Why do liberals deny WMDs were found in Iraq?

Question

Here's on report of WMD's found
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

This coupled with the 250,000 Iraqi citizens who lost there lives to the admitted use of Chemical weapon AKA WMD's

And the Iranians that lost there lives to these same chemical weapons.

How can the WMDs be denied?

Answer 1

Thousands of cannisters of seren nerve gas have been found in Iraq as late as the Spring of 2006. Mostly French and Russian made.

The question is not "if" Iraq had WMD but "where" did they go?
Sattelite photos show Russian convoy activity prior to the invasion. An inconvienent truty moron libs refuse to recognize.

Answer 2

Everybody knew that Saddam had chemical weapons prior to 1991. During the 90's, the UN searched Iraq for remaining chemical weapons and explosives, which were required to be destroyed. They are not considered as WMD's. The Bush Admin accused Saddam of continuing to manufacture WMDs (they had none) and of acquiring nuclear capability (they acquired none).
The degraded mustard chemicals found were a minor find, dating back to the 80's. Here is an exerpt from your article:
Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

Answer 3

First my answer is...It's not that "liberals" as you call them deny WMD's. It's that everyone involved generally deny finding WMD's. As far as I know all of those that were in favor of the war and believe in staying the course admit there were no WMD's.
As to the thing you linked...I think this is a matter of definitions and numbers. A nuclear bomb might more likely be categorized as a WMD rather than a small amount of leftover gas making ingredients. You may disagree with this definition, as the politicians exposing this info. You have that right. However, the people in charge of defining and finding WMD's don't feel like they've found anything of consequence.
I think the war would be better fought by redeploying the troops at the borders, ports, etc. and checking for WMD's on people that come in. Don't worry about foreigners with weapons unless they have the ability to shoot us from home. Just a thought.

Answer 4

President Bush made a speech a few years back (I think in 05) and when talking about the initial goal of WMD, he said, "We did not find those." By the way Fox News has reported numerous times about stockpiles of WMD and Chemical weapons in IRaq, and it turned out these places didnt exist. Saddam did have weapons about 15 years, just like the intel. said that was old that Bush used.

Answer 5

Speaking truth isn't denial! Foxnews is an oxymoron. After the perpetual dishonesty of Bush and Chaney, why figure talk of WMDs was anything more than more lies. We Liberals understood from those two draft-dodgers, the war in Irag is about egos and profitering! When I hear the term WMD, I think of Bush equals " Worlds Most Dangerous"!

Answer 6

That's pathetic. You're telling me that we invaded Iraq, causing untold number of civilian causalities, over 3000 US causalities, to find some 15 year old shells? Even the pentagon says they weren't the WMD's we were after. The chemical agents in those shells deteriorates over time, getting less dangerous every year.

Answer 7

I'm no where near liberal, but dude if you read your own source (WHICH WOW... Fox News? pretty lame) only one person says they found WMDS. The only evidence in which he has to support that claim is they found hundreds of chemical bombs. Not all chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction, and none of these chemical weapons that have been found are WMDS.

Answer 8

Fox News is a notorious, well-known propaganda machine. For example, when the Foley scandal broke, they first printed on screen that he was a Democrat. They will do anything to discredit liberals.

I was in the Army, I've deployed to Iraq, and seen plenty of first-hand evidence that there were no WMDs in Iraq, at least definitely not the VX, Sarin, and nuclear material the President said we would find.

Skylor Williams

Answer 9

So, in spite of everything, in spite of the U.N. and the committe that spent MONTHS in Iraq before we invaded, in spite of the fact that we haven't found any sign of WMD in Iraq (until the latest terrorists from Iran started bringing them in), you are STILL going to rely on Faux News and that whacko Santorum for your up-to-date information on the war.

THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION FOUND IN IRAQ. Which was the reason for the invasion...... Repeat this over and over and over inyour pointy little head....Stop watching trash news.

As far as your deathrate is concerned, consider this....it took Saddam 30 years to kill 250,000 people in Iraq....George Bush has managed to kill 110,00 in four years. Now you tell me who the terrorist is.

Answer 10

Sarin and Nerve gasses are localized weapons of death--not the MUSHROOM CLOUD weaponry we were FALSELY told they had.

Your story does not mention the source of these weapons, which are PROVEN to be left overs from the IRAQ/IRAN war--you know--the time when Saddam was our Allie and Rumsfeld was negoitiating the sale of Chemical and Biological weapons with Saddam?
http://www.democracynow.org/static/rumsfeldcloset.shtml

Talk about Denial!!