va.). The commission examined the pre-war intelligence
and reported that not only had the intelligence about Iraq's illicit weapons been overwhelmingly faulty and wrong,
but they completely exonerated the President's White House and administration officials of charges from Democrats that they had pressured intelligence analysts
to shade or change their reports because of political pressure.
2006-08-07 11:15:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by Boredstiff 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Hussien knew we were coming from CNN!
It takes 6 weeks to deploy troops to the other side of the world.
How many weapons can an Army with trucks move in 6 weeks?
Think people these questions just aren't that tough!
2006-08-07 16:01:37
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Chemical weapons are WMD's not just nuclear weapons. There have been 500+ found sofar. Oh yea there wasn't any mention from the liveral media from that was there.
2006-08-07 11:13:55
·
answer #9
·
answered by chupakabra123 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
The San Fernando Valley has a pretend backside, you may get entry to it for the period of the hollow avocado tree on the tip of Riverside; yet a %. of chuds have been given loose down there interior the ninety's, so god in basic terms is familiar with how lots of them are down there now. Burbank does not incredibly decide to talk approximately it.
2016-09-29 00:33:09
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋