[FairOpinion]

If Libya had this, can anyone serious believe that Saddam really didn't have any WMD?!

[jwalsh07]

In a word, no.

[TheDon]

If Libya came clean, and was involved with WMDs, it is not much of a stretch that they had some knowledge of Iraq's programs. Perhaps they collaborated to some extent. In any case, Libya could well have supplied some very helpful information regarding WMD programs in the region, and who was supplying them with equipment, know how, and materials.

[Bobby777]

Libya showed American and British inspectors a significant quantity of mustard and bombs

I say, Colonel K., do you have any Grey Poupon?

of course they mean mustard GAS ... I believe it causes your lungs to fill up with fluid and you drown / suffocate ... (at least that's what our engineering chem professor stated in college) ...

[bolobaby]

If Libya had this, can anyone serious believe that Saddam really didn't have any WMD?!

Yeah... democrats can believe that. Of course, they are inclined to believe all sorts of nonsense.

[Cindy]

Two words come to mind...Syria and Iran.

[Clinging Bitterly]

Seems MK has done quite a turnabout the last couple years. Something must have really scared him.

[Cindy]

english.ALJAZEERA.net: "LIBYA TO SCRAP WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION Libya has announced it would eliminate all its weapons of mass destruction." (December 20, 2003) (Read More...)

MEMRI.org - Special Dispatch Series - No. 587: "AL-QADDAFI: 'LIBYA SHOULD QUIT THE ARAB LEAGUE... WOMEN MUST BE TRAINED TO BOOBY-TRAP CARS, HOUSES, LUGGAGE, AND CHILDREN'S TOYS'" (October 10, 2003)

[per loin]

Do we get to see the tunnel now?

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

This only makes Bush's decision to go launch the war on Iraq that much more valid. If a nation really wishes to disarm, it takes about 5 minutes to spill the beans about its various WMD programs, and a few days to take inspectors to sites for verification.

The dems wanted UN inspectors to search the sands of Iraq forever, in order to find weapons that Saddam admitted to having in the mid 1990s, but said he destroyed. George W. Bush made the reasonable argument that if you had known stockpiles of weapons, said that you destroyed them, and refused to show evidence of that destruction, then, by golly, we have to assume that you still have them. Therefore, Saddam was in violation of UN Resolution 1441 (and its many predecessors), and had to be removed.

The fact that the weapons have not been found is troubling, but in no way changes the above analysis. The only possibilities about Saddam's weapons are:
1. He never had them.
2. He destroyed them.
3. He hid them.
4. He moved them to another country.

You would have to be a democrat to believe that he never had them, since he had used them (against the Kurds), and admitted he had them as late as the mid 1990s.

To believe that he destroyed them but refused to show evidence of such destruction means that Saddam would rather be faced with invasion by the world's only superpower, rather than lose face in the Arab world. Such a scenario is not impossible, given Saddam's record of incredible hubris and overall military stupidity. Nevertheless, if he did destroy the weapons and refused to provide evidence (as required by Resolution 1441), we were still correct to invade.

Possibilities 3 and 4 (hiding or moving the weapons) are the most likely. Depending upon how well they were hidden or to which country they were moved will determine how long it will take to find them.

There is no possibility among the 4 that would argue against the war. Unless you are a democrat.

[randita]

Joh Loftus has said that all of Iraq's nuclear scientists have moved to Libya and set up shop there. But Loftus has also asserted since March that SH was killed in the initial decapitation strike, so his info is obviously suspect.

[Grampa Dave]

What you posted below is the first chilling/scary thought that raced through my old brain as I read this article you posted.

If Libya had this, can anyone serious believe that Saddam really didn't have any WMD?!