http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012 … order?lite
It was long believed they had been moved there. Now we see them.
I wonder if we can get the left to admit this is where they came from.
What is your ulitmate goal here? Do you gain some sick satisfaction? "Oh ho ho, those libs deny it!"
We knew the Iraqi government had moved it's cache of WMDs; This isn't a left/right issue.
You are the first liberal who has ever admitted that.
Bush didn't lie then did he?
I don't know what Bush believed, or what was the truth, but as far as I know they were not there, they were not a threat.
I may be a liberal, but I am also raised military and I am biased against anyone who decides that my friends and family must risk themselves for something that we held on faith. An in the end were wrong about.. I can't blame Bush, because Congress stood by, the Cabinet abettted the decision, we wanted blood, etc...
And Bill Clinton used the same........yes the same....intel years before when he wanted to invade.
Was he lying?
The difference is that Clinton DID NOT invade based on rumors
But have you read the Iraqi Freedom Act that Clinton signed into law? He advocated the removal of Saddam. Bush just complied with Clinton's plan. What it shows was that the intel at the time (right or wrong) supported the presence of WMDs. And of course, Saddam, himself, told the world he had them - before he said the opposite.
We knew for sure Hussein had WMDs because they were used in the genocide of Kurds in the 1980s. But they were meant to be destroyed in the 1990s. The question was did he rebuild them again. The US and UK governments thought he had; the second Gulf war demonstrated that they were wrong.
Syria has developed weapons of the same kind. These weapons were not sourced from Iraq and cast no light whatsoever on that historical situation. Sarin is easy to make. They made some. The hard part is generally the delivery system to use it as a WMD.
To the best of public knowledge Bush as, and remains, wrong about Hussein having WMDs after the first Gulf war. For the simple reason that he was giving incorrect briefings based on mis-read satellite and drone images.
No one mainstream source that I saw ever suggested it was a deliberate lie. Any more than Rice's comments about Benghazi were. They got a bad briefing.
As for 'widely beleived'. I have never heard anyone suggest Hussein had the WMDs and sent them to Syria and I find the idea implausible. It would be far easier to make them on site. All you need is beans. It isn't hard.
If Syria only has Hussein's sarin we can stop worrying. It degrades over a course of months and 10 years later it would be about as dangerous as talcum powder.
As I said....Bill Clinton used the same stuff.
Could you be just a little specific about what you are claiming?
If you mean the existence WMDs before the first Gulf war. Um. They did exist them and were destroyed in the first Gulf war.
That's why they weren't there later.
As I just said.
Bill Clinton...in his administration....first claimed Saddam had WMD's and Congress approved an invasion at that time using the same intel the Bush administration used.
All the Democrat politicians who claimed Bush lied voted for the invasion. Twice in fact because they also agreed to it with Bush.
It was different intel because it was from the time the WMDs were there.
And they found, documented and destroyed them.
I am not sure what is confusing about that.
Bush made the understandable mistake of thinking the WMDs had been rebuilt when in fact... they hadn't. Thus when they went back they couldn't find them. They found stuff that could reasonable be mistaken for them. It was just a mistake.
All of which has nothing to do with Syria.
Before forming strong opinions maybe you should do more research. Here is a simple primer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_w … estruction
Maybe looking at some of the 117 sources posted at the end of the article might help you. I know it's not a personal blog or World News Daily but the articles usually are well sourced.
I have two school kids. They are not allowed to use Wikipedia as sources in their work. Why?
Because anyone can write and edit and article in Wikipedia. Anyone.
That's why you look at the sources at the end...
It's a good pace to start. You go from there to peer-reviewed and primary sources but I didn;t feel like making a list when the wiki already had them.
But if you want to you can research the basic facts for yourself, they are:
There were WMDs (1980s)
They were destroyed in Gulf war 1 (1990s)
We thought they had been rebuilt, during Gulf War 2 this was found to be incorrect (2000s)
Syria now has similar WMDs; they are not from Iraq as those chemical weapons would have degraded by now and no longer be toxic (2010s)
If you want to choose any particular fact I will find you sources. But not all of them, I have other things to do.
p.s. Sarin can be made from four ingredients, all of which can be bought online with a credit card and letterhead paper. So there is no need for it to come from any mysterious source.
Skinner is saying that there were WMDs when Clinton was in office. Then they were destroyed.
"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 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
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 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
Interesting. But I am still more inclined to believe what every chemist says about the chemical qualities of sarin and the conclusions of Charles Duelfer (the head of the Iraq Survey Group) than a book written by Sadam Hussein's second in command of the airforce. The first two are primary sources of known impartiality.
Wait, didn't you just get finished saying that you don't believe anything on wikipedia? And now you're using it as a source?
That's kinda funny, you gotta admit.
We know that Saddam Hussein had WMDs at some point, because the USA still has the receipts. We sold them to him when he was at war with Iran back in the 80s, remember?
Yeah I used Wikipedia because that's what some like.
‘Curveball,’ man who lied about WMDs, comes clean
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blo … _blog.html
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
One of President Bush's arguments for invading Iraq was the strong Hussain-al Qaeda connection. The anti-Iraq invasion group said there was only very skimpy evidence of that and much stronger evidence that such an arrangement couldn't exist;. After several extensive post-war...
by Dr Billy Kidd 5 years ago
Both Clinton and Bush have been patiently waiting their turns to be president. The powers that be--the millionaires and billionaires--support them. So it's pretty much a done deal. So how will you vote? And why would you vote for either Jeb or Hillary for president?
by Credence2 6 years ago
In light of the preparations for the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, past conversations with conservatives have come to mind.They told me that Democrats went away from them after Kennedy. Was it LBJ's Great Society, Medicare or Civil Rights...
by pisean282311 9 years ago
why is so much criticism of obama on hub and various web blogs?...is he victim of over expectation or is it they he has seriously messed up things?
by Alexander A. Villarasa 5 years ago
However Obama and the Democrats are deliriously desirous that this "phony" scandal would go away, it won't. Simply put the reason for its longevity in the minds of folks who seriously care that 4 Americans were killed during the terrorist attack on the consulate,...
by VC L Veasey 5 years ago
Obama's executive orders 144, Clinton 364, Bush 291, Hoover 968 why is said he's issued the most?
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|