"Saddam was supposed to account for his WMD, as per the UN resolutions and he refused to do that. "
I doubt he really even knew or cared about these particular worthless munitions. All the good stuff that he knew or cared about, assuming it existing (and I suspect it did) has been moved or hidden.
"He claimed he destroyed the WMD and this proves that he didn't. "
As a technicality, I suppose that's right. But I don't think he was intentionally lying about these particular worthless pieces of crap. And I think most people understand this, so trying to hang one's hat on this is bad PR for Republicans. It just looks bad. There's a logical reason why the Administration has not tried to make that case.
::If you had been following any of it, there are also tons of documents showing that he has been working on WMD AND working with Al Qaeda - a lethal combination.
That's fine, but it has nothing to do with these old degraded munitions that people keep hyping.
"We will never know what catastrophy President Bush may have saved us from, by getting rid of Saddam."
That's precisely right. And I think my original post made clear that Bush had to do this and that Saddam's continued existance after 9-11 was simply untenable for a host of reasons, whether or not our incompetent intelligence agencies were able to find any convincing evidence of his covert involvement.
So, Saddam says "General, did we get rid of all the chemical weapons?" And the general replies, "Yes sir, there are absolutely no chemical weapons left, we double checked."
Do you really believe they just lost or forgot about 500 chemical weapons? Forgot about 500 chemical weapons for 12 years? There were UN inspectors in Iraq for most of the 1990's. People were looking for these. They were just in some forgotten warehouse the whole time?
If "he" (i.e. the Hussein government) didn't know about them then his government was incompetent in its custodial role over quite a lot of highly toxic materiel it had created. It's odd that his autocratic, dictatorial government would have such a loose grip on power/control in this one area, however. (They know about and jail all their political opponents, Saddam's sons have pretty girls kidnapped off the street to be their sex slaves, but oops they have no idea where 500+ chemical weapons went?) And it's odd that you'd develop such a belief based, as far as I can tell, on absolutely no facts whatsoever. But anyway, even supposing you're right in that hunch of yours, I'd still say that government needed a good topplin'.
As for whether he "cared about" the weapons, well maybe he did maybe he didn't, but what the heck does that have to do with the price of tea in China? They were supposed to be provably destroyed or declared and they weren't. We "cared" about them. The UN (theoretically..) "cared" about them. His caring or not caring about them doesn't mean diddly squat.
[claimed he destroyed & didn't] But I don't think he was intentionally lying about these particular worthless pieces of crap.
Ok, your opinion on what Saddam was intentionally lying about vs. what he was simply ignorant of, is duly noted. Its relevance to the issue of whether Bush was correct to declare him in violation of relevant UN resolutions, is unclear however. Is the idea supposed to be that Bush should have said to himself, "Well now, it's clear that Saddam's in violation, but MOTR Newbie doesn't think Saddam was intentionally lying, so that changes things."
?
For three years running, Bush has been accused of all manner of fiendish mendacity, primarily "lying about WMDs" in his public case against Saddam Hussein before the UN. I am here to simply point out that a find such as this vindicates that case, and debunks the critics' slander. Can you really deny that?
He also had 31,000 chemical warfare weapons and more than 600 tons of material to produce a deadly VX nerve agent. The report also said inspectors were unable to document the whereabouts of 4,000 tons of chemicals that could be used to produce weapons.
Nor could UNSCOM verify Iraqi claims it had destroyed delivery systems, such as Scuds, airframes and warheads. A former U.N. weapons inspector gave one example of the vastness of the Iraqi arsenal that survived the Gulf War to Correspondent Betty Ann Bowser. DAVID KAYE, Former Chief Nuclear Weapons Inspector: Probably easiest to describe it visually and in dollar terms. In chemical weapons the major chemical weapons storage site is an area larger than the District of Columbia, and as far as you could look, all you could see is chemical weapons laying on the ground in bunkers, leaking. It was the most astounding site I've ever seen in the world.
BETTY ANN BOWSER: And do you have every reason to believe that there are even more sites than that today?
DAVID KAYE: I think I have every reason to believe that we have not found all of the weapons and all of the material.
UNSCOM's tally sheet.
PHIL PONCE: That site was destroyed by UNSCOM. But inspectors believe they still haven't found everything the Iraqi government may be hiding. That's because they've been denied access to some government buildings and compounds.
Here's what inspectors have been able to find and destroy so far: thirty-eight thousand chemical weapons, four hundred eighty thousand liters of chemical agents, forty-eight missiles, thirty special missile warheads for chemical and biological weapons, and hundreds of components used in chemical weapons production, an arsenal believed capable of killing every person in the world several times over.
Last week, United States National Security Adviser Sandy Berger said the threat from Iraq continues.
SAMUEL BERGER, National Security Adviser: Stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions and a small force of Scud-type missiles remain unaccounted for. And most importantly, Iraq still has the capacity to rebuild its production program for biological and chemical weapons and the missiles to deliver them.
As UNSCOM has come closer and closer to ferreting out Iraq's remaining weapons capacity, Saddam has become increasingly determined in his efforts to block the inspectors and end the inspection regime.
PHIL PONCE: Hours later, after watching the speech on CNN in Baghdad, an Iraqi spokesman rejected those accusations.
IRAQI SPOKESMAN: If they have any hint that Iraqi has developed a new weapon, why don't they put this in front of the Security Council, instead of speaking in front of the cameras and to the press? They can put it on the desk of the Security Council, and let them discuss it with UNSCOM people. It's nonsense.
PHIL PONCE: Whatever officials say in Baghdad in Washington, the countries in the Gulf region and Mideast continue preparations for a potential Iraqi strike with deadly weapons.
By the way....that was Feb 1998
"That's fine, but it has nothing to do with these old degraded munitions that people keep hyping."
If you have the time, please read the following thread. The link to the BBC article is there. If you click on it, it is the second story on the page, and CONTINUES down to the bottom.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1654560/posts
If you take the time, and read the article,it even tells how the piles of these "old degraded munitions" waiting for pick up by the military for destruction, are being STOLEN AND SOLD on the black market, before some of them can be collected for destruction.
They would make a NASTY IED.......
You're an idiot. Leave. How does it make the Republican look stupid when the Democrats have been saying "he never had them"??
So if they discover more and more? I suppose Saddam "never knew about them" either? Stop reading AP and UPI.