Iraqi WMD's Finally Found? In Syria?

[BlindBoo]

Because the rage at the time was to rebuild Iraq into a democracy, kind of hard to do that if you bomb them back into the dark ages.

Oh....I could have sworn Bush said we needed to invade Iraq because he was a threat to the US and it's allies because of his WMD cache?

He did, but there was also a plan for rebuilding it. You can't rebuild a country if you blast it back to the stone ages.

Um, they were already back in the Stone Age. After more than 20 years of war and sanctions.

 

[High_Gravity]

Oh....I could have sworn Bush said we needed to invade Iraq because he was a threat to the US and it's allies because of his WMD cache?

He did, but there was also a plan for rebuilding it. You can't rebuild a country if you blast it back to the stone ages.

Um, they were already back in the Stone Age. After more than 20 years of war and sanctions.

Afghanistan was in the stone age, Iraq not so much. They still had a functioning government, police, Military, schools, colleges, running water, electricity, roads, etc. compared to American standards they are not that good however they are leagues ahead of Afghanistan.

 

[Caroljo]

Some people won't even accept the fact that they were moved......because that would mean Bush was right!

 

[Si modo]

Oh....I could have sworn Bush said we needed to invade Iraq because he was a threat to the US and it's allies because of his WMD cache?

He did, but there was also a plan for rebuilding it. You can't rebuild a country if you blast it back to the stone ages.

Um, they were already back in the Stone Age. After more than 20 years of war and sanctions.

Iraq was far from being in the stone age, even after sanctions and war.

 

[High_Gravity]

He did, but there was also a plan for rebuilding it. You can't rebuild a country if you blast it back to the stone ages.

Um, they were already back in the Stone Age. After more than 20 years of war and sanctions.

Iraq was far from being in the stone age, even after sanctions and war.

Yup, compared to the US Iraq was a shit hole but they were far from a stone age type country.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Some people won't even accept the fact that they were moved......because that would mean Bush was right!

I accept facts when facts are proven.

 

[VaYank5150]

Some people won't even accept the fact that they were moved......because that would mean Bush was right!

Meanwhile others hope and pray and reach for such stories as these in hopes they prove Bush wasn't wrong.

 

[Lakhota]

You wingnuts need to get your WMD stories straight...

 

[Full-Auto]

Some people won't even accept the fact that they were moved......because that would mean Bush was right!

I accept facts when facts are proven.

So when do you prove there were none. As evidence suggests they did in fact have possession.

 

[occupied]

Some people won't even accept the fact that they were moved......because that would mean Bush was right!

Since everyone disregarded my last post on this I will repeat, even if Syria received every bit of Saddam's chemical weapons they would now be useless and dangerous to handle if they did not have a chemical weapons facility of their own to store and weaponize them and no active nuclear or bio-weapons programs existed at the time of invasion. Nerve gas alone was not enough of a reason to invade without the mushroom cloud scare and the little vial of white powder Powell scared the shit out of everyone with.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

And we didn't do this why? Imagine how many US personnel could have been saved if only Bush was REALLY mad at Saddam?

Because the rage at the time was to rebuild Iraq into a democracy, kind of hard to do that if you bomb them back into the dark ages.

Oh....I could have sworn Bush said we needed to invade Iraq because he was a threat to the US and it's allies because of his WMD cache?

It was Bill Clinton:

"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

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

"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

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

"Iraq is a long way from USA 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

 

[DontBeStupid]

Some people won't even accept the fact that they were moved......because that would mean Bush was right!

I accept facts when facts are proven.

So when do you prove there were none. As evidence suggests they did in fact have possession.

You can't prove there are none. That's attempting to prove a negative and has as much success as you attempting to prove unicorns don't exist.

The burden has always been on Bush and his supporters to prove the positive. Prove Saddam had WMDs in the earl 00s. Prove Saddam was planning on using them. Prove the WMDs were moved to Syria.

To date, none of that has been proven.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

"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

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

"We 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

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

"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

 

[Full-Auto]

I accept facts when facts are proven.

So when do you prove there were none. As evidence suggests they did in fact have possession.

You can't prove there are none. That's attempting to prove a negative and has as much success as you attempting to prove unicorns don't exist.

The burden has always been on Bush and his supporters to prove the positive. Prove Saddam had WMDs in the earl 00s. Prove Saddam was planning on using them. Prove the WMDs were moved to Syria.

To date, none of that has been proven.

We know for fact they were in existence because of use.

Now quit squirming and making excuses.

 

[konradv]

"We 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

"We are now convinced Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction or active programs." -President Bill Clinton, August 9th, 2000

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

"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