Why are Republicans saying there were WMD's in Iraq?

Question

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/

Powell's speech, delivered on February 5, 2003, made the case for the war by presenting U.S. intelligence that purported to prove that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Wilkerson says the information in Powell's presentation initially came from a document he described as "sort of a Chinese menu" that was provided by the White House.

"(Powell) came through the door ... and he had in his hands a sheaf of papers, and he said, 'This is what I've got to present at the United Nations according to the White House, and you need to look at it,'" Wilkerson says in the program. "It was anything but an intelligence document. It was, as some people characterized it later, sort of a Chinese menu from which you could pick and choose."

"There was no way the Secretary of State was going to read off a script about serious matters of intelligence that could lead to war when the script was basically un-sourced," Wilkerson says.

You guys routinely twist the facts or just completely ignore them.

Then keep feeding us lies like we're going to take your misinformed word on it.

What are you listening to that you repeat the same lies ad nauseum?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Many of these documents seem to make clear that Saddam's regime had given up on seeking a WMD capability by the mid-1990s. Associated Press reported, "Repeatedly in the transcripts, Saddam and his lieutenants remind each other that Iraq destroyed its chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s, and shut down those programs and the nuclear-bomb program, which had never produced a weapon."

A year after Bush administration claims about Iraqi "bioweapons trailers" were discredited by American experts, a biological weapons specialist from Australia has claimed that U.S. officials were still suppressing the findings, and that a CIA officer told him it was "politically not possible" to report that the White House claims (about WMD) were untrue.

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/iraq_nukes.html

The CIA had evidence Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction six months before the 2003 US-led invasion but was ignored by a White House intent on ousting Saddam Hussein, a former senior CIA official said, according to CBS. - "The (White House) group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested." - "We said: 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said: 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change'," added Drumheller, whose CIA operation was assigned the task of debriefing the Iraqi official. - "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy," the former CIA agent told CBS.

There were no WMD's, quit lying. And at least *attempt* to show a source if you're not lying.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-10-06-wmd_x.htm

WASHINGTON — When the United States invaded Iraq last year to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or any facilities to build them, according to a definitive report released Wednesday.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/07/iraq/main557473.shtml

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others argued that Saddam Hussein possessed chemical, biological and other weapons and was hiding them.

Two months after major fighting in Iraq ended, U.S. officials have yet to find any chemical or other mass-killing weapons, although they still express confidence that some will turn up.

Despite searches at some 300 sites, and the capture of several high-ranking Iraqis, no evidence has turned up. Two suspected mobile biological weapons factories were found, but showed no sign of having been used to create weapons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3135932.stm

Mr Neil said that according to the source, the report will say its inspectors have not even unearthed "minute amounts of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons material".

They have also not uncovered any laboratories involved in deploying weapons of mass destruction and no delivery systems for the weapons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501554.html

U.S. investigators hunting for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have found no evidence that such material was moved to Syria for safekeeping before the war, according to a final report of the investigation released yesterday.

Yup, typical Republican. You attack me because you cannot refute the evidence that no WMD's have been found.

How about you answer the question posed ya moron?

ONE 155mm mortal shell is not *weapons of MASS destruction.

They found one frickin shell in the entire country and that's what you hold onto? You are clearly delusional.

"And there are others."

No, actually there's not.

You use a conservative Republican site and an article written by one guy who doesn't give resources, just his typical Republican lying opinion.

Answer 1

Because the US sold them some years ago.

Answer 2

First, there is no doubt that Iraq possessed WMDs, this fact has never been in dispute even though many liberals would like it believe that it is.

Second some WMDs have been found in Iraq. Now it is true that we have not found massive stockpiles which were expected, but it does not change the fact that some were there. Liberals still hold to one of two ideas on this. This is a Republican lie none were found, or these weren't the weapons we were looking for.

Just like many liberals you are holding to the first assumption even though there is evidence to prove otherwise. Here's the rub about Iraq though. We really did not know what they possessed before the invasion. Saddam Hussein had engaged in obfuscation and left many in the world, not just the United States believing he still possessed these weapons. Personally I always thought the WMD argument was a tragic mistake by the administration when we already had ample just cause to invade based on UN Resolution and ceasefire agreements violated, but that is so much water under the bridge at this point. Now if you want honesty in the debate I am all for that, but don't suppose for a minute that most liberals are being any more honest with their rhetoric than conservatives because it is just not the case.

Here is a link to one story about a WMD found in Iraq, but there are others.

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/mariani/2004/mariani052804.htm


Edit Apparently apart from being rude you cannot read either. As I stated these are not the only weapons located and this is not the only story on the matter. However I am not your personal research library. Your contention has been refuted since you state serveral times with absolute certainty that they didn't have any of these weapons at all. Before you start calling others morons I would take a good long look in the mirror at what is staring back at you. Intelligent debate is about give and take, your idea of it is apparently dictate and denigrate, get over yourself because the rest of us are definitely not in awe of your self delusion of brilliance.

However just for your own personal benefit here is another link which cites more shells found.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001528.html

Answer back if like. Deny all you want. Either way I am through with this post. You have been refuted properly. Deal with it.

Answer 3

So what your saying is that the intelligence of the modern world, France, Britian, Russia, and the UN all stated that Iraq had WMD, but these agencies didn't lie? Truth is Saddam did have WMD at one time, but never fully told the truth about what happened to them. Perhaps what really happened was Saddam used this 'lie' he was telling to give him an edge in diplomacy. Perhaps this is a conspiracy covered up by certain liberals to make Bush look bad to the American people and the rest of the world.

Answer 4

The republican have to maintain that, because without the WMDs the war is unjustifiable. This is a technique that Hitler used, if the questioner who wondered how anyone could compare the President to Hitler is reading.

The lie will be repeated as loudly and as often as the GOP can get their supporter owned media to air it, with other stupid assertions like "the weapons were smuggled into Iran."

If there had been a single WMD found it would be running on FOX news every hour on the hour until the next millenia. Does anyone remember seeing such a picture? Does anybody really believe the Iraquis would arm the Iranis?

Obviously not. Therefore they must be saying it because they are liars who want to confuse an issue that will destroy them at the polls.

Answer 5

Why don't you stop beating this dead horse and try doing some research before you post one sided information. Most everyone, of all DIFFERENT parties believed Iraq has and had WMD. Several Democrats, including both Clinton's) agreed or though Iraq has/had WMD. So once again, get over it and Republicans are NOT the only ones who thought of this.
Get off the darn bandwagon and think of your own thoughts, and posting links are not your own thoughts. You want to post anti-war stuff or try to make arguments, be ORIGINAL.
I am so tired of this crap. Bring up Clinton and you get lashed for bringing up the "past" well the "past" in this case clearly demonstrates the Democrats thought Saddam possessed the weapons.

Answer 6

Check these links.
The WMD were there and some are still there.
I have friends that were the first to roll into Baghdad, they were in an NBC unit and identified Nerve Agent in the tigeris river. And MANY Soldiers whom I work with that saw the Mobile labs that were found by the 101st Airborne Division en route to Syria. Contaminated with various types of Chemical agents. Why the press doesn't talk about this on a regular basis is beyond me, possibly they have a political agenda.

Answer 7

Sorry to inform you but all the Senate and Congress said there were WMDs in Iraq. This was base on intelligence gathered by the Clinton administration. All the other UN countries said they were there too. Personally, I think with all the stalling, they were taken out of the country by Russia and France.

Answer 8

There are a few reasons, the most compelling of which would probably be the fact that Clinton said they did in 1998. Saddam also refused to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors, a violation of his ceasefire.

Answer 9

Just don't blame them for the disappearance of the iraqi air force? Where did they go? What else could be there? What's going on there now?
Clue:::It's cold here, I need some hot ice.

Answer 10

What do you think they killed the Kurds with?? Do you even know the definition of a WMD??????