Sorry Mike but I think we can eliminate you as an analyst. We know he had WMDS, we just don't know what he did with them. My guess is the Bekaa but it could just as well be a rathole somewhere.
Hopefully, none was transferred to Ansar al Islam but I'm wouldn't bet on it.
We are being asked by the press and some here at FR to belive that Iraq had no WMD while we know a country like Libya admittedly did. It is orwellian, up is down, left is right. I repeat, we know Iraq had WMD, the only question remianing is where are they now, not did he have them.
The UN, Bill Clinton, the CIA...all known liars, said he had WMDs.
Therefore, logic dictates we should expect the opposite.
Most likely, Saddam destroyed his stockpiles between 1993-95 just as Kamal said.
Up is certainly down if you are asking conservatives to trust Bill Clinton. A billion dollars later, Kay has found nothing.
Please take notice that I said that the question was did he have WMDs in recent years. We all know that he had them in the 80's and early 90's. The US supplied them. Continuing to fudge the question by saying he had them without regard to when is disengenious, at best.
After many months of looking we see no evidence that he had any, at least since 1998. He certainly did not use any to defend himself during our invasion-Blair's 45 minute claim notwithstanding.
It is now pretty obvious that there were no WMDs to endanger us when we attacked. Any assertion otherwise bears the burden of proof-you are the one claiming the inprobable. We do need to know if the president lied or was fooled and we have to stop the silly defense of Bush in the face of the facts.
It behooves the Republican Party to determine the truth honestly and openly to protect the party's reputation and to get us a 4 year gridlock rather than a 4 year socialist hell.