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?
"Its relevance to the issue of whether Bush was correct to declare him in violation of relevant UN resolutions, is unclear however. "
I think I made clear, the relevance is political. I guess I'm telling you what I believe (in my OPINION) the reaction of the average swing voter will be (or the average citizen of our supposed allies), to the extent he or she is paying attention. Convincing you and me that invading Iraq was even more of a a necessity that we already thought it was is a useless endeavor. He had us at "hello." In other words, in my OPINION, trumping these munitions only appeals to the already converted. And, yes, I am a mindreader.
Anyway, sorry if I upset anybody here. I'm not trying to flick anybody's ear, I just think they should have sat on this until they had something more to show - all at once.
As an aside, given how little of that country we REALLY control, in the true sense of the word, I suspect there is a lot more still there.
We should also remember taht we have investigated less than one percent of the sites at which it is thought there may have been weapons of mass destruction.
One question...in a typical artillary assault with chemical munitions, how many shells would be mixed in with regular explosives during the assault?
If 500 sarin gas shells were shot at regular intervals, how much territory would be covered by gas under ideal temperature, wind, and humidity conditions?
This sounds to me like a serious threat. Like maybe if you found 500 gang members spread throughout the country, it is no threat, but if you oput them all in southern LA, it could be a problem.