Is this true?
Does the age of the weppons count?
Does it matter at all?
Does the article matter at all?

IMO Saddam had lots of WMD he never disposed of.


It may but “degraded” does not mean safe.

Naturally since this is one of the reasons for the war. We were told all the pre (and post) 1991 WMD were totally destroyed. Obviously this is not the case. IMO Saddam moved the more current WMD, because of its value, and left behind this older group of weapons.

What will matter is the analysis of the chemicals and the possibility of finding more WMD, which WILL happen

Is this true?
I believe that it is debatable whether or not this is true. I agree that there are a lot of things in Iraq we don't fully comprehend or understand. (Especially when the "we" is the Bush Administration! ) But to call expired weapons WMD is stretching it. They have a shelf life. It's like your spouse calling from the living room, "Honey! Do we have any bread?" So you go to the cupboard, and find a loaf from a few months back, very moldy, but with parts of the middle still (probably) edible. You told her a few days ago that you thought we had bread. Were you lying? Is it bread? Do you dare give it to your spouse? Pete Hoekstra would. I wouldn't.

Does the age of the weapons count?

Absolutely.

"A Pentagon official who confirmed the findings to Agence France-Presse that all the weapons were pre-1991 munitions 'in such a degraded state they couldn't be used for what they are designed for.'"

Link.

Does it matter at all?

These are not the weapons we were told Saddam had. These are not part of the weapons programs Saddam was attempting to reconstitute. These are not the weapons that Bush declared he had found (in May 2003). These weapons are not capable of making the mushroom cloud Condi Rice told us she was concerned about. These are not the weapons that Rumsfeld claimed he knew the location of. This doesn't much matter at all, IMO, except in making Hoekstra and Santorum look foolish.

Which means they were no longer suitable as artillary shells - not that the contents were harmless.



Actually - it proves a point, it doesn't matter what is found - people like you will cover your eyes and claim nothing was found.

By the way - the chemical components within these shells was still viable with the potential to cause great harm.

From what I've heard - these weapons were listed as destroyed by Saddam Hussein, yet they obviously are not. As well, from the report issued, there are more chemical munitions that have yet to be divulged to the public at large.

Actually, that is debatable as well. The contents may or may not be harmless. We don't know for sure. But I have seen no evidence supporting the claim that the contents are not harmless.



Hilarious, jleavy. "People like you." I love it. Beautiful.

I'm not covering my eyes when I examine the article, go to lengths to figure out what the article is saying, comment on the details of this particular issue, make a determination as to the relative worth of the find, ... all, mind you ... within the context of the whole bag of potatoes. You on the other hand, in your post, have done almost none of these things. I'm assuming you know a great deal more than you let on. But of course, as soon as you begin to speak about the dangers residing within these "WMD" or how they measure up to the claims that were made by the administration, you will not much of an argument. So you keep it minimal, and speak about "people like me." Classic ad hominem: this article actually makes a point about the deficiencies of niftydrifty!

Now, who is covering their eyes, eh, when they say WMD were found? It is ancient WMD. If you close your eyes to the relevant facts I've relayed to you, you may claim these are the WMD. Or, that they are WMD at all. I've explained why I believe they are not. You could do a lot more to explain why you believe they are.

Furthermore, WMD like this have already been found! There is no news here. Just more old news. From Wikipedia:



(emphasis mine)



I'll eagerly await your evidence, telling us why you believe this to be true. What article says this? All I saw denied it.

Geez - do you read what you post?

The Sarin shell was viable - it was a two-chamber deal, and if the two chemicals had mixed properly they would have been far more deadly then from a simple explosion of a bomb.

Is this true?

It's true only in that something apparently was found.

Does the age of the weppons count?


Absolutely. And in this case, they are old.


Does it matter at all?

No.

Does the article matter at all?



No. This is just a political stunt by Sen. Rick Santorum, whose showing in the polls is slipping and sliding faster than an avalanche. The only one to take the story seriously is Fox News. Shows to go ya.

Is this true?

Looks like it, but we've been through this long before. Mustard gas is dangerous, but it can't be considered WMD without a long stretch. Shoot, a bunch of that from WW I was found near Pueblo and got destroyed by incineration a few years back. I don't know where the idea that this is sarin gas comes from, but the article only talks about mustard gas.

There's a big difference.

Does the age of the weppons count?

Old munitions are less predictable than new.

Does it matter at all?

We did not go to war because Saddam had mustard gas. We expected nukes.

Does the article matter at all?

It's old news and really quite pathetic.

Sure, I read what I post. But I thought we were debating the recent useless weapons find, not the older, possibly less-useless weapons find.

I'm still waiting to hear from you about why you think this WMD find is so significant.

It must be true, even CNN is reporting it. I don't see it as particuarly newsworthy, and I'm convinced that Rick Santorum is willing to convince himself anything after his tirade on the Senate floor in which he told the country that these vintage 1980 [a very good year] chemical weapons are enough to justify the entire war in Iraq. The man is out of his mind...Anyway, yes, it's true and ho-hum.


Well, the [first] reason we were given for fighting the war in Iraq was the country posed an "imminent threat" to the security and well-being of the United States. If the only weapons in the country were as harmful as snorting glue, then that reasoning is flawed. The only real redeeming quality to this find is that I find it hard to believe that these WMD were the only ones Saddam has, I have a feeling Saddam wouldn't just buy a few of them, which leads me to believe that my suspicion that the weapons were moved out of the country prior war's commencement is correct.


Eh, probably somewhere around 66% doesn't matter to 34% does matter. As I said before, I can't imagine that Saddam got rid of his other WMDs but kept these aged-to-perfection novelties for old times' sake. But again, I suspect that his weapons stash was moved before the war started, thereby making the war a monumental waste of time, money and lives.

CP

No you don't read what you post or you're being dishonest in what you have said.

You brought up the previous attack that used a sarin shell and attempted to paint a false picture that the round was useless in an attempt to portray the rounds spoken of in the report as bunk. The only way it was useless was in the way it was used by the insurgency - had they properly rigged it to mix the contents it would have had a far more devastating effect.



From the news reports out - it isn't just mustard gas, it's sarin gas as well.

Is this true?
I have no doubt that it is. We have found stockpiles of aging WMD artillery rounds and other related equipment since the invasion.

Does the age of the weapons count?
Yes it does. These rounds do not constitute the WMD's and manufacturing infrastructure that was touted prior to the invasion. It does signify that Saddam either lost track of these or willingly and knowingly hid them from inspectors, but it does not constitute a threat critical enough itself to warrant an invasion. The bigger threat is that these weapons could fall into the hands of the insurgents, and used against our troops or civilians. Which in turn would be somehow blamed on us anyway.......

A good write up of Iraq's Sarin production and shelf life can be found here:

They also transfered the sarin to binary shells (which is what was used in an IED attack) which according to Wiki:



So - apparently shelf life isn't an issue with binary shells.

Is this true?
Both sides of the arguement have accepted the authenicity of the document. I have not seen any reports that this document is a fake or forged, so I would assume it is real. It would be pretty easy to prove any falsehood of the report.

Does the age of the weppons count?
Count? That is an interesting choice of words, as if this is some game where people are keeping score. But yes I do think the age of the weapons is important, in that it effects the damage that they could possibly do/have done to our troops and more innocent people unlucky enough to have fallen into Saddams bad graces.

It also places them as being outside the scope of the WMD's that was touted as being the threat and immediate danger used in the justification of the removal of Saddam from leadership.

Does it matter at all?
It matters in that these weapons should have been disposed of in accordance with the UN resolutions and terms of surrender of the first Gulf War. Their existance makes it even clearer that Saddam and Iraq was not in compliance with the demands placed on his government as a result of the Gulf War, and that he never would be in compliance. It also emphasises that weapons inspectors were not going to find everything for numerous reasons.

Does the article matter at all?
The fact that these weapons are there is important...not because they themselves were deadly, but because of what they represent in the broader picture. Saddam and Iraq were aggressive violators of international law, that refused to abide by sanctions placed on them. They had WMDs and had used them. They hid WMDs and retained the desire to use WMD's as a means to intimidate the free world.

But then again, I read alot into things. These weapons were still just old ordance laying around hurting no one.

Does the age of the weppons count?

I don't know the "shelf life" of sarin, and did not think it prudent to do a search (don't want the FBI knocking on my door ), but it would seem there are old chemical weapons all over the world, even in our own backyard.

Does it matter at all?

Does the article matter at all?

I think Santorum’s hysterics have more to do with his desperate attempts to salvage his reelection than with any concern about 20+ year old weapons. I have no doubt there are old weapons all over Iraq (and Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, the Koreas, India, Eastern Europe, etc. etc. ad nauseum)...heck, maybe the US sold them to Saddam (tongue firmly in cheek)…oh, and let’s not forget the US of A, who has the world’s second largest stockpile of chemical weapons (31,000 tons).

Just to keep things in perspective:

*in the interest of fairness, the following para. states that, while still large, the figures given here are a little hard to reconcile.

So, no, I don't think this article matters a bit. It's nothing new, and I find it kind of bizarre that Santorum and Hoekstra are essentially debunking their own party's position.

Is this true?
Apparently. But what exactly is true? That they found a mustard gas shell circa 1980? Why exactly is this newsworthy? The Duelfer report even predicted that these remnants would be found. Btw, guess who sold

Does the age of the weapons count?
Yes and no. Mustard gas certainly has a longer shelf life, but the opinion of all of the experts (note: Rick Santorum doesn't qualify as an expert) is that these weapons were of little use in their current form.

Does it matter at all?
Only in that it represents yet another desperate attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq. Other than that, this is old news. Not a reasonable soul on this planet had any expectation that Saddam and the UN had been successful in wiping out 100% of his CBW stockpiles as part of the post Gulf War accords. But finding 500 artillery shells doesn't even remotely constitute evidence of the WMD programs that the administration alleged prior to the 2003 invasion. That's like finding a sandwich bag of weed under my bed and charging with me with intent to distribute.

Yup, I did read it. It said "useless as offensive weapons." And that's what they are. And that's exactly what I pasted. "Bunk" is your word, not mine. I took offensive weapons in this case to mean "missiles," or, um, WMD. Of course they're dangerous. But the discovery doesn't prove anything having to do with the reasoning to go to war, which Santorum, the Fox pundits, and Hoekstra are implying.

The real point in sharing that Wiki quote with you was to show that this is not news. Older, equally useless weapons have already been found. Duelfer said more would would be found. We can debate all day about the relative degrees of usefulness/unusefulness, or what an offensive/non-offensive weapon is, obviously. And we can debate some other old news that I brought up as an aside. But that is not the real point. The point is: does this discovery matter?

So, jleavy, the fact remains that you seem uninterested in thoroughly explaining for yourself why this discovery is significant or insignificant. You have only sought to tear down a few random points I have made, unsuccesfully.

If this keeps up, the republicans may actually show they had a reason to invade Iraq. Santorum is using this non-story as a hail Mary pass to save his campaign. In a further effort of revisionism, the republicans are acting like people who oppose the Iraq war have claimed Iraq never had WMD. And that's just a crap argument. I'd like to see one credible report of someone in a position of leadership deny Iraq ever had weapons. Of course they did - we have the receipts to prove it.

I suppose I get amazed more everyday that the country who vaporized a half million non-combatants with WMD and started two wars based on lies somehow has the moral authority to be outraged by remnants of a weapons program buried somewhere in the desert. All this hysteria does, is prove Saddam had WMD at one time in the past. This can be summarized in one word: DUH.

1.) It is as true as the media and the military decide to make it, so I suppose: yes. Weapons of mass destruction were known to have been around in Iraq during the era they've been dated, so the only logical conclusion to come to is to assume that the story in question is accurate.

2.) Somewhat. Democrats have been poo-pooing some substances claiming they are so old they are no more dangerous than cleaning products, granted. Republicans are saying there is a black market value for the weapons in spite of their age. I have to say that the age impacts the fact that they are there very little.

3.) Only if you believe they are what we went to war over.

4.) As literature? As political fodder? As amusement? I believe it has an impact on the ongoing effort in Iraq and regardless of the outcome, it will now have a very great influence in the course of the War on Terror.

Is this true?
It's not the first I've heard of old chemical shells turning up in Iraq. jleavy mentioned an IED constructed from a sarin shell over two years ago:


It's lucky the IED makers didn't know what they had, or at least didn't know how to make effective use of it. We should not assume that its age made it harmless. Quoting jleavy, quoting Wikipedia:


If hundreds more of these have been found, that's kind of scary.



Doclotus, your quote ends here, mid-thought, but it sounds like you're suggesting that the US sold chemical weapons to Saddam. If so, I don't believe you. Cite, please?


Does the age of the weapons count?
Well, if they'd had a "Manufactured December 2002" stamp on them, it would vindicate George "Slam Dunk" Tenet. As it is, they don't provide evidence for the more alarmist claims coming out of the Bush administration before the invasion.


Does it matter at all?
It makes some people look silly:



But perhaps they could follow the lead of British Vice Admiral Sir John Cunningham:

Well - I see your Duelfer saying and match it with a quote from David Kay (which is relevant to this thread):



If you read Dontreadme's source above - below what he quoted is an extensive report on the binary shells used by the Iraqis in an attempt to increase shelf life for sarin indefinately.

So you've proven nothing, you did what was expected from the Left - slandered Santorum and the other Congressman because they dared, dared, to point out that indeed viable WMDs did exist in Iraq. Given Kay's belief above - these sorts of weapons could easily cause massive harm in the hands of someone who knew what they were and how to utilize them.

Edit:

As to the original post of this thread - I don't know why it speaks only of mustard gas, the story on YahooNews that I posted earlier speaks of both mustard and sarin agents in the report.

Is this true?

I am sure they found some rusty old munitions that were left by the extremely efficient gov't of Saddam Hussien

Does the age of the weppons count?

Possibly- if an insurgent found them first- pretty obvious no one native to that country knew they were there- or they would have got to them first- dont ya think? - wasn't any danger of terrorists grabbing this stuff while Saddam was in power obviously-

Does it matter at all?

Only if your one of the "grasping at any straw" type that is just looking for some lame thing to tag an "see, there were WMD there"- when, right here in America, and Alaska to be specific- they have dumped, lost or forgot about far worse stuff.

http://www.earthpulse.com/src/subcategory....&subcatid=5

James Roderick is a 30-year resident of Alaska, working variously as a fisherman, gold-miner and trapper. His investigations into military toxins in Alaska led to stories in the press about chemical weapons disposal in Alaska’s waters, nuclear power plant contamination in central Alaska and the military’s illegal testing of Alaska natives and Eskimos with radioactive Iodine. His investigations continue.

I would say the find in Iraq is far less signficant that the story from above right here in Alaska

Does the article matter at all?

Once again, only if you are grasping at straws. Pretty lame really.

Would I dare mention that you yourself are playing the part of the wingnut? Of course not. It's a weak attack. Yet another ad hominem.

Look, Jleavy, these are and were practically known knowns: the existence of WMD in Iraq. I still don't grasp how this is news. I think I have demonstrated how it isn't. Sure, it's more of the same. A lot more of the same. But certainly not news. We were told they would be there. Others like them were found years ago. Why now, is this news? How is it significant? Why is it more significant, say, than North Korea's ability to launch a missile? Or negotiations with Iran? I question the judgement and the priorities of these Congressmen. Slander, I shall. These clowns have earned nothing but our contempt.

Yknow, I'm sure you are quite familiar with the list of quotes by Democrats saying essentially "We think Saddam has (or had) WMD." It strikes me as sorta funny now that Santorum's and Hoekstra's position today sounds like those old well-worn Dem quotes, the ones (very flimsily) based in truth. Basically those quotes which said "We believe Saddam has WMD."

However, as you know, the Bush administration went several degrees further. I repeat:

Also, I see your David Kay quote and raise you another David Kay quote:


And how. And it never will be. It's been more or less proven by now.

Feel free to respond, Jleavy, but it seems to me we're talking about two different things. For you it seems the only answers to the WMD question can be "yes there were" or "no there weren't". Me, I'm wondering, Nukes? Chemicals? Old? New? Missiles? Gas? IED parts? 90's? 80's? Useless? 100% good? 10% good? Are these the ones that Rumsfeld said he knew the locations of? Etc.

I'm worried about insurgents using Sarin from depleted shells, but let's be honest. These are not those WMD.

It's all in the details. And these are not the WMD we were promised. And they're not WMD with a capital "M". The discovery is insignificant. The discovery is news now only because of what we were promised in 2003, before the war. And what we were promised has never materialised. This discovery is something altogether different, hence all the spin, this nonsense such as, "Will the liberals apologize now for saying Bush lied about WMD?" Well, no. He said we found them in 2003. We hadn't. This story doesn't deserve this degree of attention now, except perhaps on far-right cornball programs like "The Special Report with Brit Hume."


p.s. did the US give WMD to Iraq? Are these those WMD?

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...ic=4435&hl=

p.p.s. "Same old song, new verse"

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...ic=7128&hl=

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...ic=6408&hl=

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...ic=4756&hl=

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...ic=3525&hl=

Actually - these are those WMDs.


EDITED TO REMOVE PERSONAL ATTACK

And these are one part of those WMDs as listed under the UN Resolutions that Saddam was not to have, and which his possession of was a violation of said resolutions.

So keep spinning there, Nifty. I especially find it amusing that EDITED TO REMOVE PERSONAL ATTACK. The Associated Press has, and some local station, but never once has FoxNews been mentioned. But hey, the Leftist disdain for any news outlet that doesn't tow the leftie line is always apparent, even when it has nothing to do with the topic.



Nope - Mustang and MrsP put a good case forward and did a good job painting all the left-wing wingnuts (your term) for what they were in that thread.

By the way - ever heard of a German news magazine called Der Spiegal?

Look up the December of 1996 issue - within is a comprehensive and detailed report on who provided actual weaponized agents to the Iraqi arsenal. It wasn't the US - it was France, Germany, and Russia.



So what? WMDs have been found before in Iraq - is that your point? I still wonder how French missiles (the last thread you linked to) are considered WMDs... all that shows is that the French violated the sanctions.

Edit:

Forgot to mention Kay - Kay in subsequent interviews has repeatedly asserted that the Saddam regime was more dangerous then previously thought by the goverment. As well, his report detailed a massive coverup that occurred prior to his team visiting a number of sites that related to the Saddam regime's WMD programs. So using him to bolster your arguement doesn't bode well for the premise you are attempting to put forth given his prior statements and report.

I find Dontreadonme's reply the most succinct to the questions posed:


I add my voice to those of other posters who view this as a lame, election-year tactic on the part of desperate Republicans responding to the abysmal poll numbers supporting the protracted Iraq war/occupation.

So there is aged mustard and Sarin gas from way long ago--big hairy deal. I was especially amused by Doclotus' analogy to finding one baggie of weed under a bed and trying to make it into a case of "intent to distribute".

How about this: If U.S. and coalition troops weren't occupying Iraq, these aged "WMD's" couldn't be used for IED's to be used against them anyway!

Try to wriggle out of it, Republicans, as best you can, but the reasons Dubya used to stomp on Iraq and Saddam were still bogus. Even the "liberated," newly-elected Iraqi government officials are now saying that the U.S. needs to pull out in order for them to run their country. Hard to argue with them, unless you're not listening. All the players, Shi'a, Sunnis, etc., want U.S. troops out of Iraq as soon as possible.

I would relegate this latest news to someone's daily factoid list by virtue of its importance.

I actually thought that was a bit excessive. It's more like finding some dried out microscopic residue from an old roach clip, tucked away in the back of the closet in a pair of pants that someone hasn't worn since the 70s. Honestly, I'm surprised this made headline news. A good writer could produce some clever satire here....next week they hold up a rusty old can of spam and have it analyzed. I knew they experimented with botulism agents!

I've always been of the mindset that WMD were smuggled out (still am, and don't wish to debate that here) but I must admit this is pretty lame.

Well, not exactly Roswell. Iraq actually did "account" for these weapons during the initial inspections.

From the final assessment report from UNSCOM:


SOURCE

So, it seems that they were reported as either lost or destroyed by the government, and it's quite possible that in the course of the Gulf War, they were buried by some local commander, intending to have them dug up later, and that the shells ended up becoming lost in the war's aftermath. Certainly, they weren't dug up and used against us during the latest war.

Actually, because of the nature of the "weapons" we've been finding, it appears far more likely that local commands, and not the central command of Saddam were responsible for hiding these weapons, and that the Iraqi government did try, at least in the last round of inspections to give as complete an accounting as possible.

Now, I'm specifically not making any mention of the fact that he may well have wanted to buy or make more once we left, but that's a far cry from having anything truly viable to use in a current conflict of any sort.

And if you're willing to admit this, you are far more open minded it would appear, than either Santorum or his friend in the House, Pete Hoekstra.

Especially when you consider the fact that if these had been viable weapons, and if they hadn't already been disclosed as lost or destroyed in the UNSCOM report, the White House, and not Rick Santorum, would have been shouting this news from the rooftops as justification for the invasion.

My apologies, the danger of posting while working I had meant to delete the final portion of that as I didn't feel it was germane to the debate. The US was in fact one of many nations that contributed to Saddam's CBW program, especially during the Iran war and leading up to the Kuwait invasion. But, to close the loop, here is a citation. (PBS: Frontline - The Arming of Iraq)

It mentions one Baltimore company in the US in regards to the chemical weapons:



From the above quote from your link - it doesn't look like the US goverment was arming the Hussein goverment at all, instead it looks as if they were prosecuting this American company who did try to export a chemical that could be used to produce mustard gas (though the article does point out there are commercial uses for the chemical as well).

That's the only instance I see in your link that even comes close to what you're asserting - and yet still falls short of the whole 'US armed Iraq' canard.

Your link does do a good job of showing the complicity of the Europeans and Russians in Hussein's programs though.

Except, of course, those companies needed US approval in order to do this- "plausible deniablity" right- some more of those "situational ethics" the Reagan administration is reknowned for!

Really, the fact that there are so much more "lost" chemical weapons the Army has forgotton about right here in the US makes this a non-issue.

Yes, the West was extremely complicit, especially Germany and Great Britain. But the US' involvement in arming Iraq is far from the canard you attribute it. Here is a more detailed chronology:

At this point I'd recommend making another topic if you really want to debate whether the US armed Iraq. This really isn't germane to the topic at hand.

There already is another topic for this. I posted the link earlier as an FYI, but the point was missed, much like all the other points. Here it is again.

Nifty,

Given that the topic is almost 3 years old, those typically aren't resurrected vs. creation of a new topic. I was simply inviting jleavy and jobius to create a new one if they felt that the subject merited a debate of its own vs. taking this one off track.

We have had this discussion on the WMD thread and most of the above is the same ol same ol. Iraq armed Iraq not the US. Yes they bought (small ammounts) of base/dual use chemicals and generic bacteria (under the guise of research) but the massive amount of WMD including the chem/bio was developed by Iraq. This includes tons of VX nerve agent and over 8,500 liters of anthrax that were never found or accounted for although Iraq admitted to having produced same. Iraq had thousands of people, and spent many billions of $$$ on WMD and WMD research. To say the US played any significant role in that is sheer nonsense.

Sounds like we definitely need to restart that other thread, rather than continue to debate it here, where it is off topic.

Feel free to do so but first look through this thread.


http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...showtopic=11647

We beat up pretty hard on the WMD issue there and if you think you want to take me on in this area be my guest!

Thanks

"I don't believe you[/url]. Cite, please?"

You might look here....

http://www.usiraqprocon.org/bin/procon/pro...7.4784759834285

I feel that the last question is perhaps the most important of all as it addresses the very importance of the issue in the first place. For one, Washington Post article]leading government officials have discounted any notion that these pre-'91 weapons constitute the WMDs we went after. On top of that, experts have dismissed the capabilities of these weapons. Pre-'91 weapons that are rusting away and not being taken care of are not evidence for post-'91 desire to possess and create more weapons. There is no logic to that argument whatsoever. They were also mentioned in the Duelfer report. Yes, they are dangerous weapons, but came about in a different time and purposely for a different enemy. By no means do they point to a regime that desired to create "mushroom" clouds over American cities like Condi would say.

1998 Congressional report on Iraq WMD programs in Libya, ALgeria and Sudan...starting before Gulf War I. ("Why Clinton should not just bomb Iraq")

Dec 13, 2003: Saddam hauled out of spider hole by ticked-off 19 yr old jarhead.
Dec 19, 2003: Qadaffi takes the Big Gulp.

But, it was really the sanctions...that were in place since 1986. The above amazing 6 day thing was a remarkable coincidence, that's all. Qadaffi does not watch CNN.

2004 IAEA Libya report. The most widely ignored document in the history of mankind.

Meanwhile, 188-224 mass grave sites and counting in Iraq. Hey, his sick twist sons may be decomposing, but Saddam is still available. If this was all really based on lies, etc., then the unjustly deposed one is available to be reinstated to his must be rightful place as the rightful ruler of the Republic of Fear. I mean, the former Ba'ath Socialist paradise.

Bush got a twofer. Name of the IAEA report?

Implementation of the
NPT Safeguards Agreement of the
Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

{advertisement}

Say, want to stop smoking FAST? Heres how! Smoke a cigarette only when you see ourl press in this country use the word "Socialist" to refer to either Saddams Ba'athist Republic of Fear, the current jackasses in Syria, or Sweden on the Med--I mean, Libya.

Frediano

Yes but by no means can we dismiss the former regime in Iraq as
1. not having WMD. No proof that the WMD they admitted to producing was ever published and the fact that the ISG could not find stockpiles does not mean that never existed.
2. not capable of passing WMD to terrorists. As translation of Saddam’s conversation with his staff continues it may soon be clear that he was willing to pass WMD to AQ. I am sure Saddam would LOVE to see a mushroom cloud in a US city if he could make it happen without the event being traceable to him.

The reasons we went to war in Iraq are more numerous than the Condi statement you site or, for that matter, anything said by Bush or C. Powell

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202277,00.html

Is this true?

I would suppose so.

Does the age of the weppons count?

For defenitional terms no. Though if they were impotent, then they didn't really represent a security threat.

Does it matter at all?

Bush misphrased intelligence to make it support his case (i.e, calling a pesticide plane, a chemical agent release vehicle, which is true, but misconotated), left out anything that hurt his case (i.e a defected Iraqi official cites a list of WMDs that he alleges have been destroyed or dismantled. Bush cites the guy, and his list, but negates to mention the allegations of destruction), and spouted out hypotheticals as if they mattered (i.e If (which no one believed) Saddam had enriched Uranium, he could make a warhead in six months).

There are all sorts of ways to lie, without really lieing, and Bush used all of them. He's a politcian, so such lies are integral to his profession. Nevertheless, no one should cuddle themselves with the idea that he was innocent of a lack of objectivity in making his case for war.

The fact that he didn't push intelligence agencies to give out false or biased reports is irrelevant, because he didn't have to. We never got to read direct reports. We only got to hear selective filtered misread portions of them via his leaking them to us.

I'm not sure why you posted that link, for a couple of reasons.

#1: It's speculation, and shoddy journalism, at best.

#2: Nowhere does it mention WMD in Iraq, the topic of the thread.

If you want to debate the (lack of) merits of the article, I'd be happy to, in another thread.