Yes they have.
Wait a second here, what are you talking about? In 2003, Iraq possessed no WMDs nor did they have any active WMD programs. Agree or disagree? That's been stated unequivocally by the intelligence reports. Did Bush and Co. lie? I don't know and don't care at this point. He did have WMDs and WMD programs prior to 1991. But, the "mushroom cloud", "worst weapons ever known to mankind", etc. statements in 2003 were wrong.

He had ingredients to make chemical weapons...of course, just about everyone does...that's not a big deal. He did NOT have the ingredients necessary to make nuclear weapons...that is clear.
Again, I think we are confusing decades. Everyone knows Saddam had chemical weapons in the 80s....and used them. In fact, the US was a little more than complicit in these activities. No one denies this. The question is....what did they/he have in 2003?
And what issue is that?

__________________
The Lone Ranger of the AWE liberal elitists.....who was that masked man???
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


And now, I'm the Elitist of liberal Elitists...

1.) Recession is two consecutive quarters of decline in GDP. We have not had that, yet. I have no doubt we will, though.

2.) Our problem is obvious - 168% increase in the price of oil in 6 months. That impacts every sector of the economy. Couple this with the disaster of ethonol - the destruction of the food supply and we have the problems we currently face.

I don't see putting a socialist like Obama in charge as a means of improving the situation - quite the opposite.

Obama's economic recovery plan is to sharply raise taxes. Now I admit, I'm not a Keynesian. Even so, isn't reducing the money in the hands of the population at large pretty well the opposite of what we should do? I don't support government make-work schemes, but the natural method of tax reduction is perhaps the most effective means of reducing the impact of a recession.

And how will Obama reduce the impact of the oil crises? By continuing to block drilling and domestic production? Again, the opposite of a solution.

I'm not saying that Open Borders McCain has any solutions - but Barry Obama is going to be a disaster.

__________________
Biden 2010

Honestly 08... none of these political toadies have anything I want to hear. Nor their parties, nor their constituents. I'm sick of the whole thing. Frankly, I'm ready to chuck everyone from washington into the street and start over with something like jury duty. How could it possibly be any worse?

Count me in - best idea I've heard in ages!

__________________
Biden 2010

Wait a second here, what are you talking about? In 2003, Iraq possessed no WMDs nor did they have any active WMD programs. Agree or disagree? That's been stated unequivocally by the intelligence reports. Did Bush and Co. lie? I don't know and don't care at this point. He did have WMDs and WMD programs prior to 1991. But, the "mushroom cloud", "worst weapons ever known to mankind", etc. statements in 2003 were wrong.

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Hindsight is a Wonderful thing for you, but the World, including Dems all thougt, and said he had them...so sorry, that dog won't hunt.

He had ingredients to make chemical weapons...of course, just about everyone does...that's not a big deal. He did NOT have the ingredients necessary to make nuclear weapons...that is clear.

he had major components, not to mention as I have shown, eveyone "thought" he had all he needed.

Again, I think we are confusing decades. Everyone knows Saddam had chemical weapons in the 80s....and used them. In fact, the US was a little more than complicit in these activities. No one denies this. The question is....what did they/he have in 2003?

According to all major Intelligence Communities, and all leading Politicians, he still had them. You are working under a false assumption, the fact that nothing was found does not indicate there was nothing to BE found.....and yes, Politics sucks...they make for strange bedfellows....and both sides are guilty of it.

And what issue is that?

His aspirations were intact...

The issue of EVER

__________________
"These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world...
...and then we fucked up the end game." - Charlie Wilson

You are very liberal (and wrong) when stating all, and everyone believed...

That is a flat out lie.

I can count at least ten threads on this forum where I've posted actual declassified intellignece reports dating from 98 to 03 stating that Iraqs WMD capabilities were nil and that Iraq was not a threat to US interests. I'm not going to bother reposting this info for an 11th time just because you are stuck in a mindset. DO YOUR OWN DAMN GOOGLE SEARCH! It's a weak mind that refuses to challenge preconceived notions with new, accurate information.

Time to get real

TIme to stop regurgitating ling dead info as fact.

Hi Amazed,

I'm a little confused....are you claiming that he really did have WMDs in 2003 (and that all those who are now suggesting he didn't are lying) or are you claiming that a bunch of grandstanding politicians (especially those with presidential aspirations) claimed that he had WMDs? If it's the former, then, like I already said, you are mistaken as he did NOT have WMDs. If it's the latter, I couldn't agree with you more.

And there was no hindsight here. I was against the war from day one independent of whether or not he had WMDs.
He didn't have the major components for nuclear (and I don't think people were all that concerned about the nuclear side). If having natural uranium means that you have the major components for a nuclear weapons program, then many nations qualify as having the major components. Natural uranium is NO big deal; lots of people have it. That's about 1% on your way to a nuclear weapons program. Note that the IAEA could've taken that stuff out of Iraq at any time, but didn't. That should tell you whether or not it was a "major component." BTW, the IAEA did take away some other higher enriched uranium in 1991
Although this is technically true, David Kay and his people scoured Iraq for two years and found NOTHING....no weapons, no parts, no expertise, no infrastructure, etc. What would you conclude if you were them?
Agreed. Saddam would have liked to have his programs back....I guess that didn't concern me all that much. Should have it?

__________________
The Lone Ranger of the AWE liberal elitists.....who was that masked man???
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


And now, I'm the Elitist of liberal Elitists...

"One 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
"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.

"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."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"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.

"[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."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"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."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"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."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"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."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. 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..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"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 b elieve that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes

You are dismissed Spanky.

__________________
"These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world...
...and then we fucked up the end game." - Charlie Wilson

You're too funny. Another one of those that has no convictions and takes positions of convenience to suit their arguments. How many times have you said this politician is a liar, or that source can't be trusted?

Now you post their quotes as some sort of proof of your position. POLITICIANS LIE TO SUIT THE AGENDA OF THE DAY. I would expect that even you would have realized that by now. I would also expect you to understand that NOTHING ANY POLITICIAN SAYS FOR THE CAMERAS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH REALITY.

None of those quotes, not a single one of them means a damn thing in the face of ACTUALLY INTELLIGENCE DOCUMENTS FROM THE CIA, FBI, ICA, STATING QUITE CLEARLY THAT THERE WERE NO W M D!!!!!!!! THAT IRAQ WAS NOT A T H R E A T!!!!!!

DO... YOU... UNDERSTAND?

Or are you going to tell me that suddenly Kerry, Clinton, H Clinton, Kennedy, Rockefeller are viewed by you as honest folk? I guess the sticking point for you is that Bush must have been telling the truth so these POS must be too.

WAKE UP!!!!!!!

You're too funny. Another one of those that has no convictions and takes positions of convenience to suit their arguments. How many times have you said this politician is a liar, or that source can't be trusted?

I show in you in their own words what they actually said..and you blamme....yup there's logic in there somewhere. Do you actually think that you get to decide who has "convictions" and who doesn't? Sorry, no.

Now you post their quotes as some sort of proof of your position. POLITICIANS LIE TO SUIT THE AGENDA OF THE DAY. I would expect that even you would have realized that by now. I would also expect you to understand that NOTHING ANY POLITICIAN SAYS FOR THE CAMERAS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH REALITY.

I posted their own Words to how you that they indeed believed Saddam had the weapons...you do realize that there are some Hans Blix quotes in there too? What you expect has no effect on the truth of anyone else's words...My position is that indeed everyone believed he had them, their words show that that is true..and my contention hasn't changed or wavered in 6 years......

None of those quotes, not a single one of them means a damn thing in the face of ACTUALLY INTELLIGENCE DOCUMENTS FROM THE CIA, FBI, ICA, STATING QUITE CLEARLY THAT THERE WERE NO W M D!!!!!!!! THAT IRAQ WAS NOT A T H R E A T!!!!!!

DO... YOU... UNDERSTAND?

Why are you allowing your emotions to get the best of you? Their words echoed the Intelligence data of the time....you don't get to use hindsight in your evaluation of what has, or has not happened....do you understand?

Or are you going to tell me that suddenly Kerry, Clinton, H Clinton, Kennedy, Rockefeller are viewed by you as honest folk? I guess the sticking point for you is that Bush must have been telling the truth so these POS must be too.

WAKE UP!!!!!!!

You are the one saying the entire Government lied, it is up to you to prove it, not me. I have no use for most Libs, I do however understand how Intelligence works....and clearly you do not. You assume I support Bush, you wouldn't be the first ill-informed Lefty to assume things that aren't true...but in the end....you are juts one more Lib who debate anything without letting their emotions run amok.

__________________
"These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world...
...and then we fucked up the end game." - Charlie Wilson