The failure to find any weapons and any facilities to make any chemical weapons. The chemicals have a short shelf life and need to be made fresh regularly. Any left overs from before 1991 would have been useless by now. If follows that all the stories we were told, giving quantities of this and that chemical weapon were fairy tales, without any factual basis. The chem/bio stories were not obvious lies before the war, they were in the realm of possibility based on public information. The nuclear stories were clearly false from public information.
The post war facts tell us that the chem/bio stories were false as well.
But YES, he did have them, using the past tense. It just makes a really big difference when. It makes absolutely no difference who else was making the claims, unless you are claiming mass psychosis as an excuse.
So the information we have now made the statements in 1998 inaccurate? Unless someone has a time machine I'm not aware of, I can't see how that works.
The chemicals have a short shelf life and need to be made fresh regularly.
That is a patently false statement. Mustard gas has a shelf life of many years, and many of the other chemical weapons are "binary munitions", which are mixed immediatly prior to use, using two precursor chemicals, making the shelf life problem a moot point.
I also noticed you conveniently left out biological agents from the discussion.
If follows that all the stories we were told, giving quantities of this and that chemical weapon were fairy tales, without any factual basis.
You were asked for proof of that statement earlier. I'd like to see it too.
The chem/bio stories were not obvious lies before the war, they were in the realm of possibility based on public information.
So how do you justify your original statement "We still need to know did the president lie to us or was he fooled by his advisors?" If the information was "in the realm of possibility", it seems your allegation is grossly unfair.
The nuclear stories were clearly false from public information.
So "public information" is better than intelligence developed by British and American agencies? What "public information" is so strong that Bush should have disregarded his own?
The post war facts tell us that the chem/bio stories were false as well.
Oh really? What "facts" are those? Less than a year after we invaded you are ready to state unequivocally that there are no WMDs? You must be privy to a lot more info than the rest of us.
But YES, he did have them, using the past tense. It just makes a really big difference when. It makes absolutely no difference who else was making the claims, unless you are claiming mass psychosis as an excuse.
Huh?
First you say they were lying, then you say the chem/bio weapons were a possibility, and now you claim it was "mass psychosis. What is it?
And you never did address the "illegal war" meme. Either defend it or retract it.