2006-10-13 08:04:03 · 14 answers · asked by david c 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Not at all, if his lips are moving he is lying.
2006-10-13 08:13:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
UH-OH you left these desperate conservatives a loop hole you should have pointed out that the mustard gas was found discarded on old battle fields if you don't they'll make it sound like there was some huge warehouse full of mustard gas shells. You should also point out that 18 year old mustard gas is worthless the chemicals break down over time. The uranium they cling to was for there bombed out reactor and was found in it's storage casks right where the IAEA had left them. This uranium was legal and was worthless as a nuke as it needed to be processed more to weapons grade and Iraq didn't have the machinery for that. You could make a dirty bomb with this material but that wasn't an issue during this countries debate until after the war started and conservatives started looking for new excuses for the invasion of Iraq. You waste your time with those kind of people fanatics to the end like Hitler SS still believing in victory when it was clear all was lost.
2006-10-13 08:23:37 · answer #2 · answered by brian L 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Saddam had WMD's in 1998. Everyone in the world said so at that time. There are 2 possibilities:
1) after expelling the inspectors, he destroyed all his WMD's & managed to hide that from every intel service in the world
or
2) while we were yacking ath the UN, he moved them to Syria.
You decide which is more likely.
2006-10-17 07:24:56 · answer #3 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
actually your facts are not only biased but wrong..if you had done a little research you would have found that there was more than '18 yr old mustard' gas that was found, in fact mustard gas has not been used for decades. they did however find several canisters of old although active biological agents....even though there were not the huge stockpiles saddam had before we invaded it would have still been enough to kills thousands...the biggest problem is we would have found the larger stockpiles but as you so conveiently left out...2 weeks before our 'ally', russia made it known to saddam our plans and for those two weeks, there were many trips by tractor trailers made back and forth across the border into syria, which is known for its double dealing and support not only of al qaida but also any terrorist organization...what were on those trucks? even ex -u.n. inspectors who spoke out about saddam not allowing them to check certain areas or delaying them because they were moving canisters, said he had them and that they had saw them. the problem was when they did try to bring it to light their superiors shut them down and ultimately they were re-assigned or fired. now you can choose to believe what you want to 'back up' your agenda but if you are truly concerned about america and its people you will be willing to seek out the truth, not the 'truth' by cnn or fox or micheal moore but the real truth...it may take you a little more time but the truth is usually harder to find than fiction but its also worth it. and don't the kurds and those 7,000 deaths when saddam gassed them, that is more than enough proof he had them and used them.
2006-10-13 08:15:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, he said it. He was repeating what the CIA and intelligence agencies around the world had told him, but the buck stops with him.
The important distinction to remember is that he would not have said there were WMD's if he knew there were none. Who would have, knowing that none would be found? This is a textbook case of the intelligence community letting us down.
2006-10-13 08:11:50 · answer #5 · answered by rustyshackleford001 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
they have found whole fighter planes buried in the sand...not to mention the hundreds of mass graves...
They have found over 500 examples of WMD's The problem is libs only know how to check the internet for salon.com polls
fact check this:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005207.php
The link in this story goes to a washinton post article
2006-10-13 08:19:03 · answer #6 · answered by smitty031 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Never have, never will.
WMD was simply a smokescreen. Whether he found any or not, He was still going to go to war with them. WMD were irrelevant.
2006-10-13 08:07:18 · answer #7 · answered by Deirdre H 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
i believe that he took the best intelligence he could find, and put a spin on it to get the results he wanted, a simple word blacked out here and there in the interest of national security, such as doesnt, and no, and couldnt fight his way out of a paper bag, would be enough to start a war.
2006-10-13 08:07:27 · answer #8 · answered by tomhale138 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Uranium and Chemical Weapons were found too numbnuts..Ok..Lets see that "18 year old mustard gas" unleashed in your city by terrorist and see what happens
2006-10-13 08:07:16 · answer #9 · answered by I Hate Liberals 4 · 1⤊ 5⤋
yeah I do because they did find wmds, did you miss that news? they found them and they knew they were there because the american government sold them to iraq
2006-10-13 08:07:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋