Is it really relevent that the US didn't find any WMDs in Iraq?
398988
I promise to not call you any names. Nor will I rant against Bush.\nHere are some of the problems:\n1. Waging a pre-emptive war on a sovereign nation is against international law and against the world's self-interests. I hope you don't want any country to be able to justify attacking another because the other country might be a threat in the future.\n\n2. Too much evidence suggest that the administration created  the WMD threat to justify their decision. Shouldn't going to war be based on an honest consideration of facts???? Shouldn't the administration be open about its reasons?\n\n3. Yes Saddam was a bad guy, but are you seriously suggesting that we take out anyone we think is a bad guy??? And talk about destabilizing--by what criterion could you possibly judge Iraq to be more stable now than before?\n\n4. Who's talking about returning Saddam to power???\n\n5. WMDs is not an obsession--just one of many reasons to question the honesty and the competence of the administration.
1044036
Iraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction was not captured by US forces who heroically brought down Saddam Hussein's regime three years ago this week. It vanished before they arrived.\nIsraeli intelligence reported before the US-led invasion that starting in late summer 2002 Saddam's WMD arsenal was shipped by truck convoy to Syria. Recently, documents seized from Iraq after the fall of the regime were released to the public. Those documents revealed that under the direct command of former Russian prime minister and KGB boss Yevgeny Primakov, Russian Spetnaz forces oversaw the transfer of Iraq's WMD to Syria ahead of the US-led invasion. These reports have been corroborated by Saddam's Air Vice Marshall General Georges Sada.\n\nSo rather than being destroyed or secured, Saddam's WMD arsenal was simply moved from one rogue regime with intimate ties to terror organizations to another rogue regime with intimate ties to terror organizations.\n\nOf course, American Media will NOT report this, it will prove Bush right, and then they would look stupid.\n\nMichael Moore, thanks:\nFriday, 23 June 2006 \nWhen News Lies \n\n\nWHEN NEWS LIES\nMedia Complicity and The Iraq War\n\n\nBy Danny Schechter, The News Dissector\n\n\n\nA new book from Danny Schechter offers an up to date indictment of the role media played in promoting and misreporting the war on Iraq. It is an analysis of how and why the media got it wrong that pinpoints the failures of journalism and the collusion of media companies with the Bush Administration. The author of EMBEDDED: Weapons of Mass Deception (Prometheus 2003), an account of the TV coverage of the US invasion, returns with a more comprehensive, updated and insider look at the media complicity that Schechter argues "made the war possible."\n\n\n\n"Most of the anti-war movement focused on the crimes of the Bush Administration ignoring the mainstream media, its far more effective accomplice," says former network producer Danny Schechter (ABC, CNN). "The government orchestrated the war while the media marketed it. You couldn't have one without the other."\n\n\n\n WHEN NEWS LIES includes the feature -length DVD of the prize-winning film WMD (Weapons of Mass Deception). The book will also include the complete script as well as a discussion of the challenges of exposing media with media with a documentary. It chronicles the media war fought alongside the military campaign and the struggle to stand up for truth.
1110840
... all we have asked is "where are the WMD"... members of the Bush administration have come out saying that they were mistaken and iraq didn't have any... \n\nit would certainly be a step in validating the war though... \n\nCheney said on meet the press that he knew where they were (the ones produced post gulf war) and that we would get them... that clearly was not true... since they have done neither in several years...\n\nif there was a terrorist attack tomorrow in the U.S. (God forbid), would Republicans think that Iraq was an effective deterrent in the war on terror?
532928
There were definately WMDs there, we sold them some!  However I think he made some assumptions, and perhaps lied as well as to the seriousness of the situation.\n\n- I don't believe we invaded to protect USA against an Iraqi attack\n- I don't believe we spent billions on a war to save a nickel at the pumps\n- I DO believe they assumed that the Iraqi citizens would be helpful and not resist\n- I SUSPECT that the real reason behind our invasion had to do not directly with oil, but indirectly the power behind it.  Iraq began to accept Euros for oil, which devalued the dollar.  Also, whoever controls the most oil controls the most power.  Not to mention Saddam WAS a mean ole bastard and it was a nice diversion from the "We can't find Bin Laden" stories that had been all over the place.  I just don't think it went as smoothly as we had hoped.
947001
They haven't found any (please list your source), and even if they did, is that an excuse for going in and killing 10000's of Iraqi's?  That makes him no better than Saddam.
426752
We were never AT war.  We invaded a destitute country. Relative to Saddam's crimes, why was so little attention paid to the desperate state of the Iraqi infrastructure? What was/is the connection between the country's advanced dilapidation and its capacity to fight a war? Before we stepped foot in Iraq, there was sporadic electricity, water and sewer systems on the fritz, poor nutrition...If America had realized Iraq's level of life, it might have been understood that they could not have let fly with missiles minutes after given the order.  I don't think we won the war because I don't think there was a war.  I live in the USA.
1150357
We have never sold WMDs or its' technology, so the ones Saddam had were not from America.\n\nIraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction was not captured by US forces who heroically brought down Saddam Hussein's regime three years ago this week. It vanished before they arrived.\nIsraeli intelligence reported before the US-led invasion that starting in late summer 2002 Saddam's WMD arsenal was shipped by truck convoy to Syria. Recently, documents seized from Iraq after the fall of the regime were released to the public. Those documents revealed that under the direct command of former Russian prime minister and KGB boss Yevgeny Primakov, Russian Spetnaz forces oversaw the transfer of Iraq's WMD to Syria ahead of the US-led invasion. These reports have been corroborated by Saddam's Air Vice Marshall General Georges Sada.\n\nSo rather than being destroyed or secured, Saddam's WMD arsenal was simply moved from one rogue regime with intimate ties to terror organizations to another rogue regime with intimate ties to terror organizations.\n\nOf course, American Media will NOT report this, it will prove Bush right, and then they would look stupid.\n\nMichael Moore, thanks:\nFriday, 23 June 2006 \nWhen News Lies \n\n\nWHEN NEWS LIES\nMedia Complicity and The Iraq War\n\n\nBy Danny Schechter, The News Dissector\n\n\n\nA new book from Danny Schechter offers an up to date indictment of the role media played in promoting and misreporting the war on Iraq. It is an analysis of how and why the media got it wrong that pinpoints the failures of journalism and the collusion of media companies with the Bush Administration. The author of EMBEDDED: Weapons of Mass Deception (Prometheus 2003), an account of the TV coverage of the US invasion, returns with a more comprehensive, updated and insider look at the media complicity that Schechter argues "made the war possible."\n\n\n\n"Most of the anti-war movement focused on the crimes of the Bush Administration ignoring the mainstream media, its far more effective accomplice," says former network producer Danny Schechter (ABC, CNN). "The government orchestrated the war while the media marketed it. You couldn't have one without the other."\n\n\n\nWHEN NEWS LIES includes the feature -length DVD of the prize-winning film WMD (Weapons of Mass Deception). The book will also include the complete script as well as a discussion of the challenges of exposing media with media with a documentary. It chronicles the media war fought alongside the military campaign and the struggle to stand up for truth. \n\nSource(s):\n\nGoogle it:\n\nSaddam, WMD, Spetsnaz\n\nhttp://www.wmdthefilm.com/mambo/index.ph...
93493
There isn't any.  Only the tin-foil-hat crowd that looks for some kind of justification for attacking Iraq, ( outside of oil ) even care to try.  Note they offer no direct evidence, just misleading and unsupported claims and maybe a link to a conspiracy website or two.
1099023
i agree. weapons buried and discarded 15 years ago are not\nthe wmd we were told to be afraid of or looking for.
443199
Yes there have been numerous documents and tapes released by the government implementing Saddam's regime talking about where to take the WMD's and how to lie to the UN.  I don't know where to get ahold of those documents though, I heard it on Limbaugh's radio show, try calling him he would undoubtedly know.  When I was there we found numerous empty carriers for large warheads and plenty of chemical and biological weapons.  But WMD's are not the only reason for Iraq, him supporting and paying terrorists is just like having WMD's.  There are many anti-American HUGE paintings on buildings displaying the bombing of America and many had mushroom clouds.  I believe since we told Saddam we was coming he got them out.  The terrorist network over there is crazy.  If you have any other questions email me
56387
I think just the opposite, because if the country finds out they did lie then they would be out of power.\n\nI am sorry to tell you this,  but George Bush did not lie to you about Iraq and the WMD.  He really believed they were there.  Now yes we didn't find a big giant nuclear missile,  but he thought there were WMD there.\n\nI'm really sorry to tell you this,  but if government didn't want you to find out, they wouldn't tell the reporters who report the story.\n\nEverything you see in the media,  someone was chosen to leak it. It was orchestrated.\n\nThere are no "secrets" that these guys unearth in the media.  Everything you see was chosen by someone to be released.\n\nThey all play a game and dance about how "sources told us" but the reality is there was a decision to get that to the paper to make it a story.
1068089
The story has been reported on various news media. The problem is that the version of story that Fox "news" is running isn't the whole truth. The WMD we went to war for have not been found. We did not go to war to find decades-old chemical weapons that had been buried since the Iran-Iraq War. We were looking for WMD proving an ongoing weapons capability that could pose a threat to world peace, not these aging remnants. President Bush has already accepted the findings in the Duelfer Report dismissing these weapons as irrelevant. (See link below)\n\nMore importantly, we already knew about those weapons and turned the other cheek when they were originally produced. Google "Rumsfeld" "Reagan" and "Saddam Hussein" and you'll learn all about the U.S. support of the Iraqi ruler during the Iran-Iraq War, when we supported one monster (Hussein) in the hopes of defeating another (Khomeini). We knew at that time that Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people, but we did nothing about it. Or more accurately, we signed a piece of paper saying we disapproved of his use of chemical agents, but we continued cutting deals with him because he was fighting a common enemy. We even sold him some of the chemicals that he used to construct these weapons because he seemed like the lesser of two evils at the time. Ironically, we were therefore partly responsible for creating the monster that he is today.\n\nAs a result, the real reason why the WMD story isn't any bigger is because the Republicans want it just big enough for their conservative supporters to hear it and say to themselves, "They found WMD!" but not so loud that people actually start asking questions about where and how these chemical weapons were manufacture or, more importantly, about who supplied Iraq with the raw materials to make them. That would make Reagan, Rumsefeld, and by extension, the Republican party as a whole look like hypocrites. So it's best to keep the story just large enough for Fox news addicts but not so large that the rest of the world hears about it.\n\nIncidentally, I don't suppose you remember what the liberal response was when Bush originally announced his intention to break international law in order to attack a sovereign nation, claiming that  we "knew" Iraq had WMD? One of the most quoted responses at that time was, "Of course we knew he has WMD! We sold them to him!!!" \n\nOnce again, if you people had only been listening to the liberals in the first place, you'd be so much farther ahead in the game.
850019
Devilduck is way out to lunch. No WMDs were found - the Kurds were gassed in 1988, when REAGAN was president. Saddam did not harbour terrorists in Northern Iraq. CLINTON imposed a no-fly zone over Northern Iraq and Saddam's writ barely ran there; it was a de facto self-governing Kurdish state. And as for 'standing up to tyrants' - what about Kim Jong Il? Bush ignored him for six years and now he (apparently) has a nuclear bomb.\n\nThe proper response to 9-11 wasn't to go and bomb anyone who's Muslim and not very nice, like Saddam, even if they have no connection with Islamic fundamentalism. It should have included demanding the Saudi royals clean up their cesspool of a country which bred terrorists or face the consequences.
274819
I haven't heard, but my own opinion is they did. All those times the inspectors were going in the front and tractor trailers were going out the back of the WMD sites. They were going somewhere. There are reams and reams of captured documents that are still being sifted through, and if there are indications that Syria got weapons, that info may not be released - it might be better to approach them through diplomatic channels. Show them documents, satellite photo's, etc. Making public accusations will put them on the defensive and they would feel they have to save face on the world stage and with the other arab countries by standing up to the US. If we could convince them diplomatically to get rid of them (they don't want to fight the US) it would be a win win situation. The President doesn't care about the polls, just getting the job done, and if he can do it like this and without all the hoopla he will.
996474
Yes they found them in Iraq, however it was proven some time ago that the WMD's had been relocated into Syria prior to our attack.  What does it really matter?  There are several other reasons why we NEEDED to enter Iraq, all really good, but it doesn't matter because the Dem's and Lib's hate War and they HATE Bush, so they will hang onto this a little longer.
737673
No, they found some degraded chemical and biological weapons from the 1980's Iran - Iraq war. Saddam had enriched uranium from his reactor, but it was under seal of the UN inspectors, and had been inspected right before the invasion. In any event, this uranium was NOT weapons grade.
1164004
Regardless of whether there are or were weapons of mass destruction - what was going on in Iraq was wrong and unacceptable.  The killing of thousands of innocent people and the ruling of a tyrant - horrible.  There are so many places they could hide the weapons - or by now maybe they were smuggled out of the country - who knows, but it's not a long shot to say they were there at one time.