As we all know by now 3 1/2 years later, America never found any WMD in Iraq.
138596
Over the pond we were given this same claptrap and (some of us) feel it was just to ensure that Tony Blair could persuade the UK Parliament to join the coalition
404737
if true then it is only a matter of time before it happens america should stop wasting it's time pursuing fake wmds in iraq and look to iran these guys have the real stuff ,iraq was just a bluff.israel dosent need help,in the words of mr.ahmedinejad , I dont know if iran can but, israel has the capability to wipe off dirt.
307932
The U.S. has not used a nuclear weapon at all, be it civililian or militarily, since Japan and the end of WWII, a MUCH different time than today.  I have heard claims, however, of people that believe the U.S. has freely, and openly been using "tactical nukes" in the Middle East.  This is not true.  What a lot of people are mentioning is known as depleted uranium.  While it's not exactly the greatest stuff on Earth, it is far from what some believe it is to be--a type of nuclear weapon.  It's actually used in many civilian applications as well.\n\nhttp://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/\n\nAs far as the U.S. having weapons, it's known that we have decreased our arsenal, but at the same time, still have a large amount.  Is it possible that someone could get a hold of them?  Sure, I would suppose, but why bother the U.S. and the military that is surely guarding our stockpile when you could get it for a price just by asking in some parts of the world.  \n\nThe United States will forever maintain a nuclear arsenal for strategic purposes.  It is impossible to believe that if we took the lead and destryoed every one that we had, that the rest of the world would follow suit.  We'd be left unprotected, and the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction--one of the main reasons the Cold War went the way it did--would be eliminated, leaving us naked and extremely vulnerable.  We maintain them anymore as defense, though I truly believe that in this political climate, we will never see the day that the U.S. fires an offensive nuclear attack...I think defensive may even be a stretch.  \n\nThe reason that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons is simple.  They have made their intentions known, and I truly believe that it is simply a matter of time before they place one on top of a missile and fire one into Israel, and one into Iraq (to wipeout any remaining U.S. and coalition forces).  While some believe that Iran is bluffing, and claim that they do not have the technology, I'll leave the bluffing to the poker players, and take the threat of a nuclear weapon coming out of Iran in the near future as a very serious one.
128923
To be fair the twins didn't start this war.  But I get behind the idea of Cheney and Rumsfield riding down the Iraqi streets in an unarmored open air jeep.
312444
There isn't any at this time.
83533
Well, our vice president shot someone a few weeks ago.  There was no investigation.
71557
My friend, it is most probable that ignorant people that are deciding about the future of Iraq never heard that Assyrians exist.
379033
did you mean did the US find the weapons they all thought were there? \n\nOne way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. \n\n"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998. \n\n"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." \nMadeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998. \n\n"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 \n\n"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." \nLetter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. \n\n"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." \nRep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. \n\n"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." \nMadeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999. \n\n"There is no doubt that... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." \nLetter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. \n\n"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." \nSen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002. \n\n"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." \nAl Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. \n\n"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." \nAl Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. \n\n"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is using and developing weapons of mass destruction." \nSen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. \n\n"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." \nSen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002. \n\n"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."\nSen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. \n\n"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons an
36302
midrash40 and dragonfly9151974 I didn’t know there were really people still as naive as you.\n\nHere is a link with a quote from the White House saying that Iraq does not have WMD:\n\nhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01/20050112-7.html\n\nHere is a link from the hearings on when the White House admitted that Iraq did not fund terrorism linked to al Qaeda or anyone else substantial:\n\nhttp://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress03/mefford062703.htm\n\nAnd just in case you try to use that lame excuse that they were “moved”, here is a link from Fox News that they were not moved to Syria or anywhere else:\n\nhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107946,00.html\n\nHere is a number of links from all kinds of sources saying that Iraq is about to start a civil war or already has:\n\nhttp://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0227/p01s03-woiq.html\nhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/23/AR2006022300216.html\nhttp://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mood25feb25,0,2529739.story?coll=la-home-headlines\nhttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/weekinreview/26weis.html\nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4741616.stm\nhttp://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1652025\nhttp://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113236130033602047-zCx1WvfGIuZvGZJVr_MWVRGcFGE_20061118.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top\n\nEven Military.com has said that it has started:\n\nhttp://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,88803,00.html\n\nFox News is already saying that the Civil War is a good thing (God bless them for trying so hard):\n\nhttp://mediamatters.org/items/200602240003\n\nLook, we all wanted Iraq to have Democracy and be free.  But this didn’t work out, we failed.  Iraq will, as Brian said, immediately fall into a long, nasty civil war.  They’ve done this exact thing for centuries and will do it again now.  I’m sorry, but we royally messed this one up.\n\nI know that you won't see the light, and you guys are probably some of those people who think we won the Vietnam War, but you are seriously outnumbered by just about everyone else INCLUDING THE WHITE HOUSE.  I do applaud your hope, but worry about your mental stability.\n\nBrian,\n\nYes, your logic is correct. \n\nJohn
653994
No one in the Whitehouse studied it apparently...
126244
We went to Iraq based on the belief that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and the belief that Saddam was a terrorist.\n\nSo far there has been no sign of weapons of Mass destruction.  Some believe there never were any, others believe they were mobile and were moved out of the country before the U.S. came in.\n\nCurrently the United States is rebuilding Iraq's government and entire infrastucture because they came in a tore it down.  They are training police, and military men.  They have helped the Iraqis write a constitution, and have had nation wide elections.  They are currently waiting for the elected officials to ratify the constitution.\n\nGeorge Bush and his followers try to focus most of the attention on the forward movement of Iraq and what progress is being made for the Iraqi people and how the world is better for it.  Others beleive we are waisting our time and our military men and women's lives over in Iraq.\n\nI tried to be as unbiased as I could be.  That is my belief of the current situation.
324212
cuz it never happened
529513
I suppose that North Korea does not have any such program either . By the way , that report is from almost 3 years ago .
580985
Well the point I think is not so much that Bush actually knew there weren't WMD's, but that while not knowing there were WMD's, he authorized an invasion on the pretext that there were.  I totally agree that Bush could not have known whether or not there was WMD's - hence the need to allow weapons inspectors to do their job.  The major point of the anti-war movement is that war should not be started unless it is absolutely necessary: if the justification for war is the possession of WMD's and there are weapons inspectors currently in country searching for them, then jumping the gun is not justifiable, and is even less so when it turns out there were no WMD's.  \n\nAnother point of the anti-war movement is that the intelligence reports supporting the claim that Saddam had WMD's were not in fact so clear cut; now it has come out that much of the intelligence used to justify the war to the public and the world at large was faulty.  The claims of uranium purchases in Africa, the trailers of biological research, the ability to launch a WMD attack in 40 minutes; not only have these turned out to be false, but they were in fact not even supported by the data at the time.\n\nOf course political slogans tend to be simplistic.  The situation is not as simple as "bush lied people died."  But the fact remains that he invaded not only on a false pretext, but on a pretext which was then in the process of being investigated.  A leader has the obligation to not start a war unless it is deemed absolutely necessary.  You make a good point that there may have been an overzealous interpretation of data, not an outright motivation to lie, but the fact is that a leader who overzealously interprets data which leads to an unnecessary war is a very poor leader, if not an outright war criminal.\n\ndriveranderson: don't be silly now.  even the administration and the military are not using that as justification of the war.  why? because those shells contained gas which had been manufactured before 1991 and was degraded to such a state that it was unusable as a WMD.  And do you really want to justify a war on the grounds that a nation had 500 old shells with degraded gas which were unusable in combat?  If Bush had justified the war to the American people on the grounds that Saddam had 500 shells which had been manufactured 15+ years ago and were no longer threatening, what do you think the American people would have said?  I suggest you not cite WMD claims which even the military and the administration are steering clear of.  And try to watch something other than fox news too, it tends to rot the brain.\n\nthealligator414: yes, because the WMD's that the UN and Hans Blix failed to find were quickly found by American forces, thus validating Bush's preemptive invasion!  Maybe it has occurred to you that if we cite a reason to invade a country, we need to have a valid justification for believing that reason?
531685
We haven't been attacked on our soil since it's existence, so yes.
452474
bush still is searching for the weapons of mass destruction.
419450
There is no Israeli troops in Iraq.