The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003

I can't seem to find this story at any other major news outlets. If this proves nothing, why is the MSM afraid to report on it? Seems to me this should be a big story for the media.

 

I wonder which country on Earth has the most WMD's?

 

At least on their own population.

 

Are you sure about that? I know that Iraq used chemical weapons during their war with Iran and against the Kurds in their own country. Of course, we sold them these weapons, right? Did the United States ever use such weapons during past wars?

 

Actually, the only country who has EVER used the most serious ones, the U.S.

 

The countries that make up the former Soviet Union.

 

At least the Bush supporters now have something to help them feel a little better about their stance. :smilewinkgrin:
Personally, I still don't think that it measures up to all of the pre-war hype of the Bush administration back in late 2002 - early 2003.

But, to each his own.

 

I don't know about that, but you may be correct.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

 

From the Iraq Survey Group final report:

"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."

- http://tinyurl.com/zmdm6

 

According to Rolf Ekeus, who led the UN inspections from 1991 - 1997, the Iraqis were offering bribes to UN inspectors, and said he personally was told by Tariq Aziz that "a couple of million was there if we report right."

The inspections process was a farce.

 

Yeah, well, you have to look under "Santorum" - the only news is that he is reading some declassified stuff and retelling old lies.

If by 'farce' you mean that they kept Iraq from developing new weapons and from rekindling weapons programmes, then you are so right!

 

Very good answer to the WMD questions.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/783pliue.asp

Notably, a strong case could be made that we are in Iraq because of intelligence gathered and passed on by the Clinton-Gore administration. They botched al Qaeda/bin Laden by underestimating the threat and apparently botched Saddam by overestimating the threat.

Liberals complain that Bush went after Saddam rather than bin Laden... but who was Clinton bombing? Who was he letting go when offered for capture?

Bush has gone after both pretty effectively, btw. Saddam is gone. Bin Laden is diminished.

 

Nope. Absurdity. Nonsense.

The Iraqis didn't cooperate, they certainly gave the appearance of hiding stuff (why else bribe the inspectors), and intelligence agencies the world over understandably assumed the worst.

 

That's not a strong case. According to Richard Clark, the out-going administration stressed the danger of bin Laden, which the in-coming adminstration pooh-poohed. The Clinton administration isn't the one who overestimated the case against Saddam.

He bombed Saddam in retaliation for specific acts. That, the inspections and the sanctions apparently kept Saddam from developing any new weapons or weapons programmes. It seems to have been effective in keeping him in line at minimal cost to us.

Saddam is arrested and standing trial. This week, yet another of his defense attorneys was murdered. Bin Laden is diminished but alive and maybe be plotting even now....

 

The inspectors didn't accept the bribes. Iraq wanted to rearm being surrounded by hostile countries as well as having the Kurds within its borders, but was unable to do it. It was co-operating with the inspectors when Bush called off the inspections.

That is not exactly farcical.

 

Yep. An apt description of a lot of Bush supporters.