Weapons Of Mass Destruction WERE in IRAQ! per CNN

[Purplehood]

Sure he had them at one time or another. But by the time that our previous Glorious Leader got around to starting a war over the issue, Saddam had used them all up or sold them.
I don't doubt for a minute that if Saddam had had any left, he would have used them. Either with SCUD attacks on Israel or simple gas warfare against our ground troops.
I know for sure that in Desert Shield/Desert Storm we (the Marines on Okinawa) trained in MOPP-gear continuously for days and were ready for the possibility.
As far as I am concerned this is simply beating a dead-horse. I really loved watching that criminal Dick Cheney trying to revise history with his interviews on FOX today...I guess that whole administration is really infatuated with the "legacy" that it leaves behind.

As far as I am concerned the last administration was equally as useless for the USA as the present one is.

[Bart]

The way I look at it, Saddam was on parole. He violated the terms of his parole, and suffered the consequenses.

But back on topic, the CNN hypocricy is both sad and funny. And scary because of how many people believe their propaganda.

CNN Confirms Bush Vindicated: Iraq Had Weapons Of Mass Destruction!
Well, the AK-47 takes a "high-capacity" magazine, and Iraq had lots of AK-47s... From this CNN screed on firearms:
"A high-capacity magazine in effect turns a semiautomatic firearm into a weapon of mass destruction."

[PeteCamp]

Sure he had them at one time or another. But by the time that our previous Glorious Leader got around to starting a war over the issue, Saddam had used them all up or sold them.

And I suppose you have evidence of that? You do know we found some Migs buried in western Iraq? Iraq is a big country with a lot of places to bury thing that no one will ever find. The facts are he had them at one time. If we had assumed he didn't have any more until someone set one off in downtown Houston, you would have probably been even more upset.

I don't doubt for a minute that if Saddam had had any left, he would have used them. Either with SCUD attacks on Israel or simple gas warfare against our ground troops.

"Simple gas warfare?" Give the man some credit - he was not a complete fool. I take it you have no idea how we would have responded to a WMD attack on our troops? In the first place, gas agents are the most difficult of the WMD agents to employ effectively. So it is hardly simple. But any deployment of WMD's (of any kind) by Saddam risked retaliation by any WMD in our arsenal. You really think Saddam, a palace dweller type of guy who went to such lengths to escape and survive as living in a spider hole, would risk that? And how exactly do you think we (or Saddam) would have stopped Israel from retaliating for a SCUD or two filled with chemical agents?

As far as I am concerned this is simply beating a dead-horse. I really loved watching that criminal Dick Cheney trying to revise history with his interviews on FOX today...I guess that whole administration is really infatuated with the "legacy" that it leaves behind.

Calling a former Vice President of the the United States a criminal is, IMHO, totally uncalled for - unless you have some evidence you care to present to a court.

As far as I am concerned the last administration was equally as useless for the USA as the present one is.

And which administration that you lived through and voted for would you judge to have been good for America? I'm curious.

In the final analysis, it really is a dead horse though. The Iraqi court believed he used WMD's on his own people for a very good reason. He did. And they put the horse to death.

[baldeagle]

Sure he had them at one time or another. But by the time that our previous Glorious Leader got around to starting a war over the issue, Saddam had used them all up or sold them.

Do you have any idea how silly this sounds? In 1995 the UN inspected Iraq for WMD and Iraq reported that they had weapons. It's not unreasonable to believe that they probably had more than what they reported.

In 1995, UNSCOM's principal weapons inspector, Dr. Rod Barton from Australia, showed Taha documents obtained by UNSCOM that showed the Iraqi government had just purchased 10 tons of growth medium from a British company called Oxoid. Growth media is a mixture of sugars, proteins and minerals that provides nutrients for microorganisms to grow. It can be used in hospitals and microbiology/molecular biology research laboratories. In hospitals, swabs from patients are placed in dishes containing growth medium for diagnostic purposes. Iraq's hospital consumption of growth medium was just 200 kg a year; yet in 1988, Iraq imported 39 tons of it. Shown this evidence by UNSCOM, Taha admitted to the inspectors that she had grown 19,000 litres of botulism toxin;[51] 8,000 litres of anthrax; 2,000 litres of aflatoxins, which can cause liver failure; Clostridium perfringens, a bacterium that can cause gas gangrene; and ricin, a castor-bean derivative which can kill by impeding circulation. She also admitted conducting research into cholera, salmonella, foot and mouth disease, and camel pox, a disease that uses the same growth techniques as smallpox, but which is safer for researchers to work with. It was because of the discovery of Taha's work with camel pox that the U.S. and British intelligence services feared Saddam Hussein may have been planning to weaponize the smallpox virus. Iraq had a smallpox outbreak in 1971 and the Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control Center (WINPAC) believed the Iraqi government retained contaminated material.[38]

Again in 1998 the UN stated that Iraq had not destroyed the weapons they declared.

In August 1998, Ritter resigned his position as UN weapons inspector and sharply criticized the Clinton administration and the UN Security Council for not being vigorous enough about insisting that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction be destroyed. Ritter also accused UN Secretary General Kofi Annan of assisting Iraqi efforts at impeding UNSCOM's work. "Iraq is not disarming", Ritter said on August 27, 1998, and in a second statement, "Iraq retains the capability to launch a chemical strike." In 1998 the UNSCOM weapons inspectors left Iraq.

So you think just five years later all of this had just evaporated into thin air?

[VoiceofReason]

Sure he had them at one time or another. But by the time that our previous Glorious Leader got around to starting a war over the issue, Saddam had used them all up or sold them.
I don't doubt for a minute that if Saddam had had any left, he would have used them. Either with SCUD attacks on Israel or simple gas warfare against our ground troops.
I know for sure that in Desert Shield/Desert Storm we (the Marines on Okinawa) trained in MOPP-gear continuously for days and were ready for the possibility.
As far as I am concerned this is simply beating a dead-horse. I really loved watching that criminal Dick Cheney trying to revise history with his interviews on FOX today...I guess that whole administration is really infatuated with the "legacy" that it leaves behind.

As far as I am concerned the last administration was equally as useless for the USA as the present one is.

Saddam was not stupid. An Israeli spokesman made the statement on U.S. television (in so many words) that if Iraq attacked Israel with chemical or biological weapons, Israel would retaliate with nuclear weapons. Israel was also miffed that they were not provided the IFF (identification Friend or Foe) codes which they would need if they wanted to mount an air attack on Iraq. Israel then underscored the seriousness of the Scud missile attacks by “test firing” a missile that was capable of carrying a nuclear war head and reaching Iraq. The U.S. responded by deploying Patriot missile batteries to protect Israel.

Saddam also knew that if he used chemical weapons on U.S. troops, it would ratchet the war to a whole new level, one that no one wanted to see. He still had chemical weapons but did not use them. They were in bunkers that U.S. troops blew up.

There were reports that troops were exposed to the chemicals that were down wind of the explosions.

I will provide references for my statements if you wish but it will take some time to find them.

[Purplehood]

Sure he had them at one time or another. But by the time that our previous Glorious Leader got around to starting a war over the issue, Saddam had used them all up or sold them.

And I suppose you have evidence of that? You do know we found some Migs buried in western Iraq? Iraq is a big country with a lot of places to bury thing that no one will ever find. The facts are he had them at one time. If we had assumed he didn't have any more until someone set one off in downtown Houston, you would have probably been even more upset.

You just said the same thing that I did. And he never did use any. Period. He certainly did shoot SCUDS at Israel. I had a friend survive that attack. No WMD's used with the SCUD's. My buddy (who volunteered to go to Afghanistan when I went) never heard a thing about chemicals being involved or "downwind" of the explosions. Just saw dead and wounded buddies (he was burnt) from conventional explosives.

I don't doubt for a minute that if Saddam had had any left, he would have used them. Either with SCUD attacks on Israel or simple gas warfare against our ground troops.

"Simple gas warfare?" Give the man some credit - he was not a complete fool. I take it you have no idea how we would have responded to a WMD attack on our troops? In the first place, gas agents are the most difficult of the WMD agents to employ effectively. So it is hardly simple. But any deployment of WMD's (of any kind) by Saddam risked retaliation by any WMD in our arsenal. You really think Saddam, a palace dweller type of guy who went to such lengths to escape and survive as living in a spider hole, would risk that? And how exactly do you think we (or Saddam) would have stopped Israel from retaliating for a SCUD or two filled with chemical agents?

Once again, we are simply arguing back and forth here. The fact is he did not deploy or show any evidence that he had any WMD's to deploy. The opportunity was there time and time again. He didn't get nabbed in a spider-hole for ages. He also demonstrated a pathological ability to ignore the reality of a combat situation (much like Hitler and his "Fortress" mentality), and I don't think for a minute that he would have hesitated to use a weapon with so much potential against an enemy that he sincerely believed was soft.

As far as I am concerned this is simply beating a dead-horse. I really loved watching that criminal Dick Cheney trying to revise history with his interviews on FOX today...I guess that whole administration is really infatuated with the "legacy" that it leaves behind.

Calling a former Vice President of the the United States a criminal is, IMHO, totally uncalled for - unless you have some evidence you care to present to a court.

Why is it uncalled for? You may like the guy and that is your right. I don't and am not afraid to say so.

As far as I am concerned the last administration was equally as useless for the USA as the present one is.

And which administration that you lived through and voted for would you judge to have been good for America? I'm curious.

I liked the Reagan administration and I liked the Clinton administration after it lost control of Congress and he was forced to work in a bi-partisan manner.

In the final analysis, it really is a dead horse though. The Iraqi court believed he used WMD's on his own people for a very good reason. He did. And they put the horse to death.

Please note that I NEVER disputed the fact that he used WMD's on his people.