WMD in Iraq

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Statements from before the war:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." - Vice President Dick Cheney, Aug. 26, 2002.

"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Sept. 8, 2002.

"After 11 years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more." - President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002.

"Saddam Hussein is a man who told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, but he's got them." - Bush, Nov. 3, 2002.

"The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the world." - Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5, 2003.

Statements from after the war:

"Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq. ... We removed a declared enemy of America who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder." - Bush, July 12, 2004.

"We got it wrong. We have seen nothing to suggest that he had actual stockpiles." - Powell, Oct. 1, 2004.

"We were all unhappy that the intelligence was not as good as we had thought that it was. But the essential judgment was absolutely right. Saddam Hussein was a threat." - Rice, Oct. 3, 2004.

"It turns out that we have not found weapons of mass destruction. Why the intelligence proved wrong I'm not in a position to say, but the world is a lot better off with Saddam Hussein in jail." - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Oct. 4, 2004.

"He retained the knowledge, the materials, the means and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction and he could have passed that knowledge on to our terrorist enemies." - Bush, Oct. 7, 2004.

"Based on what we know today, the president would have taken the same action because this is about protecting the American people." - White House press secretary Scott McClellan, on Wednesday.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1151&slug=US%20Iraq%20Weapons%20Glance

[The Duke]

The question is not well worded.  The 60 or so chemical shells that were in Iraq at the time of invasion are not there now, so technically the answer in no/yes, but since there were weapons, I voted yes/yes.

And I once again return your attention to exhibit A in the trial of Saddam's WMD.  There were 500 tons of uranium at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Facility, 2 and 1/2 tons of which had been enriched.  Most estimates state that this is enough for 150 or so warheads once all of it was fully enriched.

I assume you're posting this to demonstrate that the Iraqi Survey Group has officially ended the weapons search.  Before anyone tries to use them as a source to undermine the war, remember that David Kay, the head of that group said publcily that large stockpiles of weapons were moved to Syria.

[J. J.]

They obviously were WMD's there at some point.  I don't know if he dumped them just before the invasion or a few years before.

[opebo]

The whole weapons of mass destruction concept is tiresome and stupid.  Typical DoD/CIA practice of hyping a threat for budgetary and bureaucratic reasons, just like they hyped the USSR.  Iraq was no threat - and much less of a threat than what will be the result of Bush's foolish actions there. 

Of course, keep in mind, those who are supposed to defend us *prefer* more and worse threats.  Job security and power.  The same rationale applies to 'terrorism' - hyped by the GOP, DoD, and CIA, for obvious reasons. 

[Platypus]

No/Yes, although I didn't be,lieve the WMDs were the prime motivator.

[Wakie]

No/Yes

I don't believe that Iraq has been a serious WMD threat since the early 90's.  We really should be asking some very tough questions right now.  If our leadership honestly did believe there were WMD's in Iraq, what info were they operating on and why did US intel fail so completely?

[TexasGurl]

No/No

[A18]

No/no

It was clearly a war for oil. You know, that's why gas prices are so low. And yes, Bush was clearly trying to lose this election, which is why he was sure to tell everyone there were WMDs, knowing that there weren't any, and invaded anyway.

But of course his sinister plan fell apart, and now he's stuck being President for four more years.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

No/no

It was clearly a war for oil. You know, that's why gas prices are so low. And yes, Bush was clearly trying to lose this election, which is why he was sure to tell everyone there were WMDs, knowing that there weren't any, and invaded anyway.

But of course his sinister plan fell apart, and now he's stuck being President for four more years.

yeah

[King]

No/No...I still supported the war anyway...

[phk]

I want welfare and no taxes ;-(

[??????????]

Option 4.

[So the Heroes Fall]

They obviously were WMD's there at some point.  I don't know if he dumped them just before the invasion or a few years before.

why dump them just before the invasion and not use them during the fighting?

[J. J.]

They obviously were WMD's there at some point.  I don't know if he dumped them just before the invasion or a few years before.

why dump them just before the invasion and not use them during the fighting?

The same reason that they were not used in the 1991 Gulf war (or in WW II for that matter), massive retaliation.

Look at where WMD's (and yes, the US has used them), have been uses.

1.  WW I, both sides in order to maintain the strategic balance.

2.  Ethiopia (1936?), Iraqi Kurdistand (1980's), Iran-Iraq War (1980's).  Here, only the side using it was the side that had it.

Because it would not have improve Iraq's strategic position to use it, we didn't option one.  The US regards all WMD's as basically egual and may have responded with nuclear weapons.

There is a third case when WMD's are used, as asymmetrical weapons.

[Defarge]

No/No.  There probably were some small-medium things, nothing on a massive scale.  Evidence of these programs is either in Syria, or deep under the Iraqi sands.

[London Man]

They obviously were WMD's there at some point.  I don't know if he dumped them just before the invasion or a few years before.

why dump them just before the invasion and not use them during the fighting?

Because that would prove he had them and he wanted to deny it.

He was told during the Persian Gulf War that the Americans had the right to retaliate with nuclear weapons if he used WMDs.

I voted No/Yes by the way.

Of course, biological warfare has been used since the Middle Ages. Catapulting dead horses into castles, for example.

[Frodo]

Obviously I do not believe there are any WMD now, and at the time of the invasion, I did not believe that Saddam had any nuclear or radiological weapons, though I did believe that he had residual stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.  As it turned out, he didn't have those either. 

[GOP = Terrorists]

The only WMD in Iraq are the ones we use.  White Phosphorus...