Ok do you believe ther were weapons of mass destrution In Iraq?

We will let the Democrats speak for themselves!

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is using and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force â€” if necessary â€” to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

dapixelator

He did at one time -- WE gave them to him.

But after Gulf War I they were largely gone. He wasn't a gathering threat to us nor did he have means to create WMD's

There have been reports since the war started that have stated he didn't have them (he had old stuff that didn't work) and the programs were simply plans.

So, if he really did have all these weapons, where are they? 3 years into Iraq and nothing of any consequence.

It was all wrong.

homie12

Yes I saw a documentary of the digester machines they got caught with. But why are we builing 14 military bases in Iraq? And why is the opium production back up to at least what it was before we went to afganistan. It makes you wonder, which is the intended objective, the heroine or the oil or both. By the way, ask anyone not afraid to say with a physiques background, and they will tell you those jets carrying kerosine ( jet fuel ) couldn't drop those buildings free fall. Oh and building #7 why did it free fall.

bgray0630

Yes there were (are) WMD's in Iraq.

Tom

Well the international weapons inspectors never found any. And Bush has finally admitted that Saddam did not possess any capabilities for making wmds at the time of our invasion of Iraq. In fact Iraq is a much scarier place now than it was three years ago. Bush has failed in bringing democracy to Iraq. That is if you believe that was his goal in the first place. I am much more skeptical. I believe the war in Iraq was just a means of enriching Halliburton and big oil. I will never believe there was ever a sane compelling reason to invade Iraq. How many of our best and brightest young people are we going to lose just because of the Bush Cartels insatiable thirst for profits. If ever a president deserved to be impeached and tried as a war criminal it is Bush.

Leogirl0804

Yes

Jewls

I believe that yes there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I believe the reason that no weapons were found when we went into Iraq is because Iraq had fair warning and moved them by train into Iran. Notice how in the last few years Iran all of the sudden is producing Nuclear energy????? Think about it. It has been said that one of the generals in Saddam's Regime admitted to seeing orders ordering The transport of the weapons into Iran.

shannon d

Im prepared to believe there is, only if you will believe I have ocean front property in Arizona....hell no there werent any!

Gary F

There were no WMDs in Iraq. In addition to the Republican congressional reports stating that there were none; even the White House admits it. Whatever was done in the 1990s, or the even earlier Iran-Iraq war, with bio/chem weapons was not relevant because they have finite shelf lives and need to be constantly reproduced. The first Gulf War, UN sanctions, and Clintonâ€™s bombing of Husseinâ€™s manufacturing facilities combined to eliminate that threat. And, has been demonstrated, Iraq was nowhere near being nuclear capable.

-----------------------------------
Lil latino -

North Korea had no nuclear weapons until 6 years into Bush's term. You can complain about Clinton all you want, but they never had those weapons on his watch.

First of all, there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the first Gulf War (which was fought because Bush didn't want to lose his oil interests in Kuwait...sorry about the slam).

We sent GENERALS from the US military. WEAPONS INSPECTORS from the UN. All of the WMD were destroyed. We castrated Saddam in the first Gulf War. If he would have had WMD, guaranteed, they would have been used the moment we invaded, because Saddam knew he was going down fast.

If your house was being invaded, and you had a gun, would you use it? Saddam had nothing to lose by using WMD if he had them. Otherwise, he didn't have squat.

arunmadav2013

LOL no way. The U.S is only there because they are an easy country to pick on. How about Russia or China? They give the terrorists weapons. The whole Iraq war is to show America's superior military to the world and show that they can walk out of every country with a casualty of only 2,800 in 31/2 years.

Just think those guys are an untrained militia. Sure the U.S is kicking butt but they are still not out yet.

BoChOi

for sure there were chemical weapons sold to iraq by don rumsfield during the iran-iraq war in the 80's when saddam was in the pockets of the cia,
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
but were destroyed and overseen by hans blix of the un inspectors who were told to leave by the puppet gwbushjr playing with his daddies unfinishished war for oil reserves.

same happened with the taliban, they where allies against the opium/heroin supply with the dea/cia and armed by the usa government. then something happened

guardianofdoves

No Weapons of Mass Destruction were found in Iraq.

TRUE PATRIOT

Yes, they are still there! Thankfully we got the biggest one---Saddam!

planksheer

To my knowledge no one has produced one example yet.
I doubt very seriously that Iraq had any when we invaded and occupied that weakly defended country.

max

If there is any weapon, why don't they use them against US army. Also US is not able to find a single weapon in Iraq. This weapons are the imagination of Bush.

gunner2za

If oil is WMD then yes he has

Marc h

There were minute amounts, enough to continue research and hope for a chance at military revival. As for the people who believe he had enormous hidden stockpiles, I guess they still believe in the tooth fairy and Peter Pan as well. There were certainly plenty of hidden RPG's and AK's unfortunately.

Well even Bush has now admitted that there were no weapons of Mass destruction and it was all a mistake. So no and if there were we would have found them oh wait maybe Osama is carrying them around since we can't find him either.

davcon1223

what do you call stockpiles of chemical weapons?...candy
weapons of mass destruction can also fall in at the amount need to take out large numbers of a population it does not have to necessarily mean nuclear or biological!

Chainsaw

They were there. Saddam, the UN, France, Germany, the weapon inspectors all admitted it. What were the chemical weapons he used to gas the Kurds? They were weapons, they killed masses of people and they destroyed and killed people.

Peter B

I'm absolutely sure they were there. Are we to believe that Saddam simply got rid of all the weapons he had? Should we believe that, after gassing the Kurds he said, "OK, I'm done. Let's just destroy them all. I'll never need them again."

Imagine how easy it would have been to go out into the desert, dig a huge hole and bury them all in a bunch of large metal containers. And don't forget about the testimony of pilots who reportedly flew many of them out of the country to Syria.

mrscmmckim

Yes, they just haven't been found yet.

gregory_dittman

Congress reported this year that 500 loaded WMD shells had been found since the U.S. was there. Liberals also think the TET offensive was a North Vietnamese victory.

Action

They were there at one time. I have this gut feeling some of it got buried in Syria somewhere. I see Assad (Syria's Leader) on television and just feel he has something to hide. Its no secret Syria and Iran have been a part of our difficulties restoring peace in Iraq.

yes, and there is PLENTY of proof to convince the liberals. here it is:

IZSP-2003-00000008 --last order by Saddam --find it by googling it--it says that saddam, 1 week b4 bush invaded, ordered all producing and importing of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons to end.

SO--if there wernt any WMD's, why did saddam order them shut down???

plus, go to this site: http://70.168.46.200/

or

http://iraqdocs.blogspot.com/

or

http://libertyrocks.wordpress.com/2006/06/17/wmd6_17_06/

im glad u know of the biologicals--evidence of that was the biological weapondry used by saddam through perfume bottles planned to be sent to the US

the most obvious proof of WMD's is the following equation (i made it myself--im soo proud, haha):

sick f#ck dictator islamic extremist + power and leadership + hatred of america = BIG THREAT!!!

and we DID send troops to afganistan, in dec 2001, b4 sending them to iraq in march 2003 (just to clarify for everyone)

we can't wait and have another 9/11 happen again

"freedom isn't free"

Joe

No it's all a big lie to get people scared.

rightwingers

I believe there were weapons of mass destruction. We gave him 12 years to get rid of them. We gave him a full 12 months at the end with the information that we were coming. During the 1st Gulf War we found buried jets and other military equipment. This guy knows how to hide things.

My biggest worry is where they are. I agree that it is not the best thing that the parties have turned this into a power grab. As if either party will be spared if they are used.

Walter Ridgeley

My guess is that were still some left even though the guys around Saddam say he told them after the war started that he'd had them all destroyed sometime back.

R. James Woolsey, CIA director under Clinton, pointed out on Jim Lehrer's News Hour in 2003 that the 8,600 litres of anthrax that Iraq acknowledged possessing would fit into a three-car garage. If weaponized, that same amount of anthrax would fit into two three-suiter suitcases!

Woolsey then went on to point out that the local, state, and federal anti-drug forces operating year-round in Northern California are unable to find the large numbers of three-car garage-sized quantities of marijuana produced every growing season in N. Calif. - not to mention the two suitcase-sized quantites of cocaine that the same mobsters move through their distribution networks!

The interesting thing is that he said all this with a kind of wry grin on his face as if to indicate that the notion that we (in 2003, mind you) were going to be successful in finding such small-sized caches of possible WMDs in a foreign country the size of ALL of Calif. was a pipe-dream.

My guess is that if they do exist the Sunnis have them stashed for a last-ditch fight against the Shias.

-RKO-

Yes. But then, I also believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy. Oh, and I also believe George W. Bush is a kind and compassionate human being. -RKO-

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: