Does any of this information affect your opinion about Iraq and/or the WMD situation?
The first is the comments of one of Saddam's ex-Generals:
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514?access=843468
The second is regarding UNMOVIC and the Prime Minister of Canada's:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1159339/posts
The third is a video of Pres. Bill Clinton.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiIyy0hgg-M
--Please check out all the information before answering--
2007-10-19 11:46:03 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Coragryph, are you saying that because Saddam moved the WMD's to Syria and cried "ollie, ollie, oxen-free!" that he should have been let off the hook?
Also, what about UNMOVIC's claim that WMD's were moved "before, during, and after the war"?
2007-10-19 12:13:13 · update #1
Also, how is having "personal knowledge of the shipment" and "being sure it happened" inconsistent?
2007-10-19 12:52:32 · update #2
Welcome to the fight pilgrim . Open my profile for numerous links to assist you in your quest. I gladly share. Bravo.
(pilgrim someone who journey's in foreign lands!!)
2007-10-19 11:52:27 · answer #1 · answered by Mele Kai 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Sada (first link) has been saying that story for years now -- except it has changed slightly. He originally said that he had personal knowledge of the shipment -- now, he's just sure it happened.
Either way, if he is to be believed -- the weapons were already gone from Iraq before the US attacked -- meaning that whether there were any at one point, there still were not any under Saddam's control when the US attacked.
As to the other references -- sure, lots of people believed at various times that Saddam had WMDs -- but Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney actually went on the record saying they knew exactly where the weapons were located -- after the initial invasion, and long after Sada says they were shipped out of the country..
Which makes all of them either a liar or simply very wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~
EDIT: One purported goal of the invasion was to stop Saddam from having WMDs -- that goal was accomplished, before the invasion -- as soon as the WMDs (if any) were shipped out of the country -- so, at that point, there was no reason to invade.
We had no legal justification to go in solely for the purpose of punishing Saddam -- other than might-makes-right, and the fact that nobody could stop us without launching bombs at the US -- but if the WMDs were gone, and we knew that, then the American people were lied to -- and if we didn't know that, then our leaders were flat our wrong in their statements -- again, either they lied or were wrong.
2007-10-19 18:58:22 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
The only WMDs Iraq ever had were the ones Reagan and Rumsfeld sold him during the 80s.
Clinton disarmed him during the 90s.
End of story.
2007-10-19 18:54:52 · answer #3 · answered by obl_alive_and_well 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
chemical weapons...mustard gas...sarin.
Any bright chemistry major in any school in the world can conjure that stuff up.
By WMD's I am talking NUKES.
Not notoriously hard to use chemical agents.
Still clutching at straws?
Re the Iraqi general.
Who trusts a turncoat rat?
The Iraqi military stripped off their uniforms and ran.
they have no credibility.
2007-10-19 18:58:16 · answer #4 · answered by ? 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋