Lberals, explain this one: if Iraq never had WMDs, where did these come from?

Question

http://www.wnbc.com/news/14012975/detail.html

You claim Saddam never had them and Bush lied about it. The UN took them from Iraq.

Explain this one.

Answer 1

You assume that liberals will be convinced by evidence. You fail to take into consideration the sheep like mind set liberals have. On almost all issues once a statement is issued by a leading liberal all evidence rebutting that is ignored. Example: Al Gore says man creates climate change, all sheep repeat. Example, Bush lied people died, all sheep repeat. Example, Bush tax cuts cause the deficit to grow, even though the federal government is taking in more revenue because of it, all sheep repeat. Example , AIDS is everyone problem, even though only those who engage in receptive anal intercourse, shoot drugs with needles, or get blood transfusions from infected donors, all sheep repeat. Example, evolution is a fact, despite no evidence of this, all sheep repeat. Example, Katrina shows us all we live in a racist country, despite the fact that more whites than blacks died in that disaster, all sheep repeat. Example, despite that fact that Saddam used WMD's on the Iranians and his own people, liberals to this day say he never had them, all sheep repeat.

Answer 2

NO ONE is claiming that there NEVER were WMDs in Iraq. What people are rightfully saying is that after the Gulf War when Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait the remaining WMD were either moved or useless. By the time prior to our attack they were gone. The reason Hans Blix didn't find them is that there were none in Iraq. The UN got some from somewhere 10 years ago but that was before the UN inspections and the subsequent shock and awe of GWB's unprovoked attack on a soverign nation. Here is a line from the story you so generously included with your question:

DHS spokesman Russ Knocke said the items were shipped more than 10 years ago and that "There is no indication of questionable activity."

Bush lied because at the time of the lie Saddam didn't have WMD and if he did they were rendered useless anyway.

Answer 3

Now all the libs are saying they never disputed the fact that Saddam had WMD's, but that he didn't at the time of the invasion? How the HELL would they know when and if Saddam got rid of his stock pile? A dicatator like Saddam that does not follow international military laws does not just simply get rid of an extremely powerful weapon like that! The arrogance on the left to even claim they know that he got rid of the WMD's well before the invasion is complete idiocy!! If he did get rid of the WMD's, it was simply to evade getting in trouble with the UN inspectors and the US, not just because he felt he didn't need them anymore!

You liberals never cease to amaze me with your blatant arrogance! You have democrats like Hillary, saying all the way up to the invasion that he had WMD's, and not just chemical but dangerously close to achieving nuclear weapons. Slick Willie said he had them in '98, Gore said he did in 2000 in belive, this coming from the liberal democRATs you lefties admire so much. Yet all these libs on here keep saying is it was in '96! Big deal, does that mean right when that report came out, Saddam got an attack of conscience and said "I really need to dispose of these chemical weapons".... Listen to how ridiculous you liberals sound! The fact that Saddam got these weapons from us during the Iran/Iraq war is of no relevance to Chainsaw's question!

Answer 4

I'm not a Liberal or a Democrat. But i just wanted to point out that those chemicals were taken from Iraq in 1996 by UN weapons inspectors. We didn't invade until 2003. But when we did invade, it was based off of intelligence that the Clinton Administration had about Saddam's pursuit of WMD's. Either way, Saddam was guilty of possessing, or in the process of possessing WMD's.

Answer 5

Thats funny man, the UN was holding the evidence and did not even know it.

Saddam had them that is fact. He intended to do more including nuclear devices, again that is fact. Bush did not lie, that has been proven.

Yet, the braindead will just go on with their big lie until the Kos or the DNC say they can stop.

Answer 6

Talking point illogic. No one claimed Hussein never had WMD's. (this stuff was removed from Iraq in 1996) But after 10 years of inspections and sanctions he did not have any when we invaded in 2003. All actual evidence supported that he did not have any usable WMD's or fruitful programs to develop new ones. So if it wasn't lies, it was spin to the absurd.

Answer 7

Iraq definitely had WMDs at one time'
US manufactured ones at that.
Delivered by Sec Rumsfeld during the Iraq/Iran War.

History shows he used them on Iranians and his own people.

Answer 8

That is almost too easy to explain. First of all, look at the date that they were 'stored'...1996. That was during Clinton's administration and when the UN was actively persuing Saddam for his chemical build up. It was never said that Saddam never had chemical weapons...it was said that he didn't have them after 1999.....Bush still lied because Saddam did not have them at the time that Bush said he had them..which was 2002...you really need to think and pay attention a little closer to what you post as "proof"...because this time it just made you look like a fool.

Answer 9

He also used WMDs against Iran, the Kurds and other of Iraq's citizens.

Answer 10

There's nothing to explain. That has nothing to do with anything.

You are like the Japanese soldier still hiding in the cave 20 years after the war has ended and you still think Americans are the enemy. Get over it already! No WMD's found, it was a lie!