How come people in the media and in schools and almost every where say that there was not WMD's in Iraq ?

Question

Especially since they used them on the Kurds in the past and were found in April 2003 and it is pretty well known by the certain intelligence groups that a lot of them were smuggled into Syria?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/santorum-wmd/
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

Its funny that you would say Fox News is being biased on the issue when the report comes straight from "a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit" not Fox News. Could it be other media outlets like the NY Times, CNN, MSNBC, refused to cover it in detail as they should have?

Answer 1

OK, #1 all media in the US is a LIEberal media. They will only write the bad things going on and none of the good. #2 When it comes to the schools the situation is about the same. In college I failed a writing assignment because of one miss spelled word and the fact that I wrote about keeping up with the arms race but my professor was a liberal and one of the protesting hippies from the 60s. None of the above do the research necessary to get out of that lie. It's a fact that our troops captured one of Saddam's generals and he told that the majority of WMDs were shipped to Syria (the media didn't print that) and they don't take into account that there have been several stories, two of which was by CNN that told of our soldiers in Iraq finding a large stash of WMDs. Most of the liberals only regurgitate what their liberal leaders tell them without looking it up for themselves.

Answer 2

you're insane. the entire international knows Bush lied approximately WMDs in Iraq. no longer all and sundry theory Iraq had WMD. each and every u . s . needed to proceed the inspections. yet Bush needed conflict.

Answer 3

My point of view is its better NOT to have found any weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, evidence otherwise would indicate we would be facing a possible W.M.D attack in the USA in the near future.

Answer 4

A stash of conventional bombs and rifles doesn't equal WMDs. We were suppose to be looking for Nukes that Sadaam could use in an instant against us. That is what Colin Powell told the U.N.

Answer 5

They think the WMD means it has to be a nuke. Iraq probably did ship those weapons across the border to hide them.

Answer 6

Even Bush has admitted that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Also, check your sites. Fox news and the NYsun are conservative propoganda machines. Take anything they say with "a grain of salt"

Answer 7

Because their werent any there. The weapons inspectors found none. And your arg about 2003 is bogus. bush is responsible for 150,000 deaths. sadam 150 death's due to the group of kurds trying to assinate him. The war on terror was about osama and al-queida not because sadam killed a group of people that tried to assinate him. I guess thier are some pretty thick skulls.

Answer 8

I do believe that Weapons were moved to Syria but ofcourse we won't know until we go to war with Syria, right after we finish with Iran.

Answer 9

because it is true! they were not in iraq. after saddam used them on the curds, he didn't have anymore and didn't make any more as bush thought he had. our govt. was wrong. and bush isn't man enough to admit it.