Why do people continue to claim that we did not find WMD's in Iraq??

Question

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swBcfdN5Nh4

I call 500 chemical weapons WMD's. And this is just one news story.

Another anti-war argument failed.

Answer 1

Regardless of your source, WMDs were in fact found.

But if they were not, what does this prove?

That they never existed? Hardly. They could have been

1. moved to a foreign country;

2. sold to terrorists or a foreign country;

3. hidden in Iraq or a foreign country;

4. destroyed by Iraqis or others.

Don't expect Bush critics to think about these things because it does not behoove them to do so.

Also, there were over a dozen reasons to invade Iraq, and WMDs were only one them. Fascinating that people who claim to care so much about human rights suddenly care nothing for them when a Republican stands against a major offender of human rights.
________

Not surprisingly, the responders to this question either (1) attack the source, not the argument, or (2) "move the goal posts" by changing the argument: *WMDs might have been found, but they weren't the ones we were looking for.*

Answer 2

This is from the report that President Bush said would be the "final word" on Iraq's WMDs. Remember this guy was hand picked by the president himself.

"Despite the U.S. intelligence judgment that Iraq in 2002 had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program, Duelfer reported that after 1991, Baghdad's nuclear program had "progressively decayed." He added that the Iraq Survey Group investigators had found no evidence "to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."

Duelfer's report is the first U.S. intelligence assessment to state flatly that Iraq had secretly destroyed its biological weapons stocks in the early 1990s. By 1995, though, and under U.N. pressure, it abandoned its efforts.

The document rules out the possibility that biological weapons might have been hidden, or perhaps smuggled into another country, and it finds no evidence of secret biological laboratories or ongoing research that could be firmly linked to a weapons program.

Some biological "seed stocks" -- frozen samples of relatively common microbes such as bolutinum -- were found in the home of one Iraqi official last year. But the survey team said Iraq had "probably" destroyed any bulk quantities of germs it had at the height of the program in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Duelfer's report said that no chemical weapons existed and that there is no evidence of attempts to make such weapons over the past 12 years."

This source got the go ahead from the White House, so I don't see how a conservative can argue with it. And in case you missed it he specifically says it rules out smuggling to another country.

Answer 3

I was saying the same thing in my personal life too, but I got called on it by my own husband and his brother- both conservatives and active duty soldiers. As it was explained to me, what they found was not the product of recent activity within Iraq, such as the UN inspectors were looking for. They were old weapons left over from the late 1970's, early 80's when no one disputes that Hussein used them on his people. According to the case made by the Bush admin. and laid out to the UN by Powell, there should have been exceptionally large caches of modern chemical weapons that would have made 500 look like a drop in the bucket. But so far, they just aren't there. I still wonder about the claims that they passed over the border into Syria. But I haven't heard any documented sightings of it.

Answer 4

You have got to be kidding me. You are saying that we:
Sent in 150,000 troops
Bombed the sh!t out of a country
Killed I don't know how many civilians
Lost 3,000 soldiers
Had 21,000 soldiers wounded
All for 500, 15 year old, barely toxic shells which, by the way, the pentagon has even said were not the WMD's we were looking for!
BTW, there has never been any evidence to support the so called theory that the WMD's were moved out of Iraq to Syria prior to the invasion.

Answer 5

Those which were found, were known about. They were old weapons that are next to useless and we likely sold to them-- pre-gulf war I

Bush indicated that Iraq was a gathering threat with WMD's that could be deployed. He did not have nukes and couldn't produce them either. He did not have biological weapons as was purported by Bush et. al. Face it-- they were either inept or lied-- niether is acceptable grounds for us going to war.

Truth is-- Iraq was not a threat, the results of the war are worse than if we had not gone in.

Answer 6

Mainly because it's true??? The so-called 500 chem weapons were about as useful as that many cans of Raid for mass inhalation. So do tremble in fear, be VERY afraid when you go to the supermarket. Never know where a "terraist" is lurking. Down with Dictator Dumbya!!!

Answer 7

From you-tube. LOL not a real source. The media has less of a bias opionion. Honestly you think of wmd were found that it would not have been plaster everywhere. Bush and his adminstration would have had it all over the news. It would have pulled he approval rating up so far.
Even if liberal bias media would not have reported it I am sure the journalists and the UK media would have had it blasted all over their airwaves.

Answer 8

Beats me

When I was working for Halliburton I personally buried tons of WMD's from the Alabama arsenal, just outside of Badgag

Go big Red Go

Answer 9

Those aren't the ones Bush claimed to pose danger to us. Those are old trash, garbage. Don't you think Bush will be all over TV telling about WMD if they found one? Instead of admitting there were none. Another faith based information DEBUNKED!

Answer 10

Research my friend. the WMDs we've found are not the ones we went to war over. There have been WMDs we gave them in the 80s. there was WMDs he produced in the 90s. There were WMDs he destroyed and dismantled in the late 90s.

the ones we went to war over (WMDs produced and being produced recently) were never found.