Saddam said no WMD, Bush/Blair said WMD

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: gsaldivar
LOL.... I'm off topic???

I thought we were talking about IRAQ, not Cameroon, Rwanda and Somaila....!

Saddam Hussein IS a weapon of mass destruction.

Maybe they don't teach arithmetic at the training camp..... I'll help you count......

100,000 Iraqi Kurds killed by Saddam Hussein

As many as 300,000 dead in over 250 mass graves in Iraq!

Why didn't the Dub use those facts to try and garner support for the invasion

I don't know. Does it mean the war was not right if GW couldn't articulate the real reasons?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Shanti
Even if our intelligence was wrong about Saddam having stockpiles, it is clear to me that he was a very real threat to our safety. And I'm still wondering how we were supposed to verify the destruction of the previously known stockpiles of WMD when it is so obvious now that Saddam was continuing to violate resolutions and attempt to deceive the U.N.
Supposedly, even Saddam thought he had usable WMD's based on reports from his own scientists.


"We've shared in the classified report about two dozen major cases of where Iraq hid equipment or engaged in prohibited activities that were not permitted under the U.N. resolution," Kay said.

Kay did not reveal any bombshells about the deposed regime's weapons program but said he had enough evidence to show that Saddam had been violating U.N. disarmament resolutions up until as recently as this year, including by having very substantial chemical and biological weapons plans.

"At this point, we have found substantial evidence of an intent of senior-level Iraqi officials, including Saddam, to continue production at some future point in time of weapons of mass destruction."

"In addition to intent, we have found a large body of continuing activities and equipment that were not declared to the U.N. inspectors when they returned in November of last year," Kay

Let's start keeping track. Shanti, you'll be the first to go in the 'He was a threat' column. Now let's see. Who wants to go in the '1441' column? Who wants to go in the 'liberation' column? Who wants to go in the 'automatic authority' column? That would be you Dari, and nobody else.

You see what I'm getting at? Why, if the ousting of Saddam justified the war, like Bush and Blair are both saying now, did we even bother looking for 'threats'? Why did we even bother mentioning WMD?