As if you actually ever knew...
FWIW Bush cited Hussein’s continued violation of UN resolutions as the justification for invading Iraq. The WMDs were a supporting point.
I know you’re a liberal because everything in your post is based on self-delusion, political lies and historical revisionism.
Mustard gas and sarin are both WMDs.
“A “weapon of mass destruction” (WMD or WoMD) is a nuclear, radiological, biological, chemical or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere. The scope and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. Coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives, it has come to distinguish large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear. This differentiates the term from more technical ones such as chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons (CBRN).
faucetman, everything in Justa’s post is correct, but he/she don’t go far enough. Even more so than actual stockpiles of WMD’s, Bush was concerned with WMD programs. Such a program is more dangerous than actual stockpiles of weapons. Weapons without a program are a finite threat; once used, they are gone. With a WMD program in place, Hussein could have produced more weapons.
The talking point of the lefties was that no such programs existed. Now, we find out that the ISIS muzzies are taking over a chemical weapons factory? You mean that’s not a WMD program? What reality do you live in? (Not to mention that there are nuclear reactors, such as the Osirik one that are capable of producing plutonium, which could be used for nuclear weapons. That would certainly also seem to qualify as a WMD program.)