Unanswered questions -- Find the truth

[Malachi151]

http://www.cjonline.com/stories/061503/opi_eb.shtml

The United States went to war with Iraq, spent billions of dollars, lost nearly 200 American lives so far and killed thousands of Iraqi citizens, all because the Bush administration had convinced the public that America -- indeed the world -- was under imminent threat of being attacked by weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein was linked to al-Qaida.

[shanek]

Speaking of unanswered questions:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm

We're *still* waiting on these. The great debate that is supposed to precede war in this country was completely shut down.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by shanek
Speaking of unanswered questions:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm

We're *still* waiting on these. The great debate that is supposed to precede war in this country was completely shut down.

Ohh, those are good ones :)

[Frostbite]

Meanwhile... the US, UK, Poland and other countries are reclaiming their oil rigs... how convenient!

[Ed]

Originally posted by Frostbite
Meanwhile... the US, UK, Poland and other countries are reclaiming their oil rigs... how convenient!

Can you elucidate. Are you saying that they are reclaiming what is theirs? Is that a bad thing?

[corplinx]

Man, its scary when a juvenile marxist (malachi) and a crusty libertarian (shanek) agree on something.

[shanek]

Originally posted by corplinx
Man, its scary when a juvenile marxist (malachi) and a crusty libertarian (shanek) agree on something.

Eh, even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then. (Make of that phrase what you will...)

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by shanek
Speaking of unanswered questions:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm

We're *still* waiting on these. The great debate that is supposed to precede war in this country was completely shut down.

The title of that list of questions is QUESTIONS THAT WON'T BE ASKED ABOUT IRAQ. Not exactly an accurate title (since, as we know, many of those questions have been asked over and over again, here and elsewhere.) But perhaps the reason many of those questions won't be asked is because several are, well, rather pointless while others are all 'doublespeak'.

I don't have time to go over all of them, but some which stand out are:

5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?

6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism?

7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?
.
First of all, there is no need to link Iraq to 9/11 in order to conclude that Iraq supports terrorism. (There are many other terrorist groups in the world.) Secondly, they have been linked. (Most notably their support of Palestinian bombers.) If you look at the start of UN resolution 1441, it states that Iraq has broken resolutions involving terrorist support. Do you believe the UN resolution or not?

10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"?

11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?

The resources needed to track down al Quaeda are primarily 'intelligence' based. The resources needed to invade Iraq are primarily military. There is nothing to say that engaging in one activity will prevent them from engaging in the other. (Last time I checked, B1 and B2 bombers and F117s were not much good when trying to gather 'intelligence'.


16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?.

Now as skeptics, we should know that there is no real 'gulf war syndrome.' (See: http://www.fumento.com/sugulf.html) When a list of questions brings up a non-existant 'disease' to support its point, warning bells should be going off.

17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?

Oops, bad counting.

18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy?

Although the war may be costly, how does he expect oil prices to sky rocket because of it? More likely that they will decrease as Iraq starts to supply the market.

19. Iraq’s alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?
Someone should explain to him the difference between the different types of resolutions (chaper 6 vs. chaper 7, etc.) Also, does the fact that there are minor crimes occuring in a city without punishment mean that major crimes should be ignored?

I could address other points, but it would just be rehashing what's been discussed here many times before.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
First of all, there is no need to link Iraq to 9/11 in order to conclude that Iraq supports terrorism.

There is when the Bush administration claimed there was such a tie. And the links you mentioned are iffy and tenuous at best.

The resources needed to track down al Quaeda are primarily 'intelligence' based. The resources needed to invade Iraq are primarily military. There is nothing to say that engaging in one activity will prevent them from engaging in the other.

Are you saying that such intelligence gathering is taking place? If so, I'd like to see your evidence.

(Last time I checked, B1 and B2 bombers and F117s were not much good when trying to gather 'intelligence'.

That's a rich comment, coming from someone who just accused Paul of "doublespeak."

When a list of questions brings up a non-existant 'disease' to support its point, warning bells should be going off.

And what, exactly, is wrong with asking the question?

Oops, bad counting.

What the heck is that supposed to mean? And where, as Paul asked, are all of the massive weapons Iraq was supposed to have to wage war against the US as Bush claimed?

Also, does the fact that there are minor crimes occuring in a city without punishment mean that major crimes should be ignored?

Good question. Maybe you should ask it of President Bush.

I could address other points, but it would just be rehashing what's been discussed here many times before.

I've brought up these questions many times. Would anyone care to at least attempt to answer them?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by shanek


There is when the Bush administration claimed there was such a tie. And the links you mentioned are iffy and tenuous at best.


Then read UN resolution 1441... It has a section which specifically refers to Iraq's failure to stop supporting terrorism. (The security council may not have supported invasion, but they were in agreement that Iraq was supporting terrorism.)

Originally posted by shanek

Are you saying that such intelligence gathering is taking place? If so, I'd like to see your evidence.
...

That's a rich comment, coming from someone who just accused Paul of "doublespeak."


And where exactly are my points 'wrong'? Are you saying that things like B1 and B2 bombers, and heavy artlillery ARE valuable in intelligence gathering?

Originally posted by shanek

And what, exactly, is wrong with asking the question?


Because its the 'debating' equivalent of asking "When did you stop beating your wife". There was no "Gulf War" syndrome, and suggesting that people might be put in risk because of it in a second war is, well, a rather big red herring. It would be the equivalent of someone in the anti-war camp saying "What if you wake up the ancient god Baal during your invasion".

Originally posted by shanek

What the heck is that supposed to mean? And where, as Paul asked, are all of the massive weapons Iraq was supposed to have to wage war against the US as Bush claimed?


What was it supposed to mean? American casulties were very light. Very few (if any) were expecting massive American losses.

As for the Weapons that haven't been found yet, that wasn't part of that particular question. (And, as I've stated before, even if Bush was wrong on there being WMD, then so was Blix, Chirac, etc. who also thought that Iraq had weapons, but didn't want an invasion.)

Originally posted by shanek

Good question. Maybe you should ask it of President Bush.


In case you didn't recognize it, it was an anology. I guess you didn't recognize it for what it was. The 'question' that was asked is "what about all the other resolutions that aren't being enforced". My response is that "Just because some laws or resolutions aren't passed, does it mean they should all be ignored?" (Of course, I also brought up the issue of the different 'types' of resolutions, which was ignored....)

Originally posted by shanek


I've brought up these questions many times. Would anyone care to at least attempt to answer them?

They've bee addressed... you just don't like the answers.

Note: I noticed you 'ignored' many of the things I've posted... Things like the question on Gulf War Syndrome and the use/non-use of the miltary in intelligence gathering were dismissed with rather flippant remarks without addressing the points that I raised. And the question about the 'rise' in oil prices was totally ignored.

[Ed]

Originally posted by corplinx
Man, its scary when a juvenile marxist (malachi) and a crusty libertarian (shanek) agree on something.

His own or someone elses?:D

[shanek]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Then read UN resolution 1441...

I'm not interested in resolutions. I'm intersted in evidence. Evidence which has not, thus far, been forthcoming.

And where exactly are my points 'wrong'? Are you saying that things like B1 and B2 bombers, and heavy artlillery ARE valuable in intelligence gathering?

No, and neither is anyone else. That's why it was doublespeak.

Because its the 'debating' equivalent of asking "When did you stop beating your wife".

No, it isn't! It asks, "Is it not true...?" If it's not true, then that should be an easy answer.

What was it supposed to mean? American casulties were very light. Very few (if any) were expecting massive American losses.

That wasn't the case at the time Paul wrote these questions.

(And, as I've stated before, even if Bush was wrong on there being WMD, then so was Blix, Chirac, etc. who also thought that Iraq had weapons, but didn't want an invasion.)

And this means what, exactly? So two men were wrong...At least Blix had the honesty to state that they couldn't find any evidence.

In case you didn't recognize it, it was an anology. I guess you didn't recognize it for what it was.

Oh, I recognized it for what it was; you, apparently, didn't. You completely missed the point that Bush was guilty of that veryt hing in singling out Iraq when there were other countries with much greater ties to terrorists.

They've bee addressed...

Perhaps you'd care to point out where? You only "addressed" a few of them, and even then you "addressed" them with hand-waving and double-speak.

[Skeptic]

Rephresh my memory, Malachi151: you're the guy who posted here that Hitler "found the truth" about the jews being liars in Mein Kampf, didn't you?

Yes, you're JUST the person to ask about finding the "unbiased truth" that is free from "imperialist propaganda".

[peptoabysmal]

Where did people get the idea that the US led coalition only went to war with Iraq about WMD?

In the Presiden'ts speech to the United Nations Sept. 12, 2002 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html), WMD are only mentioned as an appendix to a list of other reasons to take measures against and possibly go to war with Iraq.

Is it possible that some people only heard what they wanted to hear?

Why are the same Democratic senators who were urging President Clinton in 1998 to go to war with Iraq over the very same intelligence reports that President Bush cited now turning tail and saying that the intelligence was falsified or manufactured? I guess they actually believe that a Democratic candidate has a chance in the next election and are counting on the short memory of the public?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by shanek

I'm not interested in resolutions. I'm intersted in evidence. Evidence which has not, thus far, been forthcoming.


I'm sorry if I don't have a signed and notarized document from Saddam saying "I support terrorism".

I'm assuming that the UN security council would not have stated "Iraq supports terrorism" without some proof.

Just what would you charaterize as "evidence"? Any web search will turn up dozens of links of Iraq's support of terrorism. His financial support of Palestinian suicide bombers is well known.

Originally posted by shanek

No, and neither is anyone else. That's why it was doublespeak.


You know, you're really missing the point on a lot of this....

The original question involved asking why they were attacking Iraq when al Quaeda was still a problem. My response to that was that military forces are not what is needed to take on al Quaeda at this point in time, so there is no need to worry about any sort of diversion of resources.

Originally posted by shanek

No, it isn't! It asks, "Is it not true...?" If it's not true, then that should be an easy answer.


Yes it is, its exacly the same... its bringing up a question that is A) based on bad data, B) has no 'good' answer, and C) is designed to make the other person 'look bad'.

There is no such thing as gulf war syndrome, so the question should never have been brought up. (Just as bringing up the question "when did you stop beating your wife" should not be brought up to someone when there is no evidence that they are an abuser.)

Originally posted by shanek

That wasn't the case at the time Paul wrote these questions.


Very few people were expecting a long war with lots of casulties. Certainly nobody with any military experience. Sorry if I don't take the words of someone with no current military background as gospel.

Originally posted by shanek

And this means what, exactly? So two men were wrong...At least Blix had the honesty to state that they couldn't find any evidence.


Many more than just 2 men were wrong (assuming no evidence of WMD is ever found.) I picked them because they were 'key' figures in the opposition to war. There were hundreds of leaders around the world (both for and against the war) who believed that Iraq had WMD

The point was, there was reason to believe that Iraq had WMD. . For the vast majority of people the question was not "does Iraq have them", it was "what is to be done about them".

Originally posted by shanek

Oh, I recognized it for what it was; you, apparently, didn't. You completely missed the point that Bush was guilty of that veryt hing in singling out Iraq when there were other countries with much greater ties to terrorists.

First of all, there are UN resolutions dealing with subjects other than terrorists.

There may be countries with greater ties to terrorists, but there aren't many countries with a the same combination of A) terrorist ties, B) poor human rights records, C) A recent history of invading neighbouring countries, and D) the strong possibility that they had WMD. I admit, having one or 2 factors probably wouldn't be enough to warrant an invasion; having all 4 (even if they weren't the WORST offenders in each individual category) certainly should warrant attention.

Lastly... the original point still stands: even though there are other resolutions which are not being enforced, does that mean that either EVERYTHING must be enforced or NOTHING must be enforced?

(note: I noticed that my comment about the different 'type' of resolutions went ignored....)


Originally posted by shanek

Perhaps you'd care to point out where? You only "addressed" a few of them, and even then you "addressed" them with hand-waving and double-speak.

Yes, I have pointed out only a few of them... I didn't necessarily have time to address them all, but as I've said, they've been discussed over and over here.

I did no 'handwaving' or double speak.. the questions I addressed, I stated quite clearly why I felt the question was invalid. Frankly, the entire list is filled with questions containing red herrings and bad analysis.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by corplinx
Man, its scary when a juvenile marxist (malachi) and a crusty libertarian (shanek) agree on something.

http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/laugh.gif

This is because none of them really understands what the discussion is really about.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
I'm sorry if I don't have a signed and notarized document from Saddam saying "I support terrorism".

There's that doublespeak again... :rolleyes:

I'm assuming that the UN security council would not have stated "Iraq supports terrorism" without some proof.

Assumptions ≠ evidence. If they had proof, where is it?

Yes it is, its exacly the same... its bringing up a question that is A) based on bad data, B) has no 'good' answer, and C) is designed to make the other person 'look bad'.

Bulls--t. It's asking them to present the data. And there is a perfectly good answer: Responding with said data. The only way it could make the other side look bad is if they failed to provide the data being sought, which is exactly what they failed to do.

Sorry if I don't take the words of someone with no current military background as gospel.

Do you even understand what the word "question" means???? Who the f*ck's asking you to take anything as gospel????

Many more than just 2 men were wrong (assuming no evidence of WMD is ever found.) I picked them because they were 'key' figures in the opposition to war. There were hundreds of leaders around the world (both for and against the war) who believed that Iraq had WMD

The question was, what evidence did they have? That has not been presented. Lots of people believe lots of kooky things with no evidence. Lots of other people believe perfectly true things, with plenty of evidence. How do you tell the one from the other? You look at the EVIDENCE!!!

First of all, there are UN resolutions dealing with subjects other than terrorists.

What does that have to do with anything? There were plenty of other countries with much more solid and obvious ties to terrorists, Al Qaeda, and the 9/11 attacks. Saudi Arabia, for example. But oops, they're our friends! So not only do they get off, we get to use them as a launching-off point to attack Iraq!

A) terrorist ties, B) poor human rights records,

Both of these apply to SA much more than they ever did to Iraq.

C) A recent history of invading neighbouring countries,

They invaded ONE country, which they arguably had a right to anyway since it used to be part of their territories...and even then they only attacked because they were stealing Iraqi oil by slant-drilling under the border, as Saddam pointed out to the US Ambassador before the invasion of Kuwait. The US knew he was going to do it, and they knew why. And (surprise!) they lied to us to get us into a war.

D) the strong possibility that they had WMD.

As opposed to all the others whom we know have WMD???

Lastly... the original point still stands: even though there are other resolutions which are not being enforced, does that mean that either EVERYTHING must be enforced or NOTHING must be enforced?

I would think you would at least prioritize it based on who is the greatest threat to the US. Saddam never was a threat to us, no matter how desperate George III & Co. were to paint him as such.

(note: I noticed that my comment about the different 'type' of resolutions went ignored....)

Because it's completely irrelevant. It has nothing at all to do with the subject at hand. It's just more of your doublespeak, which you seem to do quite a lot of for someone who started out accusing someone else of the same thing.

I didn't necessarily have time to address them all, but as I've said, they've been discussed over and over here.

Where have they been answered by our leaders????

[shanek]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
This is because none of them really understands what the discussion is really about.

Oh, we understand perfectly what it was about: The government lied to us to justify a war. Alert Ted Koppel.

The government has lied to us to justify every single war it's ever gotten into, with the possible exception of the Revolutionary War, and I'm not even sure about that one!

[JAR]

Originally posted by Malachi151
The United States went to war with Iraq, spent billions of dollars, lost nearly 200 American lives so far and killed thousands of Iraqi citizens, all because the Bush administration had convinced the public that America -- indeed the world -- was under imminent threat of being attacked by weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein was linked to al-Qaida.
If you have read a lot about wars, you know that nearly 200 people is a low number for the amount of dead soldiers. The thousands of Iraqi citizens is also a low number when compared to wars of the past. Besides, Saddam is to blame for the deaths of his citizens. He's the one who dragged his country into a war by refusing to provide evidence that he didn't have chemical weapons.

[shanek]

Originally posted by JAR

If you have read a lot about wars, you know that nearly 200 people is a low number for the amount of dead soldiers. The thousands of Iraqi citizens is also a low number when compared to wars of the past.

Oh, and that makes it all right, does it? It's okay this time because we didn't happen to kill quite as many people?

Besides, Saddam is to blame for the deaths of his citizens. He's the one who dragged his country into a war by refusing to provide evidence that he didn't have chemical weapons.

How was he supposed to provide evidence of something not existing when it doesn't exist? It was clear from the word "go" that there was nothing at all Saddam could do to persuade the Bush administration that it had no WMDs.

Like the latest politithought about it: Since WMDs are apparently nowhere to be found, Saddam must have destroyed them before the war began. But wait—the whole point of it was for Saddam to destroy the weapons in the first place? So, what, he destroyed the weapons so he wouldn't have to destroy the weapons? Only to a Republocrat does that make sense...

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by shanek

There's that doublespeak again... :rolleyes:


Its not doublespeak, its sarcasm.


Originally posted by shanek

Assumptions ≠ evidence. If they had proof, where is it?


And what exactly would you consider evidence? Doing any google search on Iraq and terrorism will turn up dozens of links from mainstream news articles on Iraq's support of Palestinian terrorists. (Unless you don't consider them to be 'terrorists'.)

Originally posted by shanek

Bulls--t. It's asking them to present the data. And there is a perfectly good answer: Responding with said data. The only way it could make the other side look bad is if they failed to provide the data being sought, which is exactly what they failed to do.


What the heck is your problem here?

The question was: Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf war syndrome from the first Gulf War. The answer to that question is that it is not true, because there is no Gulf War Syndrome. How can you produce data showing that people aren't suffering from a non-existant problem?

Do you think GWS exists? You seen to want proof for everthing; where is your proof that such a disease exists?

Originally posted by shanek

The question was, what evidence did they have? That has not been presented. Lots of people believe lots of kooky things with no evidence. Lots of other people believe perfectly true things, with plenty of evidence. How do you tell the one from the other? You look at the EVIDENCE!!!


Lets see... when the first round of inspections ended, Iraq was known to have (and admitted to having) exising weapons which had NOT yet been destroyed. When the second round of inspections started, Iraq claimed it didn't have the weapons. Where did the weapons go? Did you trust Saddam when he said "the dog ate them"?

I wanted to see the EVIDENCE that they were destroyed, but Saddam didn't want to provide it.

Originally posted by shanek

What does that have to do with anything? There were plenty of other countries with much more solid and obvious ties to terrorists, Al Qaeda, and the 9/11 attacks. Saudi Arabia, for example. But oops, they're our friends! So not only do they get off, we get to use them as a launching-off point to attack Iraq!
...
Both of these apply to SA much more than they ever did to Iraq.
...
They invaded ONE country, which they arguably had a right to anyway since it used to be part of their territories...and even then they only attacked because they were stealing Iraqi oil by slant-drilling under the border, as Saddam pointed out to the US Ambassador before the invasion of Kuwait. The US knew he was going to do it, and they knew why. And (surprise!) they lied to us to get us into a war.
....
As opposed to all the others whom we know have WMD???


As I have always said, my support of the invasion in Iraq was not because of the single factor, it was because of a COMBINATION of factors.


Originally posted by shanek

Because it's completely irrelevant. It has nothing at all to do with the subject at hand. It's just more of your doublespeak, which you seem to do quite a lot of for someone who started out accusing someone else of the same thing.


It is completely relevant. The original question asked about is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored; But without understanding that most of those 'ignored' resolutions are more 'recommendations' than requirements, he elevates non-enforcable resoulutions to the same level as enforcable ones.

Or do you not understand the difference between the different types of resolutions yourself?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by shanek

How was he supposed to provide evidence of something not existing when it doesn't exist? It was clear from the word "go" that there was nothing at all Saddam could do to persuade the Bush administration that it had no WMDs.

Like the latest politithought about it: Since WMDs are apparently nowhere to be found, Saddam must have destroyed them before the war began. But wait—the whole point of it was for Saddam to destroy the weapons in the first place? So, what, he destroyed the weapons so he wouldn't have to destroy the weapons? Only to a Republocrat does that make sense...

Iraq was known to have existing WMD at the end of the first round of inspections. (They admitted to it.) So it is not just a case of saying "did they ever have them".

When the start of the second round of inspections started, they said that they had destroyed their existing stocks. Yet they failed to provide evidence of their destruction. Did they destroy them? They might have; but Saddam wasn't giving proof that they had been destroyed (he wanted people to accept his word for it.) So the question became... Did he really destroy them.

So that means there are 3 possibilities:
- The weapons really were destroyed in the past 4 years, which brings up the question of why Saddam didn't provide evidence
- They were destroyed immediately before the war
- They are still out there somewhere, either very well hidden, or sent elsewhere.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Iraq was known to have existing WMD at the end of the first round of inspections. (They admitted to it.) So it is not just a case of saying "did they ever have them".

Irrelevant. The point is, did they have them during the second round of inspections and did they have them when the war started? And what evidence did Bush & Co. have that the weapons were still there?

Did they destroy them? They might have; but Saddam wasn't giving proof that they had been destroyed

And remember how difficult it is to prove a negative, especially with people who have stuck their political neck out saying that you do have them.

- The weapons really were destroyed in the past 4 years, which brings up the question of why Saddam didn't provide evidence

Maybe, like I said, because it's hard to prove a negative;

- They were destroyed immediately before the war

In which case, as I said above, he destroyed his weapons to avoid destroying his weapons;

- They are still out there somewhere, either very well hidden, or sent elsewhere.

In which case, why has every bit of "evidence" they had as to the WMD's not panned out?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by shanek

Irrelevant. The point is, did they have them during the second round of inspections and did they have them when the war started? And what evidence did Bush & Co. have that the weapons were still there?


If you have some object at point A in time, and then at point B in time you can't show that you've gotten ride of it, then its reasonable to assume that you still have the object. (Especially if you take steps to prevent me from checking to see if you have the object.) Like it or not, that was the way the UN resolution was stated.

Originally posted by shanek

And remember how difficult it is to prove a negative, especially with people who have stuck their political neck out saying that you do have them.
...
Maybe, like I said, because it's hard to prove a negative;


Sorry, this isn't the case of trying to prove a negative.

There are ways that Saddam could have helped show he had disarmed....
- Provided documents to the inspectors
- Show the disposal sites so they could be tested for physical evidence
- Allow interviews with scientists/technicians
All 3 of these would have to be checked for consistencies.

Fact is, Iraq didn't do any of those.


Originally posted by shanek

In which case, as I said above, he destroyed his weapons to avoid destroying his weapons;


If he really destroyed them on the eve of the war, can you blame the Americans for assuming he had them? After all, he wouldn't have destroyed them had the Americans not planned to invade.

Originally posted by shanek

In which case, why has every bit of "evidence" they had as to the WMD's not panned out?

I don't know. I also don't know why they haven't uncovered the disposal sites for the weapons destroyed in the past 4 years.