Quote:
Originally posted by 12clicks
He had 10 years to hide them up his sleeve.
here's a link to PBS, you know, that bastion of right wing lies.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front.../defectors.html
to quote:
n 1995, Saddam Hussein actually appeared to be winning in his strategy of cheat and retreat. He had actually managed to hide so many of his weapons that many of the U.N. weapons inspectors thought that he had turned over most of them, and were prepared to make that kind of recommendation. And it was only on the defection of his son-in-law and cousin [Kamel] that the international community realized how much he really still had. The whole crisis actually might have ended at that point, if it hadn't been for that very ... defection. ...
so, if not because of *ONE* bit of luck (saddam's son in law's defection) the UN and the hey, saddam is really a good guy" europeans would have given iraq a clean bill of health about WMDs only to be fooled again
|
It's common knowledge he HAD WMD's.
The Iraq war was to get rid of the threat of them NOW.
That was the basis for the quick march to war.
No WMD's have yet to be found.
Maybe he did have WMD's but he would have had to hide them fucking well.
And if they're so well hidden, could they really have been deployed in 45 minutes?
The whole point is: this war was waged against "the threat of WMD's"
None have been found.
I'm sure Bush and Co had their reasons to go to war, but the evidence points towards the threat of WMD's not being a credible one.
So was he lying, or just badly informed?