When will conservatives accept the fact that Iraq had no WMD or ties to al Qaeda? (1 Viewer)

[Jack Pott]

there is plenty of evidence to suggest there was an Iraq / AQ link.

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

Thursday, June 17, 2004

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq

The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Iraq's Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties Were Disputed Before War

September 9, 2006

A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6/09/08/AR2006090800777.html?nav=rss_politics

Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat

Sep 8, 2006

Saddam Hussein regarded al-Qaida as a threat rather than a possible ally, a Senate report says, contradicting assertions President Bush has used to build support for the war in Iraq:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_on_go_co/iraq_report&printer=1

CIA Learned in '02 That Bin Laden Had No Iraq Ties, Report Says

Friday 15 September 2006

The CIA learned in late September 2002 from a high-level member of Saddam Hussein's inner circle that Iraq had no past or present contact with Osama bin Laden and that the Iraqi leader considered bin Laden an enemy of the Baghdad regime, according to a recent Senate Intelligence Committee report.

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and two GOP colleagues on the committee disclosed this information for the first time in the panel's report on Iraq released last week. They wrote in the "additional views" section of the report that the Cabinet-level Iraqi official "said that Iraq has no past, current, or anticipated future contact with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda" and that the official "added that bin Laden was in fact a longtime enemy of Iraq."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401545_pf.html

we have found stockpiles of WMD in Iraq.

US weapons inspectors concluded in their report that: "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter."

Here's the report:

https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html#sect0

 

[Navy Pride]

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

Thursday, June 17, 2004

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq

The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Iraq's Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties Were Disputed Before War

September 9, 2006

A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6/09/08/AR2006090800777.html?nav=rss_politics

Senate: Saddam saw al-Qaida as threat

Sep 8, 2006

Saddam Hussein regarded al-Qaida as a threat rather than a possible ally, a Senate report says, contradicting assertions President Bush has used to build support for the war in Iraq:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_on_go_co/iraq_report&printer=1

CIA Learned in '02 That Bin Laden Had No Iraq Ties, Report Says

Friday 15 September 2006

The CIA learned in late September 2002 from a high-level member of Saddam Hussein's inner circle that Iraq had no past or present contact with Osama bin Laden and that the Iraqi leader considered bin Laden an enemy of the Baghdad regime, according to a recent Senate Intelligence Committee report.

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and two GOP colleagues on the committee disclosed this information for the first time in the panel's report on Iraq released last week. They wrote in the "additional views" section of the report that the Cabinet-level Iraqi official "said that Iraq has no past, current, or anticipated future contact with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda" and that the official "added that bin Laden was in fact a longtime enemy of Iraq."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401545_pf.html






US weapons inspectors concluded in their report that: "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter."

Here's the report:

https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html#sect0

That is and easy one, when someone proves it.........


Iraq is the size of California..........A WMD could be a vial of smallpox you could fit in your hand.It could be buried anywhere.........

As far as Saddam's connection with Terrorists we know Zauquawi was in Iraq prior to the war and one can only assume he was not there to have tea, and we also know that Saddam paid 25,000 dollars to the families of suicide bombers in Israel so you bud Saddam was not a good guy....Oh and we also know that if Saddam had WMD he will never use them now and he will not pay the families of suicide bombers 25K anymore.........

I am sure you will admit that..........Maybe not........:roll:

 

[ProudAmerican]

LIberals just keep changing the rules.

LIberal....."there were no WMDs"
bi partisan......"yes there were, see heres 500 of them"
Liberal......"but those are old and dont count, sarin isnt dangerous after 5 years"
bi partisan......"of course it can be.....look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin
Liberal......"did you know the economy is tanking?"

 

[jfuh]

Conservatives have accepted this as fact. IT's the neocons and bushnevic apologetics that refuse to accept that fact. And they will continue to refuse these facts to their death bed.

 

[Iriemon]

That is and easy one, when someone proves it.........


Iraq is the size of California..........A WMD could be a vial of smallpox you could fit in your hand.It could be buried anywhere.........

The Bush admin started this war telling us that there were hundreds of tons of chemical weapons, among other things, not because someone had a vial of smallpox you could fit in your hand.

....Oh and we also know that if Saddam had WMD he will never use them now and he will not pay the families of suicide bombers 25K anymore.........

Saddam had tons of WMDs in the 80s and early 90s, and if he had them after than he never used them against us. If he hadn't used them for 25 years I don't know why the hell anyone would have thought there was an urgent threat he was going to be using them any day in March 2003.

 

[Iriemon]

LIberals just keep changing the rules.

LIberal....."there were no WMDs"
bi partisan......"yes there were, see heres 500 of them"
Liberal......"but those are old and dont count, sarin isnt dangerous after 5 years"
bi partisan......"of course it can be.....look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin
Govt......"No WMDs found"

Liberals are changing the rules? Hell even the Govt says there were no WMDs and it is the cons that just keep rehashing the same old stuff and saying that was the WMDs we went to war about.

 

[Iriemon]

Neocons just keep changing the rules:


Neocons ...... We are going to war because of Iraqs WMDs

bi partisan/government ..... There are no WMDs

Neocons ..... We went to war because of Hussein and Al-Queda were partners

bi partisan/government ..... There was no link between Hussein and AQ who hated each other.

Neocons .... We went to war to free the Iraqi people from a terrible life under a brutal dictator

bi partisan/government .... Iraqis are dying by the thousands.

Neocons .... Better to fight them there than here.

 

[Navy Pride]

LIberal....."there were no WMDs"
bi partisan......"yes there were, see heres 500 of them"
Liberal......"but those are old and dont count, sarin isnt dangerous after 5 years"
bi partisan......"of course it can be.....look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin
Govt......"No WMDs found"

Liberals are changing the rules? Hell even the Govt says there were no WMDs and it is the cons that just keep rehashing the same old stuff and saying that was the WMDs we went to war about.

There were a lot of Liberals who said Saddam had WMD prior to the invasion of Iraq............Bill Clinton and most of the dems in the senate who voted to give the President to invade Iraq thought so.......

 

[Iriemon]

There were a lot of Liberals who said Saddam had WMD prior to the invasion of Iraq............Bill Clinton and most of the dems in the senate who voted to give the President to invade Iraq thought so.......

Thanks for pointing that out; I was quoting Proud American's statement.

 

[Navy Pride]

Thanks for pointing that out; I was quoting Proud American's statement.

No problem............Glad to educate you on the issue......

 

[Iriemon]

No problem............Glad to educate you on the issue......

I think you need to educate Proud America -- he said it, that was my point, if you missed it.

 

[easyt65]

This is actually funny. The Libs post every Lib article they can, and the Conservatives post every one they can to prove their opinion, and neither one actually listens to the other. It is rabid partisanship at its finest

We got into this hot and heavy a few days ago.

I pointed out how Iraqi Generals and Syrian Ambassadors/Generals have come forward to say they personally witnesed the stuff. The Libs immediately say they can't be trusted....but Hussein can? No proof? How do these guys provide a web link to their personal experience? And it isn't like they can walk up to the truck, grab a WMD-filled rocket and stick it in their pants and walk off with it, like they were the Muslim Sandy Berger or something!

The Libs immediately throw up the 'fact' that no WMD has been found, that Hans Blix - THE man - said he has been justified/vaildated/proven correct in his claim that there were no WMD in Iraq before or after we went in - Just as Saddam Hussein had said.
-- It was a Liberal who pointed this out, God bless them. Why 'God Bless them'?! Because, Hans blix and Saddam Hussein said Hussein had destroyed all the WMD Iraq had..........uh, except for all that sarin we found - enough to wipe out New york City, and those grenade mortarheads filled with Sarin and Mustard Gas that Hussein had reported as having been destroed already and which hans Blix included in all of his reports as having been destroyed!

That Sarin and those cannisters PROVE that Hussein LIED and Hans Blix had no freakin' clue what he was talking about because he was parroting the words of a dictator who raped, tortured, gassed, and murdered his own people!

Now, if we can all possibly put our rabid bias - both sides of the aisle - aside for a minute.....let's think this thing out logically.

Hussein was an evil, EVIL man who took great pleasure in raping, torturing, gassing, and murdering his own people. He took great pleasure in duping the world for 12 years - while everyone one of us dumb schmucks thought sanctions weren't working because Iraq was just tough, the U.N. was running a Black Market ring keeping Hussein well supplied. During that 12 years before the war we now know Hussein was paying France to veto each and every call by the U.S before the Security Council for military options/actions against Iraq. Meanwhile Hans Blix was trying to get U.N. Inspectors into Iraqi sites. I remember well watching Inspectors outside locked gates, delayed for hours, while Iraqi trucks were loaded and sent out another gate before finally allowing the U.N. in! What were these trucks doing? Well, we obviously know now that they were moving all this Sarin and Mustard gas out and hiding it while telling Blix it had been destroyed!

We have proof Hussein lied. We have proof Blix was wrong, misled by Hussein (at least I hope ignorance and being tricked was all). We now know there WAS WMD in Iraq. But WAIT! The usual Liberal answer to this is that the amount found was not enough! Which is it - no WMD or NOT ENOUGH WMD? Hussein said, after that bit was found, that there is no more! Oh really? Pardon me, Saddam, but why should we now believe a proven liar over the Iraqi Generals, Syrian politicians and generals, who are coming forward with what they saw/know, especially after we found the WMD you said you had destroyed but obviously didn't?

Isn't it POSSIBLE that these guys are telling the truth? Isn't there the slightest freakin' chance that these guys could be a little more believeable than a guy who raped, tortured, gassed, & murdered his own people AND who has been proven to have lied to the U.N./the world before?

We also have audio tape of Hussein talking to his generals before the war about moving WMD into Syria. If we are to believe Saddam Hussein over everyone else in the world, WHICH Saddam Hussein do we listen to/believe?

Do we listen to the one who said he had no WMD and that he had destroyed ALL of his WMD (only to find out he lied)?

Do we listen to the one who said, after the Sarin and Mustard gas was found, that 'there is no more - that was it!'???

Or do we listen to the tape of the pompous pre-war Hussein who believes he has the whole world snowed and the U.N. and France in his pocket while he plans to move his WMD into Syria?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by easyt65:
This is actually funny. The Libs post every Lib article they can, and the Conservatives post every one they can to prove their opinion, and neither one actually listens to the other. It is rabid partisanship at its finest

We got into this hot and heavy a few days ago.

I pointed out how Iraqi Generals and Syrian Ambassadors/Generals have come forward to say they personally witnesed the stuff. The Libs immediately say they can't be trusted....but Hussein can? No proof? How do these guys provide a web link to their personal experience? And it isn't like they can walk up to the truck, grab a WMD-filled rocket and stick it in their pants and walk off with it, like they were the Muslim Sandy Berger or something!

The Libs immediately throw up the 'fact' that no WMD has been found, that Hans Blix - THE man - said he has been justified/vaildated/proven correct in his claim that there were no WMD in Iraq before or after we went in - Just as Saddam Hussein had said.
-- It was a Liberal who pointed this out, God bless them. Why 'God Bless them'?! Because, Hans blix and Saddam Hussein said Hussein had destroyed all the WMD Iraq had..........uh, except for all that sarin we found - enough to wipe out New york City, and those grenade mortarheads filled with Sarin and Mustard Gas that Hussein had reported as having been destroed already and which hans Blix included in all of his reports as having been destroyed!

That Sarin and those cannisters PROVE that Hussein LIED and Hans Blix had no freakin' clue what he was talking about because he was parroting the words of a dictator who raped, tortured, gassed, and murdered his own people!

Now, if we can all possibly put our rabid bias - both sides of the aisle - aside for a minute.....let's think this thing out logically.

Hussein was an evil, EVIL man who took great pleasure in raping, torturing, gassing, and murdering his own people. He took great pleasure in duping the world for 12 years - while everyone one of us dumb schmucks thought sanctions weren't working because Iraq was just tough, the U.N. was running a Black Market ring keeping Hussein well supplied. During that 12 years before the war we now know Hussein was paying France to veto each and every call by the U.S before the Security Council for military options/actions against Iraq. Meanwhile Hans Blix was trying to get U.N. Inspectors into Iraqi sites. I remember well watching Inspectors outside locked gates, delayed for hours, while Iraqi trucks were loaded and sent out another gate before finally allowing the U.N. in! What were these trucks doing? Well, we obviously know now that they were moving all this Sarin and Mustard gas out and hiding it while telling Blix it had been destroyed!

We have proof Hussein lied. We have proof Blix was wrong, misled by Hussein (at least I hope ignorance and being tricked was all). We now know there WAS WMD in Iraq. But WAIT! The usual Liberal answer to this is that the amount found was not enough! Which is it - no WMD or NOT ENOUGH WMD? Hussein said, after that bit was found, that there is no more! Oh really? Pardon me, Saddam, but why should we now believe a proven liar over the Iraqi Generals, Syrian politicians and generals, who are coming forward with what they saw/know, especially after we found the WMD you said you had destroyed but obviously didn't?

Isn't it POSSIBLE that these guys are telling the truth? Isn't there the slightest freakin' chance that these guys could be a little more believeable than a guy who raped, tortured, gassed, & murdered his own people AND who has been proven to have lied to the U.N./the world before?

We also have audio tape of Hussein talking to his generals before the war about moving WMD into Syria. If we are to believe Saddam Hussein over everyone else in the world, WHICH Saddam Hussein do we listen to/believe?

Do we listen to the one who said he had no WMD and that he had destroyed ALL of his WMD (only to find out he lied)?

Do we listen to the one who said, after the Sarin and Mustard gas was found, that 'there is no more - that was it!'???

Or do we listen to the tape of the pompous pre-war Hussein who believes he has the whole world snowed and the U.N. and France in his pocket while he plans to move his WMD into Syria?

You are so FOS! I guess that's why I like reading your partisan bullshit.

 

[easyt65]

You are so FOS! I guess that's why I like reading your partisan bullshit.

Got no real answer, huh? Or is it thast you can't put your partisan bias aside for 1 minute to look at the argument logically?! Hmmmmm........

I think it is so funny how rabid liberals, when confronted with an idea/argument based on actual facts that just blows up their argument and for which they have no answer, they immediately turn to party playbook quotes, one-liners, and insults! :rofl

Its like being awarded a 'Silent/Un-spoken Victory'! Thanks, Bill-O! :2wave:

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by easyt65:
Got no real answer, huh? Or is it thast you can't put your partisan bias aside for 1 minute to look at the argument logically?! Hmmmmm........

I think it is so funny how rabid liberals, when confronted with an idea/argument based on actual facts that just blows up their argument and for which they have no answer, they immediately turn to party playbook quotes, one-liners, and insults!

Its like being awarded a 'Silent/Un-spoken Victory'! Thanks, Bill-O!

WTF are you talking about? Hans Blix is the only man on earth qualified to answer the WMD in Iraq question. Read his final report or listen to him on this subject and he says there were no WMD's in Iraq. I also should remind you of one irrefutable fact that his mission was cut short in a rush to war. That's a fact you cannot argue against. Why did we rush to war? Iraq was not a threat to anyone. Yes Hussein was an evil guy. About as evil as you are!

 

[Jack Pott]

As far as Saddam's connection with Terrorists we know Zauquawi was in Iraq prior to the war and one can only assume he was not there to have tea

The new Senate report debunked the claim that Saddam's regime harbored al-Zarqawi. In fact, the Iraqis tried to CAPTURE him:

"It said al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad from May until late November 2002. But 'postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.'"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_on_go_co/iraq_report&printer=1

 

[Jack Pott]

We have proof Hussein lied. We have proof Blix was wrong, misled by Hussein (at least I hope ignorance and being tricked was all). We now know there WAS WMD in Iraq. But WAIT! The usual Liberal answer to this is that the amount found was not enough! Which is it - no WMD or NOT ENOUGH WMD?

David Kay: The Bush Administration in Denial about Lack of Iraq WMD

WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush's administration is in denial over the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the US-led invasion in 2003, ex-chief US arms inspector David Kay said.

A report by the Iraq Survey Group that Kay ran until he quit at the start of the year found Iraq had no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons when Bush was saying that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was a growing threat.

The White House has insisted Saddam was a threat to the United States and had weapons of mass destruction capability, but Kay told NBC television: "All I can say is 'denial' is not just a river in Egypt."

"The report is scary enough without misrepresenting what it says," he added.

Iraq "was not an imminent and growing threat because of its own weapons of mass destruction," he added.

Bush said Wednesday there was a risk that Iraq could have transferred weapons to terrorist groups.

But Kay told CNN television "Right now we have a lot of people who are desperate to justify the Bush administration's decision to go to war with Iraq.

"They will focus on issues such as intent. You will also hear that although we haven't found the weapons or manufacturing capability, they could have been shipped across the border. You can't ship that which you haven't produced. You can't bury that which you haven't obtained or produced."

"Look, Saddam was delusional. He had a lot of intent. He wanted to be Saladin the Great, of the Middle East yet again. He wanted to put Iraq in a preeminent position to remove the US from the region," Kay added.

"He had a lot of intent. He didn't have capabilities. Intent without capabilities is not an imminent threat."

 

[Jack Pott]

I pointed out how Iraqi Generals and Syrian Ambassadors/Generals have come forward to say they personally witnesed the stuff.

Have those allegations been corroborated? No, they haven't. There is no evidence that Iraq moved WMD to Syria. People like Georges Sada haven't provided any proof to back up their allegations.

Tell me; if there's evidence that Iraq moved WMD to Syria, then how come the White House hasn't said a word about it?

 

[Jack Pott]

We also have audio tape of Hussein talking to his generals before the war about moving WMD into Syria.

Oh really? Then please explain this:

Documents Show Saddam's WMD Frustrations

By Charles J. Hanley / Associated Press

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Exasperated, besieged by global pressure, Saddam Hussein and top aides searched for ways in the 1990s to prove to the world they'd given up banned weapons.

"We don't have anything hidden!" the frustrated Iraqi president interjected at one meeting, transcripts show.

At another, in 1996, Saddam wondered whether U.N. inspectors would "roam Iraq for 50 years" in a pointless hunt for weapons of mass destruction. "When is this going to end?" he asked.

The newly released documents are among U.S. government translations of audiotapes or Arabic-language transcripts from top-level Iraqi meetings — dating from about 1996-97 back to the period soon after the 1991 Gulf War, when the U.N. Security Council sent inspectors to disarm Iraq.

"We played by the rules of the game," Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said at a session in the mid-1990s. "In 1991, our weapons were destroyed."

Amer Mohammed Rashid, a top weapons program official, told a 1996 presidential meeting he laid out the facts to the U.N. chief inspector.

"We don't have anything to hide, so we're giving you all the details," he said he told Rolf Ekeus.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060321/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_wmd_tapes

 

[easyt65]

WTF are you talking about? Hans Blix is the only man on earth qualified to answer the WMD in Iraq question. Read his final report or listen to him on this subject and he says there were no WMD's in Iraq. I also should remind you of one irrefutable fact that his mission was cut short in a rush to war. That's a fact you cannot argue against. Why did we rush to war? Iraq was not a threat to anyone. Yes Hussein was an evil guy. About as evil as you are!

You have already posted this, and let me thank you for posting it AGAIN!

You claim Hans Blix is the only man who can answer whether there is or was WMD in Iraq. Blix said there wasn't! But our soldiers, the only OTHER people who can answer that question found WMD. They found the Sarin and the Mustrad gas. They FOUND what Hussein had lied about and said he had destroyed! So Hans Blix was either an ignorant guy who was duped with the rest of the world into believeing and then parroted Hussein's lies or he was on Hussein's payroll, like the French were (taking money to vote against all calls for military action against Iraq in the U.N.)! Why was Blix's mission cut short? Because he was being duped, Hussein was defying the U.N. - we saw on TV the inspectors waiting outside locked gates while trucks were being loaded - once the trucks left outside another gate, the U.N. inspectors were being allowed in!:shock: :rofl I am sure your left wing mind can come up with a 'reasonable' explanation for this besides Hussein was hiding that Sarin, Mustard gas, and other WMD we later found, all of which he had told Blix he had destroyed, all of which Blix reported as having been destroyed!

And once again, in the face of an argument that blows your theory/spin to bits, you result to personal attacks:

Yes Hussein was an evil guy. About as evil as you are.

YOU claiming that I am as bad as a dictator who raped, tortured, and murdered his own people simply because you do not have a logical answer for the fact that Blix wrongly reported that Hussein had destroyed all of his WMD is pure hatred, delusion, ignorance, and spin......and enough to prove that nothing you say should be listened to, especially after such rabid left wing spin/attack! :rofl

Thanks for posting and helping my case, though! :2wave:

 

[easyt65]

Jackpot - the rabid liberal left would not believe Hussein himself right now if he came out and admitted before his court that he had WMD and moved it to Syria because it does not fit their need and because you would say he is lying because it hasn't been proven!

Bill keeps saying Blix was the only one who knows the truth and that Blix said there was no WMD, that it had been destroyed. I have already blown that argument up by reminding Bill of all the sarin and Mustard gas we found, all of which Hussein had said he had destroyed! Therefore, the argument of 'there was no WMD is DOA. We have already found the proof that Blix was clueless, Hussein lied, and we found the proof. Now guys like Bill are saying, "That wasn't enough WMD and does not prove Hussein would have lied about more!":shock:

It only stands to reason, if nothing else, that if Hussein lied about a small bit of his arsenal, deceiving the world and Blix, then he could have and probably did lie about a whole lot more!

 

[ProudAmerican]

Jackpot - the rabid liberal left would not believe Hussein himself right now if he came out and admitted before his court that he had WMD and moved it to Syria because it does not fit their need and because you would say he is lying because it hasn't been proven!

Bill keeps saying Blix was the only one who knows the truth and that Blix said there was no WMD, that it had been destroyed. I have already blown that argument up by reminding Bill of all the sarin and Mustard gas we found, all of which Hussein had said he had destroyed! Therefore, the argument of 'there was no WMD is DOA. We have already found the proof that Blix was clueless, Hussein lied, and we found the proof. Now guys like Bill are saying, "That wasn't enough WMD and does not prove Hussein would have lied about more!":shock:

It only stands to reason, if nothing else, that if Hussein lied about a small bit of his arsenal, deceiving the world and Blix, then he could have and probably did lie about a whole lot more!

but wait, Iriemon claims the government now says there were no WMDs.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Liberals are changing the rules? Hell even the Govt says there were no WMDs and it is the cons that just keep rehashing the same old stuff and saying that was the WMDs we went to war about.

"the govt"

wow, can you be a tad more specific if you dont mind?

 

[ProudAmerican]

The new Senate report debunked the claim that Saddam's regime harbored al-Zarqawi. In fact, the Iraqis tried to CAPTURE him:

"It said al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad from May until late November 2002. But 'postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.'"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_on_go_co/iraq_report&printer=1

sorry, the page you requested was not found.

 

[Jack Pott]

But our soldiers, the only OTHER people who can answer that question found WMD. They found the Sarin and the Mustrad gas.

A small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions were found, that's all. A small number of old, abandoned munitions is not "stockpiles of WMD". The fact is that we knew Iraq had WMD in the 1980s (the US even sold Iraq materials that were used for developing WMD in the 1980s) but US weapons inspectors concluded that Iraq destroyed its WMD during the 1990s under UN supervision.

PS.

You still haven't provided any proof to back up your claim that Iraq moved its WMD to Syria.