shakran

OK, I looked. All of your sources are Americans, ignoring the rest of the world which, with the exception of Blair, did not believe the WMD's are there.

Most of your sources are old - many 6 years old. I don't care if Saddam had weapons 6 years ago. I care whether or not he had them when we invaded, because that is what our president told us, and that is what he used to justify the invasion.


Frankly the WMD argument was poor on three fronts. First off, there was and still is no evidence that he had them at the time of the invasion.

Second, there was no compelling argument that it mattered if he did have them - his best missile flew less than 200 miles. Was he going to row them over to the US and launch them from a boat in the Chesapeake?

Third, why Saddam? North Korea has a dictator that is considered the world over to be much worse than Saddam, and he has nukes. Why are we worried about some guy with (supposedly) a few rusty chemical weapons falling apart in the desert when we have North Korea which has nuclear warheads, and which shortly before we invaded successfully tested the rocket on which they would deliver the warheads.

These are questions to which the American people should have demanded answers BEFORE the war, much less during it.