This is what the man took us to war over in Iraq for, and this is why over 3,000 young Americans have laid down their lives for.
Remember when Rumsfeld said "I know where they are. They are in or around the area of Tecrit."
Why haven't they found any of these weapons of mass destruction?
2007-01-23 02:35:28 · 15 answers · asked by Brotherhood 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
They are in the same place that he gets all of his "Ideas & Plans"!
Up his rectum because this is the same place his head is at!
2007-01-23 02:41:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋
Wow, this is so years ago now. Isn't it time to move on from this question. Here's what you strategically forget. It wasn't just the United Stated who thought Iraq had wmd. It was the entire world. The discussion in the UN wasn't if Iraq had them. The discussion was what to do about them. UN resolution 1441 was unanimously adopted. It stated:
" Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security, ...
deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,..."
If you want to rag on Bush then you really should direct it toward the entire world.
Does anyone even need to post what Democrats like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and many others were saying. Someone will.
2007-01-23 02:45:14 · answer #2 · answered by JB 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The same place the Democrats who agree with him said they were? They existed only from bad intelligence that started all the way back during the time of Bill (the Messiah) Clinton.
Your selective memory forgets all the Democrats (and prominent ones at that) who said Saddam had and was developing more. Even Teddy (I'm the poster boy for liberals) Kennedy was saying Saddam was a bad man.
2007-01-23 04:10:30 · answer #3 · answered by namsaev 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
600 tons of unenriched yellow cake uranium, and 1.5 tons of enriched uranium, were indeed found by US troops in Iraq. For a country who didn't have a nuclear power program, isn't that an awful lot of uranium?
Second, Saddam did in fact have WMDs. He used them on the Iranians as well as his own citizens (Kurds). The status of the remaining stockpiles, if any, remain a mystery. They were probably moved to Lebanon or Syria, and recent Israeli claims back up those assertions. Even David Kaye says that some were moved to Syria.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html
Third, Saddam did in fact have WMD programs. While not as advanced as, say, North Korea's programs, Saddam did in fact employ a large number of people for his WMD programs, and did in fact have a serious Nuke program before Israel bombed the reactor in 1982, and the coalition started inspections.
Say, if Saddam didn't have WMDs, then why didn't he prove that to the world? I mean, if Saddam didn't have WMDs (and everyone, including the Russians, French, Germans, Canadians, Brits, Iranians, Saudis, etc etc thought he did in 2002) then why not prove that fact? If Saddam would've been open w/ inspectors, and agreed not to invade his neighbors again (Iran, Kuwait, Saudi) then he's still be sitting in a palace, gleefully adding to the 1.2 million people that he killed as they screamed during torture.
Sorry, it might be hip and cool to say "Bush lied" but the truth is that you need to be prepared to use FACTS when you debate me.
2007-01-23 02:46:23 · answer #4 · answered by geek49203 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It was not solely Bush. A plethora of politicians beleived it to be so. Even the UN weapons inspectors knew they were there but they were moved (most likely to Syria... along with a lot of dual use technology) when Saddam kicked the weapons inspectors out.
Saddam's own scientists and military commanders said there were WMDs but they were moved. FYI: there have been plenty of caches of chemical weapons found, but not the ones the US and UN weapons inspectors were looking for.
2007-01-23 02:44:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
Bush administration will probably blame the liberals for stealing the WMD in Iraq, before the military could find them, and relocating them to New jersey. At least that's what I heard on Fox News.
2007-01-23 02:41:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Like the brains of those sent there to inspect there was none. He acted on what he was told by those that wanted to be in our history books and their desire to be American hero's. Same thing Bush is running on. The same goes for Rice, a total waste of American tax payers dollars.
2007-01-23 02:42:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Check in Syria.
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514
2007-01-23 02:38:45 · answer #8 · answered by Abu 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
They found 500 shells of sarin gas, does that count?
Of course the liberal media squashed that story, the only change they made from their spin is that they stopped asking what you are.
2007-01-23 02:41:30 · answer #9 · answered by Ricky T 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Forget about that Doc
Now he is saying they are in Iran. He's on a wild goose chase and he's going to destroy the middle-east
2007-01-23 02:42:30 · answer #10 · answered by Enigma 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because there weren't any, and he will go to every country till he finds them or anything to justify his "fight" on terrorism
2007-01-23 04:13:46 · answer #11 · answered by joymlcat 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋