Why i mean why do people still deny the the FACT that there are WMDs in iraq?

Question

I mean come on this is just getting silly

Answer 1

What FACT? Do you have evidence? Hard, concrete evidence? Or just a lot of "I think they have them, so they must have them?"

No WMDs were ever found, and the US has given up it's search.

We know that at previous points in time, there were WMDs. Hussein used nerve agents on Iran during the Iraq-Iran war, and had been in the process of developing such weapons in the past. However, we do not know for sure if there were any weapons 10 YEARS after the first Gulf War. It is possible Hussein wanted to develop WMDs, it is actually highly probable from his track record. Whether he actually was or not is unknown and may never be known. It is possible there were no WMDs and the US govt. lied. It is possible there WERE WMDs and they were destroyed/dismantled/moved during the final warning to Saddam Hussein. It is even possible there ARE WMDs but they have been so well hidden in some obscure remote location we don't know about we never found them.

All are possibilities, but it is NOT a fact there are WMDs in Iraq.

Answer 2

Maybe because everyone, including Bush now admits that there weren't/aren't any?

There were heavy sanctions on Iraq, we had inspectors in there looking. Maybe it wasn't being done fast enough but at least efforts were being made to remove Saddam from power without mass american soldier casualities and iraqi civilian casualities. There was no reason to invade. Bush wanted to be known as a "war president" plain and simple.
If you had WMD would you run and hide in a hole or would you use them?
If this is a fact, then where is the evidence that supports this? There is none.

I can't decide if you're just very ignorant or if you are a smartass.

Answer 3

First off. Some of your other answerers seem to think that Nukes are the only WMDs. I'm reffering to Jaike, and KatVic here. Chemical and Biological are also WMD's.

We (the US Government) NEVER said that Saddam had nukes. But it is a FACT that he DID have WMD's and was actively persuing trying to get more of them.

phillies40 is right on the money about why is no liberal calling clinton a lier. Clinton knew there were WMD's there as well. and has said so.
People like dude, Jaike, Cyrus A, KatVic, and Awakening Spirit appear to be blindly obsessed bush-haters without any sense of reason.

Others like amiram a, prinsin99, azrael505, and zahir13 appear to be just misinformed about the actual situation (zahir13... to you. what WMD's have US forces brought into Iraq? what Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical weapons did we bring? hmm..? NONE. so shut it.

The truth is this.
1) Saddam DID have WMD's. He has USED them

2) Saddam was required to get rid of them (UN resolutions)

3) Saddam was required to cooperate with UN inspectors

4) Saddam played a cat-n-mouse game with the inspectors

5) Saddam was actively trying to get nuclear material

6) Saddam has NEVER fully complied with the UN resolutions

7) Mobile Bio-weapons labs were found in Iraq

8) Sarin nerve agent bombs were found in Iraq

9) 500 artillery shells designed for nerve/bio were found in Iraq

10) even liberals thought he had the WMD's prior to the war

11) even liberals voted FOR the war

12) there is strong indication that WMD's were hidden in Syria

13) or in the desert of Iraq (no proof but strong indications)

14) Acting in good faith on bad intel does NOT constituted intentional misleading on the part of the president.

15) WMD's were found in Iraq but not in the mass quantities that was indicated by the bad intel

16) The Liberal Media does NOT report the facts of the news but chooses what and how to report so to spin to their political point of view (Bush-Bashing)

17) Liberal media has downplayed the finding of WMDs in order to make bush look bad.

I could go on and on but this should be enough. Seach the net and you will find many articles on WMDs found in Iraq. If this doesn't convince you then its hopeless to try convincing someone who has made up their mind by listening to liberal propaganda and refuses to look at both sides.

I am for the "War On Terror" and am for "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and Yes they are two seperate things. Iraq had nothing to do with the War on Terror until after we had won against Saddam and then terrorists came in during the rebuilding phase to start their "Jihad"

Answer 4

Because no has found any. Even the Bush administration admits that now.

Saddam did have some, once. After the Gulf War, he was totally boxed in and he tried to weasel out of destroying his stockpiles as he'd agreed to. It took a lot of effort by UN inspectors to finally get all the information needed. The stockpiles were destroyed. During the Clinton administration, targetted strikes destroyed Saddam's ability to make more (this, according to the 9/11 Commission).

Since then, the only WMDs in Iraq were those brought by US forces.

Answer 5

Because the left claims that the WMD's found in Iraq don't count because "they were old".

The fact that Sarin doesn't deteriorate with age, isn't relevent to them.

The liberals don't deny that WMDs were found in Iraq, they just deny that they made a difference. Read the link below and make your own decision.

Answer 6

in basic terms because some individuals of the Democratic party believed Iraq had WMD's which means all those who vote Democrat concept an similar component? that's in basic terms stupid. i became very skeptical of the information presented to the well-known public, as were maximum different liberals. the reality is - the Democratic administration had to look frustrating on protection so that they rolled over and enable the Bushies have their way with them. It became pathetic, sure, yet that's in basic terms politics. the reality is - we liberals were properly and also you conservatives were incorrect. get over it.

Answer 7

When Clinton started mentioning "WMD in Iraq" in the 90s, no Liberals calling him a liar. why is that?

The reason is very simple, Liberals just are Anti-Bush and Anti-GOP kind of people.

Answer 8

THERE ARE NO W.M.D.'S IN IRAQ! geeze I am sick at my stomach hearing that there are! Now he had chemical weapon's, But it is a well known fact he only used them on the "Kurdish" population in his own country. There has "Never" been any Nuclear materials found there, Not-One! No-Uranium, No-Plutonium, NOTHING! and even if So-Damn-Insane had them, how in the hell would he have deployed them to the United States? THEY HAVE NO I.C.B.M.'S EITHER! And that would have been the only method to deploy. I am all for the invasion, dint get me wrong! So-Damn had to be removed! He was a tyrant who ruled those people under the threat of death, and torture! And the world sat and watched as he did this for YEARS! It's not like he came to power 3 months before we invaded. He had been in power for years. So I back the decision to remove him and his murderous-clan. But not under the false pretense that we did it because of W.M.D.'s! Tell it like it is, we removed a Mini-Hitler from power, and his cronies. We did not remove W.M.D.'s from power. Nothing was ever found there to suggest anything different. I think Rumsfeild needs to do some explaining. God-Bless America, And Our Troops! 1st. Sgt., 7th Special Forces, (Ret.) Vietnam, "67"-"70"

Answer 9

Mostly because it isn't a fact. If it were, our president would be shouting it from the highest mountain. Because it is not a fact, him and his cronies only hint that they had them but will never come out and say they did. Listen to the language, Bush & Co. say that prior to the invasion, everyone believed there were WMD's (even though even THAT is a lie). They make it sound like it was the consensus opnion and so the fact they never found any isn't their fault

Answer 10

Because these WMDs were never found, rumors say that the Iraqi regime moved them to Syria before Iraq was invaded.